The Loose Association of Wargamers

Essex Boy wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 8:45 am .....or his horse was dead?

Didn't know he served with the Gateway.

ochoin wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 12:54 pm Cynic.

He was quite hard done by, as I'm sure you know. Chelmsford & pals set him up as a scape-goat, with charges he found, post-Islandlwana, hard to answer.

And though he had the good Bishop's daughter to defend him, it was Victorian times & no-one listened to mere women, doncha-know.

donald

I've read that he was a bit of a knob, and I've read that he's been scape-goated. I'm therefore fully qualified to conclude that I'm buggered if I know.

E

Durnford's order book re-surfaced long after the event. It had been retrieved from the body & hidden by one of Chelmsford's toadies.

There was no order from the C-i-C placing him in command at Islandlwana so I think that exonerates him. Chelmsford lied.

As for modern tastes, he might well appear as a bit of a sanctimonious Bible-basher so your initial estimate might be accurate enough.

As for your final sentence, I refer you to Simon Blackburn's book:

https://www.amazon.com/What-Really-Know ... 1780875878

donald

ochoin wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 11:11 pm Durnford's order book re-surfaced long after the event. It had been retrieved from the body & hidden by one of Chelmsford's toadies.

There was no order from the C-i-C placing him in command at Islandlwana so I think that exonerates him. Chelmsford lied.

As for modern tastes, he might well appear as a bit of a sanctimonious Bible-basher so your initial estimate might be accurate enough.

As for your final sentence, I refer you to Simon Blackburn's book:

https://www.amazon.com/What-Really-Know ... 1780875878

donald

I'm sure I'm wrong and that your precis of the circumstances must be correct. I trust your diligence and your judgement, although I'm sure Brendan will be along any minute now re Snook.

Good luck

Iain

I can't recall what Snook says about Durnford - my memory may be faulty, but I think he exonerates him and generally gives Chelmsford pretty short shrift.

BaronVonWreckedoften wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 2:25 am I can't recall what Snook says about Durnford - my memory may be faulty, but I think he exonerates him and generally gives Chelmsford pretty short shrift.

I really can't remember. My dodgy memory tells me that Snook gave Durnford a hard time......but I may be mixing up me authors.

From memory (I borrowed the Snook-book so I don't own it), Snook-y spread the blame around.

Chelmsford didn't take the Zulus seriously enough, Pulleine believed fortifications etc were old-hat in a modern rifle-armed infantry world & Durnford was difficult & couldn't follow orders.

I think D.'s nose was out of joint about not being given command of one of the invading columns & he should have stepped up at Isandlwana but instead stood on his dignity & was punctilious about what his duties were or were not.

However, the smear campaign by Chelmsford was real & totally unjustified.

That's as far as my "diligence & judgement" goes, Iain & is probably totally wrong.

I've been wrong once or twice before.....


donald

I can't, won't, believe that you could be serially wrong, Donald.

Did Snook do a bit of a clean-up of his regiment's reputation?

I liked both his books & have been meaning to buy them.

IMO he does like to create a bit of drama to help sales & after all, who'd buy a book with a cover blurb that read, " Same old thing, just re-hashed to make the pedestrian author some money"? He doesn't make things up: he just sees them in light of his own prejudices.

Having said this, I think he plays fair enough & if he comes up with conclusions one does not agree with, then don't agree.

My trouble.......one of my troubles.......is that I seldom agree with anyone about anything.