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

Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 4:18 pm

Coll,

Thanks for the reply.
However, I am still not sure what facts you are expecting to emerge from an official C.O.I. that have not already been discussed on this forum.

You have stated on this forum that you are of the opinion that Durnford was totally blameless for the British defeat at Isandlwana.

In the spirit of further debate could you please explain how you would expect any official C.O.I. to shed new light on this issue and, I presume, fully support your opinion?

Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 5:31 pm

not wanting to step on Coll's toes here jumping in with a reply but i would have thought a new COI (sorry i kept typing COE) would possibly turn up documents that are hidden/locked away. I would have thought that not every document relating to the AZW would have been made available to military historians and academics alike. A COI would have the power and authourity to access these documents.

It is the possibilty of such documents existing that keeps the light burning about the events at Isandlwana and until that light finally goes out there will be those who will still have doubts.

Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:33 pm

Rusteze...Thanks for the photograph. When I saw it I realized that I have it somehwere in one of my books.

On another note, to you and to othersm, are there photos of Isandhlwana or Rorke's Drift pre-dating 1879 or the British presence? Maybe it's asking too much? But I'd think Isandhlwana would be an intersting site to photograph by an intrepid photographer who had a keen sense of geography and how the land lies. I guess this is getting perhaps into the history of photography in South Africa! Don't mind me but I am always fascinated by very old pix.

Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:11 pm

Rich
There is an interesting book on the history of photography in SA by Dr A D Bensusan called Silver Images which was published in 1966. It is quite hard to get hold of now - I borrowed a copy from the British Library. His extensive collections and archive are in the Bensusan Museum and Library Joburg. If there are any recorded pictures of the battle sites before 1879 I would think the clues are likely to be found there. You may already be aware that Killie Campbell Library (Uni of KwaZulu/Natal) also has an extensive picture archive, much of which can be accessed on line. Bensusan also wrote an article on 19th Century Photographers in South Africa in Africana Notes and News 15 No.6. I have not been able to track down a copy of that and if anyone knows of one I would love to hear of it.
Rusteze

Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 8:03 pm

Dodgermuk
Of course there may be new documents waiting to be discovered. We can only hope that new material comes to light every now and then.

The question I am asking is, just what can Coll expect to emerge from an official C.O.I. that will support his opinion that Durnford should be found to be blameless for the British defeat at Isandlwana?

Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 9:35 pm

Mel,

From reading many of the posts in this forum, as i understand it, Col Pulleine was the man actually in charge of the camp. By tradition, Col Durnfords arrival should have seen him take charge due to his seniorority but he did not take up this option and allowed Pulleine to carry out his duties and orders unchallenged.

As Pulleine was the man in charge, it was his responsibility to carry out the defense of the camp which by according to military experts, he did not do effectly. I believe a site survey carried out by Ian Knight produced evidence of the whereabouts of the British front line due to hundreds of spent bullet cartridges found in a concerntrated area which showed that the British front line was way to far forward of the camp for them to be able to produce an effect defense of the camp. What ever Durnford did or did not do, Pulleine was the man in charge and it was his duty to make sure both his and Chelmfords orders were carried out. If Durnford decided to act of his own accord then again as the man in charge it was upto Pulleine to stamp his authority on the situation and order Durnford to carry out his orders.

From what i can see, Durnford is guilty of exposing the British right flank when he was forced to withdraw but i gather Pulleine fearing a zulu encirclement ordered a withdraw to camp.

Chelmsford is guilty of putting the wrong man in charge of the camp. Could it therefore be speculated that because of military tradition he would have assumed that upon Durnfords arrival at the camp that Durnford would have infact taken command of the camp? and thus assumed that a man with vastly superior military experience than Pulleine would have put up a more effect defence of the camp? or do you think that Chelmsford had no intention of allowing Durnford to command the camp and would have expected Pulleine to be in charge, even though knowing of military tradition?

I can now therefore see where Coll is coming from with his defence of Durnford. If Durnford was in charge of the camp then yes, the responsibility of what took place at the camp was his and his alone but as he was not in charge and just acting as a British officer commanding his section of troops he cannot be acused of being the one who caused the camps downfall, that honour falls with Pulleine and the man who put him in charge, Chelmsford.

Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 10:14 pm

Rich/Rusteze

If any photo of Rorke's Drift before 1879 survives it is likely to have been taken in early 1878, during the boundary commission's deliberations - who knows, perhaps a snap of Durnford and his colleagues? - or perhaps a snapshot survives somewhere in missionary society archives in Norway or Sweden? But I strongly doubt it. With regard to Isandlwana, although it was situated on one of the old traders' tracks, I've yet to come across even a mention of it in anything published before 1879, and I've looked for some time. Hunters and traders must have known the kop, although probably not its name; I don't yet have a copy of Drummond's work but even if he never mentioned it I suspect he knew of it, or at least that part of the route.

I have only ever come across one mention of its pre-war existence, and that was in a reference made after 1879 but referring to a journey past it some years before, by Edward Wilkinson in his editing of his wife's letters in A Lady's Life & Travels in Zululand and the Transvaal during Cetewayo's Reign (1882) in which he recalls riding past it during the early 1870s when he was Bishop of Zululand, never imagining, of course, the terrible events which would unfold there in the future. (I forget his exact words). But a photo of Isandlwana before 1879 turning up? That will never happen.

Dodgermuk

As Mel says, the odd letter or collection of personal papers do still turn up from time to time which refer to the war, but we can't really expect much (if anything) to throw any light of a vital nature now on the battle of Isandlwana. As for official records, tucked away somewhere that haven't seen the light of day and which might open up matters on the battle? No. There are almost unlimited amounts of files of official archives in both GB and S Africa and all are public. They've been gone over countless times by historians, although I reckon you'd need more than a whole lifetime to read them all. I daresay some collections have less well known contents which might - just might - have been treated less carefully than they should by researchers, but you mustn't imagine there are official government or military records which have yet to be seen or released.

Coll

Why on earth would anyone want to allocate resources for a modern Court of Enquiry? An official one, you mean? There are countless - literally countless! - examples of far more recent and certainly more important military episodes which have produced unfortunate scapegoats, many of them very unfairly, and none of them resolved, except by competing military historians. But that's war, and that's history. Outside this little forum, it is hardly a talking point, let alone a matter of great import. That was a terrible day for thousands of soldiers and warriors who were directly involved, and pretty bad for many others across the world. Like thousands of others, poor Durnford died. Some thought him partly or largely culpable. Many others didn't. Most were in no position to comment. The War Office went for the boss, and got rid of him forthwith. He later defended himself publicly but got short shrift. Others, too, saw their reputation suffer, and even more did once historians had had a good dig.

Durnford's two great defenders did their best - and perhaps succeeded in many eyes, as at least Durnford's qualities became well known - and today there is no one single view on his character or his shortcomings, but many varied opinions, which is probably how it should be and nothing will change that - especially a COE!

Peter

P.S. How are your plans for that statue coming on? You could at least have got him an hour in Trafalgar Square, but it's too late now. Wink

P.P.S. Dodgermuk: "...a man with vastly superior military experience than Pulleine ..." Did you really mean to type that?

Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 10:47 pm

Peter,

Given what i have read through the forum, that is the impression it has given me about Durfords military experience compared to Pulleine's. My comment is not a personal opionated one, it is one based on topics read from here in the forum posted by other members.

Is the comment in my original post wrong then?

Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 12:51 am

Wow !

So many points made by my fellow enthusiasts, of great interest, it'll take a little while to get them sorted.

A quick fix ? - I doubt it.

However, as a tease, I'll say, every story has a beginning and an end, but Isandlwana was the middle, so where does that leave us ?

A C.O.I. , then has to judge the whole 'Isandlwana Campaign', from the preparation of officers in the invading columns on fighting the Zulus, to the crossing into Zululand from Rorke's Drift and the operations conducted by the No.3 Column, from there onwards to as far as Chelmsford advanced, but also addition of Col. D.'s No.2. Column.

Peter E.

Sir. You are someone on this forum I trust greatly, and I know you understand what I'm trying to accomplish. As you will also suspect, a modern C.O.I. would never take place, but I'm sure you understand the possible complications, should it occur.

Forgive me, if I am assuming too much, but thinking outside the box, will obviously cause a stir amongst contributors, including your good self.

I'm trying (badly it seems) to break the circle, which seems to go round and round and not progressing forward, which this subject needs to do, or else it will result in a rut, that none of us can get out of.

My apologies to you or anyone else, that my directness offends.

Coll

Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 6:57 am

The trouble is, Coll, you are not being direct. To me, (maybe it's just me) you're speaking in riddles. You are just simply not stating your case for Durnford.

Mike, and others, for instance, have raised many valid reasons for Durnfords failings on the 22nd. You were asked to reply to the points raised.

You have not directly and constructively replied to any of them. You're just repeating your wish for an official COE and apparently hoping that it will, somehow, (you have still not explained how) totally exonerate your hero.

Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 8:10 am

Before we go in full circles again, could I just make a point.
Coll is more than welcome to his opinion on Durnford.
Anyone else is entitled to their view. What I would hope to
avoid is this developing, as in the past, to people losing their
cool and a slanging match happening. After all, we're all friends here.

Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 10:06 am

I think in the interests of a ongoing healthly debate while trying to avoid personal slanging matches, why don't all of us in the forum run our own COI not on the battle itself but on the disputed actions of Col Durnfords roll in it.. Coll can take the place of Edward Durnford, Defending, Mike Snook can be the prosecutor and Alan the president of the proceedings.

It might sound as if it's to be fun and games but it isn't. There has been alot of discussions, debates, arguments and in some instances verbal attacks relating to the actions of Col Durnford on that fatal day and this way it will put all to rest. There is a huge amount of information made available by military historians, academics and enthusiastes for both parties to make a case. I'm sure a real COI would make use of the same information that is available to ourselves.

Allow Mike and Coll to make there cases and for the rest of us to assist either of them where possible. Questions can be put forward to both parties who will do there level best to answer them honestly, truthly and without predujice.

If neither of them are able to make a case based on information that is already out there in the public domain then what chance has a real COI got of making a case if the likes of us lot cant make one here.

It doesn't have to be quick, I'm sure many of us are very busy people but it allows those wishing to, to have there say in an open and structured many. I therefore cannot see why the RDVC couldnt hold it's own COI with the assistance of it's own members.

Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 10:57 am

It is with some trepidation that I enter into this particular lions den but here goes.

It seems to me that, like anyone else in these circumstances, Col wants (on behalf of Durnford) to have his day in court. A wrong (as he sees it) needs to be righted. That is an absolutely legitimate desire and exactly the right way of going about such things in a democracy. It says nothing of course about how likely it is to happen at this remove, or how practical such a thing might be.

The fact that others point out that it has already happened, or rehearse the difficulties, or say that there is no more information to come to light, or feel that such a thing is simply not justified, is also absolutely legitimate. But, whatever the truth, it is inevitable that such comments make the felt desire for "justice" that much greater.

Col may be entirely wrong in his views of Durnford, but his aim of wanting to test the evidence in public under judicial rules is the right way of going about such things and is something we should all, in principle, support. However likely it is to happen.

Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 11:13 am

Dodgermuk,

Hi.

I have to say that I find your defence of Durnford, or rather your denunciation of Pulleine to be wholly misjudged. Durnford was the senior officer and should have taken charge of the camp. Perhaps, had he stayed, with his "vastly superior military experience" (!) the troops might have then been deployed more effectively! Instead he had impetuously rushed out not knowing the truth of the enemy strength or deployment. And he left without even knowing where his ammunition supplies were; and they were, as we know, to be sorely needed later - a staggering error in my view! How you then cast the blame on Pulleine, who had no combat experience, is beyond me!

Tony.

Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 11:54 am

Mel

You are asking something that it is not possible to answer in a single post, without the necessary research, to give a definite, detailed and convincing reply.

I'm not wishing to evade anything, but more than that, I'm not willing to step forward, unprepared, when previous examples of reactions to my posts turned ugly.

Hence, my suggestion for an in-depth investigation in the form of a 200+ page report, from a professional body, detailing the findings of a new C.O.I. (on paper at least, not a court) into the operations of No.3 Column leading to the disaster at Isandlwana.

Do you honestly think I'd lock horns again, at present, on my own, against anyone proven to be more expert in the field ?

Let me ask you -

Do you think Durnford needs to share Chelmsford's blame ?

Why ?

What official document states Col. D. was at fault ?

Is it in archives, recorded as fact ?

Or, was it a slip of the tongue, a comment, an idea put forward, post-Isandlwana, amounting to nothing more than finger-pointing, without official recognition ?

Wolseley, as seen, didn't like what was happening. Why ?

I never got my answer to when and by whom the finger-pointing started, which, as I said, poisoned the well, from then on.

Personally, I'd be very interested to hear your views on matters.

Coll

PS. My directness comment, was to do with the much earlier posts, which I thought might have isolated me on the forum.