Isandlwana

This largely proves the superior discipline of the Zulu’s, as when they had the advantage the British line crumbled and the retreat quickly lost its discipline, but the Zulu’s persisted earlier in the fight under a supreme disadvantage against the British guns without any loss of moral or order. After the British broke the fighting was hand to hand, and in close quarters fighting the Zulu’s easily outclassed the British. Despite even several groups of British troops forming together to fight the Zulu’s to the death, Zulu losses were considerably less than that of the British. Overall, the British lost almost all of their forces, whilst the Zulu’s lost around a thousand of their twenty thousand strong force involved in the attack. The Zulu’s had completely outclassed the British, despite being a supposedly inferior force, and because of their leaders being superior, as well as their troops.

Perhaps ironically, the same night four thousand Zulu soldiers were defeated by 139 British soldiers, several of whom were hospitalised at the time. Even more so, the victory at Isandlwana led to a second, more efficient campaign that utterly defeated the Zulu’s, which only came about because of the Zulu victory.

In conclusion, did Lord Chelmsford’s mistakes really defeat the British? Admittedly, he did cause some serious errors, and a better commander may have defeated the Zulu’s in his place, but was that the sole reason, or even the main one? I largely agree with Ian Knight about the outcome of this battle though “Like most historical calamities, the British defeat came about not through any single great error of judgement, but rather through a combination of misunderstanding, miscalculation, and sheer bad luck. The Zulu victory, on the other hand, was won by sound tactical judgement, by aggressive spirit, and by raw courage and endurance in the face of an awesome and destructive enemy weapon technology…”

This shows the key point that proves there was no main reason. Whereas in most battles you have one general who is simply better, or two very strong generals, or two appalling generals, in this case you have a general who completely outclassed his opponent on one side. On the other, you have someone who blundered several times, in addition to being outclassed, and as they are separate reasons they should be kept separate.

So, Chelmsford’s mistakes were not the main reason, because there were only two, equal reasons. Firstly, Zulu superiority, and secondly the British forces being poor and badly led.