Isandlwana: The defeat that stunned Victorian Britain

[Max Rockatansky]

The 1879 Battle of Isandlwana is the same one depicted in the 1979 movie "Zulu Dawn" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080180/) .

The 1964 Michael Caine movie "Zulu" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058777/) depicts the Battle of Rorke's Drift, a separate battle that took place during the same war.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25728231

The battle of Isandlwana in 1879 - in which a force of 20,000 Zulus annihilated a British contingent of 1,800 men - became a symbol to black South Africans that white domination was not inevitable. The stories are still being told today.

An imposing Sphinx-like mountain stands against a blue summer sky. Dotted along the slopes are mounds of whitewashed stones and granite grave markers.


Mphiwa Ntanzi, his two sons, Ntando and Musa, and their friend Nqaba, are wandering through the long grass that surrounds the graves.


Mphiwa has brought the young men here to pass on the stories he knows of the Zulu victory. Keeping memory alive through oral history is an ancient African tradition.


"These graves belong to the British people," Mphiwa begins, indicating the piles of white stones.


Zulu warrior
A zulu warrior holding a spear and knobkerrie
"The Zulus fought them and won the battle. The British left their dead here on the battlefield and only came back to bury them months later, so each mound has six or seven, or even more, bodies.


"The bones were white and scattered when they came back, so they did not know who was who and they buried them together in mass graves."


He points to a hilltop in the distance. "The Zulus took their dead and buried them on that mountain."


Mphiwa is carrying a rusted spear and a knobkerrie club in his hand, both of which he flourishes as he talks to the young men.


"This is known as iwisa," he says as he sweeps the knobkerrie low over the ground and then raises it to come swinging rapidly downwards.


"The Zulus would attack the knees first and then smash the head or the shoulder." The young men listen intently.


"This was my grandfather's spear," Mphiwa adds, bringing the rusted weapon up to show the young men. "It is known as iklwa."


He shoves the spear forward into the air and draws it back slowly. "That was the sound," he says, "of the flesh sucking at the blade when the warriors pulled it out of the British stomachs."


The defeat at Isandlwana stunned the Victorian world. Was this the beginning of the end of the notion of white supremacy?


For a British public the old controversy over whether Lord Chelmsford or Colonel Durnford was ultimately responsible for the defeat is an ongoing historical debate.


But for Mphiwa and many other Zulus, which British officer was at fault is a sideshow. For them, the memory of the battle is about pride. It is a victory passed down from father to son, like Mphiwa is doing today.


"My grandfather and my great-grandfather fought here," Mphiwa tells me. "My great-grandfather was in the veteran regiment, he had fought in many wars, but this was the first battle for my grandfather."


Through all the years of colonial oppression and apartheid, Isandlwana became more than merely a Zulu victory but a symbol to all black South Africans that white domination was not inevitable and could be defeated.

......morehttp://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/72441000/jpg/_72441718_624top.jpg

[Mister D]

Interesting battle. Great movie. Silly commentary, I must say.


Was this the beginning of the end of the notion of white supremacy?

Seriously? It's good to try and awaken a sense of history, in young people especially, but in our effort to make history "relevant" we sometimes say silly things.

[Mister D]

Those Martini-Henry's packed a wallop though...

“Alas, a spear has been thrust into the belly of the Nation”

-Cetshwayo commenting on the battle

[Heyduke]

20 to 1.8, on the road. What odds would Vegas have given?

There's a litany of dents in the Brit armor. Cromwell. Loss of former colonies (America, Australia, India, etc.); decolonization of Africa and Middle East; The terrible toll of WWI and WWII in blood and gold, etc..

What's the last thing that went through the mind of Princess Diana? The dashboard.

[The Sage of Main Street]

What turnaround did Little Big Horn effect for the Hate Whitey cult? The savages in this atypical battle outnumbered the Great Britons 11 to 1 and were helped along by an eclipse and an incompetent British officer. A more revealing incident was the Battle of Blood River:

Zulu dead: 3,000
White dead: Zero

[Max Rockatansky]

Seriously? It's good to try and awaken a sense of history, in young people especially, but in our effort to make history "relevant" we sometimes say silly things.

I think you missed the point. It was the Victorians who were wondering "Was this the beginning of the end of the notion of white supremacy?" Americans weren't the only ones who believed in "Manifest Destiny". The Brits were pretty big racists as shown in their treatment of their colonial subjects. We threw them out for being assholes and we were white! Think what it must have been like to be black, or, like Gandhi, Indian in those days.

It may have been 1879, but they were will arrogant Redcoats. The loss of 1,800 trained, well-armed British Imperial troops to a bunch of savages armed with spears was a shock to Victorian arrogance.

http://nimg.sulekha.com/others/original700/south-africa-british-zulu-battle-2009-1-23-5-33-40.jpg

[Mister D]

I think you missed the point. It was the Victorians who were wondering "Was this the beginning of the end of the notion of white supremacy?" Americans weren't the only ones who believed in "Manifest Destiny". The Brits were pretty big racists as shown in their treatment of their colonial subjects. We threw them out for being assholes and we were white! Think what it must have been like to be black, or, like Gandhi, Indian in those days.

It may have been 1879, but they were will arrogant Redcoats. The loss of 1,800 trained, well-armed British Imperial troops to a bunch of savages armed with spears was a shock to Victorian arrogance.

http://nimg.sulekha.com/others/original700/south-africa-british-zulu-battle-2009-1-23-5-33-40.jpg

were they?

And it was 800 or so redcoats.

[Max Rockatansky]

were they?

And it was 800 or so redcoats.
If you're talking about whites, it appears to be a 1000 with 750 black auxiliaries. If you are talking total British soldiers, some of native extraction, it was a force of 1750 with 1350 dead.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/zulu_01.shtml

The culmination of Chelmsford's incompetence was a blood-soaked field littered with thousands of corpses. Of the original 1,750 defenders - 1,000 British and 750 black auxiliaries - 1,350 had been killed.

[Mister D]

If you're talking about whites, it appears to be a 1000 with 750 black auxiliaries. If you are talking total British soldiers, some of native extraction, it was a force of 1750 with 1350 dead.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/zulu_01.shtml

I'm talking about redcoats. There were about 800 officers and enlisted men from the 24th Foot present.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm talking about redcoats. There were about 800 officers and enlisted men from the 24th Foot present.

Redcoats = British Army

[Mister D]

Redcoats = British Army

Yes, regular army. Bold were regular.

British Regiments:
2 guns and 70 men of N Battery, 5th Brigade, Royal Artillery (equipped with 2 seven pounder guns).
5 companies of 1st Battalion, the 24th Foot
1 company of 2nd Battalion, the 24th Foot
Mounted volunteers and Natal Police
2 companies of the Natal Native Infantry

http://www.britishbattles.com/zulu-war/isandlwana.htm

[Max Rockatansky]

Yes, regular army. Bold were regular.

You mean the white troops. Got it.

From the pictures I've seen, not all the white guys were actually in red uniforms. I'm presuming that those in red were infantry. Any insights on that?

http://thinredlinemod.blogspot.com/p/about.html

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-kLJwDkayTiQ/T3yQlMCQo0I/AAAAAAAAAKw/P7lv0-BxUis/s320/zz_thinredlinemod_police+men.jpghttp://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MBbtpi8J99I/T3yQcII48qI/AAAAAAAAAJ4/t3Vvk6g1iBo/s1600/zz_thinredlinemod_cavalry.jpg

[Mister D]

You mean the white troops. Got it.

From the pictures I've seen, not all the white guys were actually in red uniforms. I'm presuming that those in red were infantry. Any insights on that?


52 British officers and 806 non-commissioned ranks were killed. Around 60 Europeans survived the battle. 471 Africans died fighting for the British.

Artillery wore green, I believe. Senior officers wore privately purchased uniforms.

[Peter1469]

The concept of White Supremacy and the innate ability of the white man to prevail over others in war is an entirely separate concept from the science of logistics.

Extrapolate that to today- you can dump the racist component. There is only one military on earth that can project a ground force to another continent and indefinitely sustain that force in offensive combat operations.






I think you missed the point. It was the Victorians who were wondering "Was this the beginning of the end of the notion of white supremacy?" Americans weren't the only ones who believed in "Manifest Destiny". The Brits were pretty big racists as shown in their treatment of their colonial subjects. We threw them out for being assholes and we were white! Think what it must have been like to be black, or, like Gandhi, Indian in those days.

It may have been 1879, but they were will arrogant Redcoats. The loss of 1,800 trained, well-armed British Imperial troops to a bunch of savages armed with spears was a shock to Victorian arrogance.

http://nimg.sulekha.com/others/original700/south-africa-british-zulu-battle-2009-1-23-5-33-40.jpg

[Mister D]

The concept of White Supremacy and the innate ability of the white man to prevail over others in war is an entirely separate concept from the science of logistics.

Extrapolate that to today- you can dump the racist component. There is only one military on earth that can project a ground force to another continent and indefinitely sustain that force in offensive combat operations.

There has only been one civilization capable of doing so.

[Max Rockatansky]

The concept of White Supremacy and the innate ability of the white man to prevail over others in war is an entirely separate concept from the science of logistics.

Agreed. The Battle of Isandlwana is an example of how arrogance about racial superiority was overwhelmed by mass of numbers. We saw a similar occurrence in Vietnam where a US soldier, well equipped, well trained and well supported was overwhelmed by natives with punji sticks dipped in shit and living on a few meager handfuls of rice.

Even as recent as the past week or so on this forum, we've seen people post demeaning other cultures by saying they don't appreciate life like "we" do. "They don't value life like we do". As in both the cases of Isandlwana and Little Big Horn, arrogance played as big a part in a resounding defeat as the logistics of mass of numbers. The Zulus, Lakota and Cheyenne valued life just as any other human culture does. They simply and logically realized that a short term loss can be a long term gain.

[Mister D]

I'm not so sure the racial component is necessary in this context. Poor judgment, complacency, etc and other failings play a part in all human affairs including war.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm not so sure the racial component is necessary in this context. Poor judgment, complacency, etc and other failings play a part in all human affairs including war.

Yes, it is important. The Brits thought they were racially superior to the Zulus and, armed with that arrogance, ran roughshod over the native population to the point they revolted.

It was this same racial arrogance which was the impetus for Euro-Americans to commit genocide of the indigenous population in North America during the same time period as the Anglo-Zulu War. The latter of which, as the link previously supplied notes, was unnecessary.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/zulu_01.shtml

Frere had been sent out to to Cape Town with the specific task of grouping South Africa's hotch-potch of British colonies, Boer republics and independent black states into a Confederation of South Africa. But he quickly realised that the region could not be unified under British rule until the powerful Zulu kingdom - with its standing army of 40,000 disciplined warriors - had been suppressed.

So he exaggerated the threat posed by the Zulus to the British, and, when the home government refused to sanction war, took matters into his own hands in December 1878 by presenting the Zulu king, Cetshwayo, with an unacceptable ultimatum. This required, among other things, the disbandment of the Zulu Army, and war was the inevitable result.

Such unilateral action by an imperial pro-consul was not unusual during the Victorian period. So great were the distances involved, and so slow the methods of communication, that British governors often took it upon themselves to start wars and annex provinces.

Lord Lytton, the Viceroy of India, was about to invade Afghanistan without reference to London. But the Zulu conflict was unique in that it was to be the last pre-emptive war launched by the British, prior to the recent campaign in Iraq.

[Mister D]

Yes, it is important. The Brits thought they were racially superior to the Zulus and, armed with that arrogance, ran roughshod over the native population to the point they revolted.

It was this same racial arrogance which was the impetus for Euro-Americans to commit genocide of the indigenous population in North America during the same time period as the Anglo-Zulu War. The latter of which, as the link previously supplied notes, was unnecessary.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/zulu_01.shtml

Yes, they did believe that but the disaster at Isandlwana, like many disasters before and after, was the result of complacency, poor judgment, and just plain bad luck.

[Max Rockatansky]

Yes, they did believe that but the disaster at Isandlwana, like many disasters before and after, was the result of complacency, poor judgment, and just plain bad luck.

I'm a fan of Stephen Coonts' "Philosophy of Luck".

Complacency and poor judgment are sub-topics of arrogance.


The Philosophy of Luck
By Stephen Coonts
(From “Approach” Magazine, July- August 1995)

My father, a naval officer in World War II, used to tell me. “You make your own luck.” I think, in one sense, he was right. That is the kernel of truth Lt. Col. Haldane states in “The Intruders”: “The thing we call luck is merely professionalism and attention to detail; it’s your awareness of everything that is going on around you; it’s how well you know and understand your airplane and your own limitations. Luck is the sum total of your abilities as an aviator. If you think your luck is running low, you’d better get busy and make some more. Work harder. Pay more attention. Study your NATOPS (Air Force-1, the flight manual) more. Do better preflights.”

That’s partly true. You’ll certainly minimize your problems, but there’s a limit to how much luck you can make. In “The Intruders”, Jake wrestles with the whole concept of luck. People tell him he is lucky to have so narrowly escaped disaster, yet he feels unlucky that he got so close to the edge. Luck is a banana peel, a slippery proposition. Are we unlucky because we had an accident, or lucky that it wasn’t worse? Clearly, the perspective from which we view an event has a huge effect on its psychological import to us. This is the point that one of the characters in “The Intruders” makes to Jake referring to investments: “There’s no such thing as bad news. Whether an event is good or bad depends on where you’ve got your money.”

For example, statisticians might tell us there is a probability that the fleet will experience one cold cat shot (cold cat shot – an unsuccessful attempt at launching an aircraft from an aircraft carrier) this year. We all breathe a sigh of relief – only one. Yet the pilot it happens to will come face-to-face with absolute catastrophe, a disaster of the first order of magnitude. One cold cat shot a year in the fleet is a statistic, but one cold cat shot happening to you is a major event in your life – perhaps the major event – a crisis you may not survive.

I never thought much of the old saw, “I’d rather be lucky than good.” I think the good are lucky. Not the morally good, but the professionally good. There is just no substitute for sound, thorough preparation to avoid or cope with foreseeable misfortune. People who drive straddling the center line can get around a few curves, but sooner or later, they’re going to meet a Kenworth coming the other way. That’s not predictable, it’s inevitable.

[Mister D]

I'm a fan of Stephen Coonts' "Philosophy of Luck".

Complacency and poor judgment are sub-topics of arrogance.

The same kind of arrogance or over confidence that resulted in Pickett's Charge, the disaster at Saratoga, Trenton, and a host of others. That's the common denominator here not race.

[Max Rockatansky]

The same kind of arrogance or over confidence that resulted in Pickett's Charge, the disaster at Saratoga, Trenton, and a host of others. That's the common denominator here not race.

Agreed on the part of arrogance in those battles. However, in other battles, such as Isandlwana and Little Big Horn, racial arrogance did play a part.

[Mister D]

Agreed on the part of arrogance in those battles. However, in other battles, such as Isandlwana and Little Big Horn, racial arrogance did play a part.

I agree Victorians had genuinely racist attitudes. I just don't think it was so much a belief in Africa inferiority as it was over confidence in their breech loading rifles.

[Max Rockatansky]

I agree Victorians had genuinely racist attitudes. I just don't think it was so much a belief in Africa inferiority as it was over confidence in their breech loading rifles.
Their European breech loading rifles being superior than a spear. Agreed.

The mistake, of course, being that a breech-loading rifle was good enough to beat 20 spear-chuckers.

[Mister D]

Their European breech loading rifles being superior than a spear. Agreed.

The mistake, of course, being that a breech-loading rifle was good enough to beat 20 spear-chuckers.

It easily could have. The mistake was in thinking all those spear chuckers were in front of them.

[Max Rockatansky]

It easily could have. The mistake was in thinking all those spear chuckers were in front of them.

Underestimating the enemy is an act of arrogance. The key question being, why did the Redcoats underestimate the Zulus?

Why was that, Mister D?

[Mister D]

Underestimating the enemy is an act of arrogance. The key question being, why did the Redcoats underestimate the Zulus?

Why was that, Mister D?

because they used spears against modern rifles and artillery. :smiley:

[Max Rockatansky]

because they used spears against modern rifles and artillery. :smiley:

Anyone who thinks they can hold off 20 combatants armed with machetes and spears with an AR-15 and one magazine much less a breech-loading rifle is an idiot.

[Mister D]

Anyone who thinks they can hold off 20 combatants armed with machetes and spears with an AR-15 and one magazine much less a breech-loading rifle is an idiot.

They mowed the Zulus down with apparent ease. The problem was the British force was flanked and then swamped from the rear.

[Max Rockatansky]

They mowed the Zulus down with apparent ease. The problem was the British force was flanked and then swamped from the rear.

Results count.

[Mister D]

Results count.

Of course

[Peter1469]

Of course

So had the Red Coats adequately protected their flanks, the spear chuckers would have not been able to swarm the Red Coat's rear.

[Mister D]

So had the Red Coats adequately protected their flanks, the spear chuckers would have not been able to swarm the Red Coat's rear.

Exactly. They didn't actually know 1) where the Zulus were until a cavalry patrol ran into them or 2) how a Zulu force deployed. They typically tried to encircle the enemy. So while the British infantry was engaged to their front the "horns" of the Zulu force swept around their flanks. Of course the Zulu "chest" took a beating from .45 caliber dum dum rifle rounds which probably made one helluva a mess but once the British flanks were turned it was over within 20 minutes for most of the redcoats.

[Max Rockatansky]

It's easy to be outflanked by an enemy hugely superior in numbers. So why would a leader put their force in such a situation?

http://sophrosyne.radical.r30.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Custer.jpghttp://www.smallworldmaps.com/media/map-prints/custers-last-stand.jpg

http://www.military-history.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/map1.png

[Mister D]

It's easy to be outflanked by an enemy hugely superior in numbers. So why would a leader put their force in such a situation?

http://sophrosyne.radical.r30.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Custer.jpghttp://www.smallworldmaps.com/media/map-prints/custers-last-stand.jpg

http://www.military-history.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/map1.png


Well, for one thing they didn't expect the Zulus to be where they were. They were also were overconfident with their modern weapons.

Had they formed a square they would have won. Easily.

Custer, on the other hand, was not just outnumbered but outgunned as well.

[Max Rockatansky]

Well, for one thing they didn't expect the Zulus to be where they were. They were also were overconfident with their modern weapons.

Had they formed a square they would have won. Easily.

Agreed about overconfidence, but disagreed making a square would have saved them. They were outnumbered 20-1 with no reinforcements to back them up . Now, a C-47 Puff or AC-130 gunship would have saved them.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQRGuX_a5Fg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73SciCMf9Rw

[Mister D]

Agreed about overconfidence, but disagreed making a square would have saved them. They were outnumbered 20-1 with no reinforcements to back them up . Now, a C-47 Puff or AC-130 gunship would have saved them.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQRGuX_a5Fg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73SciCMf9Rw

In a compact formation? I think massed rifle fire supported by artillery could have broken any charge. Fortifying the camp would have been a good idea too. We know they didn't though.

[Max Rockatansky]

In a compact formation? I think massed rifle fire supported by artillery could have broken any charge. Fortifying the camp would have been a good idea too. We know they didn't though.

Unlike Hollywood, those Martini-Henry single-shot breech-loaders were, while sufficiently powerful to knock a man down, heavy, relatively slow to reload and soldiers would have had a limited supply of cartridges.

The Zulus would have negated most of the advantages of this rifle by moving up close to stabbing range. The casualty count told the story; the Zulus lost almost as many men as the Brits. Since the Zulus numbered about 20,000, they could afford the losses while the Brits could not. Superior firepower works, even if one is outnumbered, but only at a distance. Up close, it's man-to-man.

Like Custer, the odds were heavily against the Brits. In such a situation, the best strategy is to not engage the enemy until more favorable conditions are found.

[Mister D]

Unlike Hollywood, those Martini-Henry single-shot breech-loaders were, while sufficiently powerful to knock a man down, heavy, relatively slow to reload and soldiers would have had a limited supply of cartridges.

The Zulus would have negated most of the advantages of this rifle by moving up close to stabbing range. The casualty count told the story; the Zulus lost almost as many men as the Brits. Since the Zulus numbered about 20,000, they could afford the losses while the Brits could not. Superior firepower works, even if one is outnumbered, but only at a distance. Up close, it's man-to-man.

Like Custer, the odds were heavily against the Brits. In such a situation, the best strategy is to not engage the enemy until more favorable conditions are found.

Advancing in the face of massed rifle fire isn't exactly easy. With a rate of 12 rounds per minute (rounds that would knock a man flat on his ass), Martini-Henry volley fire could be and obviously was very deadly. The Zulu "chest" did not reach the British lines until the flanks collapsed. nor did the British center run out of ammo. They inflicted the vast majority of casualties on the Zulus (several thousand).

[Mister D]

Like Custer, the odds were heavily against the Brits. In such a situation, the best strategy is to not engage the enemy until more favorable conditions are found.

I agree with this. I would only say that the British were careless. Custer was vainglorious.

[Max Rockatansky]

I agree with this. I would only say that the British were careless. Custer was vainglorious.

From what I've read, the British leadership was complacent in their own superiority and, therefore, also showing too much pride in their abilities.

[Mister D]

From what I've read, the British leadership was complacent in their own superiority and, therefore, also showing too much pride in their abilities.

A mediocre bunch it appears in terms of leadership.

[Max Rockatansky]

A mediocre bunch it appears in terms of leadership.

Agreed.

The great thing I love about history is applying the lessons of the past to the present and, by extrapolation, the future.

[Mister D]

Agreed.

The great thing I love about history is applying the lessons of the past to the present and, by extrapolation, the future.

People keep doing the same shit though. :grin:

[Max Rockatansky]

People keep doing the same shit though. :grin:

All too true, my friend. Mostly it's people who don't read history. :flag: