rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic - An Official Re-Evaluation Of Isandlwana ?

Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 2:30 pm

The trouble with the internet is it allows idiots to escape from their villages.

At least Galloglas if I am going to criticize somebody I put my name to it and fight in the open like a gentleman. Your remarks about the motivations behind HCMDB are puerile: how ironic that they are also anonymous. Perhaps you think that nobody in the regiment is entitled to be articulate, to hold an opinion or be published. Broad-minded of you.

Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 2:55 pm

That being the 'gentlemanly' case, I can only politely wish you a safe return to your village.

G

Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 3:14 pm

Enough.

Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 3:40 pm

Mike

Not again. Rolling Eyes

I know how you conduct your 'forum tactics', and see that you are trying to sabotage this topic, as it is getting somewhere, away from your control.

You are hoping to get it locked.

I'm hoping your methods are seen for what they are and the topic remains open.

Please may I ask that others only respond to the subject the topic is covering and avoid being 'baited' into this trap, by involving themselves in another ugly situation.

This is too important a discussion to be closed.

Coll

Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:10 pm

Does anybody know military protocol when it comes to taking command or what publications can be read because i think it would be interesting to find out what the rule book actualy says about officers taking over command from other officers. From what i can gather the military view things differently than the general public when it comes to who is responsible on certain occasions. I would not have thought the military are in the business of laying blame onto there officers, they have things set out more clearly, hence the chain of command and the rules of such command.

From what i can gather is that the Commander and Chief sets the game plan and the officer he puts in charge carries out those commands to the best of his abilities. It is also expected that where necessary, the officer in charge will adapt matters occordingly on the day given the intel he recieves. He will naturally relay info back to the C&C but the C&C will expect his officer to adapt to the surroundings and situations as they occur without having to be spoon fed by the C&C as to what to do next at every juncture during a battle.

Pulleine was put in charge on that day and unless he was givern prior ordes to reliquinsh command by the C&C to a senior officer or he was ordered to reliquinsh command by the senior officer upon his arrival then as far as everyone else was concerned, Pulleine was in command. As i have already said, if Durnford used his seniority to interfere then as the officer in command, Pulleine should have put him straight on a few matters. Again from what i can gather, from a military level, Pulleine had the power to order Durnford to do as he wished even though Durnford was senior. This is what I'm trying to get out, there is a difference between those who are senior to those who are in command, the one carries more weight that the other, and i am led to believe that the one in command carries the most weight unless relieved by someone senior.

As the officer in command, in the eyes of the military, Pulleine was the one at fault. People keep on saying 'Durnford did this, Durnford did that' and if he did then Pullience should have taken him to one side and put him straight about who's in command. It was Pulleine's job to make sure Durnford carried out the defence of the camp. It's no good blaming Durnford for riding off and trying to be a hero as some of you put it, for something Pulleine as the camp commander should have put a stop to straight away but for some reason he didn't.

If anything there should have been (maybe probably was) 3 COI, one for Chelmsford, one for Pulleine and one for Durnford (for leaving the camp when he knew really should have stayed)

Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:51 am

Rog,

The Commander-in-Chief in southern Africa did set the game plan, that of confederation by conquest, as the Commander-in-Chief in southern Africa was Sir Henry Bartle Edward Frere, not Lt.-General Lord Chelmsford.

Chelmsford was the General-Officer-Commanding, tasked with the military execution of the campaign at the behest of Frere, his political master, so to speak.

John Y.

Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:51 am

I think that a lock on this topic is in order.