Why did the Zulus cease their attack on RD?

As a newish student of the wars in SA, 1877 - 9, I am still learning, so apologies if this is a trivial Q.

I have yet to read a decent text on the subject. If you had to recommend one book, (on Isandhlwana in particular) which would it be?

Back to the Q.

Did the Zulu warriors run out of ammo? Did they simply get tired and hungry and go home? Were they ordered off by a senior chief on realising the attack was outside of their territory and unauthorised? Did they decide to spare fellow warriors after winning their respect for having put up such a brave fight, as implied by the film Zulu?

Many thanks all, have been living the battles in mind this weekend. As Saul David says, nice tribute s from everyone over the past few days.

Tasker

Hi, i think it was because the Zulus saw the approaching column (Chelmsford) moving towards R Drift

Cheers joe

Basically, it was because they were tired and hungry, plus Chelmsford's relief column was on its way. Chelmsford column infact passed the Zulu army that had attacked Rorke s Drift. But they just passed each other like ships in the night. If the Zulu's had launched other attack, it would have been unlikely that the British would have fended them off has they were almost out of ammunition.

I'm just a beer drinking kangaroo, but if I had been the Zulu chief that day at Rorkes Drift I would have taken that place in the first attack with few casualties.
Using the benefit of 21st century thinking that has been developed by the well documented military battles of history, I would have rushed that temporary fort from four sides at once and as Ardendorf said in the movie,"Finish!"
I'm a real newby here but my contention is that there was so much rivalry and pride between various impies of company strength that each impi had to attack without the help of another.
The volley fired .455 bullets mowed down impi after impi until the chiefs decided that enough was enough and decided to conserve their regiments for a coming larger battle they knew was brewing with Chelmsford's forces.
Like all primative tribesmen they respected bravery and used this as a subterfuge to break off the engagement.

Tasker 224
Depends on your reading pleasures really.

Without a doubt the book that will one day be a classic is 'ZULU RISING' Ian Knight. Its really the definitive on historical thinking.
If your prepared to be a tad more risque, 'HOW CAN MAN DIE BETTER', Mike Snook. Biggest problem that has is the lack of footnotes. But definitly attempts to dot the i's and cross the t's.
Contentious? ZULU VICTORY by Lock and Quantrill.

To get a really good grounding, ian Knight without a shadow of doubt.

After that the list is endless.

As to why the Zulu's broke of the attack at RD. Firstly they shouldnt have been there. They had over two days run/jogged from Ulundi, had a nights rest, marched to RD. Fought through the night, been pretty thoroughly thrashed. In short they were "buggered". The sight of the column returning was the last straw.

Aussie

A tad harsh to call that noble race Primitive.
For sure there was at times rivalry between the Amabuthu, the rivalry between the uThulwana and iNgobamakhosi was at times open warfare. The relationship between them both and the iNdlondlo and uDloko wasnt much better. However they were commanded by Dabulamanzi, not a man to brook arguments.
In terms of the all out attack that did actually happen, the first attack was on the rear, then a full on frontal, that was assisted by the guns of the Oskaberg. Around 6 to 6.30 the buildings were surrounded and attacked from all sides. The Western attack failed because of the light from the burning store, after that the attacks were directed for a while at the Eastern walls and the front ramparts. The last attack took place around 9 oclock.

Hope that helps.

Regards

Hi Tasker224.
My friend Springbok has hit the nail on the head in regard to ' Zulu Rising ' . Where once ' The Washing Of The Spears '
was seen as the single most important work on the Zulu War and was till probably the last 20 yrs or so . Zulu Rising
is the new benchmark for all books based on Isandlwana and R.D. It is impossible to cover the war in one book . It really
depends on what theatre of the war takes your fancy . I have many books and my ' Must Have ' list would more than likely
sit at 12 - 20 . As I said it depends if you wish to read Personal Diaries , Reference Books , the list goes on ! . Bertram
Mitford's Book is a cracker , Its called ' Through The Zulu Country ' it doesnt really cover the war , it's his journey through
Zululand 2 yrs after the war and what he saw and who he spoke to . Fascinating reading I've read it twice and will read it
again soon . His description of Isandlwana and the Fugitives Trail is quite moving . Its as if you are sitting in the wagon with
him !!. Mike Snooks book is also worth reading very moving in parts but does lack footnotes to back up his claims , but he
does attempt to describe it through the eyes of a soldier . I also agree ' Zulu Victory ' by Lock & Quantrill also well worth it .
Knights Book ' Fearful Hard Times ' is a wonderful book dealing with the First column's advance to Eshowe and the time it
spent there , till it was relieved and also covers the relief column heading to eshowe . Hope this helps .
cheers 90th.

Thanks for the advice everyone. I think I will start with Zulu Rising. My birthday is coming up soon, so I will mention it to the missus when she asks me what i want. Might try Mike Snook's book after that, but I think he has a tendency to put 2 and 2 together and make 7; I am not surprised by the mention of a lack of footnotes in his book. This is only my personal opinion I hasten to add and I may yet change my mind. (I have pre-ordered his "Beyond the Reach of Empire" as I have a particular interest in in Abu Klea where my Great Grandfather fought) and very much look forward to reading it. I hope it will be as definitive as he has told me it is going to be.
Cheers
Tasker

Tasker224.

Quote :

“But I think he has a tendency to put 2 and 2 together and make 7”

Not sure how you came to the conclusion. Mike Snook is one of the leading authorities on the Anglo Zulu War. There has been much criticism towards his books normally by those who have not even bothered to read them. I’m guessing your one of them. Mike Snook like Ian Knight has spent a vast amount of time researching, the war and walking the Battlefields. Mike writes about Isandlwana giving clear concise over-view as to what might have actually took place, because as you know we will never know what exactly happen because their were no witness’s apart from the few that escaped. But what took place in the camp area will always remain a mystery. Mike Snook over-view is plausible and as far as I know, no one as yet shown it to be different. Don’t judge a book by its cover.


As for the Zulu’s leaving Rorkes Drift.

Firstly they disobeyed their Kings orders. (Never attack a British fortified position)

Secondly. They took on 139 British Bulldogs. Equipped with the Boxer Henry point 45-calibre. And a bayonet with some guts behind it. (Would you stay)?

Well I don't agree with you because you read it wrongly.
This is a general and informative discussion about the abilities of other tribes people of the nineteenth century in comparison to the Zulus. No derogatory statements were made or intended.
I am an Australian and I know more about the Australian Aboriginal than you ever will. They ate the horses and burned the rifles in the fires.
Believe it. It is part of our history.

I've heard of this sort of out of control political correctness on line but this is the first time I have seen it this bad.
There is no greater insult to be handed a member than to have a valid post deleted.

Tasker 224
Your spot on Mike Snook does make 2 + 2 = 7. But the way he does it and the educated trip to get there is really very good.
That's why on an earlier post I said his book was rather risque.
Im rather spoilt in that I get to visit the battlefields once a year. This year I took Zulu Rising and HCMDB with me. If you sit on the Battlefield, Blacks Koppie is perfect, and read Mike Snook 2+2 does equal 7.
Read the book, dump the things you dont believe and be enthralled with some very very plausible reasoning.

Regards

Aussie. Lets just say your post wasn't worded to well. relating to the Aborigines, Unfortunallty censorship is now a part of our lives. Admin would not have deleted your post if it were not necessary; His actions were only to preserve the integrity of the forum. So don’t take it to heart and keep up the good work. Must admit when i saw your post i did think Ouch!!!!

CTSG

Quote :

This year I took Zulu Rising and HCMDB

I would like to have seen a photo of that...

Hi ctsg.
I've also read Snook' s book HCMDB and honestly .......... Thoroughly enjoyed it . I do believe in Footnotes to back up
one's claims but at Least Mike Snook attempts to explain what '' HE THINKS '' happened in the camp from his soldierly point
of view . Cant bag him for that .
cheers 90th. :lol!:

"But they just passed each other like ships in the night. If the Zulu's had launched other attack, it would have been unlikely that the British would have fended them off has they were almost out of ammunition."

As a life long wargamer, that would be one interesting 'what-if' battle. Both armies coming off the march, one low on morale and ammo, the other dead tired and perhaps dispirited as well. In the numbers game the Zulu should have a bit more men, eh?

---

Join me in speculation. Let's say battle was joined between the two, and the Zulu thrashed the English again, because of the low ammo status mainly. What becomes of the war? Does London admit their man on the spot was meddling with the internal state of affairs in Zululand, or do they double the reinforcement schedule?

... and the other side of the coin, what if the Zulus lose a second casualty high battle in 24 hours, does Cetswayo send a peace delegation?

Hi All
CTSG - as I said, I reserve the right to change my mind.
I have heard Mike Snook's books are an enthralling read. It is important however to distinguish between what he THINKS happened and I would very much respect his expertise on that as an infantry officer, and what can be proved by documentary evidence. I have had a few discussions with him on this already, but he has assured me that various points - which he has stated as fact - on which I have challenged him in some of his posts on another forum, will be proved to be valid in his new book about Abu Klea. I will wait and see!

Admin - I agree with CTSG that Chelmsford was trying to make the best of what happened at RD and Isandhlwana and we can understand that - what leader wouldn't?. I have not read enough about it yet to form my own opinion on whether Chelmsford was to blame for the loss at Isandlwana or not!

The Aussie - keep posting, you have a right to express your opinions. Many of us have had posts removed by Admin for straying off topic - for example, no one on here has mentioned the 2010-2011 Ashes series yet have they?
I have to admit I was offended by your post with respect to the Aborigines. Why did they burn rifles do you think? (Having visited your beautiful country many times and having met with Aboriginal people, I would be of the opinion that they did this because they are a peace loving people, it was symbolic. I don't believe we should criticise them for that, or for wishing to pursue their own culture and way of life).

Cheers
Tasker224

Al Amos.

Quote :

Does Cetshwayo send a peace delegation?

He tried on many occasions but was refuted.

Quote :

Does London admit their man on the spot was meddling with the internal state of affairs in Zululand, or do they double the reinforcement schedule?

Then of course the question of the 1st invasion would have been brought in to question. Like it says on the forum home page.


"Lord Chelmsford invaded Zululand without the knowledge of the British Government in the hope that he could Capture Cetshwayo, the Zulu King, before London discovered that hostilities had begun."

Would not have been good at all for Chelmsford & Sir Bartle Frere. Hung Drawn and quartered.

Then 11 VC’s would have been awarded to the chosen few who fought at the battle of Inyezane 22nd Jan 1879. Inyezane would have then been used to over shadow R.D 8 Isandlwana.

Don't for get Lads, we had two victories on the 22nd/ 23rd The Zulu’s only had one.

Zulu Victory at Rorke's Drift.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

What if Chelmsford had been chopped at Isandlwana? And R.D had been a Zulu Victory. Where would the British go from there?

Quote :

What if Chelmsford had been chopped at Isandlwana

The Brits has no devices on Zululand, Worsley would have been sent in to calm the situation and life would have carried on as normal.

Why did they burn rifles do you think? (Having visited your beautiful country many times and having met with Aboriginal people, I would be of the opinion that they did this because they are a peace loving people, it was symbolic. I don't believe we should criticise them for that, or for wishing to pursue their own culture and way of life).

Cheers
Tasker224

Are people this mis informed or are you having me on Tasker?

Aussie. The topic is "Why did the Zulus cease their attack on RD?"

The Aussie wrote:

Why did they burn rifles do you think? (Having visited your beautiful country many times and having met with Aboriginal people, I would be of the opinion that they did this because they are a peace loving people, it was symbolic. I don't believe we should criticise them for that, or for wishing to pursue their own culture and way of life).

Cheers
Tasker224

Are people this mis informed or are you having me on Tasker?

Hey Aussie,

As someone who's only caught 1/2 of the conversation, can you answer elaborate on this burning of rifles? PM me please to take it off topic.

- This isn't a joke, I'm seriously interested.

FWIW - I spent a year in Oz and stayed with some Aborigines when I spent time in Arnhem Land.

cheers

Aussie. If you want to discuss Aboriginal people, why don't you join the forum below. Click on link. Deleted