Well done again Chris. As an American I have always likened this to the defeat of Custer at the Little Big Horn in 1876. Very similar mistakes were made although Custer wasn’t encamped like these men. Nevertheless, they used many similar excuses including defective ammunition by the US Army which proved to be false. Also, elements of the 7th Cavalry were able to hold out in defensive positions much like the defenders of Roarkes Drift. In the end it was actually the beginning of the end for both the Zulu and the Native Americans
Indeed, both Durnford and Custer spread their forces far too thin. Rifles (carbines) used were fairly similar in performance. The quality of marksmanship was not. The British soldiers were well trained. Many of Custer's soldiers had received next to no training. There also appear to have been some serious personality issues between Custer and some of his officers, Reno and Benteen in particular.
The one big similarity was they were both defeatef stealing land from indigenous people only for the army to return and subjugate the natives to apalling lives. I suppose that was how it was done then and perhaps I'd have approved but it never sits right with me today.
@@kiwigrunt330not so sure about the Markmanship differences between the British Army and the 7th Cavalry. The Zulus had rifles but the Tribes that fought Custer had them too and they had better rifles than the Single Shot US Army Rifles. They had repeating lever action rifles and knew how to use them for hunting and in warfare.
This was such a great video! You have a teaching style and performance that is absolutely top notch. Proud to say I was one of your first few hundred subscribers and you’re past 45k now!
The myth about ammo boxes is disproven by the very large numbers of broken ammo box screws lying around on the battlefield to this day. The specially designed quartermasters security keys were only necessary to undo the ammo boxes outside of combat and the system was designed to prevent unauthorised access to ammo. The field manual of the times instructs soldiers on how to quickly open the ammo boxes by striking the lid in a certain way with the butt of their Martini-Henry rifles which breaks the soft brass screws as intended. I have seen a demonstration of this on a mint condition ammo box and a mint unissued Martini-Henry of the period. It took less than 3 seconds to open the box and strip back the ring pull foil covering the ammo. Myth busted.
Agree, lack of ammunition and over-zealous quartermasters was a myth which conveniently washed over infantry mistakes and Zulus out-thinking and out-fighting the British.
@@TheHistoryChap Chelmsford had ample cause to come up with as many excuses as possible that the defeat wasn't his fault. Mind-blowing that after getting away with it all those years ago, we're still stuck picking apart all his smokescreens and excuses and lies over the campaign to this day.
Well done,this is the best that I've ever heard this battle described. As an Englishman living in Soutj Australia I was surprised to hear of Adelaide born Edgar Anstey's body being returned to Britain for burial,or that he was Australia's first casualty overseas, this is not something that we were taught in schools here. Certainly interesting to know.
Darren, I'm glad you enjoyed it. I will need to get my facts right but I think his family were british and he was born in Australia whilst his family were working / serving there. Hence why he ended up being buried in Woking.
@@TheHistoryChap ,I'm trying to find this information online myself, it's proving to be a bit difficult, but I'm sure that I'll get there. Thankyou once again.
Both underestimated the indigenous troops, overestimated the capacity of a First World Army, divided their troops and did not obtain sufficient intelligence about the strength and locations of the enemy. Both the Native Americans and Zulus had rifles. Both the British and American commanders were actually afraid that they would not encounter the enemy. The British troops were actually more experienced than Custer's troops that included a large number of recruits.
I’m very lucky to have visited Isandlwana and Rorke’s Drift last month. It has been a goal of mine since watching Zulu and Zulu Dawn. A feeling of awe at both places.
As a South African now living in the US, this battle has always fascinated me, I also see alot of similarities between the battle of Isandlwana and Custer's last stand at the battle of Little Bighorn.
I used to wargame the Zulu War many moons ago. Being a young, inexperienced tactician, I fell into the trap of overextending my ammunition supply lines much as was depicted in 'Zulu Dawn'. It took me four or five games to learn my lesson. Great fun, regardless. Thanks for another interesting and informative video!
With the help of maps and photographs, this presentation is certainly much better than the first, albeit longer, video. Showing maps puts the events in context and the photos show the main participants, both giving viewers excellent information regrettably not provided in the initial documentary. Well done, History Chap, keep up the good work! What about doing videos about the Indian Mutiny, and/or the two 19th century British - Afghan wars?
Another great video 👍🏻 the myth of the lack of screwdrivers was put to rest when metal detectors kept finding screws bent at around 90 degrees around the battlefield, an original wooden ammo box was sacrificed in proving a downwards butt strike from the martini Henry on the box placed on its end removed the lid, and bent the screw exactly like the other’s found on the camp ground. To me the real problem was the rolled brass cartridge cases, you can bend them by merely squeezing with fingers! The black powder fouled the barrel and breech, sustained firing meant the cases were getting stuck in the breech and the ejector not capable of removing it, the squaddie didn’t have an issued tool for removing the case and so was forced to improvise with the only other tool they were issued with………their bayonet!
@@lyndoncmp5751 yes and it was a tool mainly for disassembly and cleaning purposes, would’ve been like trying to dig out a Swiss Army knife from a pocket and opening the correct tool to extract a stuck round, with minimal leverage due to the short length of the tool. Much quick to use a bayonet with increased leverage. Yes could unscrew a flat headed screw from the ammo box, but again if you’ve ever used a multi tool to undo a tight flat headed screw then you’d realise while it is perfectly possible it is time consuming and fiddly, much quicker and more time efficient to smack the bit of a rifle against a wooden ammo box that’s foil lined. It explains the finds on the battle ground ie the bent ammo box screws
John Whittle, Yes that is true of course. Just pointing out that the myth that the British army was so incompetent that the troopers didn't have the tools to open up ammo boxes is just that. A myth. Every trooper had a tool in his kit which could do it.
Another very compelling presentation, Chris. Always excited to see a new notification appearing at the top of my screen, alerting me to another of your videos. 🥳👍 Once the News broke, back home, of the shocking defeat at Isandlwana, I’d be fascinated to know what justification was given to Her Majesty’s Government & to Queen Victoria herself, for Lord Chelmsford’s invasion of Zulu territory in the first place. One presumes that King Cetshwayo was scapegoated as “the villain of the piece”, despite his Nation being invaded without justification… with his well trained Impis being portrayed as “weapons of mass destruction” 🤔 that needed to be hunted down & eliminated. Not that such examples of flagrant & falsified propaganda have ever been concocted in recent times, by any particular well known national leaders… or similar shenanigans resorted to in days gone by, by our own Empire - thereby contributing to its unflattering international reputation as “Perfidious Albion.”🤞🤥🇬🇧 It’s sad to think how many of our brave & loyal soldiers perished in so many foreign lands over the years, especially in certain campaigns that one struggles to justify on purely moral grounds, although - at the other extreme - wholesale & indiscriminate bashing of the British Empire has become an equally reprehensible modern day obsession in certain quarters, by political activists & ideologues who have a malign & very obvious ulterior motive of their own, rooted in their desire to propagate deceptive & abhorrent Marxist ideologies that seek to shape the present & control the future, by flagrantly distorting the narratives of the past.
Thanks for that very lengthy comment. I appreciate you taking the time to put down your thoughts so clearly. I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments in the second paragraph.
I think yuu raise a fascinating question. The Quantrill book deals with the aftermath in an interesting manner. Chelmsford essentially seems to have got away with it on one level. He was able to rre-organise and when operational necessity of avenging the humiliation caused London to send all the military forces they had deliberately withheld in 1878 he won the war with only a couple of minor embarrassments in the Second Invasion. What cannot be overlooked is that he was a personal friend of the Queen, who spoke frequently on his behalf to Disraeli. Having said that, the Army made sure he never saw a field command again. You sense partly due to Isandlwana and partly because teh he nead of the Army from 1882 was the same Wolseley whose dreams of South African glory were stolen by Chelmsford Most of the blame was dumped oh his slimy unpopular if clever Secreatry Crealock who was blamed for the poisonous atmosphere between Chelmsford's staff and the 24th
@@glynquigley4364 Thank you for that interesting explanation & perspective, Glyn. Excuse my ignorance, but what is “the Quantrill Book” that you refer to? I’m not familiar with it & if it was mentioned in Chris’s video, my memory isn’t the best (even when it was “at its best” it wasn’t “the best!” 😂) & I don’t recall it.
@@the5thmusketeer215 Thanks for the comment. The Quantrill book is "Zulu Victory" by Ron Lock & Peter Quantrill. It suggests the 24th were rubbish, Durnsford was not to blame at all and highlights the cover up.
I would not dismiss Smith -Dorrien's statements of fact about the screws in ammo boxes, being a detriment. It was only one of the factors he noted about the logistical problems with ammo supply to the line units during this battle. You may want to go read/re-read his "Memoirs of 48 years of Service" That he was relieved in WWI by higher Britsh officers/command , I consider the highest compliment, and only adds more validity to what he said earlier about a different war , different battle, he was in. Simply put, Sir Horace Smith-Dorrien is beyond reproach, so are his statements. A great man and a great British officer.
Having visited this battlefield, I saw that this hill was very defensible if it had been properly done, I asked my battlefield guide/historian how long it took for the zulus to get to the British line once they came over the skyline, I was told 20 minutes, enough time to get the troops in to the slope, however the artillery and the Rocket troop were some of the first to be over run. it is an awesome place to visit.
Worth noting on the subject of blaming Pulleine for spreading his troops out too thinly: the formation Pulleine adopted was set out by Chelmsford in his 'Instructions for the Consideration of Officers Commanding Columns when Entering Zululand', written December 1878. A copy of which was found on Durnford's body. That's what I read in Saul David's 'Zulu', anyway (pages 129-130) No doubt the distance between British lines and camp did nothing to help the flow of ammunition. P.s. Unpopular opinion, Zulu Dawn is way better than Zulu... P.p.s. Great video!
Totally agree. I have always preferred "Zulu Dawn" to "Zulu" as well. It is the sheer scale of the movie. The uniforms in terms of tunic and pith helmets are more accurately depicted for soldiers on campaign. In "Zulu" the scarlet tunics are pristine and the white helmets are gleaming white and in parade ground condition. An interesting piece of movie trivia in relation to "Zulu Dawn". As you know the movie was made on location. In the movie the invasion force crossing the Buffalo River are actually crossing from the former Zululand into Natal. Obviously the opposite happened in real life. The film makers at the time thought it would be more dramatic on screen for the invasion force to go up the hill into Natal from the former Zululand.
@@johnroche7541 fantastic trivia! I never knew that! You're right, the scale of the movie is great, you really get a sense of the size of the Zulu impi and its ability to manoeuvre at speed. I also like it for being more historically accurate to the battle than Zulu is to Rourke's Drift. I heard when they made Zulu they weren't able to pay the Zulu extras due to apartheid laws in SA, so they left behind the herd of cattle as an unofficial payment. Some other war movie trivia, the 1970 film Waterloo (also fantastic) remains the record holder for most extras in authentic costume. 15,000 of them! As a result, another war movie of great scale!
@@davsto6375 Thank you for your reply. Absolutely love Waterloo. Crikey the scale is unreal. If these movies were made now they would be ruined with CGI. It is the thousands of extras that make them so realistic. I have 2 pieces of movie trivia in relation to both "Waterloo" and "Zulu". Sadly Jack Hawkins was suffering from throat cancer during the making of the movie "Waterloo" and his voice is that of a vocal impersonator which was added in later. If you see the movie again you will notice it. In relation to "Zulu" Terence Stamp was first choice to play Bromhead which part eventually goes to Michael Caine.
@@johnroche7541 I could never place what was wrong with his voice, now I know! I live in fear that one day these movies will be remade to modern standards
Thanks for sharing. The distance didn't seem to hinder the ammunition flow although I have read that having all the tents still erected did. I guess we will never really know for sure. Glad you enjoyed my video.
I had the possibility to visit the site and see the cairns... It was something that I had never previously experienced, also not in the cemetaries in northern France.
Thank you so much for this video! I got big into the Zulu wars after watching the Zulu movie, and this along with all your other Zulu war history videos help make sense of the conflict!
Rhys, thanks for your kind comments. I know it took a while to get to the battle but I like to share what I have found out about why battles happen in the first place. Plenty more videos coming your way.
Another fantastic, presentation Chris . One of the major factors contributing to the loss must surely been the overwhelming superiority in numbers , 20 to 1 roughly . One could imagine , 400 yards away , charging Zulu’s could cover that distance in a minute , a rifle man could fire off 10 shots in that time , you could soon have a lot of Zulu’s on your hands , and then you are into hand to hand combat , and history demonstrates who had the upper hand .
Not only that the true size of the attacking Zulu force was not really known until it was too late. Much of the Zulu force was out of vision for the majority of the battle. At least from the camp. Reports of Zulu numbers in the hills that day were circa 4,000-7,000. Even after the impi was discovered around midday it was still not evident to Pulleine the actual size. From the camp position, the Zulu right horn was not visible, while the left horn was distant. Not was the chest rushing forward in one huge mass. The Zulus made good use of the tall grass, dongas etc and kept going to ground in the cover.
Some of he firearms used by the Zulus were imported from America as war surplus after the civil war, Some warriors even had American army uniforms. I have seen Spent British bullets that had been chewed in order to fit the muskets they were using after running out of shot.
Not to split hairs but wouldn’t the rate of Fire have been rather more than 3 rounds a minute? Having said that I love and appreciate your videos sooo much! Please keep them going
The Battlefield Band perform a song called The Beaches of St Valery which is all about the 51st Highland Divisions rearguard action away from the men trapped on the beaches at Dunkirk.I know you have a long list but would love you to tell the story of that action and the brave men who took part. Really enjoy listening to your history, just wonderful, thank you!
3 rounds per minute volley fire was good for muzzle loaders. The Martini-Henry breech loading rifle volley fire rate was 12 rounds per minute. Apart from me being pedantic I really enjoyed the video. Thanks.
As a black South African I'm proud of the way we acquitted ourselves against the British numerous time. Both the Zulus and the Boers fought gallantly against the aBrits at Colenso, Rourke's Drift, Majuba, Spion Kop, Isandlwana and other skirmishes. The rivalry continues on the cricket and rugby fields to this day Bayede. Salute
Just a shame the British and South Africans were not always on the same side (although the SA actions in WW1 and WW2 are worth telling in their own right).
Have you ever thought about a live event? That would be brilliant!!!!! Your channel is a total go to! For me! And how about some history chap T shirts!!! Keep up the great work!
Paul, I'd love to do a live event. I deliver talks to various organisations here in the UK but it would be brilliant to gather some of my YT audience together either in person or virtually.
Great video I've read lots of books on this one is on your bookshelf it's a fascinating subject one thing I read was british soldiers started shaving after this battle due to jaws being removed from there dead comrades thought as trophys
The shortage of ammunition is not a complete myth it's very likely the troops ran out of ammunition not because they couldn't get the ammo boxes open but because they were so far out of the camp that running to get ammunition and then running back to the troops just wasn't organised or something that could be done quickly especially once the front line started to retreat. Add to that each of the ammunition wagons were designated to certain companies and wouldn't supply ammo to a company not designated to that wagon, this was a real issue as my great great grandad served in the northwest frontier in India and his journal had comments on the stupidity of logistics at the worst possible time. There were two people responsible for the defeat Chelmsford for his ignorance and arrogance and Pulleen who should have never sent the troops so far out and not relinquishing command to Durnford who was far more capable. This was an incredible Zulu victory and while some factors greatly aided them that doesn't distract from their skillful movement and discipline in attack they were the better force that day.
Andrew, thanks for taking the time to comment. You are right about the distances, although Zulus reported British soldiers firing when still fighting in the camp so they hadn't run dry (but their rate of fire might have slackened out there on the extended perimeter.)
And Pulleine kept his firing line so far out because Durnford obliged Pulleine to support him. The only troops who ran out of ammo on the firing line were Durnfords. Durnford never made preparations to make sure where his own ammo wagon would be located in the camp, so when his men ran low on ammo at the donga and riders were sent back to camp to get more, they couldn't even find their own ammo stocks. This was a blunder of serious magnitude by Durnford.
it's the one that got me into the subject. Ian Knight and Adrian Greaves have written some great books about Isandlwana and the Zulu Wars in recent years.
@@TheHistoryChap Ian Knight who is such an authority on the Zulu War was asked by family members to check out military material that was found in an attic. It transpires that his great great grand uncle Pte Thomas Cooper was killed at Isandlawana.
@Coll Maxwell Ian Knight the historian who is such an authority on this war wrote an excellent book on this conflict in conjunction with the National Army Museum(UK) a number of years ago. It is excellent. The cover of the book is based on the ribbon of the Zulu War Medal or to give the medal its correct title the South Africa Medal. Ian Knights great great uncle Pte Thomas Cooper 1st Battalion(Royal Warwickshire Regiment) was KIA st Isandlawana.
Thank you Chris. Your videos are always brilliantly informative and expertly delivered with your wonderful narration. My attention captivated.! Well done, and look forward to the next.!
I guess we couldn’t get along because we were taking their lands - like the Italian troops at the Battle of Adwa who were thrashed by the Ethiopian army of Menelik, we should not have been their in the first place. Chris does well to recognise the bravery of the Zulu - they were fighting for what was theirs in the first place. You have to feel sorry for the soldiers put in this terrible situation, but ultimately the British were not on the right side of history.
@@andym6256 That may be true today but it wasn't then. The Zeitgeist has changed radically. We justified our Empire by asserting we were taking civilization to the world and in many cases that was true. The spread of Christianity also piggy backed on the spread of the Empire. Even today there are many who will argue that position. What you term the "right side of history" is merely the prejudice of the current perspective. History doesn't have a right side or a wrong side. It is simply history and when one attempts to judge history from some personal moral perspective it ceases to be history.
@@davidw.robertson448 It’s not a personal moral perspective to affirm that colonisation was wrong - it is something enshrined in the United Nations Charter which dates back to 1945.
@@andym6256Yes, well that may mark the beginning of the preset Zeitgeist which as I say is the perspective from which you judge matters. In reality colonization continued in a different form. The process today is called globalization in which the dominant power has been exercised by the United States. That too is coming to an end and will be replaced by a more multipolar world of sovereign nations. Or at least that is the rubric under which the world will operate. I suspect the imperial structure will continue with Russia and China occupying the dominant positions and exercising influence, at least in China's case, through commercial channels. This was also the way in which Britain primarily controlled her Empire, although there was also a military element, which in the future may be provided by Russia.. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Fantastic video Chris , thanks for that, i’m a painter of figurines for more than 35 years and i never get tired of painting zulu’s and britisch colonial soldiers, hope to see more video’s of your fantastic channel 👍
Hello Chris, your channel has become a great favorite of mine and I thoroughly enjoy each video. One of the aspects of your presentations I really appreciate is the lack of bias towards your "home" nation, which I would think is really difficult to do. I always find you give equal treatment to both sides fairly and justly, calling both triumphs and failures. I also have my degree in History and military history is my favorite history to study. As you seem to focus on 19th century conflicts, I wonder if you've ever given thought to casting your gaze across the Atlantic and making some videos about that little American war in 1812. :) Cheers from Virginia in the USA and thank you.
Thanks for your support. I do try to walk the middle path...there are always two sides to any story. I always remember my son asking me (when he was little) whether the Zulus were goodies or baddies. I told him it depended on whether you were a Zulu or one of their enemies! The War of 1812 is on my hit-list so please make sure you subscribe so you don't miss it.
I think Chris G. has a very special talent for this because of his upbringing in South Africa, which is a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural environment where people have to learn at an early age how to get along with each other. He is graced with a multi-faceted worldview that is quite unique, hence his channel will keep growing. His approach is non-judgmental, which is very refreshing!
An absolutely brilliant description of this famous Zulu victory with your usual high calibre presentation. I think I stated the following in a post on another of your superb Anglo-Zulu War documentaries. The Zulu regiments who performed so heroically and were so devastating at Isandlawana would take horrific heavy casualties at the Battle of Khambula on 28th March 1879. At the Battle of Khambula the Zulu war cry was "We are the boys from Isandlawana". As always wishing you continued success in all your endeavours. By the way historian Ian Knight who is such an authority on this conflict was asked by family members to view some old military material found in an attic. It transpires that Ian Knights great great grand uncle Pte Thomas Cooper 24th Foot was KIA at Isandlawana! You will have to do do the Battle of Maiwand which was as you know another colonial defeat for the British in July 1880 during the 2nd Anglo-Afghan War. Any fellow fans of Sherlock Holmes knows that Dr. John Watson was wounded at this battle. Any one in Reading in the England will have seen the magnificent beautiful monument "The Maiwand Lion" dedicated to British fallen in particular the 66th Regiment of Foot who later became the Royal Berkshire Regiment. This regiment made a heroic last stand also.
John, thanks so much for taking the time to comment. Kambula is on my list of future videos but I have now added Maiwand. In fact the wholse British army in India is a treasury of forgotten stories.
@@TheHistoryChap Hi Chris. I am delighted to hear that you will be doing the Battle of Mons. WW1 means so much to me as my grandfather served in this war. I have visited the Western Front numerous times over the years and visited the graves,monuments and memorials. It is so poignant to witness the Menin Gate ceremony. There was so much bravery displayed by the BEF during the retreat from Mons. However one display of heroism that stands out for me is the gallant rearguard action by the Irish regiment the Royal Munster Fusiliers at Etreux. There is a beautiful Celtic Cross monument there now. No doubt you have seen that most beautiful poignant painting titled "The Last Absolution of the Munsters". It shows Irish soldiers from this regiment with heads bowed solemnly as the regimental priest on horseback blesses them. I would highly recommend it to fellow subscribers to view this absolutey moving painting. It stirs up so many emotions. Just a historical footnote to this beautiful painting. The priest in the painting is Father Frank Gleeson from Co.Wicklow,Ireland. He would later be chaplain to the Free State/National Army in Ireland during the Irish Civil War 1922-1923. I love the story of "The Angel's of Mons" since I first heard it as a child. Obviously I am really looking forward to this documentary. As always wishing you continued success in all your future endeavours.
I remember a documentary about the Zulu-Anglo Wars, The Grandson of a Zulu warrior who fought in the 2nd battle of Iswandlawa was speaking. Against the Boers, the left 'horn' of the buffalo formation attacked first (before the right horn was ready) thus causing the Zulus to suffer heavy losses and eventually lose the battle.
I have read that too. The Zulu warriors at Isandlwana might very well have been on a narcotic high (administered by Witch Doctors) and certainly their willingness to face the british bullets and their killing frenzy inside the camp might indicate that. On the other hand, as they attacked a day early (after being discovered) I am not sure how far into the narcotic ritual they would have been.
@@TheHistoryChap you are absolutely the best British history historian. You are not afraid to talk about the more uncomfortable subjects that are often not mentioned or mentioned very quickly that call into question or start call out poor leadership. It's not like the Zulu tactics were not well know. Although I give the Zulu some credit, they pretty much did what they always did. It was the British leadership that left those brave men in a place the Zulu attack would work..you circle the wagons and dig trenches, which was standard for all British camps. Don't even get me into scouting. Battle of greasy grass or custers last stand has a ton of overlap with islandwana. Poor leadership, poor scouting and poor preconceived notions on what the enemy would do..
Theodore Smith Wagons could not encircle a 1km wide camp and the ground was too stony for trenches. The camp was due to be moved the next day. Concentrated firepower was the answer, as at Inyezane. Pulleine would have used concentrated firepower had Durnford not made the tactical decisions he did. There were enough riflemen there, nearly a thousand, to have defended the camp if only Durnford did what he was supposed to do.
By the way laagers were not in the field regulations for the first invasion. That came later for the second invasion. Field regulations stated concentrated firepower and/or partial entrenchments. There were no entrenchments or laagers at Inyezane and the British won. Concentrated firepower.
How Can Man Die Better by Col Mike Snook is the best work on the actual battle. I find all the other works spend too much time on the before and after, while the battle itself is rushed through.
Excellent run-through. Bottom line is that if Durnford did as he was ordered to and just got to Isandlwana to reinforce its numbers and adhered to the orders that Pulleine had, which were to act on the defensive and protect the camp, the disaster probably wouldn't have happened. Durnford poked the wasps nest and brought the battle on. The Zulus weren't planning to attack that day but Durnford forced their hand by going maverick, chasing off out after them looking for action. Even if the Zulus did attack that day, then far tighter defensive positions with more concentrated firepower close to the camp (nearly 1,000 rifles) probably would have held them off. This was Pulleine's preferred tactic, as shown by the morning false alarm, before Durnford arrived and changed the entire scenario. Cheers. Good stuff. 👍
By the way, I do think it occurred to Chelmsford that the camp might be attacked. That's why he ordered Pulleine to act strictly on the defensive and immediately ordered Durnford there. If he didn't think there was any chance of a possible attack on the camp, why did he order that? He actually acted with a degree of caution there. Durnford, by the way, already told Pulleine he wasn't going to stay in camp when he arrived, so his decision to ride off was made before the claim he rode out to go to Chelmsfords aid. Not that any Zulus were reported moving in the direction of Chelmsford to the south east anyway. They were retiring to the northeast, not in Chelmsfords direction. 😉.
Dear Chap, having read several accounts of this battle, yours is first rate. I will differ on one thing. The fact that the Zulu army possessed some 5000 muskets is blatantly overlooked. These were not animals with no rational brain power, these were intelligent hunters and warriors. If a warrior was in possession of such a weapon, I would submit that he knew dang well how to use it. The fact that the commander of the British force had two musket balls in his chest supports this. Just IMO Thanks for the vid.
You are correct about the Zulus having rifles / muskets. However, most were outdated compared to British rifles and lacked ammunition. Nor were they always in the best of conditions.
Hi love this video it’s great to listen to the history of the uk and the empire, I remember the first time I watched Zulu with my dad, I couldn’t stay still! Loved stanly baker and Michael Caine. Loved this and thank you!
Much has been made of the Zulu "Horn of the bull" tactic as if no one had ever encountered it before. But in fact it was a standard attack tactic dating back thousands of years. The Greeks had used the same mode at Marathon! It can be adopted at the squad level, platoon level and company level and just means one third attack on the right and one third attacks on the left while the remaining third hold the center, thus it's called the three point attack. Out flanking the opposing force on one or both flanks has been used at Hastings, various American Civil War battles, and many battles since. The military version of a mortal sin remains the rule: "never split your forces in the face of your enemy" and boy was Chemsford a sinner!
@Coll Maxwell The idea that you can outflank your enemy actually has it's roots in hunting! This was the way our stone age ancestors hunted large game and they simply adapted it for warfare. That the British officers didn't appreciate the Zulus is part hubris and part racial bigotry. But then what could anyone expect when all it takes to be a British army officer was money and the right family connections.
Chelmsford didn't split his force in the classic sense. He sent one half out and ordered the other half to stay put, to act on the defensive and to be reinforced by Durnfords 260 mounted riflemen, the rocket battery etc. He didn't send both halves of his force blindly out searching for Zulus. Chelmsford only sent half his force out in the first place because the large, mostly NNC, recon patrol requested assistance. This recon force got itself into difficulties the day before by deciding to engage a large number of Zulus late in the day and had to spend a terrifying night isolated in the hills. They expected to be attacked by the Zulus at any moment. A rider was sent back to camp in the middle of the night asking for help from Chelmsford. Chelmsford actually acted in a reasonably sound manner. He did not ignore the request for help leaving them to their fate. Nor did he send out a half baked token force ten miles further into Zulu territory in the direction of where circa 2,000 Zulus had just been encountered. Instead Chelmsford acted quite logically. He decided to send a strong force out and keep a strong force back, which was only to act on the defensive and would be reinforced by Durnford. What were the alternatives given the situation and information at the time? I have no superior tactical answer. Do you?
@@lyndoncmp5751 Normally a general would keep his entire force concentrated and moving toward where he thought the enemy would be. Since he believed the Zulu were to the east he should have moved his entire army east. I do not have any sympathy for a commander who bases his actions on incomplete intelligence, it's his job to know for sure. Ignorance after the fact is no excuse!
I have just read Isandlwana by Adrian Greaves and now reading Roark´s Drift by the same author. Usually a debacle is a consequence of various reasons, not just one. I think there were errors from Chelmsford, Pulleine and Durnford. Only one less mistake it may be another story. Congratulations for the video.
I dont see what Pulleine did wrong. The only thing I can fault him on was not striking the tents as the battle progressed but apart from that he was obliged to support his superior officer, Durnford. His firing line wouldn't have been kept out so far and for so long if not for that.
@@lyndoncmp5751 He did not laager the camp according to the regulations for the zulu campaigne. Defense line was inadequate. He must preserve the camp not to Dunford. He must have detected so many zulus so near the camp.
Alejandro, There were no regulations to laager the camps during the first invasion. That was a regulation for the SECOND invasion. The only regulation for camps in the first invasion was for partial entrenchments, but the ground at Isandlwana was deemed too stony to dig entrenchments, and the camp was due to be moved soon anyway. The camp at Isandlwana was a kilometre wide. Impossible to laager anyway, and in addition the wagons were required to bring up more supplies from Rorkes Drift. Pulleine DID defend close to the camp during the early morning false alarm. The 24th Foot were ordered by Pulleine to 'stand to' right in front of the tents when thousands of Zulus were reported between 7.00 and 8.00 am. Then Durnford arrived, ignored his own orders to just get to the camp and orders Pulleine was given to act on the defensive and he rode out on the attack, obliging Pulleine to support him. That's why Pulleine kept his firing line out so far for so long, to support Durnford. It was Durnford who made the big tactical mistakes at Isandlwana.
Once again Chris brilliantly described so interesting.i have a couple of other ideas you might be interested in,Sicily 1943 and the charge by the Australian lighthorse on Bathsheba in October 1917 which was amazing
I would be interested in an indepth explanation of who was "at fault" for the British defeat. It's an interesting tug of war between Chelmsford, Pullein. And Durnford who to lay the blame upon.
@Coll Maxwell LOL quite true of course. But I had in mind a more narrow tactical analysis. Historical military massacres usually have a certain "What If" quality about them. So I guess what I'd like to know is if there was some plausible alternate history where the British forces successfully defend the camp from the Zulu attack based on some different tactical choices the British command may have made. Was it REALLY a mistake for Durnsford to throw his troops out to the right of the camp? Were the infantry battalions REALLY spread out too far? Need the defeat of the British forces in the camp have been quite so total? Or was the Zulu army simply too good, too numerous, and the terrain too unfavourable to the British to avoid a military catastrophe no matter what command decisions were made.
Tactically Durnford was largely to blame at Isandlwana. 1,000 rifles in tighter more concentrated firepower would probably been enough to hold off the Zulus. Pulleine's preferred tactic was to defend right in front of the tents, as shown by the morning false alarm. Durnford arrived and upset the apple cart. Durnford forced Pulleine's hand by riding off and telling Pulleine he expected to be supported. Pulleine was thus obliged to keep his firing line out as long as Durnford defended the far flung donga. Had Durnford not defended the donga and retreated to camp, Pulleine would never have kept his firing line out there so long. Durnford, incredibly, tried to get Pulleine to send two companies of the 24th Foot out after him when he decided to chase after Zulus and then there is his decision to order the poor rocket battery out there to support him. It had no choice but to follow him out and it became the first section to be overrun and annihilated. There is absolutely no defending Durnfords poor decision making tactically at Isandlwana. Even more incredulous Durnford made zero preparations to establish where his OWN ammunition wagon would be located when it arrived in camp. This is just mind boggling.
"Was it REALLY a mistake for Durnsford to throw his troops out to the right of the camp" Yes it was. It was ok for a temporary delaying action but Durnford decided to make it a permanent stand. The 24th Foot could cover his left flank (Durnford obliged Pulleine to support him) however his right flank could not be covered and sooner or later the Zulus would have started maneuvering around to outflank him in the open undefended ground to his right (his south), which is what they did start doing. It was an untenable position and a fatal decision. Durnford himself was overheard to mutter something along the lines of being "too extended". He knew himself he'd made a grievous error.
For my part Isandawanda is closer to the US’s Battle of the Wabash which like Britain was the greatest defeat of American troops by indigenous tribes. St. Clair lost 94% of his force: 918 soldiers killed and 276 wounded with an additional 200 camp followers slaughtered. His camp was likewise surrounded and surprised by the Indians. This is a closer comparison. This represented about half the entire US army at the time.(the Army Historical Foundation)
WOW! I have learned so much about this battle. It seems like there is a constant thread to battles where one side gets wiped out and that is the lack of really good recon, and splitting your troops up in enemy territory. Almost sounds like another battle that took place in the United States in 1876.
Joe, I think it was Napoleon who said that the best general is the one who makes the fewest mistakes (or words to that effect). If I may be so bold, I think Custer was even more reckless than Chelmsford.
The British had decent recon. Zulus were seen ten miles south east of the camp on the 21st. They were also seen north east of the camp at first light on the 22nd. No decent sized Zulu force got within miles of the camp without being seen. Also, pretty impossible to detect the main impi northeast of the camp before the 22nd when it wasn't even there yet. It arrived just before dark on the 21st. As I said, elements of it were seen at first light on the 22nd, the camp was informed and a stand to order was given by Pulleine at around 8.00 am. Chelmsford didn't split his forces in the classical sense. He sent one half out, and kept one half back. He didn't send both halves out blindly searching for Zulus. And he sent that one half out because the recon patrol requested assistance after getting itself into trouble and thinking they had encountered the vanguard of the Zulu impi. It was a sound military decision by Chelmsford given the situation at the time. He ordered the camp to act strictly on the defensive as well as ordering Durnford up to reinforce the numbers there. If only Durnford did what he was ordered to do instead of looking for action chasing out after retiring Zulus.
@@lyndoncmp5751 I agree that it would have helped if he reinforced the camp like ordered. On further analysis, it would have been difficult to overcome the number of enemy they were facing and being in the open. If there would have been some defenses like at Rourke's Rift the losses may have been lowered and they may have been able to hold out.
Joe Ritchie, I believe the camp could have held out even without barricades like at Rorkes Drift. There were around 600 British infantry and nearly 400 mounted riflemen. If these had been concentrated right in front of the tents the firepower probably would have been too much for the Zulus. Don't forget, wherever the firing WAS concentrated, the Zulus could not get through it. Less than 200 mounted riflemen stopped the entire Zulu left horn, and 5 companies stopped the Zulu chest. With a thousand rifles concentrated more closely together the Zulus would have had serious problems. 1,000 men covering the front, close to the tents, from the north shoulder of Isandlwana hill to Mahlambakosi in the south even if, say, 200 or so had to peel off later on to cover the rear at the Saddle when the Zulu right horn starting appearing there would have given the Zulus incredible punishment. It could also be argued the Zulu right horn might not have even pushed it if their left horn and chest were being held at bay far in the distance. Concentrated firepower, and being close to the ammunition supplies probably would have prevailed, at least until Chelmsfords force returned to sandwich the Zulus. 👍
Lt. Edgar Anstey lies in a well. cared for grave to the side of St Johns church itself well worth visiting. It carries a brass plaque detailing his fight placed there l imagine by his regiment . I pay my respects every year , no Australians visit . Anstey gathered approx 60 men mainly Redcoats and tried a spirited breakout towards the Buffaloes river along what became known as fugitives trail . Fighting and clubbing he almost made it . Brought to bay just short of the safety of Natal he was overwhelmed with the last of his men . Zulu indunas , officers , were so impressed with his courage and tactical acumen that alone among the hundreds killed that grisly day he was not disemboweled . His brother recognized his body by his teeth . The family were so upset by the immature tactics of Lord Chelmsford and Pulling and their refusal to except responsibility for the debacle they insisted their son be brought home. He lies there today forgotten . He should have been gazetted for the Victoria Cross . What a warrior , what an Australian .
One of my schoolmasters (chemistry) was named Pulleine, with SA connections; he'd taught there for most of his career. The name was pronounced 'Pullin', very definite on that. Extremely poor at maintaining discipline too! Some lessons probably resembled Isandlwana with white teenage Zulus.. Good job we had no assegais.
Thanks for the interesting video. I'm due to watch Zulu Dawn again soon as I watched Zulu again a week or two ago. UI think Chelmsford has much to answer for splitting his forces without knowing where the Zulus were. I think they could have used the cavalry better. Wasn't Durnford's force mainly cavalry? I believe until the battle they were back in Natal.
@Coll Maxwell They are mounted on horse so they are cavalry (even if they are mounted infantry i.e. not expected to fight on horseback). They would be able to cover ground a lot faster than infantry on foot.
All indications were that the Zulu main impi was in the direction Chelmsford rode out to. There were no reports of large numbers of Zulus anywhere else until the morning of the 22nd. What Chelmsford did was militarily sound. Even modern military strategists, those who are unbiased, agree. The recon patrol requested assistance, fearing an attack by the main impi in the morning. They spend a terrifying night in the hills ten miles south east. Chelmsford did not ignore their request, nor send out a token force. Instead he sent a strong force out and kept a strong force back, to act only on the defensive and to be reinforced by Durnfords men. There is little wrong with this, seeing as the recon patrol got him into this quandary. If only Durnford did as he was ordered. Get to the camp and stick to the orders Pulleine was given. He didn't though and the rest is history.
Durnfords mounted riflemen, the Natal Native Mounted Contingent had the highest survival/escape ratio out of any unit at Isandlwana. Out of 7 officers, including Durnford although he was technically RE, and 257 men only 1 officer and 27 men were killed. That is a circa 90% survival rate. This is above and beyond any other unit in the battle. While the Edendale Troop was competent and fairly disciplined section, the rest of the NNMC was not and fled on their horses en mass as soon as the battle swung against them.
You have demonstrated just how effective a well scripted, presented and illustrated talk can be on Utube. It's like listening a "Mark Felton" of the British Victorian wars, without any footage, only better (sorry Mr Felton).
One of the evolutionary reasons behind human bipedalism is running. Humans are omnivorous with a preference for carnivorous diets. The main hunting strategy is to outrun and exhaust their prey. Surprisingly, they're very good at this. It's believed that sweating, thin hair and bipedalism developed in Humans in part due to this hunting strategy, they certainly benefit it. Humans also have a curious ability to adjust quickly to an environment on a physical level with a part of the urinary system physically enlarging to improve water retention in hot dry environments and shrinks in colder wetter environments, this is the Loop of Henley. So yeah, Zulus whose hunting and combat strategy had remained largely unchanged could run insane distances because that's what Humans should do. European lifestyles have largely denied this otherwise common ability through accessible transport. When we look at the Medieval peasant we still see people who could walk longer distances in a day than the average modern human, they had no choice and it gave them the ability. Marathons display this. While in European society these are run by people regarded as athletic, by the criteria of biology and history, these athletes are closer to the norm. Modern people are actually kind of chubby, and no, I'm no exception, I'm definitely a bit overweight even by Modern standards.
Re the ammo supply, the NCOs in charge would not issue ammo to units not their own, being old serving soldiers (old sweets) who were given a non exercising task/position as a rewartd for long service and good conduct. Because of the problems of lack of screw drivers and the toughness of the ammo boxes, changes were made to the boxes so that they could be very quickly opened without the needing to have screw drivers
That Zulu tradition sounds like something which started as a common sense survival/housekeeping thing which got out of hand. Rather like Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam and most other religions really.
I completely disagree! The real heroes were the British soldiers who died fighting so briefly against overwhelming odds It’s so shameful that Victorian England continue to send its bravest sons to die on the furthest corners of the Empire, just for the sake of glory
Well done for this vid! Ahhh arrogance blinds pride!! Happens alot! My comparison to this is what happened to Gen. Custer and the battle at Little Big Horn. They got wiped out as well!!
I agree it was the Zulu chief that deserves highest honors for the battle. What I keep finding is battles were won or lost based on morale rather than losses. Once an army loses heart the fight is over, at least this seems true of warfare before the advent of modern firearms and fighting vehicles.
Witness accounts state the 24th Foot kept its morale and discipline. Even when they withdraw, it was largely a slow and cohesive fighting withdraw. The Zulus said even at the end the 24th made the Zulus fight for every inch.
Did Frere and Chelmsford suffer any punishment for starting a war against the Prime Minster's orders? Especially one that resulted in such a massive loss of British soldiers? Seems screwed up that they could do that and then get rewarded with more support to repair Britain's honor. I hope that after the war they were recalled home and punished.
Im thinking, what would have happened if Chelmsford hadnt divided his forces, and the british had had two full battalions there at the mountain, what would have happened? Would the zulus still had won?
I wonder if the British Invasion into Zulu land and the demands on the Zulu king was all part of their plan to make South Africa a colony because of the gold and recently discovered diamond mines at Kimberley….
You must have seen Zulu dawn by now. Did you notice as the battle begins there a sort of camp normality going on I mean soldiers not on the firing line carrying moving stores and the cooks had been preparing dinner because the Zulu horn slammed into the camp the cooking areas where the cooks had only few moments to defend them selves ,and the firs aid area again the first aiders who actually the bandsmen had only moments from helping the casualty the trying to defend them selves , the wounded no chance, in maces book there was a first aid pioneer called surgeon major Sheppard who tried to evacuate some wounded as his area fell he was killed trying to save a man who fell out of the wagon. Pullien died of the firing line soon after the battle started and not in his tent, the colours as you know if captured would be regimental disgrace, same as the artillery guns , as the artillery had no colours because the royal artillery fought in every land battle it's colours were it's guns and if the guns were captured it would have brought shame on the regiment
It seems to me many battles and wars were won or lost on the stupidest decision or some other bizarre circumstance. My reading of Military History tells me that many a battle was won by the side which simply managed to make the fewest stupid decisions and make the fewest mistakes. Cheers!
Question on the uniforms. Why were some in classic Red and others in the dark tunic? What are the similarities, if any, between the warrior societies of Zulu and Sparta?
Re. the uniforms. The blue tunics were patrol tunics - bit like (rather posh) work overalls. That accounts for why some were wearing red and others weren't. As for your Zulu & Sparta question, I really don't know.
It was so horrible Lord Chelmsford blamed a dead officer for the disaster. For an administrator, Pulleine even though he spread his ranks thin, did at least deploy his men to make a stand against the oncoming Zulus; it was better than not doing anything at all. THANK YOU SO MUCH for mentioning Smith-Dorrien. If I recall correctly, he learned a valuable lesson from the battle in regards to the ammunition boxes as to how important it was to get them open to get ammunition to the men to keep the enemy at bay. I am against the British for starting the war, however, there were certain things about the conflict I liked hearing. At Isandlwana, I was pleased to hear that the British opened fire on the Zulus at a range of 600 yards, an appropriate range for the rifle they were using. I am critical of the fact that at the Battle of Le Cateau, a battle fought by British forces under Isandlwana survivor Smith-Dorrien, the British waited until the Germans were 250 yards away before firing on them. The Zulus attack plan could not have have been better executed. They kept their enemy distracted at the front while half of their force slipped in behind the British position and attacked from the rear, a strategy used by European armies in previous wars. As for Lt. Pope, I liked that he in military principle, he moved his company to cover the gap between the main British line and Durnford. Hey Chris, although it doesn't relate to this video, would you agree if I were to say that Sir Evelyn Wood was arguably the most able of Sir Garnet Wolseley's subordinates?
Nathan, once again thanks for taking the time to comment. Sir Evelyn Wood was a fantastic commander who rarely put a foot wrong in his career. Maybe I need to do a video about him. One day you and I need to meet for a coffee or pint and talk history!
@@TheHistoryChap Thank you for your reply! The History Guy did a video on Sir Evelyn Wood but I welcome one from you. I live in America so I would have to go over to England somehow which I may not be able to do for quite some time but I very much welcome the offer and would like to do so some time in the future.
@Coll Maxwell I didn't know about the sketch and haven't seen it. It is surprising a major engagement in Wood's career wasn't mentioned in books about him. Thank you for telling me. It sounds like Wood and Buller were both at fault for Hlobane.
The Zulu's also were highly agressive invader's prior to this war. Most of the land(IMO about 90%) they controlled/conquered , they had either exterminated or run off the local tribe's in the preceeding 50 years starting with the rise of King Shaka Zulu. Neither sides were "saints" . One might have been white ,and one might have black. But both sides had murdered alot of their own races (British killing Boers/Zulu's killing other black tribes) , so any idea, that this war boiled down to racism , I consider "bunk" . Both sides were interested in power and control and profit from the resources of more conquered land , skin color actually did not and would not have mattered no matter what "race" the other side was.
So many of the power plays during the colonial era and the scramble on the side of the English, Spanish, and French were so dishonorable and sneaky! I think it’s only reasonable to feel like, with the technological superiority of the European powers, the least they could have done was deal in good faith. Ie: NOT putting forward terms intentionally so the Zulu would reject them since there’re absurd and justify a war is something i can’t help be see as “lacking honor”. If we are going accept the idea of spoils of war and accepting conqueroring forces as legit, I think it’d be a much easier pill to swallow without so much treaty breaking, underhanded tactics and total lack of integrity. I can’t shame the English for military superiority, but I CAN shame them for messing with the Zulu king’s trust in the empire and getting angry when they shifted policy towards him n his ppl without him making any changes. I feel bad for the young Brits just doing as their told and even more for the Natals as well as the Zulu. It was a major lack of ethics on English leadership that got them into this bad position looking at 20K Zulu forces.
@@TheHistoryChap I just realized my comment looks like lefty west-hater stuff. Lol. I just meant there are a good deal of situations where European powers had the upper hand and could have dealt in good faith and still achieved victory. I’m a big fan of honor lol. I was coming from an overly biased video on the episode with Cortez and the Aztecs so I was feeling about annoyed by deal breaking among European states lol. But the deals made were actually just on Cortez word, and he overstated his authority. So the Spanish crown really didn’t have any legal imperative to keep his desperate promises. But also, Cortez was dead meat if he didn’t use whatever words he could think of, so u can’t blame him either. Ugh, history is a very difficult topic to stay neutral on when reading. No matter how much I try, it’s so easy to generalize and pick sides. I’m a conservative but even I can’t help side w Ukrainian anarchists when Trotsky n the red army annihilated them in like 3 hours. SMH 🤦♂️. The Red army is a tough one to view unbiased!
Two things. First of all, it is highly unlikely that 25,000 native Africans were in the attacking force. The British exaggerated the number of Zulu's in order that they might not look so bad. Secondly, the British were poorly led and disorganized. they ignored several rules of engagement. Their final and most egregious sin was failing to respect the Zulu warrior.
@@TheHistoryChap Oh really. Maybe. I certainly would not trust the British people. I'm sure the Zulu kept meticulous records and everything was carefully documented. Hahahahaha.
A few minor points in your presentation. The actual commander of No. 3 Column was Colonel Richard Thomas Glyn, 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment, although Lieutenant-General (local rank) Lord Chelmsford, the General Officer Commanding, obviously appears assumed the role in his stead. Private Samuel Wassall, 80th (Staffordshire Volunteers) Regiment, was a member of 1st Squadron, Mounted Infantry which was formed from British Army units. Therefore it was not a Colonial unit. The number of European survivors from iSandlwana is in the mid-eighties, rather than the figure of fifty-five which has been long since been debunked. I would like to see your take on Lieutenants Melvill and Coghill and their efforts to save the Queen’s Colour of the 1st Battalion, 24th Regiment. Perhaps you could also expand on the loss of both Colours of the 2nd Battalion, 24th Regiment?
There is an Anstay's Hill in Adelaide, it could have been named after Lt. Anstay, I wonder?? It is a Recreation Park, in the low Adelaide Hill's to the west of the City.
A little more canister might have made the difference, but Chelmsford took the guns, so the camp was left with only 2 cannon. Look at Gettysburg as example: Pickett's Charge was mowed down by enfilade fire (solid shot) from Little Round Top (why the battle for that hill had been so crucial), and when they neared Union lines, they got hit by canister and grape. Lee's cannonade failed because somebody sold him a bad batch of fuses and they aimed wrong. But it's easier to haul rifle ammunition across muddy African plains in heavy wagons. When you have to haul ammunition, horse and oxen feed, food for thousands of troops, tents, furniture, dinnerware, glassware, casks of Claret, etc, etc. how do you NOT divide your army in enemy territory?? OMG too much stuff!! Zulu warriors only carried spears, leather shields, some rifles, and they could go three days without food and water.
Thanks for adding so much detail to the comments. The British artillery at Isandlwana initially did a fair bit of damage but the Zulus worked out that when the gun crews stepped back from the cannon it was about to fire so they all lay flat. Amazingly astute warriors even in the heat of battle.
SO, let me just run this past you all. What we have here is a free, independent people, being menaced by an expansionist Imperial power. Those free people decide to fight for their right to self-determination , despite being over-matched and out-classed by their enemies. Puts me in mind of the Greeks at Thermopylae, Artesium, Salamis and Platea. I take my hat off and bow my head in memoriam of those incredibly brave Zulus who charged into the fire of the Martini-Henry. As one of the Greeks who died fighting for freedom once said; " Molon Labe".
That's about it...although let's not forget that the Zulus weren't some nation of pacifists. Their whole kingdom had been built upon the aggression of Shaka Zulu just 50 years before hand. His armies had rampaged through a large part of South Africa and many members of the NNC joined up because they had no love of the Zulus.
The Zulus were outsiders and invaders into Zululand who took that land by force. They were not indigenous to it. There were others living there before then who they either massacred or displaced. The Zulu Kingdom was itself an expansionist empire. Almost all neighbouring black folks hated and feared them. The Zulus killed far more South Africans than the British ever did, and a little known fact is that more Zulus were killed in the subsequent in-fighting between Zulus than were killed in the 1879 Anglo-Zulu War.
