rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 12:24 pm

Julian

While not disagreeing with the general thrust of the argument in your last post, I must take issue with the statement: 'Having once said that orders were stated verbally it is quite possible that it would be seen as mere repetition to state that later the docs themselves were produced for viewing.' Why would it be 'repetition' to state that the orders were given in writing, when hitherto both of the significant direct statements by Cochrane say they were given verbally? Nor is not really very 'historical' to give too much weight to information given second-hand and attributed to Cochrane.
KIS

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:35 pm

Further to my posting regarding the use of the term 'Durnford's Horse'.

In the book ' A Soldier's Life and Work in South Africa' by Durnford, E., it is also used, on pages 319 and 320.

Coll

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 3:58 pm

Keith
Yes, but in the Paton, Glennie book, cochrane is specific about the occasion at which written orders were produced which is different to when he stated that the verbal orders were repeated.

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 6:15 pm

Julian,
At the risk of being repetitive, I repeat that Paton is hearsay and a secondary source. It was NOT what Cochrane said and therefore the logical conclusion arrived at, is that Paton is incorrect in his report and that no written instructions were handed over. This raises the question why? Which is another topic altogether. If Cochrane says Pulleine handed the VERBAL orders to Durnford, why cannot we accept that as fact. Why indeed look for reasons to counter a direct statement and twist the primary source statement by use of a secondary source statement to conclude that something happened, when clearly this was not the case. Please accept Cochrane's statement as the truth. Finally, place yourself in the position of Pulleine. Having handed over a state of the camp, he would logically follow up by handing over his written instructions to complete the hand-over. This he failed to do, according to the only one who had witnessed and recorded the converstion ... more than strange.

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 9:37 pm

Julian

I have re-checked Paton et al. and find that although 'a special service officer' reported that Pulleine retrieved his written his orders from his tent, a footnote refers to 'a hearsay authority' for the text of the orders. This is surely the evidence of Clery, and I rather think that his evidence was used to confirm what was supposedly said/done. I find it difficult to accept that Cochrane would have made two separate written submissions in which he said that the orders were passed verbally, to then contradict himself in an unrecorded interview in which he suddenly remembers that the orders were in writing! We have only the evidence of Clery that the orders were indeed written, and there may be some truth in the suggestion that Clery did not in fact write them down but merely conveyed them verbally in his haste to depart the camp. It might be supposed that the writing of the orders was a later invention by Clery to protect his Lordship, a feature of Clery's personality which comes through very clearly from his letters to Alison.
KIS

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 10:32 am

Peter

Too much. How can you rattle on about primary sources when Clery is quite emphatic that he left written orders. Yet him you simply dismiss as a liar. Not good enough. From here you run with the cover-up ball giving wind to conspiracy theorists and productions such as the dreadful BBC Timewatch programme I had to turn over last night - as it was making me nauseous!!

It is perfectly feasible that Pulleine briefed Durnford verbally with the written orders sat on his desk behind him, and only later produced them physically. This was a protracted matter conducted in 2 phases.

Phase 1. Durnford arrives and meets P at his command post. Verbal briefing including state of troops. Not controversial beyond a few raised eyebrows - 'I'm not going to stay'.

Interval: Late bfast/early lunch at the mess tent.

Phase 2. Back at the command post. Higginson's report. Durnford announces his foray and asks for 2 coys of 24th. All of a sudden things becoming very controversial. Pulleine: Hang on a miniute old boy - my orders are to defend the camp. Look here. Look at my orders.

Hence perfectly possible for Cochrane to describe two separate moments separated by an hour in different ways, one at the BoI and one in conversation with the 2/24 offrs (hence recorded at Regimental Records of the 24th).

Slightly grumpily

M

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:01 am

Mike,
Welcome back to the fray dear friend.We still await your book in RSA. Have been in touch with Titles, the distributors, who say it's still on the high seas. Vanquished only arrived last week!
Response to a hopefully less grumpy young man. Please see Keith's posting above. That is, in my view, exactly what happened. At this stage I did not want to bring Clery into the picture as we have long since agreed to disagree with you mentioning in the past that Clery rose to the exalted rank of general, therefore would not lie, to which my response was, ' so did Crealock.' What really settles the matter for me is the use of Cochrane's word "verbal." There is no point in him using the word if the written orders were issued, no matter where located.The implication of the use of the word is that written instructions were never there to be handed over. Shall we leave it at that?
Best wishes,
Peter

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 12:14 pm

Peter-Sahib

Yes, you are right that we are never going to agree, so let's leave it. I am reading and enjoying Vanquished at the moment. My regards to Tusker.

As ever
Very Happy

M

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:55 pm

As a parting shot I thought it might be useful for those not owning a copy of Paton, Glennie etc to see the precise words used:
"According to the testimony of a special-service officer who was present, and afterwards escaped from the camp, Col. Pulleine went into his tent and brought out his written orders, to which Col. Durnford demurred, so far as to say, �Well, my idea is, that wherever Zulus appear, we ought to attack. I will go alone, but remember, if I get into difficulties I shall rely on you to support me.�
The �special-service officer� is almost certainly Cochrane. since we know he was present during their conversations. It takes place not at the start of Durnford's arrival when in his statement to the C of I Cochrane says that verbal orders were repeated, it takes place over lunch later in the day. The nature of the text is such as to imply physical presence at an actual event - Pulleine was seen by the informant to go into his tent to bring out his written orders - Durnford demurring - and then Durnford's words reproduced verbatim by the hearer (Cochrane). My case rests.
I'm glad Mike S is in agreement - I was beginning to feel lonely.

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 1:12 am

Mike/Julian
Could you clear one thing up for me?

I thought Cochrane was with transport and didn't get into camp until much later because he was with the wagons.

However, from the above, looks like he did come in with Durnford.

Dawn

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:18 am

Julian,
Your quote makes for a convincing case but for a key point. Where is the testimony of the special-service officer? It does not exist. It is hearsay. You, an accomplished historian, are therefore using a secondary source over primary source. This, in my view, negates your argument. I rest my case too, but alas, where is the jury?

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 10:37 am

Gentlemen:
Well, that's me! I fear that orthodoxy has been elevated to dogma and is approaching the status of Holy Writ. You know, sometimes, one has to admit the possiblility that the other fellow might have something, and then examine it sympathetically rather than all the huffing that appears to be going on. My patience too is now wearing thin so it's time to move on.

Julian
You have castigated a number of contributors to this site for not using primary sources, so one would think that you, of all people, should do the same. Or is there one rule for you and another for mere mortals?
KIS

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:19 pm

Dawn

Cochrane was left behind to get the civilian Conductor organized and then galloped on to catch up with Durnford once the wagons were under way. He caught up with Durnford on the road and entered the camp with him.

Rest.

Good, so Clery was a liar and the officers of the 2nd /24th were liars. Great argument. So let's see where that gets us.

One side of the argument:

Clery: I left written orders.
Officers of the 2/24. An SSO told us he saw the written orders produced.

Other side:

Clery is a liar. (Evidence produced to substantiate an accusation which if true would have seen Clery courtmartialled, disgraced and probably imprisoned - nil).
Oooooh... (thinking quickly)... so are the officers of the 2/24 liars.

Mercy, I can't take any more. Rolling Eyes

M

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:52 pm

Sorry, long day, just managed to rejoin the forum.
Dawn,
Mike S has beaten me to it with the Cochrane reference.
Peter,
I'd remind you that this whole thing began with your simply asking me where the reference was - I didn't expect to have to defend it - but I will defend it even so. I would argue that Paton contains both primary source material (in that participants and first-hand evidence is recorded) as well as secondary source material. I would argue that the special-service officer remark is a primary source remark of itself and thus IS the testimony you seek. I am not using this source OVER another primary source (since that primary source refers to a separate event); I am using it IN ADDITION to that other primary source (as an item of additional knowledge).
Keith,
I agree about Holy Writ and I agree about the primacy of using primary sources but as I explain above to Peter I would regard this instance in Paton as an example of a primary source. There are other examples of such primary sources - Capt. W. P. Symons's report is one such - I seem to recall in the not so distant past others using his second-hand testimonies (which were anonymous [!] and not even traceable to a named individual like Cochrane) to support their arguments over the failure of the ammunition supply (but perhaps I shouldn't drag that up again). So, Keith, I ask you, is there one rule for them and Capt. Symons and another rule for me and Paton, Glennie, etc.? Mortality doesn't enter into it.
Mike S,
I agree.
Pace.

Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:43 pm

Mike

Thanks for clearing that up about Cochrane. I remembered reading he'd left RD with the wagons, so presumed he'd also entered camp with the wagons.

Julian

Should pace read peace?

Dawn