rorkesdriftvc.com Forum Index


rorkesdriftvc.com
Discussions related to the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879
Reply to topic
What is it about and is it good
a.j


Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 80
Location: Thornaby-On-Tees, Great Britain
Reply with quote
I know what it is about briefly but what is 'How Can Man Die Better' actually about? and is at very good?
View user's profileSend private message
Peter Ewart


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 1797
Location: Near Canterbury, Kent, England.
Reply with quote
AJ

It is an account of the Battle of Isandlwana - simple as that. It begins more or less with the invasion on 11th January and concludes with the bivouac on the nek by Chelmsford's returning force on the night of the 22nd/23rd.

The definitive account of the battle has yet to be written and, of course, always will be. All accounts have necessarily had to attempt the task while hindered by the many gaps in our knowledge resulting from the non-survival of so many key participants and - despite the many fairly brief eye-witness accounts relating to small fragments of the day - the disappointing comparative paucity of detailed, reliable and lengthy accounts from surviving officers.

Mike Snook has attempted to cope with these same disadvantages by bringing a new approach arising from his first-hand military knowledge and experience. As a result, his detailed reconstruction of the battle has relied heavily on his own calculations of time and space - the very aspects which have dogged much of the best of the worthwhile published research in the past from, say, Coupland, Jackson, Knight, Lock & Quantrill etc (the latter two particularly making the point in their last book about the difficulties posed by ambiguities concerning exact times of events on the day).

His reconstruction places certain units in certain places at certain times - a a result of his reading (hopefully, although with no footnotes provided) of the primary sources and of his personal opinion of what such-and-such a commander would have done at such-and-such a moment in those particular circumstances, so that certain movements throughout the day (this or that company moving here or there, for instance) depended on other movements at other times elsewhere and the eventual result is a reconstruction of many inter-locking movements, the reliabiliy of which hypothesis depends on the accuracy of his calculations in many different stages and geographic areas of the battle.

This reconstruction, the author asserts, is more reliable than the accounts provided by many of the survivors, simply because they weren't there - at the right time. The denouement was seen by no-one on the British side but this reconstruction describes the final moments - or much more than mere moments - of the companies of the 24th, and coincides reasonably closely with Jackson's account in that no major part of the 24th's firing line was overwhelmed at any time by a rush, but that most of the companies retreated in comparatively good order over considerable distances although largely separated from each other, making their way back in several cases to - or even past - the nek, which, of course, is where the last stands involving large groups are known to have taken place. In other words, the successful fugitives never saw this major part of the battle - the period during which several companies still containing most of their strength fought on and manoeuvred steadily backwards until out of ammunition & overwhelmed - far from the original firing line, which couldn't have happened if they were broken at the front, nor if the right horn had got into the camp as early as has been assumed or claimed.

Unless one has investigated all the primary sources oneself, the reader is unable to criticise objectively any of these books on the battle on many grounds, so a great deal is taken on trust, but provided they have all examined the primary sources, they're halfway there. (Understanding and intepreting them correctly is perhaps the other half!) I personally would have much preferred this book to contain footnotes, but the author gives his reasons for including only a very few. The book is written in an engaging non-academic style, which hasn't really been done with a serious book since Morris - I think this has advantages and disadvantges.

Uncontroversially, any lingering debate on the question of the ammunition supply to the 24th while the front line still held is given short shrift.

That's how I see it in general terms, anyway. The finer points of the reconstruction will certainly be debated (hopefully here) and not everyone will agree with everything (no AZW author can avoid putting his head above the parapet these days!) but it is, in my opinion, definitely a worthwhile contribution to understanding Isandlwana, even though undoubtedly a number of points of fact will also be disputed. The main conclusion of the book is that there was no general panic among (nor disorganised retreat of) most of the 24th, but a hard-fought, slow-moving rearguard action. Oh, and Durnford is not the "goodie" this time! The work is a hypothesis - and so are some of the scenes and conversations - and it is a shame that the publishers have claimed it as practically the last word in its sub-title and fly-leaf blurb, rather than a good attempt at a reconstruction.

Buy it, aj.

Peter
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Coll
Guest

Reply with quote
Peter

Thankyou for the excellent details about the book's contents.

However, does there really have to be a 'baddie' amongst the camp defenders at Isandlwana ?

When it comes down to it, they all fought and died on the same side, in the same battle against the same enemy. Doesn't that make them all 'goodies' ?

Even the Zulus weren't really the 'baddies', as they were just protecting their homeland from an invading army.

Durnford, when describing his own uniform, mentioned that he looked very much like a 'stage brigand', if adding to this he may have been the 'baddie', my worry is, if a new film about Isandlwana is made, when Durnford appears on the screen, the audience will be booing, as children do at the theatre watching a pantomime.

Mind you, there is a chance this is already happening while watching 'Zulu Dawn', but whether this is because it is Durnford, or the fact Burt Lancaster portrays him badly. Or a combination of both.

Coll
Peter Ewart


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 1797
Location: Near Canterbury, Kent, England.
Reply with quote
A light-hearted figure of speech, Coll! Simply mentioning that, in this book, Durnford doesn't quite come out smelling of roses.

Shouldn't worry about his portrayal by Burt Lancaster if I were you (ludicrous that it was) any more than all the other parts played in that farce.

Peter
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Mike McCabe
Guest

Reply with quote
Apart from the absurdity of him being given a rather iffy Irish accent, and the occasionally silly script, there are some features of Burt Lancaster's portrayal of Durnford that might well be said to be a fair representation of what he might have been like in real life. Who knows?

But, it is a rather neutral portrayal - creating neither a positive nor negative impression overall, nevertheless providing a characterisation fairly easy to act (as long as you don't fall off your horse)!

MC McC
What is it about and is it good
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT  
Page 1 of 1  

  
  
 Reply to topic