Fair use notice.
This website may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner.
We are making such material and images are available in our efforts to advance the understanding of the “Anglo Zulu War of 1879. For educational & recreational purposes.
We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material, as provided for in UK copyright law. The information is purely for educational and research purposes only. No profit is made from any part of this website.
If you hold the copyright on any material on the site, or material refers to you, and you would like it to be removed, please let us know and we will work with you to reach a resolution.
Posts : 1095 Join date : 2009-01-14 Location : East London
Subject: The Tents Were Struck. Sun Feb 07, 2010 12:10 am
What doe's is mean to strike the tents. At Isandlwana there was a fuss because the tents had not been struck, At Kambul the tents were struck. But why was this done just before battle commenced, surly this would have be time consuming, not the kind of thing,one would want to be doing when you have thousands of zulu's bearing down on you. No doub't this was army regulations but I can't work out the reason for doing this. The tents would have been more usefull left in place and erected, as this would have been a good defence against zulu snipers. Of cause I could be completey wrong and there was a good reason behind it.
90th
Posts : 10236 Join date : 2009-04-07 Age : 64 Location : Melbourne, Australia
Subject: tents were struck. Sun Feb 07, 2010 1:53 am
hi oh2. To strike the tents is to pull them down or pull out the centre pole to collapse them. The tents need to be struck so you have a clean field of fire , and also anyone looking from a distance seeing the tents struck would know a battle was iminent . One of the reasons for the massacre at Isandlwana was the tents not being struck, if Milne had seen they were struck , C"ford would have known earlier that the camp was under threat of iminent attack. Also when the troops attempted to withdraw back onto the camp , they did not see the zulus coming from behind the camp because of no clear field of sight . As for the zulu snipers I dont see it as a major threat , due to their lack of expertise in using the older weapons. Also they didnt have much idea on sighting their weapons. so, summing up , the tents needed to struck and it wouldnt take long just pulling down the centre pole , At Khambula WOOD had plenty of time , as his scouts had seen the zulu coming from a long way off. I may be wrong but from memory he had at least a couple of hours to organise his defence which was already done , as they were well encamped on the hill for sometime previously. cheers 90th.
Chelmsfordthescapegoat
Posts : 2581 Join date : 2009-04-24
Subject: Re: The Tents Were Struck. Sun Feb 07, 2010 11:53 am
Good answer 90th. But was there not a threat of entanglement. In the event of a retreat being made by the British.
90th
Posts : 10236 Join date : 2009-04-07 Age : 64 Location : Melbourne, Australia
Subject: the tents were struck. Sun Feb 07, 2010 10:53 pm
hi ctsg. I dont think a retreat was in the minds of the british officers during the zulu war . Their main worry was , as they thought " To get the zulus to attack in great numbers " . So they would have a quick decisive victory with the use of their firearms and artillery etc , etc. I am positive 100 % that entanglement wouldnt have been seen as an obsticle . cheers 90th.