The Battle of Isandhlwana, Explained, video

[Texas Star]

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


Those of you who thought that the Zulus defeated the British at Isandhlwana only because the troops couldn't get the ammo boxes opened in time will want to view this more complete explanation.

Spelling of the name of the mountain/battle has varied, the Zulu not having a written language and British spelling being an attempt to phonetically reproduce the sounds. I've used one spelling, which I think is that of Victorian times. There are newer spellings of some African words.

Masai was the spelling of that tribe, far to the north of the Zulu. Now, the PC people sometimes want it spelled as Maasai.

Whatever...enjoy.

And see our topic here today about Korea to see the thread drift that produced a video with the closing scenes of, "Zulu", the 1964 movie that made Michael Caine a major star. Thanks to Bigwheelzip for that post.

 

[Targets Guy]

20 to 1 are never good odds.

 

[les.b]

Thanks for the post, T-Star!!

Best Regards, Les

 

[Wyo]

Interesting. A book that came out years ago called "The Washing of the Spears" had quite a good explanation of the battle and the disposition of the troops. Whatever ammunition and weapons problems they might have had (sort of reminds you of some of the Custer myths doesn't it?) I always thought they had tried to defend too much unnecessary real estate. Later battles of the war, especially the last one, clearly showed that relatively small numbers of troops, properly managed, could successfully defend against huge numbers of Zulus. The battle at Rorke's Drift Showed the same. No doubt there were a number of factors that led to the British loss, but I believe the most important single contributor was simply the use of bad tactics by the British officers.

 

[Texas Star]

Interesting. A book that came out years ago called "The Washing of the Spears" had quite a good explanation of the battle and the disposition of the troops. Whatever ammunition and weapons problems they might have had (sort of reminds you of some of the Custer myths doesn't it?) I always thought they had tried to defend too much unnecessary real estate. Later battles of the war, especially the last one, clearly showed that relatively small numbers of troops, properly managed, could successfully defend against huge numbers of Zulus. The battle at Rorke's Drift Showed the same. No doubt there were a number of factors that led to the British loss, but I believe the most important single contributor was simply the use of bad tactics by the British officers.

I read that book, by, I believe, Donald R. Morris. It may be hard to locate today, but is worth some effort.

 

[Dennis The B]

Zulu Dawn was overly stylized, and had enough errors to fill a book, although the producers were correct when they stressed that the British split their forces before knowing the strength and disposition of the Zulu.

I was never a fan of Burt Lancaster, and his portrayal of Colonel Durnford allowed him to graze his way through the entire movie. The entire movie was an amalgamation of stereotypical British characters.

The movie wasn't quite so "anti-empire" as 1968's "The Charge of The Light Brigade".

 

[jimmyj]

Did I understand from this video that less than 60 British soldiers survived this massacre and no foot soldiers survived ?I was under the impression that all the British troops were killed.

**** I looked up this battle on the internet (my one working (?)brain cell kicked in) and discovered that quite a few British soldiers escaped !
Hopefully this has learn Jimmy that Hollywood doesn't always use the historical facts

 

[Texas Star]

Zulu Dawn was overly stylized, and had enough errors to fill a book, although the producers were correct when they stressed that the British split their forces before knowing the strength and disposition of the Zulu.

I was never a fan of Burt Lancaster, and his portrayal of Colonel Durnford allowed him to graze his way through the entire movie. The entire movie was an amalgamation of stereotypical British characters.

The movie wasn't quite so "anti-empire" as 1968's "The Charge of The Light Brigade".

I think empire-bashing is in vogue now. The movie and TV people are generally Socialists, as in Hollywood, and there's a lot of class envy.

 

[Texas Star]

In the video, I learned about the solar eclipse making it hard to shoot well, esp. as the enemy was dark, already.

And the Zulu witch doctor explained the use of drugs among the warriors. That was also new to me.

BTW, many officers wore dark blue coats, not the the red of the films.

The officers in, Zulu used Webley MK VI revolvers, not made until 1915! Older ones seem in short supply . I've handled a rod-ejecting Webley that resembled the Colt DA Frontier model, but probably with a more rugged action. Adams and Tranter revolvers would also be used, as were Colts.

The author of, King Solomon's Mines was a Zulu War vet and he armed his characters with Colt SAA .45's. He had probably seen them used in South Africa; maybe owned one. He knew FAR more about guns than did Sir Arthur C. Doyle of Sherlock Holmes fame. Even in, The Lost World, Doyle couldn't be bothered to learn about suitable guns.

I was very disappointed in that, and with his portrayal of Prof. Challenger as an arrogant bully. I think New Zealand actor Peter McCaulay was wise to let his portrayal of Challenger on TV mellow as the seasons advanced. Oh: he used a Colt .45 SAA, but the actor said he liked the gun because he likes American Westerns! However, a real Challenger might well have chosen that gun for practical reasons.