Talk:Battle of Isandlwana

Casualties

The assertion that only about 1000 Zulu died at the Battle of Isandlwana is most certainly low. I note the source citation is to a book written about Rorke's Drift, a separate battle where probably about 1000 Zulu were killed. I've seen other articles cite Zulu casualties at Isandlwana around 3000 killed and 3000 wounded, which is probably closer to the truth. Still, a smashing victory for the Zulus which ultimately sealed their doom as a nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.50.98.99 (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Only low in the minds of the contemporary British. There is no body count, of course, after the battle by anyone with Chelmsford, they were there at night and left early without even burying the British dead. Comparisons with other battles during the war show 3,000 is preposterous. Most historians, until Ian Knight, repeated the suppositions the British made at the time, for which there is no evidence such as there is for Kambula and Ulundi. None of the several references cited for Zulu casualties are about Rorke's Drift only, and there aren't 1,000 Zulus killed there . 351 are confirmed killed at Rorke's Drift and perhaps 500 wounded were massacred after the battle by Chelmsford's arriving troops, but it is not certain the wounded were massacred. In any case they were certainly not killed in the battle of Rorke's Drift.Tttom1 (talk) 06:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Saying that 'most' historians chose to follow the original assertation but Ian Knight objected is itself choosing to believe revisionism over the popular view; some things genuinely do need revising, but otherwise, popular views also exist for a reason; because they are correct. Newer research, including interviewed statements from Zulu warriors present at the battle, would seem to indicate that their casualties were extremely high. 2A00:23C5:CE1C:DB01:E59C:D4D2:CE8C:3A97 (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Ubidi boys?

Quote: Perhaps the last to die was Gabangaye, the portly chief of the amaChunu Natal Native Contingent, who was given over to be killed by the udibi boys.

Me no understand. Thanks, Maikel (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Udibi (the word means "porters" or "carriers") boys were adolescent boys who tagged along with the main impi, usually carrying a relative's sleeping roll and some food. They didn't usually fight, and being given to them to be murdered would have been a huge insult.

Cadar (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Mention "Zulu Dawn"

The article ought to mention the film "Zulu Dawn" (compare to the article about the Battle at Rorke's Drift and "Zulu"), maybe in "See Also", if not a separate section.—172.56.19.113 (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Movies are not reliable sources

This edit is problematic because it is trying to use a movie as a reliable source and it isn't. The assertion may be overreaching but if you can find an appropriate source, you might get it in the article. To put it in the lede section is undue weight unless it could be proven that this is the majority opinion accepted by historians and academic scholars.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Confederation scheme

Is calling a scheme to expand an empire an 'imperialist scheme' an example of non- NPOV description or not? I say not, and such a description is supported by Knight & others.Tttom1 (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Adding the reference of the primary source of the actual act does not support the OR used to change the language of the statement. Imposing an anachronistic view of imperial activities of the British Empire is OR. However, the primary source has been added and I attributed the statement to Knight in an effort to add your view appropriately, Knight's view is of course already appropriate as is. But if you feel it needs to be pointed out more clearly that it is from Knight - that has been done. Please do not edit war. If you have secondary sources that challenge Knight on the 'Confederation policy' that was abandoned after Gladstone came in you can discuss them here and possibly add them.Tttom1 (talk) 23:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Lock & Quantrill also describe the British Empire's 'imperial' behavior (p.23).Tttom1 (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

And what consensus do YOU have for your opinion that it is POV-neutral? And since when does one have to have consensus to edit Wikipedia? It states clearly that if you don't want to be edited, you should not contribute to Wikipedia. There is no requirement that one obtain a consensus before making an edit, or reverting an edit. If you want a consensus, get one yourself. Mike Hayes (talk) 21:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC

From WP:SILENCE and WP:CON: "Consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing). You find out whether your edit has consensus when it sticks, is built upon by others, and most importantly when it is used or referred to by others." The statement you wish to change had consensus because it was longstanding in the article without disagreement, your changes don't have consensus because I disagreed with them. Further, in an good faith effort, I have attempted to incorporate some of your legitimate concerns, WP:CON: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.", into the paragraph while retaining the previous reliably sourced statements. If you have reliable sources for your view please add them WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view."Tttom1 (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Isandlwana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090703235538/http://www.travellersimpressions.com/process/articlepage.php?storycode=rg0003 to http://www.travellersimpressions.com/process/articlepage.php?storycode=rg0003

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Chelmsford culpability and aftermath

Surprised, given the article (Chelmsford failed to respond to pleas for help, dispersed his forces, did not laager the camp..) that there is either more of a critique of Chelmsford here and/or that he continued after this heavy defeat, to acquire various titles and privileges. Was there some sort of cover up on his behealf or similar? He seems to have effectively courted the disaster - yet been awarded for it? 2A01:CB05:84:5100:9B0:199B:6F31:D546 (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

A lot of that has to do with Chelmsford's actions; he knew he was in trouble and under normal circumstances should have held his position and awaited his replacement, however he was aware of this and pushed forward with the war, achieving victory before his replacement and recriminations arrived.

The British government would have happily held him accountable for the disaster, but that became difficult once he had actually won the war, something he was all too aware of. The public at large probably saw it as a man learning from his mistakes and 'fixing' them, and the government punishing him at this point would likely have been bad optics. Alooulla (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Read Ian Knight's excellent book Zulu Rising. The best way to avoid admitting to a defeat is to treat it as a victory and start handing out awards.

Cadar (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Zulu war

the zulus won Isandwala — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.58.22 (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The Zulus' losses, almost certainly far heavier than the British losses, were disastrous. When Cetewayo was told, he said, 'An assegai has been thrust into the belly of the nation... There are not enough tears to mourn the dead.' (Morris, 1965, p.387.) And, in short order, the king lost his crown (a crown he'd obtained by murdering most of his own family). Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

How would the Zulus have won the war that day

The Zulus may have missed an opportunity to exploit their victory and possibly win the war that day on their own territory. The reconnaissance force under Chelmsford was more vulnerable to being defeated by an attack than the camp.

How would that have worked; would they have captured or killed Chelmsford? Beewellbee (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Zulu Casualties Continued

Hello, I am looking into the claims of casualites at this battle, a debate did happen in this talk thread although it was 2 years ago so I feel right in starting a new topic. The article says 1000 to 3000 Zulu died and cites an article and a book written by Ian Knight. In the book written by Ian Knight, on the Battle of Isandlwana he says on page 21 "By mid-afternoon on 22 January the Zulu attack was largely spent, and the warriors were preparing to retire the way they had come, carrying off with them the fruits of their victory, both sweet and sour ~ all the exotic delights of the British camp and hundreds of their own wounded men." [1]. This claim of only a few hundred Zulu casualites lines up with contemporary battle casualty numbers. Furthermore in the book "Rorke's Drift and Isandlwana: Great Battles" the following claim is made on page 60, "The Zulu lost at least 1,000 killed or died of wounds." [2] This book also cites another book from 1883 called "Through the Zulu Country" in which a Zulu warrior is questioned on the battle starting at page 277. He says 2 things of note regarding this topic, firstly the claim that "We lost far more men at Kambula than at Isandlwana"[3] on page 279. He continues with "Further down the slope three or four dark spots of a different growth show the places of sepulture of the Zulu dead who were buried in hundreds after the battle" [4] The Battle of Kambula was reported as having a maximum Zulu casualty count of 2,000 men.

With all of this in mind I personally think that the article should be edited to report a few hundered to a little more over 1,000 Zulu casualites, as there is no cited evidence for the claim of 3,000. Ashemus (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)