Prior to Sihayo's Kraal

Was there any skirmishes between the British and the Zulu's prior to the attack on Sihayo's Kraal. Or was this the first action that to place between the two armies during the Anglo Zulu War.

Good question. I'm sure there must have been little snipes at each other, but I don't recall reading anything other that the first action after invading Zululand was at Sihayo's Kraal.

Didn't Wood or Buller get into a small argument on the 7th or 8th Jan with a body of Zulus.

Hi all.
No 3 Column didnt cross into zululand till the 11th jan ( Unopposed ) and the attack on Sihayo's Kraal was I think the 12th
so fairly certain there wasnt any prior contact . Cant remember reading of any contact on the 7th or 8th Jan with Wood / Buller
either . Happy to be corrected . .
cheers 90th.

I do recall reading that an incident did take place early morning on the 10th or the 11th. It was thought that Sirayo would oppose Glyn.s crossing at RD. Some of Bullers men were sent out and no sooner after leaving the camp they came under fire from a small party of Zulu's. I make have got this wrong,but when I have time I will check, this incident is recorded in the Zulu Campaign by . Major Ashe

Page 33 of Ashe & Wyatt-Edgell, the morning after the meeting with Chelmsford & Wood. Buller's men were fired upon. Later the same day Robert Barton & the FLH have a brush with some Zulus. Which given that Chelmsford & Wood met on 11th January 1879, would be the 12th the same day as the attack on Sihayo's stronghold.

kwaJimu1879

Hi Saul David 1879.
Checked my copy of Ashe it reads to me the skirmish took place on the 12th .
cheers 90th.

There was a small "skirmish " on the 6th near Vermaarks on the Biggarsberg when Shepstone arrested the male inhabitants of a local kraal who had been signalling troop movements.
Then on the way back from meeting Woods the Chelmsford party raided a group of kraals and liberated a herd of cows. In fact several hundred cattle, some horses and a number of sheep and goats is how Norris Newman puts it.
So the first hostile action would I assume have been credited to Shepstone. The first casualty was a member of the NNC at the commencement of the attack on Sirayo's kraal, he was wounded by a sniper.

Regards

Just an observation ref; this book. It was published in 1880. Yet it says it was by Wyatt-Edgel who was killed at the Battle of Lundi which as you know was in 1879. Can I take it they were writing this book while serving in the Zulu War.

Thanks for that, saves me hunting around, but as you have got the books open. Was there not an incident involving Captain Barton who was moving further into Zululand.

Dave,

Edmund Wyatt-Edgell was corresponding with Waller Ashe, until his death at the Battle of Ulundi, 4th July 1879. It was that correspondence which formed the basis of the book.

Saul David 1879,

I think you find I already mentioned Robert Barton in my previous posting, unless you're referring to one of the other Captain Bartons?

kwaJimu1879

Jimu. You did. Apologies. Didn't read it correctly.

What ever happened, it was the British who initiated contact.

Wasn't Cetshwayo particularly careful NOT to give the British any excuse whatsoever to start a war?

Cetshwayo wasn't stupid, he knew he was being forced into a corner by ever increasingly outrageous demands and knew the British would be delighted for any Zulu aggression.

Even after invading Zululand, the Zulus eluded any contact with Chelmsford's column, as per Cetshwayo's orders.

In the absence of any Zulu contact whatsoever, Chelmsford was forced to attack Sihayo's kraal. This was the first action of the AZW.

Cetshwayo, was not a man that could be trusted, take a look the conditions he agreed to if he was to be recognised as the Zulu King by the British. Conditions imposed by Stepstone during his coronation.

Chard1879. Could you post what the conditions, were that was imposed at the coronation.

"Cetshwayo was crowned twice - by the Zulu people and by agents of Queen Victoria. The 'colonial coronation' was accompanied by 'laws' - allegedly agreed to by the new king - that gave Britain the discretion to depose him. These 'laws' dealt with the proportionate powers of subordinate chiefs and the requirements for execution of Zulu subjects. The first five years of Cetshwayo's reign followed a now familiar pattern the 'raising up' of favourites within the Zulu hierarchy and courting of the British against Boer expansionism. Disease had meanwhile decimated Zululand cattle herds and the resulting tension led first to internecine raids and murder, then spilled over to affect white settlers in the form of harassment and stock theft. Both contravened Cetshwayo's 'coronation laws' and invoked Britain's 'right and duty' to depose him."

Chard1879:

" the conditions he agreed to" :lol!:

With the metaphorical gun pointing to his head!

Tasker. It was the King who asked to be recognised by the British, not the other way around. The British agreed providing he agreed to certain regulations, one being stop killing your people for nothing.

Saul David
C'mon Prof surely a tad naive?
Shepstone bulldozed his way across Southern Africa with all the arrogance of a Brit imperialist. That applies to his dealings with the Zulu, he invited himself into Zulu land. And as for that tatty old so called coronation? In theory yes Cetswayo wanted recognition, but for one reason..........first comes the missionary etc. He wanted to protect his kingdom and like a true diplomat was prepared to suffer the English if that would aid his cause.
Bottom line was that Frere wanted him gone, in spite of his own government, and used Theopolis and Chelmsford to do so.
Zululand was a soverign state. The so called coronation and recognition was a means to an end. The Brits knew the highly contentious 'conditions' would never be enforcable.

Regards

Why should a king in a distant country thousands of miles away, feel it necessary to seek and agree to British conditions?

We all know the answer, of course, and let's not pretend we believe it was the British Government's shocked concern, over the fate of two of Cetshwayo's unfaithful women.

The same old excuses are used by a certain superpower and its side-kicks to intefere in other countries' affairs and wage war today. (Unless of course, those counties don't have any oil, or anything else of interest that can be plundered).

Nothing much has changed.

But all that aside. Cetshwayo ammitted after his capture that had the British not annexed the transvaal, war would have broken have broken out between the zulus and the Dutch Settlers. Perhaps its a good thing the Brit's did bulldoze there way in.

Old H. Here you go.

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

There were indeed some skirmishes between the British and the Zulus prior to the attack on Sihayo's Kraal. While the attack on Sihayo's Kraal on January 12, 1879, is considered one of the first major actions of the Anglo-Zulu War, it was not the very first encounter between the two forces.

In the lead-up to the war, there were tensions and minor engagements. For instance, the British issued an ultimatum to the Zulu king Cetshwayo in December 1878, which was not met. Following this, the British began preparations for an invasion. Small skirmishes and reconnaissance missions occurred in the early days of January 1879, as the British forces crossed into Zululand.

Therefore, while the attack on Sihayo's Kraal was a significant early battle, it was preceded by minor skirmishes and military activities between the British and the Zulus.

OlgaSpicer wrote:

There were indeed some skirmishes between the British and the Zulus prior to the attack on Sihayo's Kraal. While the attack on Sihayo's Kraal on January 12, 1879, is considered one of the first major actions of the Anglo-Zulu War, it was not the very first encounter between the two forces.

In the lead-up to the war, there were tensions and minor engagements. For instance, the British issued an ultimatum to the Zulu king Cetshwayo in December 1878, which was not met. Following this, the British began preparations for an invasion. Small skirmishes and reconnaissance missions occurred in the early days of January 1879, as the British forces crossed into Zululand.

Therefore, while the attack on Sihayo's Kraal was a significant early battle, it was preceded by minor skirmishes and military activities between the British and the Zulus.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I have a strong suspicion this was written using ChatGPT or a similar software...which are absolutely not to be relied upon when it comes to such niche topics as the Anglo-Zulu War.
As for answering the question, I don't know for sure either. If there were skirmishes they must have been of very little importance, but I think for the most part, the original question (which was a great one!) has been answered. One thing I might add, the British had apparently already suffered some losses during their crossing of the Buffalo River on the 11th of January, during which some black auxiliaries most likely drowned. No exact figures seem to be available, however, and only one source mentions that there were some casualties, so don't take it for granted. Others might confirm or deny it.

A number of contentious issues are raised in this thread, not all of which are true.  Zululand was a tribal polity, not a "sovereign state".  Vermaaks, for instance is in Natal, not Zululand, and can hardly be used to state that it was "the British who initiated contact."  Drownings while crossing the Buffalo hardly fit within the definition of a 'skirmish'.  Reasons for the war have been bandied about as if at a tap room bar.  Equating them with a greedy modern superpower's manipulations is a gross over-simplification.  Really this subject-matter requires a discrete thread of its own.  Have a look at 'Moderation and Forbearance', Studies in the ZW II, pp. 26-58.  And I agree with Hobbes's last post.

Hi Olga , Hobes & JW .
Can't say I've ever come across Skirmishes that were mentioned prior to the Attack on Sihayo's Kraal on the 12th Jan , if anyone would be involved earlier Wood's Column would be the Prime Candidates ! having crossed the Blood river into Zululand on Jan 6th . Wood in ' From Midshipman To Field Marshall '
Wood states and I quote '' I received a letter on the 9th Jan from the General , requesting me to move down and demonstrate to the southward , to take pressure off him as he crossed the Buffalo , and also if unopposed , to meet him personally about half way from our respective positions '' . Wood doesn't mention any skirmishes or anything of the like . Wood says he met with Chelmsford at about 9am Jan 11th on the Nkonjane Hill 9 miles from Rorke's Drift , Wood goes onto say that he had an interesting 3 hr conversation with the General while Buller was sweeping up cattle to the South of the General's line of advance . Therefore I'm not sure one could put cattle rustling in the same category as a ' Skirmish ' but there's no mention of firing on or by any Zulu's prior to the 12th that I'm aware of . Olga , as Hobbes and Julian have mentioned one must be very wary of anything read on the net....ie Wikipedia , Google and anything else , these are usually added by the Public . Would be interested as would others as to where you came across evidence of the Skirmishes and where they were conducted ? .
90th

The first death on the 11th was not in armed conflict, but was the sailor who fell off the punt taking troops across the Lower Drift and was taken by a crocodile - a skirmish with a crocodile perhaps?

JW
Yes that's one skirmish you wouldn't want to be in ! , a 12 yo Girl was taken by a Croc in Australia's Northern Territory a few hrs from Darwin yesterday , no sign of her body at this stage , probably won't ever be found
90th

Sadly, it was also on our news in the UK, which was what prompted my memory of the 1879 event.

90th