What could Col Pulliene have done? To secure the camp and all of its provisions, with the men and equipment available to him.

I think the problem was the 'military mind'  
They had successfully knocked over native hordes by simple firepower of the Martini in the past and believed they could do exactly the same with this lot.

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Ray, you appear to be doing a Crealock, ie; how long have you been called Steve?

But to answer you, Durnford's prior orders had everything to do with the order of the 22nd, and if Crealock had not have poked his nose in when LC was dictating that order to Clery, then Durnford might have been given the correct order rather than the one that Crealock made a pig's ear of. Durnford did not know that the game had changed until he arrived at the camp and spoke to Pulleine.

Waterloo is right, this thread is supposed to be about Pulleine, not supporting or opposing Col Durnford.

So, to get back onto topic, I do believe that Pulleine had hours from the first reports of zulu's in the area to do something about defending the camp. There were empty wagons, there were rocks galore, there were dongas, all these could and should have been made use of, however, Pulleine did very little about it.

Durnford did received the correct order. Move to the camp! What order are you talking about as being in correct.

Eaton different climate out there.

So when exactly was this entrenchment/ laager/ redoubt to be
erected..please..again..think of the timings!, the first company
went off shortly after 12.pm the second 15 mins later..up to that
time there was no understanding that the camp was going to be
hit by overwhelming force..so from 12.30 till 1.00 approx is the
window for building anything substantial. just 1 hour.. where is
the time to do any of this?.

Waterloo, Steve came up with a great idea earlier in the topic, he suggested that even a scrape in the ground with rocks piled above it so that the men could fire from behind would have been a good defence, and I also think it would have been. One only need look at the men of the 20th Maine at Gattysburg to see that this sort of defence worked for them, so it would have been a very good idea at iSandlwana for the men to have built similar defences, and redoubts would also have been a great idea. Like I said earlier in the topic, Pulleine should have called his officers together to discuss the matter, and he also should have asked the Boers for their advice, after all, they had fought the zulu's before and must have known a thing or two. There were plenty of men to move some of the empty wagons, and there were dongas to fire from, Durnford made a good stand in his donga until his ammo started to run out and he was getting outflanked. Pulleine could have done a lot more than he did before Durnford arrived, but didn't.

Durnford made a good stand in the Donga!

Did he have any choice!

Lucky Pulleine was there to cover his ass! Or he would never have got to the Donga!

xhosa2000 wrote:

So when exactly was this entrenchment/ laager/ redoubt to be
erected..please..again..think of the timings!, the first company
went off shortly after 12.pm the second 15 mins later..up to that
time there was no understanding that the camp was going to be
hit by overwhelming force..so from 12.30 till 1.00 approx is the
window for building anything substantial. just 1 hour.. where is
the time to do any of this?.

Hi Les mate.

It's from the time just after LC left the camp. Pulleine had been getting reports in the early hours that there were zulu's in the area, if he had acted right away, he would have had hours before Durnford arrive to have had the men busy themselves making these structures and moving some of the empty wagons to form defences.

Oh impi, go back to sleep mate.

I agree that wagons could have been moved but they were required to return to the Drift for more supplies. If they had been moved into a defensive position and there had not been an attack that day, would Pulleine have been prepared to move them again, thereby leaving the camp open to attack again?

The clincher of course is staring everybody in the face!
The Tent's Were Not Struck!!!!, why not? the real
answer is No One! knew that a major battle was
underway. no one except the Zulu of course. look for all
the reasons you can, the simple fact is the British were
caught stone cold. no amount of creative imaginings can
alter the facts.

And even when the attack was well underway, there was still no attempt to strike the tents.

I wonder if the tents had been struck, to cause entanglement, would the Britsh have faced the danger of entanglement when they retreated back to the camp.

Good point impi..why do you think they was'nt.

What do you think?

I think they was not struck because he could not move
the camp at present..so what are you saying?.

The reason you strike the tents is to improve your field of fire. Consider though that when it became clear the camp was seriously threatened who was available to strike tents? - there were  large numbers of them - what would it take, 100 men?. You might say it should have been done earlier but Les is right that nobody imagined the Zulu were going to get that far. Even when the firing line was engaged they were holding the Zulu advance, as was Durnford from the donga. It was the right horn that did for them. What happened was unprecedented and it is too easy to say what should have been done with hindsight. As to using the wagons to laager, JY made the point about how difficult they were to move. Each one took 8 oxen to pull it on a road- how many men is that? And there is no way they could have been used anywhere but on the saddle where they were parked - there is an argument that a redoubt might have been constructed there - but it would have been very heavy work. I asked before, if you had been Chelmsford might you have risked it for a day? I think you might.

Steve

Good evening Martin.

I think the striking of the tents,also signified an attack.

I recall reading the Zulus were killing men as they came out of the tents. ? Why were they in the tents?

Why were they in the tents?...wrote Ulundi..

A multitude of reason's i would think,

I wasn't sure about 8 oxen being used to pull one cart so I have done a quick bit of research and I found some details. In Australia they used 16 Bullocks to pull an 11 ton Marshal Traction Engine over rough ground, so I'm assuming that you could move a five and a half ton load with 8 Oxen. Does anyone know how heavy the wagons used at Isandlwana were, I can't imagine that they were loaded up to 5 tons, perhaps those wagons carrying the ammunition were several tons but what other supplies were they carrying?

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

eaton wrote:

I agree that wagons could have been moved but they were required to return to the Drift for more supplies. If they had been moved into a defensive position and there had not been an attack that day, would Pulleine have been prepared to move them again, thereby leaving the camp open to attack again?

If the wagons were required to return to the drift then would they have already been unloaded, if that was the case then it wouldn't take 8 Oxen to move them, or were the Wagons left as they had arrived, with their loads still in situ.

Have a look at page 151 of Zulu Rising (hardback version). I underestimated the number of oxen needed, IK says 16 per wagon.

Steve

rusteze wrote:

Have a look at page 151 of Zulu Rising (hardback version). I underestimated the number of oxen needed, IK says 16 per wagon.

Steve

That sounds about right, 16 per wagon could pull up to 11 Tons. I have also read that it would take 1000 men to move a load which could be moved by 200 Oxen, if you do a rough calculation it takes approximately 31 men to do the job of 13 Oxen, round it up and you are looking at about 35 men to move one loaded cart.

but what other supplies were they carrying?...asked waterloo..

Neat bit of research waterloo, others more learned than me i'm
sure will  answer your first part..as to the above, what were
they carrying, Hmmm, it would take several pages to list anything
close to a guestimate. the victorian's on campaign took everything
plus the kitchen sink. and i do mean everything, try and add some
thing totally ridiculous and i bet they had ten of them.

Over rough ground?
So the wagon unloaded is what - 4 tons?
Steve

rusteze wrote:

Over rough ground?
So the wagon unloaded is what - 4 tons?
Steve

I found other bits of information that state two men per ton, a 4 Ton Wagon would take 8 men to shift it, possibly more on uneven/rough ground. So its going to take about 100 men to shift 10 unloaded Wagons.

Two men per ton doesn't sound much to me. Two men pushing a small car on a flat tarmac road is not easy - that's about a ton isn't it?

Steve

But there was 1300 men + at Isandlwana horse and oxen, already stated. So where's the problem.

We need to know what a cape wagon's weight was
unloaded, then of course the guesswork will kick
in!. no SWL's in those days..so who can say what
a fully laden wagon weight would be.. no. impi
thats not good enough..and you know it!.

Yes it is, your making a problem, that didn't exist. They had the man power to move the wagons, there is simply no argument.

And of course this is all a pointless exercise! if the
defender's knew that there was a full attack under-
way, and started to drag wagons about, who would
be doing the fighting?. remember this will at the
earliest 12.20- 12.25 pm. which only leaves the bulk
of them an hour or so left of life. the math's do not
add up.

When LC left the camp the work could have been started. If the wagons were to follow, it would have been more prudent to have them close together.
And how the hell did the Zulus move them, loaded with their dead comrades.

And how the hell did the Zulus move them, loaded with their dead comrades..ask's impi.

Well the Zulu could have had near on twenty thousand men still left, man power was
not a problem!.

Ha ha so it needs 20,000 to move a wagon. What an idiot. I'll spend no more time on you. Your a

Waterloo

There is no doubt that 100 men could have built something on the saddle if they had started early enough - the wagons simply needed to be pushed together, but they could not have moved them far in my view without in-spanning the oxen. But no one thought it necessary given the circumstances - if I'm being honest I can see why they thought that. Of course it proved to be a mistake although I still don't think it would have affected the outcome, just delayed it.

Steve

Good point impi. Taking into consideration, the fact that the Zulus killed all the oxen and horses. They had no choice but to move them by hand!
Not sure but didn't they take some back to Ulundi.

Ha ha so it needs 20,000 to move a wagon. What an idiot. I'll spend no more time on you. Your a Joker..said impi.

Thank you impi, but please dont insult me!, i did not insult you!.
i would'nt want you to get into any trouble by admin.

rusteze wrote:

Waterloo

There is no doubt that 100 men could have built something on the saddle if they had started early enough - the wagons simply needed to be pushed together, but they could not have moved them far in my view without in-spanning the oxen. But no one thought it necessary given the circumstances - if I'm being honest I can see why they thought that. Of course it proved to be a mistake although I still don't think it would have affected the outcome, just delayed it.

Steve

That's the thing isn't it, we all know why they didn't laager but the 'what if' makes for a good discussion.

Not really. What if's don't move the discussion forward.
What if the Zulu hadn't attacked the camp on the 22nd another what if?

The difficult thing to judge is how much damage the Zulu were prepared to take before they gave up. It is tempting to compare with RD and think a redoubt is the answer. But just a bit longer with a sustained attack at RD would probably have seen the defences breached. Ulundi makes you think the opposite. Enough fire power and you can eventually break the Impi, then cavalry can follow up. But which example Isandhlwana would turn out to reflect, if a redoubt had been available, is hard to say. I would be more confident if the whole force had been there.

Steve

Lets not forget , No3 Column had the least amount of Imperial troops , and total number I think as well of any Column , with the exception of Durnford's , Impi several posts back you intimated that an excuse was made by members stating that it would be hard or difficult to build a lagaar , they were the exact words LC said to Glyn and others when they queried why there wasn't a laagar being prepared , but I'm sure you already knew that . I hope you did . Striking the Tents was to open the field of fire , was also to show they were under attack , I seem to remember it takes 3 or 4 men to strike a tent , there were probably hundreds ! . No time to do so once the camp knew they were to be attacked , there are reports that many spare men were sent to the firing line , as for the men being killed coming out of the tents , that could've been those running through the tented area attempting to flee , giving the Zulu witness the impression they were coming '' out '' of the tents .
90th

90th
It was always about the timing, the 'Blizkrieg', much is made about the 5 hours Pulleine had but it needs to be put firmly into context. The early Zulu sightings were no threatening, as far as the camp was concerned Chelmsford had marched out to engage the impi and the sounds of that engagement were filtering through to the camp. There was no danger, no inclination of any impending attack. Therefore no reason to go into a panic mode to do anything. Pulleines superiors weren't concerned why should he, only been with the column a few days. risk getting a reputation as a nervous commander.
From around 11:30 Durnford had again allayed all fears, he had men on the plateau, he was charging of along the Quabe, what could possibly go wrong?
Pulleines preparation time actually came down to less than 30 minutes, the time Shepstone appeared with the news and the battle commencing. And then it was far to late to prepare an artificial barricade. After that it was a tactical cock up, brought on by the deployment of the troops. As Gary has often pointed out, even that was to a degree dictated by ground conditions and the 'lay of the land'.

Cheers

I read it takes one man to strike a tent by dropping the pole.quick and easy!

The wagons - were huge and needed 40 men to manhandle them - they were NOT the size of the Boer wagons depicted at Blood River. Also Col Pulleine's operational experience in the South Africa had been against the small independent tribes in the Eastern Cape - a force of 20,000-25,000 was beyond his comprehension.

Nobody has discussed whether LC had remained at Isandlwana - would he have survived the Zulu attack?

Well that's still 1260 men to protect the camp!

Pulleine failed to defend the camp, if fact his mistake had been fighting an enemy outside their camp, without any thought being give to how the men would get back, should the need arise.
At what point did Pulleine decide to sent the men out of the camp, would it not have been common sense, for the companies being sent out to take ammuntion boxes with them, therefore allowing a near constant supply of ammuntion.
The civilians could have been tasked with striking the tents, and at least tried to get some of the wagons into a position of defence. I still think that Pulleine actions were based on looking after Durnford.

Hi all,
I see there is some question about which type of wagons were at Isandlwana. The answer is two major types, the Boer wagon and the British army wagon. Of which the  the former were in the majority as the Boer transport riders were contracted , particularly, to deliver commisiariat goods as well as fodder and grain to the forces, amongst other things. These  wagons were man handleable , 20 to 40 men being sufficient, to move them, depending upon load and ground surface/slopes etc.  In terms of manpower available to build a quick laager, there was no excuse not to build a laager at Isandlwana. A laager was feasible and possible. But of course the clever people had no will to laager.
Most authors have a picture of the battlefield after the attack in their books on the AZW. Careful  scrutiny of that picture  will show many Boer type wagons there.
The word laager ( ie not laggar, larger, largar etc ) has Dutch origins and means "to camp". But the key is camping in the Boer fashion.  When the Boers were trekking (travelling) every night stop entailed, laagering ie drawing all the wagons in the convoy into a circle, with no gaps between. Each family in the convoy had a responsiblity  to defend their wagon if attacked at night. Children big enough to hold a weapon were also in the defence system. The elderly loaded weapon and passed them forward. This worked well for them with many victories  against  overwhelming enemy numbers.  The Boers went out of their way to give good advice to LC and his merry men, on the absolute necessity of laagering whilst operating in Zulu country.
In addition to laagering at Isandlwana the idea of placing a small group of say 40 troopers  on top of the mountain has merit. The idea being that these suitably equipped sharp shooters would rain down carefully aimed fire on the attackers wherever they were presenting the biggest problem down below. Assuming of course that the laager was reasonably close to them.

regards

barry

Ulundi makes you think the opposite. Enough fire power and you can eventually break the Impi, then cavalry can follow up...from Steve.

By the time Ulundi was fought, the cream of the Zulu nation had gone!. all the
fit young men had in the main perished, leaving the more cautious middle aged
and grey beard's. The british fought for imperial conquest, the Zulu simply to
survive.

barry wrote:

Hi all,
I see there is some question about which type of wagons were at Isandlwana. The answer is two major types, the Boer wagon and the British army wagon. Of which the  the former were in the majority as the Boer transport riders were contracted , particularly, to deliver commisiariat goods as well as fodder and grain to the forces, amongst other things. These  wagons were man handleable , 20 to 40 men being sufficient, to move them, depending upon load and ground surface/slopes etc.  In terms of manpower available to build a quick laager, there was no excuse not to build a laager at Isandlwana. A laager was feasible and possible. But of course the clever people had no will to laager.
Most authors have a picture of the battlefield after the attack in their books on the AZW. Careful  scrutiny of that picture  will show many Boer type wagons there.
The word laager ( ie not laggar, larger, largar etc ) has Dutch origins and means "to camp". But the key is camping in the Boer fashion.  When the Boers were trekking (travelling) every night stop entailed, laagering ie drawing all the wagons in the convoy into a circle, with no gaps between. Each family in the convoy had a responsiblity  to defend their wagon if attacked at night. Children big enough to hold a weapon were also in the defence system. The elderly loaded weapon and passed them forward. This worked well for them with many victories  against  overwhelming enemy numbers.  The Boers went out of their way to give good advice to LC and his merry men, on the absolute necessity of laagering.
In addition to laagering at Isandlwana the idea of placing a small group of say 40 troopers  on top of the mountain has merit. The idea being that these suitably equipped  sharp shooters  would rain down fire on the attackers wherever they were presenting the biggest problem down below. Assuming of course that the laager was reasonably close to them.

regards

barry

I like the idea of the sharpshooters, I think it was Neil Aspinshaw that said the MH had an effective range of 2000 yards if it was fitted with a sighting tube, I've also seen footage of the MH fitted with a 'sniper' Ross 1910 peep sight modification. It was extremely accurate, it just goes to show that the MH in the right hands is very effective. I watched one gentleman hit a target at 100 yards with a 15 mph crosswind, he fired 5 shots and managed to hit the target with a 3inch grouping and all of that was done using black powder.

What about the Zulu sharpshooters?.

I think I'm right in saying that the only casualties that the British suffered at Ulundi was as a result of Zulu sharpshooters, but their effect was minimal. There is also the fact that 'he who holds the high ground normally has the advantage'.

ps. nice avatar,