Posted on 07/10/2022 9:28:05 AM PDT by Rummyfan
I have an original Martini Henry with several hundred rounds.
Had Custer not divided his command, he might well have been able to hold off the Indians. His men carried rifles with much longer range than most of the Indians’ firearms. And if he had brought along the mountain howitzers, well Indians knew better than to mess with troops fielding artillery.
Custer became famous and a Civil War general because of his ‘crazy’ impulsiveness on the battlefield. It brought him fame and success his entire military career, except for his last day.
The kicker was most of the Zulus at Rorkes Drift were in their late 40’s maybe with a few touching 50. That's grandfather age in Zulu society. The British were being charged by in effect senior citizens who kept up the fight from 4pm till dawn of the next day. Incredible endurance and physical condition.
My all time favorite movie. Watch it at least once a year. I think it was Caine’s first movie. And another great one,Second Hand Lion, was his last.
The Battle of Rorke’s Drift blunted and ended The Zulu’s ability to clear out the British from their land. The Zulus had to stop and clear this position, wasting time and energy they could have used to ambush Lord Chelmsfords relief column. Nowadays we call that blunting thier operational reach.
After Rorke’s Drift, the Zulu lost the initiative they gained at Ishadalwana.
“Do up your tunic, man! Where do you think you are? Officer on parade!”
Steyn gets a few things wrong, based on an exhaustive book by Lt. Col. Mike Snook, “Wolves to the Fold.” (The movie did too).
1) Rather than attacking in the open in waves, especially after the first failed assault, the Zulus crept up to the few outer trees and even to the walls themselves to pop up and shoot ineffectively.
2) Chelmsford’s abandonment of the force at Isandlwana came because he never dreamed the Zulu could get behind him. Together, as I recall, the two forces of Col. Pulliene and Lord Chelmsford had about 8,000 men, or more than four times the force at the actual battle. Chelmsford had 6000 men with him miles ahead at what he thought would be the actual camp.
3) Snook shows that the Battle of Isandlwana did not involve the Brits collapsing, but rather their perimeter was three to four times larger than a force of 1,400 men of whom only 800 were British troops, could hold. Had Pulliene built a laager, consolidated his perimeter as would be the case at Roarke’s Drift, he very well could have held off the Zulu to the plodding Chelmsford got moving.
4) There were big problems with ammo delivery at Isandlwana, but none at Roarke’s Drift.
5) Two very important factors, not mentioned either by Steyn or the movie, led to the Zulu retreat at RD: First, the Zulu had not eaten in about two days. They simply were running out of gas. Second, newer research suggests that some, perhaps all the warriors, had ingested a type of organic “upper” and that they all started to crash after 24 hours.
At any rate, to show “Zulu Dawn,” followed by “Zulu” is good, but entirely incomplete. A few months later, Chelmsford returned to Zululand at the head of a united force of over 8,000 armed with Gatling guns and cannon. This time he did not divide his force, and headed straight for Cetswayo’s kraal. The Zulu chief would either have to see all his cattle taken and village burned, or fight Chelmsford’s men in the open. He chose the latter. As soon as the Zulu appeaed, Chelmsford formed a massive square, cavalry & supply/ambulance wagons in the middle. The riflemen were two deep, with lots of ammo, interspaced by cannon and Gatling guns.
The firepower was so awesomely outrageous you know why no one wants to make a movie of Ulundi. NO ZULU GOT WITHIN 30 YARDS of the British square. When the battle ended, and the Brits formed up to move on, a massive square of expended cartridges could be seen. The Brits lost a handful of men to thousands of Zulus and Cetswayo was done.
Isandlwana:
“In the next few minutes, every man who was fated to survive the coming massacre would fly the battlefield. Destiny, luck and horsemanship would decide who would live and who would die. Yet, as the last of the lucky riders spurred away down the ‘Fugitives’ Trail’, several hundred men on foot were still alive and fighting hard. With few notable exceptions, historians have done these men a disservice. In the telling of their tale, the scholars have killed them off easily and precipitately in front of the camp. The clear-cut hopelessness of the situation, the overpowering odds they faced, the renowned martial skill and ferocity of their opponents – all the first glance factors – have driven the historians to their inevitable conclusion: whole companies were slaughtered in a few short seconds. Yet, in truth, it is clear that the Battle of Isandlwana raged long and hard after the flight of the lucky ones.
No white man who fought in the final phase of the battle would live to tell the tale of the desperate stand made by these few hundred stalwarts. Clustered around their officers and sergeants, the men of the 24th Regiment were the backbone of a heroic resistance. Through a succession of largely defective interpretations of the evidence, the story of the last stand of the 24th has almost been lost to history but, for those with the eyes to see, it survives yet. By the application of a little military common sense it can be reasonably accurately reconstructed. When the Zulu main bodies reached the tents, the great majority of the 600 redcoats in the field that day were still alive. They were not scattered over the open veldt before the camp, as many would have us believe. They were formed in close order, they were resolute and they were skilfully led. They were grim, frightened, and knew that they were doomed to die. Above all else though, with the stubborn arrogance that has typified the British infantry over the centuries, they were determined to sell their lives dearly. It was to be a fight to the finish with no quarter asked or given, and these men would take some killing; a lesser foe might not have achieved it. This is the story of those men and of the brave warriors who killed them. By any standard it is a tale of extraordinary high drama.
This is a story of Briton and Zulu, two peoples who fought each other with such remarkable courage that, even before the last shots of 1879 had been fired, it had forged a mutual respect so profound that it would blossom in next to no time into a strong friendship, a relationship that survives to this day and continues to flourish. With the sweeping away of apartheid and the normalisation of Anglo–South African relations, members of the modern regiment are now frequent visitors to Zululand. In our train have come more and more tourists, keen to experience the renowned beauty of the countryside and to pay homage on the great battlefields. Whatever small part we in the Royal Regiment of Wales have been able to play in further cementing the friendship of the British and Zulu peoples we are inordinately proud of, for the man lucky enough to call a Zulu his friend will come to know something of the nobility and majesty of old Africa.”
https://www.scribd.com/book/444093997/How-Can-Man-Die-Better-The-Secrets-of-Isandlwana-Revealed
You don’t think there would have been rioting?
One of the biggest tragedies in my lifetime was that handing over of South Africa to the Communist savages. America lost a very stout ally, and the technological mastery of the South African industry was destroyed.
Who invented the heart transplant, and artificial hearts, basically modern heart surgery. What comes out of SA now is rape and murder victims.
Napoleon and Wellington would have recognized that square . . .
And that whole apartheid thing? No problems with that?
LOL!. “He’s a Pealer 7261 Jones. Come to arrest the Zulus!’’
Yep, though of course theirs was directed against cavalry. This is the first time I can recall a square being used against an infantry defense-—and it only worked because the Zulu had no artillery.
Great point on the infantry defense. Though if the Zulus had firearms at the level of the Lakota Sioux at Little Big Horn, I suspect they’d have made mincemeat of the British. But I can see a square being very effective against superior numbers armed only with assegais and shields.
Fast forward a couple decades, and the Boers had Krupps and Creusot artillery that gave the British fits, even without squares.
I dunno. Brits’ cannons and Gatling Guns would have chewed them up.
Don’t forget the Sioux/Cheyennee, according to archeologist Fox, had superior firearms to the 7th Cavalry based on disposition of shell cartridges.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.