rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic

Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 3:34 pm

I have just had delivered the new book by the co authors Adrian Greaves and Ian Knight "Who's Who in the Zulu war 1879 Part One" I must say I am rather disapointed it look's to me like a updated version of John Youngs "They Fell Like Stones" I hope that I am wrong but when I have read it I may think differently
Clive

Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:13 pm

Dear Clive,
I received this book a short-while ago from RRW shop. A quick check on the section about William Jones VC reveals a certain amount of information that has now been out-of-date for a couple of years, that was updated by myself and Graham Mason, in July 2006, initially via this website, which is fully and easily checkable by the reader. Anybody in any 'trade' should make it their business to read as widely and frequently as possible to keep up-to-date with changes and innovations. The section about William Jones VC in this book, can be compared to the section that was featured in Alister William's book, 'Heart of a Dragon', both books published about the same time.Alister easily had as many men to reseach as his peers and came up with a work which is fresh,up-to-date and of great interest to any keen AZW enthusiast.There's a vast difference between hard research and speculative writing.The AZW landscape is now changing between a previously 'specialist field', frequented by the privileged,and now,a more open study which has been ushered in by the likes of those that frequent this discussion forum who make it their business to be 'spot-on'.We need more of the latter and less of the former so that AZW research and legend survives healthy and intact for the next hundred or so years.Well spotted Clive!

Tony.

Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:02 pm

Clive,

Do I take for your remarks that you were equally disapointed[sic] with my long ago published work? I'm deeply offended! NOT!

Who's Who in the Zulu War 1879 isn't at all in the same vein as my work, it is a work of selective biographical summaries, whereas my work was concerned with the British & colonial casualties of the military actions of the campaign.

The only similarity I can discover between the two works is that they share four of the same illustrations.

Tony,

Who are those that you consider 'the privileged', please explain? By what do you consider them privileged is it their rank; title; wealth or self-proclaimed status as an authority?

I'm still learning about the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879, forty-two years almost to the day that my passion was sparked. I hope I never stop learning and discovering new facts about the campaign.

John Y.

Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 10:43 pm

Dear John,
good point. I meant privileged as from the point of view of access to the particular type (any, pertinent to an individual's research particular to their own needs and circumstances) of information to pursue this line of study. In a similar way it could be said that somebody who lived near Kew (as opposed to Newcastle,or some similar location) before the advent of the internet or was told 'insider information' by their family, could be seen to have an advantage over an individual who had neither the scope, resources or means to pursue this avenue of interest. These examples are not exhaustive and the term 'privileged' is as elastic are there are examples. Just to illustrate this difference, only a decade ago, it would have been more difficult for somebody with a restricted budget to pursue, what is after all, a specialist interest. Also pertinent to the amount of funds at an individual's disposal is to have the means to travel to South Africa,say to access the Killi Campbell Library,visit Rorke's Drift and Isandhlwana,talk to the Zulu's etc. In addition, it is much easier now for the average person to check out any statements that are either written on a hearsay or speculative basis or verify those that are correct.There are now more people than ever who write about AZW campaigns and this is the proof that it is now easier to write about this subject from a financial or 'access to archives' point of view.We could say that now the 'privilege' lies with the average man in the street, where he does not have to accept whatever information he is presented with as 'written in stone'. This empowers 'all' individuals to 'think for themselves' and that is the 'ultimate privilege' that any indivdual can be afforded. We also need people like yourself who 'know their onions' .That is a 'privilege' for those who are interested,like being glued to BBC Radio Wales to hear you comments (via Sky) about so-and-so's latest book.Cheers.

Tony.

Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 12:09 am

Tony/John/Clive

I, too, am not sure that privilege is the right word. To research and write, one has always had to travel, simply to obtain access to the necessary sources, which - in the case of the AZW - are split mainly (but not entirely) between the UK and RSA, with plenty of additional necessary travel required within these two countries.

The advent of the internet has eased many steps in this field, such as online access to catalogues of archives collections worldwide - Wits, NASA and Killie Campbell for example - but for most research in primary sources one must still visit the relevant repository, or be patient and write or commission research, which is as it has always been. Very few researchers and authors, surely, can afford to travel worldwide regularly for this work (with no guarantee of published success) without making real sacrifices or occasionally trying to arrange financial assistance in the way of grants/bursaries etc from various academic sources. I don't know but I would suspect that Ian Knight, for example, has made many sacrifices to pursue his work and academic studies over the last couple of decades - and "published success" in this field rarely translates into thousands of copies sold or spectacular remuneration.

I've only had a brief flick through Who's Who in the AZW (1) in Waterstone's, so am in no position yet to pass comment on the book generally, but I did note that both Lee Stevenson and Ian Wooderson are thanked in the acknowledgements, which certainly indicates that some very detailed original work has gone into a number of the individuals included in the survey, as RD By Those Who Were There etc and the KLH site will amply testify. If the book is a necessary addition to the AZW scene, or is to add something worthwhile and original, I do agree that it has to be up to date, accurate and as original as possible, which means a huge amount of painstaking biograpical sleuthing by the authors or their specialist assistants, often involving many hours of research for a tiny important snippet.

Some of these details will be important biographically or historically, some will be trivia, and my quick look at a few of the entries showed that both elements are present in this book. The strengths of an author which prove useful in this type of publication are not necessarily those which serve well in, for example, a more sweeping history, which must encompass both the military and the political aspects. I have always admired Ian Knight's grasp of - and ability to convey - this overall picture so well, such as in his narratives on the war, on southern African personalities or in, for example, his superb biography of Louis Napoleon. Not everyone can do this, no matter how assiduously we all love to spend our time sleuthing out the biographical minutiae on our favourites. Being a trained historian no doubt helps!

If it is going to succeed, by collecting together a number of potted biographies, then it must obviously be tip-top in its accuracy as an absolute minimum, or there is no point in the book in the first place. This is where Lee's and Woody's digging, for example, can present new and sometimes surprising details on familiar names.

Being me, I looked first at Smith's entry and am afraid I was rather disappointed. Appalled might be a better word. The first few lines regurgitate almost word for word what has already appeared in previous publications, and so contain four or five errors of fact in the first three short paragraphs alone - in just half a dozen or so sentences. Not all of them are important but if the book is a collection of brief biographical notes only, then obviously these are what have to be right. Lummis has been relied upon yet again, which is a shame as almost every other statement in Lummis (not to mention a photo caption or two) is incorrect. I would also have expected anyone even remotely familiar with 19th century Natal not to repeat a couple of Lummis's howlers. In addition, at least one and possibly two entirely subjective statements are presented as fact and look completely out of place in a supposedly brief, factual biographical summary.

Finally, with two spelling mistakes in a single short word, it appears that Smith served before the AZW in a place called "Escort." I kid you not! How on earth did that one get through? It doesn't even have the excuse of revised orthography!

Hopefully, the rest of the book is much better - please don't avoid it on the strength of one dodgy entry!

Peter

Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 11:13 am

Dear Peter,
I think you have hit the nail on the head in that maybe I should have used the word 'preserve' to describe what I was trying to put across.
Once the preserve of enthusiastic amateurs and a handful of professionals, would have been a better description.
Despite my quibble over a couple of out-of-date facts about William Jones VC, Who's Who in the Anglo Zulu War, is a good addition to any AZW collection and serves its purpose well, as a general work and source of reference to indicate who took part in AZW campaigns. Possibly at the time this book was being wrote, the 'updates', I mention had not become known as facts generally. However,I would have steered clear of the inclusion of some facts before they had been thoroughly checked out with a suitable reference to quote.
I also agree with you on the other points you mention about sacrifice and dedication.There's no 'half-measures' in AZW pusuits.The hard work in terms of research,travel and expense that has been conducted by the various authors in this subject is exemplary.Without such work it would be impossible for newcomers to enter this field.
Maybe AZW study has now 'come of age' due to this sound foundation that has been created.
Some other books I recently bought that were a good read were, 'Book of Military Obituaries 1 and 2' edited by David Twiston Davies.'Awards of the GC 1940-2005'. Nick Thornicroft's, 'VCs of Gloucestershire and North Bristol' also stood out as one of the better written/researched books on offer last year. Cheers.

Tony.

Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 11:37 am

Peter,

I've got to agree with you there are some silly, and very much avoidable, mistakes in Who's Who in the Zulu War 1879. You homed in on Smith, I went to the next entry Smith-Dorrien. The authors have Quartermaster Bloomfield at the ammunition supply of he 2/4th, so one silly spelling error and a typographic (I hope) error, which places Bloomfield on the lines-of-communication, rather than at Isandlwana.

For some reason the authors fail to correct Smith-Dorrien's belief that the wounded mounted infantryman was a member of the 24th Regiment. The research that proved the fact was a member of the 80th Regiment has been common knowledge for some time.

Going from Smith to Smith-Dorrien I noticed a strange inconstancy, Smith was at Ginniss, whereas Smith-Dorrien fought at Ginnis. Both of the spellings are fine, but when they vary between four pages in the same work it is somewhat odd.

In my opinion the authors have been fickle about those they have chosen to include or exclude. Why include Mitford, yet disregard Haggard? The same could apply for inclusion of Wells, and the exclusion of Deeble, could it not? Marter rates a mention, but what of Gifford? Will Bulwer be in the 'Colonials'? If so then why include Lane V.C. in this volume of the work, surely by then he was a colonial soldier. Equally the same applies to MacLeod for he too was surely a colonial, will there be no entries for George Browne, Lonsdale or Bettington on the same premise? Something I know only the authors can answer for certainty, but we'll have to wait for the next volume, I'm sure.

As to dodgy entries how about this one. Archibald Berkeley Milne's entry in the contents appears as Milne, Archibald Bertel yet in the body of the work is given, again wrongly as Milne, Archibald Berkel. Not quite sure how the authors arrived at their varying entires, especially as you point out with the wonders of the internet!

I suppose that you are miffed that they have neglected to mention Frederick Marshall's prowess with the bat, as much as I am? Did you return the television intact, by the way?

Tony,

Thanks for the clarification on that.

As to your last comment thanks for that, it was very personal to me to get back at the author involved. In a newspaper article written in June 1984 he launched an attack on a number of British Divisions in the Normandy campaign, including that of my late father, the 53rd Welsh Division, labelled them as 'Barbarians beyond the Beaches' and inferring they were cowardly, ill-disciplined and battle-shy.

My father was shocked by that author's comments to say the least, and could not be consoled by anyone. What did the author know of life on Hill 112, the horrors of the Falaise fighting at odds of 4-to-1(better odds than Rorke's Drift, I know.) or engaging a Tiger tank with a Bren Gun etc.? My comments in that radio interview were in fact a 'revenge attack' on that author, a happy atonement for the sorrow he had caused my father.

John Y.

Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 3:44 pm

John
The answer is
NO in capital letters I am certainly not criticizing your book in fact I think it is a very good book indeed it was just that Adrians & Ian's book appeared to my amateur mind in Anglo/Zulu affairs seemed to be following in a very similar vein to your book
Clive

Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 4:28 pm

Dear John Y,
the reason I tuned into BBC Radio Wales on the occasion mentioned was to hear you put the record straight on that one, which had been discussed on this forum before. In fact, I would imagine the main reason most of the people I know, who told me they were going to tune into that programme, did so for the same reason.
There seems to be a flip-side to the 'AZW-coin' that has slipped in over the last few years.This is the indiscriminate use of sensationalism and controversy (the essence of 'good' journalism), to comment on AZW matters from a particular focus i.e. to attack those that are not in a position to defend themselves.You can't libel a dead person unless it implies that their descendants have inherited some major mental-defect that causes embarrasment and such undesirable conditions. There's also the angle of 'fair-comment', where the author can gain legal-protection by stating that it is the public's 'best interest' to be aware that a supposed reaction occurred .
The clever use of the subjunctive can imbue the reader with a sense of doubt or uncertainty that gives an author who decides to write from this particular 'focus' a certain type of immunity from counter-attacks from
descendants like yourself who know that their father,or ancestors,were indeed brave men and not a 'potential coward' as such use of the sensational,controversial and subjunctive mood implies.The power in this particular type of approach lies in the fact that it is subtle and hidden to the average reader or viewer, that's what sells any book written from this angle. It seems unfair, but the best we can achieve is to take measures such as you did, to counter any statements which only have a basis in conjecture and not reality.We are all behind you to correct any unjust attacks.
I must take the Christmas decorations down now instead of writing replies on here, or else I'll be under attack from a 'spousal-angle' when my missus comes home from work.Cheers.

Tony.

Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 2:44 pm

Peter E :

Good points.
However, I noted that when making your positive comments about the Who's Who in the AZW (1) you refer to Ian Knight but not his co-author.
Deliberately or am I being too mischievous here ??

Happy New Year to all
Best regards

Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 2:52 pm

May i add some further kindling to this topic ? , i have both John Young`s book and the two volumes recently written by Dr Adrian Greaves & Ian Knight . Having decades yet to even get near those with in depth knowledge on the Zulu war is something i aspire to. I hope my knowledge does improve as the days go by .

It would be great if established authors in this field did a little bit more research at times . My knowledge of Colonials & Zulu personalities is less than 1 % so the second volume of Adrians & Ian`s book ( s ) is new territory to me , i have yet to write my first book so any points i might raise are open to all to accept or deny .

However when i see yet again the " fact " that Fred Hitch VC got married in 1880 , he had 6 children and worst of all died on Jan 13th 1913 it does make me some what annoyed , to set the record right once again with Fred , he got married in July 1881 , had 11 children and died at 6 :30 pm on Jan 6th 1913 ! , facts 101% proven . When you ask someone to pay � 20 to � 30 for books the least you can expect is correct data .
Look at William Jones VC again , he got married aged 61 , his second wife at the time 51 yet we are expected to believe he had 2 children with this second wife ! , the TRUE facts are of course different .

His first wife did not apparently die , she did die !!! , most likely having contracted TB or Miners Lung as it was also called in the UK before she went to South Africa and subsequently died , her son being left behind with his grandparents . All these salient facts are easily available on this site of course . I hate using the word " EXPERT " , much rather say there are those with better knowledge .

What is sadly lacking is one or two extensive volumes on the life of these men ( the rankers and " others " ) of the Zulu campaign . Some critic`s complain about the coverage of VC holders in this campaign of 1879 , they had a life afterwards and this is an area rich for research as the publications on the battles are too numerous to list here . Alister Willliams in his book " Heart Of A Dragon " is very specific in his subject matter and his depth of research is as far as i am concerned to be bettered.

If i ever write my own work i hope Alister would give it the once over before publication . To end this piece just a couple of points discovered , Sgt Windridge was married THREE times , QM Bloomfied twice with three children , Pte George Deacon Power was born in London , not Hampshire nor Yorkshire , Pte Mason was born in Aldersgate NOT Aldgate and so on. I hope the next book i get will show uptodate facts ( proven ) and not oft printed erros that we see far to often , thank you , Graham .

Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 3:38 pm

There is yet another book which I had given me for Christmas but I wish the kind one who gave it me had not bothered the title ? " A Solemn Mockery" does the author Dr Johnathan Hicks like or believe anything written so far about the Anglo/Zulu War ? I have stuggled to get to the end of his book has anyone else had this difficulty?
Clive

Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 4:19 pm

The general consensus is that the title just about sums up the contents, Clive.

Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 1:52 pm

PRS

Not at all. It is easy for me to be so positive about IK's work because I have 11 or 12 of his books (including co-authored titles) and a few others in which he has contributed skilful introductions. It has been fascinating to watch the broadening in scope of his published works over the last 17 or 18 years and he is a historian whose scholarship and writing skills I admire, whereas I have only one of AG's books.

In my hurried skim of the new volume during a lunchbreak I didn't look to see who was responsible for which entries, if indeed that's specified. I glanced briefly at only two or three entries, which is why I'm in no position to comment on it overall.

Peter

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 4:30 pm

Peter E :

Hi.
Must confess am of same opinion as you. I also have several books by IK in my library, but only 1 by AG.

As in most things in life we have favourites and dislikes, and for me this extends to authors.

I do not intend to purchase Who's Who in the AZW (1) for that reason.

Best regards