Zulu - spot the mistakes

Bravo Barry

But Pascal, he is too fond of military history to enjoy a movie or TV series ...

Even for the wargame, it's the same, 90% of the players love only the game systems and have no real taste of something exact historic uniformology, real tactical rules , real firepower ect ...

Result a terrible decline of historal culture among players who do not want to get tired for looking the reality and on the wargames tables, it gives anything like in the movies...

Cheers

Pascal

So back to mistakes. How about the crew member in the white boiler suit walking out of the stable and around the back during the redoubt scene? I heard he was from Llanwrtyd Wells…just kidding he was local.

Jeff

Good post Barry, I agree with what you say about these film makers, they do take some great liberties with events from history, so I will also (like Pascal), say Bravo Barry.

tasker. Artistic licence and someones own interpretation of actual facts is misrepresentation, and misrepresentation is making DELIBERATE MISTAKES in order to mislead people into believing their version of events rather than the actual historical events that took place. Not all that long ago littlehand posted on the forum a write up about Endfield and Baker, and the film 'Zulu'. In the write up it stated that Baker had a score to settle with the English, and he saw his chance with this film (anti English?). I answered my friend Bill and said no, because I have Welsh ancestors and relatives and also Welsh friends, maybe you missed reading that bit. Regarding the capture of the enigma machine, yes, we all know that it was the Royal Navy that captured it from a German U-Boat, and I tend not to watch the tripe churned out by Hollywood, they seem to think that they have a right to alter historical facts at the drop of a hat, so maybe Baker and Hollywood have something in common, ie; they both try to alter historical events that are not theirs to alter.

Hi Martin,

Have you any idea which film company would be likely to take on the remake.

regards

barry

Hi all

The filmmakers do this, because they find that actual events are not spectacular enough for their taste but also just because they take the audience for idiots...

Cheers

Pascal

Hi Pascal,

Point taken, but if some of the real detail of the various actions occuring around Isandlwana 133 years ago were portrayed on film, the audience would be spellbound, not with fiction, but with fact.

regards


barry

Hi Barry

This is not about to happen, because the colonial war is very unpopular today, thank you god ...
Look your pm & e-mail,please...

Best regards

Pascal

Hi Barry

To be honest, I can't think of any film companies that would be best for the job. But who ever did take on the task, they would need to do some proper research and get the historical facts correct, and give the viewing public the true facts of events at Rorke's Drift, and not a load of made up, far from the truth fiction based on someones own biased interpretation of events in their attempt at trying to con the public and alter historical facts.

Hi Martin

If the film told the true facts, the producers would go bankrupt...

Cheers

Pascal

Hi Pascal

You have a good point there.

Which just goes to show that most of todays 'modern society' would prefer to watch a fake load of Hollywood type bunkum, rather than get better informed by being given the true historic facts, I suppose it could be a case of simple things entertaining simple minds.

My dear Martin

It's like my figurines I'm making my figurines of the British infantry of the first invasion in a way that has never seen and will never be seen on a table, players of this historical period will screaming to heresy ,but alas for them, my figures are hyper realistic, since I am very documented, but not a manufacturer has thought about what I'm doing ... I exult in advance ...

Cheers

Pascal

Hi Martin

The problem you would have in a remake is determining exactly what is the "truth". The debates on this site and on rdvc site clearly illustrate that there are many intepretations of exactly what went on. We just don't have sufficient primary sources to make a definitive remake - particularly on Isandlwana. The evidence that we do have can be fragmentary and clearly open to debate/dispute. I'm sure I would find fault with a Martin Cooper remake, as I'm sure you'd find fault if I re-wrote the script !!!

For example you said somewhere above that the 24th would never have sung "Men of Harlech" - how do you know that ? Are you certain ? A colleague of mine has recently being doing some research and has found out that Regiments used to sing many different songs as they marched, and not necessarily using the "correct" words. And would you believe, there is a reference to the 4th Regiment of Foot (The Kings Own) marching along in Zululand singing "Men of Harlech", though perhaps with some different words !

One thing I've learned over the many years studying the Anglo-Zulu War is to be careful in making definitive statements. There will always be someone with greater knowledge who has the facts to disprove what you say. It's even worse when definitive statements are made based on one or two secondary sources, and "Zulu" is probably the most quoted secondary source on the AZW. "Zulu" was not made as a documentary, but as an enjoyable piece of entertainment (based loosely on a factual event) and it should be taken as such. I believe someone once counted up to 140 errors in the film - but does it matter ? No, of course not. We, with an interest in the AZW owe Stanley Baker a great deal, for without him (and Donald Morris) the war would have just been another forgotten colonial war. This site would not exist. We would not have the plethora of books, and the Brecon museum would be a very quiet place !

Bill

Bill

People know that war can be thanks to these two films, but if they have not dug over, he made ​​a bad idea ...

There are no more stupid a person to whom you ask "if it knows a particular history" and you replied, "Yes, I saw the movie ..."

The historical cinema is good for cretinized people, for me,it's in 1976 I discovered this war with the little book of Angus McBride (MAA No. 57) and when I saw "Zulu Dawn" and "Zulu" by then I almost choke me, but now it's two films are always a good opportunity for me to laugh when I look ...

And if another movie was made on the subject of our day, it would still be a joke. We saw this with the four white feathers ...

Best regards

Pascal

u :joker: :lol:

Well said Bill, couldn't agree more.
Zulu must have been enough of a challenge to write and produce. Zulu Dawn must be even more inaccurate. The portrayal of say Pulleine's death alone for example, as being shot in his tent whilst doing his paperwork. There are numerous accounts of his death, so which one do you go with?
As Bill says, any remake and every remake, is going to have its detractors.
Zulu is a film. A classic film, even with all the mistakes. But that was film making in the 60s! (Remember the vapour trail over Raquel Welch's head in One Milliion Years BC?) Who cares?
If you think you can make a "better" film than Stanley Baker, then go and do it. And good luck to you.

Hi All .
Bill I couldnt have said any better . Tasker , agreed once again , in referance to the '' Vapour Trail '' I didnt manage to look at the top of the screen ! , I was enthralled by what was on the screen proper !. .
cheers 90th.

Hi Bill

Hope you had a good time over Christmas and the new year, and glad that the IE problem is sorted out for you, things worked ok on firefox, the problem was just with IE I think. Yes, I understand what you mean about some of the problems in remaking the film, but surely, with the help of some of the well known Zulu war historians, and some far better research than Bakers team did, a more truthful and a lot more accurate and historically correct version could be made without all the deliberate falseness and pretence of so called 'artistic licenece' that Baker used for his own biased version of events. I had to laugh when you said about men singing all sorts of songs (but with different words), it reminded me of how we used to put other words to songs at the time, ah yes, those were the days. The reason why I said that they would never have sung 'Men of Harlech' is because the 24th's song was 'The Warwickshire Lads', but ok yes, I suppose that they might have sung their own version of it, but it is a bit of long shot. We all know that there was no chior and that the 'sing off' in the film never happened, was it done so that Ivor Emmanuel could sing it (also with altered words) to add to the Welsh theme of the film and further con the public into believing that the 24th was a Welsh regiment? I am surprised that you ask 'does it matter' regarding all the errors, you know as well as I do that there are many people who think that what they watch on screen is what actually happened, and that many people still believe it to be true, so yes, of course it matters. If you are going to make a film about an heroic event from history, then at least get it as factual as possible without all the falseness and pretence. Baker could have done this and the film would have been just as entertaining (even more so) if it had been more historically correct, and would have been classed as one of the best films that accurately depicted one of the greatest defensive actions fought during the AZW, and even more people would have got interested. But through all the falseness and 'artistic licence' of one mans bias views (because he had a score to settle with the English), it will always have the bones picked out of it. So whoever takes on the job of remaking it, they should employ some of the well known AZW historians to give them the real historical facts, and then we might just end up with the true version of events that took place at Rorke's Drift, and get a truly classical and historically correct film without all the make believe.

Bill, there is a new member called Linterbug wanting some information on Samuel Walker, I pointed them in your direction at the museum, so they might pm you.

Martin.

So toweboy you found the documentary?

Ah !Ah !Ah ! u :joker:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Martin

I think you missed the point I was making ! It is unlikely your "well known Zulu Historians" would agree - you only have to read their books to see the different intepretations.So, which eminent historian(s) would YOU pick to re-write the film script ? Whover you pick, you will find three others who will disagree with him.

When Ivor Emmanuel starts the men off singing "Men of Harlech" in Zulu, nowhere does it imply it's the regimental march. The fictional character (who is clearly Welsh) is asked to sing a song to complement and respond to the Zulu chant, so why wouldn't he sing "Men of Harlech" or any other popular song of the day ? It's clearly an inspiring song and fits in well at that point in the film.

I think you are reading far too much into Stanley Baker's motives. You say "because he had a score to settle with the English" - where on earth is your evidence for this ? Have you read Sheldon Hall's epic "Zulu - with some guts behind it" ? In some 430 pages, it will tell you all you need to know about the background to the film - a much more detailed analysis than say in Paul Raby's recent "Zulu - The Truth Behind The Film".

You focus on the degree of Welshness in the film, which of course is open to intepretation,. But what about the errors in detail, which are NOT open to intepretation? Chevrons on the wrong arm; Csgt Bourne wearing the rank of a LSgt; the wrong equipment; etc, etc, etc. Do these technical errors spoil our enjoyment of the film ? I think not.

For all its faults, "Zulu" is an epic film that has stood the test of time. It has, for nearly half a century, brought a general awareness of the Anglo Zulu War to the British public. There can not be many people in Britain who have not heard of Rorke's Drift ! So well done Stanley Baker - da iawn !

Bill

Yes Bill but if People know that war can be thanks to these two films, but if they have not dug over, he made ​​a bad idea ...

There are no more stupid a person to whom you ask "if it knows a particular history" and you replied, "Yes, I saw the movie ..."

The historical cinema is good for cretinized the people, for me,it's in 1976 I discovered this war with the little book of Angus McBride (MAA No. 57) and when I saw "Zulu Dawn" and "Zulu" by then I almost choke me, but now it's two films are always a good opportunity for me to laugh when I look ...

And if another movie was made on the subject of our day, it would still be a joke. We saw this with the four white feathers ...

Best regards

Pascal

Hi Bill

There is one thing that ALL the well known AZW historians would have to agree on, and that would be that the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment was NOT a Welsh regiment, so that would be the first lot of fiction that has always misguided the public out of the way. And I think that with the officers and other reports of what happened at Rorke's Drift, the historians could well come to some sort of agreement on how to depict FACTUALLY these events. One of my first choices would have to be Ian Knight, another would have to be Julian Whybra, and perhaps a couple of others for good measure, so I think that those historians between them could come up with a far more historically accurate and non fictional version of this classic film.

You are getting it wrong Bill, Ivor Emmanuel wasn't just asked to sing a song in response to the supposed zulu chant. Baker came up to the fictional Welsh 'Owen' character and asked if the WELSH could do better (thereby adding to the Welsh theme of the film), why didn't he say can the British do better? And why did 'Owen' chose M o H rather than another rousing song of the day? because it was written in the script to have a Welsh song to continue with the myth that the 24th was Welsh, and to keep the Welsh theme of the film.

If you look back on the threads, you will find that a write up about Endfield, Baker and the film zulu, was posted on the forum by littlehand. In the write up it stated that Baker had a score to settle with the English, and that he saw his chance with this film (anti English?).

Bill, as I have said before, I have not got Sheldon Hall's book, I will have to keep an eye open for it.

The Welshness is "open to interpretation", come on Bill, which film are we talking about here? the Welshness is there for all to see (and hear), it's full of it. And yes, the film is also full of other mistakes, errors, falseness, artistic licence, etc, etc, and it is all very misleading for the public, but let us not forget that most of it was done to give the false impression to the people that the 24th was a Welsh regiment.

I have already said that the film is a classic and that a lot of people have got interested in the AZW by watching it, but again, it has mislead many, many people into believing that what they see and hear is what actually happened, and it is therefor guilty of misrepresentation of a very important historical event from the Anglo - Zulu War of 1879, that was fought for and defended by the 24th foot (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, but who's name is NEVER mentioned, but to who the honour and glory that this gallant action rightfully belongs.

So any new film that is made, should give back that honour and glory to the men of the regiment that fought so bravely at Rorke's Drift, and that regiment was The 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment of foot, and NOT some fictional make believe Welsh regiment from Bakers own bias views.

You may think that Baker did a good job with this all but fictional version of events, but for those people that want the historical facts, he has misinformed them, misguided them, and mislead them. So the film should be remade, TRUTHFULLY.

Martin. Go back throught his thread and read it ALL again. It is clear that you either haven't read or understood what each contributor has written.
You continue to miss every point, entirely!



One "mistake" which is a point of fact, is that the name of the 24th Foot in 1879 was the Warwickshire Regiment. Of the 122 men of the 2/24th who defended Rorkes Drift, only 4 of these men were from the County of Warwickshire itself. This mistake was quite correctly rectified in the 1881 Carden Reforms of 1881, when the name was changed to something more appropriate to the recruiting region and the geographical location of the regimental depot. The South Wales Borderers. Once again:

"Of the 122 soldiers of the 24th Regiment present at the Battle of Rorke's Drift, 49 are known to have been of English nationality, 32 were Welsh, 16 were Irish, 1 was a Scot, and 3 were born overseas. The nationalities of the remaining 21 are unknown."

Further to this, according to Norman Holme, only 4 of these men were from the county of Warwickshire itself.
(Source: Norman Holme (1999) The Noble 24th p. 383)

tasker, with respect, I think you are the one that should go back through the thread and read it all again, as it appears that you are the one that has neither read it all nor understood it.

Oh, I see that the post has been edited to include the 'incredibly unreliable' figures from Norman Holme.

Again let me point you to the figures that were posted by Julian, read them and quote them rather than this 'incredibly unreliable' stuff by Norman Holme. And another thing, it would not matter how many of the men of the 24th at Rork'es Drift came from Warwickshire, that would not alter the fact that the 24th was called the 2nd Warwickshire regiment, so don't try using the excuse that because only 4 of the men of the 24th that defended Rorke's Drift came from Warwickshire, that this justified changing the regiments name because 15 of them came from Wales, that is a very silly remark to make, I could try that on by saying that because 16 came from Ireland that they should have changed it to an Irish county name, rediculous.

Stop quoting Norman Holme, you know you are totally wrong using those figures, and you also know that Julian said that his figures were 'incredibly unreliable', and start quoting the figures that Julian posted on the forum, there were over 75 from England, 15 Welsh, 16 Irish 1 Scot, 3 overseas to English parents, and 21 not yet known.

Well, no, Norman Holme is a giant on the topic of the AZW. The man has dedicated decades to researching the 24th Foot, so it is wrong of you to dismiss his work because it is contrary to what you want to believe.
You prefer to use Julian's interpretation of the data because it suits your view point. They are just 2 differing interpretations of the same data, neither of which can be proved either way.

Don't you mean that you prefer to use 'Norman Holmes' data because it suits your point of view.

You know that Julian said that the figures he used were 'incredibly unreliable', yet you still quote them to support your point of view.

If you like, yes.
As you know Martin, scientists, historians, witnesses to an accident, fans debating a controversial refereeing decision, can look at and see the exact same item/incident and form totally opposing viewpoints, depending on their bias.
Nothing wrong with that in my opinion, it is how the world works.
I completely respect your opinions Martin and I hope you respect the opinions of others.

tasker

I do respect other peoples opinions, but that does not necessarily mean that I agree with them.

Hi all

Sorry, but Julian is an outstanding historian and he said no bullshit, it ...

I learned a ton with it, such that there were 155 or 158 to RD defenders and not 139, as stated in articles, books, ect ...

Forbidden to touch Julian who is a historian, he ...

Cheers

Pascal

Of course, the really burning question is: how many men from Warwickshire were in the 24th (2nd Warwickshire)?

Probably less than than the number of English men in the English cricket team

About four men were born in Warwickshire that fought at RD, but I cannot see what is so really burning about that, it would not make any difference how many men were born in Warwickshire, even if none were born there, the name of the regiment would still be the 24th foot (2nd Warwickshire) regiment.

4, Hmmmm I was right

Hmmmm, I wonder how many white south africans actually originate from there?

springbok9 wrote:

Probably less than than the number of English men in the English cricket team

:lol:

Martin
All of them mate, nobody would be mad enough to come here.............. look what happened to the last lot (1879)
:lol:

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

even if none were born there, the name of the regiment would still be the 24th foot (2nd Warwickshire) regiment.

I hadn't realised that was ever seriously in question ...

Ellis

If you had read the earlier posts on this topic, you would have seen that of the men of the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment that fought at RD, there were 16 Irish, 15 Welsh, 1 Scot, 3 born overseas to English parents, 20 or so unknown, and over 75 Englishmen, and that of those, 4 were born in Warwickshire, so I can't see the point in asking again?

The question of the nationalities of the men that fought at RD was kindly answered by Julian back in December, however, the debate went on a little longer, but was all amicably sorted out between everyone concerned in January. If you are attempting to re-kindle the embers, then I would suggest that you read back through the threads, and you will see that all concerned came to an amicable agreement. Trying to re-stoke a roaring blaze would not be the done thing, as we all want to remain friends on this forum, and not be at loggerheads with each other.

Come on springers old chap, I thought you said that you originated from Barrow in Furness, Lancashire, England.

I didn't know that there was another one called exactly the same in S.A.

:lol:

Arr hmmm yes quite.

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

If you had read the earlier posts on this topic, you would have seen that of the men of the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment that fought at RD, there were 16 Irish, 15 Welsh, 1 Scot, 3 born overseas to English parents, 20 or so unknown, and over 75 Englishmen, and that of those, 4 were born in Warwickshire, so I can't see the point in asking again?

And if you had kindly read my post, you'd realise that I hadn't "asked again".

Quote :

Trying to re-stoke a roaring blaze would not be the done thing, as we all want to remain friends on this forum, and not be at loggerheads with each other.

Which was, of course, no part of my purpose.

This is now the second time I have been flamed on this site in the brief time I have been visiting, and it would appear that good humour is unfortunately lacking in the genomes of one or two of you. Best I pull out of here, I think. "Well chin-chin ... do carry on with your mud pies".

The biggest error in "Zulu" -at least to me- was its curiously jaundiced portrayal of Otto Witt.  I like Jack Hawkins, but it seems his talents were not fully utilized because he was straitjacketed into an annoying, predictable caricature.  I cannot help but wonder if Witt's fictional counterpart was meant to be a slam at pacifists?