rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic - Sir Bartle Frere.....what kind of man was he?

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 4:51 pm

Damian:

Since you wrote a book on the fellow, may I ask what you thought of him after researching his life? How are we to look at him in context of his work in South Africa? From the looks of it he was a pretty "Machiavellian" fellow.
Question is did there really have to be a war between the British and the Zulu? Did you come away thinking he was a "villain"?

Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:03 am

Hi Rich,
That is a very big question. I can only say that he was a defence expert who wrote the first real plan for the defence of India. He freed the slaves of Zanzibar and built Kracahi and Bombay. He was a sanitary reformer, organiser of polar expeditions amongst other things. His reputation for villainy only stems from his Zulu affairs. If you have read my book you will know why he took this last fateful decision. I don't think that he was a 'bad' man - but he did not get on well in South Africa.
Hope this helps.
Damian

Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:56 pm

Damian:

You know I haven't yet delved into your Sir Bartle Frere. And I will because I'm always intrigued on how powerful individuals adjust circumstances to suit their way of thinking and drive results through. Frere certainly wanted to protect South Africa because of the Russian threat but he actually disobeyed his government orders about starting a war with the Zulu, wasn't that so? Now I thought that took some as how they say it "chutzpah" to pull that off. I presume he knew he must have had the cards so to speak to play that game. Politically, I could see justification for his behavior but morally can he be absolved of war-mongering and lulling a society into war?

Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:51 pm

Hi Damian, Rich,
It's interesting to look also at how others in power viewed Frere as an individual and also in comparison with Lord Chelmsford. Certainly Lord Chelmsford was a favourite of Queen Victoria but Lord Beaconsfield viewed both Chelmsford and Frere as 'equally incompetent' with Beaconsfield additionally refering to Frere as 'self-opinionated'. However I feel Beaconsfield view of Frere was shaped solely by the episodes in Zululand and failed to take into consideration that Frere was a seasoned and wise politician. Certainly as Damian points out there was more to Frere than his exploits in South Africa and that the Zulus would have possibly suffered a much worse fate at the hands of any 'other' colonial power.

Tony Jones.

Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 8:06 am

Tony,

Can you explain what fate would be worse than smashing the Zulu kingdom to pieces and creating a civil war----the Zulu of today are still very bitter about it.

Robert

Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 11:28 am

Dear Robert John,

My point in my last posting is to illustrate that the Zulu nation would have faired far worse under one of Frere's colonial counterparts from one of the other nations involved in the carving up of Africa. Don't want to appear rude, but it seems you've just skimmed over my posting and missed the 'theme' of it, as highlighted in the final sentence. I agree with you that the fate and current bitterness of the Zulu nation is unacceptable but they would not have just been 'smashed' as in the case of Frere but possibly 'annihilated' at the hands of another colonial power.
It's a case of a choice between lesser and greater evils and I feel Frere's 'tinkerings' in Zuluand when juxtaposed against what has gone on elsewhere in Africa at the hands of 'colonial meddlers' is the least severe option the Zulu's could have faced. Perhaps an expert on the wider picture in Africa such as Damian could expand on this theory to qualify it as I am only an 'amateur' AZW buff. Cheers.

Tony.

Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 11:39 am

Dear Robert,
Just thought of a recent conversation I had with HRH Prince Shangi. When I asked him how he felt about the fact that our ancestors had faced each other in mortal combat and that we had come together for the first time since the battle of Rorke's Drift he said that what matters now is us all working togther. I said I agreed and the that the antics you refer to in your posting would be 'unacceptable' to people of my generation. This goes about the business of 'letting go' which you have to do at some stage or it becomes and excuse for lethargy and being 'stuck in the past'. I see HRH Prince Shangi regularly at events and both 'sides' are paving a new way for a new future instead of celbrating the follies and failings of both country's colonial past. No nation is 100% acid and both the Brits and Zulu nations of the past had their 'good' points and 'bad' points. We prefer to live in the present and celebrate what is good about both sides' new outlook to working together for a brighter future with a new 'Zulu dawn'.

Tony.

Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 12:13 pm

But the fact remains Frere issued ultimatum�s he knew Cetshwayo could not meet.
If realistic ultimatums have been issued there would have been no blood shed.

I agree we should put the past behind us and aim for a better world but individuals should still be held accountable for their actions especially when the action is avoidable that�s what history is about.
Hundreds of lives were lost on both sides though the actions of Frere.

HARMAN P.

Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 1:09 pm

Hi,
Just a couple of points. Firstly, Frere did not create the conditions for civil war in Zululand - that honour goes to Wolseley and Gladstone as I argued in an article called "Who killed Cetshwayo?" for the RUSI a few years ago.

Secondly, I think that Frere felt rather bounced into war in Zululand by the tinkerings of Durnford and Bulwer on the boundary commission and the incompetence of Shepstone in the Transvaal. I think that he saw a Zulu war as the lesser evil than a Transvaal revolt which might bring on a further revolts in any of the other disturbed areas of southern Africa at a time when he was expecting a war with Russia. I know we aren't supposed to advertise, but I am working on something that should be out in Feb next year which will set Frere in a much bigger context (feel free to delete this if it contravenes the rules).

Thirdly, the idea that colonialism was an unmitigated disaster for Africa is a commonly held view, but one which needs an awful lot of nuancing if we are to come to a better understanding of Africa. Indeed one of the pillars of the African renaissance is an acceptance that all Africa's problems cannot be laid at the door of colonialism and that Cold War anti-imperalist ideologies were in many ways, completely off the mark.

Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 4:49 pm

Hi Damian,
My own observations is that Frere became a scapegoat for the problems in Zululand as he was 'thrown into the mix' rather than the architect of the downfall of the Zulu nation. The mindset that initiated the invasion of Afghanistan around the same time as the AZW campaigns with the preoccupation with protecting the 'jewel in the crown' in the shape of India and communication with India, trickled down into the policies that were made at the very top. Looking forwards to such a work as yours. These themes have been hinted at in various books but never expanded fully to clarify the situation.

Tony.

Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 10:51 pm

Hi Tony,
I don't think that we can absolve Frere from responsibility for starting the Zulu war although he certainly carried the can for a very dishonest Hicks-Beach. I think you are right about the India connection though. Frere wrote the defence plan for India which George Colley, Lytton's right hand man. then modified to make it more 'forward school'.

Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 10:21 am

Tony,

My apologies if my previous note sounded rude----it is just that I have spoken to some Zulu men on the couple of occasions that I have been in South Africa and they, without exception, blame Bartle Frere for starting the war which devastated Zululand.
I agree entirely that everyone should work together towards a better future but as you know if a country has been devastated by war it leaves bad feelings for a long time, i.e., over here in The Netherlands there is still a lot of anger towards Germany for what they did and closer to home one only has to see the ferver whipped up when Scotland,Wales or Ireland take on England at anything.

Best wishes,

Robert

Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 3:49 pm

Hi Robert,
Couldn't agree with you more mate. I always feel sad at the plight the Zulus suffered even at the hands of Frere. Let's face it, It would have been better if even that didn't happen to them. Know what you mean about the wars. Grandad lost his two eledest brothers leaving only him which meant we nearly didn't make it through. First holiday abroad ever was to Nordvick-on Zee in 1972 with the school for two weeks. Topic of WWI and WWI still 'hot' with Dutch hotel staff. Had a great time. Staff and locals extremely friendly. Dutch-English people very closely related in terms of language, culture and temprement. Cheers.

Tony.

Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 4:15 pm

Well it appears Sir bartle Frere isn't exactly a favorite person of the Zulu. Question is should it have been that way? Perhaps Damian and others can comment.
Frere as we know was worried about the Russians playing around in the South African theater. Frere was sensitive to the Britsih security issue. But here's the thing. He candidly came out strongly for war against the Zulu. I'm not sure if he had a crystal ball but wouldn't he have had it in the back of his mind that he could possibly by fightling both the Russians and Zulu at the same time? Now wasn't he taking a chance in "his war" that Russia wouldn't be active? So if that follows then was Russia really a threat in the South African theater? How realistic was that invasion scenario? Frere apparently was taking a chance. He looks like a gambler but frankly couldn't there have been more creativity in his negotiation with the Zulu? He gave them a take it or leave it response to their parleys. Of course the political situation between the Zulu, Boers and British was complicated. Could there have been any other way out of the deadlock besides war on the Zulu? I don't know. I thought Frere just didn't want to understand and entertain seriously Zulu concerns with territory. War appeared to have been the simple answer to a complex questions.

Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 6:22 pm

I don't know nearly enough about Sir Bartle Frere, or how much power someone can have at the further reaches of the Empire, due to the lack of decent (quick) communications with the British Government, so having to make some decisions then-and-there, which must be a tough call.

In saying that, isn't there a danger that some may consider him as being similar to the warlords of old, operating as part of, but independently of the Government, with regards his approach to the Zulu War, using the forces available like some kind of private army?

Those on the Boundary Commission did the job they were tasked to doing, in what was considered the favoured verdict, it just so happened it wasn't what some had expected, or wanted.

I regret to disagree with the view mentioned that it was these dealings which were partly to blame for Frere's following decision-making.

Please excuse what may be considered a na�ve posting, as it's only my amateur opinion.

Coll