"If Chelmsford Had Been At Isandlhwana" Topic

If Chelmsford hadn't split up his columns and remained at the camp at Isandlhwana,then (1) would the Zulus still have attacked, and (2) would the entire army have been wiped out on a single day? Or (3) would a larger British army been able to cover more ground and fend off the Zulus?

I think the Zulus would still have attacked but maybe Chelmsford would have kept the formations more compact with easier ammo re-supply.He had issued orders for a lager to be formed every night on the march & maybe that would have been done as well.

I think it would have been overkill if the Zulus had attacked the full regiment and supports. The first battalion really was sufficient and had halted the Zulu attack right up to the point where the ammunition resupply failed -- because primarily of distance, not boxed/unboxed. The battalion had moved out of the camp and away from the ammunition, and it just took too darned long to get from the ammo supply point to the firing line.

The line may have been too extended, and closing up a bit would not have been a bad thing. But again, not necessary if sufficient supplies of ammunition had been available at the firing line.

One could assume Chelmsford wouldn't have let Durnford go off as he did which eventually caused the British right flank to collapse. They would still have quite a problem at the rear though. I highly recommend Mike Snooks book, "How Can Man Die Better".

There is also the possibility that he would have died with the regiment. But the casualties for the Zulus would have been so high, it may have 'broken their backs' and thus the later battles would not have been fought.

(1) Would the Zulu's still have attacked?

Yes, I believe that they would still have attacked, there may have been more effort to find the best way to approach the British to try to negate as much of their firepower as possible, but the attack would have gone through.

(2) Would the entire army have been wiped out in a day?

No. If the Zulu's attacked the entire compliment of troops I believe that they would have broken like a wave upon the beach. The combined firepower of that many more soldiers would have seriously drained the manpower of the Zulu forces to the point that I believe they would have broken and come back some other time to try again. My thoughts here are that the splitting of the army left them in a similar position to George Armstrong Custer – dividing your force in the face of the enemy is a sure way to get one part of it mauled, destroyed, or broken in short order. However, if you pull off the divide your force and are victorious you are a hero. Isandlhwana is similar in that the commander divided his force into two sections and one of them got caught, and destroyed. If the commander had not divided his force, I believe that they combined firepower of the two sections would have been sufficient to at least hold off the Zulus and possibly break them.

(3)Would a larger British Army have been able to cover more ground and fend off the Zulu's?

I believe I answered this above – I think that with the combined firepower of the two forces that the Zulu forces would have been hard-pressed to close fast enough with the British. I think that the British could then have fought a fighting withdrawal into a wagon lager or more defensive position.

Agree 100% with Jovian. The Zulu would never have had a better chance of catching the British unaware. They would have had to exploit their proximity and the surprise but would have been slaughtered for their trouble.

Der Alte Fritz,

Well, some confusion in your timeline of events in Chelmsfords thinking.

Thesiger (aka Chelmsford) split the invasion force into three invasion (five) columns well before Isandlwana happened.

You also ignore the timeline of Pearson's "column" and the problems Thesiger faced.

However I should answer your question.

If Chelmsford had not split his forces then the Zulus would not (in my opinion) have attacked.

1) It was not an auspicious day. (We can laugh at this, but it wasn't).
2) The rituals had not been observed. (We can laugh at this, but they weren't).

Isandlwana was a classic "Encounter Battle". The Zulu had their entire force concentrated and Chelmsford was suprised.

Gettysburg anyone?

duncanh.

I'm with Jovian. My understanding is that the unit left at isandalwana was to have been compact and with their backs to the mountain. Technically Durnford was senior to Pullein and his "requests" for support were sort of taken as orders and way extended the flank (half hour round trip for the ammo carrying drummer boys)
They were holding the zulu at bay until the ammo ran out and the units were chopped up piecemeal. Been a while since I've read "The washing of the Spears", though ?

Paul

Hmmmm……..my understanding was that the out of ammo reasoning had been largely discredited as the cause of the British calamity. I had thought that it had more to do with Durnford falling back from the donga and opening a gap in the line which the Zulu's took advantage of.

Custer had been successful dividing his forces before. While the dictum is generally true fighting Indians was often more about forcing them to stay and fight than dividing your forces.

The Zulu's WOULD likely still have attacked. IIRC, the weren't even aware of Chelmsford actual location at the time of the battle. For all they knew he was there. More artillery, cavalry and infatry in the line would have caused some serious problems for the Zulus. But remember, the right horn came up beind the camp so may still have made it a close run thing.

Thanks,

John

infantry

I also believe the "out of ammo" reasoning has been discredited. I understand Donald Morris' "Washing the Spears" was first published in the 1970's. There's been a lot more research since then from other authors including Mike Snook and Ian Knight. John Leary is right when he states the British line collapsed because Durnford withdrew. The British weren't slaughtered in one quick mass they fought on in small groups after the line had collapsed. They still had ammo. Also, Pullein was not killed in his tent writing letters. His body was found on the battlfield with his men the following day.

IF (and it is a big if, as per duncanh) the Zulus had made their attack, they would clearly have suffered many more casualties, and may indeed have been held off… until the right horn came in behind the camp. Now this attack might have ben beaten off, but might have turned the day. Remember that the Zulus did not commit all their regiments at the actual battle. So I think that there is at least the possibility of the annihalation of the column, albeit with horrendous casualties for the Zulu, which leads on to an interesting "what if". The entire centre column has been destroyed, and Chelmsford killed; there is no Rorke's Drift to counter the disaster, while Eshowe is under siege with no prospect of relief. The Zulus may be raiding into Natal, but have probably held back from a full scale invasion. What do the British do now?

BlackspotDesign: I think that the question of Durnford's action bringing on the British defeat is open to question. The British position at Isandlwhana was very poor, and liable to being surrounded (as actually happenned). If Durnford had not advanced, the arrival of the left horn would have been even more of a surprise to Pulleine than it actually was; and still nothing would have been done to counter the right horn. So I can't see that Durnford's actions materially affected the result.

Had Chelmsford concentrated his entire army into a single column, the resulting supply train would have forced him to move extremely slowly, and Natal would have been left open to attack at several points. Whilst a fresh Zulu army, concentrated against such a force might have attacked, I doubt the Zulus could have done so successfully (they often failed to coordinate their attacks as well as they might), but they had other options. Shadowing the column, they could have effectively harrassed it and slowed it down further, and attacked any detachments. But they could equally have ignored it and raided Natal instead.

To pick up on a earlier point made about Laagering the camp. It would have been a physical impossibilty at Isandlwana. The amount of wagons involved in making the whole camp secure and the constant travelling back and forth along the track to Rorkes Drift of wagons would have made it a no no.The camp was spread out over too huge an area.The camp was also considered a short stopover,not permanent. To properly entrench the area would have taken far to long and was simply not practical.

The Britsh lost by totally underestimating the Zulu army and its ability to manouvereover such a large area.The firing line was spread out to far and too thinly to concentrate firepower.The lack of ammo was a contributory factor but not the main reason.

However there is conjecture that the battle almost went the other way as the zulucame under constant fire when they advanced into the killing field of the Martini Henry.They did falter and there was a possibility that they may have withdrawn.

If the whole force were present and concentrated into a smaller fightng square as at Ulundi the Zulus would have lost.

Remember also the tents were not struck, a basic instruction before any battle. Once the Troops begun to retreat they were hampered by the tents providing cover for the enemy and the Zulus could get in close.

One of the best people to describe this battle was David Rattray who was sadly murdered last year. He was a great authority on the Zulu. I have been fortunate to tour the battlefield with him. Its a haunting place to visit.

Durnford's withdrwal allowed the Zulu's at their front to break into the British line. The Zulu right horn did not actually fight any of the formed British line in the battle. They basically killed retreating survivors on their way back to Roark's Drift. So, Durnford's move WAS pretty decisive in allowing the Zulu's to close and resulted in the outcome we all are aware of. If the other forces had been there his withdrawal would likely not have had the precipitous results it did have.

Thanks,

John