What do you think?
Rate this book
How Can Man Die Better?: The Secrets Of Isandlwana Revealed
Wednesday 22 January 1879 was one of the most dramatic days in the long and distinguished history of the British Army. At noon a massive Zulu host attacked the 24th Regiment in its encampment at the foot of the mountain of Isandlwana, a distinctive feature that bore an eerie resemblance to the Sphinx badge of the outnumbered redcoats. Disaster ensued. Later that afternoon the victorious Zulus would strike the tiny British garrison at Rorke's Drift. How Can Man Die Better is a unique analysis of Isandlwana v of the weapons, tactics, ground, and the intriguing characters who made the key military decisions. Because the fatal loss was so high on the British side there is still much that is unknown about the battle v until now. Mike Snook is the first military professional to scrutinize the battle in print since 1879. He has an unparalleled grasp of the nuances of the ground at Isandlwana and of their implications in practical military terms. Most compellingly he has an instinctive feel for the characters who forged this supremely dramatic history, for this is µfamily' history v the battle was fought by soldiers of the author's own regiment. This is a work of unparalleled depth, which eschews the commonly held perception that the British collapse was sudden and that the 24th Regiment was quickly overwhelmed. Rather, there was a protracted and heroic defence against a determined and equally heroic foe. The author reconstructs the final phase of the battle in a way that has never been attempted before. It was to become the stuff of legend, which the author brings to life so vividly that one can almost sense the fear and smell the blood. How Can Man Die Better is essential reading for anyone interested in Isandlwana, the wider Anglo-Zulu War or the Victorian Army.
320 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2005
102 people are currently reading
232 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews
April 27, 2016
How Can Man Die Better tells the story of the destruction of a battalion of the British 24th Regiment at the battle of Isandlwana. It's a fascinating tale, one of the great military epics, and any book on the subject, merely by using proper punctuation and complete sentences, will garner at least two stars.
During the first two-thirds, Col. Mike Snook's book was up at four stars. He's a military man, a member of the 24th, and thus not propulsively readable. He writes in a workmanlike fashion, slinging idioms and military jargon with abandon. His liability - not being a writer - is balanced by his unique advantage: being a military man. He's been on the ground and has looked it over with a practiced eye. Never under estimate how different the military mind thinks from that of a civilian mind. I look at a hill and marvel at a jackrabbit humping a squirrel in the grass; a soldier looks at a hill and thinks about elevation, fields of fire, egress points, etc.
As the book wore on, though, I became more and more disenchanted. This is a work of post-revisionism revisionism. Snook sets out to change Isandlwana from an epic defeat to, in his words, one of the greatest fighting withdrawals in the annals of warfare. More and more, I got the feeling that Snook was something of a homer. By the end, I was positive; his objectivity called into question, I was forced to reevaluate everything that came before.
There are no real secrets to be revealed, as the subtitle promises, unless you don't know anything about the battle, in which case, as Truman said, "the only thing we do not know is the history we've yet to learn." The one interesting thing Snook points out is the utter fallacy of the official history, which posited that two native companies, positioned in the center of the British firing line, gave way, thus allowing the Zulus to smash through the center and roll up both flanks. Donald Morris, unfortunately, repeats this lie verbatim in The Washing of the Spears, his magisterial account of the rise and fall of the Zulu nation.
Snook's "secret" is actually his theory of battle. Interestingly, as I read this book, I had The Washing of the Spear and Lock and Quantrill's Zulu Victory open beside me, just to compare. Morris, as noted above, fell for the whole pseudo-racist-it-was-the-blacks-in-the-center-of-the-firing-line-that-caused-the-British-defeat theory. This theory, of course, is patently absurd, as the British were under orders not to allow colonial troops in their firing lines; besides, even if it wasn't an order, the British professionals did not think much of the black levies, and would not have placed them in the center of their battalion. This bogus story came about because the British, having just gotten their butts kicked by black soldiers, decided to blame the defeat on their own blacks. Really cute, England. Lock and Quantrill's theory is that the left flank gave way, and that it was Mostyn and Cavaye's F and E companies (which had been firing since very early in the day and were running low on ammo) that collapsed, while Companies A, H, and G kept up a solid front, never knowing that the battle was being lost at their backs.
Snook takes the exact opposite tack as Lock and Quantrill, and posits that the left flank remained strong throughout, and that it was the right flank, already exposed, that gave way following Col. Anthony Durnford's retreat from the Nyogane Donga. Following Durnford's collapse, due to a lack of ammunition, Pope's G Company was left unattached to the firing line and overwhelmed, while H Company made a fighting withdrawal.
I guess I'm fine with this reconstruction. The accepted telling of the story, which was of a stable front followed by an instantaneous collapse precipitated somewhere along the line, never felt adequate (it's also difficult because the European survivors were already long gone by the time the final men died on the field). Still, even though Snook's theory makes sense, it just doesn't feel supported. It doesn't help that he doesn't use notes, AT ALL. Or that as the book progresses, he relies phrases such as "so-and-so must have..." or "he probably..." or "this or that undoubtedly happened..." or "there is no doubt..." The more often you tell me something undoubtedly happened, the more I start to doubt it. There just isn't a lot of solid evidence, which is all the more noticeable at the end of the book, where Snook recaps his evidence with bullet points: all he has is the position of the bodies, the long-distance observations of Maori Browne, and some Zulu accounts that Snook helpfully annotates to support his thesis.
I probably wouldn't sound so bitter were it not for his Morris-bashing. Yeah, The Washing of the Spears has its problems, but were it not for Morris, and the interest he generated with his book, still in print 43 years after publication, it's likely Snook wouldn't have gotten this book published. Aside from Morris's regrettable adherence to the discredited notion that the collapse was caused by retreating black levies, Snook gets agitated by Morris's treatment of Quartermasters Bloomfield and Pullen.
Snook brazenly disputes there was any problem with the ammunition boxes. He snarkily notes that Morris's description of the ammo-boxes tallied the number of screws in the copper bands holding the box together, failing to note there was only one screw holding the sliding lid. Snook then says, brashly, there was no problem smashing open these lids, even though there weren't enough screwdrivers. He brushes aside Horace Smith-Dorrien's account of his troubles as "an anecdote." This ignores Lock and Quantrill's detailed examination of the issue in Zulu Victor (see the appendix). There, the authors persuasively make the case that the single screw on the sliding lid was enough to make them formidably hard to open, owing to strong construction and the warping of the wood. Lock and Quantrill even describe building one of the boxes themselves, then being unable to break it open for 45 minutes.
Snook thinks that Morris slandered Pullen and Bloomfield. Snook goes so far as to advance his pet theory that Pullen, on his own initiative, organized the defense of the right flank that came to be known as "Durnford's last stand." This notion is almost entirely speculative, but Snook runs with it. Other accounts of the battle show, ephemerally, that Pullen had a horse mounted for himself, then later gathered together some riflemen and plunged into battle. Those accounts are a flimsy springboard for saying Pullen held the flank.
Then there's the treatment of Col. Pulleine, whom Snook attempts to rehabilitate. He lays the blame for the battle on Durnford, who certainly disobeyed orders. Yet he barely critiques Pulleine's positioning of his troops, even though Pulleine had five companies spread in front of camp, facing from the northwest to southeast, and allowed the Zulu right horn to come around and charge right into his unprotected backside. Essentially, Pulleine made the "Custer Mistake," by attempting to hold too much ground with two few men, instead of contracting on a central position. Snook brushes aside this assertion by saying, at the time the orders were given, no one thought the situation was that dire. In other words, Pulleine was correct in maintaining an aggressively defensive posture. Really? That's your defense of Pulleine? Meanwhile, Durnford is painted as mad-hatter bumble-flunking around in an attempt to restore his tarnished reputation.
I've already mentioned it in passing, but Snook makes far too many suppositions. He bases them on his military experience. For instance, he traces Pulleine's movements throughout the battle by stating that that's where a good commander would be. He also uses the negative to prove a positive, as when he has a description of an officer unable to find Pulleine in one place; thus, Snook takes that as evidence that Pulleine was in another. Snook may be a soldier, with an eye for ground and a knowledge of tactics, but I'm a lawyer, and that ain't proof.
Other things just frustrated me. Pulleine is shot. Snook says: "He must have died instantly." Why? Why must he have died instantly? Or when Wardell's H Company is retiring, and Sgt. Wolff is left to command a rearguard. Snook says Wolff must have come up with the idea. Why? Why must he have come up with the idea?
My final analysis is that Col. Snook was too close to the subject. He took it a little too personally. In attempting to portray his regiment as heroic (which they certainly were; even the Zulus said that after Isandlwana, their armies were never the same) he turns them into demigods. His heated description of the infantry squares smashed against the oncoming impi is lose-lose: first, it lacks the novelistic flair of The Washing of the Spears; and second, it lacks a single shred of support. Where does he get his information? From the Zulus? From his imagination? From those famous paintings? This is where the notes come in. You can't tell me that the gruff old sergeants protected the young drummer boys and band-boys in the center of the squares, and that at the final moments, the boys became men by picking up rifles, without supporting these assertions. Otherwise, you're just mythologizing.
There is no doubt about the heroic nature of the fight. There should also be no doubt that it was a disaster. Chelmsford, Durnford, and Pulleine all made mistakes. Both strategic and tactical. That the men fought hard from their poor positions is a testament to their skill, and the skill of their officers and NCOs (unlike Custer, the 1/24th gave far better than they got; thousands of Zulus were killed and wounded). However, by the end of this telling, I didn't know if I could trust what I'd read. I was left feeling this was the way Snook wanted it to be.
During the first two-thirds, Col. Mike Snook's book was up at four stars. He's a military man, a member of the 24th, and thus not propulsively readable. He writes in a workmanlike fashion, slinging idioms and military jargon with abandon. His liability - not being a writer - is balanced by his unique advantage: being a military man. He's been on the ground and has looked it over with a practiced eye. Never under estimate how different the military mind thinks from that of a civilian mind. I look at a hill and marvel at a jackrabbit humping a squirrel in the grass; a soldier looks at a hill and thinks about elevation, fields of fire, egress points, etc.
As the book wore on, though, I became more and more disenchanted. This is a work of post-revisionism revisionism. Snook sets out to change Isandlwana from an epic defeat to, in his words, one of the greatest fighting withdrawals in the annals of warfare. More and more, I got the feeling that Snook was something of a homer. By the end, I was positive; his objectivity called into question, I was forced to reevaluate everything that came before.
There are no real secrets to be revealed, as the subtitle promises, unless you don't know anything about the battle, in which case, as Truman said, "the only thing we do not know is the history we've yet to learn." The one interesting thing Snook points out is the utter fallacy of the official history, which posited that two native companies, positioned in the center of the British firing line, gave way, thus allowing the Zulus to smash through the center and roll up both flanks. Donald Morris, unfortunately, repeats this lie verbatim in The Washing of the Spears, his magisterial account of the rise and fall of the Zulu nation.
Snook's "secret" is actually his theory of battle. Interestingly, as I read this book, I had The Washing of the Spear and Lock and Quantrill's Zulu Victory open beside me, just to compare. Morris, as noted above, fell for the whole pseudo-racist-it-was-the-blacks-in-the-center-of-the-firing-line-that-caused-the-British-defeat theory. This theory, of course, is patently absurd, as the British were under orders not to allow colonial troops in their firing lines; besides, even if it wasn't an order, the British professionals did not think much of the black levies, and would not have placed them in the center of their battalion. This bogus story came about because the British, having just gotten their butts kicked by black soldiers, decided to blame the defeat on their own blacks. Really cute, England. Lock and Quantrill's theory is that the left flank gave way, and that it was Mostyn and Cavaye's F and E companies (which had been firing since very early in the day and were running low on ammo) that collapsed, while Companies A, H, and G kept up a solid front, never knowing that the battle was being lost at their backs.
Snook takes the exact opposite tack as Lock and Quantrill, and posits that the left flank remained strong throughout, and that it was the right flank, already exposed, that gave way following Col. Anthony Durnford's retreat from the Nyogane Donga. Following Durnford's collapse, due to a lack of ammunition, Pope's G Company was left unattached to the firing line and overwhelmed, while H Company made a fighting withdrawal.
I guess I'm fine with this reconstruction. The accepted telling of the story, which was of a stable front followed by an instantaneous collapse precipitated somewhere along the line, never felt adequate (it's also difficult because the European survivors were already long gone by the time the final men died on the field). Still, even though Snook's theory makes sense, it just doesn't feel supported. It doesn't help that he doesn't use notes, AT ALL. Or that as the book progresses, he relies phrases such as "so-and-so must have..." or "he probably..." or "this or that undoubtedly happened..." or "there is no doubt..." The more often you tell me something undoubtedly happened, the more I start to doubt it. There just isn't a lot of solid evidence, which is all the more noticeable at the end of the book, where Snook recaps his evidence with bullet points: all he has is the position of the bodies, the long-distance observations of Maori Browne, and some Zulu accounts that Snook helpfully annotates to support his thesis.
I probably wouldn't sound so bitter were it not for his Morris-bashing. Yeah, The Washing of the Spears has its problems, but were it not for Morris, and the interest he generated with his book, still in print 43 years after publication, it's likely Snook wouldn't have gotten this book published. Aside from Morris's regrettable adherence to the discredited notion that the collapse was caused by retreating black levies, Snook gets agitated by Morris's treatment of Quartermasters Bloomfield and Pullen.
Snook brazenly disputes there was any problem with the ammunition boxes. He snarkily notes that Morris's description of the ammo-boxes tallied the number of screws in the copper bands holding the box together, failing to note there was only one screw holding the sliding lid. Snook then says, brashly, there was no problem smashing open these lids, even though there weren't enough screwdrivers. He brushes aside Horace Smith-Dorrien's account of his troubles as "an anecdote." This ignores Lock and Quantrill's detailed examination of the issue in Zulu Victor (see the appendix). There, the authors persuasively make the case that the single screw on the sliding lid was enough to make them formidably hard to open, owing to strong construction and the warping of the wood. Lock and Quantrill even describe building one of the boxes themselves, then being unable to break it open for 45 minutes.
Snook thinks that Morris slandered Pullen and Bloomfield. Snook goes so far as to advance his pet theory that Pullen, on his own initiative, organized the defense of the right flank that came to be known as "Durnford's last stand." This notion is almost entirely speculative, but Snook runs with it. Other accounts of the battle show, ephemerally, that Pullen had a horse mounted for himself, then later gathered together some riflemen and plunged into battle. Those accounts are a flimsy springboard for saying Pullen held the flank.
Then there's the treatment of Col. Pulleine, whom Snook attempts to rehabilitate. He lays the blame for the battle on Durnford, who certainly disobeyed orders. Yet he barely critiques Pulleine's positioning of his troops, even though Pulleine had five companies spread in front of camp, facing from the northwest to southeast, and allowed the Zulu right horn to come around and charge right into his unprotected backside. Essentially, Pulleine made the "Custer Mistake," by attempting to hold too much ground with two few men, instead of contracting on a central position. Snook brushes aside this assertion by saying, at the time the orders were given, no one thought the situation was that dire. In other words, Pulleine was correct in maintaining an aggressively defensive posture. Really? That's your defense of Pulleine? Meanwhile, Durnford is painted as mad-hatter bumble-flunking around in an attempt to restore his tarnished reputation.
I've already mentioned it in passing, but Snook makes far too many suppositions. He bases them on his military experience. For instance, he traces Pulleine's movements throughout the battle by stating that that's where a good commander would be. He also uses the negative to prove a positive, as when he has a description of an officer unable to find Pulleine in one place; thus, Snook takes that as evidence that Pulleine was in another. Snook may be a soldier, with an eye for ground and a knowledge of tactics, but I'm a lawyer, and that ain't proof.
Other things just frustrated me. Pulleine is shot. Snook says: "He must have died instantly." Why? Why must he have died instantly? Or when Wardell's H Company is retiring, and Sgt. Wolff is left to command a rearguard. Snook says Wolff must have come up with the idea. Why? Why must he have come up with the idea?
My final analysis is that Col. Snook was too close to the subject. He took it a little too personally. In attempting to portray his regiment as heroic (which they certainly were; even the Zulus said that after Isandlwana, their armies were never the same) he turns them into demigods. His heated description of the infantry squares smashed against the oncoming impi is lose-lose: first, it lacks the novelistic flair of The Washing of the Spears; and second, it lacks a single shred of support. Where does he get his information? From the Zulus? From his imagination? From those famous paintings? This is where the notes come in. You can't tell me that the gruff old sergeants protected the young drummer boys and band-boys in the center of the squares, and that at the final moments, the boys became men by picking up rifles, without supporting these assertions. Otherwise, you're just mythologizing.
There is no doubt about the heroic nature of the fight. There should also be no doubt that it was a disaster. Chelmsford, Durnford, and Pulleine all made mistakes. Both strategic and tactical. That the men fought hard from their poor positions is a testament to their skill, and the skill of their officers and NCOs (unlike Custer, the 1/24th gave far better than they got; thousands of Zulus were killed and wounded). However, by the end of this telling, I didn't know if I could trust what I'd read. I was left feeling this was the way Snook wanted it to be.
September 4, 2025
One of the best military histories I've read in a long time. I don't know what it is about last stands and fighting to the last man but these stories always get me deep down. every man who reads a story like this wonders deep down if he'd have what it takes to do the same. I've noticed something about these stories though, I think a lot of that courage comes from knowing that they aren't going to die alone, and the men around them are a witness of their noble death. Men from honor cultures embolden each other to feats otherwise impossible. all men die, not all men die well.
August 1, 2019
And how can man die better, Than facing fearful odds, For the ashes of his fathers, And the temples of his Gods.’ Horatius, Lord Macaulay
Mike Snook’s excellent book is a corrective to the popular conception of the Battle of Isandlwana, and his writing is engrossing, even poetic at times, as he unfolds the narrative of that fateful day.
I found his conclusions inescapable as he convincingly shows that the disaster is largely attributable to the incompetence of both Lord Chelmsford and Col. Anthony Durnford, but Snook’s real achievement in this book is his portrayal of the courageous, determined and highly professional performance of the 24th regiment itself in the field that day. Even in the face of annihilation, they retained their tactical cohesion and left an impression on the Zulu military from which it never recovered. They were certainly no military incompetents, and fought with a level of stubborn tenacity that is quite inspiring, and deeply moving, and this book is a fine tribute to them.
My detailed summary and review of the book is here.
Mike Snook’s excellent book is a corrective to the popular conception of the Battle of Isandlwana, and his writing is engrossing, even poetic at times, as he unfolds the narrative of that fateful day.
I found his conclusions inescapable as he convincingly shows that the disaster is largely attributable to the incompetence of both Lord Chelmsford and Col. Anthony Durnford, but Snook’s real achievement in this book is his portrayal of the courageous, determined and highly professional performance of the 24th regiment itself in the field that day. Even in the face of annihilation, they retained their tactical cohesion and left an impression on the Zulu military from which it never recovered. They were certainly no military incompetents, and fought with a level of stubborn tenacity that is quite inspiring, and deeply moving, and this book is a fine tribute to them.
My detailed summary and review of the book is here.
September 2, 2013
This is the most informative book on the battle of Iswandlwana I've ever read or heard tell. It clears up some mis-information and eroneous conclussions from past Authors and historians. The Author breaks down the battle phases in detail and the different skirmishes and the key commanders and participants. This is based on theory of actual events and using the battlefield and the layout where the camp was, where bodies were located, oral statements from participants brittish and Zulu and the authors military experience and knowledge of the military art of war. He points out that "there can be glory from defeat though: Leonidas and his Spartans, the whitecoat infantry at Marston Moor, the Texans at the Alamo, The Legion at Camerone,The 24th at Islandlwana. These actions have a common bond: esprit de corps." There were 5 Brittish regular army survivers, None of the combattants from the final phase of the battle survived to tell their story. The 24th put up a couragous and disciplined defense which took its toll on the Zulus and won them their admiration. the battle lasted longer and the defense was not hap-hazzard as most historians might suggest. In my opinion the Commander really responsible for the disaster was the GOC LtGen Lord Chelmsford and should of been held accountable. The author compares this disaster to that of Custers Last Stand which occured only two years before. The big Differnce is that Lord Chelmsford Survived and didnt pay the ultimate sacrifice for his incompatence.
September 6, 2007
This book attempts to revise popular perceptions of the battle of Islandlwana, in the 1870s in which over 1,200 British troops (over six times as many as died at the Little Bighorn) arrayed in battle formation with modern rifles and supported by cannon and rocket fire were overrun and slaughtered by Zulu forces armed primarily with short stabbing spears and clubs. The author makes the point that almost all accounts of the battle come from those Europeans who fled the scene ahead of the charging Zulu forces, as those who held their ground and fought on, were overwhelmed and killed and very little attempt was made to gather accounts from the Zulu participants. So, the popular accounts come from witnesses who actually did not see most of the battle. Those who have seen the movie "Zulu Dawn" will have a pretty fair idea of the traditional view. One of the heros of that view and the movie, Colonel Durnford, comes in for particularly harsh treatment in this book. Well written and well worth reading.
November 26, 2016
Detailed
This book covers the destruction of the British military (in a war forced upon the Zulu) at Islandawana. One of the greatest defeats of British military.
This book covers the destruction of the British military (in a war forced upon the Zulu) at Islandawana. One of the greatest defeats of British military.
September 3, 2024
How Can a Man Die Better is a good review of Isandlwana from the British viewpoint, although rather a British hagiography of Snook's beloved 24th.
Unfortunately, like every other book on the battle, the Zulus are cardboard cutouts (perhaps 3D cutouts like in a movie theatre, but cardboard cutouts nonetheless) with only minimal effort to bring their viewpoint and tactics into the story.
I also found Snook's 'must haves' got a bit irritating after a while, especially when some of his 'must haves' were improbable - such as the volleys dropping dozens of Zulu at a time. That would make the 24th around 10 times as effective as even the higher estimates of shooting casualties from research on 19th Century battles, especially when shooting at 600m when the bullets take 2 seconds to reach their targets and drop 20-odd metres in that time. Even allowing for massed targets, the range on the sights has to be extrordinarily precise to score hits and needs to be accurately re-estimated with each volley - watch The Light Horsemen to see what happens if you don't get it right, and that's using much more modern and accurate weapons.
I really would have liked a more balanced story around the Zulu rather than just they charged in hordes. There was a hint of it at times, but then Snook devolves back into the traditional colonial narrative of hordes charging the gallant and plucky Brits who shot them down in droves. Their tactics were better than that. The Zulu doctrine was similar to European doctrine of the time, with skirmishers covering the advance of columns. If as Snook says, a quarter of the Zulu had firearms, then it's unlikely that any of the skirmishers weren't armed with firearms, and the battle would have looked more like something from the Franco-Prussian War (or perhaps more accurately, the Austro-Prussian War) than 'hordes of wogs with spears'.
So, an interesting reconstruction of the events in the British camp, but quite lacking on what was happening 'on the other side of the hill', or even right in front of them.
Unfortunately, like every other book on the battle, the Zulus are cardboard cutouts (perhaps 3D cutouts like in a movie theatre, but cardboard cutouts nonetheless) with only minimal effort to bring their viewpoint and tactics into the story.
I also found Snook's 'must haves' got a bit irritating after a while, especially when some of his 'must haves' were improbable - such as the volleys dropping dozens of Zulu at a time. That would make the 24th around 10 times as effective as even the higher estimates of shooting casualties from research on 19th Century battles, especially when shooting at 600m when the bullets take 2 seconds to reach their targets and drop 20-odd metres in that time. Even allowing for massed targets, the range on the sights has to be extrordinarily precise to score hits and needs to be accurately re-estimated with each volley - watch The Light Horsemen to see what happens if you don't get it right, and that's using much more modern and accurate weapons.
I really would have liked a more balanced story around the Zulu rather than just they charged in hordes. There was a hint of it at times, but then Snook devolves back into the traditional colonial narrative of hordes charging the gallant and plucky Brits who shot them down in droves. Their tactics were better than that. The Zulu doctrine was similar to European doctrine of the time, with skirmishers covering the advance of columns. If as Snook says, a quarter of the Zulu had firearms, then it's unlikely that any of the skirmishers weren't armed with firearms, and the battle would have looked more like something from the Franco-Prussian War (or perhaps more accurately, the Austro-Prussian War) than 'hordes of wogs with spears'.
So, an interesting reconstruction of the events in the British camp, but quite lacking on what was happening 'on the other side of the hill', or even right in front of them.
April 17, 2019
My review of How can man for better
The washing of the spears was my first taste of the Zulu war. As my brother is a Welsh man and lives next to the church in Brecon i have a connection to the town.
This book is a awesome thrilling and all together chilling account of the events leading to the destruction of so many truly brave msn.
It discounts a lot of !ugh with i have held for over 40 years. Well worth a read, maybe a few times. God bless them all who died that day in January.
Bob Green 2019
The washing of the spears was my first taste of the Zulu war. As my brother is a Welsh man and lives next to the church in Brecon i have a connection to the town.
This book is a awesome thrilling and all together chilling account of the events leading to the destruction of so many truly brave msn.
It discounts a lot of !ugh with i have held for over 40 years. Well worth a read, maybe a few times. God bless them all who died that day in January.
Bob Green 2019
April 26, 2018
This is a fantastic book about the Zulu War battle at Isandlwana. Col. Snook has toured the battlefield extensively and used not only survivor accounts of the battle but the Zulu accounts as well. Col. Snook uses his extensive military knowledge to weave together a story of the battle that is engaging, easy to read, and chock full of details. I would highly recommend this book to anyone with any level of interest in the Anglo-Zulu War.
December 10, 2018
A most detailed description of this momentous action. Col Mike Snook,s military background is evident in the manner in which he leads the reader through this major British disaster.
I am anxious to read the book again (shortly) but on this occasion I will equip myself with a detailed map of the action and a schedule of all who were involved. This will help to bring a better understanding of what actually happened.
I am anxious to read the book again (shortly) but on this occasion I will equip myself with a detailed map of the action and a schedule of all who were involved. This will help to bring a better understanding of what actually happened.
July 31, 2024
This is, without doubt, the most interesting book on Isandlwana that I have ever read. And over the past 40 years I've read as many as I can find. It proposes a clear and plausible explanation for the events and supports that explanation with reasoned argument backed by military training. If you are interested in the Anglo-Zulu War and the events of January 22nd 1879 I recommend you consider this as obligatory reading.
March 12, 2025
The best account of this major British/Zulu action i have ever read. An even handed approach allowing the battlefield facts and aftermath tell the events. Superb. If you love history you should read, if you love this specific period then it is a must read ad is the companion book regarding Rourkes Drift
July 11, 2019
Superb account of this battle putting to rights any revionist claims that the 24th didnt fight to the end.
The author delves into the deep tactical detail of the action to reveal a truly desperate last stand
The author delves into the deep tactical detail of the action to reveal a truly desperate last stand
April 30, 2020
An engaging history of the Anglo-Zulu wars. Snook brings a military view to the terrain and the tactics that it influenced. He is also well versed in the military protocol of the Victorian period He bring new light to the Battle of Isandlwana.
April 28, 2019
Good read
I enjoyed the authors well researched accounting of this battle. It has always amazed me that the British can May a stunning defeat sound like a heroic victory.
I enjoyed the authors well researched accounting of this battle. It has always amazed me that the British can May a stunning defeat sound like a heroic victory.
April 21, 2022
Great read
A detailed and very readable account of the battle. I would have liked more maps to illustrate the battle as it developed.
A detailed and very readable account of the battle. I would have liked more maps to illustrate the battle as it developed.
August 14, 2024
I could not put it down. Better to read the book first, and ee the film later.
March 28, 2025
Great book with fresh insights and perspectives on the conundrum of Isandlwana. Thoroughly enjoyed this book.
July 14, 2019
Mike Snook obviously has thoroughly researched the battle of Isandlwana (always remember my Grandad who knew a thing or two admonishing me for saying it was a massacre"NO! It was a battle!-we lost!")It's always difficult to plot & see the magnificent defence these Brits made:standing shoulder to shoulder till the horrific end.Here Col. Snook seems to manage it in a very interesting way.
His take on Durnford,&the more shadowy Pulleine is long overdue.He tears away long supposed "facts" concerning these men who were crucial to the events of that fateful day.Could the ever glory hunting Durnford have by his own natural desire for recognition (so recently taken from him by Chelmsford) have doomed those men?& here Pulleine is given credence for a spark of heroism which the author reasonably supposes & a picture of him inspiring his troops,riding along the lines (his last 10m of life before being killed!)
His take on Durnford,&the more shadowy Pulleine is long overdue.He tears away long supposed "facts" concerning these men who were crucial to the events of that fateful day.Could the ever glory hunting Durnford have by his own natural desire for recognition (so recently taken from him by Chelmsford) have doomed those men?& here Pulleine is given credence for a spark of heroism which the author reasonably supposes & a picture of him inspiring his troops,riding along the lines (his last 10m of life before being killed!)
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 17, 2014
Great book - but then this is my favourite battle of all time - clearly a 6 rating.
I never believed that the disaster was due to a lack of ammo in the initial combat - as recent battlefield archaeology has proven [smashed remnants of ammo boxes found on recently discovered firing line]. I always found it absurd that anyone would suggest men who were about to be stabbed to death would just stand around waiting for someone else to open up an ammo box with a screw driver - they would of course smash the thing open with their boots and rifle butts.
The reality is it was always suicidal forming a line with an open flank against a force as mobile as the Zulus. We were just outflanked and then swamped.
Anyway - very good book.
I never believed that the disaster was due to a lack of ammo in the initial combat - as recent battlefield archaeology has proven [smashed remnants of ammo boxes found on recently discovered firing line]. I always found it absurd that anyone would suggest men who were about to be stabbed to death would just stand around waiting for someone else to open up an ammo box with a screw driver - they would of course smash the thing open with their boots and rifle butts.
The reality is it was always suicidal forming a line with an open flank against a force as mobile as the Zulus. We were just outflanked and then swamped.
Anyway - very good book.
January 19, 2012
This one is solely dedicated to the Battle of Isandlwana, where the Zulus completely wiped out a British infantry column. Snook is a colonel in the Regiment which was involved, and goes to great pains to argue that the redcoats fought exceedingly hard in a losing cause, but then, as he says, this is only to be expected from British infantrymen which are, and always have been, the toughest soldiers ever seen. This bias aside, the book does put forward rather convincing arguments which run counter to the normal narrative of the encounter. I liked it, but probably not one for the uninterested or uninitiated. 4/5
October 1, 2014
This is, unsurprisingly, a history of the infamous battle of Isandlwana. It's quite readable and very well-written, but I was left wanting more; this is straight up military history, and without larger context for the battle, I felt distressingly disconnected. This book begs to be a chapter in a comprehensive history of the larger conflict, and I can only recommend it if you're already familiar with the setting and players. I don't want to be too harsh on the book since it delivers exactly what it promises, and makes a plausible case (to my ignorant eye) to re-write parts of the accepted history of the battle; just be aware that you're getting a excellent, but very limited, view.
February 1, 2016
An authoritative retelling of the infamous Isandlwana debacle. Snook sets out to correct the cynical revisionist drivel which assails the memory of men like Melville and Coghill. (Durnford earns no laurels here, though.) With a judicious use of limited evidence, the author shows us a "reconstruction" as complete and nuanced as we are ever likely to get. The book would be enhanced by a reader's first-hand knowledge of the terrain, as Snook's descriptions are often spare and easily confusing.
April 15, 2019
I have to give this 5 stars. It appears to have been well researched. It might start off slow for some with the first part focusing on the movement of the British columns into the Isandlwana area, but once the battle begins Mr. Snook does a good job of creating a fast paced story line.
The battle itself, as described, is poignant, yet can be angering at others. The ineptitude of Lord Chelmsford is head spinning.
This is a good read. For the historians among us, I recommend it.
The battle itself, as described, is poignant, yet can be angering at others. The ineptitude of Lord Chelmsford is head spinning.
This is a good read. For the historians among us, I recommend it.
July 29, 2014
One of the very best historical event books that I've ever read. This one covers the fascinating and often poorly evaluated loss of nearly an entire British regiment in Africa during the Zulu Wars. Respect is paid to both sides of the conflict. If you enjoy well-documented, yet nevertheless gripping history, this book is for you. The sequel was also excellent, "Like Wolves on the Fold".
December 1, 2016
Necessarily a bit speculative at points, but Snook's arguments are very well researched and (to me at least) completely convincing. Definitely a good read - maybe not as enjoyable as "Like Wolves on The Fold", but I stayed up until 4am from not wanting to go to sleep and leave the final battle unfinished.
March 30, 2017
Snooks first book about Isandlwana is just as good as Wolves, his book about Rokes Drift. I do wish I had read "Man Die Better" before Wolves but, that is what happens when you use the library . One has to read which one shows up first. Both are excellent. I now have to save several grand and take both books on a vacation to SA.
December 13, 2015
Outstanding and definitive account of the incredible battle in which the Zulu army destroyed a sizable portion of an invading British force in 1879. Read this book and go watch Zulu Dawn for a view of a fascinating and incredible part of history
January 13, 2015
Best read for the battle of Isandhlwana - I see the author has also written one on Rorkes Drift, will check it out as well. Recommended.
July 15, 2016
I was at this battlefield. This is the true story of Isandlwana.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews