 |
 | Implications of Anglo-Zulu War |  |
 |
| | |
|
| | |
|
Peter Ewart
| Joined: 31 Aug 2005 |
| Posts: 1797 |
| Location: Near Canterbury, Kent, England. |
|
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 11:42 am |
|
 |
 |
|
|
Andrew
As Michael has suggested, I've had a good think about this and a look at some of the works I have. However, the short answer is that it is difficult to think of anything in the way of imperial or colonial policy which might have been a direct result of the Anglo-Zulu War.
The AZW was only one of several minor events which marked the period and it is for this reason that most works on the overall imperial picture of the second half - or last third - of the 19th century allow only a line or two on the AZW. Imperial & foreign policy was more concerned with Afghanistan & the Turkish question (and the many numerous long-running disputes in different parts of Europe). A look at Hobsbawm's "The Age of Empire", Lawrence James "Rise & Fall of the British Empire" Pakenham's "The Scramble for Africa" or my recollections of Jan Morris's well-known trilogy will not yield much more than a mention in a couple of lines of the AZW campaign, let alone any imperial or political developments whose origins can be found in 1879.
It is sometimes easy to overlook the fact that because many of us are deeply interested in this part of our history - and as a result are fascinated by much of the minutiae, military or otherwise - it is possible to allow a distortion of its importance in the overall picture to be created in our minds as a result of modern or retrospective levels of interest.
Andrew, I suspect that political biographies are going to be among your most useful material, if only to demonstrate that foreign and imperial policy depended at that time upon which political party was in power. The constant changes in policy between the mid-1860s & the 1880s tended to follow the constant switching of power between Gladstone & Disraeli and, after the latter's death & into the 1890s, Salisbury. The Tories & Liberals battled continually on imperial and foreign policy during this time (traditionally one of them expansive & imperialist & the other not, but it wasn't ever quite as simple as that).
On the other hand, Gladstone's famous 1879 Midlothian campaign did focus repeatedly on the plight of the Zulu and also the question of the Transvaal Boers after the 1877 annexation. And he did win the Election! However, your reading will show that he didn't put into practice the policies he'd preached and the "unsatisfactory" agreement after the Transvaal War of 1881 was one result. I'd therefore recommend a bit of biographical research on the three PMs mentioned above. Philip Magnus produced a good one on Gladstone in the 1950s and the more recent one by Roy Jenkins was extremely well received.
In South Africa itself, British policy was perhaps more concerned after 1879 with the the "problem" of the Boer Republics. GB didn't bother to annexe Zululand until 1887 despite local agitation for it, and the irritating local (but far away) farces of 1873, 1879 and the mid-1880s - of which 1879 was obviously the worst - led the government to the view that Natal was incapable of running local affairs properly. The recall of Frere was an obvious result of the AZW but even that was not the wish of the government of the time but due to pressure from elsewhere. The absorption of Zululand into the colony of Natal in 1897 could be construed as another indirect result of 1879, but was more the result of matters since then. The policy of relative independence allowed to Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Swaziland as opposed to the treatment of Zululand & Tongaland after 1879 and 1887 might be pertinent too. After his election victory in 1880 Gladstone came up with the rather "original" policy of confederation"!
The obvious development in colonial affairs to look for might be to see whether the government watched colonial administations much more closely, in order to avoid being dragged into unwanted and costly overseas military & political entanglements. As Michael has suggested, an extended telegraph line would be priority number one there after the 1878 debacle! (I wonder if the word "Madeira" should figure much larger in the whole South African story).
I'm not sure how deeply A2 level enquires into matters, but good biographies of the three PMS (plus Chamberlain & Rosebery perhaps) plus even, say, the relevant volume of Churchill's "History of the English Speaking Peoples" will certainly give an overview of the political decisions made (fgn & colonial) in the 1880s and 1890s but you won't find the AZW looms large. As Michael has suggested, perhaps the Blue Books & other government papers will help, even if to demonstrate that local and military policies may have been affected more than British government ones.
Public opinion (the press, the churches and pressure groups such as the Aboriginal Protection Society) was another matter. You may well find fruitful material on the agitation against government policies in this country. For the developments in and around Zululand itself after 1879 (including the relations between GB, Natal & Zululand) see Jeff Guy's "The Destruction of the Zulu Kingdom" and "The View Across the River." Or some of the material published by Shula Marks in articles (mostly in RSA) over the last 30 years or so may well have an international & political angle as well as a local one.
I don't know whether either the information or the works mentioned will help, but good luck with your research.
Peter
|
|
|
|
| | |
|
| | |
| Washing of the Spears | |
|
| | |
|
Sawubona
| Joined: 09 Nov 2005 |
| Posts: 1179 |
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 3:18 am |
|
|
|
|
|
Tom,
There are basically two hardcovers available, one of which was a "Book of the Month Club" reprint. The first printing is obviously more collectible, but the BMC is cheaper (but sans photos). A first edition with the dust jacket intact is worth about $45-60 (but eventually will be worth a whole lot more). It's got a brown cover, the other has a red cover. There was also a later (70's) paperback re-printing that shouldn't set you back more than about $10-25 . If you're looking for bargain, go for the paperbound, but if your looking for a classier investment, then track down a first edition. Either way, watch eBay! It seems to come available all of the time and most eBayers don't (or can't) read much. And if you find one what Donald signed, buy it and I'll buy it from you for twice what you paid! Good luck.
Sorry! I realize this is beginning to belong on another forum, but threads do seem to have a will of their own, don't they?
|
|
|
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
Peter Ewart
| Joined: 31 Aug 2005 |
| Posts: 1797 |
| Location: Near Canterbury, Kent, England. |
|
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 5:49 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Tom
It might seem ridiculous to say that the jury is still out on TWOTS
(after over 40 years!!!) but perhaps more accurate to say that a present-day jury might well have come to a different verdict.
With the huge upsurge in original research from the 1970s onwards, as well as at least one work which appeared almost contemporaneously with TWOTS, an increasingly significant proportion of Morris' work has been questioned, particularly with regard to Isandlwana. Whereas 10 or 20 years ago most informed criticism was the result of subsequent research and it was, perhaps, generally considered that TWOTS had originally been not only a ground-breaking work (at least in its scope) and that it would stand the test of time despite many findings which proved Morris wrong in some matters, nowadays perhaps things have shifted a fair bit.
It is very easy to criticise, especially a work of that size which obviously has to be "broad brush" at some points, and one has to remember the conditions under which he researched and wrote TWOTS, compared with today. On the other hand, although one would almost expect up-to-date specialised research in primary sources to pick holes in some of Morris's statements and still acknowledge the status of his work, a growing number of researchers and writers have become increasingly disillusioned. I can't comment myself because I haven't examined the primary sources which many historians have, but I do understand why the regard for this book has been sinking fast in many quarters in recent years.
It has become increasingly clear that Morris's account of Isandlwana is a bit of a dog's dinner, and that much of his identification of units and personnel during the AZW is at fault. Even his strongest point - that he wrote very well indeed - has increasingly failed to defend his work from accusations of fiction, a creative imagination and dramatic licence. There are a number of statements in TWOTS for which the most voracious modern-day researchers can find no source, primary or secondary, whatsoever. It is unlikely that all this material has disappeared in the interim, so therefore his most crucial decision - not to include footnotes to support his assertions - has entirely failed to defend his reputation from the accusations of those who cry foul.
Somewhere between the two ("the man who made it up and concealed this for years by refusing to divulge his exact sources" and "the creator of the best modern account of the Zulu nation and the AZW") is, perhaps, the truth. It will always be a darned good read, but these days not, perhaps, usually considered a work which gives an accurate account of what really happened. Along with the work of Binns in the 60s, it was among the first detailed accounts many of us read, and it is always difficult to keep an open mind and forget what one first believed, just as ZULU or "Zulu Dawn" could, perhaps, persuade an audience that that is what really happened until they choose to educate themselves.
I hope that the above remarks are not unfair as I have tried to present a balanced overview of present day opinion as I've seen it over the last few years. Opinions, generally, certainly seem to have changed since the early 90s, when most writers were still saying they owed him a debt even though much had happened since the 1960s to correct his work. I have certainly been influenced, including on this forum over the last 5 or 6 years, by researchers of the primary sources such as Keith Smith & Julian Whybra. If they or anyone else feel I've portrayed here a less than balanced picture of the present position with regard to the reputation of the book, I'm sure you'll say so! And if I've held back too much, you can say that too!
To be fair, we should also acknowledge that in recent years Morris himself defended his work stoutly, even against the most common criticisms (e.g. on his claimed ammunition supply problems) and considered nothing much had come to light in the intervening years to change his mind on anything substantial.
Peter
|
|
|
|
| | |
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 4
|
|
|
|
| |
