irishcrusader95

the battle stands as a good example of what can happen when you underestimate your enemy, the british commander here was very ignorant of zulu battle tactics and strength, his previous experience had only been in west africa where the tribes had only used guerrilla tactics, he failed to dig defences around his camp which was standard protocol and he failed to realize that he was facing the full zulu army of 25,000 men

Naomasa298

Durnford's horsemen were shown as mostly black with some white officers in the film, from recollection. Quite a song and dance is made about it in the film, as Lancaster was the big box office draw and he was supposed to have been the experienced, knowledgeable hero fighting against Chelmsford's incompetence.

Kevinmeath

Wouldn't agree with only experience had been in West Africa, in fact Chelmsford had fought several in Southern Africa (9th Cape Frontier against the Xhosa), however your point is correct he did not expect the Zulu to attack him but avoid pitch battles which was his experience in previous wars.

His idea that the Zulu would not cope with British fire power was true but he badly mishandled everything.

Its myth that the Zulus waited for him to divide his force they always intended to attack (infact the next day but a cavalry patrol stumbled on the main Impi) and be obligingly matched out on a recon in force with half his redcoats.

The staff arrogently dismissed the complaints of the company officers of the 24th that the companies were to scattered and should be concentrated.

Kevinmeath

Justed checked that out and have to acknowledge I'm mistaken and I will not say I retreat from that asertion just advancing in another direction.

irishcrusader95

ya thats sort of what i meant, more that his experience with Africa tribes had been guerrilla warfare and not a major pitched battle, there's also the smug belief of the british forces that they were racially supplier to the africans with their white skin and better weapons

they made the same mistake again at the siege of Singapore were they believed the japanese to be no threat

Kevinmeath

Good point, although I think they were correct about better weapons as the end of the war showed.

irishcrusader95

it does make a difference who has the biggest club but it matters a whole lot more who's swinging it, the zulus may have lacked firearms but the soldiers themselves were well trained and disciplined. a highly trained and professional soldier armed with only a knife is far more effective then a untrained civilian armed with the most high-tech weaponry

SPERRO

The zulu methods of warfare were based on the swarm. A basic "head of the buffulo" tactic to keep the enemy riveted to one spot, while the horns circumvented the flanks and overpowered the enemy army. Huge numbers were the deciding factor.

JC

irishcrusader95

and one thing they were certainly good at was controlling huge numbers of troops in a battle efficiently and effectively

SPERRO

I think "control" would be primitive or at least basic. They had some captured rifles during this battle and they were quick to learn the basics of skirmishing.

JC