If regiments attacking Rorke's drift had been younger

Hi all,

What are your thoughts on the outcome of Rorke's drift had the regiments attacking the post been younger?
The iNdlondlo, uDloko and UThulwana were in most cases I presume 20 years older than the defenders, of course the iNdluwengwe were closer in age but what do you suppose might have happened had the attackers all been younger and fresher?
I would guess that unmarried regiments would have brought a greater degree of ferocity to the assault, whilst not faulting the bravery of the older regiments, I would say the younger would have been more reckless and would have pressed the initial assaults somewhat harder.
I don't doubt the zulu were highly disciplined, but would the zulu commanders have been able to restrain the younger regiments indefinitely?, I think not, and that for me is the deciding factor.
I bow to your higher knowledge and would love to know your views, my own thought is that the affair would have ended far sooner and the result would have upset a few more civilians at their breakfast.

Cheers

Matt

Hi Matt

On the other hand they might have quit earlier?

I saw (I think on here), a study of percentage of losses that causes disciplined troops to quit for cover. If they were younger and reckless it could be argued that they were less disiplined?

cheers

Thanks for the reply.
I had thought about the discipline issue from both angles and I suppose we'll never really know whether it would have been of benefit or detriment to the zulu assault, as with all things past we can only imagine.

I wonder though, would the need to wash the spears and return victorious have motivated unmarried regiments to press on?,
As much as I've read on Rorke's drift, I can't help but think that had a burning desire been there, the zulus could have taken the post.
Where a higher casualty rate would eventually tell on the morale of inexperienced regiments, would that not be negated by their recklessness?, the same recklessness that would have meant an earlier end to the battle through a more ferocious and sustained assault?

All 'what if' I know, but something I've often wondered about, I find the study of individual regiments and their histories to be fascinating, the studies of others on this forum even more so.
Perhaps I should have posed the question 'which regiments would have carried the day at Rorke's drift'?
I have much to learn here, it is a joy to find so many who share my interest in the war.

Cheers

Matt

Hi Matt

The age and number of attackers does not change ...

The Zulu are unable to take a fortified position, regardless of the number of defenders, that was the secret to defeat them and if a Rorke's Drift they took part of the hospital,it's because he was abandoned, ditto for the cattle laager at Kambula...

Cheers

Pascal