Zulu's account of Isandlwana.

Could be true. !!!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

This is possibly an account of someone who heard the story about the "fish that got away"

There was an account given by Mehlokazulu son of Sirayo (local chief at Isandlwana) who was with the Zulu left horn that was published 27 Sept 1879. His account is pretty consistent in detail with that of other witnesses on both sides.

There is lots of physical evidence that contradicts this account. Lots of cartridge cases found far out and the solar eclipse contradict the assertion that the men were at dinner when the attack occurred.

hi there

yes i agree with you that there is alot of evidence against that acount, but just think that accoun might explain why there was such huge losses because the british were suprised. There is also a bit of evidence for this account aswell lke the main one tha tents were never struck.
just think what if that was the actual story and the account we hear is just a huge cover up because they didnt want the public to know just how humiliatiing it really was.

Although i do still agree that the british were prepared and standing ready to fight as in the film zulu dawn, but is that the real story and hiw it really happens and it asks many questions

thanks joe

We can't dismiss any accounts told by the Zulu's. The Zulu giving this account is only stating what he saw and what he was told. The Zulu''s had nothing to lose by lieing the day was there's. He is suggesting that the battle was won due to the surprise attack, so what but what would the out-come have been if the British had been prepared. The tents would have been struck, defensive positions would have been organised, ammunition points established. The British have it the past fought and won against greater odds than that of Isandlwana because they were ready. So for me there is some foundation to this account.

Interesting reading Littlehand.
However.
Its no suprise, the quotes from Popes diary. The regiments were stood to and then stood down. Many accounts of that, including complaints that breakfsat was served for lunch and it was cold.
There are far and away to many accounts of the troops forming up in there defensive line. Plus the evidence of the graves and findings of the amunition, amunition box bands etc.
The concept of a mass cover up cant really be entertained with any amount of cedibility.
Especially coming from an UNAMED source.
My arguments against this source are: Whilst the grass in January is long and green, the aproaches to the firing lines are uphill. Even sneaking through the grass the troops would be looking down on the Zulu. To get to the plain the Zulu would have to descend from the nqutu plateau. Again impossible without being seen.
As a possible explanation for the "eye witness account". If he was in the right horn, it would be possible for him to have crept along the Manzimyama stream bed then up the slope behind the mountain, over the sadddle and at that point he would have been virtually in the camp area. No tents struck and highly possible caught the odd few soldiers finishing lunch and in shirt sleeves.
I say possible, not probable.
We also need to be aware that for some time after the battle, even up to present day, all sorts of theories, eye witnesses etc have been dragged forward to try and explain the most vexing questions. The news papers of thime were full of different accounts, one even proffesed to have a map drawn by a survivor showing a huge trench into the heart of the camp.
The source is unsubstantiated guys.

Hi
Its a very though provoking accoun tisnt it. I think if the british were prepared then they would have still lost but not to such a huge degree. If they had time to prepare then they would have had a better chance of winning the battle and maybe would have had time to order a more strategic retreat and maybe more than the 55 or so would have surived and would be no need for a second invasion-thats just based on the zulu account
the british didnt really have an y chance of winning 30,000 zulus to 900 british isnt really good odds to have is it.
Which starts another question- if chelmsford hadnt left with over half the invasion force and stayed at isandlwana would the outcome of the battle have been any different

thanks joe