rorkesdriftvc.com Forum Index


rorkesdriftvc.com
Discussions related to the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879
Reply to topic
Maj. Russell's Rocket Battery Wasn't Abandoned
Coll
Guest

Reply with quote
This was quite a difficult point to try and explain without appearing to be making Durnford blameless again, but I did manage to give a detailed post on another forum of what I think to be a valid alternative to the considered abandonment of the Rocket Battery.

I will try to find my post again.

Coll
Coll
Guest

Reply with quote
Found it -

'Durnford's Troops were mounted and able to rapidly retreat as well as advance...'

'Durnford's mounted men were conducting a reconnaisance in force...in the direction the Zulus were known to be seen. During this time, Russell was moving along the plain behind Durnford, away from the apparent Zulu threat, as Durnford, and others, didn't expect the Zulu army to be present nearby, never mind attack. Hence the concept of chasing away and 'chasing up' the 'retiring' Zulus. Russell was part of his No.2 Column and had to follow on, as after completeing this 'mission', Durnford by all accounts was heading towards Chelmsford. Therefore, he could not go all the way back to the Isandlwana camp to collect the Rocket Battery and Baggage, as this would have caused his horses to be blown and unable to go anywhere fast. He chased after the Zulus, with the Rocket Battery and eventually the Baggage following on, so that with Durnford's Troops expecting to be delayed by a skirmish, would have given them time to reach nearer to his position'.

Coll
Simon


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 95
Reply with quote
Well, he certainly abondoned Private William Johnson to his fate (which as luck would have it, was survival) after the destruction of the Rocket Battery.
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Coll
Guest

Reply with quote
Simon

Col. Durnford was in the process of conducting a fighting withdrawal, trying to keep his men together as a cohesive force, as you must remember these are N.N.H. not Imperial Cavalry, who were trying to delay a Zulu force of thousands.

Maj. Russell was liable for the Rocket Battery which was to follow behind Durnford, but veered off the route he was expected to have been on, due to his deciding to head towards the firing, on the ridge, with cumbersome rocket troughs and ammo on mules and supported by an N.N.C company, of which ten men had rifles, probably not the best of quality.

Why do you think Durnford had to ask where the Rocket Battery was ?

I don't think it can be considered Russell disobeyed his commanding officer's orders, however, he wasn't where Durnford expected him to be on his return.

If wishing to accuse an officer of abandonment of one man, in the midst of an engagement, where hundreds are participating against an overwhelming force of thousands rapidly advancing, then you'd have to consider the precarious position of the hundreds Pulleine deployed wrongly with no protection to their rear or right, with the latter only provided by the defence offered by Durnford, the N.N.H and the Colonials.

You mention this 'abandoned' man survived, well compare this to most, if not all, the 24th men on foot in the firing line, who died, as well as Durnford himself and many of the colonials, who didn't escape, plus all the men fleeing for their lives on foot being killed.

Nobody was abandoned, rather a battle and fate itself took over.

Coll

PS. You'd also have to accuse every man who escaped on horseback, who didn't pick up a fleeing man on foot, of abandonment.
Simon


Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 95
Reply with quote
Firstly, this was not a Brickhill/Gamble situation - it was not a fleeing man running or galloping for his life - I would not accuse anyone of keeping on going in that situation (there's not many medals for bravery in my family Wink )

It was, as you say, a fighting retreat - by troops still under control, one of which (AWDs orderly) was leading a spare horse.

Durnford at the time did not know the extent of the Zulu advance - all as he knew was that the were hundreds, if not thousands bearing down on his isolated fragmented command, so was withdrawing onto friendly supporting troops - i.e. the camp.

What was it he was supposed to have said? "You'd better go back and find him" (refering to Russell)....was he totally insane?

He split his command on the way into camp (leaving his wagons on the road) - when he'd had reports of Zulus lurking around and then he allowed his command to become split while advancing out of camp.

I believe that AWD was made a scapegoat, but he also did himself no favours.

It would probably not have mattered on 22nd of January 1879, how or where the NNMC had deployed, the camp was most likely doomed anyway.

In a way it is a pity that AWD was not tied to his horse and taken from the camp - at least we would have had an insight into his thoughts on the day.


Cheers

Simon
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Maj. Russell's Rocket Battery Wasn't Abandoned
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT  
Page 1 of 1  

  
  
 Reply to topic