rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic - Col. Durnford's Actions At Isandlwana

Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2010 2:47 pm

With having re-read the (last ?) book 'Zulu Rising', which said nothing new about him, and the excellent paper 'Isandlwana - The Missing Five Hours', I'm of the opinion that Durnford's decisions/actions at Isandlwana have been justified - the only truly visible aggressive opponent to this in the present day, has been Mike Snook, who has, since his books HCMDB and LWOTF, added nothing further to his views in these publications, to prove his point(s) - whereas Peter Q. and Ron L. have added their recent detailed and convincing thesis.

With each week, month, year that passes, the Durnford opposition is weakened by the stronger case against it.

Justifying Pulleine's initial inaction, compounded by the very serious error of the dangerously positioned deployment of the 24th companies, will be up to someone else to clear him - if they can.

Col. A.W. Durnford R.E. is vindicated ! Very Happy

I'll be having a few drams to that, as well as salute two good men - Peter Quantrill and Ron Lock - and a promising new year in 2011!

C.J.

Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 12:14 pm

C.J
Change the record mate, we got bored with this ages ago.

Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 12:37 pm

Neil

It's the festive season 2010 and you post that - why ?

We ? - how many do you speak for exactly ?

Col. D. is my main interest - MH rifles/carbines/ammo is yours.

When have I ever said that I'm bored with you speaking about them ?

Never, that's how many times !

Peter W.'s main interest is medals, have I ever said similar to him ?

No, yet he also spoke in such a way !

This has been absolutely ridiculous the past couple of months, where I feel I have to defend myself constantly.

I repeat - Col. A.W. Durnford R.E. has been vindicated !

All my many opponents can huff and puff all they like, it doesn't change this outcome whatsoever.

Get Mike Snook back and have him defend/add further to his (own) views, and less of this ganging-up.

C.J.

Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 5:59 pm

C J

My posting was typed in a sense of exasperation.

Postings on the site of this topic, have consistently resulted in confrontation, the I am right.. he is wrong issue on something which has been done to death.

If I post it is based upon fact, Julian taught me years ago in sometime waspish posts, (with hindsight you probably felt the same when you read mine) that without hard evidence, to try and keep my postings to facts, not I told you so's.

If you are offended I apologise, but this site isn't twitter.
Tomorrow I'll pull my posting.
regs

Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 6:34 pm

C.J.

Your posting suggests an air of triumphalism. War is a serious business. Over 600 soldiers of 24th Regiment fell on 22nd January 1879. Mistakes were certainly made. Everyone was responsible - clearly the leadership all the senior officers, including Col Durnford, fell short of what was expected. Today we tend towards a blame culture - but what is more important that we learn from mistakes of the past. Visit the battlefield and understand from first hand what happened on that fateful day. Better than putting ill-informed posts on this site.

Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 7:07 pm

Neil

I don't know what twitter is, and know only a bit more through a family member what Facebook is - I belong to neither.

My original post was a question - Is it over ? - but as a topic-starter it needed a larger talking point, namely why I thought so and who was the main opponent.

Debates are what they are, and I see no difference in what I wrote to that what others call jousting, volley-firing or firing a broadside, when in the midst of a discussion against a person of opposing view.

Martin

My post isn't triumphant, but a positive end to 2010 - only for myself probably - as this recent thesis has given what many have been awaiting/craving for a very long time - a refreshing take on things, which in turn involves my main interest.

My post is just a post, nothing ill-informed about it.

C.J.

PS. I understand war very well, including the fact my brother served in the forces, leaving them in the 1990s.

Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 11:57 pm

Unless you have walked the ground - then it has to be ill-informed.

Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 1:19 am

Martin

Wrong. If someone has walked the ground, especially more than once, they can mould any scenario they want, knowing many won't experience the same 'on the ground' reality.

That is not truth - that is one-upmanship.

Peter Q. and Ron L. have walked the ground, same as Mike Snook, so why should the latter have the last say on events because he has walked the ground ?

This new thesis isn't asking Mike's, or anyone else's permission to be right, but is challenging them to find an argument against.

C.J.

Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 9:31 am

Hi Denton, Coll, CJ. What people are gently trying to advise is your self rightious, slightly arrogant and possibly obsessive postings on Durnford, are now boring and a tad offensive.

Martin is not wrong, you do need to walk the ground to understand and you really should take note of the advice being offered.

Steve.

PS My dad served in WW2, but I don't understand war very well.

Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 11:37 am

Steve

This is not about me, which these continous deflections end up covering instead of the subject matter, same as in the 'Zulu Rising' topic, as well as many others.

I wasn't in the battle, nor have I wrote any books, so people need to talk about something else - preferably Zulu War-related.

Progress needs to be made furthering our understanding, but every time someone challenges, they are knocked down or criticised - therefore, how can any progress be accomplished ?

I've seen several of your posts before, which ended up being deleted due to their provocative, waste-of-time content - including within the 'Missing Five Hours' topic, whilst I was already dealing with other posts aimed at me again.

Your first sentence above follows the same line, and ends in a repeat of Neil's post.

I'm none of these things, and as for being obsessed with Durnford, he is both my main interest and a crucial aspect of Isandlwana, being the senior officer, who will be constantly mentioned again and again, there's no preventing it for the very fact of who he is and his involvement.

If your post is not helping a topic - it is hindering it.

Why respond at all ? - ignore my posts if you've nothing to say.

C.J.

Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 12:27 pm

Alan

I've a request to ask of you good sir.

Please delete my profile for the very last time, as I've an inkling you might have been getting plagued with private messages about me, judging by the opposition against me on the forum by other members the past couple of months.

Please delete my profile immediately on seeing this, as I will definitely not be changing my mind.

2011 will be a fresh new year, which I'm not wishing to take bad feelings into, by continuing to have these unnecessary pointless arguments on the forum - though I'll still visit as an observer.

Happy New Year !

Good Health Always !

Coll

PS. A Happy New Year also to the few good men I've had dealings with during my membership !

Alan - Best to lock/delete this topic too, in case it continues the way it is going.

Posted: Fri Dec 31, 2010 1:33 pm

Coll,

sorry it's gone this way. I will of course comply and wish you the best of luck for the future.

Alan

Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 4:33 pm

2011 deserves a better start.....

Could you please tell us why you think it is that the TMFH piece, pretty much carrying forward the treatment of Durnford previously used in Zulu Victory, adds something new to how Durnford, or his actions or his 'decisions', might be considered.

The fairly gratuitous, and frankly unsupportable, swipe at Mike Snook appears makeweight and opportunistic. Readers might not agree with how Mike assesses Durnford, but Mike makes it very clear in his published work why he has done so.

G

Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 4:36 pm

My apolgies to all, I had missed the eventual denouement due to lack of paying attention to the rest of the inputs trail.

G

Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 4:36 pm

And I promise to spell better in 2011.

G