The Rorke's Drift VC Discussion Forum
(View Discussion Rules)

** IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO ALL USERS **

PLEASE NOTE: This forum is now inactive and is provided for reference purposes only. The live forum is available at www.rorkesdriftvc.com/forum

(Back To Topic List)

Date	Original Topic
17th August 2002	How many Zulus attacked Rorke's Drift By Melvin Hunt I, like many others, no doubt, have often wondered why 4000 Zulus could not just swamp the barricades at Rorke's Drift and wipe out the defenders. A concentrated rush would have been too much for the fire power of the single shot Martini. Why has it always been accepted that there were indeed 4000 zulus ? Could it be that there were infact a much smaller number?
Date	Replies
17th August 2002	John Young Melvin, The obvious answer is not all the Zulus attacked at once. Despite certain claims with regard to the number of warriors present, H.R.H. Prince Shange, Prince Dabulamanzi's descendant, agrees the figure of "about 4,000" based on oral history passed down within his own family. John Young, Chairman, Anglo-Zulu War Research Society.
17th August 2002	Melvin Hunt John, Thanks for the quick reply. What I am asking is, how was the figure of 4000 arrived at? Was it based on the assumption of the attacking Zulu regiments being at full strength? A proportion of thse regiments in fact broke away before the attack and went on other raids around the countryside even up to the Helpmekaar escarpment. These would have been sustantial raiding parties depleting the number of warriors available to attack the mission station.
17th August 2002	John Young Melvin, If we take into account the units involved in the raiding then I think the figure would be in the region of 4,500. These farms were isolated little places dotted off towards the Biggarsberg, and it was more than likely these were the men that Spalding and his advance party saw. I'll ask the Prince when he returns to the U.K. next month and see if he can shed any further light on the matter. John
17th August 2002	Robin Melvin, Even with dispersed regiments it could have been done. Too much concentration will leave a large part of your army isolated from combat. Infantry are not a moblized force and are therefore tough to concentrate effectively. With the size of the martini-henry cartridge, I'm willing to bet it wasn't rare to score hits from 500 yards+ when allowed. Putting that into theory. The Zulus concentrate all 4000 warriors into one massive clump. Of 4000, 1000 have a directly open field. They start advancing but at 400 yards they start taking fire from say, 50 riflemen. There is a volley of fire every 25 yards or so and suffer at least 40 hits each volley (it's not hard to hit a large clump of people) so all in all 16 volleys counting for at least 640 casualties by the time the Zulus reach the outer defenses. This is just considering there are 40 out of 50 hits each volley. Realistically I would image 48-50 hits per volley considering the numbers we're talking about here. As the Zulus started reaching closer quarters it probably became less as individual bodies are tougher to hit than large clumps, even in volleys. I'm willing to bet if this situation were put into real practice the Zulus would suffer 750-800 casualties before they reached the wall. That's quite a number. Definately enough to demoralize even the toughest enemies. So strategically, the Zulus have lost their center core while their other 3000 warriors are evenly dispersed at the flanks and further down the rear. Most officers would have reformed their ranks and theoretically, could have had 75 riflemen against 1500 Zulus in similar situation. A massive concentration of infantry would not work out too well unless a large portion of riflemen were already engaged.
19th August 2002	Trev Robin. Yours is a very good theory. But it's based on the zulu's making one mad dash at the british lines. In my opinion, the Zulu's would go to whatever cover there was as soon as they found any. They are a very brave fighting force. But also intelligant enough to adapt to the terrain and target they were attacking. I would guess they used there own rifles to keep the british occupied, got in as close as possible using whatever cover. Then made the charge This would render volley fire less effective What do you think?
19th August 2002	Melvin Hunt Trev, I was hoping to start a debate on which, to me, is the absolute central issue regarding the legend of Rorkes Drift. No historian (correct me if I am wrong ) has really questioned the 4000 accepted number of zulus. I think that if there were that many they would have selected the weakest point of the defences (there were quite a few) and just mass charged. They would have climbed over each other to get inside. That there were actually far less than 4000 did not give them the manpower to do so.
19th August 2002	Robin Skirmish formation renders volley fire pretty much useless, but I hardly think any officer would utilize volley fire in any/all situations. Individual fire is obviously more useful against individual enemies. In any "all out" charge as a Zulu commander, I would have a clump of 50 skirmishing warriors ahead of the main force. In reality this doesn't do much against rifles, but it would have a psychological affect like none other. Sort of a overwhelming force. While firing at the skirmishers, everybody would be thinking "What are we going to do with their main force?" Otherwise, I don't think there is really a full proof plan the Zulus could have used to win. In order to hit weakened positions, you must first make your way there. Which is something somewhat difficult to do in large formations across vast plains. By the time the Zulus reach them in masse, you can expect the redeployment of the British riflemen. Taking that into consideration, there essencially were no weak points. The British had full mobility inside their defenses, but any and all moves done by the Zulus would be known by their enemies because the Zulus had nothing mobile. Any maneuver on the field whether it be flanking or anything else is going to take quite some time with large regiments of foot troops.
19th August 2002	Robin Now, consider the Zulus spend the time to deploy a flanking unit and charge both at the same time. One would think that this would greatly divide the British. Take into account, however, the casualties mounted during the initial charge. After the 2 Zulu forces reach the outer walls, they must try to get over them while under well concentrated fire. After they manage to get enough numbers over the wall while not getting shot to pieces, they are counter-charged at bayonet point which forces the rest of them off the wall. The situation remains the same as before but the Zulus have suffered a ton of casualties. Flanking only does so much in this situation. You must also take into consideration that unless the Zulu regiments are deployed at opposite sections, once they reach close quarters, they will become intertwined with each other. And with such a small defense platform, this is extra likely to happen.
20th August 2002	Trev Melvin. With respect. 4000, or 1000 warriors is in my opinion immaterial. The zulu commanders had more intelligants than to send a mass charge at one point. The losses suffered would far outway the victory. Only the British would be daft enough to make this kind of charge. "Like at Balaclava!!!"
20th August 2002	Melvin Hunt Trev, Thanks for the debate so far. Its a lot more interesting to me than, say, discussing someones error in describing a part of a belt buckle. Why do you say that the number of zulus at Rorkes Drift is immaterial? Surely it would have been easier to defend the barricades against 400 zulus than 4000? As regards mass charging I thought that was exactly what the zulus did at other battles. I am not a historian and I am just questioning why it has always been assumed that the zulus numbered 4000.
21st August 2002	Trev Melvin. I only say Numbers are immaterial in relation to the the actual size of the Drift that the Zulu's were attacking. It was a very small area to attack. In comparrison to Islandwana where the attack came from a vast area covering many acres of ground. And the defenders were well spread out. A mass charge at a small target like the Drift. would funnel the attacking warriors into a dense mass of flesh and bone. The Defenders rifles would have caused real slaughter in that kind of closed ranks. The actual Number? I would go with what John Young quotes, based on the knowledge of the number of warriors in an "Impi" Also Prince Shange's accounts of oral history from the people who fought there! Regarding mass charging! Yes. I think the zulu way was to mass charge. But again I believe their commanders were adaptable to the terrain and the enemy they were fighting at any one time!
22nd August 2002	James Garland Melvin, Most of the first hand accounts of the battle describe the Zulu's as running in a crouched position making use of the terrain rather than a massed charge in formation. The Zulus were brave but they weren't daft. if they had charged in a dense concentrated formation their casualties would have been unsustainable for any length of time. Once they placed warriors armed with firearms on the Oscarberg thay would have been able to fire at the defenders from cover whilst others charged to contact. Exactly the tactics used by the British Army today. Because the frontage of Rorkes Drift was so small only a limited number of warriors would have been able to engage the defenders hand to hand. Once the Zulus reached the optimum number of warriors to fight on that frontage the rest would have been surplus to requirements and therefore just Martini fodder. James
25th March 2004	Tarkis Another point to consider as to why the British won...apparently the zulus involved in this battle had run a long way to fight at Roarkes Drift and were pretty tired. In addition, they were all over 40 and not exactly the prime of the Zulu Impis (read that somewhere). These are pretty considerable points. That being said, it still does seem hard to understand why the British defences could not be overcome with such odds, but sometimes such quirks of fate do occur.