The Rorke's Drift VC
(View Discussion Rules)
** IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO ALL USERS **
PLEASE NOTE: This forum is now inactive and is provided for reference purposes only. The live forum is available at www.rorkesdriftvc.com/forum
(Back To Topic List)
|21st December 2004||So what do the members of this board think of this account?|
I stumbled across this account and found some facts quite one sided and contradictory to other things I've read. Just curious as to what you all think?
|24th December 2004||Paul Cubbin|
Yeah, I see what you mean. As a Discussion Forum, I think this is a great place to air views (I've only just found it). The job of a historian should be the collation and presentation of pertinent facts. Its all a bit too 'Chicken in a Basket' for my tastes, too neatly wrapped for popular consumption. I do personally find Chelmsford responsible, in the main, but not for all the reasons presented at this site. I think Durnford was a good company, maybe even battalion commander, but a very poor general. As senior officer present, he should have taken command and organised an effective defence even if it meant overrulling Pulleine. On the other hand, if Durnford wished to defer to Pulleine, he should have put himself firmly under his command. To split the command in such a way was criminal.
Its a pity that many people will look at the BBC website and take it as gospel without looking into any other source of information.
|25th December 2004||Joseph|
Yes that is exactly how I felt but wanted to hear others' opinions. Can't wait for your books!