Talk:Anglo-Zulu War
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||||||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
 |
This article is part of the "Wars of Africa" set of articles nominated for Version 0.7. Discuss this nomination, or see the set nominations page for more details. |
An event in this article is a January 11 selected anniversary
There are three articles in Category:Battles_of_the_Anglo-Zulu_War [1], perhaps someone could link to them from this article? Loopy 08:44, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Great job, Loopy, on Battle of Eshowe. But I believe this page should be called the Siege of Eshowe - there were two battles, but one was Colonel Pearson going to Eshowe, and one was the relief column, and neither were in Eshowe. Historians, please ? Wizzy…☎ 15:15, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've responded in the Eshowe talk page about the siege. Also, I agree regarding the category itself - there are a few more engagements (Hlobane, Gingingdlovu, Ulundi) to cover, and I hope to write or at least start articles on all of these soon, but we probably don't need an entirely new category for only 6 articles. Anyone else have thoughts on this? Loopy 21:10, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "beacon the boundary"
This phrase and others are present in this article, but I have no certainty as to what it really means. Could someone make this a link to something useful, or else rephrase this to more commons terms? Shenme 06:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Well done for the article, I however find it quit confusing. I would recommend a historical map to be drawn, and a simplistic overview of the tribes, their politics and other involved
parties. Politics are totally absent from this article. Instead of going back on the previous 50 years, it would of been interesting to give a more general vision of the regions politics, say over the last 200 years. 81.130.184.165 11:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)jom
[edit] Beginning of the end?
My history teacher mentions that the Anglo-Zulu War was the "beginning of the end of the British empire." Or, more specifically, that the Battle of Iswalhada was the beginning of the end. He said that the setting sun during the end credits of Zulu Dawn signsla an end to the famous phrase "the sun never sets on the British empire." Is this true? Thsi article says that the war ended in defeat for the Zulus. Can anybody tell me clearly - is my teacher an idiot or is he in some way correct? - Hbdragon88 05:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- I would be inclined to disagree - ultimately the British were highly successful in this war and that, along with the later wars against the Boers, consolidated British control of South Africa and reaffirmed their position in Africa. Post Anglo-Zulu War the Empire grew further and in around 1900 you could argue that it was at its peak - the real beginning of the decline of the would be WWII. --Loopy e 05:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Added detailed analysis of the Zulu Army, will do same with British.
Added some detail on the contenders. There is a statement in the background text that the Zulu king, Cetshwayo had equipped some of his regiments with firearms. That is false. Morris' "Washing of the Spears" offers no such confirmation, and in fact, Shaka, Cetshwayo's uncle dismissed guns as ineffective when faced with charging warriors. See Morris pg 80. In fact few of the Zulu used guns prior to the war. A large number were captured after the Isandhlwana victory, but Zulu marksmanship was typically poor and their use had little more than nuisance value.
[edit] Unfinished article ?
The article ends with "To answer that question we must now turn to the anatomy of the redcoat army that confronted the Zulu impis."
Either information should be added that does just that, or the sentence should be removed. Hirudo 18:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. It's odd. I'll remove it. Paul B 14:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 'Anglo'
Technically, the term 'Anglo-Zulu' implies it was an English-Zulu War. This, as we know, was definitely not the case as it was a British-Zulu war. I believe the term Anglo should be changed in this particular article.
"Anglo-Zulu War" is the technical term used by historians for the war, like "Anglo-Boer War". As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it should not really be crusading for the revision of historical terms. That should perhaps be argued in historical journals. SteveH 08:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Redcoat
Perhaps the term "Redcoat" should be removed at this juncture, since red uniforms were not in vogue amongst the British since the Napoleanic wars. It is not exactly a neutral term, conjuring, as it does, a perjorative sense of the British.
- I do not see it as perjorative, but perhaps those unfamiliar with the battle would prefer a more neutral term. Wizzy…☎ 15:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps even those familiar with be battle would prefer a mure neutral term. I am open to correction, but I believe that one of the regiments had blue uniforms. SteveH 08:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral point of view?
The section about the ultimatum needs to be rewritten, as it violates the principle of a neutral point of view. Saying that Cetshwayo was "in a defiant mood", for example, is just not true, and is contradicted by numerous historical sources, such as Bourquin's article . SteveH 08:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "here they come..."
In the page about Rorke's_Drift Sergeant Henry Gallagher is quoted as saying, 'Here they come, as thick as grass and as black as thunder!' On the Anglo-Zulu_War page a defender at Rorke's Drift is claimed to have said, "here they come, black as hell and thick as grass." I would guess that only one is correct.
[edit] Spain And Britain
The outcome of the ten year war compare to the Zulu war is very bad reputation for the british
Not really, although the British lost face at Isandwalah, this was quickly forgotten by most people when news of Rorkes Drift and its defense came in. British prestige was then restored in the successful invasion and subjugation of Zululand over the next year or so. I dont see what Spain has to do with anything... Sheep21 17th March, 6.24am
[edit] Dodgy 'facts'
I've just browsed the main page for a minute or two and already two howlers leapt out - one of which I've amended. The colour illustration at the top of the page was described as being from 'The london Illustrated News'. That is rubbish. Firstly it's in colour, not prevalent in newspapers in the 1880s and secondly it's actually by a contemporary artist whose name escapes me but his work is instanly recognisable. Secondly, the piece states that at the battle of Rorke's Drift the zulus withdrew leaving 350 dead and '500 wounded who were later killed by the British'. True, after the battle wounded zulus were dispatched at bayonet point, but where the figure of 500 comes from I'd love to know?!!!!
[edit] Supremo
Excellent article. The word "supremo" under "command and control" seems unnecessarily flip and detracts from the great analysis. Would the word "leader" do? Or "commander?"
[edit] Relevance
How is the long section about Shaka's reforms relevant to this article (not to mention that the texts here and at Shaka look like separated twins). I mean, it is of course relevant in a sense, but should the article about the Anglo-Zulu War include really such a detailed rendering of this stuff? Edricson 15:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Buffalo
The article implies that the Britsh used buffalo as beasts of burden. I hate to disabuse someone of their slightly romantic notions of Africa, but African Buffalo are exceptionally fierce animals. With good reason, they are considered the most dangerous of the "Big Five" and would certainly not have been used for transport. Im afraid that job went to tried and trusted oxen.
I also agree with some comments above about the use of the term "redcoat". At best its vernacular and slang, inaccurate as many soldiers did not wear red tunics at all, and outdated as red was imminently to be replaced with khaki. At worst carries some derogatory connotations. Neither of these are fitting for an encylopedia.
Jonewer 12/01/2007 20:07 hrs GMT
[edit] Anatomy and assessment of the British forces
I pulled this following section out of the article; it clearly needs serious work and I dont have the time/expertise to do it myself I'm afraid. --RaiderAspect 02:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
(This seems very suspect. Citation Needed!- someone please modify!)
The Zulu War should have ended quickly and then disappeared into obscurity like most colonial conflicts in Africa. The surprising Zulu victory at Isandhlwana ensured that it would be remembered for a long time. Opinion on the performance of the British forces has varied over the years. There has traditionally been much focus on the defense of Rorke's Drift, immortalized in countless writings, a wonderful Zulu war historian is one Adrian Greaves, who has published many books, including Crossing the Buffalo, most recently military scholar Victor Davis Hanson's 'Carnage and Culture", (2001) and in the 1960s movie "Zulu" starring Michael Caine. Subsequent years have seen more focus on the Zulu side, as captured in yet another film, "Zulu Dawn." Armchair strategists and war gamers have likewise mulled over the conflict for decades, and tourist, hobbyist and historian alike still amble about in the shadows of the old battlefields.
Ultimately, the armchair analyst convinces only himself, but shifting opinions have not always been kind to the British. Harsher views see the British effort as dangerously cavalier and bumbling, epitomized by the infamous but apochryphal belief that ammunition boxes could not be opened at Isandhlwana - they could be kicked open! Critics also claim that the British fatally divided their forces, enabling the Zulu to concentrate on each invading column in turn. That a modern army with rifles and artillery could not make short work of the illiterate native host is seen as proof of reckless underestimation of the enemy and slipshod preparation. On the reverse side, are those who lionize British exploits, most notably at Rorke's Drift, and minimize the Zulu successes as mostly luck.
A balanced analysis of the campaign however raises questions about many of these claims and approaches. Far from cavalierly strolling into Zululand for a quick victory before tea, it is clear that the British took the Zulu very seriously and their preparations were more than adequate in the context of the time. British logistics were ponderous but not impossible to manage, and they were well equipped with modern rifles, Gatling guns, and artillery. The 3-pronged invasion strategy did not represent a fatal weakening of forces. To the contrary, each column was more than adequate to defeat a Zulu force many times its number through massed firepower, and the 3-prongs aided logistics and enhanced maneuvering room. The overall British strategy of advance on the enemy capital was a reasonable one that had worked countless times before - bring direct pressure to bear on the opponent and force him to fight, where modern weaponry could shatter the cohesion of tribal ranks.
-I Agree with this edit
I have been sketching something that is a bit more fit for purpose. Can people pls read the below and let me know their thoughts? It needs spall-chuking and referencing, so is still a work in progress.
Troops
Most of the British line regiments still wore scarlet tunics that seem more suited to an Aldershot parade ground than to the African veld. The old pattern uniforms were already an anachronishm, with troops in India wearing Khaki. The red tunic and white sun helmets were not as poor camoflage as may be imagined, when faded the tunics blended well with the harsh red and organce soil of Zululand the helmets did not remain white for long. In short, British troops had a much more “lived-in” look on campaign than on parade.
The British could also must native levies in the form of the Natal Native Contingent (NNC). Given the degree of ingrained racsim in victorian society, the NNC were treated with dire contempt by the rest of the army and often referred to as “The untrained untrainables”. The NNC were commanded by white NCOs and were expected to fight with traditional weapons. Used principally as labour, the NNC did not make a great impact on the fighting.
The regular cavalry regiments were little changed from those that fought at Waterloo and Balaclava. Irregular cavalry in the form of colonial volunteers and native levies in the form of the Natal Native Horse (NNH) were also used. Cavalry were used to scout, skirmish and burn Zulu homesteads and crops. Armed with lances, swords and Scnieder-carbines, they were also used to good effect to pursue and rout retreating Zulus following major battles such as Ulundi and Khambula. In a war in which few prisoners were taken, such persuits were ruthless afairs.
Arms
The standard individual weapon was the Martini-Henry .577/450 rifle. The single-shot, lever action rifle took rolled-brass cartridges with a soft-lead .45 calibre bullet using black powder as a propellant. The Martini-Henry as the British Army’s first purpose-built breach-loader, was a considerable improvement on the Snider .577, most noticably in terms of rate of fire. A soldier could fire 10 aimed rounds per minute. British infantry were issued with 70 rounds a man and this soon proved to be inadequate against massed Zulu impis. When fitted with a bayonet, the rifle became a formidale hand-to-hand combat weapon being both spear and club, with a reach of six-feet. The rifle did have several draw-backs: With heavy and sustained used, the black powder fouled the rifling while smoke from volley fire could quickly obscure the line of sight of the firing line. The rifle was prone to over-heating, meaning soldiers sometimes had to use rags or gloves to grip the weapon. There is also evidence of excess heat causing spontaneous discharges. After the war, it was recognised that the rolled brass cartridges were prone to jam and were replaced with drawn-brass rounds instead.
The British also enjoyed the use of field-artillery, rocket batteries and gattling guns, although the impact that these weapons had was arguably insignificant compared to the Martini-Henry rifle. Certainly, the rocket batteries had no discernable effect on the Zulus at Isandlwana while gattlings were only used at Gingindlovu and Ulundi. Although artillery was used in most major battles, the number of guns used and their calibre was small, due at least in part, to logistical difficulties in transporting guns and ammunition in Zululand.
Logistics
British logistics were necesarrily ponderous, given the needs of a modern army of considerable size. Transport was almost entirely by ox-cart, and a shortage of both beasts and wagons was to trouble the British during the war, as it was to do in the war against the Boers at the turn of the century. Logistical problems were exacerbated by the almost complete absence of any roads and the particularly rugged terrain. Improvised tracks could quickly turn into quagmires following heavy rain.
Tactics
British tactics had changed little since the Napoleonic wars. Soldiers stood or knelt in rigid firing lines with bayonet fixed. No attempts had been made to take advantage of the increased accuracy, rate of fire, or ability to operate the new rifles in the prone position. The emphasis was on well drilled volley fire rather than accurate marksmanship. The standard defensive tactic was to form a square, with artillery at the corners where available. This tactic was effective as it was impossible to outflank. Possibly the single greatest contributing factor to each of the defeats suffered by the British was the failure to form a square, for example at Isandlwana, where the firing line was outflanked allowing overwhelming numbers of Zulus to engage in hand-to-hand combat with British troops. The lesson of Isandlwana, Rorke’s Drift the earlier Boer-Zulu Battle of Blood River, was that while European troops were vulnerable in the open, a fortified position was virtually impregnable.
Jonewer 15:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] changed casualties.
i went through all the battles and added up all the british KIA, and the number was high then the one displayed so i edited it to my new figure: 1,727 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.41.195.26 (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Vandalism
This article is being vandalized. Complete parts have been deleted (Britsh Invasion) and dirty talk added.
Please fix it and give it some kind of protection. Boru318 00:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] This article needs cleaning up
Just finished watching "Zulu" and wanted to get some background, but this article is a bit of a mess. Lots of incomplete sentences and incoherant sentences.
