Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

Zulu's cross the Buffalo

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by forlornhope76 (U1752842) on Thursday, 28th July 2005

  During the Anglo-Zulu war of 1879 the British were the aggressors and as such King Cetshwayo banned his forces from going across the Buffalo river into Natal Province when they had the opportunity after Victory at Islandhwana.
  
  What would have been the result and consequences if the Zulu impi's had gone for broke and invaded Natal at this point in the war?
  
  Would there have been enough local or British forces available in Natal to defeat this counter attack? Was Islanhwana a one-off or could the Zulu's have repeated their success again? Would the British empire been weakened by such an incursion?
  
  Just a few questions to start this discussion off!
  
  James

  Link to this forum: Zulu's cross the Buffalo

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Martin Raynes (U1656364) on Friday, 29th July 2005

  It was the incompetence of Lord Chelmsford which lost the battle of Islandhwana. Any able British commander would have deployed his troops and ammunition better and the rifles of 1,800 British troops would have had no problem in knocking down 5 or 6 thousand Zulus in less than half an hour. The rate of fire of the Henry Martini rifle was at least twqelve rounds a minute. Firing into a solid mass of Zulus every bullet will kill or wound. So 1,800 x 12 x 30 = 648,000 rounds discharged. Not a single Zulu should have reached British lines alive. I have refought the battle in wargame and I gather the result is always the same the Zulus are always massacred. Chelmsford was an absolute idiot.

  Link to this forum: Zulu's cross the Buffalo

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Friday, 29th July 2005

  One of the problems that Chelmsford thought he had was that he would have to bring the Zulu nation to battle. Hence he was acting on the offensive and failed to give adequate instruction for the defence at Isandlwana. (I'm looking forward to how many different "correct" spellings of that we can manage).
  
  If you look at Rorkes Drift then you can see what a small number of troops armed with the Martini Henry behind rudimentary fortifications could do. Pearson (No 1 Column) also showed what could be done at Eshowe. Woods (No 4 Column) at Kambula Hill is another example of the power of an outnumbered British force acting strictly on the defensive.
  
  Taking into consideration that Isandlwana although a victory for the Zulu cost them dearly, reliable figures are impossible to come by. Estimates range from 1000 to 3000 dead, (1000 is probably more accurate) as to wounded well many more. Cetshwayo is said to have asked "Where are the rest?" when reviewing the victorious impis.
  
  Also although the Boers had not flocked to the British, it can be assumed however that they would not be happy about a Zulu invasion into Natal and would do something about it. Possibly Cetshwayo had this in his thinking when he forbid his troops to cross the Buffalo, attempting to avoid a two front war. Judging by their performance within two years they would have been very effective.
  
  So all in all, in my opinion there would have been enough local / British forces to have defended Natal. The Zulus could have repeated Isandlwana if they could have found another British commander who was rash enough to spread his troops out, far from the ammunition supply with no fortifications.
  
  Cheers AA

  Link to this forum: Zulu's cross the Buffalo

  Report message3

Back to top