Battle of Sihayo's Kraal: 1879 The Opening Clash of the Anglo-Zulu War (Part1) | Cinematic Battle
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 вер 2024
- The 12 January 1879 action at Sihayo's Kraal was an early skirmish in the Anglo-Zulu War. The day after invading Zululand, Lieutenant-General Lord Chelmsford led a reconnaissance against Chief Sihayo's kraal to secure his left flank for an advance on Ulundi and to punish Sihayo for his sons' incursions into Natal.
En route, the British encountered a small Zulu party in a gorge. The Natal Native Contingent (NNC), supported by British regulars, launched a frontal assault, while mounted infantry moved to the high ground. The NNC attack faltered but was reinforced by regulars, who defeated the Zulus. The mounted force engaged and drove off sixty Zulus on the high ground. Zulu losses were 40 killed, 4 wounded, and at least 3 captured; the British lost 2 NNC members killed and 22 wounded. After their victory, the British found Sihayo's kraal undefended, burned it down, and returned to camp.
Thanks for open story by this video. There was a small "skirmish " on the 6th near Vermaarks on the Biggarsberg when Shepstone arrested the male inhabitants of a local kraal who had been signalling troop movements. Then on the way back from meeting Woods the Chelmsford party raided a group of kraals and liberated a herd of cows. In fact several hundred cattle, some horses and a number of sheep and goats is how Norris Newman puts it. So the first hostile action would I assume have been credited to Shepstone. The first casualty was a member of the NNC at the commencement of the attack on Sirayo's kraal, he was wounded by a sniper.
thank for your comment
thanks for open more this history time.
Leave a comment and like to support the channel
A number of contentious issues are raised in this thread, not all of which are true. Zululand was a tribal polity, not a "sovereign state". Vermaaks, for instance is in Natal, not Zululand, and can hardly be used to state that it was "the British who initiated contact." Drownings while crossing the Buffalo hardly fit within the definition of a 'skirmish'. Reasons for the war have been bandied about as if at a tap room bar. Equating them with a greedy modern superpower's manipulations is a gross over-simplification. Really this subject-matter requires a discrete thread of its own.
I always wonder why didn't the Zulus have archers, cavalry and more guns they could have bought from Muslim traders on the coast.
Thank you for your comment but as I read about the Zulu story I found that the Zulus focused on close-quarters combat with their iklwa spears and shields due to their effective military traditions and terrain. Cavalry was impractical in their rugged environment, and firearms were expensive and hard to supply in large numbers. Their warrior culture valued bravery in hand-to-hand combat, making their traditional tactics well-suited to their needs before encountering European colonial forces.
And it's pronounced left-tenant not the Americanised loo-tenant!
thanks