you are currently viewing: Discussion Forum
 
 

 
 

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)

DateOriginal Topic
20th July 2001Isandlwana High?
By Frank Muscal
From TV series �Secrets from the Dead�, a segment entitled �Day of the Zulu�
put forth following reasons for British defeat at Isandlwana:

1. Martini-Henry�s discharge (times 1000+ soldiers) and solar eclipse gave Zulus a covering screen.
2. Brass-foil bullets were jamming rifles (overheating) � soldiers were using bayonets to pry bullets loose in midst of battle.
3. Zulus had taken a cannabis-type drug during pre-battle rituals.
4. Zulus had also ingested an alkaloid type substance from a �bulb� that acted like a stimulant and painkiller.
5. A company of suicide commandos had eaten a �red� mushroom product that was toxic and hallucinogenic.

The theory is that Zulus were roused into a frenzied state of mind by medicine men,
charged the camp impervious (maybe indifferent) to initial firepower from the defense and then overran camp as munition factors set in. It also mentions defense line was stretched 100m further out then originally thought and suicide squads exploited this as well.
I remember reading about Zulus �buzzing� during momentary lull in battle. Perhaps
as Zulus were forming attack lines, medicine men were distributing drugs. I�m familiar with Martini�s overheating but �chemical� warfare issues are new to me.

Frank Muscal
Katy, Texas
DateReplies
20th July 2001Alan Critchley
Frank,

I don't have the benefit of having seen the programme on TV. As I've said, I'm no expert, I only came here to build a bridge.
To the various points. I don't believe that the discharge from Martinis would have made any difference to the visibility. If it did, it would have worked both ways. When the solar eclipse took place it would have been dark anyway.
Not heard about rifles needed to be unjammed with bayonets. Didn't seem to be a problem at Rorke's Drift when 20,000 rounds were fired by 150 defenders.
As to the Zulus being drugged up during pre battle rituals, I believe they were not actually planning to attack that day but were obliged to when discovered by a reconnaisance party and fired on. They did take snuff and who knows what was in that.
Bulb type substance? No idea.
Red mushrooms. No idea.
I have my own theory about the defeat at Isandlwana, and you have to accept that I'm no expert. When we went to Isandlwana, we went half way up the mountain for the talk. To the left was the dirction the main force of Zulus approached from and where the British line tried to repulse the 'savages'. Straight ahead was the donga along which Durnford lined his horse troops to try to fight off the left horn of the Zulu attach. Slightly to the right of this was the direction which Chelmsford took his force to seek out the main Zulu force. To the right close by, was where Durnford made his last stand. Between Isandlwana and the hillock where Durnford died is the route where the few survivors made their way to Rorke's Drift and Fugitives' Drift.

For a start, Chelmsford should not have accepted reports that the Zulus were to the South East in the direction of Cetywayo's kraal and then split his force. He left Pulleine in charge of the camp with orders to eventually follow him. In one of his messages, Pulleine said he couldn't load the waggons because they were under attack. I think it was this reason why he didn't laager the waggons because it took such a long time to do and he fully expected to be joining Chelmsford before long. Having not laagered the waggons, when the attack came from the north, the British were deployed in lines to face them. If the defence had been done from the defencive position of laagered waggons, I'm sure the outcome would have been different. This was to the front left of the camp which extended the the ammunition lines too far. Bear in mind also that the Zulus probably wouldn't have attacked that day had they not been discovered and shot at. They were also faultering in their attack until spurred on by an Induna who was subsequently killed.

All this was observed from Chelmsford's column, but since the tents were still standing (it being a standing order to take tents down when under attack), Chelmsfords assumed all was still OK.

Add to this the fact that Durnford had been expected to support the column should it be needed. He eventually faced the left horn at a donga to the front of the camp. This was about a half mile away, a similar distance as the lines of troops facing the main force of Zulus.

By the time all this had been reconciled, the Zulus, with their impressive speed, overran the camp, and the rest is history. Durnford retiring to the hill (on horses) to the right of camp and making his Custer style last stand. Not as Burt Lancaster in Zulu Dawn.

I think the Zulus didn't fear bullets for religious reasons, the bayonet scared the +@!* out of them, bearing in mind it had a 2 foot length advantage over the assegai, so it wasn't just dying which worried them.

A lot of what you see on TV is just TV. But I have an open mind.

Alan
21st July 2001Diana Blackwell
I see no reason to doubt the shaman's account of combat-herb use by the Zulus. The pain-killing bulb makes lots of sense. Marijuana has many medical uses, and is available by prescription here in the Bay Area. We tend to think of cannabis as a mellow drug, but during the crusades certain zealous Muslims used hashish, another cannabis product, as a combat drug (thus the word "assassin").

(The US Army researched LSD as a possible "truth serum" and administered it to American soldiers without their knowledge or consent. The results were horrible, some lives were ruined, and the plan was abandoned. A good example of what NOT to do with psychedelics, courtesy of Uncle Sam.)

As for the visibility issue, I see what you're saying, Alan, but the argument had more plausibility in context. I believe the point was that poor visibility hurt the British, whose weapons shot across distance, but helped the Zulus by enabling them to survive their perilous charge in far greater numbers.

My problem with the visibility argument is, if the soldiers were spread out so dangerously thinly, as everybody agrees, wouldn't their smoke be abnormally thin as well--thinner than it was in battles where the British won?