Talk:Battle of Isandlwana/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Worst defeat

"At Isandlwana the British army suffered its worst defeat at the hands of a native force." Does that mean that Afghans, for instance, weren't a "native force"? See Massacre of Elphinstone's Army. Art LaPella (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't mean anything about the Afghans. Its a sourced statement derived from secondary sources. Regarding the Afghans, I'd hazard an opinion that they are viewed as more towards modern national forces like American in the revolutionary war, or Boers - or Egyptians as opposed to Fuzzy Wuzzys.Tttom1 (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The actual quote from the secondary source, as reproduced in the relevant footnote, is "technologically inferior indigenous force". "Native" is a problematic term that both carries a whiff of colonialism and isn't particularly descriptive (any army the Brits fought on their home turf could be called "natives," even the French). --Jfruh (talk) 06:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The actual ref quote uses 'indigenous' which according to wiktionary means: native - and the early part of the lede established the technological inferiority. A verbatim use would be plagiaristic unless used as a block quote, but I am sensitive to the "whiff of colonialism" of 'native'. However, removing the entire phrase obviously weakens the notability of the accomplishment of the Zulu. If you have an alternative phrase that encompasses notability of this remarkable victory I am open to it, if not, I think the original should be restored.Tttom1 (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Rewrote sentence - The British army had received it worst defeat fighting against a technologically inferior indigenous force. - with ref. I believe that covers all concerns.Tttom1 (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd dispute that this battle was a "decisive victory". The Zulus still suffered very heavy losses and the consequence of the battle was to compel Britain to respond with greater force, which culminated in Zululand's total defeat. It would be better as a "Pyrrhic victory". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.133.120.169 (talk • contribs)

Do you have any reliable sources which state that it is a pyrrhic victory?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Missed Zulu opportunities and British responses are already detailed in the Aftermath section of this article. This can be augmented by the description of the battle as such in JO Gump (1994), The Dust Rose like Smoke: The Subjugation of the Zulu and the Sioux, University of Nebraska Press. 01:14 22 January 2011 (UTC).

Do you have a page number for the latter so I can read it? I'm assuming he states this as a pyrrhic victory?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, found it on page 23. Let's also see what other editors here have to say as well.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thousands of guns?

There is little or no evidence of the Zulus having 'thousands of guns' at Isandlwana. The web site ref given is a blind link. The linked reference in World History of Warfare, By Christon I. Archer p 462 which while it mentions some Zulus have rifles (which no one disputes), also states the Zulu have "25,000 men equipped with cowhide shields, assegais and clubs" - not thousands of rifles. To use this to support a minority view is both synthesis (see: WP:SYN) and original research (see: WP:NOR). Please do not revert until some consensus is reached on this. Most accepted sources do not support the contention of Zulus carrying thousands of guns at the battle.Tttom1 (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

British Battles website is not a source. World History of warfare supports spear and shield as stated above. Putting Ian Knights claims together with this is synthesis as neither states that there are thousands of Zulus with guns at Isandlwana. Evidence of the Zulus using 'some' guns is indisputable and could be included.Tttom1 (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

As your ref World History of Warfare, By Christon I. Archer p 462 clearly states: "They had a national army of twenty-five thousand men equipped with cowhide shields, assegais and clubs." I have used it to support the statement of general Zulu equipment and added they had 'some' guns as no source has stated the Zulus had 'thousands of guns' at Isandlwana.Tttom1 (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Horace Smith-Dorrien (1925) Memories of Forty-eight Years Service. E.P. Dutton, Chapter 1B "It was a marvellous sight, line upon line of men in slightly extended order, one behind the other, firing as they came along, for a few of them had firearms, bearing all before them." eyewitness account, emphasis added.Tttom1 (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added the more ambiguous "a number" instead of "a few" for the Zulu firearms. As the ref that is supporting this actually states thousands, but, in light of your vehement contention that this is not so I agree that perhaps "thousands" is over the top until another source can back it up. "A number" will suffice better than "a few". Do you agree?Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

'A number' of guns will do, but 'a few' is the realty since no sources, even Knight, ever mentions thousands of Zulu guns at Isandlwana. If there had been, someone would have noticed at the time, Smith Dorrien was there and told what he saw - 'a few'. Putting 2 different sources together one of which says, generally, as Knight does, there might have been thousands of guns in Zululand with one (and there are many that acknowledge the Zulus have 'a number' of guns) that states there were Zulus at Isandlwana with rifles and concluding then there were thousands of guns at Isandlwana is synthesis WP:SYN since neither claims that conclusion, indeed, one actually clearly supports the spear & shield equipment for the Zulu army.Tttom1 (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Fynney may be Knight's source on Zulu guns when Knight says "Some British reports suggest 20,000 guns" p. 25, Zulu War. See: The London Quarterly and Holborn Review, Volume 51, p.33. Fynney claims almost all have guns but also points out the acute lack of ammunition (for which the Zulu have no solution) and training- which may explain why they aren't in common use in the field.Tttom1 (talk) 01:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

an uncertain Zulu victory

There can be no doubt that Isandlwana was a Zulu victory but it was rather a hard victory. The aftermath was that one fit Zulu in three was dead and another of those three wounded and a harvest almost imminent. Even had the British not responded to their defeat it was possible that the Zulus were facing starvation.AT Kunene (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2