 |
 | Zulus attack strategy, right or wrong? |  |
|
dodgermuk
|
|
It was a comment in another post on another topic that made me come to ask this question. Knowing the defenders at RD were totally outnumbered, why didn't the zulus just attack RD from all sides? There is no way the British troops would have been able to defend RD if they was attacked from all sides by approx 4,000 Zulus so why didn't the zulu commanders put this into action. Were they just sticking with a tried and tested method of the horns attack method? But as we all know, attacking a well entrenched fortified defense requires a different form of attack. Had the zulus attacked something like this in the past? or was it the zulu commanders just didn't have the experience of how to attack such a defensive position?
Military teachings and tested experience in the field tells you to know your enemy, there strengths, there weaknesses. From reading alot of documents on the RD site and how the zulus attacked RD, the zulu commanders did not put this into practice otherwise they would have attacked RD differently, don't you think? Roger |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
 |
| |
|
Tom516
|
|
One thing comes to mind - Blood River. A fortified post like Rorke's Drift with bagged and boxed up walls would probably be as intimidating to the Zulu commanders as the laager of chained up wagons where the Zulu impis got slaughtered by the Boer. Also, they were, technically, disobeying orders - from the king no less - so maybe they were hoping that the garrison would be as much of a pushover (well in a sense - no insult meant to the Isandhlwana troops - basically as defeatable) as the fellows that morning. I'm thinking there's some confusion going on - they may have (from scout's reports, etc.) been only expecting a supply depot, one easily surprised at that, certainly not well defended. But suddenly, like the British at Breed's Hill they see defensive works but decide not to change their more limited attack for an all out assault.
And then again did they know that they outnumbered the British by such a degree? They surely would have seen the battle casualties at Isandhlwana cut down by volleys of Martini-Henry and other rifles. Perhaps they really did want to 'test' the defenses before committing - unfortunately for them they gave the defenders the needed respite to organize a better defense. All that's just my two cents of course... Tom516 |
|||||||||||
|
_________________ Tom "Harlechman" Zulu Total War Team, a Rome TW: BI mod.
|
|||||||||||||
|
| Re: Zulus attack strategy, right or wrong? | |
|
Big RI Joe
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
|
| |
|
Dawn
|
|
I'm sure this has been covered in another part of the forum. I think it may have been someone commenting on Mike Snooks new book about the defence of Rorke's Drift. I just can't find it at the moment.
However, one aspect of the whole AZW was the Zulus seeming inability to adjust their attack strategy. In some of the books I've read on the latter part of the war, comment has been made that the Zulus did not take the opportunity to attack the British columns while on the move. Slowed down by wagons and baggage as they were, they would have made prime and easy targets for attacking parties. And yet they reserved the majority of their attacks for entrenched and immobile strongholds. One wonders that if they had run a sort of 'guerilla' warfare, as the Boer did in later years, whether the Zulu War would have had a different outcome. Dawn |
|||||||||||
|
Last edited by Dawn on Thu Apr 06, 2006 12:32 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
a.j
|
|
The Zulus did not attack Rorke�s Drift from all sides at once because the attacks were not pre-meditated and were not organised. Also Zulus stuck to the places which had a lot of cover, such as the Zulus only attacked the section of the north wall between the hospital compound and the wall going across the middle of the defences because it afforded the best cover. They did not attack up the road leading to Rorke�s Drift (the storehouse compound) until dusk because it had no cover.
Even if the Zulus attacked around the entire enclosure I doubt that the defenders would have been overrun because the amount of warriors able to get up to the barricade would be too great for the ledge and the defenders would just be able to shoot and bayonet them as each new warrior came up. The south wall allows fewer warriors to attack than the north wall does. They did try to attack the south wall and did not even reach the wall. If the Zulus had reached the wall there was too many of them to get over the defences and they would have been caught in a worse crossfire because they would have all been crammed up to the wall. And if the defenders were stretched they would have retreated to the inner perimeter as they did anyway, but with the Zulus now being free to swarm into the defences at will the patients and defenders in the hospital would have probably all been killed. |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
| Zulu tactics | |
|
George-Bean
|
|
By the time the Zulu army arrived at Rorke's drift it was probably starting to feel the effects of the long march on little food, the prince and his induna's I believe were also forced to hide behind a tree due to sharp shooting, this would have affected any control they might have had, (I seem to recall that from a book by charles newman but I may be wrong), and also traditional Zulu tactics may have been a barrier to "an all round surge". There were some points of the defensive barrier that were also considerable natural barriers. So in my opinion, as well trained as the zulu were, an all round rush attack was not possible.
|
|||||||||||
|
_________________ Chats about early Zulu stuff welcome if anyone's interested.
|
|||||||||||||
|
 | Zulus attack strategy, right or wrong? | |
|
||
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001-2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Style created by phpBBStyles.com and distributed by Styles Database.
phpBB Style created by phpBBStyles.com and distributed by Styles Database.