Talk:Battle of Ulundi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Associated task forces (nations and regions): African military history task force British military history task force

Template deprecated, please use {{AfricaProject |class= |importance= |South Africa=yes}} instead.

Battle of Ulundi is part of WikiProject South Africa, a WikiProject which aims to systematically improve South Africa-related articles using the tools on the Project page. You are welcome and encouraged to edit the article attached to this page and to join the project.

Contents 1 Confusing sentence 2 I have removed 3 Assegais or rifles? 4 Irrelevant and PV remark removed 5 Is this original? 6 Zulu Strenght

[edit] Confusing sentence

I can't make out what the last clauses in this sentence ("same number of dead are believed to have been wounded") refers to:

"British casualties were ten killed and eighty-seven wounded, while over a thousand Zulu dead were counted around the square, with about five hundred dying in the pursuit and as a result of wounds, and the same number of dead are believed to have been wounded." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaintes (talk • contribs) 01:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I have removed

these lines added by 168.209.98.35:

• The Zulu warriors was armed with a short stabbing spear and protected with a raw hide shield.

Because I do not think it belongs in the middle of a paragraph on the structure of the British force.

• This time the British soldiers made sure that the ammunition boxes could be opened, not making the same mistake twice. During the Isandlwana battle on the previous campain the veteran British forces were dessimated by the Zulu warriors because of this small oversight.

The importance of the ammunition boxes at Isandlwana is disputed and this is discussed in that battle's article. I don't think the line really belongs in the article, as the ammunition boxes are not something considered important in the British victory at Ulundi, and their significance at Isandlwana is debatable.

I have cleaned up 168.209.98.35's other additions and removed 'great' from the line about Nelson Mandela. I've posted this so if someone disagrees with my removal of these lines, we can discuss it here. Cheers, --Loopy 00:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Assegais or rifles?

Our article repeatedly alludes to the Zulus being armed only with spears. But our first reference notes that Cetshwayo had purchased "tens of thousands of muskets and rifles" and captured a thousand Martini-Henry rifles. Since their army was 20,000 strong, surely it seems likely that most of the Zulus were armed with firearms? -- Securiger 07:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irrelevant and PV remark removed

Removed the snide anti-white comparison between Mandela's and Cetshwayo's imprisonment: "...[Cetshwayo was] sent into exile on Robben Island, near Cape Town - the same island Nelson Mandela would be imprisoned on 87 years later." Not only completely irrelevant, but seems to make a direct comparison between the actions of the British and the Aparteid regime. Mandela was an arguably unjustly incarcerated political prisoner; Cetshwayo was the defeated leader of a belligerent and brutal civilisation. Comparison is unfair and POV.

Qualifying Cetshwayo as leader of a "belligerent and brutal civilisation" is securely a POV. I do not know how the african people feel about, but I would not be surprised if they see Cetshwayo as the leader of the resistence against "belligerent and brutal" British imperialism. M.Campos (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is this original?

I don't know if it is just me, but this seems to be narrated or copied straight out of a book. Should there be some type of reference to original sources? Disregard this message if it's not true, but the style of writing seems to indicate this. Mulyahnto 19:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Mulyahnto

[edit] Zulu Strenght

While infobox states Zulu strenght of 25.000, the "Battle" section mentions "The entire Zulu Army, 50,000 strong,...". Does someone know the correct number? M.Campos (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)