rorkesdriftvc.com Forum Index


rorkesdriftvc.com
Discussions related to the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879
Reply to topic
How Can Man Die Better
Coll
Guest

Reply with quote
I hope this doesn't unsettle you too much Mike, in the fact that it is me who has started this topic about your book in this new forum.

It is just to say that I am very much looking forward to reading it, and I'm sure I will agree with everything you say about 'you know who'.

Okay. Maybe not.

However, judging by some of the details about the book's contents in a few topics in the old forum, it will make interesting reading.

Additionally, on completion of reading this title, is there a chance that I could ask 1 or 2 questions ?

Alright. 10 or 20. (maybe more)

Although, I'm not very good at debates, so I might need to wait until I see a few other admirers of Durnford, hopefully making an appearance.

Strength in numbers !

Don't forget, I've seen you involved in a couple of the previous marathon discussions. I wouldn't stand a chance on my own !

I'm sure your book will be a great success.

Coll
Dawn


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 610
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Reply with quote
Coll
I know I shouldn't be encouraging you but I thought you might be interested in this, if you don't already know about it:
http://www.internet-promotions.co.uk/archives/caithness/ptehgrant.htm
It credits Col Durnford with finding the impi and states that his first thoughts were for the camp. Not sure how credible the source is, but it is interesting.
Dawn
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailVisit poster's website
Coll
Guest

Reply with quote
Dawn

I've had a look at the site you mentioned and it does appear that several facts are sort of mixed up, maybe with it being a summarised version of this particular incident, the wording confuses matters.

It does seem to say that Col. Durnford left the camp although he was in command of it, but this is where problems have been encountered previously in the other forum.

I'm not sure if Durnford had actually taken command of the camp on arrival, then tranferred command back to Pulleine when he departed with his mounted force and the Rocket Battery.

Unless I'm reading the article wrong, it also seems to suggest that Col. Durnford was with the force that discovered the Zulus, again, possibly the wording has mixed it up, as he did indeed think of the danger to the camp, but only when confronted by a Zulu force moving off the ridge towards him, and knowing the Zulus as he did, may have realised this was part of a larger force advancing on the camp.

I guess it is quite easy when writing a summary of a battle such as Isandlwana, that the chance of missing out specific details could occur, therefore changing the way it happened.

However, thanks for bringing my attention to it, as over the years I've read numerous articles in magazines, etc., all having varying degrees of accuracy, but others containing details that I was unaware of.

Coll

PS. Anything about Col. Durnford interests me.
Mike Snook


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 130
Reply with quote
Coll,


Let's give 'command' a good going over then.

I am quite clear (in my own mind at least!) that Durnford did not take command of the camp - that in fact he declined to do so when Pulleine started to give him a handover briefing (evidence Cochrane).

But this is not the end of the story - his orders were to move to the camp - there was nothing in them to suggest he should do anything other than off-saddle his ponies, erect his tents at Isandlwana - and WAIT FOR ORDERS.

As we know he was NOT ordered to take command as Creaclock originally said - a statement he later had to withdraw. At this point we divide into conspiracy theorists (the Durnford camp) and 'the rest'. As a member of 'the rest', I do not attribute deliberate deception to Crelaock - merely an inability to remember the precise text of what he actually wrote. (You try recalling the precise words of one of your posts here, for example, in a week's time.)

BUT AGAIN THERE IS A COMPLICATION!!! Regardless of whether he was ORDERED to take command or not, military form/precedent/practice (choose your own word) is that the senior officer present must be in command. Hence ordered or not ordered is a red-herring. BUT AGAIN A PROBLEM!! Although Durnford was gazetted full colonel in Dec 78 in London, as far as everybody in SA knew he was still a Lt Col (evidence - Chelmsford's correspondence to him of Jan 79). Pulleine was dressed as a Lt Col and acting as one (but paid as a major) - hence we are talking about 2 x Lt Cols, but one in substantive rank and one in brevet rank. Both knew that Durnford was the senior BUT one is a CO of an imperial battalion and one the CO of a scratch force of native levies - FURTHERMORE - one is an infanteer and one a sapper at a time when sappers were viewed slightly sniffily by Inf/Cav/Arty. So status makes Durnford's advantage/standing debatable - but not in a formal way - more in terms of human interaction in the military context.

BUT THE FACTS - THE FACTS (!!) Pulleine offered him command and he refused to take it. He can't really do this - two military forces in the same battlespace must have an overall commander
(schoolboy soldiering). So the issue here is what is the general's intent - I believe it was clearcut - Durnford was to move to Isandlwana - where his mounted troops would be much more readily available for subsequent ops - i.e. operations on 23 Jan and therefater. It was not the GOC's intent to use any part of Durnford's command at Mangeni on 22 Jan. (If it was why had no subsequent orders been sent). Nor was it the GOC's intent to reinforce the camp (evidence - his complacency - any force which contained a few coys of regular inf was invulnerable to a native enemy - as far as Lord C was concerned. So in other words Chelmsford's intent is a merger of No 2 and No 3 Columns in preparation for subsequent ops. Advantages - doubles the size of his 'cavalry' component for scouting, and brings Durnford, in whom he has lost confidence as an independent field commander (evidence - the sacking letter and the wilful disobdeince which presaged it), under his immediate. command.

SO TO THE FINAL STEP IN THIS SOMEWHAT CONVOLUTED SCENARIO!! The GOC intends Durnford to put up his tents at Isandlwana - in which case he must de facto be in command. Durnford decides not to do this. And here we come to reading his character. His defenders will hark back to Chelmsford's letter to him - I shall want you to co-operate against the two Matyanas - but then they will often conveniently overlook the caveat - but will send you fresh instructions on this. Durnford had not received those instructions - but chose to behave on his arrival at Isandlwana as if he had. He is desperate to preserve his status as the commander of No 2 Column - this is why he declines command of the camp - a No 3 Column asset. It is possible he genuinely believed he was expected to get involved at Mangeni - but if he thought that he was stupid in the extreme. More probable is wilful misinterpretation of the shocking bad staff work emanating from the two Chiefs of Staff, Clery and Crealock obviously.

Durnford was absolutley bursting at the seams to get stuck into the Zulus. He contrived a set of circumstances on 22 Jan which would give him the opportunity to do so. He behaved like a 2nd Lt not a field officer. he continued to behave like a 2nd Lt throughout the battle (evidence - Henderson).

Correct military solution - I am in command here. What orders have been given to Pulleine - because I am now duty bound to inherit them. If subsequently you get nervous about enemy movements in dead ground - send out patrols. Composition of a patrol - 5 or 6 men. How many patrols to cover the NE of the camp? Maximum of three. Total force required - half a troop. Instead we get 4 troops, 2 NNC companies, rocket battery, oh and by the way old boy - give us a couple of your 24th companies into the bargain. Coll, this is cowboys and Indians - it is not professional soldiering. And at this point the professionals told him where to go.

Sorry but the truth can sometime hurt!!

Regards as ever

Mike

PS. If anybody wants to get stuck into this one please don't play assumed names with me.
View user's profileSend private message
Mel


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 345
Reply with quote
Mike
Every one is entitled to their opinions................and yours above are long overdue. For me, you have summed it up exactly. Cowboys and Indians?
I seem to recall another Durnford like character around the 1870's who played Cowboys and Indians once. What's his name? Oh, yes, Custer! They even look alike.
Sorry Coll.

_________________
Mel
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Dawn


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 610
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Reply with quote
Mike
I couldn't agree more. A case of "I'll show you chaps how it's done". However, if he had stayed in camp, would the outcome have been any different? We're back to 'could this camp be defended?'
Dawn
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailVisit poster's website
Coll
Guest

Reply with quote
Blimey Mike, that was some answer and I haven't even got your book to read it yet in order to ask questions !

Is this what they call a pre-emptive strike, as in, knock me down before I stand up ?

Anyway. I'm hoping to really study the AZW next year, reading all books, old and new, in my collection, not just to refresh my memory, but also update my knowledge with recent titles (yours included) to hopefully be able to debate some issues, rather than constantly object (as I did in the old forum) without backing my comments up with anything.

I'm hoping then to be able to involve myself in discussions about various matters connected to the AZW, by contributing replies (and postings) more worthwhile, as reading the previous marathon discussions, has really convinced me to seriously study in-depth all aspects, rather than reading a bit here and a bit there.

I hope this way I may be able to have 'friendly' debates in the near future, where I can hopefully stand my ground more strongly, instead of stumbling about and being unsure.

You know, of course, Durnford will be top of the list !

Mel

In a previous topic in the old forum, someone mentioned that they thought Durnford and Custer were of similar appearance, and suggested that maybe Durnford 'copied' Custer, from images in newspapers !

Obviously, this is ludicrous and (I can't remember who) demolished this notion.

Additionally, I also doubt very much if he would have 'copied' Custer's strategy at the Little Bighorn, considering the outcome.

Coll

PS. Both - Cowboys and indians ?!!!

PS. (Again) Where are all the Durnford admirers when you need them ?

Am I now the only one ? Maybe we should have some sort of poll to see if there is much support in the 'Durnford camp' or if there is just one tent with me in it ?
Mike Snook


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 130
Reply with quote
Mike Snook

Dawn

You're quite right to then move the issue on to the defensibility of the camp. Nail on the head. Then there's whether it would have been defensible with the 4 x NNMC troops in camp as formed bodies instead of scattered beyond the escarpment or swanning around (in what I call) the Qwabe Valley.

Mel,

An explanatory note - Modern British military would as a matter of jargon, refer to a military operation that's not being executed very professionally as 'playing cowboys and Indians'. I suppose it's a bit of a parody of the games played by children in the schoolyard. Does that make sense?

Coll,

Nothing of the pre-emptive strike about it my friend, I 'm just trying to put across a reasoned interpretation - by stages - to show how complicated an issue the whole area of 'blame' is, in the context of Isandlwana. Second book 'Like Wolves on the Fold' (Feb 06 all being well), is mainly RD based but has a chapter called the Blame Game where I pull all the blame stuff together (coherently - I hope!) - so HCMDB will just start the ball rolling as far as Colonel Anthony is concerned - but fear not - lots of other people did naughty things too, so he's not the only one that will be under the microscope. And as I think I've said to you before - your hero was undeniably as brave they come. Judgement...well that's another matter!


I can stay on here for a few days yet, due to the delay in publication, but will then withdraw from the site as promised earlier to let you all have a good chat without author breathing down neck!!

Regards

Mike
View user's profileSend private message
Mel


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 345
Reply with quote
Mike
Yes, my tongue was firmly in my cheek!!
I was agreeing with you entirely.

_________________
Mel
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Dawn


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 610
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Reply with quote
If we step back a bit, it has to be pointed out that Durnford wasn't supposed to be at Isandlwana in the first place. It was Lord Chelmsford who called him up and then left without precise instructions on what he was to do once he got there.

However, Durnford was a little too eager to get into camp and then take off like a dog off the leash across the plain.

So Coll, although I could take a step inside your tent, I'm afraid I can't stay.

Dawn
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailVisit poster's website
tony.ashford.@ntlworld,co


Joined: 02 Sep 2005
Posts: 41
Location: Lenton, Nottingham
Reply with quote
Coll,

Just a small point, I was the one who suggested, casually and merely as a point of interest, that Durnford had a resemblance to Custer. I mooted the idea that he might just have imitated his style. I never intimated that he "copied" Custer's tactics from the Little Bighorn and clearly that would be preposterous. May I respectfully suggest that you research the Forum before making dismissive comments.
View user's profileSend private message
Coll
Guest

Reply with quote
Tony

If you re-read my posting you will see that the reply regarding the 'copying' of Custer's appearance ended after I said the notion was 'demolished'.

If you look at the last sentence you refer to where I mention the tactics of Custer, I wrote 'additionally' as in my own opinion, or else I would have included it amongst the paragraph that I wrote above it.

It is unfortunate, especially since this is a new forum, that you wish to make a point so prominently, when you obviously have misread my post.

All I can think is, after reading the section related to the topic in the old forum, you didn't notice the last sentence was detached.

The point that I was trying to make was that the idea of Durnford copying Custer's appearance was about as likely as him copying his tactics.

Coll
tony.ashford.@ntlworld,co


Joined: 02 Sep 2005
Posts: 41
Location: Lenton, Nottingham
Reply with quote
Coll,

Thank you for your reply. So that clears it all then. I had no intention of being strident or argumentative, I simply wanted to make it clear that my original observation was simply a casual aside if you like and not intended to initiate serious debate and research. All the best.

Tony.
View user's profileSend private message
clive dickens


Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 162
Location: REDDITCH WORCESTERSHIRE
Reply with quote
Razz
Greenhill books have informed me that they expect the corrected version of Mike Snooks book "How can man die better" to be available sometime around the 26th Sept 05
Clive
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Julian whybra


Joined: 03 Sep 2005
Posts: 437
Reply with quote
Mike
I received your book in the mail only yesterday and have not had time to read it through in detail. I would like to do this first before entering the above debate (I have something to say on it now but don't want to prejudge the issue before I've read the book). One thing I (pedant as ever) noticed was your use of NNMC instead of NNH (I noticed that there was an annotation in your book saying that NNH was a later appellation) and I assume that you got the NNMC title from Ian Castle's paperback Osprey book where he states the same thing.
However, I know of no documentary evidence or contemporary reference to the NNH being called officially NNMC. Some time ago I checked the memories of David Jackson and John Young and neither had any evidence of such an appellation either.
Neither am I aware of this unit receiving the appellation Natal Native Horse later on (though I am aware that they did later receive the title Natal Horse).
I just wondered where you got your information from regarding the use of this terminology? I did notice that the book isn't footnoted so that was of no use in answering my question. I'd be grateful for your answer (and am grateful for a mention in your preface!) as if I've missed something all these years I would want to amend England's Sons.
View user's profileSend private message
How Can Man Die Better
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 9  

  
  
 Reply to topic