rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic

Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 6:18 pm

I just finished the book Like Wolves On The Fold, and was very impressed with it. I was most interested in the details of the British casulaties at RD. It seems that the majority of the casulaties were gunshot victims . I was struck with the fact that the rudimentary defenses that the garrison constructed were adequate to prevent the Zulus from inflicting casualties with their assegais. This being the case, why wasn't the camp at Isandlwana laagered? I'm sure it had to do with the number of wagons,, and Chelmsford's desire for mobility, but even if the British had entrenched, I'm sure the outcome would have been diffferent. Certainly the pickets should have been posted far enough away from the camp to provide some warning. Given the reduced frontage, and easier availability of the ammunition, I'm sure a more effective defense could have been carried out.

Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 3:38 pm

The ground was too stony to dig and Chelmsford believed that the length of stay at Isandhlwana, being temporary, would make any entrenchment attempts obsolete before they had to move on.

Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 3:20 pm

Julian whybra wrote:

The ground was too stony to dig and Chelmsford believed that the length of stay at Isandhlwana, being temporary, would make any entrenchment attempts obsolete before they had to move on.

Yes that's true. However, if the camp had been laagered, would it have been successfully defended?

Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 9:03 am

Laagering was also an impossibility. I don't want to repeat others' text but there weren't enough waggons to surround the camp, the waggons were in a constant state of movement, there wasn't time to laager effectively, the camp was temporary so Chelmsford decided not to laager, etc, etc, etc

Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 10:50 am

I haven't looked at mike's figures for wounds received but in my England's Sons I give a list of wounds received.
among the killed there were
assegaied 7
gunshot 8
unknown 2
among the wounded there were
assegaied 3
gunshot 12
Given the amount of shots coming from the Oskarberg I suppose the number of shot is not surprising.

Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 11:09 pm

Of course there's always this : Lord Chelmsford�s order-book, Wednesday 22 Jan 1879 - �Camp entered. No wagon laager appears to have been made. Poor Durnford�s misfortune is incomprehensible...�

MAB

Posted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 11:22 pm

Allow me to cite a quotation from a pamphlet by Edward Durnford on Lord Chelmsford's position on laagers:

'Lord Chelmsford makes some rather vague remarks on waggon laagers, but he fails to produce one single reason why a laager should have been formed after he had declined to allow one to be made. �One hour would certainly have completed the work,� he now writes; then he said �it would take a week to make.� '

I should also point out that the British, unlike the Boers, did not use a laager for their own defence but to shelter their animals. The troops were placed in trenches some few meters outside the laager. This was true of Gingindlovu. Of course, they simply formed a square at Ulundi, in order that they should meet the Zulu wish that they 'fight them in the open'.

KIS

Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 6:09 am

To Michael Boyle
There is no such document as the one you quote from and the quotation itself does not exist.

Posted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 11:17 pm

Julian, it MUST be true, I read it in a BOOK!

Actually not, I haven't read that particular book yet but I did come across it in the notes of an article by a different well known author and thought perhaps there had been some new developement in the last four years. Pity, that would be some document to peruse. Any idea where the original author came up with it? I'd hate to think he made it up out of whole cloth. My point to the post (thankfully backed up by Keith with an actual cite!) was to simply point out the irony in Lord Chelmsford's later position.

It does seem somewhat unfair to me to blame the defeat at Isandlwana on lack of laagering or entrenchment because it was that battle that truly introduced the British and Zulu armies to one another and the British had no idea as yet how circumspect they would need to become in order to defeat the amaZulu. It was still all fun and games until the impi put their eye out. It's true that the Boers had had great success with laagering as did the American frontiersmen but those groups must have seemed just a bunch of farmers while the British Army had never had any serious trouble whilst dealing with out-gunned indigenous Africans. It's sometimes difficult for us to remember that at the time the amaZulu were considered just another 'backward tribe' and it was only on 22 Jan 1879 that their name would be forever writ bold in the annals of history. It was that day as well that a Zulu impi ceased being considered an infantry force by the British and was henceforth treated as cavalry.

That said it would be interesting to postulate a laager. One must remember that there were in essence two transport groups (I'm basing this idea on appendix E of Narrative of the F.O. which lists "government owned" and "hired") which would be company transport and supply transport. Presumably as company transport provisions were depleted they would restocked from depots or supply transport while much of company transport would be for carrying non-consumables (tents, equipment etc.) thus company transport would always be with the column or camp while only the supply transport would be trekking back and forth with supplies. If this is true then there would have been at least 10 coys. worth of waggons available to laager (excluding the ammo wagon being kept in readiness to join Lord Chelmsford should it be required). I don't have the figures with me at present (although I do get another weekend off tomorrow and will check) that shows the amount and distribution of wagons per company but I do have the dimensions ; ox-waggons - L 18', W 5'10", mule waggons - L 12' 6", W 5' 6". A little calculator work should yield the approximate size of a possible laager using coy. waggons. (I've read that forming a square laager is quite an engineering feat requiring the use of an accomplished laager commandant, of whom there were none, but an oval laager was much more easily attained.)

[The excersise won't really mean much except for perhaps a game scenario!]

Best

Michael

Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 11:33 am

Mike
The quotation referred to appeared in an organisational historical exercise centred around 1879 which I wrote for use with gifted children back in 1980 and was published subsequently in 1984 by Essex Education Authority. I made it absolutely clear in the exercise that some of the material in the exercise was fabricated or condensed for the purpose of the exercise. The exercise was and is still widely used in RSA schools with gifted children. The author you referred to simply lifted the remark out of context, lock, stock and barrel, without checking it or its source and used it in his book as if it were the real McCoy.
I have seen it quoted many times in articles and by individuals as if it were Scripture but it is totally fictional. It does at least serve as a guide to me as to how well authors have done their research and their competence.

Posted: Sat Apr 22, 2006 2:27 am

AHA! So the original author did make it up out of whole cloth! Actually there was something about that quote that teased the back of my mind, can't believe I wasn't able to recall it's providence (I'll put it down to long hours, little sleep and home-sickness!) Masterfully done though, just the right mix of familiar sounding pieces of quotation that one wants to believe it regardless.

Any help on the providence of this one - "...Had the force in question but taken up a defensive position in the camp itself, and utilized there the materials for a hasty entrenchment which lay near to hand, I feel absolutely confident that the whole Zulu army would not have been able to dislodge them. It appears that the oxen were yoked to the wagons three hours before the attack took place, so that there was ample time to construct that wagon lager which the Dutch in former days understood so well."?. [The irony here is almost painful!] It seems to have appeared in an editorial in the Spectator (1879) but I'm not sure from which of Lord Chelmsford's reports it was taken.

Thanks,

MAB

Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 9:34 pm

With regards the number of wagons at Isandhlwana at the time of the battle I believe that the general consensus of opinion is 120 - 130.

Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 9:22 am

And with at least 8 oxen required to pull each wagon, you're looking at a minimum of 1000 animals. No wonder Chelmsford had transport problems!

By the way, it appears the oxen were yoked up in preparation for a return trip to Rorke's Drift but this was delayed because of the first sightings of Zulu on the plateau when the troops were fallen in and no escourt was available to accompany them. They were not yoked in preparation of forming a laager.

Dawn

Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 8:25 am

Dawn

The Rorke's Drift convoy was cancelled in the early hours of the morning, as soon as the despatch of the flying column became known. So call it some time between 2.00 am and 3.00 am.

It was 8 pairs of oxen to pull a transport wagon - so double the total number of oxen you calculate.

The way in which some of the oxen came to be inspanned is decribed on page 137 of How Can Man De Better It occurred at the time of the first alarm (0730) when some of the oxen were wandering loose in front of the camp and had to be cleared out of the fields of fire. Some were tied to the yokes of the wagons to restrain them (what was intended) but some teams were inspanned (by mistake).

Regards

Mike

Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 9:36 am

Mike

Yes, you're right, I had the figure of 8 in my mind but forgot I was only looking at one side. That would be a funny way to pull a wagon! Embarassed

Thanks for correcting my mistake.

One can only imagine the organisational nightmare that would have ensured trying to get the oxen out of the field and into some sort of order. And the breakdown in communication from the officers through the chain of command to the voorloopers. There must have been oxen still loose in the later hours of the morning when Milne looked through his telescope and said he saw the cattle being moved into camp. I always thought they were being moved from the front, but your book said they were at the back of Isandlwana. But then again, was Milne seeing the cattle being moved into camp by the right horn coming in from behind Isandlwana? Probably too early. I've never been able to quite establish when exactly Milne was observing the camp. I speculate at between 10.30am and 11.30am but I'm open to correction.

Dawn