rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic

Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:59 pm

I know we've been over this a bit, but I came across a quote that I found particularly interesting in Kieth Smith's "Documents" book which I thought of some importance. Mehlokazulu was of course the son of Sihayo, the father being recognized as one of the most "westernized" Zulus so it would follow (to me anyway) that the son would be somewhat sophisticated as well. Mehlokazulu stated in his account of the Battle of Isandlwana that "lots of us had got the same rifles as the soldiers used, having bought them in our country" (my italics). If he's to be believed, not all the Zulu firearms were "Birmingham stovepipes".

Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2009 7:29 pm

Sawubona

I think Mehlokazulu's statement tends to support what is a very likely situation, that a very useful minority of the supply of guns in Zulu hands by 1879 were modern breechloaders.

As you say, this has been touched upon before on the forum, and you may want to look again at the thread I began about two and a half years ago. (I'll try to copy & paste the link below, but knowing me it won't work, so I'll also mention it was headed up "Martini Henrys in Zulu hands" and was begun on 28 May 2006. If that doesn't locate it, a search under the word "charcoal" will get it.

http://www.rorkesdriftvc.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=437&highlight=charcoal

On the other hand, I can't think of a contemporary reference offhand which mentioned the capture by the British or colonials of any breechloaders, other than the obvious recovery of M-Hs lost on 22 January. I mentioned in the above-linked thread that I didn't know much about the traffic of breech-loaders - or Martini Henrys specifically - outside government channels, but have learned a bit since then. Only a few weeks ago I was reading a published paper on this subject if I remember rightly, so I'll try to locate it - a task which will probably test my filing system to the utmost!

Peter

Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2009 8:58 pm

I have been looking into the variey of small arms available at the time, in particular breech loading variants. There is no doubt that the Zulu's did have breechloading, cartridge rifles of various types. But the capability to aqquire additional supplies of fresh ammunition I believe to be more dubious, and the capability to re-prime and re-load boxer cartridges once fired near impossible. Not that it was not done in various parts of the empire. Tim Moremans excellent article "The Arms Trade of the NW Frontier and India 1890-1914" the Panthan Hill tribes were reloading Snider and Martini ammo from components picked up from battlefields and rifle ranges, along with locally made blackpowder. The big factor to this was the fact large arsenals had sprung up in the area so the ability to aqquire hard to source parts was relatively easy due to the power of bribery.

So, lets look at the term "breech loader", and what would have been available in fairly large numbers, of simple design, that could be easily reloaded. Because it is a breech loader it is not a Martini, Snider or Swinburn, so what could it be?.

Being a British protectorate, the majority of breech loaders would be of British influence, such as Calisher and Terrys, Westley Richards monkey tails, etc, however, being surrounded by countries of other national influence, (Portugal, France, Germany) there would be no doubt a huge mix of guns of various calibres available which makes the ammo requirement even more complex, so we can not really be specific to types here.

The Monkey tail and the Calisher are technologically one step futher down the line from the muzzle loading technology of the P53 Enfield,both being a breech loading rifle variant. However, the requirement to reload is identical to a musket of the 1840's, that being one simple extra piece of equipment from a muzzle loaders kitbag is needed.. a piece of paper and a piece of string. the parts are Powder, bullet and percission cap.

To make a cartridge for the C & T or the MT, you basically make the exploding equivalent of a roll up cigarette/ xmas cracker. A paper roll of powder, a waist, tied with string, trapping the bullet. The complete "cartridge" is slid into the open breech and exploded by a percission cap. The paper cartridge is burned away in the resulting explosion. These weapons were highly prized, the Boers shot the pants of the British at Majuba armed with these very rifles, the ability to re-load, a simple round "the must have" gun in an area that was hardly oversubscribed with arsenals.

Without doubt, the Swinburn was available in large numbers to the colonies by C1877. Brian Knapp penned an excellent article on the Swinburn several years ago for the Classic Arms magazine. I'll try and get Brians permission to reporduce some parts of it. The Martini in commercial form would however be far beyond the bargaining power of the average Zulu, for example a .450/577 Martini made by the commercial trade, in my own example by Thos Turner, made in 1894 �3,10s, 6d. even to the trade. So apart from the odd Induna, its unlikely.

Mechlazulu's comments, quite righly could be construed as being correct. but be sure to take into accountThe Snider, the Westley Richards and the Calisher were being used in large numbers by the colonial forces, years before the Anglo Wars.

Posted: Sun Jan 04, 2009 11:00 pm

I may be over the line here, but after our Civil War (I'm a Yank) there must have been a glut of surplus firearms available for short dollars, many of which would have been paper cartridge breechloaders ( an obsolete system by the mid 1870's, yet still very effective). If most of the rifles were coming in through a Portuguese outpost and since gun-running has always been a lucrative vocation and certainly not beyond the ken of some Yankee businessmen, I wonder if an occasional Sharps or the like didn't surface in Zululand. After all, our own Native Americans were able to acquire Winchesters and Henrys (and ammunition for the same) without having any "visible source of income" beyond a buffalo hide or three.

I expect there's no evidence to speak of for this- at least I haven't seen any-- but it doesn't seem impossible. Dare we limit the availability of firearms to those of British design and/or manufacture?

"I said I didn't have much use for one, I didn't say that I didn't know how to use one." Matthew Quigley in "Quigley Down Under", speaking of a Colt SAA revolver. A great quote from a favorite movie of mine and although not entirely applicable, sums up the sense I have that many Zulu were passingly familiar with firearms, they simply chose not to use them as they were not deemed an honorable way to kill an enemy.

Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:53 am

Sawumbona
In the ten years after the Zulu conflict the Southern tip of Africa became awash with firearms, mainly of European manufacture, interestingly one of the most popular being the Westley Richards tipping block, amongst the Boers. Whilst being a bit off topic it does point the fact that if supplier A has product, and customer B has hard cash then all is well.

Westley Richards became a bit of a thorn in the side of the British ordnance departments, there is no doubt, after missing out on nearly all the Government contracts they sought business wherever they could, the Transvaal and its neighbours being one of those. Even in 1895 they supplied 1000's of the Francotte action Martini's (we know them as ZAR's, after the markings), to the boers, whilst Mauser, who's P71 rifles were becoming the "must have" found a willing customer. The Belgian Gwedes Martini derivative was also sold in quite large numbers.

The Zulu's though would have been content with semi obsolete models, which were easy to reload, not that the chance to get hold of the latest weapon of mass destruction, and 100,000's rounds of ammo as at Isandlwana and Myers Drift would be spurned.

Regards
Neil

Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 11:36 am

As always, thanks for that info, Neil. I know that the Remington rolling block was a pervasive weapon in the North of Africa, did it have much of a presence in the South as well?

Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 6:52 pm

Sawubona, I�m sure you�re right about the potential American involvement, (the very earliest gun-runners to the Zulu around 40 years earlier were American). There were sufficient eye-witness accounts in the 1870s to suggest breechloaders were present in Zululand in some numbers, but - as you point out Neil - that obviously didn�t necessarily mean M-Hs. I�m afraid I can�t venture into anything very technical with you two arms experts, but I have managed to turn up the article I mentioned above and it does cover the topic of trade and supply at the time:

Sue Miers: Notes on the Arms Trade & Government Policy in Southern Africa between 1870 & 1890 (Journal of African History, XII, 4 (1971), pp 571-577).

This paper makes the point that although both Britain and the Boers sought to restrict (or at least control) the arms trade in the region, the British were very lax in enforcement during the 1870s, much to the annoyance of the two Republics, through whose under-manned territory much of the trade passed. In practice, determined arms traders (especially to the Zulu, Swazi and amaTonga) got away with openly transporting arms obviously intended for sale to Africans, whereas individuals who complied with the various customs requirements found difficulties put in their way. Guy Dawnay, a hunter during the 1870s (and, as we know, a British officer during the AZW) didn�t pull his punches:

"There might be difficulty or delay in passing two or three rifles for private use, the possession of which was avowed, but the ordinary trader untrammelled by any exaggerated regard for truth, loaded his wagons with guns and powder concealed perhaps beneath some few harmless articles of trade, and unsearched even if challenged, trekked gaily through the Transvaal, whether to the eastern Limpopo boundary, or to Zoutspanberg, or by Potschefstroom or Pretoria to Rustenberg and on to Shoshong and Lake Ngami, on to rich ivory districts of Matabeleland and the Zambesi."

The revenues received from duties on arms and ammunition proved more profitable than the requirement to curb the trade, and the availability of arms to Africans on the gold fields was well known (the Langalibalele episode being the best known, I suppose). When Natal prohibited arms exports into Delagoa Bay, Cape Colony apparently did no such thing, so that particular arms trade continued and profits were merely diverted from Natal. Although quickly lifting the ban, it seems that the level of that particular trade via Natal still hadn�t recovered by the time of the AZW.

Dutch merchants in Lourenco Marques appear to have been the main suppliers, but arms also arrived in Zululand by sea from Madagascar, apparently sent there by a French company. Natal and P.E.A. imposed restrictions just before the AZW but - Saw & Neil may be interested to hear - �when the British asked the French for co-operation, they were informed that because the arms were bought in America and transported on American ships, France could do nothing.� The article covers much ground in the 1880s too, and explains that the absence of any international agreement before 1890 was the real problem.

The author�s findings certainly bear out the many accounts of the trade I�ve come across in missionary archives. One more for your bibliography perhaps, Harold, given that the trade had a bearing on the preliminaries and conduct of the war?

Peter

Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:35 pm

Dear Peter,

Thank you very much. I already had this one!

Many thanks -- again -- for your thoughtfulness.

Happy New Year,
Harold

Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 5:51 am

One has to wonder, however, whether the Zulus at the time, were knowledgeable and/or competent enough to recognise one rifle from another. I mean, while I'm sure they appreciated the design and operation of the rifles, would they have known the difference between a Snider and a Martini Henri enough to be discerning when a trader came to call? No doubt said trader would be more than eager to cash in his consignment and had no qualms about leading the unsuspecting up the garden path, so to speak. While they, no doubt, would have taken advice from whomever offered it (John Dunn perhaps?), I do believe they could easily have been led astray. They did not have the access to the information from the manufacturers that the original consignees would have had, and therefore would have to rely on others.

I remember reading somewhere that more emphasis was placed on the procurement of projectiles and gunpowder than the rifles themselves and this may have led to then spurning the rifle for their traditional weapons, when ammunition supply was low or non-existent. It does appear that, when given the opportunity of a secure supply of ammunition such as what could have been found at Isandlwana after the battle, they were not adverse to using them. This in light of the fact that many wounds and deaths at Rorke's Drift were caused by bullets.

When Mehlokazulu said that they were using the same rifles, maybe, to his eye, they all looked the same. I must say that, when I first started rifle shooting, all rifles looked the same to me. Only now, a year and a half later, can I appreciate the differences (or maybe that's because I am a girl?!)

And, because of a shortage of my favourite type of projectile at the moment, I am of the opinion that having the rifle is the easy part, getting the right ammunition is another thing completely.

Dawn

Posted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:36 pm

Sawubona

I acquired several books on 19th Century American firearms - Sharps, Spencer, Winchester, Colt - for the very reason you mention.

The fact that such weapons may have been present in Africa, around the time of the Zulu War.

However, I've yet to see pictures from then of men armed with such.

I do seem to recall a comment made on the forum previously, that someone saw a photograph of a native policeman in the late 19th Century in Africa armed with a Sharps.

How long after the AZW I don't know.

Looking at my books, the Sharps and Spencer wouldn't really look out of place in Zululand, appearance-wise.

The Winchester, though, may sort of 'jar' the eye, but earlier models may be more suited.

Personally, I wouldn't have liked to go anywhere in Africa at that time with only a single-shot rifle !

Coll

Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 11:41 am

Harold - my pleasure. The scope of your project is certainly ambitious!

Dawn - there is no doubt that knowledge of the most modern weaponry had not yet reached most Zulus at that time, but the evidence suggests there were some, at least, who already knew quite a lot more - those who lived close to the border and had regular contact with Natal; or those who were often involved in the trade; those who used firearms regularly; some of those of senior status (such as the likes of Dabulamanzi kaMpande, who is covered by most of those categories) and, perhaps especially, those involved in smithying.

The breechloaders, although superior, obviously introduced new problems, and reports after the war suggested that the one aspect the Zulu had never got to grips with, after trying out the Martinis captured in January, was how to adjust the sights - or even what they were for. (Then again, plenty of younger British soldiers apparently had the same problem during the AZW!)

Peter

Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:28 pm

To elaborate on what Peter was suggesting, it was my thought that the source of the original quote about "the same rifles" was what made it particularly noteworthy. According to most accounts Sihayo, his father, was very Westernized and was often seen dressed in European clothes. Bertram Mitford, in describing the son, whom he met during his travels in Zululand soon after the AZW. credits Melokazulu as having been "a good shot" (as was Dabulamanzi). His residency being so near to Rorke's Drift would further suggest regular contact with traders. It would seem to me that if any Zulu was qualified to accurately access the quality of Zulu firearms, it would have been Melokazulu.

On a technical note, the breech-loading, cartridge firing Maynard from our Civil War (1861-1865) was an interesting firearm in that it dispensed with an integral primer embedded in the cartridge and in it's place simply had a hole in the base which allowed the propellant to be ignited by a roll of caps in a fashion similar to that of a percussion rifle (and for those of us who even remember them, that's why we use a "roll of caps" in our "cap guns"). It was a popular rifle among the Confederates (who acquired them as war spoils) because the ammunition was simple to reload, avoiding as it did the machining necessary to refit a primer cap after each use. Simply pour in some loose powder and top it with a newly cast bullet- Done. "Looks jolly simple. Well, it's jolly deadly, Old Boy." I'm not suggesting that many (or any even) of these simple and effective firearms ever made it into Zululand, but I consider that they would have been a good weapon with which to arm prospective marksmen of any non-industrialized nation.

Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 9:54 am

Not only the same rifles, but the same swords, that is if you believe this illustration from La Presse Illustree of 13th April 1879, depicting the Battle of Isandlwana.

John Y.

Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 3:46 pm

It seems that illustration tells us more about the imagination of the artists that it does about Isandlwana or the Zulu. The clothing of the Zulu wouldn't be out of place in the Sudan and I wouldn't be surprised to see a camel or two in the background somewhere.

Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:47 pm

Sawubona,

Try Dahomey rather than the Sudan!

John Y.