rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic - Implications of Anglo-Zulu War

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:15 pm

Peter
I agree with many of the criticisms you (and others) make of TWOTS and I find Morris' reticence about his sources unscholarly at best and disturbing at worst. however, the fact remains that he does an excellent job of painting the background to the development of South Africa. Although his sections on the AZW itself are based on uncheckable facts and, possibly, surmise, that doesn't prevent the book from being a fine secondary source for the sort of background information thyat would help Andrew with his project. It was on that basis I recommended it.
I must say I didn't expect to stir up the Spanish Inquisition! Very Happy

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:19 pm

You know if I'm not mistaken I think Mr. Morris' book was really the first "modern" day if you will examination of incidents in the Anglo-Zulu War that got pretty good publicity among readers especially of high adventure and historical drama. I'm sure that, as a Yank, the unusual topic fascinated him and had plenty of oomph where he thought yes this is a magnificent story of a people and some of their great history.
I believe that in most cases the first guys that go through the jungle get cut up the worst as time goes on. I think he did his best as a historian and tried to tell the "truth" though to the historians among us there is always debate as to how you get it. Of course he can be criticized for his methods
and research but nevertheless I think he was conscious of telling a story (like all historians do by the way) the best way he saw it. TWOTS should be thought of really as not a definitive work on the subject but rather say a spark to others to continue the investigations. For that I think we must commend Mr. Morris for his efforts.

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 11:11 pm

Spike & Rich

Yes, I don't disagree at all with the above. I often find myself sympathising with Morris and admiring his project, which took eight years or so (in between spying on the DDR!)

It is absolutely true that the one who blazes the trail makes it easier for those who come after, and they are often in his debt, if only for raising the interest in the topic & creating a market for future books. By far the majority of later writers have concentrated on a much smaller field and have specialised much more narrowly, so that corrections are inevitable. Even Ian Knight, who has published on many wider topics involving southern Africa, has not tried it in one volume, and Ian has always acknowledged Morris's role very generously, even when he has had to point out that a number of his claims no longer hold water.

The biggest shortcoming is Morris's claim not to have written an academic work (which may be true) and therefore he would not leave source notes. That decision has been the bane of every AZW historian ever since and, in the long run, has not served his reputation well. And yet, when you look at any number of other popular (or at least "non academic") histories and biographies of the 1960s, one often sees a complete absence of footnotes, whereas today they adorn many popular works.

And yes, he & Binns (apart from Jackson's paper) were the first to write on Isandlwana in detail since Coupland in 1948; and Morris, as far as I can see, was the first to write a lengthy one-volume history of the Zulu people including the AZW since JY Gibson in 1911, and only two that I can think of have since tried it themselves in a single volume (John Laband & Stephen Taylor) unless I've missed someone off the top of my head.

And I agree, Spike - I would certainly not dissuade Andrew from reading it. Read as many works as he can, would be my advice (although I don't know how much time he has before he has to put pen to paper!!!)

Peter

P.S. It is nice to know that Morris was one of the overseas observers at the first democratic election in RSA in 1994 - and found himself on duty at the polling station at Isandlwana!

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:14 pm

Peter..

Mr. Morris called himself an "enthusiastic amateur" when he wrote TWOTS. Looking back, that "amateur" (who I figured would moreso do an analysis on Leyte Gulf than focusing on battles in South Africa) kick-started a whole new field of study for examination. And as for examining his work..(of course he couldn't be trusted implicitly!) just a quote for context......

"History has to be rewritten because history is the selection of those threads or causes or antecedents we are interested in". O.W. Holmes Jr.

After '65, it sure looks like we all wanted just to get hold of the "facts" and where they sat. Right, amateurs aren't academics!

Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 1:54 am

While trolling through my old bookmarks I came across this:

http://www.bartleby.com/268/6/19.html

It's entitled "On the Zulu War" being a speech made in Parliament by A.M. Sullivan in 1879 that offers some insight toward broader colonial thinking after Isandlwana while putting up the bill for the A-ZW. (It also shows that the expression "bite the dust" was alive and well in Britain in 1879!)

I think a case could be made that the A-ZW, not unlike Viet Nam to the US, fostered a re-evaluation of precepts for the British Empire.

MAB

P.S.- Although one should read quickly through Morris' rendition of Isandlwana keeping in mind that his position on the ammo question was challenged even after his first edition and in his second edition he not only stood by his guns but offers a twisted piece of ammo crate strap found on the field as supporting his position, the rest of the book offers much and , as mentioned above is still the broadest treatment of Natal and Zululand in the 19th century.

Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 10:50 am

So it's a good read but should be read with a hefty proverbial grain of salt then? Okay, sounds good. I know I saw it at a local bookshop - it's got a red cover and has the Rorke's Drift painting on it.

Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 11:00 am

I guess up to this time Britain pretty much went wherever in the world it chose and took pretty much what it wanted but after this... well you have the Anglo-Zulu War in 1879; the 1st Boer War in 1881 which saw successive British defeats culminating in the massacre at Majuba; the Sudan Campaign which saw the death of Gordon, the 'breaking of the square' made so famous by the Newbolt poem that still makes me cry, the stalemate until K of K wins at Omdurman; and finally the 2nd Boer War... it seems that Britain had it pretty 'easy' until the AZW. While there were disasters and tragedies before - Balaclava and the terrible Crimean winter, Chillianwallah (where the 24th got into trouble too), the Indian Rising, Afghanistan and Gandamak, generally the empire kept expanding and growing. Perhaps by the time of the AZW there really wasn't much else to 'grow'?

Like most great empires they're defending and expanding and wanting to maintain the status quo in the face of revolutionary technological change. Sometimes they ride the crest of that change, sometimes they fall behind. It's strange how many times it seems that Britain is 'ready to fight the last war' or is that just the stereotypical image?

Again just my two cents,

Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 9:32 pm

Tpm

Yes, definitely "just the stereotypical image", as might be demonstrated from a look at the actual sequence of events.

GB's imperial acquisitions in Africa were largely well AFTER the AZW, not before. (Ditto the French, German and Belgian empires in Africa). There had been comparatively little British expansion in Africa before then. The Empire was closely identified with India and India with the Empire, and this had been the case for a very long time before 1879. The military setbacks and reverses you mention were largely before or at the same time as the major imperial expansion in Africa.

With regard to the AZW itself, although it can be argued that one of its main causes was Frere's view of how the Confederation policy might best be prosecuted, the war was not intended (even by Frere) to be acquisitional in itself, and had no part in any expansionist plans of the British Government (who, like King Cetshwayo, ironically) explicitly forbade their man on the spot to do anything of the kind. It's reluctance to have anything to do with a war with the Zulu was perhaps matched only by its horror at "another fine mess" it had somehow become reluctantly entangled with, this time without even its knowledge. Even eventual military victory did not tempt GB to annex Zululand until the government finally caved in and did so in 1887. A huge amount of bloodshed and ill-will might have been saved if this had come immediately after Ulundi, even if it might not have been right.

It might seem very surprising, looking back from this distance, but for most of the 19th century British governments were VERY reluctant to sanction overseas wars and also very reluctant to take on responsibilty for more colonies or dependencies. Take Natal - only a generation before the AZW it was the ver LAST place Britain wanted any responsibility for and in this respect was typical. The cost was what mattered.

The defence of the sea lanes and of vital overseas bases on the way to India, and obviously of anything which would jeopardise control of India (or that part of India controlled by the British) were primarily what mattered. Spats with Turks and Russians were generally with these in mind, as well as with the balance of power in Europe, and these did not not usually lead to any additions to the Empire.

British imperial and overseas policies seem to have had these principles in mind constantly and a great deal of the developments appear to have been the result of decisions made by a government running things "by the seat of its pants" and reacting (often late) to events. Nothing much changes then! Look at nearly all the overseas acquisitions of the 19th century and you'll see chaotic local developments and a reluctance on the part of GB to get involved until either public opinion or local (i.e. overseas) pressure told. Again, cost was always the factor, with a tiny, over-stretched army and the fear of costly overseas responsibities. This point may be particularly pertinent to Andrew's work.

In the 1880s and especially the 1890s, expansion did increase, however, and the military defeats you mention were surely a result of this rather than the other way round. Rhodes has a lot to answer for, as well as the Witwatersrand! If anyone wants to measure it, it might be worth calculating the square miles added to the Empire between 1879 and the death of Victoria - perhaps the Empire doubled in size in a decade or so? (Perhaps not, given the size of the sub-continent, Aussie and Canada, but the number of subject peoples added will have been huge).

Peter

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 4:36 am

This is the time of the great 'partitioning of Africa' as I recall - what I meant was most other places except maybe Imperial China were pretty much spoken for - or at least thats how it seems to me. Germany was also making its big grabs at the time as I recall.

Despite its not being a 'war of acquisition' the impression I got was that it was Chelmsford and Frere trying to pretty much force the government which was hesitant to commit to take out the Zulus. It was a war neither government wanted but the two imperial leaders who were there took advantage of the slowness of communication to stage a sort of imperial coup de main in kwaZulu. At least that's the impression I've got.

If anything the South African colony was a burden and a drain on resources. It was costing money and manpower and it was only a stop off for India bound ships as well as a base to control the South Atlantic, Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf region. Again, that's the impression I've got.

If not for the diamond fields what do you think would the British government have done? Like if there were no diamonds in South Africa would they have clamped down on expansionist efforts there?

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 5:50 am

Gold and diamonds are what prompted the expansion of the British forces into the OFS and Transvaal. At least that was what we were taught in history when I was at school during the apartheid era. But then a coincidence that Britain took an interest in the hinterland once these precious commodities were discovered?

Dawn

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:42 am

Peter,

Your points are well taken but perhaps one should look more deeply into the politics of the time. Although it's true that African (and world wide) colonization really took off post 1879 it may have had more to do with the 'stabilization' of the balance of power in Europe. The Franco-Prussian War was the last of the large scale 'old school' European conflicts where the victor simply took some frontier territory from the vanquished without further ado and without forcing total hegemony on the defeated foe (as attempted by Napoleon and accomplished, for a time, by Germany in WWII and subsequently imperfectly implemented during the Cold War by the new players). The impact of modern firearm technology hadn't yet set in on a tactical basis but seemed to be appreciated on a strategic level resulting in an awareness that it was no longer feasible, in the economic realm, to pursue the upper hand on the European continent, leaving over-seas colonial acquisitions as the more fiscally responsible route toward power and prestige. Ironically only Great Britain knew the true monetary costs involved and was less than thrilled with the scramble for Africa and elsewhere and more ironically Germany arrived too late to the new game and was ultimately forced to return it's attention to Europe.

It is of course true that London didn't want a conflict with the Zulus in 1879 but that was only because the timing was bad. The 'Great Game' was afoot in Afghanistan and the recent scare in Turkey had everyone on edge so no one wanted a diversion in South Africa that would further press the Army or the Exchequer. The opening of the Suez Canal had already reduced South Africa to secondary importance as a link to India and the Colonial Office's exuberance with the Canadian Confederation gave rise to totally unrealistic expectations towards a similar resolution in South Africa. There were only two sticking points- the Boers and the Zulus. Prior to the annexation of the Transvaal it was easy to play one off against the other and maintain a local balance of power, however once British interests were butt up against the Zulu border all bets were off.

Regardless of the fact that the amaZulu considered themselves to be an ally of Britain the fact that their cultural system required blood-letting in order to propagate posed a significant threat to the new status quo as Zululand was now surrounded by British protectorates or allies. Even prior to this Lord Wolseley had written to London that the Zulus would eventually have to be dealt with and was met with agreement. For Sir Bartle-Frere, he seems to have brought the 'Great Game' with him to Africa and anticipated Russian collusion and realizing one could not 'confederate' an independant nation felt justified in pressing his position and possibly thought that a show of force could cow Cetshwayo into accomodating him, his object being not to annex Zululand but to neutralize it.

Tom,

I don't think Lord Chelmsford would have invaded Zululand as he did if given his druthers and I'm not sure that Britain got all that much out of the diamond fields, certainly not enough to justify what South Afica ended up costing when attention was re-directed towards the Boers!

Dawn,

I hesitate to mention what I was taught in school during the Cold War (Duck and Cover! Then bicycle on home to Mom's tuna casserole and apple pie!) I'm not sure how much of the loot from diamond and gold mines actually reached London as Britain didn't seem to wait that long to divest itself from the whole conundrum.

Best

Michael

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 9:58 am

Michael
Well, it is all a bit murky as it has been a while since I was a school but the school curriculum was designed by the conquering party, so to speak, and I guess the powers that be had an interest in making sure we understood the British were the bad guys in all that business.

As I've said before, there's a quote somewhere along the lines of 'history is written by the conquerers'. I'm still trying to find out who said it.

Dawn

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 10:30 am

The Mercury (KwaZulu Natal) dated 17 January 2006 - headline:

King calls for Zulu history to be rewritten.

Zulu monarch King Goodwill Zwelithini has urged African academics not to withhold information gathered from research but to use it to rewrite history book for the benefit of furture generations.

The King was speaking yesterday at an event organised to commemorate the battle of Isandlwana, between the British and the Zulu in 1879. Zulu historians and academics had gather to discuss the history of the Zulu kings and their role in past battles. He said the history now learnt at school was disorted and need to be rewritten to highlight Zulu contributions.

Zwelithini urged the event organisers to take the day's discussions further by compiling a book to be launched in time to cerebrate his birthday in July.

"I would be very pleased if all these presentations and other researched work on Zulu history could be collated and published by July," he said.

Also at the event was ANC Deputy President Jacob Zuma, who said the role of kings and other traditional leaders in the liberation struggle should not be taken for granted. "Our liberation struggle was just a continuation of the role played by our kings before us," he said.

Zuma said colonialism had stripped South Africans of theri pride and dignity, adding that schools should be complemented with indigenous knowledge passed on from generation to generation.

There's a challenge!

Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 2:13 am

Martin
It will be interesting to see what they do with the Anglo Zulu War.

Dawn

Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 2:59 am

Coming from a culture which has recently been trying (vainly sometimes) to redefine itself in the face of globalization, a century of Americanization and trying to get a sense of itself, it's not easy I can tell you, to find the mythic 'middle ground'. Nationalists sometimes push too much - going so far, like Pol Pot, as to throw out every modern 'western' thing. For me it was the study of English as opposed to the national language. And other things. However, if you look at highly developed modern Asian societies like Japan and Korea, even resurgent China, they have successfully come to terms with modernization and technology YET they don't seem to have sacrificed their own culture - in fact it is the western world that seems to want to borrow from them as witnessed by some of Hollywoods' latest (everybody wants to know 'how to do kung-fu' - even 18th century Canadian indians in France in Brotherhood of the Wolf, Last Samurai, Memoirs of a Geisha, the planned remakes of Old Boy and My Sassy Girl).

Historically though, I think its important to give everybody their due... heroes and villains can be judged against the larger tapestry by their overall actions but its important not to propagandize. I was involved in a production that villified the American occupying powers to a great degree while making 'heroes' out of the locals resisting them. I backed out after a short while, I think it wasn't being fair. Even if some soldiers surely did those things and worse, they all had motivating factors which were never considered. Its important to try and see things from the other side of the hill as well - even for 'native historians'.