Isandhlwana; Facts About the Battle

[Texas Star]

Just like in respect to the Little Big Horn, I would mistrust anyone who claims he knows why the battle turned out the way it did.

Both in case of the Little Bighorn and Isandhlwana, which interestingly happened just a few years apart, the fact that the losing side was completely wiped out (in Custer's case at least that part of the command on Last Stand Hill), and the winning side was not a "literate" culture in the Western sense, makes reconstructing both the sequence of events and any cause-and-effect conclusions quite tricky.

In both battles actual "schools of thought" developed over the last century as to what "went wrong", and competed with each other. In case of Isandhlewana, arguments have been made about the lack of alertness, deployment of troops, lack of scouting, the type of ammo, the ammo boxes and their closures, quartermaster rigidity in resupplying troops with ammo, etc.

None of them is probably wrong in the aspects they focused on, but I think it's impossible to prove that "this was THE reason".

I think that all of those reasons applied, but until I saw that program, I wasn't aware that many troops had ammo available, but had extraction problems and not enough light. They recreated low light conditions on a shooting range and showed how that affected accuracy as they fired Martini-Henry rifles in the gloom. Some of the darkness was from clouds of black powder smoke. Soldiers had trouble seeing some of the Zulu until too late.

A few years later, longer levers gave added extracting power, and I think the brass also improved. (And I suspect that .45-70 ammo used against Spain in 1898 was better made than that fired at Sitting Bull's warriors.)

And I don't think an alarm was sounded in time. The British were not standing-to, just going about their usual business in camp. Those gullies gave the Zulu opportunity to get in much closer than was expected. And I think the troops were astounded to be attacked by primitive "savages" who they probably thought would be cowed by their presence. They just thought their camp was too strong to tempt the enemy.

It was a combination of these factors that led to the Zulu victory.

The Boers showed in 1838 that alert European parties of reasonable size and using good tactics could defeat overwhelming numbers of Zulu. Apart from putting their trek wagons (like US covered wagons) in laager, their men rode out on their ponies and rode around the Zulu, firing into them. They 'd fire, withdraw and reload, and repeat. And added volleys from the wagons were also effective. Boer marksmanship has also been famous.

At Rorke's Drift, the Zulus had many rifles taken at Isandlwana and were shooting down into the fort. No one has mentioned that here.

 

[Texas Star]

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryWkDAo7CNA[/ame]


The TV program. Watch it. It's quite good, and pretty objective, I think. It's worth taking the time to view this.

Various scholars participated, inc. forensic anthropologists. One scientist seen had a relative/ancestor killed there.

Note the scene where they showed that they found many pull tabs for the inner seals from the opened ammo boxes. And look carefully at the carbine used to pound off the front of the boxes. It has the later, longer lever, not used at the battle. Not that that affected the demo: I'm just noting that that carbine was made at least a few years later. Apart from the longer lever, it was probably identical to those used in the battle. The rifles fired in the museum range do have the correct, shorter levers.

 

[Absalom]

A bit late now, but I'll watch it tomorrow.

A final thought before it's off to bed:
I think in general, in the single-shot rifle age, good command and control and a position and tactics that allowed taking advantage of the superior range and accuracy of firearms determined the ability of Europeans/white Americans to hold out against larger numbers of native warriors.

The Boers at Blood River had it, so did the Brits at Rorke's Drift.

The British camp at Isandhlwana, on the other hand, was never meant to be a battle position, but a base camp while Chelmsford rode out and about with part of his troops looking for the enemy. For all the reasons Texas Star listed, they weren't ready for the fight.

Custer also never managed to transition to a proper defensive posture on Last Stand Hill once his attack collapsed when he realized the size of his blunder. Some historians don't think very many Indians actually died in the battle; I've read numbers as low as 20-30, based on an analysis of Indian burials after the battle. Milling around in a giant cloud of dust from both the horses on the dry summer soil and the black powder smoke, and being subject to clouds of indirect arrow bombardment, Custer's soldiers (just like the Brits mentioned by Texas Star) may not have seen much to shoot at before they went down.

Reno's command in the valley almost met the same fate, but once the survivors were able to gain the heights and, largely through Benteen's leadership, were able to stabilize the hilltop position, they were able to hold until the enemy withdrew.

Again, command and control was decisive.

 

[williamlayton]

Hummmmm---as in all of history----the dead are still dead and the living have no clue.
Monday morning QB's are a dime a dozen.
Blessings

 

[Gamecock]

Getting there firstest with mostest usually carries the day.

 

[Arik]

It is quite possible that you and I have different cultural and racial backgrounds. I am of British ancestry and may see matters differently than some here.

But I did write a paper on the Zulu in Anthropology class in college and may know that tribe a little better than you do.

Their "courage" was at least partially the result of knowing what their chief would do if they didn't follow orders blindly. He once marched a regiment (impi) of them over a cliff, just to impress a visitor with how powerful his authority was.


From founder Shaka-on, Zulu kings were ruthless conquerors of neighboring tribes and were not pleasant neighbors. They slaughtered a group of peaceful Boers lured into their main village and attacked the trek wagons of the survivors at Blood River on Dec. 16, 1838, the Day of the Covenant. The Boers/Afrikaaners prayed and promised God that they would build a church there if he allowed them victory. This was known as the Church of the Covenant. I don't know if it's still there.

Remember, these largely-Dutch descended people were using muzzle loading rifles.

This subject breaks down along largely demographic lines and how one sees matters now will vary with the reader. I think it's apparent where my sympathies lie. If some differ, so be it.

But you are overlooking something if you disparage that valiant defense at Rorke's drift against overwhelming hordes of Zulu. The Victoria Cross is not awarded lightly. It is the UK equivalent of our Medal of Honor. If 11 of them were awarded for that battle, it was obviously more than mere savages being slaughtered by massed rifle fire!

A better case can be made against the British in the Anglo-Boer wars. I do have some sympathy for the Boer cause.

BTW, "Boer" just means, "Farmer." It is largely inaccurate now as most Afrikaaners have the usual range of modern jobs.

I have no English or Anglo Saxon background. ..or African for that matter.

The Zulu could be as ruthless or as friendly as they wanted. Doesn't make it right but it's their land. The English came to Africa (so did the Dutch), Africa didn't come to England. The were the "invaders" This has always been like that. Even if you go back to ancient Greek and Rome

 

[federali]

War Souvenir

I have a 577-450 Martini Henry cartridge in my collection that's a battlefield pickup from the Zulu wars. It's a wrapped cartridge with a separate head or cap enclosing the rear. The cartridge is in fair to poor condition but has some history behind it.

 

[GatorFarmer]

Going by memory, there were a number of British survivors who escaped and also some auxillary troops who escaped. I think one of the officers from the British rocket battery made it out.

Custer met his end in 1876, the Zulu war was in 1879.

The British did have artillery. Both conventional guns and Congreve rockets. The latter are what were responsible for the "rocket s red glare" in the Star Spangled banner.

By the last battles, the British brought in Gatling guns. In Colonial warfare Gatlings, and later Maxims, worked well to destroy native formations. See the Battle of Omdurman where Churchill was present.

Napoleon IV, Imperial Prince of France, died in close combat during the Zulu war.

The British were relatively benign empire builders who introduced law, stability, hygiene, and tried to build infrastructure. Well usually relatively benign....the Boer thing turned very nasty for a while. Now if you want to see some brutal imperialism of the time take a look at the U.S. Army in the Philippines.

 

[EQGuy]

Mention has been made about dim light conditions making accurate fire difficult. I have participated in a few National Black Powder Cartridge Rifle Silhouette championships at Raton NM. If conditions are right when firing commences with 56 rifles on the line it becomes nigh impossible to see the targets 200 to 500 meters away through the clouds of black powder smoke.

 

[Dennis The B]

As with any battle, there is never a sole reason for the victors winning the day, or the vanquished losing the day. The confluence of factors not necessarily direct, are what determine the victor. The speculation of whether deployment of Gatling guns and Congreve rockets remains just that. Gatling guns overheated; Congreve rockets failed to ignite, and missed targets quite often.

In any battle, it's the desire to win that mostly carries the day. Gaius Caesar's win at Silesia against Vercingetorix is a prime example of an outnumbered Roman army being able to carry the day against Gauls attacking on two fronts. So being outnumbered, even in large numbers doesn't guarantee victory for the larger force.

While Cetshwayo's Impi were highly motivated to win, and get back to harvesting crops, the British were in just another stage of a larger campaign against the Zulu.

General George Patton didn't originate this axiom, but is famous for this: A good plan violently executed immediately, is better than an excellent plan executed later.

 

[walkin jack]

I have never known a lot about the history surrounding this incident. In fact reading this thread has increased what I know about 100 times. I did see the movie and I remember thinking that those British guys never had so much as a glimmer of a chance no matter how well armed just because of sheer numbers of Zulu warriors. And I also remember wondering just how accurate all that was and what changes in actual history were made for dramatic effect. I was aware that a lot of the "FACTS" of that event were left out or distorted into what I'd call an oxymoron; historical based fiction.

This thread has enlightened me and I found it very interesting. Thanks fellers!

 

[Old TexMex]

Interesting that the researchers bring the use of drugs into the equation. It might indicate that Mulvaney, Otheris and Learoyd should steer clear of Denver even though they survived the Pathan, what with cannabis so readily available to the natives.
However, the black powder effect considered along with the cannabis use, I must say...."smokeless" seems to be the way to victory (in the long term).

 

[DWalt]

One factor often blamed for the Custer command's unfortunate fate was poor marksmanship on the part of the troops, and inadequate firearms familiarity and handling skills in general. Supposedly at that time, the typical frontier soldier fired only a few rounds a year, if any, and hitting a human-sized target consistently beyond point blank range was improbable. There was no such thing as fire discipline in combat. After the LBH, Army marksmanship training and more range time was supposedly given much more emphasis, along with fire discipline.

 

[williamlayton]

Everybody has invaded or been invaded by everybody else and no one--except Israel---has been promised a land.
Let's leave territorial gain out of this.
Those that do not grow will be conquered---it is much like redistribution of wealth ---in 3 years it will be back in the same hands.
Blessings

 

[da gimp]

The Zulus had, if I recall, a 12 to 1 numerical advantage. Against single shot rifles prone to jamming...that will do the job.

Ghandi was not who most think he was. Subhas Chandra Bose was arguably doing more. He even rised an army of national liberation...backed by the Japanese and Nazis...

Millions and millions of Indians died in religious wars after Britain left. Ghandi approved of the violence against Muslims. He was also just one weird little man with some strange ideas. Much of India is still squalid and unsafe.

India ,like much of Brit African & Far Eastern colonies, was promised their independence after WWII, if they supported the Allies fight against the Nazis & Japs. Once the war was won, the Brits, like the French, reneged on their promises of freedom to their colonies.

In India, The Brits set the Hindus fighting the various Moslem groups & vice versa. It wasn't until Ghandi & the Moslem leaders saw through it & refused to fight each other , that the Brits were forced to leave. Similar tactics were used by them throughout the Middle East , one sect set to fight against the others............granted most of these groups didn't need much encouragement to start their fights......

Ghandi has to be one of the greatest men to have lived in the last several hundred years........ranking with Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and M.L. King, Ghandi dared to reach for freedom and got it too.

The Brits atoned for a lot of their sins by standing up to Hitler pre 1942, that they did so well. If Britain had fallen, I'm not sure we could have successfully invaded Europe............if they hadn't held on, the world as we know it wouldn't exist

 

[zzzippper]

While Cetshwayo's Impi were highly motivated to win, and get back to harvesting crops, the British were in just another stage of a larger campaign against the Zulu.

Just to clarify, farming was women's work, Zulu men did not farm. But warfare may have disrupted the women's work, I don't know.

The weapon most feared by the Zulus was the British bayonet which was quite long. When attached to the Martini Henry it was essentially a lance with greater reach than the assegai. The assegai was originally a throwing spear but was modified into a stabbing weapon by Shaka when he devised the bulls horn tactics. The Zulu shield was also weaponized, the bottom tip was used to smash an enemy's supposedly bare feet. The Brits wore boots.

Many of the Zulu rifles had been captured or traded from the Boers 20+ years earlier and were in bad condition. Zulu warriors were also not noted for their marksmanship training.

 

[zzzippper]

Everybody has invaded or been invaded by everybody else and no one--except Israel---has been promised a land.
Let's leave territorial gain out of this.
Those that do not grow will be conquered---it is much like redistribution of wealth ---in 3 years it will be back in the same hands.
Blessings

Bill, you really haven't added anything to the discussion except call us Monday morning quarterbacks and what not to talk about. If you know more than we do about the subject please chime in.

 

[GaryS]

At Rorke's Drift, the Zulus had many rifles taken at Isandlwana and were shooting down into the fort. No one has mentioned that here.

This was a scene in the movie, but that's not the way it happened in real life. The Zulus at Rorke's Drift were not the same Impi that had defeated the British as Isandlwana. They were a "reserve" unit made up of younger inexperienced warriors and some older warriors.

The leadership was not the same either, the commander of the Zulu was not the same commander who defeated Chelmsford's column.

The Zulus were not trained riflemen, so their shooting was inaccurate and sporadic, not really effective.

One reason the British prevailed at Rorke's Drift was that they used fixed fortifications. Despite what Patton said, a well armed infantry behind a fixed fortification can hold off a superior in numbers force. More so if the defenders have better armament and training. See also, Battle of the Alamo and Battle of New Orleans. American riflemen in both cases devastated the enemy.

Whether the British should have invaded Zululand is a different question.

 

[GaryS]

The weapon most feared by the Zulus was the British bayonet which was quite long. When attached to the Martini Henry it was essentially a lance with greater reach than the assegai. The assegai was originally a throwing spear but was modified into a stabbing weapon by Shaka when he devised the bulls horn tactics. The Zulu shield was also weaponized, the bottom tip was used to smash an enemy's supposedly bare feet. The Brits wore boots.

Many of the Zulu rifles had been captured or traded from the Boers 20+ years earlier and were in bad condition. Zulu warriors were also not noted for their marksmanship training.

For much of history, the British considered a rifle with bayonet attached to be a lance. They didn't practice sustained fire or rapid reloading. Actually, most European armies deployed that way, but the British probably persisted in using that doctrine for a longer period of time.

In 2004, a British Army unit in Basra, Iraq ran out of ammunition when they were ambushed. Their solution was to fix bayonets and have at the enemy.

 

[Absalom]

Bill, you really haven't added anything to the discussion except call us Monday morning quarterbacks and what not to talk about. If you know more than we do about the subject please chime in.

Well, as some famous philosopher once said:

"Those who don't learn from history are doomed to annoy those who find it interesting."

Or something like that.