The Rorke's Drift VC Discussion Forum
(View Discussion Rules)

** IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO ALL USERS **

PLEASE NOTE: This forum is now inactive and is provided for reference purposes only. The live forum is available at www.rorkesdriftvc.com/forum

(Back To Topic List)

Date	Original Topic
17th August 2002	What is the most objective book to read on the Zulu War? By Nat Powell Currently I'm reading The Washing of the Spears by Donald Morris, however, since I'm unfamiliar with this period of history, I don't know whether it's a realiable source or not, especially because it's several decades old, although it seems to treat both sides objectively. I'm wondering what the best book would be on the topic, however I realize that this is probably a difficult question to answer as there are probably many good ones.
Date	Replies
17th August 2002	Gary S. Edinger Morris' book is excellent, particularly his historical account of the rise of the Zulu nation and interaction with the original Natal colonists. However, some of his battle accounts include questionable details. For my money, the best all around account of the war is Knight's Brave Men's Blood. Excellent books have been written about particular battles. Some of the "smaller" encounters are among the more interesting. Check out Blood on the Painted Mountain by Lock (Hlobane) and Fearful Hard Times again by Knight (Eshowe)
18th August 2002	Dave Nolan Professor John Laband's 'Rope of Sand' aka 'The Rise and Fall of the Zulu Nation'(UK) is an excellent account of the Zulu Kingdom and the Zulu War - it could be described as an updated version of Washing of the Spears - and is especially good on the Zulu side of things. It was first published in 1995. It is more academically written than Spears - and is not such a page turner! - but, obviously, is much more up to date. Enjoy your reading on this fascinating subject. Dave
19th August 2002	Alan Critchley I have been asked many times which books are the most informative and accurate on the subject of the Anglo-Zulu War. This of course subjective and open to many varying opinions. We are planning to have a section on the website which is totally devoted to the literature available on the Anglo-Zulu War. We are independent and would include two reviewers to give their unbaised opinion and synopsis on the works submitted for inclusion to the feature. I should like to invite publishers and authors to contact me to discuss their inclusion. Please contact me at [email protected] Alan Critchley
20th August 2002	Nat Powell Thanks for the info, I'm looking forward to reading more. I'm curious though, could any of you give me some examples of Morris's questionable battle details? I've just finished his account of Isandhlwana, and it'd be interesting to know what he might have gotten wrong.
21st August 2002	John Young Nat, Morris' Isandlwana chapter is marred by certain inaccuracies. Prime example, although this was corrected in a later edition's introduction, but never in the text is his constant reference to 'Newnham-Davis', rather than Harry Davis. Lt. Nathaniel Newnham-Davis was an officer from 2nd/3rd (East Kent) Regiment, who served in No.1 Squadron, Mounted Infantry, and was not present at Isandlwana. Lt. Charles Walter Cavaye, 1st/24th, becomes a 'Captain', and commands "A" Company rather than 'E' Company. Which makes comments relating to Porteous wrong also. To my knowledge Privates H. Grant, J. Trainer & J. Johnson, (Not 'Johnston' as Morris has it.) were not 'wounded'. Morris makes no mention of Acting Bombardier Goff as a survivor of the Rocket Battery. According to Morris '...Six screws had to be removed to raise a lid...' It was only one which had to be removed to slide the lid. '...The mounted men had no proper bayonets, only a fitting at the end of the short carbines to which a hunting knife could be attached...' That 'hunting knife' was the bayonet for the Swinburne-Henry carbine. How could the Regimental Colour of the 1st/24th have any '...frayed green silk exposed...'? It was a Union Flag. Morris repeats Horace Smith-Dorrien's supposition as to the name of the mounted infantryman, 'Macdonald', as if it were fact. There was a mounted infantryman by the name of McDonald killed, but he was from the 80th Foot, not as Smith-Dorrien states from the 24th. It was Surgeon Major Peter Shepherd, rather than 'Shepard', who actually went to the aid of Trooper George MacLeroy, of the Natal Carbineers, and not 'Kelly' as Morris states. Morris is, in my opinion, the prime culprit for the '...55 of the Europeans were still alive...' A myth which still seems to endure to this day. It is also my conclusion that Donald Morris has based some of text on romanticized supposition - suchas his comments with regard to Adendorff. John Young, Chairman, Anglo-Zulu War Research Society.
21st August 2002	Nat Powll Thanks for enlightening me. As a native of Gettysburg battlefield, I'm only too familiar with books that tourists and "Civil War Buffs" take to be the gospel on the battle, and one has to gently tell them that some of what they've been reading is wrong. Thanks for catching me before it was too late!
8th September 2002	l.j. knight. i find it very sad to see the amount of stick; that donald morris seems to have attracted. i feel he wrote an honest book. even with all the mistakes . it was for me reading a copy of it in the early seventies ...the bible...i would recomened this book as required reading. make up your own minds.
10th September 2002	Ian Essex John, I think at the end of the day, that nearly everybody who writes about Rorke's Drift or Isandlwana will represent to some extent a romanticised version of events. And all written accounts will contain a version of events that differ from other peoples points of view. It is inevitable particularly in regards to the defence of the mission station as there were so few written accounts of the action. For example; (and I am doing this without the benefit of sitting and looking through some books or watching a video of my visit, so please take it in the good nature that it is intended) Chard, in overall command alledgedly wrote two accounts of the battle. I know someone who has been in a fight and he can barely remember what clothes he was wearing at the time. Yet Chard name-checks various soldiers, who he was unfamiliar with. In some cases this must have been a case of Chard actually being told that a particular soldier had done well? In that respect, it is immediately romanticised. When I first read a book on R.D I was so disappointed that 'Here they come, Black as Hell, thick as grass!" had not been used in the film. But whilst studying the subject, I have seen it attributed to Hitch, Hall, Trooper Legg, an anonymous horseman riding past and on my tour of Rorke's Drift, the guide had Reverand Smith bounding down the Shiyane screaming it at the top of his lungs! (Made me take notice when he re-enacted it!) In reality no one knows who said it, if was said at all. Hook writes glowingly about Private Dunbar shooting nine Zulu's and one of them a chief. How could he have known unless told. Hook was in a corner room of the hospital and had no communication with the outside. It's romanticised from the moment it is told after the event. I also seem to remember someone telling me that there is an updated, revised version of The Washing of the Spears which deals with the ammunition boxed and Adendorff? At the end of the day, it was one of the bravest defences ever made. I wouldn't have stayed knowing what had just happened a few miles away. I'd have left and wouldn't have stopped running till I reached Leicester Square!!! But we are all of us, singing from the same hymn sheet. Mistakes are mistakes, true. But everyone has their own interpretation of the events, gleaned as I said earlier from just a handful of personal accounts.
12th September 2002	John Young Ian, Re-your point about the quote "Black as hell, thick as grass!" Trooper Lugg attributes it to Bob Hall. Donald Morris, I conclude, attributed it to Pte. Wall, as he was unaware of Bob Hall's presence, or even that he survived Isandlwana. Someone obviously introduced the comment to Morris, and the closest name he could get to Hall was 'Wall', but that's my conclusion. To my own knowledge, and I'll stand to be corrected the text to 'Washing of the Spears...', has never been updated. There was one where Morris acknowledged errors in an introduction, but the text was not changed. With regard to L.J. Knight's comment above, at least The Bible does get revised and updated. It is a case in point that your guide, whoever that was, wrongly attributed the cry of warning to Padre Smith. There was even (as I may have said elsewhere on this site) an author who stated that Padre Smith was not there. As to a handful of accounts, the following are listed on James Garland's 'Victorian Voices', see the link from this site. Lieutenant Chard's Report to Colonel Glyn:This is Chard's first account of the battle of Rorke's Drift written on the 25th January 1879. Lieutenant Chard's report to Queen Victoria: Chards more detailed second report written in January 1880. Corporal Lyon's account: Given at Netley Hospital and reported in "The Cambrian" newspaper on 13th June 1879. Private Waters' account: Given at Netley Hospital and reported in "The Cambrian" newspaper on 13th June 1879. Private Hitch's account: Given at Netley Hospital and reported in "The Cambrian" newspaper on 13th June 1879. Private Hitch's full account:Handwritten account first published in "The South African Military History Journal" Dec. 1973. Private Hitch's account:Published in 'Chums' on 11th March 1908. Private Jobbin's letter:Written to his father on 6th February 1879. Private Hook's letter:Written to his mother in Monmouth. Private Hook's account: The Royal Magazine February 1905. Private Hook's account: The Strand Magazine (January to June 1891) Private Hook's interview: The Daily Graphic March 14th 1905 together with obituary. Gunner Howard's letter:Written January 1879. Corporal Allen's letter:Part of a letter written to his wife on 4th February. Sergeant Smith's first letter:Written home on 24th January 1879. Sergeant Smith's second letter:Written to his wife in February 1879. Padre George Smiths account:From his Diary. Anonymous account:Believed to be by Padre George Smith and published in the "Times of Natal" 5th February 1879. Private Mason's first letter: To his sister prior to the battle. Private Mason's second letter: To his sister. Written on February 8th 1879. Trooper Lugg's letter: Written in January 1879. Dunne's account:Reminiscences published in "The Journal" Surgeon-Major Reynold's account:Published in the Journal of the Royal Army Medical Corps. 716 Private Robert Jones' Account:Published in The Strand Magazine (Jan to June 1891). 593 Private William Jones' Account:Published in The Strand Magazine (Jan to June 1891). Interview of Private Savage:Published in The Manchester Weekly Post (19th July 1879). Account of Private Pitt:Published in the Western Mail (11th May 1914). Account of Colour Sergeant Bourne:Transcript of radio broadcast published in "The Listener" (30th December 1936) Bob Head's Letter:From the Regimental archives. Letter to The Times of Natal:April 23rd 1879. Article by a private correspondent:Published in The Mercury,May 13th, 1879. Private Orchard's Letter:To his brother. Published in the " Bristol Observer" 29th January 1879. Private William Roy's Letter:To his parents. Published in a Dundee newspaper. My own account on this site is actually in need of revision, given some 'new information'. Likewise, a printing error needs to revise in my book, where an entire line of names where missed out in the printing. I fully appreciate that each person as you say has their own intrepretation of events, it goes with my job. But surely Donald Morris is 'gilding the lily' when he has two officers at Isandlwana nodding to one and other, where is his basis for fact? There is none! Sadly, we're not all 'singing from the same hymn sheet' - for there are those who perpetuate Morris' errors to this very day, more than twenty years after they were challenged. My own favourite is the '55 survivors' of Isandlwana, a fact refuted as long ago as 1965 by F.W.D. Jackson. Yet this phrase is still banded around by tour guides and authors et al. It is an obvious mistake - the source for which is Morris. I, for one, would dearly love to see 'The Washing of the Spears...' updated and revised. John Young, Chairman, Anglo-Zulu War Research Society.
13th September 2002	Ian Essex John, Thanks for the reply... That's 23 accounts written by the defenders. I'm not including the letter to the Times or the article you mention. Some of those accounts are very short to say the least and contain very little detail. And as an example of how I say all accounts will be different (from my earlier contribution, above), depending on peoples points of view, look at this: Chard and Hook state the first assault took place at about 4.30pm. Surgeon Reynolds: 3.30pm Water's: Between 4.30 and 5.00pm. Jobbin's: 3.30pm. Howard: 5.00pm. Smith: 2.30pm then 3.00pm later in the paragraph. I'm not trying to nitpick but if the people who were there can't agree on the time, how can we all be sure of the accuracy of all the information supplied? Some of the account were written a long time after the event: Jones: 1891 Hitch:1908 Hook: 1905 Bourne: 1936. And that is what we are all going on in regards to Rorke's Drift. There is no one left to interview. There is no film footage. We have this very small number of accounts which often are very short, some contain very little detail and some differ from one man to the next. It is inevitable therefore that when people chose to write a book about the subject that there will be differences, purely because the men who were actually there do not fully agree on all the details. Sent in peace by the way... Do we know if Mr.Morris is still with us?
13th September 2002	James Garland Ian, I am a police officer and I have to compare peoples statements every day. Often I will take statements from a number of people who have wirtnessed the same event only a short while before I have spoken to them. The statements nearly always differ in the detail but overall you end up with the essential truth of any incident. For example if several people witness a car accident I would expect certain details to vary. Peoples statements almost always vary when it comes to the time the accident happened but their statements usually agree when it comes to what they have seen (because its easier to remember). Statements often differ when people describe the height or age of another person. Being only 5'8" I would describe someone who was 5'10" as tall. If I were 6' tall I would describe the same person as short. So even if some of the details given in Rorke's Drift defenders letters vary you can still get at the truth. Chard was not in the hospital so he must have obtained the details from the hospital defenders. That is what I find fascinating about studying survivors accounts and trying to compare their stories. Once you have read them all they don't differ wildly from Chard. If Chard had got the story badly wrong I think we would have heard about it from Hook etc.
13th September 2002	James Garland P.S. I should have added above. Rorke's Drift is a considerably easier battle to study from survivors accounts than Isandhlwana mainly because the defenders generally tell the same story. Isandhlwana has been plagued by different interpretations some of which have been deliberatley biased (Chelmsfords court of enquiry) and some that have just been badly researched. I know I wouldn't be brave enough to attempt the job.
14th September 2002	John Young Ian, You'll have to excuse me not furthering this rhetoric - for a short while at least. Yesterday, I suffered the loss of my mentor and friend - my father, William. Another one of 'Noble 24th' has fought his last battle. He served in the 2nd Battalion of the Monmouthshire Regiment. May he now rest in peace. Freed from the torment, of what the 'experts' referred to as "repressed post-traumatic stress syndrome," caused by his battlefield experience which marred his last months. I heard no romance of war from his lips during that time - only the horror.