 |
 |
|
 | |  |
 |
| | |
|
Peter Ewart
| Joined: 31 Aug 2005 |
| Posts: 1797 |
| Location: Near Canterbury, Kent, England. |
|
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 6:57 pm |
|
 |
 |
|
|
Rich
He was picked for the Zulu campaign because he was the man on the spot, as GOC, Cape Colony (or SA). There was no-one else at hand to put Frere's policy into action.
Thesiger wasn't sent out from England to fight the Zulu. It was, of course, as Commander in Chief down at the Cape that he arrived in S Africa in March 1878, and I daresay he never gave a thought to the possibility that he would, within a few months, be carefully planning the logistics of a war in Zululand, far to the NE of the usual British military involvement in S Africa and against a people with whom the Colony (or the British generally) had no history of conflict, whether from the Cape or from Natal (since the beginning of British responsibility for the latter nearly 40 years earlier). It was a different story down at the Cape and he was into action almost immediately with yet another Cape Frontier War, where the likes of Maqoma, Moshoeshoe, Sandile, Sarhile & Hintsa, etc. etc., had kept his predecessors on their toes for many decades.
It was not to be long before Frere pointed Thesiger up towards Natal, however. With regard to why he was chosen for the Cape job in the first place, Keith's suggestion seems to hold water and there were probably many others who would, equally, have fitted the bill through similar patronage. Perhaps the circumstances of Cunynghame's removal dictated the necessity for haste? On the other hand, perhaps his sound record - and simply chance of circumstances - put him in the front of the queue?
The planning of the invasion of Zululand is a fascinating topic. The military aspects were completely dominated by the transport requirements and these were dictated by the topography and the established necessary local modes of transport, supply & re-supply. If he didn't get them right he could presumably forget about any fighing. From the middle of 1878 to the middle of 1879 his thoughts must have been dominated by the very special - and thorny - needs of transport throughout Zululand.
With regard once again to his personality, even Norris-Newman, who did criticise the General's strategy "after the event" (although was far removed from the obnoxious know-all portrayed ridiculously in a certain film) - was quick to print publicly and promptly that the General had been extremely kind to N-N, even in the midst of the former's shock at the defeat at Isandlwana.
I suspect the lack of a full length biography (as opposed to articles etc) is in common with countless other lieut- and major-generals of Britain's Victorian army. Many of them compiled memoirs & others were the subject of the staple hagriographic eulogies but by far the majority have disappeared without trace and, without Isandlwana, so would Chelmsford. Indeed, one or two of his direct descendants have had rewarding careers and perhaps taken the heat off him a little. Other than the motive behind French's defence of Chelmsford in the '30s I suspect there has been very little genuine publishable interest. I agree with you that it would be very different now and let's hope JY gets some encouragement.
Peter
|
|
|
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
Michael Boyle
| Joined: 12 Dec 2005 |
| Posts: 595 |
| Location: Bucks County,PA,US |
|
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 2:48 am |
|
|
|
|
|
Interestingly Lord C. prior to his elevation to the Peerage at least, seems to have gone by Fred rather than Frederick amongst his friends anyway. ( Too bad, I liked that scene in ZD where Vereker addresses the GOC as Frederick!). For a taste of some of his correspondence to Major General Inglis, including a response to his father's letter to Wellington attempting to get him into the Grenadier Guards and some of his letters from the Crimea see :
http://www.inglis.uk.com/lordchelmsfordsletterstomajgeninglis.htm
It shows some of his less guarded side perhaps and his take on the 'Redan' might seem a bit cruel toward the ORs. [Ignore the headings, the page is a trifle botched, it seems to indicate some corespondence from Zululand which is not forthcoming unfortunately.]
As much as I'd like to demonize the man (having been first introduced to him by TWOTS and Peter O'Toole's portrayal in ZD) I found it, through my reading, at first more and more difficult and now impossible to do so (the occaisional cheap shot aside!) and this in spite of no biography. One is forced to assemble bits and pieces from widely varied sources and attempt to temper much of the simplistic rhetoric directed against him through many A-ZW books. He was of course responsible for the tragedy at Isandlwana but I can't help feel that we still don't know the complete story as to the proverbial reason "why?". I've got some ideas that more reading will hopefully fill out. Lord C. is proving to be a difficult man to satisfactorily decipher.
What are the best available sources for reading more about the man and less about the figure?
Thanks,
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Chelmsford Bio | |
| Chelmsford Bio | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
Steven Sass
| Joined: 31 Aug 2005 |
| Posts: 18 |
| Location: Milwaukee, WI USA |
|
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:31 am |
|
|
|
|
|
Rich,
Although I enjoy your commentary very much and often agree with you, I must say I was rather astounded to see you holding out Monty as the model type of General that should be emulated. Granted he had success against the Afrika Korps, by which time they were practically cobbling together their equipment with rubber bands and glue, with chances for resupply non-existent. However fast forward to D-Day and beyond for an accurate portrait of his true skills and personality. His slow movements and inability to take Caen in even close to his self imposed time table is a more truthful glimpse at his tactical ability and a revelation of his delusional opinion of himself. Yes, it was a clever attempt to spin it as an intentional maneuver to fix German armor so the Americans could break out further west, but what it really proved was only his inability to accept responsiblity for his own ineptness. Without bothering to mention his many inane and/or inflammatory comments, usually motivated by jealousy, one must jump forward again to the crown jewel of his blunders. Without belaboring either the strategy or tactics of Operation Market Garden, important bits of the final results can be examined. First the operation did not accomplish it objective; however in terms of lives wasted that issue almost becomes secondary. It seems difficult to pin down exact casualty figures, but the numbers that appear to pop up most often are: 13,000 Allied troops killed, another 4000 wounded and an additional 6000 British paratroopers captured. Even if these figures are off by a couple thousand, Market Garden makes Isandlwana appear as a mere skirmish by comparison. According to the book 'Monty: The Field Marshall, 1944-1976' by Hamilton, he is characterized as "arrogant, opinionated and self serving,"---a description that is realistically shared by many. In no way can I view him as a down to earth, soldier's soldier.
On to Lord Chelmsford-As was previously pointed out, prior to the Zulu war he also had success leading troops in battle. What many critics seem to miss completely is that he lead the British Army to victory in the Anglo-Zulu War, period. He could have easily been mentally crushed after the disaster at Isandlwana. However I believe it shows the strength of his character that he was able to learn from his mistake, regroup and soldier on until his objective had been met. Furthermore, I don't think it can be argued that the Zulus did not play a decisive part in the end result of the Isandlwana engagement; achieving complete tactical surprise, attacking with a 25-1 numerical superiority and stunning the garrison with the ferocity, speed and courage of their assaults. Considering the circumstances I doubt if the GOC was Wolseley, Roberts, Kitchener, Napier or any other great General of the era one could name, the end result would have been all that different.
Best to all and nothing personal Rich,
Steven
|
|
|
|
| | |
| Chelmsford and the Invasion of Zululand | |
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 2 of 4
|
|
|
|
| |
