I wonder about the difference in outcomes. Did the second force survive comparable odds because of better leadership, better training, better geography, or some other factor. I thank God every day for the leadership our country finally has, and I pray that President Trump will be up to the job.
At Isandlwana, the British and native troops were deployed in open fields hundreds of yards from their camp and the different battle lines were far enough apart not to be able to support one another. At Rork’s Drift the troops were in a small compound made of low masonry walls and mealy bags.
A much better defensive position.
But also, the more successful event (at 38:1 odds) happened at a river crossing which could have afford something of a natural barrier that limited the Zulu offense.
The worse event (at 15:1 odds) could have been in the open, surrounded, defense assets divided.
Watch the two classic movies on the subject from the English viewpoint: “Zulu” and “Zulu Dawn.” Like life events in general, the difference in outcomes was because of a variety of factors, including dumb luck.
Just my opinion.
Oldplayer
My understanding is as follows:
1) The contingent of Zulu were not part of the main force from the previous battle, but sent round the British flank to secure lines of communication and prevent defeat. They had less discipline as many contingents went off on their own to conduct smaller raids.
2) Prior to the battle the Zulu fast marched all day from 8am to 4pm and then fought till 2am with minor skirmishes after that till 4am. So they were tired by they time they arrived and exhausted by the end.
3) Most importantly - the location was well fortified.
One comment at the link below states: “The British wall was too high for the Zulus to scale, so they resorted to crouching under the wall, trying to get hold of the defenders’ Martini–Henry rifles, slashing at British soldiers with assegais or firing their weapons through the wall. At places, they clambered over each other’s bodies to drive the British off the walls but were driven back”.
The British successfully shrunk their lines of battle into the cattle krall to prevent incursion behind their lines.
This despite two support forces leaving early in the attack. One of which was already exhausted from the earlier battle.
4) Zulu’s left in the morning. Had they stayed they would have likely overrun the position. As: ‘Of 20,000 rounds in reserve at the mission, only 900 remained.’.
5) second most important and likely why the Zulus left. At 8AM the relief column arrived.
solid summary here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rorke’s_Drift
A lot of it was the difference in leadership. At Isandlwana (from what I have read), the troops actually ran out of cartridges. They were then overwhelmed by sheer numbers.
The cartridges were in heavy wooden boxes that took a while to open with conventional tools (they were reusable and reused, so the people in charge of them did not want to damage the heavy boxes). The troops were actually shooting the ammunition faster than they were being unboxed. They would have been better off breaking the boxes open with axes or something similar.