rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic - R.E. OFFICERS IN COMMAND AT BOTH BATTLES ?!

Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:34 am

How can a Colonel in the R.E. end up senior in command at Isandhlwana, while a Lieutenant in the R.E. ends up senior in command at Rorke's Drift ?

Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 7:33 am

Neo,

Was Durnford actually in command at Isandlwana? Or was he merely in command of his section of No. 2 Column?

Here's a quote from my article, which can be found at http://www.rorkesdriftvc.com/Isandhlwana/Durnford.htm

An obvious problem was presented with Durnford's arrival, who was in command? Durnford was a substantive Lieutenant-Colonel; it is feasible that he may not have been informed of his brevet promotion to the rank of colonel on 31st December, 1878. Lord Chelmsford had left behind in command of the encampment Brevet Lieutenant-Colonel Henry Pulleine of the 1st Battalion, 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment of Foot. Pulleine had distinct orders to defend the camp.

Pulleine's substantive rank was that of Major, he was therefore outranked by Durnford.

The same applies to Chard seniority to Bromhead.

Here's another quote this time from http://www.rorkesdriftvc.com/battle/full_defence_account.htm

The command devolved to Chard, whose seniority pre-dated Bromhead's by three years. This done Spalding rode out, and with it him went his chance of military glory.

Chard's commission as a Lieutenant dated from 1868, Bromhead's from 1871.

John Y.

Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:18 pm

Technically the highest ranking officer after Spalding left was Surgeon James Henry Reynolds, of the Army Medical Department. The rank of Surgeon held the comparative rank of Captain, as I understand it.

However, Reynolds was prevented from taking command of fighting troops in the 'field,' by army regulations which stipulated that medical officers were strictly "non combatant"

Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 10:53 am

John,

Of course, whilst Major Spalding did indeed miss the battle, his chance of military glory was only missed because he wasn�t present during the battle. Who is to say that the battle would have had the same outcome if Spalding had been present? Would he have followed the advice that Chard did & so remained static? Or might he have tried to withdraw? Might Major Spalding have attempted to split his command and defend a withdrawal of the wounded whilst placing a defensive line to block the Zulu advance? All interesting questions. I wonder if any one asked Major Spalding how he would have fought the battle? I suspect that those in the position to ask Major Spalding as to what he would have done were too polite. One can only imagine that Major Spalding asked this question to himself many times!

AMB

Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 10:48 pm

AMB

For a brief time there was a somewhat spiteful cloud over Major Spalding�s departure from Rorke�s Drift to Helpmekaar on the afternoon of the 22nd, only two hours before the attack on the post, and coincidentally, during the latter stages of the battle at Isandlwana. In fact, Spalding was temporarily the senior officer at both Helpmekaar and Rorke�s Drift, so that his departure from one to the other should not have been regarded as unusual.

KIS

Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 10:55 pm

Keith,

Whilst I am in no doubt that Spalding was correct in his movements (& in no way 'running away' at any stage), it is interesting to speculate how an inf coy comdr might have fought RD.

AMB

Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 6:55 pm

Well Durnford managed to get command at Isandhlwana because he turned up there and as he was still a regular officer he took over command from Pulleine.

Chard got command at Rorke's Drift by a fate, because Spalding was not present.

But there is another Engineer who managed to get a command and it was of an entire city. General Charles Gordon.

Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 2:25 pm

I am pleased to see that the Royal Engineers once again are seen as being in charge at critical times & battles. In this case Chard was the right person to be in charge on that day in 1879. He listened to advice from Dalton and others , constructed a defence which held , it could be argued that had Maj Spalding been in charge he may have gone for the option to make a run for it , we will never know . The fact that Chard was an RE is neither here nor there, he was the wrong officer in the right situation, the battle took place and is entrenched in our minds forever.

Durnford was cast in the role as a scape goat, again not an infantry officer but an Engineer much loved by his men. As is known a far senior officer tried to apportion blame on Durnford , very easy to accuse a dead man of being at fault when he was not able to defend himself , what i ask would they have done / said had Durnford survived ? , accused him of not being killed with his men ! .

YES i am biased to Chard and Durnford being an ex- Royal Engineer myself , Chard was in charge through circumstance, Durnford was not . It is somewhat ironic that in Zulu Dawn , Durnford was portrayed by an American and in Zulu , Chard was portrayed by Stanley Baker ( hooray !!! , i said Baker not Stanley BAXTER as i have so often stated ! ) and Gordon of Khartoum was again portrayed by an American .

Perhaps one day someone will make a film showing the lives of these men AFTER Jan 22nd 1879 . Surely a rich vein to tap into ? , " Sapper " .

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:38 pm

Dear Neo ,
I think you will find that Durnford was actually a Lt Col at the time of his death , he was promoted to this rank on the 11th Dec 1873 . I am in the camp that hold the belief that Durnford was not in charge at Isandlwana but as so often happened in the past and even today blamed for a circumstance in which he lost his life . Many articles have been published where the person involved is long dead and somewhat " unsavoury elements " are discussed , ( Gordon of Khartoum , Lord Baden Powell ) . I would love a study of post traumatic ailments of the soldiers of the Zulu war campaign , William Jones VC and Robert Jones VC of Rorke's Drift are two such examples .

Chard was as i have said before the wrong officer in the right place on Jan 22nd 1879. Had another officer been in charge of lets say an exciteable nature then perhaps making a run for it would have fallen right into the Zulu`s hands , end of story. It was only his slight seniority over Bromhead that gave Chard command that day , coupled with the vast experience of J L Dalton were the elements that in my view prevailed ( plus a Martini - Henry & bayonet wiv some guts behind it ) . The terrain and amount of supplies available also were a major factor.

Whoever was in command at Isandlwana the ultimate " blame " must lie with Chelmsford ( with due defference to his descendants ) . They were there , we were not , " Sapper " .

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:50 pm

RE : Durnford. I now know he still remains a touchy subject - best not to go there. I saw Isandhlwana the same as Rorke's Drift - a heroic stand against the odds. A word like scapegoat leaves a bad taste in my mouth. If someone is being used in this way when they are no longer alive - makes it worse !

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 9:57 pm

Graham,

What makes you say;Durnford was actually a Lt Col at the time of his death ? When his brevet colonelcy was gazetted more than three weeks prior to his death on 31st December 1878, in the same gazette in which Wilsone Black became a Brevet Lieutenant-Colonel.

As I pointed out in my previous answer to Neo on 16th March; Durnford was a substantive Lieutenant-Colonel; it is feasible that he may not have been informed of his brevet promotion to the rank of colonel on 31st December, 1878.

MacKinnon & Shadbolt in their 1880 work The South African Campaign of 1879 erroneously record the date of his brevet colonelcy as 11th December 1878, the same day as Frere's Ultimatum.

Just interested to explore what appears to be your contention on my previous posting.

John Y.

Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 2:30 am

Once again the superior knowledge of J Young comes to the fore . I am always a little uneasy about the word " brevet " when talking rank John , in your own reply you say he may not have been aware of his rank of Col RE , i have understood him to have been a Lt Col RE when was killed on Jan 22nd 1879. Rolling Eyes

, again we are told for instance that MABIN was a Sgt on Jan 22nd but records prove he was a C / Sgt having been promoted to this rank in 1875 , thus ahead of Frank Bourne making Mabin the SNCO at Rorke's Drift that day .

I am pleased though that the " talk " has come back to points of intrigue and debate on matters concerning the Zulu war , and thank John for correcting this " hiccup " of mine regarding Durnford`s rank , will you accept John that G W Mabin ( later Sgt Major ) was indeed a C / Sgt on the 22nd Jan 1879 and in terms of seniority the SNCO at the mission station that day ? . " Sapper " .

Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 1:46 pm

Re: Command at Rorke's Drift.....

From what's been written, it appears that command at RD went to Chard because of "seniority". Yet, yesterday, I came across a blurb in a magazine where it was noted that the reason Bromhead wasn't in command that day was because he was "hard of hearing". I guess this was meant to imply that there was a discussion on command and that Bromhead felt that with his lack of hearing by default Chard should be top man. Now is there anything to this reason that came up?

Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:44 pm

All,

Two thoughts.

1. Mabin�s rank. Interested to hear that records prove that he was a C/Sgt as of 1875 and thus senior to Bourne. To me this looks very odd. Men who are sub rank senior to other men placed in comd over them do not let this go easily! Are we missing records of any de-motion of Mabin? SNCOs in this period of history were pretty fluid in their moving up and down the ranks.
2. Chard. I understand that Maj Spalding placed Chard in comd on seniority. Yes, Bromhead suffered from poor hearing, but his lack of seniority lost him the comd of RD, not his lack of hearing.

Comments most welcome!

AMB

Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:41 pm

1. Mabin was held the rank because he was a senior clerk - Bourne as a Colour Sergeant - the SNCO in an infantry company, today he would have been a Company Sergeant Major - he would have commanded his own soldiers in B Company. There is no augment.

2. Lets kill this story about Bromhead's hearing - it was mentioned by Wolesley in disparaging manner. Bromhead was a musketry instructor - in those days ear defenders were not worn. I suspect most infantry officers of that period suffered from slight deafness. Afterall, Bromhead received two high gradings at Hythe - there was nothing wrong with his capabilities as an infantry officer.