Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Zulu Dawn

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Very little mention is made of the fact that after the Zula withdrew from Rourke's Drift the garrison slaughtered hundreds of the wounded Zulu left on the field.

    Although Lt.Coghill was awarded a VC at Isandlwana there is some doubt cast on his actions that day and it is thought that he had actually done a runner before meeting up with Lt.Melville

    Comment


    • #17
      Very little mention is made of the fact that after the Zulu withdrew from Rourke's Drift the garrison slaughtered hundreds of the wounded Zulu left on the field.
      There's no point viewing this through 21st Century eyes. This was a different era with different rules of war. It's already been said that the Zulu's took no prisoners, this was known to the British so it's a bit naive to expect them to do the same.

      On top of that the garrison at Rourke's Drift were a small unit with limited resources, all of which were tied up in looking after their own wounded. Given that there were hundreds of Zulu wounded, caring for them was beyond them. Giving the Zulu's a swift end was probably the best the Brits could do.

      Incidentally, every book or documentary I've encountered on the subject mentions this.
      "The dolphins were monkeys that didn't like the land, walked back to the water, went back from the sand."

      Comment


      • #18
        It's already been said that the Zulu's took no prisoners, this was known to the British so it's a bit naive to expect them to do the same.
        One might have expected civilized behaviour from a European army.Actually the fact that the wounded Zulu were killed was withheld from the Victorian society of the time.

        Comment


        • #19
          PS

          This was a different era with different rules of war.
          It wasn't that the rules of war were different it was that the rules for people the Brits viewed as savage were different

          Comment


          • #20
            At that time a very sanitised version of war was broadcast to the people at home, a trend that would last a good bit longer.

            Without the medical facilities to treat the wounded, what were they to do?

            "Civilised behaviour" as you put it is a two-way thing, if the enemy are slaughtering your wounded, you wouldn't feel particularly charitible to them...
            .
            .
            .
            With 50,000 men getting killed a week, who's going to miss a pigeon?

            Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people.

            Comment


            • #21
              Without the medical facilities to treat the wounded, what were they to do?
              Left them for their own people to care for.It was Zulu land you know.

              "Civilised behaviour" as you put it is a two-way thing, if the enemy are slaughtering your wounded, you wouldn't feel particularly charitible to them...
              Colonial armies when opposed by the indigenous natives rarely employed civilized methods.

              Comment


              • #22
                Left them for their own people to care for.It was Zulu land you know.
                So you reckon the Zulu's were going to return to Rourke's Drift to recover their wounded, despite having been driven off earlier by superior firepower?
                "The dolphins were monkeys that didn't like the land, walked back to the water, went back from the sand."

                Comment


                • #23
                  The Zulu field hospitals and medevac facilities seem to have escaped history too.

                  - Please don't waste time going on about tribal healers.
                  .
                  .
                  .
                  With 50,000 men getting killed a week, who's going to miss a pigeon?

                  Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    So you reckon the Zulu's were going to return to Rourke's Drift to recover their wounded, despite having been driven off earlier by superior firepower
                    What I had in mind was tribal noncombatants but then as colonial armies generally engaged in genocide they would not have recognised that status.


                    The Zulu field hospitals and medevac facilities seem to have escaped history too.
                    So behaviour towards the enemie's wounded depended on their facilities.?
                    Bet that one's not in the Geniva convention

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      You insist on trying to twist eveything around to suit whatever bee it is you have in your bonnet about perfidious Albion

                      1. The British did not have facilities to treat the Zulu wounded.
                      2. The Zulus hadn't either.
                      3. The Zulus routinely slaughtered enemy prisoners and wounded.
                      4. There was no Geneva convention in force at the time.


                      The wounded zulu warriors lying on the field were going to die unpleasant, slow deaths -(given the state of medicine at the time, medical treatment wouldnt have changed this much anway). The British put them out of their misery - big deal.
                      .
                      .
                      .
                      With 50,000 men getting killed a week, who's going to miss a pigeon?

                      Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Are you seriously suggesting that the Zulu's would have sent civillians out to collect their hundreds of wounded & would have adequately cared for them? What makes you think this would have happened? Is there historical precedent for such a claim? Did the Zulu's do this prior to their War with Britain?

                        Or are you being deliberately argumentative?

                        I'd say it's the latter.
                        "The dolphins were monkeys that didn't like the land, walked back to the water, went back from the sand."

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Very little mention is made of the fact that after the Zula withdrew from Rourke's Drift the garrison slaughtered hundreds of the wounded Zulu left on the field.

                          Considering the fact that the previous day the Zulus had slaughtered over 500 of their comrades in the same regiment the defenders of Rorke's Drift were probably in no mood to take prisoners.

                          Although Lt.Coghill was awarded a VC at Isandlwana there is some doubt cast on his actions that day and it is thought that he had actually done a runner before meeting up with Lt.Melville

                          Obviously since they met up on Fugitives Trail where the survivors of the massacre were retreating pursued by the Zulus. Nevertheless Coghill did assist the injured and horseless Melville when he could have beat a retreat and saved his own life.

                          Bet that one's not in the Geniva convention

                          The Geneva Convention? In 1879? :confused:
                          sigpic
                          Say NO to violence against Women

                          Originally posted by hedgehog
                          My favourite moment was when the
                          Originally posted by hedgehog
                          red headed old dear got a smack on her ginger head

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            4. There was no Geneva convention in force at the time.

                            The Geneva Convention? In 1879?
                            Ah come on lads, just jossin---a flippant remark

                            Are you seriously suggesting that the Zulu's would have sent civillians out to collect their hundreds of wounded
                            Are you seriously suggesting that the Zulu would have left their wounded on the field of battle if the Brits had applied the same rules as in European conflicts.

                            Did the Zulu's do this prior to their War with Britain?
                            To be honest I don't know but as a warrior nation with a highly developed military system it seems unrealistic to believe that they would not have recovered their wounded.[worth researching]
                            And it was not their war.It was unprovoked aggression by the Brits.


                            the defenders of Rorke's Drift were probably in no mood to take prisoners.
                            It was British policy in South Africa not to take prisoners.[I'll get you the source if you want it]So it had nothing to do with facilities or showing mercy, the Brits were going to kill whatever Zulu fell into their hands.
                            Why is it acceptable that when a more advanced and civilized culture comes into conflict with a primative culture it adopts the methods of the primative culture?


                            Or are you being deliberately argumentative?
                            I hope not .The subject is interesting and I appreciate all views posted here.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Why was Lt.Melville awarded the VC at Isandlwana ?It could be said that he was doing no more than saving himself and one can only imagine the effect on the troops of seeing an officer tearing off to the rear with the colours.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                I think in groundhogs first post it says lt Melville was ordered to leave with the colours.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X