Talk:Battle of Ulundi

Confusing sentence
I can't make out what the last clauses in this sentence ("same number of dead are believed to have been wounded") refers to:

"British casualties were ten killed and eighty-seven wounded, while over a thousand Zulu dead were counted around the square, with about five hundred dying in the pursuit and as a result of wounds, and the same number of dead are believed to have been wounded." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaintes (talk • contribs) 01:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed
these lines added by 168.209.98.35:


 * The Zulu warriors was armed with a short stabbing spear and protected with a raw hide shield. 

Because I do not think it belongs in the middle of a paragraph on the structure of the British force.


 * This time the British soldiers made sure that the ammunition boxes could be opened, not making the same mistake twice. During the Isandlwana battle on the previous campain the veteran British forces were dessimated by the Zulu warriors because of this small oversight.

The importance of the ammunition boxes at Isandlwana is disputed and this is discussed in that battle's article. I don't think the line really belongs in the article, as the ammunition boxes are not something considered important in the British victory at Ulundi, and their significance at Isandlwana is debatable.

I have cleaned up 168.209.98.35's other additions and removed 'great' from the line about Nelson Mandela. I've posted this so if someone disagrees with my removal of these lines, we can discuss it here. Cheers, --Loopy 00:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Assegais or rifles?
Our article repeatedly alludes to the Zulus being armed only with spears. But our first reference notes that Cetshwayo had purchased "tens of thousands of muskets and rifles" and captured a thousand Martini-Henry rifles. Since their army was 20,000 strong, surely it seems likely that most of the Zulus were armed with firearms? -- Securiger 07:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant and PV remark removed
Removed the snide anti-white comparison between Mandela's and Cetshwayo's imprisonment: "...[Cetshwayo was] sent into exile on Robben Island, near Cape Town - the same island Nelson Mandela would be imprisoned on 87 years later." Not only completely irrelevant, but seems to make a direct comparison between the actions of the British and the Aparteid regime. Mandela was an arguably unjustly incarcerated political prisoner; Cetshwayo was the defeated leader of a belligerent and brutal civilisation. Comparison is unfair and POV.

Qualifying Cetshwayo as leader of a "belligerent and brutal civilisation" is securely a POV. I do not know how the african people feel about, but I would not be surprised if they see Cetshwayo as the leader of the resistence against "belligerent and brutal" British imperialism. M.Campos (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The comparison doesn't seem to be NPOV at all - it's an interesting parallel, which wikipedia articles are full of. And your own description of Mandela ironically highlights the similarities - after all, considering the pretext for the British invasion, it's fair to say imho that Cetshwayo was the leader of an unjustly invaded nation. The comparison was certainly not 'anti-white' - though from personal experience I'd say the knee-jerk reaction to it was, as there's a lot of overly sensitive white people when it comes to the history of colonialism and South Africa who can't seem to handle even the suggestion of a critique. And they'll find NPOV statements wherever they look due to their paranoia. I say this as a white guy myself. 86.142.246.130 (talk) 01:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this original?
I don't know if it is just me, but this seems to be narrated or copied straight out of a book. Should there be some type of reference to original sources? Disregard this message if it's not true, but the style of writing seems to indicate this. Mulyahnto 19:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Mulyahnto

Zulu Strenght
While infobox states Zulu strenght of 25.000, the "Battle" section mentions "The entire Zulu Army, 50,000 strong,...". Does someone know the correct number? M.Campos (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Range
This appears in 'The battle' section, para 4: "...the four ranks of the infantry with the front two kneeling, opened fire at 2,000 yards into the advancing Zulu ranks." Is 2,000 yards correct? It looks a tad optimistic, to say the least. Even Hollywood might think twice before depicting standing and kneeling troops engaging targets more than a mile away! And the British Army had not long given up their muskets which were inaccurate beyond about 150 yards.

It seems to me that there is a 'zero' too many in the distance stated. 200 yards would be more like it.

What do other editors think?

RASAM (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Battle of Ulundi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071024154913/http://www.travellersimpressions.com/process/articlepage.php?storycode=rg0011 to http://www.travellersimpressions.com/process/articlepage.php?storycode=rg0011

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)