ZULU

[Sedalia Dave]

 

 

 

[Utah Bob #35998]

Hollywood has always tinkered with history in the mistaken and arrogant belief that their made up “facts” will enhance a true story.For the last hundred years they could have made accurate, well-researched films that would have been just as entertaining and not made history ignoramuses out of the public. But they chose not to. Despite it’s inaccuracies, Zulu is an excellent film.

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

It's a great movie; it's various inaccuracies are long-known.

 

Incidently, it's good to know that several times, including around the 50th anniversary of the movie, Zulu chierf Buthelezi, who played his ancestor Cetshwayo, has supported the movie and upheld it against attacks from the modern .PC crowd. "You can't erase history. It shows the bravery on both sides". Here's one example.

 

 

[Rip Snorter]

If you are into History and want more,  I recommend The Savage Wars by Lawrence James, Like Lions they Fought by Robert Edgerton, and Queen Victoria's Little Wars (for a jaundiced view), can't put my hand on the last or recall the author.

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

The Washing of the Spears, by Donald Morris (1st ed 1965; 2nd ed 1998) is also very good.

[Rip Snorter]

11 minutes ago, Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619 said:

The Washing of the Spears, by Donald Morris (1st ed 1965; 2nd ed 1998) is also very good.

Forgot that one, thanks! It is somewhere in the masses of books!

[El diablo gringo]

Red, Washing of the Spears was an excellent account of the time period.   Felt it was well written. 
 

Gringo

[Dirty Dan Dawkins]

5 hours ago, Utah Bob #35998 said:

Hollywood has always tinkered with history in the mistaken and arrogant belief that their made up “facts” will enhance a true story.For the last hundred years they could have made accurate, well-researched films that would have been just as entertaining and not made history ignoramuses out of the public. But they chose not to. Despite it’s inaccuracies, Zulu is an excellent film.

Well said

[Chantry]

1 hour ago, Rip Snorter said:

Queen Victoria's Little Wars

It's by Byron Farwell.  He wrote a number of books about the British Army's "small wars" in the 1800's & 1900"s

 

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_Farwell

[Rip Snorter]

9 minutes ago, Chantry said:

It's by Byron Farwell.  He wrote a number of books about the British Army's "small wars" in the 1800's & 1900"s

 

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_Farwell

Age creeps up, I should have remembered! Thanks.

[Utah Bob #35998]

1 hour ago, Rip Snorter said:

If you are into History and want more,  I recommend The Savage Wars by Lawrence James, Like Lions they Fought by Robert Edgerton, and Queen Victoria's Little Wars (for a jaundiced view), can't put my hand on the last or recall the author.

Queen Victoria’s Little Wars. I just finished it a few months ago. It is an excellent account of the mind boggling number of conflicts the British Army was involved during the Bictorian era. It’s also a well written and interesting examination of many of the officers, good and bad, who were involved over that long period. 

[Chantry]

In India and to a lesser degree Africa, overseas regiments were composed of men who lived in the region, they were led by British officers.  In both India and Africa there would also be all British battalions.

 

In India, on paper a battalion would have 12 British officers and a battalion surgeon, also an officer, but could be Indian or from Great Britain.  During peacetime  battalion British officers would be assigned to a higher command, at schools, on leave, so it was rare for all 12 officers to be present.  Company commanders would be majors. The company XO would be Gurkha, Sikh or Indian and hold the rank of Subedar.  A Subedar generally had the role and responsibility of a captain, but in US terms would be considered a senior warrant officer. Platoons were led by jemadars, who had the role and responsibility of a lieutenant, but again in US terms would be considered a junior warrant officer.  Service in India was considered good duty, it paid more, the money went farther and British officers would be given more responsibility.  I've read that the top 10% of Sandhurst were usually chosen to serve in the British Indian Army.

 

Africa was similarly set up at the battalion level, with more British NCO's filling the roles that required more education than was normally available in Africa.  What little I've read suggests Africa was not nearly as good a duty as India.

 

I'll note that at least until WWII, serving as a officer in the British Army generally required an outside income, usually from a family inheritance or allowance.  It was very difficult to make ends meet on an officer's salary, especially in the more prestigious regiments

 

[E.D. BLACK]

Never saw that , I assumed it was Zulu Dawn with Caine - I remember watching as a pre teen , and enjoyed .

i can still picture the flag being lost 

[Rip Snorter]

1 minute ago, E.D. BLACK said:

Never saw that , I assumed it was Zulu Dawn with Caine - I remember watching as a pre teen , and enjoyed .

i can still picture the flag being lost 

There are two cuts of the movie - you need both!

[Utah Bob #35998]

1 hour ago, Chantry said:

In India and to a lesser degree Africa, overseas regiments were composed of men who lived in the region, they were led by British officers.  In both India and Africa there would also be all British battalions.

 

In India, on paper a battalion would have 12 British officers and a battalion surgeon, also an officer, but could be Indian or from Great Britain.  During peacetime  battalion British officers would be assigned to a higher command, at schools, on leave, so it was rare for all 12 officers to be present.  Company commanders would be majors. The company XO would be Gurkha, Sikh or Indian and hold the rank of Subedar.  A Subedar generally had the role and responsibility of a captain, but in US terms would be considered a senior warrant officer. Platoons were led by jemadars, who had the role and responsibility of a lieutenant, but again in US terms would be considered a junior warrant officer.  Service in India was considered good duty, it paid more, the money went farther and British officers would be given more responsibility.  I've read that the top 10% of Sandhurst were usually chosen to serve in the British Indian Army.

 

Africa was similarly set up at the battalion level, with more British NCO's filling the roles that required more education than was normally available in Africa.  What little I've read suggests Africa was not nearly as good a duty as India.

 

I'll note that at least until WWII, serving as a officer in the British Army generally required an outside income, usually from a family inheritance or allowance.  It was very difficult to make ends meet on an officer's salary, especially in the more prestigious regiments

 

Yes. Officers commonly purchased promotions prior to the 20th century. Probably the reason some senior officers weren’t fit to command a latrine detail.

[Rip Snorter]

30 minutes ago, Utah Bob #35998 said:

Yes. Officers commonly purchased promotions prior to the 20th century. Probably the reason some senior officers weren’t fit to command a latrine detail.

I think you can find both types of officer under that system.  At the best they had intelligence, honor and courage. They were raised in a harsh, uncompromising  school.  At the worst not much different than the average / worst today.

[Duffield, SASS #23454]

37 minutes ago, Rip Snorter said:

I think you can find both types of officer under that system.  At the best they had intelligence, honor and courage. They were raised in a harsh, uncompromising  school.  At the worst not much different than the average / worst today.

Even the worst officer can be taught something by a good NCO

[Utah Bob #35998]

26 minutes ago, Duffield, SASS #23454 said:

Even the worst officer can be taught something by a good NCO

If they listen. 

[Utah Bob #35998]

1 hour ago, Rip Snorter said:

I think you can find both types of officer under that system.  At the best they had intelligence, honor and courage. They were raised in a harsh, uncompromising  school.  At the worst not much different than the average / worst today.

I didn’t mean to imply that they were all incompetent. Certainly the bulk of officer were qualified.  Farewell cites many examples of personal courage ant tactical ability. They were products of the National environment, convinced of the superiority of the Anglo Saxon civilization and that  it was their destiny to colonize the world and bring the poor inhabitants of the backward nations under the benevolent shadow of the Union Jack. Certainly not an unusual foreign policy at the time and shared by many European countries.

The belief that a strong infantry square and a bayonet charge would defeat any enemy eventually caught up to them at Isandlwana and against the Boers. Courage will only get you so far. 

[Injun Ryder, SASS #36201L]