Why did Lord Chelmsford return to Isandlwana on the 22nd Jan

Why exactly did Lord Chelmsford return to the camp on the 22nd. 
What did he really hope to achieve. Orders were given to retake the camp, but by the time they actually did, it was in pitch darkness. if the Zulus had been there, would they not have had the advantage, a British column moving slowly in the open in the dark. Did throwing a few canon rounds in to the camp make any difference, there are no witness accounts to say it did. Was Chelmsford chancing his are by retuning.  Is there any reason why he could not have waited until the morning.

Ulundi,

I'd like to think it was in the vain hope that someone might still be found alive.

As to the artillery let us turn to Chelmsford:

Lord Chelmsford wrote:

The Artillery came into action on the road, and shelled the crest of the narrow neck over which our line of retreat lay...

Purely precautionary moves protecting the line of both advance and retreat.

John Y.

I believe I read somewhere,they used case shot, which possibly would have taken care of any wounded soldiers. They also stopped quite a few times while on way to the camp, would it not have been better to advance in day light, when you can see your enermy.

Crealock.

"About a quarter to five we halted at a distance, I should think, of two miles from camp, but. two ridges lay between us and the camp, and with our glasses we could only observe those returning the way they had come. Colonel Russell went to the front to reconnoitre, and returned about 5.45 with a report that "All was as bad as it could be;" that the Zulus were holding the camp. He estimated the number at 7,000"

Extract from Chards report.

"We had not completed a wall two boxes high when, about 4.30 p.m., Hitch cried out that the enemy was in sight, and he saw them, apparently 500 or 600 in number, came around the hill to our south (the Oscarberg) and advance at a run against our south wall"

There's about one hour 45 mins within the timings of Creadlock & Chard, would LC s column not have heard the firing from RD. After all, RD claims to have heard the firing at Isandlwana.

Perhaps those that have visit both Isandlwana and Rorkes drift might be able to shed some light.

In the film Zulu Dawn, at the end, a voice says " they had rode a little towards RD and the sky was red with fire" but no mentionec of gun fire. Would appricate any accounts from those out with LC who state they could hear firing from RD.

Not sure 11 miles approx, is a long way with regards to rifle fire, canon yes!
Not sure if rifles firing together would change the impact of sound, and travel.

There was a letter sent home, by a soldier who was with LC, complaining about be made to wait before advancing to the camp. It's on the forum someone where.

Why exactly did Lord Chelmsford return to the camp on the 22nd.
What did he really hope to achieve. Orders were given to retake the camp, but by the time they actually did, it was in pitch darkness. if the Zulus had been there, would they not have had the advantage, a British column moving slowly in the open in the dark. Did throwing a few canon rounds in to the camp make any difference, there are no witness accounts to say it did. Was Chelmsford chancing his are by retuning. Is there any reason why he could not have waited until the morning.
...Asks Ulundi.

One immediate thought occurred. To see for himself!.. and look for any survivor's..
he was not to know at that point, that the Zulu were not accustomed to leaving
survivors, only dead.

Gosset puts it more succinctly..this from French.


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

Good post Xhosa..

Members views on the reality of LC actually holding the position had they been attacked. My opinion vriually nil.

Surly the question has to be, would the Zulus have let them get to that position had they remained.

What become of the Zulus that LC went out to attack? 
We know they hopping from hill to hill drawing LC away from the camp, but did they not pose a threat to his rear as he advanced to the camp of Isandlwana. 

Perhaps a silly question, but are we sure,that the Zulus were aware that LC had left the camp in the early hours. Do we have any accounts from the Zulus that show they knew. They seemed to have hung around the camp until his return that evening only leaving after canon fire. I have read accounts, that the Zulus who attacked RD thought LC column were the dead soldiers from Isandlwana. Is it possible they though they had annilated the whole of the 3 column at Isandlwana.

"Source:  Interview with Mehlokazulu Kasihayo (The Battle Of Isandlwana)


Q, Did you see Lord Chelmsford's army leaving the camp on the day of the battle ?

A: No, We received reports of fire arms and we saw it when we returned

Chard hardly a silly question because the fact of the matter is that the Zulu's never knew LC had left , the only people who think that the zulu's knew LC had left the camp have been some of the forum members ! , I've never , ever , seen a zulu testimony stating that they lured LC from the camp or knew that he'd actually left the camp . Happy to be corrected . Xhosa who has a library on the War may know of some testimony , but , like I said I've never come across it or remember reading it .
90th

90th that's intersting in that I assumed they were lured away from the camp, but like you I cannot find any source to say they were. So I'm now assuming that when the camp was attacked the Zulus assumed LC was there?

Chaps, i will look for the Zulu perspective.

in the meantime this, from field marshal Lord Grenfell from
his diary, continued and finished at his death by Major
General (ret) Ronald B Lane.

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

The relevant part being the mention of the Zulu decoy! i truly believe that the Zulu had such a
sophisticated spy system that they knew every movement of the British even before they entered
Zululand...and certainly when the invasion began..think about it! any large British troop movement
would be detected, monitored and kept under constant surveillance. Lord Chelmsford was decoyed
and manipulated. does anybody believe differently?.

Only he didn't taken part in the Battle. So doing no more than what we are doing now, guessing?

24th wrote..

Only he didn't taken part in the Battle. So doing no more than what we are doing now, guessing?





Could you please tell me more? Grenfell is contempory. no guesswork about it!
do you not think the Zulu's had spy's everywhere?.

I'm currently reading Spies & Espionage in the zulu war , no mention yet of a deliberate act to lure LC from the camp , I think it was luck and circumstance which lead to LC leaving , certainly never heard of a planned act by the Zulu to lure him from the camp .
90th

xhosa2000 wrote:

24th wrote..

Only he didn't taken part in the Battle. So doing no more than what we are doing now, guessing?



Could you please tell me more? Grenfell is contempory. no guesswork about it!
do you not think the Zulu's had spy's everywhere?.

I'm saying Guess ! Because its not factual. If it is what's his source. ?

As i said it is a contemporary account which means he was around during the times involved..
so he had access to first hand information! no guesswork at all..you simply cannot dismiss history
as guesswork!so i ask you again, expand on your theory please.

Hiya 90th, yes i have that. have not got round to reading it yet! but re the whole subject of spies...

i am very uncomfortable with labeling an indigenous people with that tag.. i prefer to call them
scouts. and i say again, the Zulu had a sophisticated social society bound together with rigid
self disipline! they were well conversed with all aspects of inter native warfare, and were surely
aware of the british capabilities re firepower and methods of waging war, again i have to suspend
believe if anybody doubts the Zulu's ability to scout within their own country. i know of to many accounts that say LC was decoyed away from Isandhlwana, do we all not accept that! if so, then
to decoy..that implies a certain sophistication and awareness of military tactics, among which would be the employment of a network of spies..( scouts)..

We know their were Zulus in camp on the morning of the battle! we know Mbilini visited Moriaty's
laager..did the Zulu have advanced knowledge of the british movements? why of course they did!.

another account of Isandhlwana, some might not have seen.

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

The above from..selections from the correspondence of
J X Merriman 1870 1890 by Lewson.

Xhosa wrote:

"expand on your theory please"

I have no theory, why would one have one based on a publication. I just said he wasn't at the battle.
The extracts you are posting are not accounts, it's someone's observations of the day and their own translation of stories heard. There are many publications from the day, each with there own translation.

yes thats my point exactly!!!! all those opinions add up! and if factual
become part of history! what have you got about me posting extracts
from any publication, you only have to scroll down without comment!
i asked you what is your opinion! do you think the Zulu could decoy
lord chelmsford away from the camp? and if so why? and if not why?
i'm genuinely interested in what YOU have to say, make it as long as
you wish..

xhosa2000 wrote:

As i said it is a contemporary account which means he was around during the times involved..
so he had access to first hand information! no guesswork at all..you simply cannot dismiss history
as guesswork!so i ask you again, expand on your theory please.

Bonjour Xhosa,
I am with Ian Knight's thesis on this subject....
J. SIVEWRIGHT had written:" All the 24th died hard, and Glyn searched till he found little Noddy's body -not much mutilated".
Who is "Noddy"?

Cheers

ymob wrote:

Who is "Noddy"?

He's big ears friend.

old historian2 wrote:

ymob wrote:

Who is "Noddy"?

He's big ears friend.  

"Big ears"????
The name of his dog, one of his horse?
Cheers

Hi xHosa
I'm not to sure of the exactness of some of the claims you have posted recently , especially where it's stated '' It seems most of the dead lay thickest a mile from camp '' , or words to that effect , I think that has been discounted ? . The fact of the matter is , and I've said all along , even before going to Isandlwana , that the firing line had to be so far out because of the dead ground . If they didnt move that far out the zulu army could've used the lay of the land and got a lot closer with many more men .
Cheers 90th

Old H2, nice one gave me the biggest grin of the day so far .
good day Frederic, i have no idea who poor noddy was i'm afraid,
but it was the main reason i added the piece, the pathos leapt off
the page..

Hiya 90th, i'm afraid i might be causing confusion!
I'm not to sure of the exactness of some of the claims you have posted recently

I throw these accounts of Isandhlwana in to colour the debate, i never cite any as fact, i thought
most had the modern day thinking on this battle and well understood how out of date some of
them must be..but some might never have read any of these and will never see them in their
original format. i pretty much agree with what you put above, sorry if made you spit your coffee!

I did read the Zulu commander, was supposed to have walked through the camp in the early hours. Perhaps when LC was perpairing for the off. Red rag around the are who would know?

We do have eyewitness accounts, that state the Zulus LC was chasing, were leading them further and further away from the camp. Could it have been a stroke of luck, that LC divided his force, therefore the camp becoming a prime target. I'm. Not convince the Zulu had planned to dupe LC into leaving, it just happen as a matter of course.

old historian2 wrote:

ymob wrote:

Who is "Noddy"?

He's big ears friend.  

In France, "Noddy" is "Oui-Oui"!
Good joke...

Not convince the Zulu had planned to dupe LC into leaving, it just happen as a matter of course.
says John..

At the end of the day you might well be right mate.
but nobody credits the Zulu, like they were all deaf,
dumb, and blind..they wer'nt. they watched every
move of the British and then handed them their worst
ever defeat by indigenous troops..gave them another
slap at Intombi and another at Hlobane..will somebody
wake up and smell the coffee and give these amazing
people their due!.

No one that I know of, as ever discredited the Zulu.

This from TMFH publication. Ron Lock & Peter Quantrill.

"First:  Having conjecturally decoyed half of No 3 Column (and two thirds of its artillery) from the camp in order to join Major Dartnell in an effort to locate, engage and destroy a strong Zulu presence approximately ten miles east of the camp in the Mangeni Falls area.

Second: The reconnaissance of the Isandlwana Camp made by a mounted party that included Mehlokazulu kaSihayo, one of the commanders of the Nkobamakosi Regiment in the very early hours of 22nd January and,"

I haven't found anything, that argues the against TMFH.

yes john, but no ones cuing up to give them there due either!.

Ray63,

Ray63 wrote:

This from TMFH publication. Ron Lock & Peter Quantrill.

The key word there being conjecturally.

Quote :

I haven't found anything, that argues the against TMFH.

Then you need to start looking harder. I am a big fan of Lock & Quantrill's work but there are a great many -- professionals and amateurs alike -- that argue most strenuously with their HIGHLY conjectural (not that there's anything wrong with that...) opinions/conclusions.

And as a matter of fact some of them post here fairly routinely.

Agree they argue, but never produce the evidence, Lock and Quantrill however do.

Mr Greaves wrote:

Agree they argue, but never produce the evidence, Lock and Quantrill however do.

The burden of proof was squarely on L&C if for no other reason that you can't prove the absence of something. In any case they did not meet that burden in the eyes of most professionals.

Let's call that a professional disagreement, based on it doesn't go along with their publications. L & Q have put forward a good publication with primary source evidence. From both sides.

Mr Greaves wrote:

Let's call that a professional disagreement, based on it doesn't go along with their publications. L & Q have put forward a good publication with primary source evidence. From both sides.

Fine by me. I really enjoy their work and put a lot of stock by it.

The Zulus that had shown them to Dartnell, could have launch an attack, Dartnell caught out in the open would not have stood a chance. The Zulus could have prevented messengers from Dartnell getting to the camp. why didn't they attack Dartnell?

The next day we have eyewitness accounts from those out with LC  that the Zulu's were leading them further and further away from the camp. ?

Interesting Mr Greaves, 6pdr, i have just nipped back from
the other place, and reread for the upteenth time the last
few pages of TMFH debate, with L&Q and S putting forward
and rebutting each others points, with The late Col Mike as
usual pithy and to the point. just before the last, Julian
Whybra entered and itemized a few points. now Julian, we
know you for a very busy man..but can you tell me if you
are current formulating your response or is this topic on the
' back burner ' so to speak!.

Lt Charlie Harford believed that the Zulus that Darnell's reconnaissance spotted and reported to LC were a decoy and that Dartnell, and so Chelmsofrd had been tricked. First thing in the morning of the 22nd:

"The Contingent were ordered to sweepover the Isilulwane Hill where the Zulus had kept their fires burning during the night and then work onto Matyana's stronghold to the right of it. Not a Zulu was to be seen when we got over the rise and as we were to find out afterwards, their fires were only a blind to mislead us as to their intentions, and the few men that we had seen exposing themselves and moving about had been left there to make us imagine the place was occupied by a large force."

In addition to this, on the morning of the 22nd, Chelmsford's interpreter Mr Longcast learned fron interrogating some Zulu prisoners that "an immense army was expected that day from Ulundi. He immediately reported this to Chelmsford." During this interrogation, on hearing the sound of artillery fire from the camp, these Zulu prisoners said "Do you hear that? There is fighting going on at the camp."

Thank you Dave, i read that a long time ago, and agree that
it is most probable that that events unfolded in that
way..i have been saying the exact same thing as you all know.