MovieChat Forums > Zulu (1964) Discussion > BOTH sides deserve MAJOR props IMO!

BOTH sides deserve MAJOR props IMO!

posted 12 years ago by Loveunderlaw
10 replies | jump to latest

The Zulus were an awesome fighting force that could've probably overwhelmed the Europeans stationed at Rorke's Drift had they really wanted to do so. I think in the end, the Zulu war chief respected them for their fighting spirit, & just decided to leave them be in the end as portrayed.

Next to the Lakota, Northern Cheyenne and Arapaho tribes, I'd have to say the Zulus ranked as some of the top indigenous tribes ever known to "modern" man.
________________________________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/loveunderlaw

[–] ronfirv 12 years ago

Oh, the Zulus wanted to do so all right! The Indunas decided that the small gain was costing too many and needed these warriors for more crucial battles elsewhere in Zululand. Remember, Lord Chelmsford was in command of the main body of the invading forces, and Rorkes Drift was only caught up in this war the Zulus hadn't truly wanted, but the settlers in Cape Colony saw their existence as a constant threat.

[–] BuddyLove63 12 years ago

The Zulus were an awesome fighting force that could've probably overwhelmed the Europeans stationed at Rorke's Drift had they really wanted to do so.

Oh they wanted to do so alright........but they just couldn't manage it. They tried their hardest.

I think in the end, the Zulu war chief respected them for their fighting spirit, & just decided to leave them be in the end as portrayed.

Except the ending in the film wasn't reality. In reality the Zulus took heavy casualties and just weren't strong enough to prevail. Then they spotted the British force of Chelmsford approaching in the morning from Isandlwana and decided enough was enough and chose to withdraw. They didn't decide to leave them be. They retreated in the face of a larger British force moving towards Rorke's Drift from Zululand.

[–] ronfirv 12 years ago

As I stated on another thread, the Zulu impis were within a hair's breadth of taking the Drift, as it was chronicled the British contingent had only 600 rounds of ammo left and what was in the men's small pouches! One more "big push" by the impis would have done it. However, they had marched quite a distance, swum a swollen river and then fought the battle for the mission station, always remembering Ceteswayo had sent his older regiments, most being at least late 40's and older, so their stamina would have been less than the younger Zulu regiments who were elsewhere in Zululand. Btw, not sure the relief column would have approached from Isandhlwana and think it was possibly just outside kwaZulu.

[–] BuddyLove63 12 years ago

They were not within a hairs breadth of taking the 'Drift'.

Who told you that?

Btw, not sure the relief column would have approached from Isandhlwana and think it was possibly just outside kwaZulu.

Huh? The remnants of Chelmsford's force spent the night at Isandlwana and arose early in the morning and moved to Rorke's Drift. The Zulus on Shiyane saw them.

This is what scared the Zulus off.

[–] ronfirv 12 years ago

Who told me that? A very recent news article about the military museum at Brecon, where there is memorabilia from and about Rorke's Drift, including a statement from the guide to the journalist, who told the story of the soldiers being down to approx. 600 rounds of ammo and what was in their small pouches on their belts.
If you have more accurate information to disprove this, no doubt the museum's curator would happily amend their records, and rectify what was said to a reporter from a national daily.

[–] BuddyLove63 12 years ago

Who told me that? A very recent news article about the military museum at Brecon, where there is memorabilia from and about Rorke's Drift, including a statement from the guide to the journalist, who told the story of the soldiers being down to approx. 600 rounds of ammo and what was in their small pouches on their belts.

If you have more accurate information to disprove this, no doubt the museum's curator would happily amend their records, and rectify what was said to a reporter from a national daily

Now look at it from the OTHER side. Wars and battles are not just fought from the perspective of one side. The Zulus were exhausted and had taken heavy punishment and had already given it all they had. Their early battle confidence was severely shaken by their unsuccessful ventures of the previous day.

In essence the Zulus were actually not in a very good state either physically or morale wise by the time morning the next day came.

Col Mike Snook's book like Wolves on the Fold goes into significant detail regarding the likely casualties the Zulus suffered at Rorke's. Adding together the dead and the likely wounded the figure was staggering and most probably well over 1,000. Therefore about 1/3 of the Zulu force.

The Zulus had had enough by morning. Contrary to the myth, they were not supermen unaffected by battle. They were flesh and blood. They died, they got wounded, they had fears. They were human beings. They had been marching for days to get to the battlefronts and hadn't eaten much in the previous two. They were not in any great shape by the morning of the 23rd and their 'bravado' of the previous day was shattered.

The return of Lord Chelmsford's column sealed the deal.

[–] ronfirv 12 years ago

Wars aren't fought from the perspective of one side,correct, but.....history is written from the perspective of the victor.

No one doubts the Zulu forces would be tired and beginning to doubt they could succeed. However, what they threw against such firepower was outstanding courage, quite beyond "bravado".

[–] BuddyLove63 12 years ago

^

Nobody said they weren't courageous. They obviously were. But the Zulus also had bravado initially and, after knowing that the other units of the impi succeeded at Isandlwana, fully expected to overcome the much smaller force at Rorke's Drift. They did not foresee that they were going to fail. I would even call it overconfidence, based on what happened at Isandlwana.

This bravado did not remain with them by morning. They had suffered very heavy casualties and were tired and hungry. In essence, they had had enough.

[–] ronfirv 12 years ago

I'd say both sides would have been tired, hungry and had had enough, not so?

Bear in mind the Zulu nation, at least under iShaka,who united them and disciplined them, taking one instance only, drilled them so rigorously he had the young warriors stamp on a drill-ground scattered with thorns in bare feet and any who flinched were put to death. They had forced marches (runs actually) and woe betide any who dropped by the wayside. Quite a history, quite a people, these amaZulu. The more experienced British troopers would have known of their reputation so it took real grit to face up to these impis, and bravery by the warriors (the uThulwana?) in attacking even a small-ish force with Martini-Hendry rifles,firing salvo after salvo in quick order. One could say, suicidal?
As I, and a few others commented elsewhere on this very board, I will never forget the first sight I had of the 4,000 Zulus on the slopes above the Drift, I had goose pimples of,fear for the Brit. lads about to face them, and a degree of respect for the Zulus as the then enemies of my country, for their courage and discipline, fighting for their homeland. (I do realise the impis probably did not show themselves on the hillsides as filmed, but the scene, for me was one of the most dramatic I have seen on film and I am middle-aged now).
It was a regrettable confrontation but with their constant threat on the border with Cape Colony and add in the fear the other native peoples felt, perhaps, just perhaps, it was all unavoidable.

[–] Darknessviking 11 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rorke's_Drift
here you can get all the facts of the battle,

900 bullets left,
official sources say 350-500 dead zulus (soldier reported about 800something)