you are currently viewing: Discussion Forum
 
 

 
 

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)

DateOriginal Topic
3rd December 2001Secrets of the Dead, The Mystery of Zulu Dawn
By Peter Critchley
Don't forget, this programme is on Channel 4 tonight from 9pm to 10pm. I'm going to have to video it, as I'm off to see Spurs beat Bolton!

All the best,

Peter
DateReplies
3rd December 2001Stephen
Spurs and Bolton?
I've never heard of those hockey teams??
3rd December 2001Gary Laliberty
Peter:
If you talking about the PBS show, it's called "Secrets of the Dead:Day of the Zulu".
It's a very good documentary of the battle of Isandlwana. It has Ian Knight and some archaeolgists going over the battle field site, to find out were the British front line was. And to find why the British lost and the Zulus had won.

Gary
3rd December 2001Peter Critchley
You'll be pleased to learn that Spurs did indeed win, 3-2 no less! It's "So-chur" for our North American cousins! ;)

I think they changed the name (at least that's the name Ian Knight gave me..) But I'm pretty sure it's the same programme.

I'll be watching it tomorrow.

Peter
5th December 2001Barry Iacoppi
Not only an expert on a subject dear to my heart but a Spurs fan as well. Good on ya Peter. I grew up in Tottenham and remember well when MY team got the double. Danny Blanchflower was captain and Spurs were the Man.United of their day. And their day will come again.
For sport I now shoot my Martini Henrys and dream of days gone but I still get a thrill when I remember Tommy Harmer dribbling a ball past one then two then three defenders before gently tapping it into the net.
UP THE SPURS
6th December 2001Peter Critchley
Not wanting to get TOO off-topic! But...

UP THE MIGHTY MIGHTY SPURS!!!

:)

Happy days eh! (We're fifth in the Premiership at the mo, and looking stronger every game!)
7th December 2001John Young
Taking you Spurs fans back to the real topic!

I had a meeting last night with two members of the Zulu Royal House. I await for their written comments on the documentary. But to be frank neither was impressed, one went as far to say he was "...saddened as the programme did a great injustice to brave men."

More soon when I receive their letters.

John Young,
Anglo-Zulu War Research Society.
7th December 2001Bob Morris
I also saw this documentary.
I do not think any thing is being taken away from the bravery of the British, and other allied soldiers, at all.
What the film tried to explain was how did an admittedly superior force of Zulus, armed only with assegais and shields, destroy a force of the worlds most superior soldiers and arms in short order.
Jamming of weapons due to heat, soiling etc was forwarded as well as the fact that the British soldiers may well have been far more over extended from their base than they should have been. This over extension of the line i think is very important, as the Zulus had only to break a very thin line and pour in thru the break. Game over basically at that point.
It may be interesting to find out what the situation was at Rorkes Drift where the Martinis were also fired many times in succession over many hours. What did jamming etc of the Martinis have on the outcome of this battle or its course.
I repeat that nothing in the documentary, to my mind, took anything away from the heroism and bravery of the British at Isandshlwana.
I welcome your comments, BOB MORRIS
7th December 2001david truesdale
The documentary was very silly and said nothing new. Donald Morris discussed an extended firing line in his book published in 1965.
Also the Zulus had more firearms than first imagined. Read about the destruction of the rocket battery.
With regard to the opening of the ammunition boxes, no one has ever denied that they could be opened by the method shown, but at the beginning of the action, Quartermasters would have opened them properly! Leading to a slow re supply in the opening phases of the battle. Not a reason for defeat, but a contributing factor in shortening the battle.
At the ned of the day the odds were with the Zulu. Had Chelmsford arrived before the end of the battle at Isandlwana, they would probably have beaten him also.
Regards to all
David Truesdale


Perhaps some day an accurate programme will be made on the topic. Its not as if there is a shortage of information!

8th December 2001John Young
Bob,

Just to clarify I don't think that His Royal Highness was actually alluding to the British. As previously stated as I have His Royal Highness's written comments I will add them to the discussion.

John Young,
Anglo-Zulu War Research Society.
8th December 2001James Garland
John
I think I know exactly what His Royal Highness was talking about. I felt the same. The programme did what most Europeans do when explaining the Zulu victory at Isandhlwana. It is always explained in terms of mistakes that were made by the British rather than in terms of sound tactical decisions made by the Zulus. The Zulus bravery is never unconditionally aknowledged. It is usually explained away by saying that they were "doctored" and consequently beleived that the bullets wouldn't hurt them, or as in this programme by suggesting they were under the influence of narcotics.
The truth is that the Zulus were not planning to fight that day, but were discovered in the Nquto range and made an instant decision to attack. They had no time to take narcotics. Because they were a disciplined force and used a well practiced tactic (bulls horns) they each knew their place in the overall plan. The attack was executed in a proffessional manner with great elan and spirit. When confronted with artillery they quickly developed a tactic on the hoof to deal with it, i.e. watching for the gunners to stand clear of the guns prior to firing and taking that as the signal to lie down. Then getting up and charging while the guns were reloaded.To develop tactics on the battlefield whilst under fire rather than in "the classroom" shows just how cool and proffesional the Zulus were.
The Indunas when they saw their men hesitate and take cover in the face of fierce firepower led by example and attacked taking their men with them.

I would love to see the battle assessed from a Zulu viewpoint.

Finally I was saddened that the team examined the graves of soldiers. They are war graves and should have been left. I don't think their excavations of the graves revealed anything new. They just showed what was self evident. The soldiers died from severe blows from knobkerries and cuts from assegais.

James Garland
9th December 2001bob morris
To John and James.
Point taken John, I was mistaken. Obviously the Zulu Royal House was refering to their own warriors and not the British.
The points raised are valid. The Zulu warriors did not need the power of drugs to defeat the British. Their aknowledged bravery and military brilliance were enough in themselves.
Finally the point raised by James re the damaging of the British graves is well stated.
Bob Morris
9th December 2001Ian Woodason
As I understand it the grave that was investigated is going to be eroded away, in fact this process had begun and this was why the grave could be located in the first place - you could see how close the river was in the pictures. I too am disturbed with the idea of disruption to war graves but the alternative was for the bones to be exposed to the elements and eventually the grave would have be washed away totally with no record. The grave has been properly recorded and the remains can now be reinterred in a more suitable and permanent place.

Ian Woodason
23rd January 2002Edward Bear
The documentary was aptly summed up by Ian Knight's own words during the opening of the cairn of "my ancestor":
"Here goes my reputation"