Talk:Anglo-Zulu War/Archive 1

Comment
An event in this article is a January 11 selected anniversary

There are three articles in Category:Battles_of_the_Anglo-Zulu_War, 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… &#9742;   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)

Zulu Commanders
Just to say previously it was said on this article that there was only one Zulu commander-of-forces in King Cetshwayo, however I believe Khoza and kaMpande were second and third in command of the Zulu warriors, also, for some reason Garnet Wolseley was not included in the list of British commanders, so I corrected that as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 07ed01 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"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

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)

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.

Please take care when using Donald Morris Washing of the Spears. He is demonstrably inaccurate in a number of places and does not indicate his sources with any accuracy. His work, while making a great contribution to our knowledge, is now out of date, having been superseded by a number of more recent analyses. It is preferable to use primary sources, of which there are a great number.Carshaw 01:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

'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)

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&hellip; &#9742;   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)

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)

"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.

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

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?!!!!

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?"

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)

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

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)

---

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).

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)

Appearantly this topic has garnered the attention of bored /b/tards, probably because of the racially sensitive nature of the larger discussion of colonialism and Apartheid in S. Africa. I just undid the most recent act of vandalism. It might be prudent to give the page protected status, as the previous user suggested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.202.115 (talk) 08:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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.


 * I have fixed this now. I'm stunned that this mess caused by vandalism could survive for 14 days. Jeltz talk  15:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Mohandas Ghandi section removed
Ok, as near as I can figure, Ghandi was 9 years old when the Zulu war began and, thus, should not be included in this article. The quotes presented from his collected works (avaliable here: http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/VOL005.PDF) have nothing at all to do with the Zulu War and I'm not entirely sure why they were included. The only thing I can think of is as a means to discredit Ghandi's character; one of the quotes began along the lines of "his racism is obvious as he writes".... Maybe he was a racist, maybe not. But I don't think it belongs on this page at all. Wrodina (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I see where the confusion is arising from. I've modified that section for clarity and also added information on Gandhi's participation and views about the later Zulu Rebellion in 1906(which is also known as Bambatha Rebellion after the name of the Zulu leader). This is a piece of history associated with Anglo-Zulu war and is a follow up event, hence it should be mentioned here. The quotes from Gandhi are about the rebellion. It is well known that he encouraged his fellow men (Asian Indians and mostly Gujarati speaking business class) to join the British forces as they all were in Natal by the virtue of the British. Simultaneously, he encouraged the British to induce Indians (Asian Indians) to form a battalion. He also wrote that they (Asian Indians) can first try to get in to British force into whatever form they are accepted and later the British will involve them in armed warfare as they (the British) will feel that they are wasting the reserve force. This is an important piece of history associated with the Zulu war's follow-up events and Gandhi's participation against the Zulu's by first instigating Asian Indians to join the British armed force and then encouraging the British to form a force comprised of Indians. I do not know why you think that the section is "a means to discredit Ghandi's character". However, I do know that the facts represented in the section certainly do discredit the credit built on propaganda. By the way, the correct last name is spelled as Gandhi and not as Ghandi (as you spelled). Perhaps it was a typo but this can be confused with Zoroastrian last name which is spelled as "Ghandi" as opposed to "Gandhi" which is a Hindu Brahmin class last name. Regards A. S. Aulakh Talk 23:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Okey... I still don't really see how it's related to this particular conflict since it deals with one 30 years later. But you obviously know more about it than I do, so I'm not really going to challenge it. Either way, the original way the section was written was quite poor. Wrodina (talk) 05:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Rebellion/Gandhi section removed. His opinions have nothing to do with a war that happened 27 years previous.Catiline63 (talk) 10:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Anatomy and Assessment of the Zulu Army
This section needs sources. Almost nothing is cited. The writing style indicates that a lot of it was done by a single individual as well. Sources people! Sources! Otherwise I have no reason to believe any of it. It's been marked as needing sources. Please do not remove the header until sources are provided. If I used the incorrect header please change it to: instead. As the entire section needs to be cited I figured this was easier. --DannyBoy7783 (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I noticed a list of sources at the bottom of the section but they aren't attached to any particular facts so they aren't much help as is. Please reformat them to adhere to wikipedia guidelines. thanks --DannyBoy7783 (talk) 02:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Zulu film poster.jpg
Image:Zulu film poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Command at Isandhlwana
The article now says: it is generally thought that a Colonel Anthony Durnford was in command, but new information has surfaced showing that it was not so. I know this had been an issue of some contention at the time, but as of the date of the writing of 'Washing of the Spears', nothing had surfaced. Anyone know what the "new information" is? Noel (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph Confusion
The third paragraph under "Background" has no focal point and splits up in thought. Who wrote this?

Such was the political background when Cetshwayo became absolute ruler of the Zulus upon his father's death in 1873. As ruler, Cetshwayo set about reviving the military methods of his uncle Shaka as far as possible, and even succeeded in equipping his regiments with firearms[4]. It is believed that he caused the Xhosa people in the Transkei to revolt, and he aided Sikukuni in his struggle with the Transvaal. The activities of the missionaries were unwelcome to Cetshwayo. Though he did not harm the missionaries themselves, several converts were killed. The missionaries, for their part, were a source of hostile reports.[5] For example, Bishop Schreuder (of the Norwegian Missionary Society) described Cetshwayo as "an able man, but for cold, selfish pride, cruelty and untruthfulness, worse than any of his predecessors."[citation needed]

-- First it begins with Catshwayo becoming a ruler and revising the military methods of his father, then starts to discuss a revolt in Transkei, and after that, what do missionaries have to do with revolting Xhosa people or his military methods? Can someone please revise this paragraph or split it up appropriately? I don't know enough about the subject to change it as needed. Colonel Marksman (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)