Colin
Guest
|
![](./templates/Morpheus/images/spacer.gif) |
Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2018 3:28 pm |
|
![](./templates/Morpheus/images/posttop_left.gif) |
![Reply with quote Reply with quote](templates/Morpheus/images/lang_english/blue/icon_quote.gif) |
![](./templates/Morpheus/images/spacer.gif) |
![](./templates/Morpheus/images/spacer.gif) |
I find it curious that this has never been the title of a Zulu War publication, as when looking at the engagement closely, it is obvious that Col. Pulleine was keen to preserve the camp and it's supplies, hence the lack of striking the tents, or moving the wagons that were due to go back to Rorke's Drift as an attempt at barricades.
Defending the camp to him meant leaving it completely intact, deploying his companies away from it to prevent any damages caused by resisting the Zulus too closely to his lines.
Also trying to keep things organised enough to send forward to Chelmsford at the new campsite without being delayed by said actions that were not taken, whilst removing the threat of a Zulu attack being successful
Isandhlwana clearly is still a battle, but for what, answer being the camp, therefore, it was something being defended rather than two sides fighting each other for the ground itself, or to win a fight in the open.
In conclusion, as the men present have always been termed the defenders, why is the battle on book covers never referred to as 'The Defence Of Isandhlwana Camp'
It could be considered an unimportant fact, but at the same time, readers would understand immediately what was the ultimate aim, rather than Pulleine squandering his companies on the plain for no definite reason.
I've always found it puzzling myself
|
|