Comparing the Battle of Rorke's Drift with the battle of Battle of Isandlwana (which took place the same day), and I have a question.

by Scientologist2a

The Battle of Rorke's Drift, made famous in the movie ZULU, happened on the same day as the less famous but far more disastrous Battle of Isandlwana

This Documentary takes a look at the battlefield of the Battle of Isandlwana in an effort to find out what actually happened and why the British were wiped out.

Several significant points come out of the documentary.

  • Excavations on the ground at Isandlwana reveal that the British defensive line was significantly farther forward than is commonly believed, resulting in a line where the soldiers were not standing shoulder to shoulder, but were standing 3 to 5 yards apart from each other.
  • The rifle they were using was a Martini-Henry. It used a black powder cartridge. This produces large amounts of white smoke.
  • The Martini-Henry is demonstrated in the documentary as having a flaw of jamming with the accumulation of black powder residue if it got too hot. There is a test performed on film where after a couple dozen rapid fire shots, the rifle jammed
  • There was also a total solar eclipse on the battlefield during the attack of the Zulus.

The general conclusion is that the British lost the Battle of Isandlwana due to a combination of factors

  • an over extended front line
  • lowered visibility due to gunsmoke and the eclipse
  • and most deadly, the jamming of the rifles due to gunpowder residue and overheating.

The Battle of Rorke's Drift is a story of success against steeper odds.

My question is this

How is it that the defenders of Rorke's Drift did not suffer a similar fate as their fellow soldiers at the Battle of Isandlwana, given the fact of the deadly jamming of the rifles?

Smilin_Dave

The major advantage the defenders of Rourkes Drift had was their fortified position. This not only impeded the Zulu assaults and gave the troops a bit of shelter from the limited enemy fire, but also meant the defenders were covering a much smaller area. So even though they were outnumbered their sort of firepower to space ratio might have been better. This also avoids some of the problems with ammo resupply that has also been raised as a possible problem for the defense of Isandlwana (not just thing about opening the containers, but actually getting them to the guys that needed it * ). The fortification also points to their biggest advantage - they knew the enemy was coming. At Isandlwana they weren't exactly expecting a battle and it is more likely the officer commanding the expedition was more concerned that the Zulus would avoid a decisive battle, rather than attack him essentially head on.

Zulu Rising by Ian Knight has a very good narrative on the battle of Isandlwana. One thing it highlights that often gets forgotten is the Zulus initial assault on the camp at Isandlwana, for all the problems of its defense, was unsuccessful - they were effectively pinned down by British fire. It was a combination of factors that resulted in the collapse of the defense.

For a narrative of the defence of Rourkes Drift, I'm have a mental blank (more I can't see the right books on my shelf right now).

*EDIT - Durnford's troops at Isandlwana for example were caught away from the camp, and had run short of ammo towards the end of the battle..