It's the latter that I took from the movie -- that the Zulu's decamped to cut their losses.
> 2) The British commanders clearly say at the end of the film that they
> never want to fight again and, in real life, they never did.
well-taken.
> 3) The plebe discussions throughout the movie argue against their having
> any purpose in being there; at one point one soldier even remarks in
> disgust that the soil is very poor for farming...so what the hell
> are they doing there...
also well-taken, but if the battle was so meaningless, there would be less point in consuming an entire film with it.
> 4) The "god is with us" argument is the most ridiculed in the
> entire movie.
This doesn't contravene the nobility/courage theme. The absurdity of god is with us points up the manner in which the combatants substitute their own personal strength for an ersatz religious-based one.
I watched it (again) recently because I did remember it as a good film. In particular, I remember the faces of the Zulu warriors, which contrasted with more typical, demeaning Hollywood representations of third world people resisting colonizers (i.e., Cary Grant overcoming scores on Indians in hand-to-hand combat). Could you imagine Grant against two or three of the Zulu's?
mbs