What could Col Pulliene have done? To secure the camp and all of its provisions, with the men and equipment available to him.

Xhosa,

You really need to sort out your emoticons, you keep posting weird symbols...... mind you, my emoticon needs to head back to boot camp, he keeps saluting with his left hand.

I know mate..if you tilt your head to the left you
can clearly see i'm laughing. :). i don't think the
problem is my end, it would be easier to just use
my own emoticons..but admin he dont like.

Just spotted a good post by eaton in a reply to Steve, in which Steve quoted Gardner bringing an order from LC telling Pulleine to pack up the camp, but also instructing Pulleine to entrench the camp, this seems a bit odd, LC had the best part of two days to entrench the camp and didn't do, so why entrench it if you are moving on, what does LC want Pulleine to do?

Funny how your the only one having problems! Never your fault!

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Just spotted a good post by eaton in a reply to Steve, in which Steve quoted Gardner bringing an order from LC telling Pulleine to pack up the camp, but also instructing Pulleine to entrench the camp, this seems a bit odd, LC had the best part of two days to entrench the camp and didn't do, so why entrench it if you are moving on, what does LC want Pulleine to do?

Martin that's nothing new!

The saluting emoticon got his right arm shot off at the battle of the Somme, so he now salutes with his left arm.

Good spot Martin, funny how that always seems to slip past people!
now why would Chelmsford say that. its almost like Chelmsford
expected Pulleine to have a battle on his hands. thanks admin

Martin as your interested.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Les, glad you have got your emoticons back, so, you were correct, the problem wasn't your fault after all, it was at the site end.

Martin, yes it was. waterloo

Just been looking at the strange 'entrenching' mystery, it would appear that both Frederic and Steve couldn't work out what Gardner was talking about either.

It would be good if someone could find the order that LC sent to Pulleine via Gardner, but at the moment it would appear that we only have Gardner's word for what the order said, unless of course Clery made a note of it somewhere. But it does seem strange that LC should want Pulleine to pack up the camp, but then also want an entrenchment making, just doesn't make sense.

You can see from the link posted by John that the question of why Gardner said the order from Chelmsford included an instruction to entrench was not resolved. There is no obvious reason why Gardner should have made it up. I think this is another example of us not knowing all that was said. It is interesting to note that Chelmsford had said before the invasion that it would be necessary to maintain posts along the line of advance to protect the lines of communication and supply. And they would need to be entrenched because the garrisons would be small. It is possible that Gardner was aware of this and once Pulleine had moved the waggons foreward Isandhlwana would become one of those posts - hence the need to entrench then but not before.

Steve

Nice one Steve, that could well be the explanation to the puzzle.

Hearing you Steve, odd is'nt it? like you say why would
Gardner make it up, with his estimation that ten thousand
were attacking the camp i'm pretty sure the entrench remark
was vocalized, but as he did not reach the camp till 1.00 pm
how much time would there be!. and then ff an half an hour
and think at what stage the battle was at then!. its all very
strange..and with out going into Gardner's infamous ' ride '
which came later..that is what makes this campaign both
fascinating but ultimately very compelling, to seek truth and
clarification..we know so much. and yet....

The fact that there is so much we do not know is why I am very reluctant to be categorical about anyones strengths and weaknesses. I think it is quite likely that Chelmsford did say something about entrenching, but he said it in the context of leaving a small force behind to protect his lines (possibly Durnford's men), not because he thought a major attack was imminent.

Steve

If memory serves, wasn't it Gardner who rode into camp in a daze through lack of sleep, then got awoken by the din of battle going on, and was lucky not to be killed by the zulu's on his way to Pulleine?

Bonsoir Martin
Rupert Lonsdale, the Commandant of the 3st NNC
Cheers

" But it would take a week to dig ", in the event they had about
three quarters of an hour from Gardner's arrival. after that there
was nothing left to entrench of course, until the following morning
when it was probably the first thing Chelmsford ordered to cover
his withdrawal from the battlefield..

Good evening Frederic
Good to hear from you.

Steve

You're missing my point Les. If Chelmsford sent the message to entrench it was not because he thought the Zulu were going to attack that day.

Steve

Fair enough Steve, i was getting a bit tunneled visioned!
i was thinking more what Gardner was thinking, saying,
doing.. he could certainly see what was beginning to develop,
as for Chelmsford, turned out he did'nt get much right that day.

Good evening Steve,

Thank you for your kind words.

I read with great interest your hypothesis about Gardner ( and the sentence "entrench it") 
Bye bye
Frédéric

RD and Helpmekaar are good examples of what could be done. If only we had the order carried by Gardner we might know a lot more.

Steve

About my last post, it seems to me that the Coys at Helpmekaar were from the 1/24th and not the 2/24th.
Cheers 
Frédéric

It is hard to explain why the need to build defensive works was understood in some locations and not others. I suppose the old adage that success in battle depends on choosing your ground applies. The mission and the ponts were fixed locations, you could only improve them defensively by earthworks. But the location of the camp was a choice that should have been made with defence and attack in mind. It was far from ideal on either count. But you have had a very hard time getting there and you are only going to stay for 24 hours. The enemy appears to be at least 20 kms away and you have a large force. If you were Chelmsford what would you have done?

Steve

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Les, glad you have got your emoticons back, so, you were correct, the problem wasn't your fault after all, it was at the site end.

It had nothing to do with me or the site!

Hi Pete.

My bad mate, but when Les got his emoticons back he said, 'Thanks Admin', so it was assumed that Les had a glitch at the site end, and that you had fixed the problem for him. Wasn't blaming you Pete, I just thought there was a glitch and that you had fixed it so that Les got his emoticons back. I will put myself on Jankers and scrub the kitchen floor with a toothbrush.

Stand down Martin, it was nothing you said or done!.
perhaps admin should of pointed that out to me!
but thanks mate.

My apologies Martin I was using your post, to say it had nothing to do with me or the site as you were led to believe via Xhosa's post. Just putting the record straight.
If every member had a problem with that facility then it would have been my end, as it was just one member I wasn't overly concerned.
Xhosa glad to see you sorted the problem.

Hi Pete.

No problem at all mate.

But at least Mrs Shifter is very pleased, as the kitchen floor is now gleaming.



And cheers Les.

Admin. your the man.

Whatever the cause was I had the same thing a couple of weeks ago. The emoticon itself came up in the draft and the symbol appeared in the post - so the reverse of what normally happens. It seemed to right itself after a while. Very mysterious

Steve

The things people find to moan about?
Perhaps we are all getting to old to quickly.

ymob wrote:

Bonsoir Martin
Rupert Lonsdale, the Commandant of the 3st NNC
Cheers

Hello Frederic, I have only just noticed your reply.

Many thanks for that, my memory is not what it used to be.

Much obliged Frederic, thank you.

Hi Martin,
My memory is also often faulty.
Cheers.
Frédéric

rusteze wrote:

It is hard to explain why the need to build defensive works was understood in some locations and not others. I suppose the old adage that success in battle depends on choosing your ground applies. The mission and the ponts were fixed locations, you could only improve them defensively by earthworks. But the location of the camp was a choice that should have been made with defence and attack in mind. It was far from ideal on either count. But you have had a very hard time getting there and you are only going to stay for 24 hours. The enemy appears to be at least 20 kms away and you have a large force. If you were Chelmsford what would you have done?

Steve

The choice of location for the camp was questioned by an officer wasn't it, and did not the officer who questioned it almost resign his commission because of it, or am I getting my wires crossed with another location?

LC might have chosen to ignore his own orders and not laager or entrench the camp, however, after the disaster he didn't ignore his own orders again and make the same mistake twice did he?

Besides, I still think that Pulleine could and should have done a lot more than he did when he first started getting various reports of zulu's in the area, as the old saying goes, it would have been better to be safe than sorry.

Hi Martin
Dunbar did resign but was talked out of it by LC when Crealock questioned his ( Dunbar's ) intestinal fortitude , this was regarding a defensive position just over the River if memory serves me correctly , not the Isandlwana Campsite .
90th

Bashe River crossing?

Martin
In response to your question on the legality of the orders issued by Clery to Puleine.
In the letter Clery/Alison 28th April 1879 Clery outlines his reasoning for issuing the orders. Theres actually no point where he says from whom he wanted the instructions sourced. The conclusion is that he issued the orders in his own name as ADC to the Column Commander. Its pretty much a moot point therefore if he did exceed his authority, I would think that the circumstance would probably exonerate him from any real criticism.
But the key point here though is that if he did issue the orders in his position then those orders would only be binding on the column or the regiment. Therefore Durnford could not be bound, by virtue as an independent column commander, by those local orders.
Durnfords only orders therefore ( lets ignore prievious issues) were to advance on the camp. This he did.
Once at the camp he made it very clear that he would not assume command of the camp, in my humble opinion quite correctly as he would be interfering, as a column commander, in the running of a different column.
If we can accept that hypothesis then we have to accept that Durnford, again in his role as column commander, had freedom of movement within that camp area. By virtue of his leaving his waggons, ammo, supplies etc in the camp he was de facto obeying the last orders issue to him by his Commanding officer. He rode out fully with the intentions of returning, if not why didn't he take the whole column with him?
Chelmsford had already authorised his column commanders to act in the best interests and with freedom of movement of the invasion as a whole. He, Chelmsford, had no option but to grant that freedom, he was 50 miles away from his other columns and out of ready communication. Neither Pearson nor Wood could be expected to spend days sending requests backwards and forwards for instruction on ever proposed movement. Durnford therefore must have had the same flexibility.
Sorry long winded way of saying that Durnford needed no exoneration, he did not disobey any orders and acted in a way he deemed appropriate.
Turning to his time within the camp. He was senior officer and had to be recognised as such by Pullein. When therefore as a senior officer, outside of the third column structure he made suggestions they could only have been that, suggestions. Pulleine had every protocol to object and did, even if it did take the intervention of a more savvy individual like Melvill.
Its still debatable ( Essex not withstanding ) who sent the first company onto the plateau. Was it a good move? I would believe so as there was absolutely no protection of the rear of the camp. Correctly positioned that company overlooked the mzinyama valet. the road to RD the Northern approach to the camp and quite a key point the shortest route across the hills to kwa Sogekle, Sihayos kraal. So whoever posted that company was pretty damned tactically sound. If Pulleine, good decision, but I would believe that he was told in no uncertain terms that his rear needed to be guarded, I would again believe that there was only one man that would have given that advice.
In sending out Raw and Roberts to clear the plateau again sound military judgement, Pulleine had a smattering of mounted men that could and should have done that earlier on the morning.

So in answer to the threads title, Pulleine could have extended his field of influence to find out what was happening on the plateau.

Cheers Mate

PS I started with a Motor Guzzie then went on to a Dot with a Greaves motor, and then the king of bikes, Royal Enfield Crusader.................. hell I miss that bike.

Hi Frank
Yes Mate , the Batshe River Crossing , it was where Crealock questioned Dunbar's courage , in not as many words , but those who heard the remark understood it fully .
90th

Hi Gary.

Yes, that was him, Dunbar, wasn't sure where it was though.

cheers mate.

Hi Springy.

Great reply my friend. So although Clery did exceed his authority, but because of the circumstances he was exonerated. And also because his order would only apply to that particular column/regiment it would not be binding on Durnford, that is great stuff Frank, so all the squabbling about Durnford by various members over the last few years was all for nothing, as he did not disobey any orders at all.

Frank mate, you have made my day, you have a brilliant way of thinking.

A good old mate of mine had a Royal Enfield Bullet, it was a great bike, he looked after it like a baby, he must have trusted me, as he let me ride it a couple of times, a very nice bike indeed.

Cheers mate.

Sorry, could I ask a question, did LC make the assumption that Durnford would take command of the camp, was it a forgone conclusion that once Durnford was in the camp he would remain there and any and all orders would be his responsibility, I'm struggling with the idea that just because Durnford went out of the camp he was no longer responsible for it.
Sorry Martin, I never have been able to get my head around that one. I appreciate as was mentioned earlier that 'he would be interfering with another column' but I thought Durnford's rank would be the key issue, not that he was from another column.

It is a confusing picture and I think Frank's go at rationalising Durnford's position probably makes too many assumptions (rather like my theory about the firing line - I know!).

First of all I think most people believe that the issue of Durnford becoming the senior officer when he arrived never occurred to Chelmsford. Second, Frank never said that Clery had been exonerated for issuing an illegal order, he said that on balance he would have been (it never came up). Third, notwithstanding that Clery had issued the order to Pulleine, it is unarguable that Durnford became senior officer while in the camp and was duty bound to observe any orders that had been issued to Pulleine. Fourth Durnford was not under any orders to remain in the camp and he said he was not going to. So as soon as he left he resumed his role as commander of his own column and relinquished that of commander of the camp. But, he gets caught up in the Zulu attack and becomes an intrinsic part of the efforts to defend the camp. At that point, there is a strong argument that in theory he is back in command of the whole shebang again. But it is a moot point because they were all too busy fighting for their lives to worry about Queen's Regulations.

Steve

Well, if LC had wanted or assumed that Durnford would take command of the camp, then why did LC send Gardner with an order addressed to Pulleine?

I had a look through Zulu Rising and I can't find any mention of who Gardner was supposed to hand the orders to, it simply states 'Gardner was making his way to the headquarters tent', the letter from LC was an order to strike camp and this was 'read aloud'. It may be that Gardner advised Pulleine to ignore the order but that doesn't necessarily mean the order was written for Pulleine but rather for the Officer in command. If it was written with Pulleine's name attached then please accept my apologies.

This obviously a fictional work, tries to convey something of
the horror of the close quarter fighting..

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]


Sitting here in 2016, the events from 137 yrs ago are in danger of seeming remote!
but even lurid prose as above constantly reminds me we are dealing with real people
and events.

Ray.