Chelmsford bio |
John Young
|
Rich,
I offered one up several years ago, I've still got the draft chapters and headings - no-one was interested. One publisher stated that not enough people would be interested. Until one does then my project remained shelved. John Y. |
||||||||||||
|
Rich
Guest
|
Thanks John. I'm sorry you couldn't have gotten it going. And certainly you'd have the assurance that I probably would have boguht a copy, OK?
I guess the Lord isn't high on the history reading community's list. Also, that he probably can't hold a candle to some other famous commanders such as Montgomery, Auchinleck, Alanbrooke O'Connor and di Wiart to name a few. Now I read that di Wiart was wounded so frequently that they kept silk pajamas with his name on it for him at the hospital. With that, I'd think that if Chelmsford put himself more "in harms way" with his men he perhaps wouldn't have this image problem we have of him today. |
||||||||||||
|
Keith Smith
|
Rich
Your comments about Lord Chelmsford seem to imply a lack of courage on his part. You should note that he put himself very much 'in harm's way' at Gingindlovu and Ulundi, being mounted, and thus very visible, throughout the whole of both actions. Many officers chose not to mount at Ulundi but he set an example to them all. Courage he did not lack, but he was certainly short in the responsibility department. KIS |
||||||||||||
|
Martin Everett
|
Rich,
Chelmsford always seems to get a bad press - but it is really ignorance on the part of those wishing to bring him. He was a first class logisitician - recently discovered sketches show that it was a triumph of planning and organisation to launch the army into hositle Zululand. His challenge was that it was a slow lumbering force - 8 miles day - making roads as they went - gosh it took 10 days to go from RD to Isandlwana - you can drive this in 20 mins. He was a against a fast moving enemy - capable 30 miles a day - carrying their own rations. Also in the 1st invasion, the General did not have any regular British Cavalry to do the scouting and cover his flanks. The odds were against him from the start. Please do not make Chelmsford the only fall guy of the AZW. |
||||||||||||
_________________ Martin Everett Brecon, Powys |
Rich
Guest
|
Keith/Martin:
Very true though can we say that Chelmsford was looked upon as a "soldiers soldier"? Maybe that would have helped to alleviate his "bad press". I'd think to be brave is just the minimum to be a Brit commander in the field. Would love to know if the fighting soldiers esteemed Chelmsford as a top notch leader. |
||||||||||||
|
Paul Bryant-Quinn
Guest
|
Rich
To my knowledge, there are instances in soldiers' letters of both positive and negative reactions to Chelmsford's leadership. An unambiguous example of the former can be found in the letter which Sgt Evan Jones, 2/24th wrote on 7 July to his brother, and which is quoted in the postscript to Emery's The Red Soldier, pp. 252-4. As may be expected, though, in the aftermath of Isandlwana not everyone was so generous. E.L. England of the 13th Light Infantry at Khambula writes to his sister, dated 11 February:
Paul |
|||||||||||||
|
Rich
Guest
|
Thanks Paul for the citation. From what I've read I don't get the feeling that the British soldiers were endeared to Chelmsford. Oh yes they would fight for him, Queen and country but his aloof personality I think affected his ability to grab the hearts of his soldiers. Now tell me that Glyn has a manuscript floating around hidden somewhere spilling the rebans about his relationship with Chelmsford. Now that's something I would love to read about.....
|
||||||||||||
|
Rich
Guest
|
"rebans"? sorry ..how did it come out that way?... it' supposed to be "BEANS"!..
|
||||||||||||
|
Peter Ewart
|
Rich
Chelmsford's "aloof personality?" Where on earth does that come from? Virtually every description of his character that I have read by those who knew him or worked with him (and that obviously means under him) suggests the very opposite. In fact this is what appears to have marked him out as a little different from other senior officers in this respect - the fact that he lived so frugally on campaign and always considered the wants of the men under him. Given the obvious "distance" in rank & social class between the General and his men, it seems to me that he was served by some exceptionally loyal soldiery, notwithstanding that one or two described him as "the old fool" after Isandlwana. Why would they be expected to be "endeared to him"? If by "aloof" you mean private, that was apparently sometimes the case, but that had nothing to do with the ORs. He was a General and a Lord - many of the men in his army were straight out of the gutter and many more not far from that. This was the British Army of 1879, not Monty's Eighth Army of 1943. I can't see how Chelmsford could be considered aloof by his men - or certainly not more alooof than other senior officers or Generals, given what is known of his personality (rather than what some writers or film makers would like us to believe). I suspect the pristine table cloths and grand banquet at Mangeni suggested by "Zulu Dawn" may be at work here. Peter |
||||||||||||
|
Rich
Guest
|
"This was the British army of 1879 not Monty's Eighth Army of 1943"
Peter True but I think relationships between a commander and his troops are common and at the same time unique to all armies. The social system I think didn't change that much in '43 yet Montgomery in terms of charisma and popularity among the troops appears to be head and shoulders above Chelmsford. I'd be interested to know if he did attend functions relating to the AZW afte the ar was over with the rank & file or was that out of the social caste system in the British army? If he did all power to him! At this pont it perplexes me that if Chelmsford does have a "bad press" and image why wouldn't his life be material for an analysis like other good and great British generals? The fact that we don't have a modern day biography of the fellow who commanded the Queen's army in South Africa in 1879 still puzzles me. Here's a fellow who won a few and lost a few and had kind of an exciting life. And note the one he lost was a biggie. Maybe all these qualities that are coming to the fore should be examined more closely. Like I said before I'd like to understand Lord Chelmsford a bit more. |
||||||||||||
|
John Young
|
Rich,
Here's a quote about Chelmsford, albeit from a friend of Lord Chelmsford:- �...That a more prudent, a more brave, a more capable man does not exist among the many brave and capable men in the British Army,...� W.H. Smith, M.P. & Publisher, of Lord Chelmsford, February, 1879 Anyone who could plan the logistical assault on a supposedly impregnable fortess, in a hostage rescue attempt through 400 miles of unknown terrain, isn't that much of a fool in my book, either. That task was performed by Colonel the Honourable Frederic Thesiger, as Robert Napier's Deputy Adjutant-General in the Abyssinian Campaign. John Y. |
||||||||||||
|
Rich
Guest
|
Thanks John..I'll be doing some more cogent reading on the Lord...
|
||||||||||||
|
mike snook 2
|
Generals tend to have a public face and a private face. These can be worlds apart. A general who is adored by the troops can actually be a real monster to work for as a staff officer.
Lord C is an interesting case study. The general thrust of the evidence would very definitely indicate that he was highly thought of before Isandlwana. (Of course he lost his name in a big way after that - so its fairer to judge his personality on the pre-22 Jan sources). In particular it was commonly noted that he was 'a gentleman'. I take that to mean that there was nothing of the snob about him, and that he talked to the troops in a decent and everyday way - not as if he was doing them a favour by disdaining to talk to them. The distinction between the two approaches is really important - troops are very sensitive to this - they can tell at the drop of a hat, an officer who genuinely cares and one who is merely going through the motions. But I think there is a real myth about all this class stuff in the British (Victorian) army - life on campaign and the battlefield are great levellers. So pomposity, snobbery and class distinction tends to prosper in long periods of peace, (vide those ridiculous figures Cardigan and Lucan say,) but in the field, both officers and men suddenly find they need each other and actually rather like one another. There are good references to this phenomenon in that excellent account of the 8 CF War by Sgt name evades me of the 74th. Boer war sources also littered with the same idea. But I digress. Lord C was a gentleman who was highly thought of by the boys in the ranks. Their perception was however not a sophisticated one - not extending much beyond - he's alright he is. (!) As a commander, however, something the boys would have been unaware of, he was very autocratic - he did not consult his principal subordinates and was not amenable to suggestions from the floor as it were. He attended to a lot of his staffwork himself - but this was not uncommon at the time - and was a reflection of the Duke of Wellington's command style - the crucial difference being that Wellington was a military genius, whilst none of those trying to emulate him were in the same league. Thesiger was a good logisitician - as John points out. Abyssinina was logistically scary - but he did it. I am unclear/undecided on how intelligent he was. Certainly fluent on paper, and good at all the things that a Victorian public school education made you good at, mathematics (hence logistics), probably loved his Homer, and so on. But how clever was he? What was his brain like? Was he a thinker? The thing that set the alarm bells ringing for me was his letter of 16 Jan, I think it was, to Frere, outlining strategy for the coming war. It does not held water. My thirteen year old nephew could have come up with a better military plan that. Incidentally, Had Chelmsford been Wolseley's Chief of Staff on the Nile, rather than Redvers Buller, I reckon there wouldn't be so many statues of General Gordon around the place. Chelmsford would have got the logistic sums right, and Sir Herbert Stewart would have got to the Nile without having to fight twice. Anyway, enough from me. Regards as ever Mike |
||||||||||||
|
Rich
Guest
|
Interesting overview Mike. I'm always fascinated by command. It's a job where you sometimes have to send some to their deaths. It is not for the psychologically unprepared. Which leads me to Chelmsford and why he was picked for the Zulu campaign. From your post and Martin's, it would appear that his logistics skills came to the fore with those who made the decision for him to be GOC. Now was that the deciding criterion when eyeing the environment he would be going into? In hindsight, now it looks as if the British command structure neglected some excellent strategic intelligence if you will in their general. But I guess you can't have everything in generals, eh? There's always something bound to be lacking.
|
||||||||||||
|
Chelmsford bio |
|
||
Powered by phpBB © 2001-2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Style created by phpBBStyles.com and distributed by Styles Database.
phpBB Style created by phpBBStyles.com and distributed by Styles Database.