Zulu: The Heroism and Tragedy of the Zulu War of 1879

by Saul David

Saul David's Zulu: The Heroism and Tragedy of the Zulu War of 1879 is a fascinating look at the most controversial and brutal British imperial conflict of the nineteenth century.

The real story of the Anglo-Zulu war was one of deception, dishonour, incompetence and dereliction of duty by Lord Chelmsford who invaded Zululand without the knowledge of the British Government. But it did not go to plan and there were many political repercussions. Using new material from archives in Britain and South Africa, Saul David blows the lid on this most sordid of imperial wars and comes to a number of startling new conclusions.

'Saul David's brilliant and magisterial account must now be regarded as the definitive history of the Zulu War' Frank McLynn, Literary Review

'This meticulously detailed book...give[s] a fully rounded and judicious account of this dismal conflict Guardian

'Fascinating, thrilling, convincing... reads like a novel' Economist

Saul David is Professor of War Studies at the University of Buckingham and the author of several critically acclaimed history books, including The Indian Mutiny: 1857 (shortlisted for the Westminster Medal for Military Literature), Zulu: The Heroism and Tragedy of the Zulu War of 1879 (a Waterstone's Military History Book of the Year) and, most recently, Victoria's Wars: The Rise of Empire.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Africa, War, Military History, 19th Century, Modern

496 pages, Paperback

First published September 30, 2004

About the author

SAUL DAVID was born in Monmouth in 1966 and educated at Ampleforth College and Edinburgh and Glasgow Universities (History MA and PhD).

An expert in the wars of the Victorian period, he began writing his first history book when he was twenty-five and has since completed eight more. They include: The Homicidal Earl: The Life of Lord Cardigan (1997), a critically-acclaimed biography of the man who led the Charge of the Light Brigade; The Indian Mutiny:1857 (2002), shortlisted for the Westminster Medal for Military Literature; Zulu: The Heroism and Tragedy of the Zulu War of 1879 (2004), a Waterstone's Military History Book of the Year; and the bestselling Victoria's Wars: The Rise of Empire (2006). In 2007 he signed a three book deal with Hodder & Stoughton to write a series of historical novels set in the late Victorian period. The first, Zulu Hart, was published on 5 March 2009 to critical acclaim with The Times describing it as a 'rattling good yarn' with 'a compelling, sexy hero who could give Cornwell's Sharpe a run for his money'. He is currently writing a history of the British Army.

Reviews

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

On the scorching afternoon of December 11, 1878, on the Natal side of the Tugela River in southern Africa, a conference took place beneath a white canvas sailcloth hung from a fig tree. This conference – an indaba – gathered King Cetshwayo of the Zulu Nation, and representatives of the British colony of Natal. The claimed purpose was to apprise the Zulus of the results of the Boundary Commission, a three-man panel that had arbitrated a land dispute between the Zulus and the Transvaal Boers. Surprisingly, the Boundary Commission had mostly favored the Zulus. It seemed to be a good day for Ceshwayo’s people. The attending Zulus were served a lunch of beef and beer.

After the meal, however, the British dropped a bombshell: an ultimatum. This document contained roughly thirteen points that, if instituted, would have ended the sovereignty of the Zulu people. Among the requirements was the disbanding of the Zulu Army, the residence in Zululand of a British Agent, and a levy of hundreds of cattle. All this to be carried out in 30 days. In every way, the British threat prophesied Austria’s ultimatum to Serbia in 1914. It was pretextual, supplying a casus belli for an invasion of Zululand.

Thus started the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879, the most famous of the many frontier wars of Africa. It is a tragedy, first and foremost, which ended in the sundering of the Zulu Nation. It is also one of the great epics in history, a tale full of heroes and villains, massacres and escapes, and premium drama, all played out on the tableau of South Africa’s undulating veld.

Saul David’s Zulu does its best to encompass the whole sweep of this story in just 391 pages. That he doesn’t quite succeed – that the result feels, at times, hopelessly compressed – is testament to the sheer amount of incident in this short, bloody war. Maybe the worst thing I can say about Zulu is that it’s too short.

David begins with a brief introductory chapter on the Zulus. In a blisteringly short period of time, the Zulus – founded in the late 17th century – went from an unknown tribe to the dominant power in southeast Africa. The Zulu’s most famous leader was Shaka. He forged the Zulu Army into age-regiments, refined their tactics (the deceptively simple “horns of the bull”), and armed them with the short, broad-bladed stabbing spear that they used to devastating effect in close combat. Shaka grew the army from 350 to 20,000 men, and expanded Zulu territory from 100 square miles to 11,500 square miles. The potency of the Zulu Army exacerbated British enmity on the eve of the Anglo-Zulu War. In British minds, their colony could never be safe while sharing a border with thousands of lethal – and black – soldiers.

Several chapters are devoted to setting the context for the war. There were many points of friction. British hopes for confederation of the various African states. The land dispute between the Zulus and the Transvaal Boers. Various incidents (all relatively minor) along the border between Zululand and Natal. These flashpoints were exacerbated by personalities such as Henry Bartle Frere, the High Commissioner for Southern Africa, and Theophilius Shepstone, Natal’s Secretary for Native Affairs, who each wanted white expansion to the detriment of black landholders. A lot of different concepts are packed into these chapters, and it’s here – more than anywhere else – that this book suffers for lack of expansiveness. None of the material has time to breathe. Character traits are glossed over. The literary rush to war makes the causes a bit confusing.

This is not really a big deal, since the narrative quickly segues into the invasion of Zululand. The British plan, devised by Lieutenant General Lord Chelmsford, called for three (originally five) columns to march from Natal into Zulu territory. Shortly after putting this in motion, the Number 3 column, accompanied by Chelmsford himself, split in two. Half the column (but not Chelmsford) was overwhelmed by a massive Zulu army in the shadow of a mountain called Isandlwana. Over 1,300 men were killed, including some 850 Europeans. Before the disaster – one of the greatest defeats in British military history – could even register, however, a tiny force of around 140 British soldiers fought off 3,000 Zulu warriors at Rorke’s Drift. (For obvious propaganda reasons, the British contrived to make this the defining aspect of the invasion. Eleven VCs were heaped upon the surviving defenders).

The war unfolded in this pattern. Rapidly. Bloodily. Each side trading lopsided victories and defeats. The Number 1 column, after an early victory, was besieged at Eshowe. A British supply column was destroyed along the Intombe River. The Number 4 column was defeated at a terrifying battle on rugged Hlobane Mountain. The very next day, those same British mowed down advancing Zulu warriors at Kambula. Each of these battles is worth in book in itself. David does a fine job in narration, but he succeeds mostly by staying out of the story’s way. The material is enough, with no adornment needed, as long as its delivered coherently.

Frankly, my favorite part of Zulu is not its recounting of the battles, but in its revisionism. David brings a healthily skeptical view to a period that is shrouded in Victorian myth. His chapter on the “cover up” following Isandlwana might be the best part of the book. With efficiency and incisiveness, he deconstructs the web of prevarications and outright lies spun by Isandlwana participants to protect their own careers. In doing so, David not only provides a more-truthful version of the battle itself, but also gives a nice little primer on the fascinating subject of historiography. (History is not only written by the winners; it is written by the first-rate ass-coverers. Never deprecate the skill of shifting blame).

For instance, David pokes holes in the story of Lieutenants Melvill and Coghill. Traditionally, Melvill is said to have left the Isandlwana camp as it fell (according to his watch, which stopped when he went into the Buffalo River, this is likely true), carrying with him the Queen’s Colors and orders to save that precious swatch of fabric. Riding with him as protection was Coghill. Both men died on the Natal side of the river, fighting to the last. David reframes this melodramatic tale of men dying for a symbol. He points out that there is no evidence that Melvill had any orders; that he may well have been trying to save his own butt, with the colors as cover; that Coghill had left the camp before Melvill; and that the only witness to Melvill and Coghill’s last stand had serious credibility issues. In David’s telling, these two officers are more opportunistic than courageous. I don’t claim that David’s version is true; it is certainly provocative.

Another instance of David’s reinterpretation comes during the famed battle of Rorke’s Drift. This battle is usually presented as a Thermopylae where the Spartans win. The twin heroes of the small mission station were Lieutenants Bromhead and Chard. Neither of these officers were thought to be the stuff of legend (Chard, it was said, was “a most useless officer fit for nothing”), so it becomes all the more amazing that they rose to this occasion. Not so fast, David cautions. He cites a great deal of authority to the effect that Bromhead and Chard, while certainly steadfast, were actually not the driving force behind the defense. Indeed, it seems that both officers wanted to strike camp and run (which would have been their end). It was left to commissary officer James Dalton to actually organize the defense.

David’s assertions are attention grabbing, and have raised the ire of many Zulu War enthusiasts. He is helped in his position by none other than General Sir Garnet Wolsey. Wolsey was one of Great Britain’s exceptional men-of-arms, and takes his place among Wellington and Kitchener in England’s martial pantheon. It turns out that Wolsey was also an acerbic critic with an acid tongue – a sort of 19th century Perez Hilton. His biting critiques of the conduct of the war are simply grand. (I, for one, absolutely loved his overuse of the adjective “monstrous.” As when speaking of Melvill and Coghill: “It is monstrous making heroes of those who saved or attempted to save their lives by bolting”).

I think the Anglo-Zulu War is one of history’s incredible moments, a chronicle worthy of Homer. David’s Zulu is a fairly excellent overview of the conflict, and achieves the aims of educating, entertaining, and providing points of entry for further study.

[Lewis Woolston · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well written history of the British Empire that really makes you feel what it must have been like is a personal favourite of mine.
This is an excellent book that brings a fascinating part of the Empire's history to light.
What always strikes me when reading about the British Empire in detail is how much is seems to have been a "lad's club" for English gentlemen and eccentrics.
One officer discussed here was said during his career to have suffered malaria twice, typhoid once, been clawed by a tiger and had his nose broken by a kick from a giraffe. I had to stop and think about that one...how does a man get kicked in the nose by a giraffe?
The whole sweep of the Zulu war is discussed in detail here including the political machinations which, quite frankly, are rather repulsive and detract from the heroism of the ordinary soldiers.
Highly recommended for anyone who likes British Empire history.

[Simon Mee · Rating 4 out of 5]

The terms relating to the military system alone would have deprived him of most of his power and rendered him little more than a cipher. He was bound to resist, and that is exactly what Frere wanted him to do.

Turns out watching 1964’s Zulu is not the best way to educate yourself on the matter.

‘It is monstrous making heroes of those who saved or attempted to save their lives by bolting.’

The combat sections of Zulu are solid, though David is at his best with analysis rather than battle descriptions. The descriptions of the fights themselves are competent and not below expectations, without really being stirring or horror inspiring (which is fine – melodrama has to be carefully employed). David’s strengths instead lie with describing the decision making and weighing up differing recollections – sometimes by the same person writing different things at different times. David goes to the effort of finding Zulu sources and matches them up where possible with contemporaneous European accounts. The correspondence of Cetshwayo also features – while imperfect, I sympathise with his position, which I believe is what David intended.

Aside from the violent ends by way of assegai or Martini-Henry, what is striking from the various encounters is how many times officers fled in a manner leaving them open to accusations of cowardice (often defended by claims they were seeking to rally their men… …quite a way back from the action). Even at Rorkes Drift, the two main commanders were on the verge of evacuating the outpost until a member of the commissary suggested it was better to stay. Leadership at the junior and senior level also led to defeats at Isandlwana, Hlobane, and loss of the Prince Imperial (!). Redvers Buller, much maligned for his command in the Second Boer War gets more of a fair shake, though he certainly is uncompromising:

‘Where is the prince?’ snapped Buller.
‘I fear he is killed,’ said Carey.
To which Buller responded: ‘Then you ought to be shot.’

I do not judge those accused of cowardice harshly (I certainly would have fled as well), but it does give insight as to the stresses one could be under, how they handled it, and how they subsequently justified. The example of Durnford and his men provides a useful contrast and the I appreciate the examples of mental stress set out by David. These along with the mechanics of politics and diplomacy that David lays out in this book are what make Zulu most interesting and insightful. Oh, and some of the scathing assessments by Garnet Wolseley et al of certain participants:

On 11 September, having pinned the Victoria Cross on Bromhead, Wolseley remarked caustically: ‘I have now given away these decorations to both the officers who took part in the defence of Rorke’s Drift, and two duller, more stupid, more uninteresting even or less like Gentlemen it has not been my luck to meet for a long time.’

Context Matters

Most historians have accused Frere of provoking an iniquitous and unnecessary war — and so he did, though the Natal settlers would not have described the conflict as either. But a large slice of the responsibility for the war must also go to the British politicians and officials in London who, since his appointment, had continually reminded Frere that the neutralization of Zululand was a virtual prerequisite for confederation.

I would not say this is a history focussed on the long-term impact of British imperialism on the (“semi” – the Zulus were empire builders themselves) indigenous people of the region, it’s a military history… …but it is a convincing counter to the mythology of the British being reluctant inheritors of their Empire. David sets out in the build-up, ultimatums and peace settlement clear examples of the British avoiding conciliation and going for what was essentially consequence. David does point out issues with communication (telegraph lines only ran so far, necessitating weeks of delay), but the central government appointed representatives with powers, resources and expectations. David shows how the goal of the confederation of South Africa, including the Boers of Transvaal (some of whom were settling on Zulu claimed land) pushed towards war.

The story of the war in Zulu is also an interesting contrast to the relevant chapter on Rorke's Drift in Victor Davis Hanson’s Carnage and Culture. The issue isn’t so much that Hanson is wrong that the British brought certain edges to the battle and campaign that meant victory was assured notwithstanding occasional defeats such as Isandlwana (though I find it worth noting David points out that the Zulu made tactical errors where they could have won, defeated the relief column or avoided an unnecessary battle), more that I find, after reading Zulu, Hanson’s summary feels quite sterile.

This comparison between the books points to the danger of using case studies to demonstrate some pet theme (Hanson: the West is culturally superior) as the context of Zulu is so much more interesting than a straightforward “clash of cultures”, particularly when those cultures had interacted in a number of non-military ways. Zulu itself cannot describe everything about the period and the parties involved, nor does it mean to, but it feels more authentic than Hanson’s – Zulu is a straighter retelling and a deeper interest in the events, even relatively minor ones such as how Cabinet members assisting Queen Victoria’s interventions in favour of Chelmsford provoked outrage in Parliament.

Frere and Chelmsford, the two men with the most to lose hostilities were suspended, were doing everything in their power to see the war through to a victorious conclusion.

I guess credit to David for extracting that from me in what is unapologetically a military history.

[Chris Wray · Rating 4 out of 5]

I quite enjoyed this as a history of the Zulu war, and while I didn't agree with all of Saul David's conclusions, I think he makes his case clearly and fairly.

Where I am in wholehearted agreement is with his assessment of General Lord Chelmsford. His conduct of the military campaign can only be seen as a catalogue of incompetence. Just when it looked like he had started to recover from the inexcusable defeat at Isandlwana and subsequent reverses, he managed to lose the Prince Imperial of France. It is a travesty that other men's reputations (particularly Durnford's) were sacrificed and that Chelmsford was able to return home with honour once he was superseded by Wolseley. While his reception was muted, and he never held another senior command, the full depth of his incompetence was not widely understood at the time or for a long time afterwards. The findings of the enquiry into Isandlwana are particularly telling, as all but one point should have been addressed by Chelmsford as GOC. Only one, the splitting of the forces at the camp, fell under the purview of the man in command during the battle (undoubtedly Col. Pulleine, even though Durnford was the ranking officer). Chelmsford even disregarded his own field regulations, as a permanent camp like Isandlwana should have been entrenched and laagered. Chelmsford was well-liked by his subordinates, took a creditable interest in his men's welfare, and was a fine sportsman, but does not appear to have had the drive, resilience and breadth of vision that a successful general needs. He was also given to pettiness, vacillation and micromanagement, and his subsequent conduct also calls his integrity into serious question. But his major flaw was in his complete underestimation of his opponent, and the contempt in which he held the Zulu army. This was seen in his whole plan of campaign, and came undone most spectacularly at Isandlwana.

That leads into the second area where I am in profound agreement with David, and that is in the justification (or rather, lack thereof) for the launching of the campaign in the first place - iniquitous and unnecessary, as David eloquently puts it. The invasion of Zululand was planned with cynicism and launched in defiance of the reservations of the government at home, with the expectation that a swift victory would be the only justification needed. This was naked colonial expansionism, with the confederation of South Africa as its aim. As another author has put it well, Cetshwayo’s only crime was to be an autonomous black ruler with an army. The latter part of the book has a sad inevitability, as his kingdom succumbs to overwhelming technological and military force, the ripples of which are still seen in South Africa today.

Where I find myself disagreeing with Saul David is largely concerning the battles of Isandlwana and Rorke's Drift. This comes down to some of his emphases, and I would say biases. There is no doubt that Isandlwana was a catastrophic disaster, but I think David falls into the same trap as a lot of writers by dismissing the 24th with a sweep of his pen, as if they were cut down with barely a whimper, while the focus shifts to the fugitives. This is best seen in his treatment of Col Pulleine, who barely warrants a couple of lines with the conclusion that he was killed early in the battle (based on the second-hand testimony of a fugitive who was long gone while the 24th was still fighting for its life). Durnford, on the contrary, gets an overly positive assessment of his conduct during the battle. While not ordered to take command of the camp, Durnford held the Queen's commission and was the ranking officer on the scene. There is also an argument to be made that his over-rapid withdrawal from the donga led to the collapse of that flank, which doesn't commend his military abilities either. In any case, the fate of the 24th was likely already sealed by that point, albeit that they fought better and harder than David gives them credit for.

Similarly, when it comes to Rorke's Drift, it is hard to argue with his assessment that it was less a signal victory and more a colonial border skirmish, albeit a very convenient one in light of the disaster that unfolded a short distance away at Isandlwana. However, that fact doesn't take away from the heroism of the defenders, as Rorke's Drift could so easily have just resulted in another massacred company of British infantry. Where David errs particularly badly is in his assessment of Chard, whom he sees as maliciously taking credit from Commissary Dalton for the defence. I just don't see evidence for this, and think that the subsequent feting of Chard and Bromhead owes more to Victorian snobbery than malice on their part - they were the officers in command during the action and Dalton, while a key contributor, had risen from the ranks and didn't carry the same weight of responsibility. David's picturing of Chard and Bromhead as little better than incompetents also seems to be stretching the facts beyond what they can bear. They strike me as profoundly ordinary men, as most are, but both seem to have acted with competent professionalism in the most famous episode of their military careers. Statements like "Chard celebrated the post's survival by sharing a long-forgotten bottle of beer with Bromhead. He might have offered a sip to Commissary Dalton, the man who, more than any other, had organised and inspired the defence. But he did not. Dalton had come up from the ranks; he also knew too much" are overly acerbic, and should be beneath the dignity of a historian of Saul David's ability.

In the case of both these battles, I think that Saul David has taken the undoubted incompetence and malice displayed by Chelmsford and over-rotated it into applying it to the British forces per se. It strikes me that this rests on much less sure foundations, and at best isn't a generous reading of the available evidence. That said, overall I enjoyed this book very much and would recommend it as a well-written and accessible history of one of the British Empire's shabbiest military campaigns.

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have always had a strong interest in this war; the titanic struggle between the primitive Zulu warriors who fight at close range with the spear and shield coming face to face with the feared British army, which had already conquered half the world, who faced their enemies with the rifle and bayonet in a hostile barren dessert land so far from home.

The book is full of plenty of anecdotes, witness accounts, battles and political scandal.

I learnt alot about the less-than-honourable reasons for the war and the terrible nightmare of battle. The book is full of examples of the incredible bravery and skill shown by both sides.

One of the most interesting stories in the book was that of the Prince Imperial, relative of the French Emperor Napolean. I won't spolit it for those who haven't read it but its worth reading the book for that story alone.

[Soubresaut · Rating 4 out of 5]

A surprisingly readable account, mainly a hatchet job on Lord Chelmsford but maybe he deserved it. The narrative is thin on the home imperial connection but the few insights are interesting. The bibliography betrays the one sided (British) nature of historical research no doubt a consequence of the absence of literacy and literature amongst the Zulus. Is there no oral tradition or African academia the author could have tapped into? Perhaps it was beyond the budget but interrogation reports of the defeated do not necessarily provide an accurate insight.

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

There is an argument that says that all wars are unnecessary and avoidable, this one was about as necessary as an index in a dictionary. This well written account of how the British army killed thousands of African natives to gain no useful purpose for the British. It also tells the story of what actually happened at Rorke's Drift which differs from the film version.

[John Newcomb · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very good historical account of a very disastrous war, which almost know body wanted save for a few glory seekers on both sides. Dispels the myth of Rorkes Drift and whilst poor Lord Chelmsford ended up with the accolades he wanted, there were some very good reasons why he was never given an army to command.

[Nate Hendrix · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really enjoyed the movies Zulu and Zulu Dawn and this book covers the entire Zulu war. It has great maps which is a rare thing. Some of the politics are boring, but most of the book is fascinating. I never knew that Napoleon's only son died during the Zulu war. There's a good trivia question.

[Alex Helling · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Anglo Zulu war of 1879 in South Africa is known for two things; the notorious defeat at Isandlwana and the subsequent brave defence of Rorke's Drift. But those two events are but the best known elements of a sordid little war in which the British Army’s rifles may have won over the spears of the Zulus but they won themselves little glory. Saul David’s Zulu is an impressive book charting all aspects of this imperialist endeavour; the background, the ‘diplomacy’, the interaction of South Africa with London, and of course the campaigns, battles, and final victory.

Pros
Excellent self contained account.
Balanced perspective showing both sides.
Good maps and easy to follow the action.
Cons
Not really any - could have had more on the aftermath or wider context.

The Anglo Zulu war is a good example of a pointless unnecessary war brought on for nothing more than individual ambition and greed. The Zulus did not want the war, and were quite accommodating in trying to avoid it. The mother nation did not want the war (though would have liked to incorporate the Zulus into the colony at some point). The only people who wanted it were those on the spot who precipitated it.

Saul David’s account covers all the bases, starting with a good background of the colonisation of South Africa in the 19th Century and the political situation, and a short history of the Zulu nation, before going through the more immediate causes of the war exploring the responsibility of the people who brought the war on; largely Sir Bartle Frere the governor of the Cape. However, given David is known as a military historian it is not surprising that this book shines in its account of the campaign and battles. The campaign is clearly sketched and easy to follow despite the disparate columns, while the battles have a good combination of the big picture and up close and personal accounts. Although it is not a short book the writing is good and the pace is kept up well throughout - even in phases of the war with less action.

I found it surprising how much of a perspective we get from the Zulus. I had somehow expected that their side of the story would be largely unrecorded, but was very glad that this is not the case. I could not quite say the book is evenhanded; more space is devoted to the British. But as the aggressor, and the army taking the initiative, this makes sense - Britain is the side with more to answer for, and more to explain their motivations. The Zulu side on the other hand is simple; they were defending their land.

I like good add-ons to books, especially for military history. For an overview of a campaign of battle maps are incredibly helpful, so I am happy that there are some good maps here. The area map shows almost all the places mentioned in the text on the campaigns, and the maps of the battles are also good - their only fault being that while there are contours the heights are not marked so it can be a bit difficult to tell what is up and what is down!

I see very little to complain about, perhaps the main one I can see is that the section on the ‘aftermath’ is quite short and focused just on the view from London, with just a few pages on what happens to the Zulus. Certainly more context on what this meant for the future could have been given, but that is not really the point of the book. Similarly a reader might ask for more of the wider context within the whole of the empire at the time; other border wars are mentioned but little comparison made. But again that is something that would likely have expanded the book considerably without necessarily giving fresh insight. Part of the remarkableness of these imperial wars was how self contained they were.

I would thoroughly recommend Zulu to anyone with an interest in military history or imperialism.

[Dirk D · Rating 4 out of 5]

This well-researched history of one of the most questionable conflicts in British Imperial history was a very interesting read dealing with ambitious generals, a colonial governor with territorial ambitions, outright lies to the Tory government back in England and raw, naked Imperialism complete with a cover-up at the end.
The conflict, more or less forced upon the Zulu Kingdom, included a British version of Custer's Last Stand at Isandlwana where 1,100 British soldiers and auxiliary troops were wiped out by a Zulu army of nearly 25,000 strong. This disaster, the mistakes leading up to it and yet more lies and cover-ups at the aftermath are meticulously laid out.
A much smaller, follow-up fight between 4,000 Zulu warriors who missed Isandlwana and a small detachment of 100 British soldiers at Rouke's Drift found the British victorious and took some of the sting out of the catastrophe.
The following British campaign reveals how the lessons of both battles were applied showing some commanders such as General Wood and Colonel Buller to be true heroes in a bad cause.
It also brought to light a little-known and pathetic end to the last descendent of Napoleon III who was allowed to accompany the campaign, hungry for glory but met an unanticipated end. This embarrassing incident was also deflected from the responsible generals who should have known better and placed on a young Lieutenant who led the Prince's escort that day.
I learned a great deal I didn't know before, about the only gripe I have is the author's treatment of the commanders at Rouke's Drift, Lieutenant's Chard and Bromhead whom the author criticizes a bit too severely. He lays out his facts about their rather unspectacular military careers and dismal evaluations by their superiors both before and after the battle and plays down their successful command that day giving much of the credit to their subordinates. In all this he is mostly correct but if the good ideas came from their subordinates at least they listened to them (unlike some of their commanders) and adopted them successfully. Also, unlike the handful panicky surviving officers fleeing Isandlwana who rode back to Natal for "help" they stayed at their posts after some initial wavering. By all accounts they fought bravely and led their soldiers competently. They may not have been ideal, square-jawed heroes but they were not utter buffoons either; not on that day.
However, this is a minor nit-picking of a well written account of a sorry episode in British history.

[Crowley · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good, comprehensive account from a novice’s opinion. But light on exact details, but hits most of the major beats. The timeframe is a bit unclear and tends to sped up. Not too much detail is given about the specifics of the battles fought, but enough to understand that outcome. I was surprised at how brief the section on Rorkes drift was. I would also have preferred if whenever someone was being quoted that the author would have given their names rather than “a Zulu deserter later stated” or “a private wrote home:”. I feel like mentioning the sources by name would have added to the veracity of the book.

Only real negative is when the author delves into personal speculation and opinion. I’d rather have just been presented with the facts, as I disagreed with the books assertion that Durnferd was totally innocent of the disaster at Isandlwana. He chased down a small group of Zulus, personally placing himself in danger without sending out any scouts to look for a possible trap. This lead to the series of disasters, made worse by Pullines belated attempt to reinforce him.

The book makes a big deal about those who were “treated unfairly”, which allows the book to end with a melancholic feeling.

The book is certainly anti-Zulu, although the fact they have no quarter means it’s hard to sympathies with them too much. Also towards the end the book says how “they were never defeated” and basically implies that they came out on top in the long run. I feel like the statement kinda ignores years of apartheid.

But it was informative, and certainly worth the read. Not to anyone with a good knowledge of the subject. I can’t be certain, but it seems more like a summary then a distinctive account.

[Dantheman68 · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was a revelation. It completely blew apart all my previous conceptions of this campaign in souhern Africa in 1879 at the height of the British Empire. I think the author was playing to historic prejudice or writing tongue in cheek when he include "Heroism" in the title of the book as there were many cited examples of rank cowardice amongst the officers in the British Army who nearly always seemed to be riding off at the first sign of the Zulu impis. This happened so frequently it became almost comical but yet shocking at the same time. There were shining examples of bravery. Rorke's Drift being the most famous and made into an Oscar winning film "Zulu" in the 1960s.
The British reasons for declaring war on the Zulus was based purely on political motivation and provoked and planned for. The Zulus military might and sophisticated battle tactics were completely underestimated by the colonial British military leadership who expeted minimal resistance. Combined with the woeful campaign manouevres employed by General Cheltenham this resulted in the massacre of British forces at Isandhlwana which sent shockwaves around the world. This book analyses and descibes the background to the calamitous campaign and reveals the cover up by the establishment and their eagerness to focus the public eye on Rorke's Drift.

[Joshua Neil · Rating 5 out of 5]

Zulu does exactly what it says on the tin: Documents in great detail and with remarkable clarity the entirety of the ill-fated Zulu War, from the events leading up to its inception through to the final days of the conflict and onward to the state of the Zulu nation after it was done.
That description does little to describe how fantastic this book is. It does everything that a history book needs to do, perfectly: fully-researched, excitingly written, and full of not only high-level tactics and explanation but also a huge amount of personal, individual detail, documenting the bloodiness of the battles through to the soldiers' lives during and after the conflict.
What sets this book out for me is its thoroughness: it doesn't just discuss the Zulu War itself, but everything interesting that's surrounding or connected to it: the death of the Prince Imperial Napoleon in Zululand, the intrigue and conspiracy of Isandlwana and the unfortunate scapegoating of Colonel Durnford for the massacre, and the thoughts and conversations of those great figures involved in the war, including Disraeli and Queen Victoria.
It's a fantastic read, both revealing, exciting and gruesome: and, as if to crown its greatness, all the maps are at the front of the book. Finally.

[Connor Sampson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic.

This is my first foray into Victorian military history, and this book was perfect for that. It follows this strange war clearly, always painting vivid images of the events that unfolded. As much as possible, Zulu perspectives are given to the events as they unfold.

The British Empire is tired of supporting it's colonies and wishes them to move to a more independent existence. In south Africa the governor feels that he cannot confederate south Africa and safely exist independently until the Zulu Empire is removed from the map. Neither empire was pleasant, although Britain was certainly the alien aggressor. The British were colonialists who would suppress the native population in terrible ways. The Zulus were brutal imperialists who had devastated many tribes to gain their power; they would send squads of men into British territory to kidnap escaped Zulu wives so they could be executed in Zululand.

Both sides will make terrible mistakes and underestimate the forces arrayed against them, with terrible defeats all round. It's a fascinating story as much as it is a tragic one. One of the most gripping history books I've read for a while.

[Ana-Maria Bujor · Rating 3 out of 5]

I can say I learned quite a bit from this book as I knew exactly nothing about the subject. It showed the context in which the conflict appeared, the machinations, the motivations, as well as the main cast of characters. Further on it delved into each battle, the causes of the outcome, putting emphasis on certain aspects. The parts about the politics back home were also interesting.
However, as this book probably had to rely on British sources, we don't have that much to grasp when it comes to the Zulu themselves. We are presented some information about their fighting strategies, some internal divisions and their general organization, but I feel like a lot has remained unsaid and we will never know it. I also got a bit lost among the many, many names.
But as it is, it must have involved a lot of work to put the story together in such a thorough manner and I appreciate the effort to tell a lesser known story that should be better known.

[Rabspur · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have always been fascinated by the Zulu wars and at last I have been able to read the first one in my collection . It covers the Zulu war in great details the errors and cover ups, and lies particularly the battle of Isandlwana not a long war but a lot of lives on both sides were lost, the British underestimated the quality of the Zulu army which proved fatal on occasions. The first book I have read by Saul David which was brilliant fast moving easy to read I would be surprised to find a better book on the topic. I will endeavour to read further books by the author, a highly recommended read hence the five stars.

[JMTutoring · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was a difficult book for me to plough through. It was recommended to me by my other half, who loves everything to do with military history. I, on the other hand, love descriptive settings and characters.

It was an interesting insight into a period of time that I'm not familiar with, and it was good to learn more about the different battles (and total screw-ups) that the British and Zulu armies were involved with at the time.

Unfortunately, I struggled to follow the number of dates, people, battles, changes in places, etc. That is probably simply because I'm not used to this style of non-fiction writing, but it did mean that reading this was a battle that I barely won.

[Michael Bennett · Rating 5 out of 5]

Like a lot of people, my only knowledge of the Zulu wars comes from the well-known film. This book was a real eye-opener. The battle of Rorke's Drift in 1879 was hardly more than a border skirmish in the whole scheme of things, despite the casualties and bravery involved. The officers and the other military participants were nothing like the characters portrayed in the film, and there were not as many Welsh soldiers as you might think. Often complex, it's a study of the politics behind the whole thing, and is an intriguing read. Recommended, even if you don't usually read historu of miliraty books.

[Martin Birch · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent - makes the heart pound
Saul does an excellent job of presenting the tragic events in an objective and sympathetic way with all the people, from both sides, who were caught up in, what was effectively, selfish ambition and self serving gratification.

[Joe Groarke · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great read that really exposes the incompetence of the British force's leadership, particularly Lord Chelmsford, as well as charting the course of the war, the series of events leading up to it and how the conflict was seen from the Zulu point of view.

[Jörg Schumacher · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very detailed history of the Zulu War. I enjoyed it.

[Gabriel · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fantastic history of the Anglo Zulu war of 1879, a well written and dramatic telling of the war challenging the myths and exploring the real nature of such a fascinating conflict.

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

Best book written on the subject. David does a excellent job dispelling the myths and legends that surround the war.

[Paul Nicolaou · Rating 5 out of 5]

The best study of the Zulu War, Saul David does an excellent job of covering the war from origins to conclusion, as well as covering both armies strengths, weaknesses, and unique character.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'll make no admission to being an expert in the affairs of the Zulu War of 1879. From this point of view, the person who does not already possess a strong knowledge of the war, Zulu serves as an excellent account.

The intriguing machinations of Bartle Frere and Lord Chelmsford in particular, were fascinating. Same goes for the cover up surrounding the bumbling incompetence which led to the butchering of 2,000 British troops at Isandhlwana. Further Grade A cock ups led to the killing and mutilation of the Imperial Prince of France.

Accompanying this was a sprinkling of first hand accounts, which gave an idea of the conditions of battle and of the conflict in general.

An excellent read, particularly for those who have little or no prior knowledge of the conflict.

[Michael G · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an absolutely gripping narrative history of the Anglo Zulu War. The author has a splendid writing style which creates a page-turning history full of interesting anecdotes and factual corrections to many of the myths and misunderstandings historians held about the conflict. An absolute must-read.

[Dubaibob · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good factual history, maybe a little dry for some tastes. Learnt a lot about the Zulu war and the beginnings of the Boer struggle.
Strange I found this book boring to read because of its style but it was really interesting at the same time!

[Rachel · Rating 2 out of 5]

I really wanted to like this, but I guess I just can't stomach history written in this old-fashioned way. Give me narrative or give me death!

[Peter Nuttall · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant. Chapter on Isandwalha is history as it should be written. Totally engrossing.