Originally Posted by Blackfox5
The Zulu War was in many ways a mistake. London did not want a war. The local High Commisioner took it on his own initiative to start one. This is not an uncommon situation on frontier situations where central authority is not able to exercise enough control. See Cortes and 1930's era Japan for other examples.
But let's say a different High Commisioner was appointed, who desired peace. In that case the Zulu War would be completely avoided. Instead, Zululand might become a British protectorate int he long run, but be in complete control of their internal affairs.
This may only delay a future war a decade or more later, but there's a chance the peace could hold indefinitely.
Yes, either that, or the Zulus winning a battle for pride and then offering peace on similar terms. Autonomy is their best chance. If they can show themselves as a tough nut to crack, but then offer to accept a protectorate, it the British might consider it cheaper than a war to conquer them.
How would the British government react if after Isandlwana and Roarke's Drift, the Zulu's had offered peace and accepting the British Crown as their "feudel overlord"?