Durnford's Rocket Battery

Quote :

Well no, and he didn't take the 2 companies with him either.Can't blame him for trying though!

It's not a case of he didn't, he wasn't permitted to. Big difference.

:sleep:

I'm off now to go and make a brew. It's like arguing with a lamp post :lol:
(No disrespect intended).

Oh - and who denied him permission???

Pulleine via Melville. Something else you have learnt. Your a :joker:

Thank you for answering CTSG - I have asked LH twice and he has evaded the Q!
So, as I have always said, Pulleine was in charge of the camp defences. Not Durnford.

And no need for the :joker: emoticon.
Go and take a pill if you feel like that; it'll make you feel better.

He's has not evading your question. He just won't wast his time on you.

No, he isn't stupid enough to contradict his position and effectively admit that Pulleine was in charge of the camp, by denying Durnford the men he asked for.
Unlike you.

Durnford was in command at the point of asking for the two Compaines. He may very well have got them, if young Melville hadn't spoke up.

Seriously you need to go back to the beginning.

Melville was a Lieutenant.
Durnford was a Colonel.
Pulleine, though spineless, was in charge of the camp

Quote :

Pulleine, though spineless, was in charge of the camp

We all know that, His orders were to defend the camp, So what's your point!!!!!

LH. I feel for you, he is hard work, isn't he. He gave me a head ache!! anyway I'm off.

Tasker, you seem to be the man for the job tonight. This is what we have been debating along the way, So we now see you are clear, on who was incharge of the camp. " Pulleine" So if that's the case the issue is with some members, is "WHY DID DURNFORD ASSUME COMMAND OF THE CAMP" by trying to take two Compaines of the 24th to support him, he would have been interfering with Pulleine's orders to defend the camp. It was Melville who remined Durnford of Pulleine's order to defend the camp. And quite rightly too. He was Lt in the 24th Regiment not the Engineers, and both battalions of the 24th were serving with no3 column not no2.

John Now i'm off to :sleep:

littlehand wrote:

Quote :

Pulleine, though spineless, was in charge of the camp

We all know that, His orders were to defend the camp, So what's your point!!!!!

Here is the point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[quote="Chelmsfordthescapegoat"]Quote:

However now we know Durnford wasn't ordered to take command, ie Julian's publication. Then he had no right to take command or interfere with Pullienes orders. He took command cock it up, he handed the command along with the problem back to Pulliene and then left.


What we have here is people contradicting themselves over and over again.
You can't say that Durnford took/was in command of the camp when it suits your POV and then say Pulleine was in command when it suits your POV.

Quote :

What we have here is people contradicting themselves over and over again.
You can't say that Durnford took/was in command of the camp when it suits your POV and then say Pulleine was in command when it suits your POV.

No one is contradicting themselves. This is now becoming embarrassing because you are not reading the posts properly.

Quote :

What we have here is people contradicting themselves over and over again.
You can't say that Durnford took/was in command of the camp when it suits your POV and then say Pulleine was in command when it suits your POV.

Tasker, you tell us who was in command.

Well tasker, it looks like your getting some stick here my friend, let's see if I can calm things down, and try to help you out.

Firstly, Pulleine was in command of the camp, Durnford was in command of No 2 Column.

When Durnford arrived at the camp, with him being an imperial officer with the rank of Bvt Col, and Pulleine being an imperial officer with the rank of Bvt Lt Col, Durnford automatically became the senior officer, and would have been assumed by many to have been in command, but, he did not take command, however, with Durnford being the senior officer, if he had suggested anything it would have been interpreted as an order, because although he did not take command, he would be 'technically in command' with him being the senior officer. If he had taken over command officially from Pulleine, he would have had no reason to ask a junior officer to loan him two companies of the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, he would have ordered it, and saying that he did not order it, he could not have taken over command of the camp from Pulleine.

Secondly, Regarding the rocket battery.

Let us all get one thing clear, no one knew the vast size of the zulu army that was waiting in hiding to attack the camp. The reports coming in were very confusing, and Pulleine had done very little to try to gain better information, and indeed had done very little about these reports regarding his defences, yet he had been getting these various reports for many hours before Durnford arrived. When Durnford arrived at least he had the common sense to try to get better information about these zulus, and when he got the report of zulus heading towards Chelmsford he had to act on this. Now, don't forget what I said earlier, no one knew the vast size of the zulu army waiting in hiding to attack the camp. To the men in the camp it would most likely appear that there were a few thousand of them, but not the 20,000+ that there actually were, and with them being reported as heading towards Chelmsford, Durnford didn't have much option other than to try find out where they were going. Don't forget that Durnford had sent Raw etc, out to the left, and when the report came in saying that zulus were heading towards Chelmsford, it is more than likely that Durnford thought that they had seen Raw and had decided to move away from him and head towards Chelmsford. Bearing this in mind, Durnford would have to find out if that is indeed what they were doing, and if so, he would have to try to turn them back away from his General. It might have occured to Durnford that if he could turn them back on the right, then Raw would be waiting to engage them on the left, and if the rocket battery and its NNC escort, along with the 2 coy's of the 24th were also there to act as a sort of defensive wall to fall back on, then himself and Raw could act as a pincer and force the zulus towards the RB and 24th, and between them they could attack the zulus from both flanks and the front, then if things got a little hectic, the RB could fall back behind the two coys of the 24th, and all could make a fighting withdrawal back towards the camp, where the rest of the camp, along with the RA, could then open up on the zulus, and between them they could destroy the zulus and force them to surrender.

But of course, no one knew the force that they were up against, and everything that could have gone wrong, just seemed to go wrong that fateful day, but to blame Durnford for it is a grave mistake.

Quote :

Well tasker, it looks like your getting some stick here my friend, let's see if I can calm things down, and try to help you out

. :lol: :joker: :lol: :joker: :lol: :joker: :lol:
Martin, Taskers knows more than you, and you want to help him out. Comradeship Our very own M&C

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Tasker try this on. Your learn nothing from that man....

Martin. You first mistake...

Quote :

When Durnford arrived at the camp, with him being an imperial officer with the rank of Bvt Col

Durnford was substantive Lieutenant-Colonel.

Second Mistake.

Quote :

but, he did not take command,

He did take command, infront of many witnesses.

As for ordering 2 Compaines of the 24th to go with him. He would not have had the bottle. Pullienes order was to defend the camp. This was binding on Durford when he took command.

Quote :

Let us all get one thing clear, no one knew the vast size of the zulu army that was waiting in hiding to attack the camp. The reports coming in were very confusing, and Pulleine had done very little to try to gain better information, and indeed had done very little about these reports regarding his defences, yet he had been getting these various reports for many hours before Durnford arrived. When Durnford arrived at least he had the common sense to try to get better information about these zulus, and when he got the report of zulus heading towards Chelmsford he had to act on this. Now, don't forget what I said earlier, no one knew the vast size of the zulu army waiting in hiding to attack the camp. To the men in the camp it would most likely appear that there were a few thousand of them, but not the 20,000+ that there actually were, and with them being reported as heading towards Chelmsford, Durnford didn't have much option other than to try find out where they were going. Don't forget that Durnford had sent Raw etc, out to the left, and when the report came in saying that zulus were heading towards Chelmsford, it is more than likely that Durnford thought that they had seen Raw and had decided to move away from him and head towards Chelmsford. Bearing this in mind, Durnford would have to find out if that is indeed what they were doing, and if so, he would have to try to turn them back away from his General. It might have occured to Durnford that if he could turn them back on the right, then Raw would be waiting to engage them on the left, and if the rocket battery and its NNC escort, along with the 2 coy's of the 24th were also there to act as a sort of defensive wall to fall back on, then himself and Raw could act as a pincer and force the zulus towards the RB and 24th, and between them they could attack the zulus from both flanks and the front, then if things got a little hectic, the RB could fall back behind the two coys of the 24th, and all could make a fighting withdrawal back towards the camp, where the rest of the camp, along with the RA, could then open up on the zulus, and between them they could destroy the zulus and force them to surrender.

And really all they had to do was wait for the Zulu's to come to them. DEFEND THE CAMP. Not the ground infront of it.

Durnford took the RB with him because it was part of his column, but also because he did not know what to do ...

If he had knowledge of the situation in general and the Zulu tactics in particularly Durnford not have out the RB of the camp and asked two infantry companies,becauses theses 3 units could not follow his horsemen...

Cheers

Pascal

CTSG.

You are entitled to your silly remarks my friend, I suppose that some may find them funny.

You are wrong regarding Durnford being a Lt Col, he was given a brevet promotion to Colonel in December 1878.

Durnford was in command of his own No 2 column, Pulleine was in command of the camp. When Durnford arrived at the camp the witnesses that you speak of only ASSUMED that he had taken command with him being the senior officer.

Durnford had his own orders to support Chelmsford against the Matyanas, and was moved up to the camp in order to be close by to support Chelmsford in that action, in other words, he was just passing through, not taking over at the camp.

On arrival at the camp he would have been expecting further instructions waiting for him from Chelmsford regarding the action against the Matyanas, or indeed if there was any change to his orders of the 19th, but there were no orders waiting for him, so as far as he was concerned, his orders of the 19th were the orders in force. When he was informed of the various reports of zulus around the camp, he could see that Pulleine had done little to get better information, and so sent out his own men to try to gain this, and when he got the report of zulus heading in Chelmsford's direction he had to act on this, after all, his orders were to support Chelmsford.

Pulleine's orders were to DEFEND THE CAMP, not Durnford's. Durnford's orders were to SUPPORT CHELMSFORD, which he was trying to do.

yes damage, it is not to support LC, earlier ...

Pascal.

What on earth are you trying to say.

If it was left earlier, he could join LC...

Hi Pascal .
This from Morris's ' The Washing Of The Spears ' page 331..... The RB consisted of a bombadier and 8 soldiers detailed from the 24th Regt , under Brevet Major Francis Broadfoot Russell of the R.A . Russell rode a horse , but his men were mounted on the spare pack mules that carried the Battery .
90th.

Hi Gary

What ? 1 horse and 9 mules for the whole battery with 1 man + 1 rocket launcher + 2 rocket boxes on a single mule ?

It does not hold the road :lol:

Or the poor blacks of the NNC accompanying company wore the rocket launchers and the rocket boxes

Cheers

Pascal

Here's an interesting post from 90th. Gives a good overview of Durnfords actions

Quote :

Subject: rocket battery   Fri Aug 13, 2010 1:04 am
hi Chard1879.
The Rocket Battery was assigned to Durnford's force and was therefore following him after Durnford left the camp.
As they were far to slow to keep up they were basically left alone trudging along with only some NNC in support commanded
by Nourse ( I think ) . Not sure exactly what happened next , but seem to think I have posted it somewhere on the forum .
The rocket battery stumbled into part of the zulu force who attacked it and killed most of the men , I think 5 or 6 survivors
who are listed in the previous post . Durnford when confronted by the zulu , withdre
w , which took him past the remnants of
the Rocket Battery and he only paused to stop for a fleeting moment or so , spoke to one of the survivors and then took off !.
Leaving him to look after himself , so in answer about covering fire NO and no help at all as far as I am aware.
cheers 90th.

ps, Chard 1879 see my earlier post on this topic it tells you who survived and the circumstances of the attack on the R.B :)

.

90th Was this the behaviour you refer to concerning Durnford.

"Abandoned a lone private solider in the face of the enemy, after first telling him to go back towards the enemy to fetch the body of a dead man. At once both insane and despicable.

Dave .
Apparantly Durnford did meet up with one of the survivors of the Rocket Battery asked him some questions and did indeed leave the chap where he was . Not sure who it was , I'm not home so cant check who it was , I know its posted here somewhere on the forum.
90th.

Well surly this would be a condemnation on Durford! Why could he not take him up on his horse.

Ulundi .
As I've always said , it was Durnford's handling of the RB that I find bewildering to say the least .
90th.

Hi 90th.

According to the book 'Zulu Victory' by Lock and Quantrill, the private was supposed to have been Johnson. There is no footnote that I can find for the source of this statement, so it may just be soldiers gossip, hearsay or rumour that has been picked up on and used to give Durnford yet another bashing.

By the way, I searched back on this, and Johnson survived.

Hi Martin.
I was going to mention it was Johnson but wasnt completely sure , glad you have posted the reply .
90th

Hi 90th

No prob's mate.

It's beautiful, abandoned a man in such a situation ...Sacred Durnford...

All the rumors, have a background of reality ...

If Johnson survived, then he was hardly "abandoned" to the Zulu was he?

He was hardly "abandoned"?

Well, let a man walk when you can take the hip, while the Zulu Marabunta happens, it calls how ...?

Pascal, the fact Johnson seems to have survived is evidence that he was not in danger of being killed by the chasing Zulus, yes?
Durnford had lots to think about on the 22nd January, he was not in a position to be able to give a ride on his horse to every man running around on foot!

Those who survived were not taken, in general, to escape the path they took to come tease the Zulus at home ,no ?

Pascal MAHE wrote:

Those who survived were not taken, in general, to escape the path they took to come tease the Zulus at home ,no ?

Sorry Pascal, can you rephrase this? I am not seeing how this relates to the discussion we were having?

Tasker after you, Johnson is survived Seems To Have Evidence That he was not in danger of Being killed by the Zulus chasing ...

After me, many of those who survived have not left the battlefield by the route they took to get there, otherwise, without a horse, the Zulu right horn would have eaten them alive

tasker224 wrote:

Pascal, the fact Johnson seems to have survived is evidence that he was not in danger of being killed by the chasing Zulus, yes?
Durnford had lots to think about on the 22nd January, he was not in a position to be able to give a ride on his horse to every man running around on foot!

Right, in fact all 4 men of the Rocket Battery who survived the first Zulu volley escaped with their lives whereas most of the more general accounts I have read (and ZULU DAWN,) lead you to believe that the whole unit was overwhelmed by throngs of Zulu. Untrue.

The Durnford haters grasp at any straw however.

But I imagine they were not overwhelmed, I never thought or said that!

Everyone in this unit who were killed, we do not body to body, otherwise there would have been no survivors ...

I think to save their skin, they are not escaped by the road they had taken to arrive at the camp in the morning, if not ,the right horn would have all bulked.

Hi 6pdr.

Both films (especially Zulu), are both unreliable regarding factual events, however, it would seem that there are a number of members of the forum who believe what they see on the silver screen is actually very true and real. They don't seem able enough to see beyond the 'goggle box', or indeed read beyond some very dodgy and deceitful accounts of what happened at iSandlwana, all they appear to care about is having someone to blame for it all. And through them watching and beleiving what they see on the screen, and reading some of the blatant false accounts, it would seem that they are unable to see beyond the fog they have put before their eyes, and that if the truth stood up and hit them in the face, they would not see it, and they would still blame Durnford.

But Mr M. Cooper ,everyone on this forum knows that the two films about the Zulu war is a joke as all historical films ...

Hi Pascal.

"Everyone on this forum knows that the two films about the Zulu war is a joke"

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Try telling that to some of the :joker: :joker: :joker: on here, with some of them it's like platting sawdust.

But I am glad that you realise that the films cannot be relied on Pascal.

HI Mr M. Cooper

I am one of those quo there knows the least about the Zulu wars, I is not ashamed of this, in several years I would like you and others, now ...

But if there's humans actually on this forum who believe that these two films there may be an interest less interest history, then me it makes me want to cry ...

They are really stupid or completly clogged, it's incredible, historical films, it's a shame ...

Must absolutely give Identities on the forum... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Previous years, there was a French film and a German film about the life of Henry IV of France, I know quite well the history of French wars of religion, well every time I see one of these films at night, I cry all night ...

Cheers


Pascal

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Hi 6pdr.
Both films (especially Zulu), are both unreliable regarding factual events...

That's a good way of putting it.

Visual images are enormously powerful which is why film is such an enormous business. But film appeals primarily to emotion and sensuality, both of which are pretty much antithetical -- or at least distract from -- historical perspective. And of course the primary goal of any commercial film is to make money by entertaining, not documenting. So I would never expect a film, or any historical novel for that matter, to be "reliable" history. That's not their job. All we can ask for is that they are made with the spirit of the truth in mind.

This isn't the thread to discuss those two estimable films in depth, but IMO they both have tremendous merits. One of the benefits of them being so engaging is that viewers who are inspired to learn more can (possibly) turn to real history after viewing them. Unfortunately for many that won't involve reading -- especially not primary source material -- but simply watching more film. We can hope they find a well made documentary but often it's superficial trash. No film alone is ever going to inspire somebody to overcome the enormous handicap of never developing a reading habit.

Film images are so potent because we consume them as dream images made coherent. Assuming one identifies with the soldiers of the 24th, ZULU is a nightmare -- a nightmare kept at bay by maintaining a boundary. The root fear is of personal and cultural abnegation -- of being absorbed by an incomprehensible "other." That is a deep seated, common, fear in today's world which increasingly demands feats of assimilation.

But a casual viewing of ZULU teaches very little that is actually relevant to the AZW. The overwhelming visual motif is an isolated red line besieged by virtually faceless black men who seem to appear from out of the ground. In fact, there were blacks -- and even Zulus -- fighting on both sides during the war and they were seldom a minority -- certainly not in Natal. People who read might become acquainted with John Dunn, the white chief of Zululand...but people who only watch movies won't. Does either film discuss the politics of confederation? How will you learn that Cetshwayo was an ally of the British virtually to the moment Zululand was invaded? Where to the films explain that a boundary commission from Natal -- almost hand picked by Shepstone to do otherwise -- found in FAVOR OF THE ZULU not long before the war? The inflammatory role of some missionaries etc...etc...etc...all impossible to appreciate without reading.

I read this board to learn. It's a privilege to be correspond directly with professional academics and some of the passionate amateur historians on here. But what I have come to realize is that others post here not because they have any interest in learning about the past but because they are trying to keep demons at bay in their current life. They feel to do that successfully they must man the ramparts for traditional interpretations irregardless of newly discovered facts and/or logical argument. They have to maintain their perimeter! Sound familiar?

But I don't think we should hold that against ZULU or ZULU DAWN, both of which it seems to me were made in good faith.