Talk:Battle of Isandlwana
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
|
Related task forces...
|
|
 |
It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality. |
[edit] NPOV
Below "The fight":
Durnford's 1,400 soldiers fought bravely, but were totally overwhelmed.
Bravely? I don't think this subjective phrase belongs in an encyclopedia. Therefore I must remove it. cun 17:44, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- If they fought against a greatly superior enemy falling almost to the last man, it can be said that they fought bravely. Don't you think that it can be said that the Spartans fought bravely in Thermopylae? --80.186.100.180 23:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Zulu nation is not linked correctly!
- This is fixed. →Raul654 01:40, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
In the Article it says "While Chelmsford was out"
LOL:some one shoud insert "to lunch" after that! I've always liked his comment My only fear is that the Zulu will not fight Philip
Lieutenant Coghill fell from his horse and wrenched his knee in an attempt to catch a fowl but was able to remain with the column. - Well, I liked it, so I am putting it here for posterity :-) Wizzy 07:51, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Number of Zulus at Rorke's Drift
This article says: "From a morale perspective, this was made even worse by the victory of a small handful of British over hundreds or thousands of Zulus at Rorke's Drift."
But the Rorke's Drift atricle says: "At Rorke's Drift approximately 150 British soldiers defended their garrison against an intense assault by roughly 5000 Zulu warriors."
Which is correct, hundreds or thousands of Zulus, or roughly 5000?
Perhaps one of the articles should be changed to reflect the correct number.
Dubidub 22:55, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Aftermath
I do not like the last section as it is at the moment. I think it is wrong for several reasons:
- This amounted to the death of 10% of all Zulu males This implies that there were only 30,000 Zulu males (and say 20% not fit for active service). I have never seen an article which says that there were only 100,000 adult Zulus. I think this needs to be sourced.
- The Zulus did not want the war. They knew that they could not hope to win a long war of attrition agaist the British
- Losses of 3000 or more in one battle was nothing new for the Zulus.
- The Zulus knew about laagering, because of battles like the Battle of Blood River where civilians armed with muskets had defeated them, so Rokes drift would have come as no suprise to them, and is the reason the Zulus had been given orders not to attack fortified/laagered postions.
So I have rewritten it. Philip Baird Shearer 11:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Commander is listed as Chelmsford, but he was absent from the battle, shouldn't Henry Pulleine and Anthony Durnford be listed instead of or with Chelmsford as Commaders? BritBoy 14:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Brevet Lieutenant Colonel Henry Pulleine was the official CO. I ahev changed the article accordingly.
