The Battle of Isandlwana

In previous discussions, we’ve looked at British colonial rule in different contexts, especially as it related to how the British imposed its colonial rule. However, history also tells of the failures of even the attempt at colonial rule by the British, and the first time such a failure ever occurred was in South Africa with the Battle of Isandlawa, also called the Anglo-Zulu war. The Battle of Isandlwana took place on the 22nd of January in 1879, and it was the first major encounter in the Anglo-Zulu War between the British Empire and the Zulu Kingdom. Eleven days after the British invaded Zululand in Southern Africa, a Zulu force of some 20,000 warriors attacked a portion of the British main column consisting of approximately 1,800 British, colonial and native troops with approximately 350 civilians.

The Zulus were equipped mainly with the traditional assegai iron spears and cow-hide shields, but also had a number of muskets and antiquated rifles. On the other hand, the British and colonial troops were armed with the modern Martini–Henry breech loading rifle and two 7-pounder mountain guns deployed as field guns, as well as a Hale rocket battery. The Zulus had a vast disadvantage in weapons technology, BUT this disadvantage was not reflected in the proceeding and outcome of what would be the first foiled attempt at a British invasion. Make no mistake, British colonialism eventually did affect South Africa, as history would also reveal, but not before one of the most memorable defeats of the Victorian era.

WHAT PROVOKED THE BATTLE OF ISANDLWANA?

And now onto the first question regarding: what provoked the Battle of Isandlwana? Well, following the scheme by which Lord Carnarvon had brought about the Confederation of Canada through the 1867 British North America Act, it was thought that a similar plan might succeed in South Africa and in 1877 Sir Henry Bartle Frere was appointed as High Commissioner for Southern Africa to instigate the scheme. Some of the obstacles to such a plan were the presence of the independent states of the South African Republic and the Kingdom of Zululand, both of which the British Empire would attempt to overcome by force of arms.

Furthermore, during the second half of the 19th century, the British were interested in Zululand for several reasons, including their desire for the Zulu population to provide labour in the diamond fields of Southern Africa, their plan to create a South Africa federation in the region (thereby destroying autonomous African states), and Boer land claims (supported by the British) on territory held by the Zulu kingdom. Cetshwayo, who became king of the Zulus in 1872, was unwilling to submit to British hegemony and assembled a well-disciplined army of 40,000 to 60,000 men. In December 1878 Sir Bartle Frere, British high commissioner for South Africa, issued an ultimatum to Cetshwayo that was designed to be impossible to satisfy: the Zulu were, among other things, to dismantle their “military system” within 30 days and pay reparations for alleged insults. Notably, this ultimatum was presented by Bartle Frere of his own initiative, and without the approval of the British government and with the intent of instigating a war with the Zulu. Well, as expected and as was intended by Bartle Frere, the ultimatum was not met, and in January 1879 British troops invaded under the leadership of Lord Chelmsford.

Although the January rains impeded travel and the tall grasses of Zululand blocked their view, the invaders advanced into Zululand without taking normal precautions (such as scouts and sentries). Initially Cetshwayo’s policy had been to hold back his troops, remain on the defensive in this unprovoked war, and hope to negotiate a settlement. However, on January 22 Chelmsford advanced, leaving a third of his force lacking a protective encampment structure at Isandlwana, and the Zulu army attacked. They annihilated the central British column at Isandlwana, killing 800 British soldiers and taking nearly 1,000 rifles and ammunition.

HOW THE BATTLE OF ISANDLWANA WAS FOUGHT

And now onto the second question regarding: how was the Battle of Isandlwana fought? The Zulu Army was commanded by Umtwana (meaning the Prince) Ntshingwayo kaMahole Khoza and Umtwana Mavumengwana kaNdlela Ntuli. The inDuna Dabulamanzi kaMpande, half brother of the then Zulu king, Cetshwayo, commanded the Undi Corps after Zibhebhu kaMaphitha, the regular inkhosi, or commander, was wounded.

While Chelmsford was in the field seeking them, the entire Zulu army had outmanoeuvred him, moving behind his force with the intention of attacking the British Army on 23 January. Pulleine had received reports of large forces of Zulus throughout the morning of 22 January from 8:00am on. Vedettes had observed Zulus on the hills to the left front, and Lt. Chard, while he was at the camp, observed a large force of several thousand Zulu moving to the British left around the hill of Isandlwana. Pulleine sent word to Chelmsford, which was received by the general between 9:00 AM and 10:00 AM. The main Zulu force was discovered at around 11:00 am by men of Lt. Charles Raw’s troop of scouts, who chased a number of Zulus into a valley, only then seeing most of the 20,000 men of the main enemy force sitting in total quiet. This valley has generally been thought to be the Ngwebeni some 7 miles (11 km) from the British camp but may have been closer in the area of the spurs of Nqutu hill. Having been discovered, the Zulu force leapt to the offensive. Raw’s men began a fighting retreat back to the camp, and a messenger was sent to warn Pulleine.

The Zulu adopted their traditional pitched battle formation, known as the ‘horns and chest of the buffalo’, with the aim of encircling the British position. From Pulleine’s vantage point in the camp, at first only the right horn and then the chest (centre) of the attack seemed to be developing. Pulleine sent out first one, then all six companies of the 24th Foot into an extended firing line, with the aim of meeting the Zulu attack head-on and checking it with firepower. Durnford’s men, upon meeting elements of the Zulu centre, had retreated to a donga, a dried-out watercourse, on the British right flank where they formed a defensive line. The rocket battery under Durnford’s command, which was not mounted and dropped behind the rest of the force, was isolated and overrun very early in the engagement. The two battalions of native troops were in Durnford’s line; while all their British officers and non-commissioned officers (or NCOs) carried rifles, only one in 10 of the native soldiers under their command had a firearm, and those few weapons were muzzle-loading muskets with limited ammunition. Many of the native troops began to leave the battlefield at this point.

Pulleine only made one change to the original disposition after about 20 minutes of firing, bringing in the companies in the firing line slightly closer to the camp. For an hour or so until after noon, the disciplined British volleys pinned down the Zulu centre, inflicting many casualties and causing the advance to stall. Indeed, morale remained high within the British line. The Martini–Henry rifle was a powerful weapon and the men were experienced. Additionally, the shell fire of the Royal Artillery forced some Zulu regiments to take cover behind the reverse slope of a hill. Nevertheless, the left horn of the Zulu advance was moving to outflank and envelop the British right.

Durnford’s men, who had been fighting the longest, began to withdraw and their rate of fire diminished. Durnford’s withdrawal exposed the right flank of the British regulars, which, with the general threat of the Zulu encirclement, caused Pulleine to order a withdrawal back to the camp. The regulars’ retreat was performed with order and discipline and the men of the 24th conducted a fighting withdrawal into the camp. Durnford’s retreat, however, exposed the flank of G Company, 2nd/24th, which was overrun relatively quickly.

THE END OF THE BATTLE OF ISANDLWANA, AND THE REST OF THE ANGLO-ZULU WAR

Finally, we then will address the question on: what filled the end of the Battle? In light of this, later that day of the battle of Isandlwana a second Zulu force, led by Cetshwayo’s brother, Dabulamanzi kaMpande, attempted to overrun the British depot at Rorke’s Drift (known to the Zulu as KwaJimu). This time the British, who had been forewarned by the few survivors of Isandlwana, were prepared. In a firefight that lasted nearly 12 hours and continued into the next day, some 120 British troops shot down more than 500 Zulu fighters.

Now, paradoxically, the Zulu victory at Isandlwana shattered Cetshwayo’s hope for a negotiated settlement. The British government in London had not been fully briefed by Frere about the intended attack on Zululand and initially was not overwhelmingly in the mood for war. However, the arrival of the news of the defeat at Isandlwana in London on February 11—one of the major shocks to British prestige in the 19th century—galvanized the British government into a full-scale campaign to save face. An army led by Col. Evelyn Wood suffered an initial defeat at Hlobane on March 28 but proceed to make colonial advancements from there on, including at the Battle of Kambula on March 29. Furthermore, on April 2nd a British column under Chelmsford’s command inflicted defeat on the Zulu at Gingindlovu, where more than 1,000 Zulu people were killed. Chelmsford’s troops then moved on Cetshwayo’s royal villages at Ulundi, where on July 4, 1879,

In essence, in 1877, Lord Carnarvon, Secretary of State for the Colonies, was keen to extend British imperial influence in Southern Africa. He appointed Sir Bartle Frere as High Commissioner to help him establish a federation of British colonies and Boer republics. Carnarvon’s policy required Frere to gain control over Zululand, an independent kingdom bordering Natal and the Transvaal. However, King Cetshwayo rejected Frere’s demands for federation, as this would result in a loss of power, and refused to disband his Zulu army. In January 1879, war began when a force led by Lieutenant-General Lord Chelmsford invaded Zululand to enforce Britain’s demands, but suffered a great defeat in what they thought would be a quick and almost insignificant war. While there were notable issues with the Zulu Kingdom and how it functioned in a number of respects, that should not be celebrated, the Battle of Isandlwana is however commemorated as a Battle that shows what vigour to defend from colonial rule can accomplish, despite material disadvantage; seeing that the Zulu’s were not nearly as equipped militarily as the British were. And perhaps, it is worth reflecting on this, as we do not lose sight of the grace for nations to extricate themselves from feudal masters and harmful treaties, even in this Year of Completeness.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

Get the latests of our Loveworld News from our Johannesburg Stations and News Station South Africa,LN24SA