Cpl. Christian Ferdinand Schiess

Cheers Les,


I don't think we are too far apart on our opinions here. We are in agreement that the book has errors and we are also in agreement that it is a pioneering epic. That fact is undeniable.

I posted earlier on this thread:-

"I realise it was much harder to research and piece things together 'back then' and this isn't meant as an attack on Morris".

My above comment again, reflects your own thoughts on just how difficult it was to research at the time of Morris.

I appreciate that what he acheived was 'epic' and 'pioneering' but at the same time, TWOTS is not a book I would use to base any kind of factual opinion. I am not saying that everything in the book is untrue but as it is riddled with errors, incorrect interpretations and incorrect assumptions, I find it very difficult to simply assume that what I am reading should be taken as fact.



I grew up with the film 'Zulu' and by the age of 10 I knew it word for word. I used to stand in front of the tv, holding a stick (my spear), whilst shouting the zulu chants at the top of my voice. It is a part of me and my journey into my fascination surrounding the battle. If anyone was to state that it is full of inaccuracies I would tell them that, although they are correct, it is still a classic. This is a mirror image of what is happening here in our comments regarding TWOTS, the only difference being, my role is reversed, ie I am not the one defending.

TWOTS was not something that I had any experience of when growing up and it had no bearing on my interest in the Zulu war. I think this is the reason I feel no emotional or personal attachment towards it. It wasn't a 'one of a kind' for me like the film was, because there were numerous books on the subject available to me by the time I started to read up on it. For me it is one of many books on the subject that I have read over a 20 year period. It was by no means the first book I read and it wasn't 'groundbreaking' by the time I read it. I wasn't born when it was released but if this was the first book I had read in my younger days and at the time there were no others to compare it to, then I would no doubt have forged a feeling of admiration for it, like I have with the movie.


Anyway, just a few thoughts and ramblings on a quiet and boring nightshift.

I will get something up and running regarding analysis of TWOTS when time permits.

All very interesting.

Cheers
Neil

Hi Les/Neil
Ive been AWOL for a few days so missed out on some of this discussion but my stance really cant change from the discussion Les/Steve of a couple of months back. there is no doubt at all that all the adjectives originally applied to TWOTS still stand, Magificent, Ground breaking etc, and of course that bibliography. But its not really what Morris researched or who he spoke to but what he did with the information that I take issue with. Various points he states as fact, rather than opinion, have gone down in the annals as historical accuracy. Neil has done a good job in highlighting a few of the points regarding RD but there are others that have been perpetuated and significantly altered perceptions of iSandlwana. A case in point is the statements of Mtshapi ka Noradu ka Mazwana about Quetuka kaManquondo. He was blamed by Morris for the start of the pursuit of Raw across the Plateau when in fact the statement by Mtshapi places him further back joining the Kandempemvu. There are quite a few points like that where statements, and Morris had access to them, were completely changed to fit his pattern.
And that's my complaints about Morris. And its probably why he didn't use footnotes because he couldn't justify a great portion of his work. What is refered to as Humbling for him to not want to have his book refered to as history doesnt wash, it was regarded as such and he knew it. Again he wouldn't defend the critisism, because he couldn't.
The above issue with Quetuka by the way has been carried forward even to this day by all the popular authors but having spent hours searching through the archives, PMB and Durban trying to find the source he refered to I could only come up with one quote and that repudiates Morris completely.

Just my twopence worth.

Cheers

Were there any other authors apart from Morris carrying out research on the Zulu War at the time or before he did.

Hi ctsg
I think D.Jackson was writing at the same time or near to it . Possibly one of the Sth African authors were producing a book on the Colonial Regiments from that period , I'm not 100% sure about that though ? .
90th

Thanks 90th.

I thought Jackson based his work on Morris, albeit using more trusted sources.

Zulu Battle Piece: Isandhlwana by Sir Reginald Coupland - 1948. FIRST EDITION

CTSG.
Here's some publications with dates. I believe used by Morris
Scroll down when you open link.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

LH, you have just replicated what i posted above!
i scanned the work involved..you lifted it wholesale
of the net..the point please?.

I believe CTSGs question was: 'Were there any other authors doing research at the same time." The lists posted were effectively the sources used by Morris.
TWOTS was printed in 1965, Jackson: 'Isandhlwana 1879 the sources re-examined' was published in three parts March 1965, September 1965 and December 1965. ( Journals of the Society for Army Historical Research )
I wouldn't agree that Jackson used TWOTS as a basis, the depth of his research precludes that and I would suggest that his research was completed before the publication of TWOTS.
In Terms of other researchers busy at the time, Norman Holmes springs to mind, as does EA Ritter, EP Watt, Peter Davis and PR Kirby. Not to sure when Julian got involved. Then of course there was the South African connection with George Chadwick, Borquin, Colin Webb and John Wright etc. Morris spent time with Borquin I believe, and picked up the phrase 'Coffin shaped rock' at the same time.


Cheers

Thank's Neil/ Frank, you both express your opinions well.
i could come across as a Morris apologist. which indeed
i am not! in my mind he has, and never has, anything to
apologize for.. it has however become a modern trend to 
' knock ' Morris, when there are so many authors who truly 
deserve a kick up the backside for either jumping on the 
bandwagon, or more usually just for sloppy ineptitude...

When i read and digested your replies i recognized that you
both had agenda's, and not an agenda in the bad sense of
that phrase..you Neil have recently finished what i am sure
is a deep in depth study of the particular part of the great 
war which was of interest to you..and you Frank undertake
to make people aware of everything topographically re-
garding the Isandhlwana Battlefield and surrounding area.
what i'm really tring to say is that you are both researchers
and historians in your own right, so maybe you at least would
acknowledge how much work Morris did..if only 10 per cent of
the book was accurately correct that still leaves the other 90.
below is part of another very recent opinion, that i agree with.. 

 When he 
was working on it it was far more difficult to access the sources and 
visit the sites than it is now, so it was a huge effort to attempt 
anything that comprehensive. A lot of the sources in SA weren't 
catalogued, and he had to do everything by writing letters - it's all 
much easier now with the internet. He understood, too - and you have 
touched on this - that iSandlwana and Rorke's Drift are part of a much 
wider picture, and that you can't make sense of them without telling 
something of the story of the rest of it. I do remember seeing him on a 
TV interview years ago, talking about the Cold War - he said that the 
CIA had completely missed the Russian intention to put up the Berlin 
wall - 'we just looked out the office window one morning, and there it 
was!' I always wanted to say to him 'that's because you were too busy 
thinking about Zulus!'
    I think it's all too easy to criticism him - he has been an 
essential building block of our knowledge of the war. It's been easy to 
climb over him - to some extent his success was his undoing, because it 
stimulated a whole generation of historians who wanted to know more, 
and could use him as a base to start from. It's much easier to climb 
over somebody else than start from scratch!

The above was private to me, i leave it here hoping that i am not..out of
order reproducing that part.                                  cheers Les

Les
Difficult to argue your points on the macro picture of the book, as you well know the minutae of the period is my thing hence my following up on all the details Morris expouses. That leaves a lot to the imagination, but yes overall a damn fine publication.
I would have wished though he had the forsight to say either: 'Yes. it is a work of historical importance'! Or:' Its a generalisation of the period based on historical fact'. I suppose in that regard the future historians are going to look back on the likes of Mike Snook and say the same. I delivered a series of lectures a few weeks ago and in open time I was asked a number of questions, they all related to episodes from HCMDB and were believed by the questioner to be fact. So I do believe that historians and authors have a duty to their audience (Could include welsh film makers in that I suppose) to point out what is supposition and deductive reasoning and what is fact.
But overall I would hate to disagree with a forum member mourning the showing of his favourite football team!!!!!!!!!!!!

An additional note on Schiess is that in January 1881 he was serving as a Sergeant in 'C' Troop, Bakers Horse the same time Jesse Mayor was serving as a Trooper in the same Troop. The troop was commanded then by Captain A.B. Martin who commanded them in a mounted charge at Qumbu on 3 December 1880. Several other Zulu War Veterans were serving in the same troop, several being former FLH men.