text:
List of consonants

This is a list of all the consonants which have a dedicated letter in the International Phonetic Alphabet, plus some of the consonants which require diacritics, ordered by place and manner of articulation.

Labial consonants
(articulated by using the lips)

Bilabial consonants

 * bilabial clicks etc.
 * bilabial nasal (man)
 * bilabial ejective
 * voiced bilabial implosive
 * voiceless bilabial plosive (spin)
 * voiced bilabial plosive (bed)
 * voiceless bilabial affricate
 * voiced bilabial affricate
 * voiceless bilabial fricative
 * voiced bilabial fricative
 * bilabial approximant
 * bilabial trill
 * bilabial percussive

Labiodental consonants

 * labiodental approximant
 * labiodental nasal (symphony)
 * voiced labiodental fricative (van)
 * Voiced labiodental plosive
 * Voiced labiodental affricate
 * voiceless labiodental fricative (fan)
 * voiceless rounded velarized labiodental fricative
 * Voiceless labiodental plosive
 * Voiceless labiodental affricate

Bidental consonants

 * voiceless bidental fricative

Coronal consonants
(articulated by using the tip of the tongue)

Dental consonants

 * dental clicks etc.
 * dental lateral clicks etc.
 * dental ejective
 * dental nasal
 * voiced dental fricative (this)
 * voiced dental implosive
 * voiced dental plosive
 * voiceless bidental fricative
 * voiceless dental fricative (thing)
 * voiceless dental plosive
 * bidental percussive

Alveolar consonants

 * alveolar lateral clicks etc.
 * alveolar approximant (red)
 * alveolar ejective
 * alveolar ejective fricative
 * alveolar flap
 * alveolar lateral approximant (lead)
 * alveolar lateral flap
 * alveolar nasal (none)
 * alveolar trill
 * velarized alveolar lateral approximant
 * voiced alveolar fricative (zoo)
 * voiced alveolar implosive
 * voiced alveolar lateral fricative
 * voiced alveolar plosive (done)
 * voiced alveolar affricate
 * voiceless alveolar grooved fricative (son)
 * voiceless alveolar retroflex fricative
 * voiceless alveolar non-sibilant fricative
 * voiceless alveolar lateral fricative
 * voiceless alveolar plosive (ton)
 * voiceless alveolar affricate
 * voiceless alveolar lateral affricate
 * ejective alveolar lateral affricate
 * voiced alveolar lateral affricate

Postalveolar consonants

 * (post)alveolar click etc.
 * voiced palato-alveolar affricate (jug)
 * voiced palato-alveolar fricative (vision)
 * voiceless palato-alveolar affricate (chip)
 * voiceless palato-alveolar fricative (ship)

Palatalized postalveolar consonants

 * voiced palatalized postalveolar fricative
 * voiceless palatalized postalveolar fricative
 * voiced palatalized postalveolar affricate
 * voiceless palatalized postalveolar affricate

Retroflex consonants

 * retroflex clicks etc. (commonly written ⟨[‼]⟩)
 * retroflex approximant
 * retroflex flap
 * retroflex lateral flap
 * retroflex lateral approximant
 * voiceless retroflex lateral fricative
 * retroflex nasal
 * voiced retroflex fricative
 * voiced retroflex plosive
 * voiced retroflex affricate
 * voiceless retroflex fricative
 * voiceless retroflex plosive
 * voiceless retroflex affricate ,

Dorsal consonants
(articulated with the middle of the tongue)

Palatal consonants

 * palatal clicks etc.
 * palatal approximant (yes)
 * palatal ejective
 * palatal lateral approximant
 * voiceless palatal lateral fricative
 * palatal nasal
 * voiced palatal fricative
 * voiced palatal implosive
 * voiced palatal plosive
 * voiceless palatal fricative (human, but not hum)
 * voiceless palatal plosive
 * voiceless palatal lateral affricate
 * ejective palatal lateral affricate

Labialized palatal consonants

 * labialized palatal approximant

Velar consonants

 * velar approximant
 * velar ejective
 * velar lateral approximant
 * voiceless velar lateral fricative
 * voiced velar fricative
 * voiced velar implosive
 * voiced velar plosive (get)
 * voiceless velar fricative
 * voiceless velar plosive (kick, cat)
 * ejective velar lateral affricate

Labialized velar consonants

 * voiced labialized velar approximant (witch)
 * voiceless labialized velar approximant (which, in some dialects)

Labial–velar consonants

 * voiceless labial–velar plosive
 * voiced labial–velar plosive
 * labial-velar nasal

Uvular consonants

 * uvular ejective
 * uvular nasal
 * uvular trill
 * voiced uvular fricative
 * voiced uvular implosive
 * voiced uvular plosive
 * voiceless uvular fricative
 * voiceless uvular plosive

Laryngeal consonants
(articulated with the throat)

Pharyngeal consonants

 * pharyngeal plosive
 * voiced pharyngeal fricative
 * voiceless pharyngeal fricative
 * voiced pharyngeal trill
 * voiceless pharyngeal trill

Glottal consonants

 * voiceless glottal affricate (hat)
 * murmured glottal affricate
 * murmured glottal fricative or transition & approximant (ahead)
 * voiceless glottal fricative or transition & approximant (high)
 * glottal plosive
 * voiced glottal approximant
 * voiceless nasal glottal approximant

Ordered by manner of articulation

 * Pulmonic consonants

Nasal (stop) consonants

 * bilabial nasal
 * voiceless bilabial nasal
 * labiodental nasal
 * dental nasal
 * alveolar nasal
 * voiceless alveolar nasal
 * retroflex nasal
 * voiceless retroflex nasal
 * palatal nasal
 * voiceless palatal nasal
 * velar nasal
 * voiceless velar nasal
 * uvular nasal

Fricative consonants

 * Sibilant fricatives
 * voiceless alveolar sibilant
 * voiced alveolar sibilant
 * voiceless palato-alveolar sibilant
 * voiced palato-alveolar sibilant
 * voiceless alveolo-palatal sibilant (palatalized postalveolar)
 * voiced alveolo-palatal sibilant
 * voiceless retroflex sibilant
 * voiced retroflex sibilant
 * Central non-sibilant fricatives
 * voiceless bilabial fricative
 * voiced bilabial fricative
 * voiceless labiodental fricative
 * voiced labiodental fricative
 * voiceless bidental fricative
 * voiceless dental fricative
 * voiced dental fricative
 * voiceless alveolar non-sibilant fricative
 * voiced alveolar non-sibilant fricative
 * voiceless palatal fricative
 * voiced palatal fricative
 * voiceless velar fricative
 * voiced velar fricative
 * voiceless uvular fricative
 * voiceless pharyngeal fricative
 * voiceless epiglottal fricative
 * voiceless palatal-velar fricative (not possible)
 * Lateral fricatives
 * voiceless alveolar lateral fricative
 * voiced alveolar lateral fricative
 * voiceless retroflex lateral fricative
 * voiceless palatal lateral fricative )
 * voiceless velar lateral fricative )
 * voiced velar lateral fricative
 * both fricatives and approximants
 * voiced uvular fricative
 * voiced pharyngeal fricative
 * voiced epiglottal fricative
 * Pseudo-fricatives
 * voiceless glottal fricative
 * voiced glottal fricative (murmured)

Affricate consonants

 * Sibilant affricates
 * voiceless postalveolar affricate
 * voiced postalveolar affricate
 * voiceless alveolar affricate
 * voiced alveolar affricate
 * voiceless alveolo-palatal affricate
 * voiced alveolo-palatal affricate
 * voiceless retroflex affricate
 * voiced retroflex affricate
 * Fricated alveolar clicks (also voiced, nasalized, etc.)
 * Non-sibilant affricates
 * Voiceless bilabial affricate
 * Voiceless bilabial-labiodental affricate
 * Voiceless labiodental affricate
 * Voiced labiodental affricate
 * Voiceless dental affricate
 * Voiced dental affricate
 * Voiceless retroflex nonsibilant affricate
 * Voiced retroflex nonsibilant affricate
 * voiceless palatal affricate
 * voiced palatal affricate
 * Voiceless velar affricate
 * Voiced velar affricate
 * Voiceless uvular affricate
 * Voiced uvular affricate
 * Voiceless epiglottal affricate
 * Lateral affricates
 * voiceless alveolar lateral affricate
 * voiced alveolar lateral affricate
 * Voiceless palatal lateral affricate
 * Voiceless retroflex lateral affricate
 * Voiceless velar lateral affricate
 * Voiced velar lateral affricate

Approximant consonants

 * bilabial approximant
 * labiodental approximant
 * dental approximant
 * alveolar approximant
 * alveolar lateral approximant
 * velarized alveolar lateral approximant
 * retroflex approximant
 * retroflex lateral approximant
 * palatal approximant
 * palatal lateral approximant
 * nasal palatal approximant
 * labialized palatal approximant
 * velar approximant
 * velar lateral approximant
 * labialized velar approximant (voiced)
 * voiceless labialized velar approximant
 * nasal labialized velar approximant
 * uvular approximant
 * pharyngeal approximant
 * epiglottal approximant
 * voiced glottal approximant (murmured)
 * voiceless glottal approximant
 * voiceless nasal glottal approximant

Flap (tap) consonants

 * bilabial flap
 * labiodental flap
 * alveolar flap
 * alveolar lateral flap
 * retroflex flap
 * retroflex lateral flap
 * palatal lateral flap
 * uvular flap
 * velar lateral flap
 * epiglottal flap

Trill consonants

 * bilabial trill
 * alveolar trill
 * alveolar fricative trill
 * retroflex trill
 * uvular trill
 * epiglottal trill

Lateral consonants

 * Approximants
 * Alveolar lateral approximant
 * Velarized alveolar lateral approximant
 * Retroflex lateral approximant
 * Palatal lateral approximant
 * Velar lateral approximant

 * Fricatives
 * Voiceless alveolar lateral fricative
 * Voiced alveolar lateral fricative
 * Voiceless retroflex lateral fricative
 * Voiceless palatal lateral fricative
 * Voiced velar lateral fricative
 * Voiceless velar lateral fricative

 * Affricates
 * Voiceless alveolar lateral affricate
 * Voiced alveolar lateral affricate
 * Voiceless palatal lateral affricate
 * Ejective palatal lateral affricate
 * Voiceless retroflex lateral affricate
 * Ejective retroflex lateral affricate
 * Voiced velar lateral affricate
 * Voiceless velar lateral affricate
 * Ejective velar lateral affricate

 * Flaps
 * Alveolar lateral flap
 * Retroflex lateral flap
 * Palatal lateral flap

 * Ejective
 * Alveolar lateral ejective fricative

 * Clicks
 * Dental lateral clicks etc.
 * Alveolar lateral clicks etc.

Ejective consonants

 * Plosives
 * bilabial ejective
 * dental ejective
 * alveolar ejective
 * retroflex ejective
 * palatal ejective
 * velar ejective
 * uvular ejective
 * Affricates
 * alveolar ejective affricate
 * palato-alveolar ejective affricate
 * retroflex ejective affricate
 * alveolo-palatal ejective affricate
 * dental ejective affricate
 * palatal lateral ejective affricate
 * velar ejective affricate
 * uvular ejective affricate
 * alveolar lateral ejective affricate
 * velar lateral ejective affricate
 * Fricatives
 * bilabial ejective fricative
 * labiodental ejective fricative
 * dental ejective fricative
 * alveolar ejective fricative
 * palato-alveolar ejective fricative
 * alveolo-palatal ejective fricative
 * retroflex ejective fricative
 * palatal ejective fricative
 * velar ejective fricative
 * uvular ejective fricative
 * pharyngeal ejective fricative
 * alveolar lateral ejective fricative
 * velar lateral ejective fricative

Implosive consonants

 * voiced bilabial implosive
 * voiceless bilabial implosive
 * voiced dental implosive
 * voiced alveolar implosive
 * voiceless alveolar implosive
 * voiced retroflex implosive
 * voiced palatal implosive
 * voiceless palatal implosive
 * voiced velar implosive
 * voiceless velar implosive
 * voiced uvular implosive
 * voiceless uvular implosive

Labialized consonants

 * Plosives
 * voiceless labialized velar plosive
 * voiced labialized velar plosive
 * Voiceless labialized labial-velar plosive
 * voiceless labialized uvular plosive
 * voiced labialized uvular plosive
 * Fricatives
 * voiceless labialized velar fricative
 * voiced labialized velar fricative
 * voiceless labialized uvular fricative
 * voiced labialized uvular fricative
 * Approximants
 * labialized palatal approximant
 * (voiced) labialized velar approximant
 * voiceless labialized velar approximant
 * nasal labialized velar approximant

Palatalized consonants

 * voiced palatalized postalveolar fricative
 * voiceless palatalized postalveolar fricative
 * voiced palatalized postalveolar affricate
 * voiceless palatalized postalveolar affricate
 * voiceless palatalized velar plosive

Pharyngealized consonants

 * voiceless pharyngealized alveolar sibilant
 * voiced pharyngealized alveolar sibilant
 * voiceless pharyngealized alveolar plosive
 * voiced pharyngealized alveolar plosive
 * voiceless pharyngealized dental fricative
 * voiced pharyngealized dental fricative
 * voiceless pharyngealized alveolar lateral fricative
 * voiced pharyngealized alveolar lateral fricative
 * pharyngealized glottal stop
 * pharyngealized alveolar lateral approximant
 * pharyngealized alveolar nasal

Velarized consonants

 * Voiceless velarized alveolar sibilant
 * Voiced velarized dental fricative
 * Voiceless velarized alveolar plosive
 * Velarized alveolar flap
 * Voiceless velarized uvular plosive
 * Voiceless velarized uvular fricative
 * Voiced velarized uvular fricative
 * Voiceless velarized alveolar lateral fricative
 * Voiced velarized alveolar lateral fricative
 * Velarized alveolar lateral approximant

Reinforced airstream

 * Voiceless labioglottal plosive
 * Voiceless alveologlottal plosive
 * Voiceless veloglottal plosive

Blocked airstream

 * Voiced glottalized alveolar nasal
 * Voiced glottalized alveolar plosive
 * Voiced glottalized dental fricative

Restricted airstream

 * Creaky-voiced bilabial nasal

Whispery voice

 * Breathy-voiced bilabial nasal
 * Breathy-voiced bilabial plosive
 * Breathy-voiced alveolar plosive
 * Breathy-voiced velar plosive

Click consonants
The less common clicks, such as are found in Taa, are not included.

 * Simple clicks
 * bilabial clicks
 * either velar:
 * voiceless bilabial click
 * voiced bilabial click
 * bilabial nasal click
 * or uvular:
 * dental clicks (= ⟨ʇ⟩)
 * either velar:
 * voiceless dental click
 * voiced dental click
 * dental nasal click
 * or uvular:
 * (post)alveolar click (= ⟨ʗ⟩)
 * either velar:
 * voiceless alveolar click
 * voiced alveolar click
 * alveolar nasal click
 * or uvular:
 * alveolar lateral clicks (= ⟨ʖ⟩)
 * either velar:
 * voiceless alveolar lateral click
 * voiced alveolar lateral click
 * alveolar lateral nasal click
 * or uvular:
 * retroflex clicks (= ⟨‼⟩)
 * either velar:
 * voiceless retroflex click
 * voiced retroflex click
 * retroflex nasal click
 * or uvular:
 * palatal clicks (= ⟨ 𝼋 ⟩)
 * either velar:
 * voiceless palatal click
 * voiced palatal click
 * palatal nasal click
 * or uvular:
 * Glottalized clicks
 * velar (uvular clicks not shown):
 * glottalized bilabial nasal click
 * glottalized dental nasal click
 * glottalized alveolar nasal click
 * glottalized alveolar lateral nasal click
 * glottalized retroflex nasal click
 * glottalized palatal nasal click
 * Pulmonic-contour clicks
 * voiceless bilabial linguo-pulmonic stop
 * voiced bilabial linguo-pulmonic stop
 * voiceless dental linguo-pulmonic stop
 * voiced dental linguo-pulmonic stop
 * voiceless alveolar linguo-pulmonic stop
 * voiced alveolar linguo-pulmonic stop
 * voiceless alveolar lateral linguo-pulmonic stop
 * voiced alveolar lateral linguo-pulmonic stop
 * voiceless retroflex linguo-pulmonic stop
 * voiced retroflex linguo-pulmonic stop
 * voiceless palatal linguo-pulmonic stop
 * voiced palatal linguo-pulmonic stop
 * voiceless bilabial linguo-pulmonic affricate
 * voiced bilabial linguo-pulmonic affricate
 * voiceless dental linguo-pulmonic affricate
 * voiced dental linguo-pulmonic affricate
 * voiceless alveolar linguo-pulmonic affricate
 * voiced alveolar linguo-pulmonic affricate
 * voiceless alveolar lateral linguo-pulmonic affricate
 * voiced alveolar lateral linguo-pulmonic affricate
 * voiceless retroflex linguo-pulmonic affricate
 * voiced retroflex linguo-pulmonic affricate
 * voiceless palatal linguo-pulmonic affricate
 * voiced palatal linguo-pulmonic affricate
 * Ejective-contour clicks
 * bilabial linguo-glottalic stop
 * dental linguo-glottalic stop
 * alveolar linguo-glottalic stop
 * alveolar lateral linguo-glottalic stop
 * retroflex linguo-glottalic stop
 * palatal linguo-glottalic stop
 * bilabial linguo-glottalic affricate
 * dental linguo-glottalic affricate
 * alveolar linguo-glottalic affricate
 * alveolar lateral linguo-glottalic affricate
 * retroflex linguo-glottalic affricate
 * palatal linguo-glottalic affricate
 * bilabial linguo-glottalic affricate
 * dental linguo-glottalic affricate
 * alveolar linguo-glottalic affricate
 * alveolar lateral linguo-glottalic affricate
 * retroflex linguo-glottalic affricate
 * palatal linguo-glottalic affricate

Percussive consonants
These are not found in any language, but occur as phonetic detail or through speech defects.
 * bilabial percussive
 * bidental percussive
 * Sublaminal lower-alveolar percussive

title: List of consonants


text:
Isandlwana

Isandlwana (older spelling Isandhlwana, also sometimes seen as Isandula) is an isolated hill in the KwaZulu-Natal province of South Africa. It is located 105 mi north by northwest of Durban. The name is said to mean abomasum, the second stomach of the cow, because it reminded the Zulus of its shape.

History
This mountain has historical significance. On 22 January 1879, Isandlwana was the site of the Battle of Isandlwana, where approximately 22,000 Zulu warriors defeated a contingent of approximately 1,750 British and African troops in one of the first engagements of the Anglo-Zulu War. The Zulu force was primarily under the command of Ntshingwayo kaMahole Khoza. The battle was one of the worst defeats suffered by the British Army during the Victorian era.

Isandlwana hill rises 10 mi Northeast of Rorke's Drift, a ford on the Buffalo River, a tributary of the Tugela River.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Isandlwana


text:
Probation Service (England and Wales)

The Probation Service (formerly the National Probation Service) for England and Wales is a statutory criminal justice service, mainly responsible for the supervision of offenders in the community and the provision of reports to the criminal courts to assist them in their sentencing duties. It was established in its current form by the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act in April 2001, but has existed since 1907 as a set of area-based services interacting at arm's length with central government.

The current Probation Service was created on 26 June 2021 following the Ministry of Justice withdrawing the contracts of 21 privately-run Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs).

The service is part of His Majesty's Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) which transferred to the Ministry of Justice from the Home Office on 9 May 2007. It comprises 42 probation areas which are coterminous with police force area boundaries, served by 35 probation trusts. Trusts are funded by HMPPS and employ all staff except the chief officer; they are accountable to their boards (comprising up to fifteen members appointed by the Secretary of State) for day-to-day operations and financial management, and to HMPPS via a Regional Offender Manager with whom they have service level agreements, for performance against the targets for the offender management and interventions services for which they have been funded.

The work of probation trusts is scrutinised by HMPPS which reports independently to UK government ministers and by HM Inspectorate of Probation. There are concerns that staff shortages, failure in communication and privatisation may be weakening the probation service and putting the public at risk.

Northern Ireland has its own probation service, whilst in Scotland criminal justice social work services are managed within the social work departments of local authorities.

History
The Church of England Temperance Society and other voluntary societies appointed missionaries to the London police courts during the late nineteenth century. From this developed the system of releasing offenders on the condition that they kept in touch with the missionary and accepted guidance. In 1907 this supervision was given a statutory basis which allowed courts to appoint and employ probation officers.

The service, at the start of 2004, had some 18,000 staff. Statistics for the year 2002 state that it supervised just less than 193,000 offenders and provided 253,000 pre-sentence reports to courts in England and Wales, advising them on the background of and proposing appropriate sentences for convicted offenders. In addition, it has responsibility for ensuring that victims of violent and sexual crime resulting in prison sentences of over 12 months are consulted before offenders are released from custody.

The advent of NOMS in 2004 changed the pattern of correctional services delivery in England and Wales. The Offender Management Bill, introduced in Parliament late in 2006, was intended to enable probation areas to become trusts as part of wider government policy to open up the provision of correctional services to greater competition from the voluntary, community, and private sectors. This was one of the recommendations of the Carter Report (2003): others were to introduce a system of end-to-end offender management, with one named offender manager having responsibility for an offender throughout his or her sentence (be it in custody, the community, or both), and to rebalance sentencing in order to redress the drift towards less and less serious offences resulting in imprisonment or community sentences. Carter saw the need to improve public and sentencer confidence not only in community sentences but also in the fine as credible sanctions for appropriate offenders and offences.

The Bill completed its passage through Parliament in July 2007, and the first six probation trusts came into being on 1 April 2008 (Merseyside, South Wales, Humberside, Dyfed/Powys, West Mercia and Leicestershire & Rutland). Lancashire Probation Trust achieved Trust status on 1 April 2009.

Criticism
An article in The Guardian suggests privatisation of the probation service was done in haste, underfunded and is failing. Probation is being used less because judges and magistrates have lost confidence in the privatised probation system.

The probation service in London is understaffed and many probation officers are inexperienced. Probationers are seen too infrequently and some are overlooked. A proper risk assessment is not done in the majority of cases. Privatisation of probation service continues to produce "troubling" results. The Chief Inspector of Probation disclosed that probation supervision for one in four low-risk offenders in Gwent is no more than a phone call every six weeks. HM Inspectorate of Probation maintains half of cases have no proper assessment of risk of harm. Junior officers working for Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) sometimes manage over 200 cases each though at most 60 can be managed safely.

Not enough is done to supervise former prisoners after release from jail and discourage reoffending. Glenys Stacey, Chief Inspector of Probation said, "Although there are exceptions, the community rehabilitation companies... are not generally producing good quality work, not at all."

The Justice Select Committee said the 'Transforming Rehabilitation' programme had brought the probation system into a "mess", staff morale was at an "all-time low" and newly released prisoners got "wholly inadequate" support. The committee said that splitting the service between a national body and 21 rehabilitation companies lead to a two-tier system, reducing voluntary sector involvement. MPs said the companies' efforts to reduce re-offending is "disappointing" and some staff are not trained to deal with cases they are assigned. Perpetrators of domestic abuse are inadequately supervised by private companies, putting tens of thousands of victims and their families at risk. The staff of privatised offender supervision companies do not have the skill, experience or time to supervise perpetrators. HM Inspectorate of Probation found in 71% of cases, there was insufficient victim protection. Glenys Stacey stated private Community Rehabilitation Companies were "nowhere near effective enough." Katie Ghose of Women's Aid said, "This report shows that community rehabilitation companies are failing victims, with a significant lack of understanding about domestic abuse, especially coercive control. Probation officers are routinely underestimating the ongoing danger posed to the victim and not reassessing the level of risk involved when circumstances change. The findings of this report show that CRCs are currently not fit for purpose when it comes to domestic abuse cases and we call on the government to urgently change this to protect survivors". Too few perpetrators of domestic abuse are referred to courses to help them manage relationships better and those who do too frequently do not complete the course.

Serious offences committed by people supervised by the probation service have increased markedly. Richard Burgon said, "All too often probation appears stretched to breaking point and struggling to fulfil its fundamental role of keeping the public safe. The Conservatives' irresponsible decision to break up and privatise much of probation has put huge pressures on the system. The government urgently needs to explain how it plans to tackle this extremely worrying rise in serious offences committed by offenders".

Suicides by people the Probation Service manages have risen by 19% from 283 in 2017–18 to 337 in 2018–19, and amounted to 31% of all deaths of offenders in the community. Deborah Coles of INQUEST said, "These figures are deeply disturbing and require urgent scrutiny due to the current lack of independent investigation. What is known is that people are being released into failing support systems, poverty and an absence of services for mental health and addictions. This is state abandonment. This is the violence of austerity."

title: Probation Service (England and Wales)


text:
Battle of Isandlwana

The Battle of Isandlwana (alternative spelling: Isandhlwana) on 22 January 1879 was the first major encounter in the Anglo-Zulu War between the British Empire and the Zulu Kingdom. Eleven days after the British invaded Zululand in Southern Africa, a Zulu force of some 20,000 warriors attacked a portion of the British main column consisting of approximately 1,800 British, colonial and native troops with approximately 350 civilians. The Zulus were equipped mainly with the traditional assegai iron spears and cow-hide shields, but also had a number of muskets and antiquated rifles.

The British and colonial troops were armed with the modern Martini–Henry breechloading rifle and two 7-pounder mountain guns deployed as field guns, as well as a Hale rocket battery. The Zulus had a vast disadvantage in weapons technology, but they greatly outnumbered the British and ultimately overwhelmed them, killing over 1,300 troops, including all those out on the forward firing line. The Zulu army suffered anywhere from 1,000 to 3,000 killed.

The battle was a decisive victory for the Zulus and caused the defeat of the first British invasion of Zululand. The British Army had suffered its worst defeat against an indigenous foe equipped with vastly inferior military technology. Isandlwana resulted in the British taking a much more aggressive approach in the Anglo–Zulu War, leading to a heavily reinforced second invasion, and the destruction of King Cetshwayo's hopes of a negotiated peace.

Background
Following the scheme by which Lord Carnarvon had brought about the Confederation of Canada through the 1867 British North America Act, it was thought that a similar plan might succeed in South Africa and in 1877 Sir Henry Bartle Frere was appointed as High Commissioner for Southern Africa to instigate the scheme. Some of the obstacles to such a plan were the presence of the independent states of the South African Republic and the Kingdom of Zululand, both of which the British Empire would attempt to overcome by force of arms.

Bartle Frere, on his own initiative, without the approval of the British government and with the intent of instigating a war with the Zulu, had presented an ultimatum to the Zulu king Cetshwayo on 11 December 1878 with which the Zulu king could not possibly comply. When the ultimatum expired a month later, Bartle Frere ordered Lord Chelmsford to proceed with an invasion of Zululand, for which plans had already been made.

Prelude

Lord Chelmsford, the Commander-in-Chief of British forces during the war, initially planned a five-pronged invasion of Zululand consisting of over 16,500 troops in five columns and designed to encircle the Zulu army and force it to fight as he was concerned that the Zulus would avoid battle, slip around the British and over the Tugela, and strike at Natal. Lord Chelmsford settled on three invading columns with the main centre column, now consisting of some 7,800 men, under his direct command. The centre column comprised No. 3 Column, commanded by Colonel Richard Thomas Glyn, and Colonel Anthony Durnford's No. 2 Column. Chelmsford moved his troops from Pietermaritzburg to a forward camp at Helpmekaar, past Greytown. On 9 January 1879 they moved to Rorke's Drift, and early on 11 January commenced crossing the Buffalo River into Zululand.

The backbone of the British force under Lord Chelmsford consisted of twelve regular infantry companies: six each of the 1st and 2nd Battalions, the 24th Regiment of Foot (which was subsequently renamed the South Wales Borderers). These were regarded as hardened and reliable troops. In addition, there were approximately 2,500 local African auxiliaries of the Natal Native Contingent, many of whom were exiled or refugee Zulu. They were led by European officers, but were considered generally of poor quality by the British as they were prohibited from using their traditional fighting technique and inadequately trained in the European method as well as being indifferently armed. Also, there were some irregular colonial cavalry units, and a detachment of artillery consisting of six field guns and several Congreve rockets. Adding on wagon drivers, camp followers and servants, there were around 4,700 men in the No. 3 Column, and around 3,100 men in the No. 2 Column that composed the main centre column. Colonel Anthony Durnford took charge of No. 2 Column with orders to stay on the defensive near the Middle Drift of the Tugela River. Because of the urgency required to accomplish their scheme, Bartle Frere and Chelmsford began the invasion during the rainy season. This had the consequence of slowing the British advance to a crawl.

The Zulu army, while a product of a warrior culture, was essentially a militia force which could be called out in time of national danger. It had a very limited logistical capacity and could only stay in the field a few weeks before the troops would be obliged to return to their civilian duties. Zulu warriors were armed primarily with assegai thrusting spears, known in Zulu as iklwa, knobkierrie clubs, some throwing spears and shields made of cowhide. The Zulu warrior, his regiment and the army drilled in the personal and tactical use and coordination of this weapons system. Some Zulus also had old muskets and antiquated rifles stockpiled, a relatively few of which were carried by Zulu impi. However, their marksmanship was very poor, quality and supply of powder and shot dreadful, maintenance non-existent and attitude towards firearms summed up in the observation that: "The generality of Zulu warriors, however, would not have firearms – the arms of a coward, as they said, for they enable the poltroon to kill the brave without awaiting his attack." The British had timed the invasion to coincide with the harvest, intending to catch the Zulu warrior-farmers dispersed. Fortunately for Cetshwayo, the Zulu army had already begun to assemble at Ulundi, as it did every year for the First Fruits ceremony when all warriors were duty-bound to report to their regimental barracks near Ulundi.

Cetshwayo sent the 24,000 strong main Zulu impi from near present-day Ulundi, on 17 January, across the White Umfolozi River with the following command to his warriors: "March slowly, attack at dawn and eat up the red soldiers."

On 18 January, some 4,000 warriors, under the leadership of Mavumengwana kaNdlela Ntuli, were detached from the main body to meet with Dabulamanzi kaMpande and attack Charles Pearson's No. 1 Column near Eshowe. The remaining 20,000 Zulus camped at the isiPhezi ikhanda. The next day, the main force arrived and camped near Babanango Mountain, then moved the next day to a camp near Siphezi Mountain. Finally, on 21 January they moved into the Ngwebeni Valley, where they remained concealed, planning to attack the British on 23 January, but they were discovered by a scouting party on 22 January. Under the command of Ntshigwayo kaMahole the Zulu army had reached its position in easy stages. It marched in two columns within sight of each other, but a few miles apart to prevent a surprise attack. They were preceded by a screening force of mounted scouts supported by parties of warriors 200–400 strong tasked with preventing the main columns from being sighted. The speed of the Zulu advance compared to the British was marked. The Zulu impi had advanced over 80 km in five days, while Chelmsford had only advanced slightly over 16 km in 10 days.

The British under Chelmsford pitched camp at Isandlwana on 20 January, but did not follow standing orders to entrench. No laager (circling of the wagons) was formed. Chelmsford did not see the need for one, stating, "It would take a week to make." But the chief reason for the failure to take defensive precautions appears to have been that the British command severely underestimated the Zulus' capabilities. The experience of numerous colonial wars fought in Africa was that the massed firepower of relatively small bodies of professional European troops, armed with modern firearms and artillery and supplemented by local allies and levies, would march out to meet the natives whose poorly equipped armies would put up a fight but in the end would succumb. Chelmsford believed that a force of over 4,000, including 2,000 British infantry armed with Martini–Henry rifles, as well as artillery, had more than sufficient firepower to overwhelm any attack by Zulus armed only with spears, cowhide shields and a few firearms such as Brown Bess muskets. Indeed, with a British force of this size, it was the logistical arrangements which occupied Chelmsford's thoughts. Rather than any fear that the camp might be attacked, his main concern was managing the huge number of wagons and oxen required to support his forward advance.

Once he had established the camp at Isandlwana, Chelmsford sent out two battalions of the Natal Native Contingent to scout ahead. They skirmished with elements of a Zulu force which he believed to be the vanguard of the main enemy army. Such was his confidence in British military training and firepower that he divided his force, departing the camp at dawn on January 22 with approximately 2,800 soldiers—including half of the British infantry contingent, together with around 600 auxiliaries—to find the main Zulu force with the intention of bringing them to battle so as to achieve a decisive victory, and leaving the remaining 1,300 men of the No. 3 Column to guard the camp. It never occurred to him that the Zulus he saw were diverting him from their main force.

Chelmsford left behind approximately 600 British red coat line infantry – five companies, around 90 fighting men in each, of the 1st Battalion and one stronger company of around 150 men from the 2nd Battalion of the 24th Regiment of Foot to guard the camp, under the command of Brevet Lieutenant Colonel Henry Pulleine. Pulleine's orders were to defend the camp and wait for further instructions to support the general as and when called upon. Pulleine also had around 700 men composed of the Natal Native Contingent, local mounted irregulars, and other units. He also had two artillery pieces, with around 70 men of the Royal Artillery. In total, over 1,300 men and two artillery guns of the No. 3 Column were left to defend the camp excluding civilian auxiliaries.

Pulleine, left in command of a rear position, was an administrator with no experience of front-line command on a campaign. Nevertheless, he commanded a strong force, particularly the six veteran regular infantry companies, which were experienced in colonial warfare. The mounted vedettes, cavalry scouts, patrolling some 11 km from camp reported at 7:00 am that groups of Zulus, numbering around 4,000 men, could be seen. Pulleine received further reports during the early morning, each of which noted movements, both large and small, of Zulus. There was speculation among the officers whether these troops were intending to march against Chelmsford's rear or towards the camp itself.

Around 10:30 am, Colonel Anthony Durnford, whose left arm was paralyzed from wounds sustained at Bushman's River Pass during the pursuit of Chief Langalibalele, arrived from Rorke's Drift with 500 men of the Natal Native Contingent and a rocket battery of the No. 2 Column to reinforce the camp at Isandlwana. This brought the issue of command to the fore because Durnford was senior and by tradition should have assumed command. However, he did not over-rule Pulleine's dispositions and after lunch he quickly decided to take the initiative and move forward to engage a Zulu force which Pulleine and Durnford judged to be moving against Chelmsford's rear. Durnford asked for a company of the 24th, but Pulleine was reluctant to agree since his orders had been specifically to defend the camp.

Chelmsford had underestimated the disciplined, well-led, well-motivated and confident Zulus. The failure to secure an effective defensive position, the poor intelligence on the location of the main Zulu army, Chelmsford's decision to split his force in half, and the Zulus' tactical exploitation of the terrain and the weaknesses in the British formation, all combined to prove catastrophic for the troops at Isandlwana. In contrast, the Zulus responded to the unexpected discovery of their camp with an immediate and spontaneous advance. Even though the indunas lost control over the advance, the warriors' training allowed the Zulu troops to form their standard attack formation on the run, with their battle line deployed in reverse of its intended order.

Battle
The Zulu Army was commanded by ESA (Princes) Ntshingwayo kaMahole Khoza and Mavumengwana kaNdlela Ntuli. The inDuna Dabulamanzi kaMpande, half brother of Cetshwayo, commanded the Undi Corps after Zibhebhu kaMaphitha, the regular inkhosi, or commander, was wounded.

While Chelmsford was in the field seeking them, the entire Zulu army had outmanoeuvred him, moving behind his force with the intention of attacking the British Army on 23 January. Pulleine had received reports of large forces of Zulus throughout the morning of 22 January from 8:00am on. Vedettes had observed Zulus on the hills to the left front, and Lt. Chard, while he was at the camp, observed a large force of several thousand Zulu moving to the British left around the hill of Isandlwana. Pulleine sent word to Chelmsford, which was received by the general between 9:00 am and 10:00 am. The main Zulu force was discovered at around 11:00 am by men of Lt. Charles Raw's troop of scouts, who chased a number of Zulus into a valley, only then seeing most of the 20,000 men of the main enemy force sitting in total quiet. This valley has generally been thought to be the Ngwebeni some 7 mi from the British camp but may have been closer in the area of the spurs of Nqutu hill. Having been discovered, the Zulu force leapt to the offensive. Raw's men began a fighting retreat back to the camp, and a messenger was sent to warn Pulleine. The Zulu adopted their traditional pitched battle formation, known as the 'horns and chest of the buffalo', with the aim of encircling the British position. From Pulleine's vantage point in the camp, at first only the right horn and then the chest (centre) of the attack seemed to be developing. Pulleine sent out first one, then all six companies of the 24th Foot into an extended firing line, with the aim of meeting the Zulu attack head-on and checking it with firepower. Durnford's men, upon meeting elements of the Zulu centre, had retreated to a donga, a dried-out watercourse, on the British right flank where they formed a defensive line. The rocket battery under Durnford's command, which was not mounted and dropped behind the rest of the force, was isolated and overrun very early in the engagement. The two battalions of native troops were in Durnford's line; while all their British officers and NCOs carried rifles, only one in 10 of the native soldiers under their command had a firearm, and those few weapons were muzzle-loading muskets with limited ammunition. Many of the native troops began to leave the battlefield at this point.

Pulleine only made one change to the original disposition after about 20 minutes of firing, bringing in the companies in the firing line slightly closer to the camp. For an hour or so until after noon, the disciplined British volleys pinned down the Zulu centre, inflicting many casualties and causing the advance to stall. Indeed, morale remained high within the British line. The Martini–Henry rifle was a powerful weapon and the men were experienced. Additionally, the shell fire of the Royal Artillery forced some Zulu regiments to take cover behind the reverse slope of a hill. Nevertheless, the left horn of the Zulu advance was moving to outflank and envelop the British right.

Durnford's men, who had been fighting the longest, began to withdraw and their rate of fire diminished. Durnford's withdrawal exposed the right flank of the British regulars, which, with the general threat of the Zulu encirclement, caused Pulleine to order a withdrawal back to the camp. The regulars' retreat was performed with order and discipline and the men of the 24th conducted a fighting withdrawal into the camp. Durnford's retreat, however, exposed the flank of G Company, 2nd/24th, which was overrun relatively quickly.

Solar eclipse
An officer in advance of Chelmsford's force gave this eyewitness account of the final stage of the battle at about 3:00 pm:

"In a few seconds we distinctly saw the guns fired again, one after the other, sharp. This was done several times – a pause, and then a flash – flash! The sun was shining on the camp at the time, and then the camp looked dark, just as if a shadow was passing over it. The guns did not fire after that, and in a few minutes all the tents had disappeared." Nearly the same moment is described in a Zulu warrior's account. "The sun turned black in the middle of the battle; we could still see it over us, or should have thought we had been fighting till evening. Then we got into the camp, and there was a great deal of smoke and firing. Afterwards the sun came out bright again." The local time of the solar eclipse on that day is calculated as 2:30 pm.

Zulu victory
The presence of large numbers of bodies grouped together suggests the resistance was more protracted than originally thought, and a number of desperate last stands were made. Evidence shows that many of the bodies, today marked by cairns, were found in several large groups around the camp – including one stand of around 150 men. A Zulu account describes a group of the 24th forming a square on the neck of Isandlwana. Colonial cavalry, the NMP and the carabiniers, who could easily have fled as they had horses, died around Durnford in his last stand, while nearby their horses were found dead on their picket rope. What is clear is that the slaughter was complete in the area around the camp and back to Natal along the Fugitive's Drift. The fighting had been hand-to-hand combat and no quarter was given to the British regulars. The Zulus had been commanded to ignore the civilians in black coats and this meant that some officers, whose patrol dress was dark blue and black at the time, were spared and escaped.

Once their ammunition had been expended, surviving British soldiers had no choice but to fight on with bayonet and rifle butt. A Zulu account relates the single-handed fight by the guard of Chelmsford's tent, a big Irishman of the 24th who kept the Zulus back with his bayonet until he was speared and the general's Union flag captured. Both the colours of the 2nd 24th were lost, while the Queen's colour of the 1st 24th was carried off the field by Lieutenant Melvill on horseback but lost when he crossed the river, despite Lieutenant Coghill having come to his aid. Both Melvill and Coghill were killed after crossing the river, and received posthumous Victoria Crosses in 1907 as the legend of their gallantry grew, and, after twenty-seven years of steady campaigning by the late Mrs. Melvill (who had died in 1906), on the strength of Queen Victoria being quoted as saying that 'if they had survived they would have been awarded the Victoria Cross'. Garnet Wolseley, who replaced Chelmsford, felt otherwise at the time and stated, "I don't like the idea of officers escaping on horseback when their men on foot are being killed."

Of the 1,800-plus force of British troops and African auxiliaries, over 1,300 were killed, most of them Europeans, including field commanders Pulleine and Durnford. Only five Imperial officers survived (including Lieutenants Henry Curling and Horace Smith-Dorrien), and the 52 officers lost was the most lost by any British battalion up to that time. Amongst those killed was Surgeon Major Peter Shepherd, a first-aid pioneer. The Natal Native Contingent lost some 400 men, and there were 240 lost from the group of 249 amaChunu African auxiliaries. Perhaps the last to die was Gabangaye, the portly chief of the amaChunu Natal Native Contingent, who was given over to be killed by the udibi (porter or carrier) boys. The captured Natal Native Contingent soldiers were regarded as traitors by the Zulu and executed.

There was no casualty count of the Zulu losses by the British such as made in many of the other battles since they abandoned the field. Nor was there any count by the Zulu. Modern historians have rejected and reduced the older unfounded estimates. Historians Lock and Quantrill estimate the Zulu casualties as "... perhaps between 1,500 and 2,000 dead. Historian Ian Knight stated: "Zulu casualties were almost as heavy. Although it is impossible to say with certainty, at least 1,000 were killed outright in the assault..."

Some 1,000 Martini-Henry rifles, the two field artillery guns, 400,000 rounds of ammunition, three colours, most of the 2,000 draft animals and 130 wagons, provisions such as tinned food, biscuits, beer, overcoats, tents and other supplies, were taken by the Zulu or left abandoned on the field. Of the survivors, most were from the auxiliaries. The two field artillery guns which were taken to Ulundi as trophies, were later found abandoned by a British patrol after the Battle of Ulundi.

Order of battle
The following order of battle was arrayed on the day.

No. 2 Column
Commanding Officer: Brevet Colonel Anthony Durnford, RE
 * Staff – 2 officers, 1 NCO
 * 11th/7th Brigade, Royal Artillery – 1 officer, 9 NCOs and men with a rocket battery (3 rocket troughs)
 * Natal Native Horse (5 troops) – 5 officers, c. 259 NCOs and men
 * 1st/1st Natal Native Contingent (2 companies) – 6 officers, c. 240 NCOs and men
 * 2nd/1st Natal Native Contingent – 1 NCO

No. 3 Column
Commanding Officer: Brevet Lieutenant-Colonel Henry Pulleine, 1st/24th Foot
 * Staff – 6 officers, 14 NCOs and men
 * N/5th Brigade, Royal Field Artillery – 2 officers, 70 NCOs and men with two 7-pounder (3-inch) mountain guns deployed as field guns
 * 5th Field Company, Royal Engineers – 3 men
 * 1st/24th Regiment of Foot (2nd Warwickshire) (5 companies) – 14 officers, 450 NCOs and men
 * 2nd/24th Regiment of Foot (2nd Warwickshire) (1 company) – 5 officers, 150 NCOs and men
 * 90th Regiment of Foot (Perthshire Light Infantry) – 10 men
 * Army Service Corps – 3 men
 * Army Hospital Corps – 1 officer, 10 NCOs and men
 * Imperial Mounted Infantry (1 squadron) – 28 NCOs and men
 * Natal Mounted Police – 34 NCOs and men
 * Natal Carbineers – 2 officers, 26 NCOs and men
 * Newcastle Mounted Rifles – 2 officers, 15 NCOs and men
 * Buffalo Border Guards – 1 officer, 7 NCOs and men
 * Natal Native Pioneer Corps – 1 officer, 10 men
 * 1st/3rd Natal Native Contingent (2 companies) – 11 officers, c. 300 NCOs and men
 * 2nd/3rd Natal Native Contingent (2 companies) – 9 officers, c. 300 NCOs and men

Right horn
uDududu, uNokenke regiments, part uNodwengu corps – 3,000 to 4,000 men

Chest
umCijo, uKhandampevu, regiments; part uNodwengu corps – 7,000 to 9,000 men

Left horn
inGobamakhosi, uMbonambi, uVe regiments – 5,000 to 6,000 men

Loins (Reserves)
Undi corps, uDloko, iNdluyengwe, Indlondlo and Uthulwana regiments – 4,000 to 5,000 men

Analysis
The Zulus avoided the dispersal of their main fighting force and concealed the advance and location of this force until they were within a few hours' striking distance of the British. When the location of the main Zulu Impi was discovered by British scouts, the Zulus immediately advanced and attacked, achieving tactical surprise. The British, although they now had some warning of a Zulu advance, were unable to concentrate their central column. It also left little time and gave scant information for Pulleine to organise the defence. The Zulus had outmanoeuvred Chelmsford and their victory at Isandlwana was complete and forced the main British force to retreat out of Zululand until a far larger British Army could be shipped to South Africa for a second invasion.

Recent historians, notably Lock and Quantrill in Zulu Victory, argue that from the Zulu perspective the theatre of operations included the diversions around Magogo Hills and Mangeni Falls and that these diversions, which drew more than half of Chelmsford's forces away from Isandlwana, were deliberate. Also, the main Zulu force was not unexpectedly discovered in their encampment but was fully deployed and ready to advance on the British camp. These historians' view of the expanded battlefield considers Chelmsford to have been the overall commander of the British forces and that responsibility for the defeat lies firmly with him.

Debate persists as to how and why the British lost the battle. Many arguments focus on possible local tactical occurrences, as opposed to the strategic lapses and failings in grand tactics on the part of high command under Bartle Frere and Chelmsford. Still, the latter comes under scrutiny for mistakes that may have led directly to the British defeat. The initial view, reported by Horace Smith-Dorrien, was that the British had difficulty unpacking their ammunition boxes fast enough."The box lids were screwed down, the screws were rusty and difficult to remove, there were too few screwdrivers, standing orders insisted that until a box was empty, no other boxes were to be opened, and the quartermasters were reluctant to distribute ammunition to units other than their own. Well-equipped and well-trained British soldiers could fire 10–12 rounds a minute. The lack of ammunition caused a lull in the defence and, in subsequent engagements with the Zulus, ammunition boxes were unscrewed in advance for rapid distribution. Numerous first hand accounts, including Smith-Dorrien's earliest in a letter to his father, indicate ammunition was available and being supplied.

Donald Morris in The Washing of the Spears argues that the men, fighting too far from the camp, ran out of ammunition, starting first with Durnford's men who were holding the right flank and who had been in action longer, which precipitated a slowdown in the rate of fire against the Zulus. This argument suggests that the ammunition was too far from the firing line and that the seventy rounds each man took to the firing line were not sufficient. A different view, supported with evidence from the battlefield, such as Ian Knight and Lt. Colonel Snook's works, (the latter having written How Can Man Die Better?), suggests that, although Durnford's men probably did run out of ammunition, the majority of men in the firing line did not. The discovery of the British line so far out from the camp has led Ian Knight to conclude that the British were defending too large a perimeter.

The official interrogation by Horse Guards under the direction of the Duke of Cambridge, the Field Marshal Commanding in Chief, in August 1879, concluded that the primary cause of the defeat was the "under estimate formed of the offensive fighting power of the Zulu army", additionally the investigation questions Chelmsford as to why the camp was not laagered and why there was a failure to reconnoitre and discover the nearby Zulu army. Colenso calls Chelmsford's neglecting to follow his own "Regulations for Field Forces in South Africa", which required that a defensible camp be established at every halt, fatal.

Numerous messages, some quite early in the day, had been sent to Chelmsford informing him, initially, of the presence of the Zulu near the camp and, subsequently, of the attack on the camp, with increasingly urgent pleas for help. The most egregious failure to respond occurred at around 1:30 pm when a message from Hamilton-Browne stating, "For God's sake come back, the camp is surrounded, and things I fear are going badly", was received by Lieutenant-Colonel Harness of the Royal Artillery and Major Black of the 2/24. They were leading the other four RA guns as well as two companies of the 2/24 and on their own initiative immediately marched back towards Isandlwana and had gone some two miles when they were ordered to return to Mangeni Falls by an aide sent by Chelmsford.

At long last but too late, finally Chelmsford became convinced of the seriousness of the situation on his left flank and rear when at 3:30pm he joined Hamilton-Browne's NNC and realised the camp had been taken. A surviving officer, Rupert Lonsdale, rode up and described the camp's fall to which Chelmsford replied, "But I left over 1,000 men to guard the camp". He quickly gathered his scattered forces and marched the column back to Isandlwana but arrived at sundown long after the battle ended and the Zulu army had marched off. The British camped on the field that night but left before sunrise without any examination of the ground as Chelmsford felt that it would demoralize his troops. The column then proceeded to Rorke's Drift.

Though Isandlwana was a disaster for the British, the Zulu victory did not end the war. With the defeat of Chelmsford's central column, the invasion of Zululand collapsed and would have to be restaged. Not only were there heavy manpower casualties to the Main Column, but most of the supplies, ammunition and draught animals were lost. As King Cetshwayo feared, the embarrassment of the defeat would force the policy makers in London, who to this point had not supported the war, to rally to the support of the pro-war contingent in the Natal government and commit whatever resources were needed to defeat the Zulus. Despite local numerical superiority, the Zulus did not have the manpower, technological resources, or logistical capacity to match the British in another, more extended, campaign.

The Zulus may have missed an opportunity to exploit their victory and possibly win the war that day on their own territory. The reconnaissance force under Chelmsford was more vulnerable to being defeated by an attack than the camp. It was strung out and somewhat scattered, it had marched with limited rations and ammunition it could not now replace, and it was panicky and demoralized by the defeat at Isandlwana.

Near the end of the battle, about 4,000 Zulu warriors of the unengaged reserve Undi impi, after cutting off the retreat of the survivors to the Buffalo River southwest of Isandlwana, crossed the river and attacked the fortified mission station at Rorke's Drift. The station was defended by only 140 British soldiers, who nonetheless inflicted considerable casualties and repelled the attack. Elsewhere, the left and right flanks of the invading forces were now isolated and without support. The No. 1 column under the command of Charles Pearson was besieged for two months by a Zulu force led by kaMpande and Mavumengwana, at Eshowe, while the No. 4 column under Evelyn Wood halted its advance and spent most of the next two months skirmishing in the northwest around Tinta's Kraal.

Following Isandlwana and Rorke's Drift, the British and Colonials were in complete panic over the possibility of a counter invasion of Natal by the Zulus. All the towns of Natal 'laagered' up and fortified and provisions and stores were laid in. Bartle Frere stoked the fear of invasion despite the fact that, aside from Rorke's Drift, the Zulus made no attempt to cross the border. Immediately following the battle, Zulu Prince Ndanbuko urged them to advance and take the war into the colony but they were restrained by a commander, kaNthati, reminding them of Cetshwayo's prohibiting the crossing of the border. Unbeknownst to the inhabitants of Natal, Cetshwayo, still hoping to avoid outright war, had prohibited any crossing of the border in retaliation and was incensed over the violation of the border by the attack on Rorke's Drift.

The British government's reasoning for a new invasion was threefold. The first was the loss of national pride as a result of the defeat, and the desire to avenge it by winning the war. The second concerned the domestic political implications at the next parliamentary elections held in Britain. However, despite the second invasion attempt, the British Prime Minister Disraeli and his Conservative Party lost the 1880 general election. The final reason concerned the Empire; unless the British were seen to win a clear-cut victory against the Zulus, it would send a signal to the outside world that the British Empire was vulnerable to the point where the destruction of a British field army could alter the policy of Britain's government. The British government was concerned that the Zulu victory could inspire imperial unrest, particularly among the Boers, and as such sought to quash any such possibilities by swiftly defeating the Zulu Kingdom.

After Isandlwana, the British field army in South Africa was heavily reinforced and again invaded Zululand. Sir Garnet Wolseley was sent to take command and relieve Chelmsford, as well as Bartle Frere. Chelmsford, however, avoided handing over command to Wolseley and managed to defeat the Zulus in a number of engagements, the last of which was the Battle of Ulundi, followed by capture of King Cetshwayo. With the fall of the Disraeli government, Bartle Frere was recalled in August 1880 and the policy of Confederation was abandoned. The British government encouraged the subkings of the Zulus to rule their subkingdoms without acknowledging a central Zulu power. By the time King Cetshwayo was allowed to return home, the Zulu Kingdom had ceased to exist as an independent entity.

The measure of respect that the British gained for their opponents as a result of Isandlwana can be seen in that in none of the other engagements of the Zulu War did the British attempt to fight again in their typical linear formation, known famously as the Thin Red Line, in an open-field battle with the main Zulu impi. In the battles that followed, the British, when facing the Zulu, entrenched themselves or formed very close-order formations, such as the square.

Recriminations
Chelmsford realised that he would need to account to the government and to history for the disaster. He quickly fixed blame on Durnford, claiming Durnford disobeyed his orders to fix a proper defensive camp, although there is no evidence such an order was issued and there would hardly have been time for Durnford to entrench. Further, it had been Chelmsford's decision not to entrench the camp, as it was meant to be temporary.

Wolseley wrote on 30 September 1879 when, later in the war, the Prince Imperial of France was killed by the Zulu: "I think this is very unfair, and is merely a repetition of what was done regarding the Isandlwana disaster where the blame was thrown upon Durnford, the real object in both instances being apparently to screen Chelmsford."

Later, Chelmsford launched a new and successful campaign in Zululand, routing the Zulu army, capturing the Royal Kraal of Ulundi, and thus partially retrieving his reputation. He never held another field command.

Following the war's conclusion and his return to Great Britain, Chelmsford sought an audience with Gladstone, who had become Prime Minister in April 1880, but his request was refused, a very public slight and a clear sign of official disapproval. Chelmsford, however, obtained an audience with Queen Victoria to personally explain the events. She asked Gladstone to meet Chelmsford; this meeting was brief, and during it Gladstone voiced his displeasure.

Some historians hold that the victory at Ulundi was a token one, driven by the need for Lord Chelmsford to salvage some success after Isandhlwana, and the British withdrew quickly followed by Chelmsford's resignation as commander of the British forces. The end of the war saw the Zulu retaining their lands.
 * "Seen in terms of the political ends for which the war was fought, the battle of Ulundi, like the campaign in Zululand itself, was a failure. The effectiveness of Zulu resistance had destroyed the policy which brought about the war, and discredited the men responsible. The only point on which all whites agreed was that some form of face-saving military victory was required in Zululand. Ulundi was that token military victory. It did not end the war in Zululand—peace was attained by Sir Garnet Wolseley who, as Chelmsford scurried out of the country, entered Zululand proclaiming that if the Zulu returned to their homes they would be left in full possession of their land and their property. By July 1879 both sides desired an end to hostilities. For reasons of economy, because of military requirements elsewhere and the political capital being made out of the war, the British government wanted an end to this embarrassing demonstration of military ineptitude. Any chance of an easy military conquest of the entire territory seemed slight: the army was tied to its inadequate supply lines, and conquest would have necessitated a change in strategy and tactics which presupposed a change in military leadership. It was easier and cheaper to elevate Ulundi to the rank of a crushing military victory and abandon plans to subjugate the Zulu people than to create the force of mobile fighting units which would have been required to conquer the Zulu completely."

Film

 * Zulu Dawn, a 1979 American adventure war film about the Battle of Isandlwana.

title: Battle of Isandlwana


text:
Ernst Abbe

Ernst Karl Abbe (23 January 1840 – 14 January 1905)  was a German businessman, optical engineer, physicist, and social reformer. Together with Otto Schott and Carl Zeiss, he developed numerous optical instruments. He was also a co-owner of Carl Zeiss AG, a German manufacturer of scientific microscopes, astronomical telescopes, planetariums, and other advanced optical systems.

Personal life
Abbe was born 23 January 1840 in Eisenach, Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach, to Georg Adam Abbe and Elisabeth Christina Barchfeldt. He came from a humble home – his father was a foreman in a spinnery. Supported by his father's employer, Abbe was able to attend secondary school and to obtain the general qualification for university entrance with fairly good grades, at the Eisenach Gymnasium, which he graduated from in 1857. By the time he left school, his scientific talent and his strong will had already become obvious. Thus, in spite of the family's strained financial situation, his father decided to support Abbe's studies at the Universities of Jena (1857–1859) and Göttingen (1859–1861). During his time as a student, Abbe gave private lessons to improve his income. His father's employer continued to fund him. Abbe was awarded his PhD in Göttingen on 23 March 1861. While at school, he was influenced by Bernhard Riemann and Wilhelm Eduard Weber, who also happened to be one of the Göttingen Seven. This was followed by two short assignments at the Göttingen observatory and at Physikalischer Verein in Frankfurt (an association of citizens interested in physics and chemistry that was founded by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe in 1824 and still exists today). On 8 August 1863 he qualified as a university lecturer at the University of Jena. In 1870, he accepted a contract as an associate professor of experimental physics, mechanics and mathematics in Jena. In 1871, he married Else Snell, daughter of the mathematician and physicist Karl Snell, one of Abbe's teachers, with whom he had two daughters. He attained full professor status by 1879. He became director of the Jena astronomical and meteorological observatory in 1878. In 1889, he became a member of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences and Humanities. He also was a member of the Saxon Academy of Sciences. He was relieved of his teaching duties at the University of Jena in 1891. Abbe died 14 January 1905 in Jena. He was an atheist.

Life work
In 1866, he became a research director at the Zeiss Optical Works, and in 1868 he invented the apochromatic lens, a microscope lens which eliminates both the primary and secondary color distortion. By 1870, Abbe invented the Abbe condenser, used for microscope illumination. In 1871, he designed the first refractometer, which he described in a booklet published in 1874. He developed the laws of image of non-luminous objects by 1872. Zeiss Optical Works began selling his improved microscopes in 1872, by 1877 they were selling microscopes with homogenous immersion objective, and in 1886 his apochromatic objective microscopes were being sold. He created the Abbe number, a measure of any transparent material's variation of refractive index with wavelength and Abbe's criterion, which tests the hypothesis, that a systematic trend exists in a set of observations (in terms of resolving power this criterion stipulates that an angular separation cannot be less than the ratio of the wavelength to the aperture diameter, see angular resolution). Already a professor in Jena, he was hired by Carl Zeiss to improve the manufacturing process of optical instruments, which back then was largely based on trial and error.

Abbe was the first to define the term numerical aperture, as the sine of the half angle multiplied by the refractive index of the medium filling the space between the cover glass and front lens.

Abbe is credited by many for discovering the resolution limit of the microscope, and the formula (published in 1873)

although in a publication in 1874, Helmholtz states this formula was first derived by Joseph Louis Lagrange, who had died 61 years prior. Helmholtz was so impressed as to offer a professorship at the University of Berlin, which he refused due to his ties to Zeiss. Abbe was in the camp of the wide aperturists, arguing that microscopic resolution is ultimately limited by the aperture of the optics, but also argued that depending on application there are other parameters that should be weighted over the aperture in the design of objectives. In Abbe's 1874 paper, titled "A Contribution to the Theory of the Microscope and the nature of Microscopic Vision", Abbe states that the resolution of a microscope is inversely dependent on its aperture, but without proposing a formula for the resolution limit of a microscope.

In 1876, Abbe was offered a partnership by Zeiss and began to share in the considerable profits. Although the first theoretical derivations of $$ were published by others, it is fair to say that Abbe was the first to reach this conclusion experimentally. In 1878, he built the first homogenous immersion system for the microscope. The objectives that the Abbe Zeiss collaboration were producing were of ideal ray geometry, allowing Abbe to find that the aperture sets the upper limit of microscopic resolution, not the curvature and placement of the lenses. Abbe's first publication of $$ occurred in 1882. In this publication, Abbe states that both his theoretical and experimental investigations confirmed $$. Abbe's contemporary Henry Edward Fripp, English translator of Abbe's and Helmholtz's papers, puts their contributions on equal footing. He also perfected the interference method by Fizeau, in 1884. Abbe, Zeiss, Zeiss' son, Roderich Zeiss, and Otto Schott formed, in 1884, the Jenaer Glaswerk Schott & Genossen. This company, which in time would in essence merge with Zeiss Optical Works, was responsible for research and production of 44 initial types of optical glass. Working with telescopes, he built an image reversal system in 1895.

In order to produce high quality objectives, Abbe made significant contributions to the diagnosis and correction of optical aberrations, both spherical aberration and coma aberration, which is required for an objective to reach the resolution limit of $$. In addition to spherical aberration, Abbe discovered that the rays in optical systems must have constant angular magnification over their angular distribution to produce a diffraction limited spot, a principle known as the Abbe sine condition. So monumental and advanced were Abbe's calculations and achievements that Frits Zernike based his phase contrast work on them, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1953, and Hans Busch used them to work on the development of the electron microscope.

During his association with Carl Zeiss' microscope works, not only was he at the forefront of the field of optics but also labor reform. He founded the social democratic Jenaische Zeitung (newspaper) in 1890 and in 1900, introduced the eight-hour workday, in remembrance of the 14-hour workday of his own father. In addition, he created a pension fund and a discharge compensation fund. In 1889, Ernst Abbe set up and endowed the Carl Zeiss Foundation for research in science. The aim of the foundation was "to secure the economic, scientific, and technological future and in this way to improve the job security of their employees." He made it a point that the success of an employee was based solely on their ability and performance, not on their origin, religion, or political views. In 1896, he reorganized the Zeiss optical works into a cooperative with profit-sharing. His social views were so respected as to be used by the Prussian state as a model and idealized by Alfred Weber in the 1947 book Schriften der Heidelberger Aktionsgruppe zur Demokratie und Zum Freien Sozialismus (Writings of the Heidelberg Action Group on Democracy and Free Socialism).

The crater Abbe on the Moon was named in his honour.

title: Ernst Abbe


text:
Josiah Gardner Abbott

Josiah Gardner Abbott (November 1, 1814 – June 2, 1891) was an American politician who served in the Massachusetts General Court and as a member of the United States House of Representatives from Massachusetts.

Early life
Abbott was born in Chelmsford, Middlesex County, Massachusetts on 1 November 1814. He was the son of Caleb Abbott (1779–1846) and Mercy Abbott (1782–1834). His first American ancestors, George Abbott and William Fletcher, were English Puritans, who settled in Massachusetts in 1640 and 1653, respectively.

He attended the Chelmsford Academy in Concord and graduated from Harvard University in 1832 with high honors, the youngest of his class, and then attended Williams College in Williamstown. In 1862, Williams conferred on him the degree of LL.D.

Career
Following his schooling, Abbott worked as a teacher and a lawyer, then became a member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives in 1836. In 1837, he was admitted to the bar and began practice in Lowell, the same year, he was elected to the house of representatives of his state, the youngest member of that body. He became a member of the Massachusetts State Senate from 1841 to 1842. He was an aide to Governor Marcus Morton in 1843. From 1850 to 1855 he was a master in chancery. He also served as a member of the Massachusetts state constitutional convention, justice of the superior court for Suffolk County, an overseer of Harvard University, and several times was the unsuccessful Democratic candidate for United States Senator.

In 1860, Abbott declined an appointment to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, and in 1861 declined the Democratic nomination for state attorney general. He finally was victorious as a Democratic candidate for the United States House of Representatives, and served from July 28, 1876 to March 3, 1877. He was a member of the Electoral Commission created by the act of Congress approved January 29, 1877, to decide the presidential election of 1876.

Upon leaving the Congress, he returned to the practice of law. His fifty years of active practice as a lawyer connected his name with some of the most celebrated litigations of his time.

Personal life
Abbott was married to Caroline Livermore (1814–1887), the daughter of U.S. Congressman Edward St. Loe Livermore. Both of Josiah and Caroline were descended from officers who served in the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War. Together, they were the parents of:
 * Edward Gardner Abbott (1840–1862), who died during the American Civil War.
 * Henry Livermore Abbott (1842–1864), a Major in the Union Army during the Civil War who was posthumously awarded the grade of brevet brigadier general.
 * Fletcher Morton Abbott (1843–1925)
 * William Stackpole Abbott (1844–1846), who died young.
 * Samuel Appleton Brown Abbott (1846–1931)
 * Sarah Abbott (1850–1933), who married William Pickman Fay.
 * Franklin Pierce Abbott (1852–1923)
 * Arthur St. Loe Abbott (1853–1863)
 * Grafton St. Loe Abbott (1856–1915), who married Mary Ogden Adams, a daughter of Charles Francis Adams Jr. and was a descendant of Presidents John Adams and John Quincy Adams.
 * Holker Welch Abbott (1858–1930)

He died at his home in Wellesley Hills on 2 June 1891, and was interred in St. Mary's Church Cemetery, in nearby Newton Lower Falls, Massachusetts.

title: Josiah Gardner Abbott


text:
Hunan University

Hunan University (HNU; ) is a public university in Yuelu, Changsha, Hunan, China. It is affiliated with the Ministry of Education. The university is part of Project 211, Project 985, and the Double First-Class Construction.

History
Hunan University was founded in the year 976, during the Song dynasty, as Yuelu Academy, a Confucian shuyuan. In 1903, during the final years of the Qing dynasty, the school was converted into the Hunan Institute of Higher Education. The name of the institution was then changed to Hunan Normal College, and then Hunan Public Polytechnic School, before finally arriving at the name Hunan University in 1926.

In 1937, it was transformed from a provincial university into a national university, renamed the National Hunan University, and designated by the Ministry of education, becoming the fifteenth national university.

From April 1938 to May 1941, the National Hunan University suffered serious losses and, made it difficult to run the school. During the Battle of Changsha, the National Hunan University was suspended.

In 1949, the name Hunan University was again adopted, and the calligraphy of "Hunan University" was written by Mao Zedong in 1950 as soon as the People's Republic of China was founded.

In 1959, Hunan University was officially restored after the national readjustment of higher education institutions.

In 1963, HNU was subordinated to the First Ministry of Machinery Industry. In 1978, Hunan University's status as one of the 88 National Key Universities in China was reaffirmed. In 1996, Hunan University became one of the universities sponsored by Project 211. In 2000, Hunan University was selected as a member of Project 985.

In November 2010, the National Supercomputing Changsha Center was built on the Hunan University campus under the management and operation of Hunan University. It is the first National Supercomputing Center in Central China and the third of its kind apart from other two national centers situated in Tianjin and Shenzhen.

In 2011, HNU participated in the Excellence League, an alliance of 10 Chinese universities with a strong background in engineering. In 2015, HNU joined the BRICS Universities League, a consortium of leading research universities from BRICS countries. In 2017, Hunan University was listed in the Double First-Class Construction.

Academics and administration
Hunan University is a national key university under the direct administration of the Ministry of Education of China and a member of Project 211 and Project 985, as well as the Double First Class University Plan. The administration is led by a CPC secretary and a president. The current secretary is Deng Wei, and the president is Duan Xianzhong.

It has the following colleges and departments:
 * Architecture
 * Biology
 * Business Administration
 * Chemistry and Chemical Engineering
 * Chinese Language and Literature
 * Civil Engineering
 * Computer Science and Electronic Engineering
 * Design
 * Economy and Trade
 * Educational Science
 * Electrical and Information Engineering
 * Robotics
 * Environmental Science and Engineering
 * Finance and Statistics
 * Foreign Languages and International Studies
 * Journalism and Communication and Film and Television Arts
 * Law
 * Marxism Studies
 * Mathematics and Econometrics
 * Materials and Engineering
 * Mechanical Vehicle Engineering
 * Physical Education
 * Public Administration
 * Physics and Microelectronics Science
 * Yuelu Academy
 * Semiconductors (Integrated Circuits)
 * Interdisciplinary Institute of Life Medicine

Students and Academics
There are more than 30,000 full-time students, including more than 20,800 undergraduates and more than 14,000 graduate students. Hunan University has started to recruit international students since 1990s and is one of the Project 985 universities in China to launch an international student program taught entirely in English.

Rankings and reputation
Hunan University is ranked in the top 300 research universities in the world by several global university rankings such as the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), the U.S. News & World Report Best Global University Ranking, the Center for World University Rankings, and the CWTS Leiden Ranking.

Hunan University was ranked 286th worldwide in 2023 in terms of aggregate performance (THE+ARWU+QS) as reported by the Aggregate Ranking of Top Universities.

General Rankings

 * The 2008 Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) World University Rankings ranked Hunan University 15th in China.
 * In the 2023 Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), Hunan University ranked #151st globally.
 * As of 2024, the U.S. News & World Report Best Global University Ranking ranked Hunan University 119th globally, 22nd in Asia, and 12th in China.

Research Rankings

 * Hunan University ranked 14th worldwide in the 2016 Nature Index Rising Stars. In 2018, Hunan University was elected among 16 universities in the world by Nature, called "Movers and Shakers". In the 2024 Nature Index Research Leaders, which measures the largest groups of papers published in 145 leading high-quality science journals, Hunan University ranked 45th among the leading academic institutions globally and 24th in the Asia-Pacific region.
 * Hunan University ranked 105th globally by the CWTS Leiden Ranking 2024 based on the number of their scientific publications in the period 2019–2022. For the proportion of their scientific publications that rank among the top 1%, 5%, 10% and 50% in their fields by citations, Hunan University ranks 52nd globally (7th in China), 15th (1st in China), 13rd (1st in China) and 4th (1st in China) respectively.
 * In 2020, a research paper by Loet Leydesdorff, a famous scientometrician, employs data from 205 China's leading research-intensive universities, including in the CWTS Leiden Ranking 2020, to classify them into three main groups: Top, Middle, and Bottom. Hunan University (with a Z-score of 10.2) ranks 2nd only to Tsinghua University (z=11.0), which leads the "High Group of 32 Universities".
 * In 2022, 32 HNU faculty members were included in Clarivate's list of Highly Cited Researchers, placing HNU at No. 33 globally and third in China, behind only the Chinese Academy of Science and Tsinghua University.

Subject Rankings

 * Hunan University has been ranked in the top 30th global universities in "engineering" by several international rankings, including U.S. News Rankings, URAP ranking, and NTU Ranking.

Notable alumni
Among its prominent alumni are Wang Fuzhi, a celebrated philosopher in Chinese history; Wei Yuan, a reformist who first advocated to learn from the West; Zeng Guofan, the first Chinese to initiate the Modernization Movement (at the time called Yangwu Yundong, a movement to imitate overseas technology and industry) and to make arrangements for a modern factory in China; Zuo Zongtang, a national hero who arranged to build China's first modern navy and took great pains to defend and develop Xinjiang; Guo Songtao, China's first ambassador to a foreign country; Cai E, a major leader in defending the Republic of China; Zhang Fengxuan, the first Chinese to set foot on the continent of Antarctica; and Ci Yungui, the chief designer of China's first super computer.

title: Hunan University


text:
Talk:Josiah Gardner Abbott

Untitled
It wasn't clear if he declined to serve on the US or state supreme court. Could somebody clarify? RickK | Talk 00:54, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Josiah Gardner Abbott