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
15th November 2002	AZWHS article by Prof John Laband By Peter Ewart The 12th Edition of the AZWHS Journal (Dec 2002) contains a very interesting (& thought-provoking) piece by John Laband on his views of the future direction of serious AZW research & publications. Given his standing in this field the piece will no doubt carry some weight. I'd be interested to learn what others who have access to this piece might think. Peter
Date	Replies
15th November 2002	John Young Peter, I am without access to the material you refer to, can you please advise as to the content? John Young, Chairman, Anglo-Zulu War Research Society
16th November 2002	Peter Ewart John Not that easily! It's an article of around 3,200 words and 41 footnotes. It briefly summarises the development of AZW research & books since the mid-'60s following a fairly barren period of many decades & describes, fairly briskly, the diverse but successful approaches adopted by different authors & journals (including SOTQ) in recent years and there is conjecture on which sort have succeeded recently and which might do so in the immediate future. It's framework, I suppose, is not wholly dissimilar to Ian Knight's approach in compiling his own bibliography in "Brave Men's Blood" although perhaps Prof Laband follows a slightly more personal and critical agenda, and does emphasise that although he believes scope remains for further books (& films), those which will be successful are likely to be those which acknowledge the AZW's "place", as it were, in the overall scheme of small colonial wars, as well as placing the overall findings of the author's research in it's appropriate (including social) context. No more rehashes. The author believes there is still room for biographies (placed in context) and detailed battle & campaign studies as well as sound treatment of newly emerging primary sources. He also touches upon the effect of modern tourism to KZN & is of the view that the continued serious study of the war cannot necessarily last for ever. That hardly covers it all but I've tried to precis this very interesting article as accurately as I can in a few lines & hope I've done it in a balanced (though no doubt bland) way, without "lifting" anything verbatim. Other readers may be more successful. But surely you are a member or subscriber? As usual, there are a number of well researched (as far as I can see!) and thought-provoking articles in this issue - but, sadly, no mention of cricket! (I shall try to explain myself on that topic in a day or so ...) Peter
16th November 2002	James Garland Peter, I have just read the article. I have to say I found the style quite pompous. I also found the conclusions quite defeatist. Obviously I can't reproduce the article on this forum because it would breach copyright but I will attempt to describe it in a few words. Prof. Laband first of all conducts a review of Anglo Zulu war books and studies from 1879 to date describing the various types of study. He gives his opinion about the direction he thinks future studies should go. However he concludes that because the Anglo Zulu war was a small war in the larger picture of things that meaningful study of the war is finite and says... quote .."Therefore those of us studying the Anglo Zulu War must accept when it has come time to stop. That point, I believe, is not now far away." Prof Laband is entitled to his opinion but I think he is writing as an academic (which of course he is). Most of us lesser mortals read and study the war over and over again because we like doing it. Peoples the world over since time immemorial have listened to the same stories rehashed and retold because they like them. People will watch the same film over and over again because it captures their imagination. If study of the AZWar was allowed to stop because Prof. Laband thinks we have studied it to exhaustion we may be denied some future publication by a writer that genuinely discovers new material or a new way of presenting it. What if someone had decided we had studied the AZW to exhaustion in the 1960s after "The washing of the spears" We would have been denied the pleasure of Ian Knights books and yes Prof. Labands books as well. We don't know what gems will surface in the future.
16th November 2002	John Young Peter, With regard to your query - 'But surely you are a member or subscriber?' What do you think? I am the Chairman of the Anglo-Zulu War Research Society, one word and a hyphen, separate our society of enthusiasts from a registered limited company. The Anglo-Zulu War Research Society was founded on 4th July, 1992, some years prior to the company coming into being. The A.-Z.W.R.S.'s newsletter is 'The Journal of ...', sound familiar? And yet you ask - ' But surely you are a member or subscriber?' At the time of the limited company's flyers were going out, ( I must admit no-one initially sent one to me.) I queried the flyer with the then Mr. Adrian Greaves. He informed me he had never heard of the Anglo-Zulu War Research Society. Personally I did feel that strange as one of his consultants, David Rattray had actually been invited to one of our meetings at the R.A.M.C. Museum. I queried with Companies House the use of the name, only to be told as the A.-Z.W.R.S. was never a charity or limited company, we could not challenge the name. Since then I have taken certain steps to avoid further confusion and on 22nd January, 2003, the Anglo-Zulu War Research Society will actually change its name. As to new books, several years ago, I was prepared to write a biography of Lord Chelmsford, sadly the publisher, who I was under contract to did not want to pursue it. When I hawked it around no-one appeared to at all interested. Yet now we are deluged with some many books - some of which in my personal opinion fall into the catagory of 're-hashes', or at the very least several chapters are almost direct lifts from other works. Pioneering research or re-working of materials? Some of the works concerned are some full of holes that they could be used as a sieve! I did query with one author recently how it was he had an officer serving in the 2nd Anglo-Boer War, and retiring in 1900, when that officer died in 1895! He couldn't answer my query as he was too busy with his next book! Everyone, myself included, who puts pen to paper and produces work on the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879 knows they are people out there ready to study their work in minute detail. Even Professor John Laband is not without error - every book where he mentions 'Captain G. Barton' at Isandlwana is wrong, yet still he perpetuates the error! When will he stop and admit the error, I don't know? I shall dismount from my soapbox, and return the forum to open debate. John Young, Chairman, Anglo-Zulu War Research Society. (Which published the cricket stat's for Brevet Lt.-Col. E.V. Northey, 3rd/60th, back in 1993, in a match he played against one of regiments of the Household Brigade.)
16th November 2002	Peter Ewart John I was obviously aware of the similarity in the names A-ZWRS & AZWHS & also realised that the former was established first. I simply casually suspected (a dangerous thing to do!) you might take the AZWHS journal for the sake of its articles (or some of them). I also recognise that the make-up of the respective organisations is dissimilar although over the years I have enjoyed the regular contributions from - among others - Ian Knight, Brian Best & Ron Lock and, in this issue, John Laband. I'm still slowly going through the past postings on this site & my eyes occasionally pop out of my head at the joustings of early 2002 but I'll leave it at that. With regard to your proposed biography of Chelmsford, have you given up trying to find a publisher? I sincerely hope not - I can guarantee you at least one sale!!! Yes, sadly, one has to select carefully among the many AZW books published these days but don't always discover they resemble a sieve until too late! I'm keen to extend my library of those works published by or during during the lifetime of the participants - they are often only personal & subjective views but are at least products of the time. James's point about reading new but similar accounts for pure enjoyment of a story is very valid and, as he says, Prof Laband naturally writes as an academic & this can sometimes come over in a slightly "possessive" way, but that's not unusual. I suspect, though, that the "market" won't accommodate many more popular "rehashes" for a few years now, but will still welcome with open arms the forthcoming work of Jackson & what Julian Whybra has periodically discussed on this site of his own (massive?) work, even if the publishers release them as expensive "short runs." Laband does exclude from his doubts new work on primary sources which still turn turn up. I think its an interesting piece because it will stimulate debate although I suspect many of the points he raises have been considered & discussed among AZW historians & authors for some time. Peter
16th November 2002	John Young Peter, Be thankful that F.W. David Jackson's work is going to be limited to a 1,000 copies, but the good news is that it is only going to be �12.50. David's work - which has taken decades in research will hopefully be a sight for sore eyes. Lets hope that none of the cardinal sins of one recent work are not repeated. As to why I don't subscribe to the limited company's newsletter? Call it pride, self-respect. Like the "Drunken Private of the Buffs" - I don't kowtow. When people treat me unfairly, I don't go out of my way to treat them fairly. Despite offering olive branches, which were either never delivered by the messenger, or thrown back in my face with wrongful accusations. So little wonder I don't subscribe - to the 'world leader in the field', an interesting remark from someone who does not subscribe to my society's journal. A plug, if I may, for 'Journal of the Anglo-Zulu War Research Society' - the next issue contains two contemporary pieces - King Cetshwayo's story & Archibald Forbes' attack on Lord Chelmsford. Modern research from Lee Stevenson on the Army Hospital Corps personnel at Isandlwana, and a guide to further useful documents in the Public Records Office, Kew. Further "forgotten" contemporary items to follow in our next issue, together with an indepth study of one of the units from the campaign. 'The Journal of the Anglo-Zulu War Research Society' has also been graced with articles by Ron Lock, Ian Knight, as well as authors suchas Lee Stevenson & many others. I can't quite see your point there, Peter? To my knowledge, unless you're flying under an alias, you have never subscribed to the A.-Z.W.R.S., I think unfair to equate the two publications without personal knowledge. Especially as one is prepared as a commercial publication, whilst the other is by the enthusiast for the enthusiast. One is the product of "the anorak's paradise" you referred to previously, the other I will allow you to make your own judgement. As to rehashes, we have recently seen works of this type emerging on a frequent basis, what guides the authors to do so? I would venture financially gain, but I may be wrong? John Young, Chairman, Anglo-Zulu War Research Society
16th November 2002	Peter Ewart John Will look forward enormously to the Jackson book. With regard to your other points, you'll forgive me if I don't comment on them other than to say I only "flagged up" the Laband piece to see if anyone wanted to discuss it, not to offer a "red rag to a bull." As far as I can see, I didn't compare, equate or discuss the two organisations at all, only acknowledging what you had already pointed out to me, that the two names were very similar, as I know virtually nothing of your society. I have now read most of the correspondence on this site earlier this year & emphatically do not want to be the unwitting vehicle of resurrecting all that again here - after all, the chap in question has never done me any harm. (On a light-hearted note, remember what happened to the poor "Pte of the Buffs"!!!) Years ago I nearly joined the VMS when they had a stand at a genealogical fair, only prevaricating because I was (am) a member of so many historical societies that I was finding it hard to get through their journals. I vaguely understood that the AZWRS was a development from an AZW study group of researchers in the VMS - by all means correct me if that's wrong but not with both barrels, please! I've never got round to joining these researchers in the AZWRS (which, I know from various bibliographies and acknowledgements in AZW books, contain most of the "big guns") as I have read about & studied the AZW but don't really research it, although I've dabbled in two or three research projects in recent years (primary sources - honest!) & these may reach publication one day, by which time I shall clearly have to grow an extra skin! So you probably have a recruit! Peter
17th November 2002	John Young Peter, Private Moyes, 1st Battalion, 3rd (East Kent) Regiment, "The Buffs", was taken prisoner by Tartar cavalry, during the 1860 China War. Moyes; a sergeant of the 44th; some Indian sappers and some local-recruited coolies were bringing up the rear of a column with the division's rum supply. One account states that the men concerned were somewhat the worst for wear have indulged in said supply. After a brief fight the group were captured, and the following day they were paraded before a local prince. As a matter of local custom the men were require to kowtow in the presence of the prince, they did so, all save Moyes. It was explained through an interpreter that he would be beheaded if he did not bow. I apparently stated he would rather die than disgrace his country. As soon as the interpreter had translated Moyes' words the prince gave the order to behead him for his insolence. Sir Francis Doyle wrote a poem about the incident, here's the opening paragraph: Last night among his fellow roughs, He jested, quaff'd and swore. A drunken private of the Buffs, Who never look'd before. To-day, beneath the foeman's frown, He stands in Elgin's place, Ambassador from Britain's crown And type of all her race.' [I will ignore the next few paragraphs which go on about hopfields, (Moyes was a Scot!) and some non-p.c. statements about those who did kowtow.] (It concludes) 'So, let his name through Europe ring - A man of mean estate, Who died, as firm as Sparta's King, Because his soul was great.' On the founding of the A.-Z.W.R.S., of the seven founding members, two of us were from the Zulu War Study Group of the V.M.S., two others were members of the V.M.S. I, for one, had tired of the commercial overtones that seemed overtaken the group's meetings. Pocket-lining again? - Apparently the move caused some resentment in certain circles, so much so when one of the founding members chose advertise the founding of the society, he was made by the Committee of the V.M.S. to cover up the advertisement in his booklist which was carried free by the V.M.S. Fair play again? When the Crimean War Research Society had been formed, also an offshoot, there were no such ramifications. Yet somehow the Zulu War was seen a "Jewel in their Crown", and we were caused to suffer for it. Thankfully that rift appears to have healed over the course of time, and the A.-Z.W.R.S. certainly work hand-in-glove with certain sections of the V.M.S. As to 'big guns' we've got a few authors on our books, but what we do have is the fact that we are all enthusiasts. Our Royal Patronage is in my opinion second to none - keenest of all - His Royal Highness Prince Velekhaya Shange, I my opinion a fine ambassador of his people, who at the drop of a hat will make his way to the U.K., at his own expense, to take part in events. Like most of our members Prince Shange is not in this for selfish gain, rather he wishes to promote his people - the AmaZulu and their current plight. The money raised at events and lectures by the Anglo-Zulu War Research Society goes to charities active within KwaZulu-Natal, or to medical research into A.I.D.S. & malaria - unlike some we don't promote the fact by publishing our letters of thanks in our journal. Far from it, in fact outside of certain members & officers, those facts regarding our donations are for the most part unknown even to our general membership - until now! I'll dismount the soapbox again! On primary sources; I approach Professor Laband after a lecture he'd given at the National Army Museum, in which he'd referred to the number of sheep taken in course of the campaign. I asked him if the figure given included the large number of sheep that were "liberated" or regained by the true owners - the Zulu. To back my case produced original seven letters for the field on the very subject - Professor Laband was unaware of the recovery, but I don't know if he duly altered his figures. It may be in his interest to join us if he'd like to know more! Peter, if you're interested in joining our normally happy band of brothers & sisters, just drop me an e-mail. Regards, John
17th November 2002	Peter Ewart John I was familiar with Moyes & his eulogy by Doyle (I think I typed "remember what happened to the Pte of the Buffs") but it was nevertheless kind of you to type it all out & I'm sure many others found it interesting. I chuckled at your omission of the non-pc line as I knew it without looking - wouldn't get away with that today!!! Doyle was Tennysonian in the gushing style of the period & I'm sure you're familiar with several similar offerings by others following Isandlwana & R/Drift - & Newbolts' "Vitae Lampada" carried on the trend! Even at the time, there were those who thought VL was well "over the top" and yet it remains true that very many public schoolboys & young officers thought in that vein right up to & including until 1914. One book I have (or had - I lent it out but haven't got it back yet) on the 1st Boer War described a young Old Etonian officer (on the staff I think) who pushed his horse to the front & attacked the concealed & elevated Boers with sword raised, screaming "Floreat Etona!" - not surprisingly, his last words. Before you ask, I cannot quote the source but you may be able to remind me which of the four engagements it was (not Majuba; Laing's Nek or one of the others perhaps?) Personally, I go for Kipling every time. As for your happy band, yes - I'll be in touch directly. Peter
18th November 2002	James Garland John, I don't often find myself in disagreement with you but I feel I have to raise a point about one critisism you make regarding the AZWHS. You write about the AZWHS being a limited company as if this in itself is a bad thing. Remember the film Zulu was a commercial enterprise and that did more for the promotion of the Zulu war in public consciousness than any book or society before or since. I know the film sacrificed truth for the sake of entertainment but name me any Zulu War enthusiast who would rather it hadn't been made. What really matters is the quality of research a society undertakes not its commercial status.
18th November 2002	Martin Everett Dear James, I can only echo what you say. It would be far better if contributors stood for their own knowledge of the AZW rather trying to promote the ABC society or XYZ society in their replies. In this way I am sure we would have a much livelier debate rather than endlessly trying to score points.
18th November 2002	John Young Dear Martin, Forgive me, but you are the same Martin Everett who promised over two years ago to include details of the Anglo-Zulu War Research Society, either in 'Men of Harlech' or what has now become 'The Three Feathers', are you not? You did state in your e-mail, after our conversation that you would advise me as to when the next opportunty woukl araise, I still await your advice. May be if the Museum of the South Wales Borderers & Monmouthshire Regiment had an even playing field, I might not feel the way I do. Prior to your own tenure as Curator, the Museum was a frequent port of call for our meetings, and the Museum was listed amongst our membership, yet the link has been severed. For example your organising the event at Chelsea, without considering inviting along the A.-Z.W.R.S. That's your business, but why? But don't forget who introduced you to "The Die-hards" at the Isandlwana Evening, so they could be there for you. There are other matters that I think wise not to further on your comment, but I'm sure you will recollect them. I will ask one thing though; do you remember who you asked for an orbat of both battalions of the 24th on 22/1/1879? Did I not share my knowledge with you, and did not another member of the A.-Z.W.R.S. assist you further? By the way the question I posed to you sometime ago with regard to 2nd Mons. casualties on the Island of Elst, no longer needs an answer. Now "an orphan of the regiment", John Young, Chairman, Anglo-Zulu War Research Society & surprisingly "Friend of the Museums of the R.R.W."
18th November 2002	Martin Everett Dear John, If you wish to submit an article or promote the AZWRS in 'The Three Feathers' then write to the editor - Bob Smith - his contact details are on the last issue of the newsletter. Your reply above illustrates the point I was making. It would be helpful to everyone if get away from the endless point scoring. If you wish a reply on the 2 MONS casualties then email the museum direct and one of the staff will be only to pleased to respond to you.
19th November 2002	Greenhill Books Forgive an intrusion to allow a brief return to the original topic of this discussion forum � Professor John Laband's recent article on the state and future of study and publications in this field. Notwithstanding his opinions as expressed in the article, Greenhill Books were recently immensely pleased by Professor Laband's reaction to our latest foray into publishing on the Anglo Zulu Wars, Zulu Victory: The Epic of Isandlwana and the Cover-Up by Ron Lock and Peter Quantrill, and a portion of his review is quoted below. Greenhill has published a large number of books on the subject to great acclaim over the years and sincerely hope 'that reports of [its] death have been greatly exaggerated'. "Zulu Victory ... is controversial in the most positive sense of that word. Written with considerable verve and commendable clarity, its great virtue is that it genuinely opens up the debate once more on a number of key issues with well-considered speculation combined with solid forensic argument. There is no doubt in my mind that it genuinely furthers Anglo-Zulu War studies and will provide the grist for much positive future discussion and research. A number of issues in particular caught my attention. The first two will make for excellent debate ... Some of the issues raised in Part Three and Appendix C have been handled so well that I fear they might even close off further discussion! And I must repeat that the actual writing of the book is very well done. The maps also seem appropriate and useful, and are clear and elegant. I wish this book a successful and vigorous reception." � Professor John Laband, Director of Heritage Studies, University of Natal Further details of the book and of Greenhill's other Anglo Zulu War books can be found at http://www.greenhillbooks.com/booksheets/zulu_victory.html
19th November 2002	Greenhill Books Forgive an intrusion to allow a brief return to the original topic of this discussion forum � Professor John Laband's recent article on the state and future of study and publications in this field. Notwithstanding his opinions as expressed in the article, Greenhill Books were recently immensely pleased by Professor Laband's reaction to our latest foray into publishing on the Anglo Zulu Wars, Zulu Victory: The Epic of Isandlwana and the Cover-Up by Ron Lock and Peter Quantrill, and a portion of his review is quoted below. Greenhill has published a large number of books on the subject to great acclaim over the years and sincerely hope 'that reports of [its] death have been greatly exaggerated'. "Zulu Victory ... is controversial in the most positive sense of that word. Written with considerable verve and commendable clarity, its great virtue is that it genuinely opens up the debate once more on a number of key issues with well-considered speculation combined with solid forensic argument. There is no doubt in my mind that it genuinely furthers Anglo-Zulu War studies and will provide the grist for much positive future discussion and research. A number of issues in particular caught my attention. The first two will make for excellent debate ... Some of the issues raised in Part Three and Appendix C have been handled so well that I fear they might even close off further discussion! And I must repeat that the actual writing of the book is very well done. The maps also seem appropriate and useful, and are clear and elegant. I wish this book a successful and vigorous reception." � Professor John Laband, Director of Heritage Studies, University of Natal Further details of the book and of Greenhill's other Anglo Zulu War books can be found at http://www.greenhillbooks.com/booksheets/zulu_victory.html
20th November 2002	sally On the original question - as an observer ... Surely as long as there is demand and interest, there will be books written. Look at the flow of books and films on the 1st and 2nd World Wars, Vietam etc. If one looks at the ever growing number of visitors to the AZW battlefields it is blatently obvious that the interest is not just maintaining but increasing. Whilst every book may re-hash all or part of any of the battles, each will have a slightly different angle/approach - some may purport to be historically accurate (rightly or wrongly) whilst others may be more theatrical/creative. There is no 'one' absolute authority on the subject especially when we are continually finding new information on the AZW battles, (as per Lock and Quantrell's book) which in turn can create new interest and debate, so why on earth should the interest wain on such a dramatic, and exciting war as teh AZW, which also saw a major turning point in colonialism, ethods of warfare etc. May the books (written from any and all aspects) continue to be written for those who have a passion for the subject.
21st November 2002	John Young Sally, I've got to echo your view. One aspect we haven't had as yet is the Zulu aspect to the campaign, as viewed by a modern Zulu historian. Now that would be a book! I have now seen Professor Laband's article, which must I conclude have been written prior to the actual publication of Ron Lock & Peter Quantrill's 'Zulu Victory'. I hate to harp on this, and I assure everyone I'm not trying to stir up the earlier hornets nest about this, but in what way was Dr. Adrian Greaves' 'Isandlwana' "controversial"? Professor Laband does not expand on the comment. To me, personally, the controversy involved the large numbers of errors that appeared on the pages. Following that line does that make Dr. Greaves' 'Rorke's Drift' equally controversial? May be Professor Laband might pay us a visit and explain himself. I'm still learning new things almost every day about various facets of the Anglo-Zulu War, and I'm going to start throwing some of them up as points of discussion - suchas the Lane V.C. thread. If Professor Laband is fearful the well of research might run dry, then let all of us use the resource of this forum, provided by Alan & Peter, to further research in the field of the Anglo-Zulu War.
21st November 2002	John S Radburn Sally & John I would also like to echo what you have both written, especially when it comes to researching individuals concerned with the Anglo Zulu War, because I have litterally hundreds of soldiers with queries attached to them and would like answers too. Regards John R