Enough Wagons to form a Defensive Position?

I know it did not happen but if they wanted to would the soldiers at Ischlandwana have had
enough wagons to form a defensive position or a sort of Laager or had Lord Chelmsford taken
most of them with him?

Chelmsford had not taken the waggons with him
There were not enough waggons left in camp to form a defensive laager to surround the whole of the camp.

As Julian says, there were not enough waggons to laager the camp - enough to make a 'redoubt' on the saddle or elsewhere, but not a full laager.

As Frank mentioned in his book - a Battalion square, well supplied with ammo could have held the Zulus off, possibly forced them to retire through excessive losses (the return of Chelmsford would have forced them to break off).

However the commander of the camp (Pulleine) had been given orders to defend the camp - he didn't have enough men to do this.

So a small laager would have saved (British) lives but the loss of the camp would have set the campaign back 3 months.

An interesting point on a 'Horse receiving square' is that it reduces the number of combatens attacking considerable, purely through the congestion effect. So 20 000 men rapidly reduces to a couple of thousand that can be an effective force.
The square on the other hand with a mass of 600 imperial soldiers would have a side of 150 or 3 rows of 50. Firepower would have been devastating.
Much is made of the dead ground at the head waters of the Nyogane, a square stationed there with the east face along the edge of the drop of and the north face pointing towards the plateau would have been a powerful defence. Sure the camp would have been exposed but what was the target for the zulu, the food and sweaty socks of the squaddies or the decimation of the army? Pretty sure there would have still been looting but not to the extent it eventually was. 
Object achieved for Pulleine , Zulu army given a salutory hiding and the camp, largely protected.
Cheers

I'm not sure where the artillerymen, other arms, civilians etc fit in with either this plan or the square - you don't want too many people clogging up ammunition flow.

Presumably the cavalry would make themselves scarce (or hover on the flanks of the Zulus) and the NNIC would be a separate 'sock' guard?

There is also another side affects, that you haven't considered....no defeat, no mystery, the AZW war becomes 'just another colonial war', no one hears of IK. 1879.Zuluwar.com probably doesn't come into being AND you don't get to have the pleasure of SRB1965s wit.....

A square on the rocky knoll would have had immediate problems. How do you get the ammunition waggons there at short notice? You can't leave them in camp!

If we are going for hypotheticals (regardless of my knowledge of the Right Horn turning up) the Saddle gets my vote.

Good field of fire, easier going to get the ammo waggons to, secure(ish) on both flanks, even a place for the artillery and NNIC (the latter on the hill slopes on both flanks)

In one of wargame refights of Rorke's Drift, my opponent abandoned all but the storehouse and storehouse zone (basically starting the game, where the British ended up) - it wasn't much of a fun game for me.....

Julian
If the Guns could get there so could the ammo wagons. There was of course Chelmsfords reserve that would have probably done the job and that was on a lighter wagon with easy access across the face of the tents.
Simon
Artillery at the corners of the square. NNC banished way to the south out of harms way. The mounted men out onto the plain. As at Ulundi and Kambule once the zulu attack broke of they charge and decimate the fleeing impi. Carnage would have been immense.
And as you so elegantly pointed out you and I would revert to strangers.And none of us would have heard of the Knight Riders.
The saddle doesnt work for me. To the North, east and south the tented camps, to the west the wagon park. The field of fire becomes fraught with obstructions. Way down North East of the camp there are no impediments except for the odd donga.
Sat just at that point with Ken Gillings and Charles Aikenhead, both ex military men and quaffed a beer or two and agreed it was the best option with limited time. Ken had a valid point of marching the whole caboodle down onto the Inkengeni ridge above the donga. The only argument  against that was the time issue but it would have made a brilliant defensive position and the track was availble to move ammunition wagons down.

Frank
I can't disagree with your hypothesis because I've not personally viewed the ground. I would certainly agree with you about the lighter waggon but I'm not so sure about a fully laden ammo waggon. A 2-wheeled gun limber is fairly flexible in its movement but a four-wheeled waggon would be subjected to all the jolts and knocks that the rocky knoll could throw at it. I can see axles and wheels being broken over such terrain - but YOU would know better than I on this matter and I shall bow to your superior knowledge.

I'm not sure about artillery at the corners of a Battalion square - if they were integral to it, it might cause problems. I suppose they could be outside it, ready to bolt back into it, if the Zulus closed.....(Waterloo style)

I spose that, the heart of the matter - just when would this square have been formed (what phase of the engagement), when would the NNIC have borne the socks southwards and more importantly what the Zulus have done while all was happening.....?

Of course if the NNC doesn't run away then they'd have to be accommodated inside the square!!! Along with 100 or so drivers, voorloopers, etc. There wouldn't be much room in there!

Agree Julian , just not enough troops to form a square which would have to incorporate the other non Military personal and or the NNC , certainly can't have been on the saddle . In hindsight we must remember that no-one expected the camp to be attacked , the formation set up was one that brought the 9th Kaffir war to closure , and was successful at Nyezane earlier in the day , this maximised fire power over a wide area , a square wouldn't do so... until there was a threat facing the individual facings of the square. A square in my opinion I doubt would've succeeded , due to the numbers of Imperial troops available , just not enough .
90th

I dont think the question is how rather than why?
The defence line was in conformity with standing orders, right or wrong, Pulleine was confident he had the measure of the Zulu impi. So no real reason to form a square.
But its a hypothetical question so hypothetical answers. 
If it was to have been formed then it would have been done at the first warnings from the plateau. The British army had standard practice and drills ( used to this day in training) for forming squares. The main reason being defence against a cavalry charge.
Waterloo was a classic example of a square format using 500 men in 4 ranks, so 600 would have been highly effective.
The numbers of zulu attacking becomes irrelevent, 20 000 couldnt get to attack at the same time, only enough to fill a broad front on a maximum of 200 yards (50x4). So the width of the attack resolves to around 200 to 300 at a time, and that facing forepower of 600 guns at virtual point blank range firing into a solid mass.
No doubt whatsoever it would work.
Julian in terms of who it would accomadate, the answer again from history is very few. The cavalry and the NNC could have been sent down onto the plain, Hamilton Brown would have been delighted to see them Im sure.

If its a cart blanche answer that squares dont work, then one only needs to look at history, and Ulundi.
A device used by the military since the 1600's cant be dismissed. after all the 'last stands' were virtually that, and only broken by the eventual shortage of ammunition. Even at that point with a solid wall of bayonets the zulu had to resort to alternate tactics such as using bodies thrown onto the points.
Cheers

The square had a number of advantages in addition to what Frank mentions.

Horses aren't thick (the old onfantry adage was "the horse had the brains" sorry FA) - they won't attempt to run into something they can't see over (remember we aren't talking race horses here)

There is an example in the Pennisula War, where the KGL Heavy Dragoons broke a french square because one of the horses was brought down, and it caused a gap in the square, probably panicking the French who broke.

The square improves the morale of the soldiers (makes them feel safe) - and it protects the flanks of the infantry.

The 93rd at Balaclava famously didn't form square but they were only faced by a few hundred Russian Light Cavalry, were on a hill and had very good leadership and morale - as the Ruskies approached they actually wanted to charge them ("Damn all this eagerness 93rd" - CC) - despite the painting the Russian charge stopped almost immediately (after the first couple of volleys) with very few casualties - basically the Russian Cavalry saw that the 93rd were steady and held all the aces.

The squares at Kambula, Ulundi etc (and later in the Sudan) were expanded army versions of this emergency formation.

However. I am relieved to know that had things got tough for you in Aden, Frank, you were drilled in forming square and could have laagered your scout cars....

All these posts contain elements of truth but at the end of the day as Frank says "The defence line was in conformity with standing orders, right or wrong, Pulleine was confident he had the measure of the Zulu impi. So no real reason to form a square."

We formed a lager at one point Sime but some silly sod lobbed mortar shell into the middle. Didnt see that coming.

A lager wouldn't surprise me at all where you're concerned, Frank. A laager though would.

Now that wasn't fair.....maybe it was someone who didn't like the Hussars.....probably the PBI.

However it is correct, there was no need to form a square but its just the way the conversation has meandered from waggons to Sir Crawling Camel to the KGL - given enought time, I would have gotten it round to why Custer didn't form square at 'the other place'

Come on Julian, admit it, as a dusty empirical professional historian () the way the conversations go, must make you smile and perhaps shake you head at the quality of the British education system.....

PS Frank.....do you think I'm in trouble now?

Deeply "Ann die ander kant" mate. 
Interestingly Julian, we managed to stock up on some cases of beer ( not easy to get hold of ) strapped them to the sides of the ferrets for air cooling and set of into the desert. At a point we came under serious fire, took a while to realise it was the beer cans exploding not incoming rounds.

Thank you Bongi.....

SRB
Re the education system my philosophy is as Molière's "Je me presse de rire de tout de peur d’être obligé d’en pleurer." Forgive me Admin for writing in French - at least Frédéric will have a laugh.

Frank
I'd forgive you anything. Even the fact that you might drink lager from time to time.

I have damaged the tendons in my thumb/wrist so have a forearm and hand in splints. I shall be making lots of short posts with typos for the next 4 weeks so I offer apologies now.
This one took me 3 minutes to type and another minute to correct.

Recently in another place I was forced to quote from Voltaire’s Candide in the original French. I have since undergone all of the necessary cleansing rituals.

In truth I just hate the fact that they have such a great national anthem!

Frank
Well if that's all I've got to worry about then I'm a happy man.

John
Jeremy Bentham wrote:
"The War whoop of anarchy, the Marseillais Hymn, is to my ear, I must confess, independently of all moral association, a most dismal, flat, and unpleasing ditty: and to any ear it is at any rate a long- winded and complicated one. In the instance of a melody so mischievous in its application, it is a fortunate incident, if, in itself, it should be doomed neither in point of universality, nor permanence, to gain equal hold on the affections of the people."

The only thing I learnt in French at school was -

où est le singe ? le singe est dans l'arbre

Julian,

Bentham might well be considered as the Father of Utilitarianism, but he was very obviously tone deaf, and did not recognise a good tune when he heard it!

Now everyone after me:
”Allons enfant de la patrie,
Le jour de gloire est arrivé!
Contre nous de la tyrannie,…”

They do have a rather stirring National anthem, John....come to think of it, most nationalities do compared to ours.....

SRB
We learnt French from the same book! I still have it.

John
Yes, those words came in handy in 1940, didn't they?

SRB
Let them stir. We can be dignified.

I cant help but remember the army version we used to wind the french troops up with:
'A Frenchman went to the lavatory to have a bloody good..........'
Sorry. Ill get my coat......

Actually Liechtenstein has the same anthem as we do. Different words of course. 'High on the young Rhine.'

Frank
I've been trying to fit those words to la Marseillaise but am failing miserably.

Frank,

Did he take his coat and trousers off so that he could revel it?



JY

he did indeed John.