web site hit counter How Can Man Die Better: The Secrets of Isandlwana Revealed - Ebooks PDF Online
Hot Best Seller

How Can Man Die Better: The Secrets of Isandlwana Revealed

Availability: Ready to download

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 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 – 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. 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 brings to life so vividly the fear and smell the blood.


Compare

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 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 – 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. 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 brings to life so vividly the fear and smell the blood.

30 review for How Can Man Die Better: The Secrets of Isandlwana Revealed

  1. 5 out of 5

    Matt

    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, sl 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.

  2. 4 out of 5

    Chris Wray

    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. Anthon 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.

  3. 5 out of 5

    James Burns

    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 aut 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.

  4. 4 out of 5

    George

    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 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.

  5. 5 out of 5

    Mhorg

    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.

  6. 5 out of 5

    Bob Green

    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

  7. 4 out of 5

    Robert Morgan-Wilson

    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.

  8. 4 out of 5

    Kevin

    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.

  9. 5 out of 5

    Steve Switzer

    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

  10. 4 out of 5

    George Polansky

    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.

  11. 5 out of 5

    Harry L Skinner

    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.

  12. 4 out of 5

    Donald Luther

    When I was teaching at UT-San Antonio, I was asked if I could teach a course in military history. Since I was an adjunct, I really didn't have much choice. (Being an adjunct professor is a lot like being an actor. If someone asks you, 'Can you ride a horse?' you automatically answer 'Yes.') My day-job was as a historian at Randolph AFB, so, of course, they assumed I could do it. I very quickly contacted my dissertation director, who had taught military history courses at Delaware. He explained th When I was teaching at UT-San Antonio, I was asked if I could teach a course in military history. Since I was an adjunct, I really didn't have much choice. (Being an adjunct professor is a lot like being an actor. If someone asks you, 'Can you ride a horse?' you automatically answer 'Yes.') My day-job was as a historian at Randolph AFB, so, of course, they assumed I could do it. I very quickly contacted my dissertation director, who had taught military history courses at Delaware. He explained that there were then (and still are) two kinds of military history. One, the older format, examined 'what one general said to a colonel' and how the troops moved in obedience to that order. The other examined war and society, war and technology, war in a less tactical manner and more as a strategic exercise. Snook writes the older format. If you want to know what happened at the Battle of Isandlwana down to the company level, this is your baby. The good news, however, is that he does offer some new and novel interpretations of the battle, though always casting his gaze to put the British Army in the best possible light.

  13. 5 out of 5

    MR M.

    This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. 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 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!)

  14. 5 out of 5

    Arun Ellis

    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 sma 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.

  15. 4 out of 5

    Nathan

    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 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

  16. 4 out of 5

    Nick

    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 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.

  17. 4 out of 5

    Zack

    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. 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.

  18. 5 out of 5

    Jon Z.

    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.

  19. 5 out of 5

    Robert

    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. 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.

  20. 5 out of 5

    Rock5blue

    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". 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".

  21. 4 out of 5

    Fred Dameron

    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. 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.

  22. 4 out of 5

    Alec Gray

    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

  23. 4 out of 5

    Grant

    A brilliant reconstruction of the devastating battle, with careful attention to the ground and the experiences of soldiers on both sides.

  24. 4 out of 5

    Bill

    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.

  25. 5 out of 5

    John B.

    I was at this battlefield. This is the true story of Isandlwana.

  26. 5 out of 5

    Pat

    This is a fantastic, well processed, conceived and delivered narrative that covers all bases.

  27. 5 out of 5

    David

  28. 5 out of 5

    Jim Hetrick

  29. 5 out of 5

    Glyn

  30. 4 out of 5

    Mark Burcham

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.