Talk:Battle of Isandlwana

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.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): African military history task force British military history task force

Battle of Isandlwana is part of WikiProject South Africa, a WikiProject which aims to systematically improve South Africa-related articles using the tools on the Project page. You are welcome and encouraged to edit the article attached to this page and to join the project.

It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Africa may be able to help!

Contents 1 NPOV 2 Number of Zulus at Rorke's Drift 3 Aftermath 4 Survivors? 5 Zulu tactics, etc. 6 citation request 7 Washing of the spears 8 No credit to the Zulus?

[edit] NPOV

Below "The fight":

Durnford's 1,400 soldiers fought bravely, but were totally overwhelmed.

Bravely? I don't think this subjective phrase belongs in an encyclopedia. Therefore I must remove it. cun 17:44, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If they fought against a greatly superior enemy falling almost to the last man, it can be said that they fought bravely. Don't you think that it can be said that the Spartans fought bravely in Thermopylae? --80.186.100.180 23:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Zulu nation is not linked correctly!

This is fixed. →Raul654 01:40, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

---

In the Article it says "While Chelmsford was out"

LOL:some one shoud insert "to lunch" after that!
I've always liked his comment  My only fear is that the Zulu will not fight Philip

Lieutenant Coghill fell from his horse and wrenched his knee in an attempt to catch a fowl but was able to remain with the column. - Well, I liked it, so I am putting it here for posterity :-) Wizzy 07:51, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Number of Zulus at Rorke's Drift

This article says: "From a morale perspective, this was made even worse by the victory of a small handful of British over hundreds or thousands of Zulus at Rorke's Drift."

But the Rorke's Drift atricle says: "At Rorke's Drift approximately 150 British soldiers defended their garrison against an intense assault by roughly 5000 Zulu warriors."

Which is correct, hundreds or thousands of Zulus, or roughly 5000?

Perhaps one of the articles should be changed to reflect the correct number.

Dubidub 22:55, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have read an interesting article that question whether Rorkes Drift was really a victory. In Zulu tradition if you have taken the enemies cattle you have won the battle. --Renier Maritz 17:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aftermath

I do not like the last section as it is at the moment. I think it is wrong for several reasons:

• This amounted to the death of 10% of all Zulu males This implies that there were only 30,000 Zulu males (and say 20% not fit for active service). I have never seen an article which says that there were only 100,000 adult Zulus. I think this needs to be sourced.
• The Zulus did not want the war. They knew that they could not hope to win a long war of attrition agaist the British
• Losses of 3000 or more in one battle was nothing new for the Zulus.
• The Zulus knew about laagering, because of battles like the Battle of Blood River where civilians armed with muskets had defeated them, so Rokes drift would have come as no suprise to them, and is the reason the Zulus had been given orders not to attack fortified/laagered postions.

So I have rewritten it. Philip Baird Shearer 11:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Commander is listed as Chelmsford, but he was absent from the battle, shouldn't Henry Pulleine and Anthony Durnford be listed instead of or with Chelmsford as Commaders? BritBoy 14:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Brevet Lieutenant Colonel Henry Pulleine was the official CO. I ahev changed the article accordingly.

[edit] Survivors?

I just a show called Turning Points on History Channel International that said there were only eight survivors, this says sixty. Anyone know for sure? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.206.165.7 (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

The Battle of Rorke’s Drift says "Only about sixty white and four hundred black soldiers survived". Eight seems far too low. Nunquam Dormio 20:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zulu tactics, etc.

It would be nice to have description at all of Zulu tactics, actions, etc. I know nothing but broad strokes of these events, but surely someone better informed can supply much more on the context of this battle for Zulus... Also important is a much more detailed description of the events leading up to the battle; The British presented an ultimatum [what ultimatum? in what context?] on 11 December 1878, to the Zulu king Cetshwayo... is a pretty sketchy exposition. Pinkville 03:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the ultimatum et al is covered in the overview article for the whole war, so re-listing the entire information might not be the best route, but some clarification can't be a bad thing to help the conext. The Kinslayer 16:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the article on the battle should be able to stand alone, though, of course, one would expect much greater detail on the background of the battle in the linked article (Anglo-Zulu_War#The_Ultimatum). At the moment this reads like a fragment. Pinkville 16:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] citation request

The Natal Native Contingent broke, and led the flight to Fugitive's Drift. After the battle, the Zulus, as was their tradition, ripped open the dead bodies of their casualties and those of their enemies to free the spirits. I feel this need a citation. thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.144.161.223 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Washing of the spears

This article mentions the death to the redcoats but not the Zulu ceremony of splitting the stomachs of the dead enemies, to release the dead spirit. Kendirangu 06:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No credit to the Zulus?

Great article - I enjoyed reading it. One question: why is there seemingly no credit given to the Zulus for their victory? It seems like the only explanations for tohe outcome are: (i) technological problems (the rifles jammed in the heat); (ii) lack of adequate defences; (iii) leadership... etc. Was the outcome of this battle solely the result of British actions? Surely either the planning, leadership, stealth, surprise, etc. by the Zulus was important(?). Or am I missing something? Thanks, Hu Gadarn 18:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The Zulus certainly concealed their position successfully until quite a late stage. The key reason for the British defeat was that they divided their forces without first knowing the disposition of the enemy. This classic blunder is still used an example in military academies, I understand. Nunquam Dormio 14:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)