rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 4:24 pm

On Monday evening June 4th they are screening for Two hours Zulu -The true story
Clive

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 7:27 pm

Do you think it will be?

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 8:30 pm

I dunno.....but even the 'intro blurp' claims that 1300 British soldiers were killed.....I don't think majority of the furum members will learn anything new Smile

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 11:00 pm

Keep us informed, will you? I don't have access to British TV. I'd be curious as to who their experts are, and what they say.

Thanks,

Barbara

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 2:01 pm

This documentary has been on terrestrial television before. It is mainly Saul David who gives most of the information about the cover-up. It's basically a TV version of his book -'The Heroism And The Tragedy Of The Zulu War'

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 10:20 pm

Dear All,
just checked the Sky guide for this programme and 'The History Channel' website.This seems to be the original 2003 edition with the 'Timewatch' tag dropped.Anybody who wants a realistic account of the battles of Isandlwana and Rorke's Drift need look no further than this website;it wins by a mile.

Tony.

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:05 am

Thank you a.j. and Tony.

What gets me here is a programme advertising itself as "the true story," "the real story," etc, as if one had never heard all the facts before. Then, if there's only one primary expert interviewed (and not a contributor to this site, which, I should think, includes several experts on the subject of the AZW) viewers are left believing that they've seen "the truth."

That's why I'm curious as to what U. K. (and other) viewers think about this programme, before and after it is aired.

Barbara

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 3:42 am

Barbara,

Check the old forum out using a search on Timewatch or Saul David, you should be able to gauge the feelings from this side of the pond.

John Y.

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 10:24 am

eh? from that webpage....

http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/tv_guide/full_details/Conflict/programme_3521.php

On 22nd January, the Centre Column launched a surprise attack on the Zulu camp at Isandlwana Mountain. The Zulus claimed a devastating victory over the imperious British. Around 1,300 British troops and their African allies were killed in the single greatest defeat at the hands of a native force in history.

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 7:24 pm

Dear Barbara,
if you follow John Young's lead,you will have plenty to get your teeth into.This will keep you occupied for some time.To guide you,
the first entry on the old discussion forum is on 27th February 2003.This is where the very first errors are committed in regards to references of the actual events that took place:

i) For the first time,the true events of January 22nd 1879 will be told...

This would hold a grain of truth if the person making the comment
could present a viewpoint of the battles (through actually being there) rather than an 'opinion' based on interpretation of documents.

ii) ...focusing on the stories of the men of one regiment - The South Wales Borderers.

Oh Dear! The South Wales Borderer's Regiment wasn't formed until after the battles.You would not expect this historical error to be present in an (English) 'A' level project on the subject.

iii) I wrote to the programme makers with my list of errors (and I'm only a novice),there was no reply;hardly an open forum on 'the true story'.

The debate that followed on BBC Radio Wales following this programme,was far more entertaining and factually correct.What you have here is programme based on contrary views.I would also question the
technical level of some of the military terms used in this programme as references to various decisions made by soldiers and officers present at these battles.

Whilst the general public may view a programme on this subject with
interest,it will be interesting to see how it stands the test of time.Everybody is entitled to an opinion,even the makers of this programme.

Tony.

Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 12:25 am

John, thank you for suggesting that search. Tony, you're quite correct, there is so much there!

Given that the programme is so obviously biased, one-sided, and does not take into account the opinions of experts here who offered their advice, I wonder...why did the BBC put it out?

I can only speculate, and perhaps that's all that others can do, as well. But it is curious.

Barbara

Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 1:08 pm

Dear Barbara,
if you have Sheldon Hall's excellent book,'Zulu - With Some Guts Behind It',you can find a reference to this programme on page 11 of the introduction.The reference to various claims in the programme are described as: '...challenged by other historians as,among other things,one-sided,partial and inaccurate.'

I recently visited the 'Who Do You Think You Are Live Show' at Olympia.
I spoke to a chap from the National Library of Wales for about an hour (after I'd convinced him to deal with a 5th-hand Welshman).We both agreed how history and genealogy have become a commodity that has to be turned into a product to make it saleable.We watched vendors trying hard to sell their subscriptions and products.

You thus now have two elements in history and genealogy.The purists
who stick to the facts,then the vendors who add a twist of controversy to
'spice things up'.If you read the introduction of Prof Hew Strachan's book
'The First World War' he sums up the folly and errors of the current bunch of historians who function as personalities.

This book by Prof Strachan is a model example of 'how' to present history in the correct manner.We're lucky that we find this same sort of balanced approach via this discussion forum.

Tony.

Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 6:02 pm

Before this programme was aired I was invited by BBC Wales to enter into a 'debate' with Saul David about the the imminent airing of the programme on BBC, which I duly did.
I wasn't allowed to engage directly with him but in the exchange he placed great store on Hook's view that Bromhead and Chard considered abandoning the post. I suggested that Hook (despite being a well deserved VC recipient and at the time the company cook), was not privy to the discussions of the officers in charge and his opinion was therefore not based on first hand knowledge.
I can only suggest that if you have access to the programme, you view and make up your own mind as to whether this man truly believes what he is saying or whether he his furthering his career, i.e. making money from history, and by whatever means.

Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 9:23 pm

Dear Alan,
hello again.Also part of shaping the viewer's images of the characters present at the defence of the mission station,is the incorrect use of the term 'decided to do a runner' to refer to Chard's suggestion 'to retreat' to Helpmakaar in a non-military/technical way .The former statement implies cowardice on Chard's part and helps to shape the viewer's image of the man.I feel it is improper to imply that Chard was a coward,when he was nothing of the sort.I also feel it is impertinent to speak ill of the dead!
I spoke to Chard's gr gr gr nieces recently and asked them their opinion of these comments.They hadn't seen the programme but were absolutely horrified.Fair enough,Chard wasn't perfect before Jan 22/23rd 1879,but he proved his worth on the day,as did Bromhead.That is all we can ask of any man or soldier.I like to think it's where people end up in life that counts, rather than 'cherry-picking' less favourable element of their life and using them as reference points.
Interestingly,Saul David was at the 'Who Do You Think You Are Live' show at Olympia recently.He only had one slot scheduled in at 10.30 am-
11.15am with a brief question period of 15 min.Most of the other speakers were there all day.I arrived at lunchtime due to other committments,but would have been keen to pose some questions after his talk on Victoria's Wars and the fall of Delhi.I didn't see him anywhere else in Olympia that day and I was there until 18.00
(VC) Action certainly speaks louder than words and attempts to dent the character,reputation and achievements of Chard and Bromhead through comment and personal opinion have proved to be nothing more than
'ticks on a cow's hide'.It started with Wolseley and continues to the current day.The comments are as forgetable as memories of what we had for lunch this time last year.Chard and Bromhead's names inscribed into their respective Victoria Crosses will last for ever.

Tony.

Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 7:47 am

Hi,

I've got a particular 'bee in my bonnet' about history in the media (mainly TV and movies).....

First off all, I accept that all books, films and TV programmes are wrote/made with the intention of getting over a particular point of view.

However the closest the majority of the population come to history is through films & TV and therefore the producers should ensure that their project is as close as possible correct, OK so films still have to be �watchable� and hold the audience in the cinemas for 2 hours or so, otherwise the film �Zulu� would have been one endless sound of Martini Henry fire and no Miss Jacobsson or the great Jack Hawkins.

I get really vexed when people at work try and lecture me about, for example William Wallace, based on the film 'Braveheart'....but they believe it is correct.

Sometimes I despair that, well accepted and respected authors, will appear on TV programmes, basically in my mind, condoning the programme, and adding an �historical authority� to it, when it is slightly misleading.

Maybe I�m being unfair and that the writers, producers and directors have the final word on all matters.

Right I�ll go & get my tablets and get back in my darkened room��.