WWW.1879ZULUWAR.COM

Film Zulu Dawn:Lt. Col. Pulleine: His Lordship is of the cetain opinion that it's far too difficult an approach to be chosen by the Zulu command.Col. Durnford: Yes, well... difficulty never deterred a Zulu commander.
 
HomeHome  CalendarCalendar  GalleryGallery  PublicationsPublications  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log inLog in  
Latest topics
Colonel R.T. Glyn, 1/24th Regt. kwaSokhexe, Ulundi
[Mac and Shad](Isandula Collection)
Secrets Of The Dead The Mystery Of Zulu Dawn
Search
 
 

Display results as :
 
Rechercher Advanced Search
Top posters
90th
 
littlehand
 
Frank Allewell
 
ADMIN
 
Chelmsfordthescapegoat
 
John
 
Mr M. Cooper
 
1879graves
 
impi
 
rusteze
 
Fair Use Notice
Fair use notice. This website may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. We are making such material and images are available in our efforts to advance the understanding of the “Anglo Zulu War of 1879. For educational & recreational purposes. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material, as provided for in UK copyright law. The information is purely for educational and research purposes only. No profit is made from any part of this website. If you hold the copyright on any material on the site, or material refers to you, and you would like it to be removed, please let us know and we will work with you to reach a resolution.
Top posting users this month
Drummer Boy 14
 
Frank Allewell
 
90th
 
rusteze
 
ADMIN
 
SRB1965
 
Julian Whybra
 
ymob
 
1879graves
 
xhosa2000
 
Most active topics
Isandlwana, Last Stands
Pte David Jenkins. 'Forgotten' Survivor of Rorke's Drift Returned to Official Records
Durnford was he capable.5
Durnford was he capable.1
Durnford was he capable. 3
Durnford was he capable.2
Durnford was he capable. 4
The ammunition question
Pte David Jenkins. 'Forgotten' Survivor of Rorke's Drift Returned to Official Records
The missing five hours.

Share | 
 

 why the inaccuracies Mr Baker/ Mr Endfield

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2  Next
AuthorMessage
rayhun



Posts : 12
Join date : 2012-01-22

PostSubject: why the inaccuracies Mr Baker/ Mr Endfield   Tue Jun 05, 2012 3:39 am

i note there has been a lot of debate (mainly by a few ) with regards to Welsh vs British . For me , i really dont care here in Aussie . The only thing i am concerned about is the inaccuracies depicted by Baker and Endfield in the film.I WOULD ASK WHY. I also understand its a film and so must be entertaining. But why must they say its a Welsh Regiment .the song ,Men of Harlech, the use of Martini henry rifles by the Zulu etc etc .When the film Zulu is brought up for talk here everyone is" shot to pieces "with the inaccuracies. lol

Another issue with me has been the "overplaying"of Vereker in the Zulu Dawn film. Vereker is hardly ever mentioned in any books that i have read on Isandhlwautf and to add insult to injury they have him rescueing the Flag or at least playing some part in the flag rescue. c-----------p.My understanding the only thing Vereker did was to pinch someones horse and politely gave it back. (what a gentleman) which cost him his life . But he did stay and fight so praise to him for that.
Back to top Go down
Mr M. Cooper

avatar

Posts : 2507
Join date : 2011-09-29
Location : Lancashire, England.

PostSubject: Why the inaccuracies?   Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:00 pm

Hello rayhun, welcome to the forum.

To answer the first part of your question. It is not really a Welsh v English thing, it's more of fact v fiction.

The main problem with the film 'Zulu' is that it gave out the false imression that the regiment that fought in the defence of Rorke's Drift was a Welsh regiment by the name of The South Wales Borderers. It implied that the regiment was a Welsh regiment "with a few foreigners from England in it". There were numerous Welsh characters in the film that in actual fact were not present at RD. It implied that there was a Welsh choir (to add to the impression of it being a Welsh regiment), this was to lead up to the 'sing off' (that never took place), so that the false 'Owen' character (played by Ivor Emmanuel), could sing a Welsh song (M o H), again to add false Welshness to the film. The film also implied that the V.C's won by the regiment nearly all went to Welshmen (because of their Welsh sounding names), but in actual fact, all the V.C'S won by the 24th foot, went to Englishmen (even though some had Welsh sounding names, all were English).

The reason why all this false Welshness happened is because Baker was himself Welsh, and it appears that he had a score to settle with the English (because of what he assumed that the English had done to his ancestors a few hundred years before he was born), and he saw his chance to get a bit of his own back by making it appear that the 24th foot was a Welsh regiment, and therefor give the credit to a mythical Welsh regiment who's name did not even exist at the time of the Zulu war.

The facts are that the regiment was raised in England, it was raised for the defence of the English kingdom, it had the English County name of the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment of foot, and it was under this English County title that it fought in the AZW at both iSandlwana and at Rorke's Drift. However, because of Bakers 1964 film 'Zulu', most uninitiated and gullible people believe what they see on the screen is the truth, and fall for this myth created by Baker and his almost fictional film. Also notice that Baker was Welsh, yet ironically he played an Englishman.

The film is that full of inaccuracies, false Welshness, deliberate mistakes, and all sorts of stuff called "licence", that it should be remade, and next time give the people the REAL name of the regiment, and get it historically accurate.

There may well have been some Martini Henry rifles used by the Zulus, but not many, these would most likely have been taken from the escaping troops from iSandlwana that were killed when they encountered these Zulus on their way to RD.

The best thing about this film is the music score, and that was by John Barry Prendergast, an Englishman.

The other film 'Zulu Dawn' also as many inaccuracies, but is a bit more to fact than 'Zulu', but even in this film, the real name of the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment is not mentioned, and there is also that song (M o H) being played by the band, again giving the false impression that the regiment was Welsh.

All in all, I would say that both films should be remade.

Martin.



Back to top Go down
Frank Allewell

avatar

Posts : 6470
Join date : 2009-09-21
Age : 70
Location : Cape Town South Africa

PostSubject: Re: why the inaccuracies Mr Baker/ Mr Endfield   Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:47 am

Rayhun
Greetings and welcome.
There are lots of mistakes in the film, they do lead to popular conceptions and occasionally seem to pop up as fact. There are publications on the battles that do just that as well, perpetuate myths and inaccuracies. Your own post by miss spelling iSandlwana is actually a rather ironic case in point. The spelling you used was brought about by a mistake in scanning a book section onto the web.

Cheers
Back to top Go down
old historian2

avatar

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2009-01-14
Location : East London

PostSubject: Re: why the inaccuracies Mr Baker/ Mr Endfield   Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:13 am

Springbok. Ray didn't spell it the way it's displayed in his his post it was down to word censoring. Which was taken off, but for some reason the odd "Isandhlwautf" creaps in.im seeing Peter tonight so will have a word.
Back to top Go down
Frank Allewell

avatar

Posts : 6470
Join date : 2009-09-21
Age : 70
Location : Cape Town South Africa

PostSubject: Re: why the inaccuracies Mr Baker/ Mr Endfield   Wed Jun 06, 2012 9:04 am

Ray
Sorry mate. Sad

OH
as always I bow to your wisdom. Salute

Cheers
Back to top Go down
old historian2

avatar

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2009-01-14
Location : East London

PostSubject: Re: why the inaccuracies Mr Baker/ Mr Endfield   Wed Jun 06, 2012 9:17 am

Quote :
as always I bow to your wisdom
I wish her in doors would do the same. Not getting involved
Back to top Go down
Frank Allewell

avatar

Posts : 6470
Join date : 2009-09-21
Age : 70
Location : Cape Town South Africa

PostSubject: Re: why the inaccuracies Mr Baker/ Mr Endfield   Wed Jun 06, 2012 9:50 am

I bowed for the missus once, to much temptation for he,r nearly had to get her foot surgically removed from the nether regions
Back to top Go down
rayhun



Posts : 12
Join date : 2012-01-22

PostSubject: Re: why the inaccuracies Mr Baker/ Mr Endfield   Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:21 am

My God -----i promise ill never spell isandlwana again . Ill just call it Sandy Wana

Hopefully that covers it lol

David (rayhun)
Back to top Go down
rayhun



Posts : 12
Join date : 2012-01-22

PostSubject: Re: why the inaccuracies Mr Baker/ Mr Endfield   Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:24 am

Sorry Fellas -------the spelling was a case of a bad keyboard . And im sticking to that reason /excuse



David
Back to top Go down
Mr M. Cooper

avatar

Posts : 2507
Join date : 2011-09-29
Location : Lancashire, England.

PostSubject: Why the inaccuracies?   Wed Jun 06, 2012 12:40 pm

Hi springy.

I find that a mixture of lubricating oil and a few squirts from the grease gun works wonders. :lol:

Have you got any more photo's to post up mate? I thought that the others you sent Pete to post were fantastic, they were a great help for those of us that most likely will never get the chance to visit the sites.

Much appreciated my friend, and very good of you to share these photo's with the other members of the forum.

Many thanks springy.

Martin. Salute
Back to top Go down
Frank Allewell

avatar

Posts : 6470
Join date : 2009-09-21
Age : 70
Location : Cape Town South Africa

PostSubject: Re: why the inaccuracies Mr Baker/ Mr Endfield   Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:16 pm

Ah music to my ears.

What in particular would you like to see Martin ?
I was planing on some of the more obscure photos, Dartnells bivvi, Mangeni Gorge, Milnes view of the Camp, Qwabe Valley.
If theres anything specific let me know.

Cheers
Back to top Go down
Mr M. Cooper

avatar

Posts : 2507
Join date : 2011-09-29
Location : Lancashire, England.

PostSubject: Why the inaccuracies?   Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:37 pm

I wouldn't mind seeing the view that the troops had of the Zulu advance from their various positions, and also any views of Col Durnfords donga, and the view that they had from it. Any other photo's that you have planned to post, would be gratefully accepted.

Again mate, much obliged.

Martin. Salute
Back to top Go down
Frank Allewell

avatar

Posts : 6470
Join date : 2009-09-21
Age : 70
Location : Cape Town South Africa

PostSubject: Re: why the inaccuracies Mr Baker/ Mr Endfield   Wed Jun 06, 2012 4:12 pm

Hi Martin
Ive sent Pete a portion of a series of shots showing Durnfords Donga and his retreat. Cant show the whole series Im afraid, youll have to buy the book. Very Happy You need to study mo

Cheers
Back to top Go down
90th

avatar

Posts : 9341
Join date : 2009-04-07
Age : 61
Location : Melbourne, Australia

PostSubject: Wht the inaccuracies Mr Baker / Mr Endfield   Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:13 pm

:lol: Hi Springbok. :lol: x many .
Cheers 90th. You need to study mo
Back to top Go down
Mr M. Cooper

avatar

Posts : 2507
Join date : 2011-09-29
Location : Lancashire, England.

PostSubject: Why the inaccuracies?   Wed Jun 06, 2012 9:05 pm

Hi springy.

Yes my friend, I found them under the heading "The retreat from the Donga", they are just brilliant, many thanks mate. Salute

Don't forget to put my name down for the book. Very Happy Very Happy

Martin. Salute
Back to top Go down
ADMIN

avatar

Posts : 3594
Join date : 2008-11-01
Age : 58
Location : KENT

PostSubject: Re: why the inaccuracies Mr Baker/ Mr Endfield   Wed Jun 06, 2012 9:46 pm

Gents have I missed something. Is Springbok writing a book.
Back to top Go down
http://www.1879zuluwar.com
Mr M. Cooper

avatar

Posts : 2507
Join date : 2011-09-29
Location : Lancashire, England.

PostSubject: Why the inaccuracies?   Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:54 pm

Hi Pete (Admin).

It would appear so, read his post today at 4.12pm, (unless of course springy is having a lark), but I hope that he is writing a book, he is well knowledged in the subject of the AZW, and also has the benefit of almost being on the doorstep (so to speak), and the photo's that he has taken are invaluable to those of us who cannot visit the sites, and thanks Pete for posting them up on the forum, much appreciated.

Regards.

Martin. Salute
Back to top Go down
ADMIN

avatar

Posts : 3594
Join date : 2008-11-01
Age : 58
Location : KENT

PostSubject: Re: why the inaccuracies Mr Baker/ Mr Endfield   Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:00 pm

I haven't sent him my invoice yet, for posting the photos.
Back to top Go down
http://www.1879zuluwar.com
Mr M. Cooper

avatar

Posts : 2507
Join date : 2011-09-29
Location : Lancashire, England.

PostSubject: Why the inaccuracies?   Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:02 pm

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Nice one Pete. Salute

Back to top Go down
90th

avatar

Posts : 9341
Join date : 2009-04-07
Age : 61
Location : Melbourne, Australia

PostSubject: Why the inaccuracies Mr Baker / Mr Endfield    Thu Jun 07, 2012 6:41 am

Hi All.
I hope he ( springbok ) publishes it in english !. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Damn Colonials . :lol:
My Africaans is fairly ordinary . Shocked Shocked .
Cheers 90th. You need to study mo ( Waiting for my copy ! ) Salute
Back to top Go down
garywilson1

avatar

Posts : 374
Join date : 2009-01-22
Age : 55
Location : Timisoara , Romania

PostSubject: Re: why the inaccuracies Mr Baker/ Mr Endfield   Fri Jun 08, 2012 9:17 am

My neighbour speaks Africaans so no problem for me . Multicultural society ! :lol:
Back to top Go down
90th

avatar

Posts : 9341
Join date : 2009-04-07
Age : 61
Location : Melbourne, Australia

PostSubject: Why the inaccuracies Mr Baker / Mr Endfield    Fri Jun 08, 2012 9:42 am

Hi Gary.

:lol: :lol: :lol: .
Cheers 90th. Salute
Back to top Go down
MadDrDevo

avatar

Posts : 41
Join date : 2012-03-22
Age : 42
Location : Ft Lauderdale Fl

PostSubject: Re: why the inaccuracies Mr Baker/ Mr Endfield   Mon Jun 11, 2012 9:20 pm

I thought i had replied to this but it looks like either my response carried in it something totally offensive and i didnt realize it, or(more likely) i didnt hit send before i left the page.

I am a film maker and might be able to shed some light on this.
Now first i am not from the UK, i am a cousin Jonathon, while my family is made of all four kingdoms in the UK we have been here since the 1640s when walter raleigh left a few of us at roanoke.. so the silly in fighting and being upset because my medieval were conquered by someone else so i can not say that there was not some ulterior motive in making this a welsh "thing" it might, but chances are it doesnt and there are a few things that are more important to film makers.. things like budget and most of the issues in the film are based that, or the fact that historical accuracy is NOT something that was popular in films until rather recently.

First Budget
Films cost money and producers are always producers. they want it cheap and they want the best return on investment. So there are places where you will skimp. the rifles used were probably the first thing. you can see the men in the backgrounds of the scenes using bolt action rifles(prbably ww2 vintage) that is because they didnt have enough martini henrys to go around, and that is probably the same reason you see the zulus using the weapons on the heights. the producers didnt have muskets so they used what they ahd. I will bet my whole years pay no one said "well they wouldnt have those" because no one cared(see my next point)

Historical accuracy

Ever see the movie patton? check out the german "tigers" in that movie. they are american tanks from korea. why because that was what was available. Hollywood, especially in the 60s didnt give a rats ass about accuracy. and even before then its bad. gunga din? i can not even place that in time because of all the anacronisms and mixed up eras, What about Charge of the light Brigade? that posits that whole charge was made to get revenge on surat khan who killed all the light brigades families in a Cawnpore-esque massacre that didnt happen till well after the crimean war.

So the fact that you are actually looking for historical accuracy makes about as much sense as looking for it in say john waynes Ghangis Khan.. its BONKERS and you should all stop that now.. but thats my opinion :)

no part of this is also a lack of research. They knew enough but not all. its like if a person who wasnt a huge fan of history made the movie based on what they remember.
Does anyone here have any idea what they were taught in school back then? I dont. How do we know that basic public school had it wrong, and that was the white washed version they were taught.
if you go to the 24th museum they have all this zulu war stuff in there, so if the museum says its the case, then people not looking to do ALL the reseach will find that an ok answer..

Look at the uniforms.. everyone says those helmet plates dont belong and that is true for the 24th they did not, but the 90th did and so did the rifles and so did some officers in other units. and they also wear them in the home service uniform.. how much research doyou think the costume department did? some basic looking. there was no internet back then, there werent countless books written on it. in fact how many years did you all watch the movie in complete ignorance of these inaccuracies?

Obivously some things were changed to make the story more "interesting" making Witt a crazy drunk, making Bourne fit the general "ideal" of the color sgt. Even going to make Hooke drunk.. they could have used one of the real drunks thats true and allen leaps to mind.. however two things on the hook issue. 1 you would not care a tot for hook if they didnt make him what he was in the movie.. he wouldnt be a name, he would be like one of the other 14 guys who got a VC that day(and most can only name three, hook being one the Bromhead and Chard being the others) so there is that. 2. they needed to do certain things in the movie to make the broad points they needed to make. Hook is the drunk who learns honor during the battle and it makes his change of heart to help maxfield all the more powerful.
the same thing with Hitch and Allen, they need to be that way for thier interplay and pathos to work

My guess is that very little of it is intentional, its a mix of budget, poor research and a general disinterest in accuracy in the first place.

In fact they did exactly what they set out to do and given that it is more than likely responsible for you interest in this period you should show a little more reverence for the source. it is what its meant to be a gripping action yarn and nothing more. its not saving private ryan with or thin red line with grandiose epic landscapes and a drive to be acccurate. its an englsih cowboys and indian movie(meant to get in on that craze) and it does a great job at that.

So i think its a little unfair to say they did it "intentionally" as i mentioned there are things they did to make the story work and add some depth to people that we really do not know a lot about. in lieu of knowing the real drama we got made up personal drama, but THAT is what really makes a movie.

Oh and one last thing.. of all the things they got wrong the one thing they got right I was totally surprised at.. Dalton actually says "pot that chap somebody".. my friends and i get a lot of milage out of that(does he also add"before he hurts someone" which is a daft thing to say in battle really)
Back to top Go down
ADMIN

avatar

Posts : 3594
Join date : 2008-11-01
Age : 58
Location : KENT

PostSubject: Re: why the inaccuracies Mr Baker/ Mr Endfield   Mon Jun 11, 2012 9:50 pm

MadDrDevo. Excellent thanks for posting. Makes a lot of sense. Salute
Back to top Go down
http://www.1879zuluwar.com
MadDrDevo

avatar

Posts : 41
Join date : 2012-03-22
Age : 42
Location : Ft Lauderdale Fl

PostSubject: Re: why the inaccuracies Mr Baker/ Mr Endfield   Mon Jun 11, 2012 11:08 pm

Thanks.. i like being part of the community and look forward to joining the discussion!
Back to top Go down
garywilson1

avatar

Posts : 374
Join date : 2009-01-22
Age : 55
Location : Timisoara , Romania

PostSubject: Re: why the inaccuracies Mr Baker/ Mr Endfield   Tue Jun 12, 2012 5:29 am

Very interesting and very sensible . Look forward to reading more from you .
Back to top Go down
90th

avatar

Posts : 9341
Join date : 2009-04-07
Age : 61
Location : Melbourne, Australia

PostSubject: Why the inaccuracies Mr Baker / Mr Endfield    Tue Jun 12, 2012 7:00 am

Hi MadDrDevo.
It certainly makes sense as there was no internet or the plethora of written work on the zulu war back in 1964 . Lets look at another film with shocking inaccuracies ........... The last ' Pearl Harbour ' movie , I swear the ships that were blown up were from the 60's or 70's . :lol: :lol: :lol: .
Cheers 90th. Salute
Back to top Go down
Frank Allewell

avatar

Posts : 6470
Join date : 2009-09-21
Age : 70
Location : Cape Town South Africa

PostSubject: Re: why the inaccuracies Mr Baker/ Mr Endfield   Tue Jun 12, 2012 7:25 am

Talking of poetic licence............14 VC,s??
Nice post

Cheers
Back to top Go down
rayhun



Posts : 12
Join date : 2012-01-22

PostSubject: Re: why the inaccuracies Mr Baker/ Mr Endfield   Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:34 am

14 VC ,s hello and goodbye
Really

David
Back to top Go down
Mr M. Cooper

avatar

Posts : 2507
Join date : 2011-09-29
Location : Lancashire, England.

PostSubject: Why the inaccuracies?   Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:47 pm

I can partly understand the basics of MadDrDevo post, however, suggesting that Baker and Co did this "unintentionally" is definitely wrong. The whole "Welshness" thing was done very much intentionally, to give the false impression to the gullible public that the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment was Welsh, and therefor give the credit, honour and glory to a mythical Welsh regiment whos name did not even exist during the AZW. If the so called "researchers" had done a quick check of the British regiments that fought in the AZW, they would have seen immediately that there were NO Welsh regiments that took part in this war.

Trying to alter history to make things "more interesting" is not the done thing (although it seems very common to do this in Hollywood). Many gullible people believe what they see on the screen is fact, and this then breeds a myth, and if enough people allow this myth to live on, it eventually replaces the factual truth, and this cannot be right.

Henry Hook was a model soldier, a very brave and honourable man, and it was disgusting the way that he was portrayed in this film. His family walked out of the premier in disgust when they saw the way he had been portrayed in this film, they were very distressed. This was no way to treat the memory of a very brave soldier, even if it was done to make it "more interesting", what a liberty. Even James Booth was upset when he found out that Hooks family were distressed by his portrayal of Hook. So in the name of making things "more interesting", a very noble, brave and honourable man, is now remembered as being a layabout and shyster, who only did what he did to get out of the burning building and save his skin.

A mixture of penny pinching on the budget, very poor research, and a total disinterest in historical accuracy, is no excuse.

And to say that little of it was done "intentionally" is really an understatement, Baker knew exactly what he wanted to create by making this film the way he did, all this false "Welshness" was done very much "intentionally" believe me.

If it means trying to alter historical fact and taking liberties of all description, including the wrongful portayal of many of the men that were there, just to make a movie "more interesting", then that is a very sad state of affairs, and one that I have no wish to be party with.

Unlike many others, my interest in the AZW goes back long before this almost "fictional" film was made, so it did not inspire me to become interested in this war. When I first went to see this film, and although it was powerful for its time, and has since become a classic, something about it did not ring true, as I recalled my old grandfather telling people of a relative who fought in this battle, and he said that the regiment was called the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, so when it was said that this regiment was Welsh, and that it was called the SWB, I became determined to find out the truth, and all one asks of history is the truth, but this film could not be further from it.

Back to top Go down
MadDrDevo

avatar

Posts : 41
Join date : 2012-03-22
Age : 42
Location : Ft Lauderdale Fl

PostSubject: Re: why the inaccuracies Mr Baker/ Mr Endfield   Tue Jun 12, 2012 4:08 pm

springbok9 wrote:
Talking of poetic licence............14 VC,s??
Nice post

Cheers
sorry 10 or 11 my bad.. the point still remains.. he would one of several guys who doesnt get mentioned.. because they were never in the movie

sorry im a film maker because i dont like numbers
Back to top Go down
MadDrDevo

avatar

Posts : 41
Join date : 2012-03-22
Age : 42
Location : Ft Lauderdale Fl

PostSubject: Re: why the inaccuracies Mr Baker/ Mr Endfield   Tue Jun 12, 2012 4:13 pm

[quote="90th"]Hi MadDrDevo.
It certainly makes sense as there was no internet or the plethora of written work on the zulu war back in 1964 . Lets look at another film with shocking inaccuracies ........... The last ' Pearl Harbour ' movie , I swear the ships that were blown up were from the 60's or 70's . :lol: :lol: :lol: .
Cheers 90th. Salute [/quote

AH but there is a reason for this too. Micheal Bay, the director(also did transformers) is like baker here.. he isnt looking to make an accurate movie, he was looking to make something in which.. if you will excuse the "french", Love Blew UP. So its an illustration of the same point.

I mean if i made a movie about this stuff it would be accurate, at this point a lot of my friends refuse to watch war movies with me as i constantly point out whats not right
Back to top Go down
MadDrDevo

avatar

Posts : 41
Join date : 2012-03-22
Age : 42
Location : Ft Lauderdale Fl

PostSubject: Re: why the inaccuracies Mr Baker/ Mr Endfield   Tue Jun 12, 2012 5:16 pm

Wow.. Cooper im just floored. Clearly i have struck a nerve and if this is a hard subject then maybe we need to stop.. but if you can handle this and understand that i am not making attacks then please read on

So first you say it right here "all one asks of history is the truth" i agree. but you forget this fact and its far stronger.. all people ask of the movies is entertainment.. not education. and i would have more to say about those that watch movies to be educated. And people that believe everything they see in the movies as fact are generally not the people you want to talk to about history anyway.

So you are looking for something you arent going to find there.

Again i am an american, we kicked our english over lords out, so the whole holding on to hatred over ancestral is really foreign to me. So maybe there is a psychology there that i am failing to understand. And maybe he did want to make a Welsh movie and maybe there is an ulterior motive.

But the name change happens in 1881, they moved the depot just before that, so its easy to see someone with passing interest getting that wrong. I would bet if the people in wales have some colonial angst against the British then I would bet this is a popular myth over there long before the movie was made.
Again its one thing to say they were trying to slight people, and another to say they were historically inrresponsible.

now lets talk about hook.. yes he was a basic BORING soldier. a tee totaler.. yes that is the kind of character that is going to be considered "cool" to a 60s audience. and that is part of it a huge part of movie making is getting butts in seats.
and since your interest in the war outdates the movie did you think hook was an interesting character? probably not, and yet here we are discussing him and he is getting more "immortality" from that.. and a far more fair shake as both you and I and pretty much anyone on this site knows the truth..

but you also have a simple view of hook in the movie. he starts out as the kind of guy who only looks after himself. he tries to save maxfield and it looks in the film like he is the one that gets everyone out of the hospital. you also know he gets a medal, people who look after only themselves rarely get medals.. so they created an interesting arc.. what else can we say about hook in this battle? what were his personal demons? if you were to make this character what would you do to make him "human" in your audiences eyes.
something like this should not get the simple whitewashed characters you get in your typical action movie. "the kid" the guy from brooklyn(in every US ww2 movie) the cool officer, the underrated second in command.. no you have to give these people foils and faults to make them interesting.. so what were hooks real faults? we dont know

As for portaying people incorrectly in movies.
Ghengis Khan by john wayne seems wrong.. and his characterization was a lot off.
here check this link.. yes its a comedy article BUT its all true. they also covered the inaccuracies of Zulu on this site

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


from the same site but the point is the same.. movies SAVED by historical inaccuacies
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

and here are 40 more and most of these movies are considered historical dramas and SHOULD be accurate. some are biopics!
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Incidentally both Zulu and Charge of the Light Brigade are on the list above
and some of these are films about people far more famous and "important" in history than Henry Hook.

So again i really believe a lot of it was a lack of knowledge possibly coupled with willful ignorance(they wanted it to be welsh so "its welsh and be damned with the truth" kind of thinking) and a lack of easily accessable knowledge and budget all conspired to make the movie what it is..

and frankly its a great movie for all its inaccuracies.. i say it again would we be discussing this if it werent for the movie? Mr Cooper might be here on this site alone i think if it werent for that movie.

I am also a wargamer, and i have to say that one of the most often sited reasons people got into wargaming was Zulu. And wargaming certainly drives a great deal of the research(osprey publishing knows who buys thier books) and in general this movie has created interest in the era, especially through its controversy.
Cooper you said your self your drive to learn the truth came from this movie.. coupled with what a relative said but the movie made you look deeper.



Back to top Go down
Chelmsfordthescapegoat

avatar

Posts : 2549
Join date : 2009-04-24

PostSubject: Re: why the inaccuracies Mr Baker/ Mr Endfield   Tue Jun 12, 2012 7:35 pm

Quote :
I am a film maker and might be able to shed some light on this.

Any we know.
Back to top Go down
MadDrDevo

avatar

Posts : 41
Join date : 2012-03-22
Age : 42
Location : Ft Lauderdale Fl

PostSubject: Re: why the inaccuracies Mr Baker/ Mr Endfield   Tue Jun 12, 2012 7:57 pm

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:
Quote :
I am a film maker and might be able to shed some light on this.

Any we know.
Allow me to amend that.. failed film maker.

the movie i started work doing was called Chasing Amy. its a comedy by Kevin Smith(and american director did Clerks, Mallrats, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back and Dogma, also Jersey Girl, he is the reason we have a Ben Affleck.. thats not a good selling point is it?)

I worked on a couple of independent films in New York CIty where i used to live.. and I was the Director of Photography on a movie i helped write.. but it was a short film and it was TERRIBLE.. so now i do sales because i am not abysmal at it :)
Back to top Go down
MadDrDevo

avatar

Posts : 41
Join date : 2012-03-22
Age : 42
Location : Ft Lauderdale Fl

PostSubject: Re: why the inaccuracies Mr Baker/ Mr Endfield   Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:10 pm

SO i was just doing some reading and Cooper i hate to keep bringing this up but you have such a hate hard on about this its intriguing..

So here is some interesting information about the time line of the 24th.. and i think given the sheer number of names and lunacy of the british convention of naming their regiments we should just call it that.. the 24th

ok in 1689 the regiment was one of 14 created by a charter. the first "captain" was a Sir Edward Derring.. at this point they are called Derrings Regiment of Foote(love the extra E)

in 1717 the name changes for the first of many times.. and is changed to Howards Greens. reflecting the new leader and the facing colors

1753 they start numbering the regiments.. its then called The 24th (Cornwallis') Regiment of Foot(no E)

on 1756 a second battalion is raised in Liecestershire(i think spelled that wrong) that battalion will later become the 69th regiment and further on will become the second battalion of the..... WELCH REGIMENT.. so there is a connection to wales even this early

August of 1782 they decide to begin naming the regiments after the counties and when they will become the 2nd Warwickshires a name they will have for about 100 years
In 1881(7 or 8 years after the depot was moved to the wales border) they change the name to the south wales borderers to reflect the new station


In the end its the same regiment and any of those names used above would be correct. If we made a movie about Marlborough we couldnt use the name 24th even with out being inaccurate and i suppose if Cooper is so caught up in the Original name he needs to go back even FURTHER along. Given that it was one of 14 raised it couldnt even have been the 24th regiment raised at the time(there werent enough)

So its very silly to get all worked up about the name. it changes every 100 years or so and at this point the name SWB has been around the longest(unless the british army did away with that after say ww2, i dont know i have not finished reading the book)

Speaking of the book, i got all this information from the 1975 osprey publishings The South Wales Borderers .

There was a whole section i wanted to cut and paste that explains how they men were more bummed they lost the green facings for the white ones(good call Pascal) than they were the name change.. especially as the depot had been on the welsh border for, as i said, about 8 years..



Some one else said though that in reality they were all English regiments, even Highlanders are fighting in the english army

So maybe we can just call them the 24th as that name applies the best
Back to top Go down
Chelmsfordthescapegoat

avatar

Posts : 2549
Join date : 2009-04-24

PostSubject: Re: why the inaccuracies Mr Baker/ Mr Endfield   Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:40 pm

I think you are missing the point. Martin is just trying to clarify. That the Regiment that fought at the Battle Of Rorkes Drift we're from Warwickshire which is in England, not Wales. And the regiments that fought at Rorkes Drift and Isandlwana were the 1st/24th Regiment of foot and the 2nd/24th Regiment of foot. Not the South Wales Borderers.

The fact that the Welsh connection is brought into the lime-light in Zulu is because Stanley Baker was from Wales.
Back to top Go down
Chelmsfordthescapegoat

avatar

Posts : 2549
Join date : 2009-04-24

PostSubject: Re: why the inaccuracies Mr Baker/ Mr Endfield   Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:54 pm

Just out of curiosity. Why wasn't the Welsh so prominent in the Battle Of Isandlwana. Or we're they just English and Coloinals in that one.
Back to top Go down
MadDrDevo

avatar

Posts : 41
Join date : 2012-03-22
Age : 42
Location : Ft Lauderdale Fl

PostSubject: Re: why the inaccuracies Mr Baker/ Mr Endfield   Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:04 pm

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:
I think you are missing the point. Martin is just trying to clarify. That the Regiment that fought at the Battle Of Rorkes Drift we're from Warwickshire which is in England, not Wales. And the regiments that fought at Rorkes Drift and Isandlwana were the 1st/24th Regiment of foot and the 2nd/24th Regiment of foot. Not the South Wales Borderers.

The fact that the Welsh connection is brought into the lime-light in Zulu is because Stanley Baker was from Wales.

the 24th is both the south wales borderers AND the south warwickshires AND derrings regiment AND howards greens.

they all refer to the same "lineage" i guess. they just have different names. Calling them the 24th is just fine. the same men who fought with marlborough are in the same regiment as those that would fight in south africa, different name, same regiment.. its the same regiment that fights with the name South Wales Borderers.. thats my point.. what you call it and when it was called what is very much inconsequential
the battle honours for the 24th dont change after 1881 they dont start over. In the minds of the "regiment" that rather strange "club" that is a british regiment it is the same. The men who drank a toast to the regiment toast the same 24th
If that makes sense

and while baker was welsh, is he really so wrong calling them the south wales borderers a few years early? especially since the depot was moved to that area prior to that anyway.. i just dont think its some huge conspiracy to undermine britian or anything
Back to top Go down
MadDrDevo

avatar

Posts : 41
Join date : 2012-03-22
Age : 42
Location : Ft Lauderdale Fl

PostSubject: Re: why the inaccuracies Mr Baker/ Mr Endfield   Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:22 pm

another point
" The regiment's regimental depot had been moved to Brecon in Wales in 1873 and this, understandably, led to the regiment having close links with South Wales."

to make matters more confusing.."In 1969 the regiment was amalgamated with the Welch Regiment to form the Royal Regiment of Wales (24th/41st Foot)"

Sorry ill stop now, this probably isnt as cool for you all as it is for me.. but i like debate and discussion so i hope im not crossing bounds
Back to top Go down
ADMIN

avatar

Posts : 3594
Join date : 2008-11-01
Age : 58
Location : KENT

PostSubject: Re: why the inaccuracies Mr Baker/ Mr Endfield   Tue Jun 12, 2012 9:25 pm

Some good points being raised.
Back to top Go down
http://www.1879zuluwar.com
rayhun



Posts : 12
Join date : 2012-01-22

PostSubject: Re: why the inaccuracies Mr Baker/ Mr Endfield   Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:20 pm

and so say all of us Coops.

If i was Hook,s ancestors i would have a lot to say about his portrayal

The fact he was a teetotaller is a bit disturbing to me . LOL

David rayhun
Back to top Go down
littlehand

avatar

Posts : 7050
Join date : 2009-04-24
Age : 49
Location : Down South.

PostSubject: Re: why the inaccuracies Mr Baker/ Mr Endfield   Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:24 pm

What made the film directors pick on Henry Hook" and portray him in the way they did. Salute
Back to top Go down
littlehand

avatar

Posts : 7050
Join date : 2009-04-24
Age : 49
Location : Down South.

PostSubject: Re: why the inaccuracies Mr Baker/ Mr Endfield   Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:36 pm

"Zulu

Dir: Cy Endfield, UK, 1964

A Review by Frank Carle, University of Oxford, UK

Lieutenant Bromhead: "Sixty! We got at least sixty wouldn't you say?"
Lieutenant Adendorff: "That leaves only 3,940."
(Zulu, 1964)

In every violent encounter between alien cultures, history finds one of its most interesting challenges: to represent emotional events from a balanced perspective that takes into account the dignity of both sides without allowing emotional polemics to distort the historical record. Balanced reporting on enemy nations during wartime can be traced at least to the Roman Empire, when Tacitus wrote glowingly of the threatening barbarian hordes in Germania:

And yet marriage there is a serious matter…they lead lives of well-protected chastity, corrupted by none of the enticements of public performances… Among a people so numerous, there are extremely few instances of adultery, the punishment for which is prompt (Tacitus, 1999: 84).

Two millennia later the writings of another contemporary historian regarding a different "barbarian horde" would serve as the inspiration for a complex and dramatic film. The bloody exchanges between Imperial Great Britain and the then recently unified Zulu Nation, known as the 1879 Anglo-Zulu war, produced a large number of historical and quasi-historical accounts — many in forms of media not available to Tacitus. But it would be from the pen of Scottish historian John Prebble that the inspiration for one of the greatest war films ever produced would flow.

The British film Zulu (1964) remains the most memorable depiction of the Anglo-Zulu war, and arguably of any British conflict. The film is based on the fate of a small contingent of ninety-six British soldiers from the 2nd Battalion, 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment of Foot, stationed at Rorke's Drift (Lavell and Payne, 1918: 174). Throughout the day and night of January 22 and 23, these ninety-six men would defend their position from a fierce attack by between 3,000 and 4,000 Zulu warriors (Cannon, 1997: 818).  Their successful defense held back a possible Zulu invasion of Natal Colony in British South Africa (Steinberg, 1963: 407). The origins of the film Zulu lie in an obscure article by Prebble detailing the battle of Rorke's Drift. Cy Endfield, a blacklisted American director living in exile in England, read the article and approached Prebble to flesh out a script. Zulu remains a classic motion picture distinguished by its thirty-first ranking on the British Film Institute's Top 100 British Films of the twentieth century ("The BFI 100," 2003). The film starred Stanley Baker as Lieutenant John Chard and the then unknown Michael Caine in his breakthrough role as Lieutenant Gonville Bromhead.

Primarily, this paper will examine the various personalities and ideologies that influenced the production of this film in an attempt to explain the problematic depictions of British soldier and Zulu warrior alike. Namely, how did a representation of the action at Rorke's Drift manage to contain seemingly contradictory elements of nationalist and progressive ideology, yet manage to elude definitive categorization as an ideological vehicle for either the leftist or the rightist interpretation of the past? How can a film that was by all accounts an independent collaboration between a Scottish historian, a Welsh actor and a blacklisted American director contain such seemingly contradictory messages? In instances where the film and the historical record part ways, the motives for this departure will be examined and reasons for this departure hypothesized using the questions that follow. Why is religion seemingly marginalized by the ahistorical drunken missionary? Why is the mostly English regiment portrayed as being primarily Welsh? What were the intentions of the production team?

Origins and Production

At this point, we would do well to examine the personalities of those involved in Zulu's creation. John Prebble was a Scottish historian with over twenty books to his credit, his most famous works being Culloden (1964) and The Highland Clearances (1963). Prebble's leftist political leanings are made quite clear in his own autobiography: "The passion we felt made me, like others, members of the British Communist Party" (Prebble, 1993: 14). In The Highland Clearances, Prebble sheds more light on his own particular leftist ideological philosophy, clearly influenced by English imperialism in his beloved Scotland (Prebble, 1969: 323).

Stanley Baker co-produced Zulu and starred as Lt. John Chard, an officer with a non-aristocratic background who would take practical command of the troops during the battle (Wetta and Curley, 1992: 169). Baker was sympathetic to Welsh causes and had previously collaborated with Endfield in the film Hell Drivers (1957).  He was an easy convert to Endfield's project when he learned that it would depict the battle of a regiment based out of his native Wales. With a tiny budget of two million dollars, Baker set out to produce his film on-site in Natal.

Cyril Raker Endfield was the director and co-producer of Zulu; he became involved with the Zulu project during his exile in England. He was best known for the crime drama/thriller The Sound of Fury (1951), a motion picture that was highly critical of the "American Dream" (Booker, 1999: 181). Endfield also wrote and directed a 1948 radio play, The Argyle Secrets, which blurred the lines between democratic America and fascist Germany with a commentary on class and race relations (Langman, 1995: 297). Later, he was blacklisted by the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) for his membership in Yale's Young Communist League during World War II, pronounced-leftist bias in various films, such as the wartime film Inflation (1942), and refusing to name other Hollywood communists.

Ethnic Groups

A few very different ethnic groups met at Rorke's Drift in 1879, and the film gave all but one an equitable treatment. The English in the film are represented most prominently in the film by Bromhead's swaggering aristocratic character, and not by the bravery of the mostly English troops that he historically commanded. The fact that the defenders at Rorke's Drift were mostly English was glossed over by the film: "This is a Welsh regiment man, although there are a few foreigners from England in it." In fact, the composition of 'B' company, 24th Regiment, although later based out of Wales, actually contained only a small minority of Welsh defenders in 1879. The most genuinely kind character in the film also happens to be Welsh, a private named Tommy who constantly worries about the fate of a calf whose mother had died [1] (Morris, 1994: 99). Additionally, at the real battle, a missionary stood watch on a nearby hill as a sentry to warn of the Zulu's approach. However, once again the film makes a slight, yet telling departure from reality, by replacing the religious figure with two Welsh sentries. In one fell swoop, religion finds itself marginalized and the Welsh are lionized as the outpost's first line of defense. Baker was Welsh by birth and Prebble had been stationed in North Wales during much of the Second World War (to say nothing of the suffering of Baker's Welsh ancestors at the hands of the English) and so it seems fair to attribute the film's pro-Welsh tone largely to its producers (Prebble, 1993: 47).

Anti-Clerical Themes

Scholars have noted a glaring irregularity in the film's treatment of religion:"There was a clergyman, the Reverend George Smith, among the defenders; he distinguished himself but is not in the film" (Frase, 1999: 267). Instead of depicting the Reverend's historic role in the battle, Endfield and Prebble choose to insert a fictional drunken coward and his hapless daughter. The film makes its stance on the impracticality of formal religion explicit when the church is requisitioned for use as a field hospital and the alter taken to be used in the construction of the outpost's defenses. When reproached by the Reverend Otto Witt for these actions; Color-Sergeant Bourne (Nigel Greene) retorts, "A prayer is as good as a bayonet on a day like this," further marginalizing religion. Later in the film, it is the Reverend who incites the native contingent to desert the outpost by preaching of "Cain killing his brother Able" as a metaphor for them killing fellow Africans. After he is jailed for this offense, he attempts to convince the young soldier guarding him to desert: "Thou shall not kill…obey the word." While imprisoned, Witt succumbs to the temptation of drink and begins screaming: "He breaketh the bow and snappeth the spear asunder…" At this point the camera pans to Color-Sergeant Bourne manning the outpost's defenses, who finishes Witt's biblical quotation "The Lord of Hosts is with us." This clever bit of editing suggests religion's vulnerability to being interpreted in order to legitimatize a variety of actions. This scene is made all the more interesting by a passage from John Prebble's autobiography referencing the century prior to the action at Rorke's Drift: "In a century inspired, directed, and sometimes betrayed by the Old Testament, there was always divine authority to be cited for the destruction of those who were anathemas to Church or State" (Prebble, 1993: 171). As if religion had not already been marginalized enough by the character of Witt, as he is forced into a wagon and sent off with his daughter, he yells back in a drunken stupor: "Death awaits you…You're all going to die!" While the film gives credit to the camp's cook and a medical officer for distributing ammunition along the British lines, the Reverend actually performed this duty. The fact that the film's drunken missionary and all his actions were totally ahistorical, especially when so many other details were faithfully recreated, suggests that Prebble allowed his own anti-clerical feelings to distort the film's representation of the historical record for ideological reasons.

Conclusions

In the midst of this examination, one must not lose sight of the film's overt message: that all people from the British Isles could take pride in the awesome power of Imperial Great Britain during this period of history.  Still, the film's unified meaning initially eluded this author; how could the same film seemingly endorse imperialism while simultaneously promoting anti-religious and pro-indigenous nationalist messages? The correlation of several basic facts can be used to distill an explanation for the film's seemingly contradictory messages; Baker was something of a Welsh nationalist and Prebble sympathetic to Scottish causes. In addition, Prebble harbored anti-clerical feelings that could be traced back to his experiences while living with a Vicar:

It was the thought of that implacable church and its obvious disgust for me … I had learnt this day that God was…a cut above the class to which we belonged. That day, I think, the painter was loosed from its mooring and my faith began a slow drift into non-belief (Prebble 1993: 96).

Prebble was distressed by the wretched condition of the poor contrasted with the opulence of organized religion. More significantly, Prebble belonged to a generation of socialists tainted by the overly-nationalist ideas that smacked of Stalinist communism. Prebble himself remarked with approval on the shift of the Communist International from the mission of international socialism to Stalin's "socialism in one country" during the 1930s: "…'patriotic peoples nationalism'…here was an English history of which we could be proud, without the shame of industrial greed and imperial growth" (Prebble 1993: 18).  In Zulu, the producers did not intend the main theme to be the imperialist English triumphant against a colonized race. Instead it was meant to be the colonized Welsh and Scots, who having beaten off a religious threat from a Christian missionary, coming together in a common solidarity despite their national differences. Even the hospitalized anarchist-minded criminal who feigned illness fights alongside his comrades in the end. In order to make this point, the film portrayed the regiment as comprised of mainly Welsh and Scottish soldiers. Baker and Prebble must have envisioned the force at Rorke's Drift not as imperial conquerors, but more as gladiators, forced to fight a fellow colonized race by their imperial masters.

While Prebble seems to have left very little written evidence to explain his contributions to Zulu, his opinion on the nearly analogous situation of the Buffalo Soldiers [2] here in the United States lends credence to the above interpretation: "Thus men who were once slaves, commanded by junior officers who were the sons of evicted immigrants or had themselves been dispossessed, were now used to subdue, remove and confine a free people" (Prebble 1993: 140). Here, minority groups, the Irish- and African-Americans, are used by another imperialist power, America, to subdue a native people, Native Americans. Replace the Irish and Africans with Welsh and Scots, the Native Americans with Zulus, and Prebble's above quotation would aptly describe Zulu's message.

Zulu contains several key ingredients of leftist ideology; the film was anti-imperialist, anti-religion, and pro-minority before these became popular progressive ideas. It is the genius of Zulu that the film managed to package seemingly contradictory elements of leftist and conservative ideology together into a popular war film while covertly carrying a progressive message. Indeed, Zulu had created a new template for other leftists in the film industry; in order to advertise your message, first attract your audience with action, realism, and a splash of history, at which point your audience will be amenable to slight distortions of said history for ideological purposes. Zulu's release signaled the beginning of a shift from traditional industry paradigms to more progressive conventions that would come to dominate the motion picture industry for decades to come, and it did so virtually unnoticed. Our current crop of ideologically motivated war films are a direct consequence of this general movement toward polemic messages in films depicting historical events. In any event, due to Zulu's groundbreaking style, the public came to expect realism in war movies. Unrealistic, overly-patriotic John Wayne sanitations of history were on the way out, along with John Ford Westerns that seemed like elaborate musicals in the shadow of Zulu's realism, even if this new realism came at the price of subtle distortions to the truth. Indeed, Zulu's progressive messages were expertly shrouded by the fog of war."
Back to top Go down
MadDrDevo

avatar

Posts : 41
Join date : 2012-03-22
Age : 42
Location : Ft Lauderdale Fl

PostSubject: Re: why the inaccuracies Mr Baker/ Mr Endfield   Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:57 pm

littlehand wrote:
What made the film directors pick on Henry Hook" and portray him in the way they did. Salute

its hard to say what makes one person more interesting than another. i would say hook might have been picked because he wrote his account but then what about Lugg who never shows up..

its more interesting given they made him an alcholic and that fit so many others better.. i guess it was his being in the hospital and they needed someone interesting to make that work.. everyone else whos name you see is pretty much outside

Back to top Go down
Dave

avatar

Posts : 1605
Join date : 2009-09-21

PostSubject: Re: why the inaccuracies Mr Baker/ Mr Endfield   Tue Jun 12, 2012 11:36 pm

I'm sure I read that on the first showing of Zulu, Hooks grand daughters walked out in utter disgust at the way he was portraid.
Back to top Go down
Mr M. Cooper

avatar

Posts : 2507
Join date : 2011-09-29
Location : Lancashire, England.

PostSubject: Why the inaccuracies?   Wed Jun 13, 2012 2:11 am

Yes, people want to be entertained by a film, but if it means altering history at the drop of a hat just to give some people entertainment, then again, that is a no no. Why should important events in history be put through the shredder and churned out totally altered just to entertain the uneducated twonks that will believe almost anything that they see on the screen. Oh and by the way, the Americans didn't kick out the Brtish, they merely helped the French to do something that they couldn't do themselves, and a few years later the French got their come uppence at Waterloo at the hands of the British.

Yes, there is something that you failing to understand. The regiment was raised in England, it was raised for the defence of England, it was later given an English county title, and it was under this English county title that the regiment fought during the AZW, at both iSandlwana and Rorke's Drift. And although the regiment had its depot moved (by the government of the day), to the borders of south Wales in 1873, neither battalion had been to Brecon by the start of the AZW. There is also something else you are missing, why move a regiment with an English county title to the borders of south Wales, and at the same time move a regiment already in the borders of south Wales (43rd Monmouthshire) into an English county?

I say again, that altering history and making people into something that they were not, just for the sake of entertaining the uneducated, and that sacrificing fact for fiction just to get bums on seats, is totally wrong in my book. If these uneducated oafs who couldn't give a hoot about history want to watch fiction, then let them watch stuff like star wars or some other similar tripe. The film makers have no right to mess about with historical events and turn them into a load of fictional fantasy, just for the sake of entertainment and getting bums on seats, and making pots of money by sacrificing historical facts and peoples reputations.

You have got it wrong about the 69th. This was the old 2nd Battalion of the 24th foot, it was redesignated the 69th (later South Lincolnshire) regiment. It had NO connection whatsoever with Wales until 1881, when it was amalgamated with the 41st foot to become the Welch regiment.

You may also be interested to know that none of the antecedent regiments now forming the Royal Welsh are not actually Welsh regiments.

The 23rd was raised by Lord Herbert of Chirbury in Shropshire, and assembled in Ludlow, Shropshire.

The 24th was raised in Kent, and later became the 2nd Warwickshire regiment.

The 41st was raised as an invalids and Chelsea out patients regiment.

The 69th is explained above.

So, you see, the Royal "Welsh" is not really "Welsh" at all.

The name of the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment was in existence for much longer than the name SWB, however, it is always the SWB that gets credited with everything that the Noble 24th did prior to 1881, this is because of the myth created by Bakers Welsh ego, and the Welsh do not want the myth busting. The real name of the regiment that fought in the AZW is never mentioned, neither is its English origins, the Welsh do not want the truth to come out about how it was the 2nd Warwickshire regiment that fought the battle of Rorke's Drift, they would rather let the uninitiated public believe that it was a Welsh regiment called the SWB. You said in an earlier post that people wouldn't watch war films with you because you picked the bone out of all the inaccuracies, so why do you appear to condone all the inaccuracies in this film?

Back to top Go down
garywilson1

avatar

Posts : 374
Join date : 2009-01-22
Age : 55
Location : Timisoara , Romania

PostSubject: Re: why the inaccuracies Mr Baker/ Mr Endfield   Wed Jun 13, 2012 4:37 am

I don't think Hook was made out to be an alcoholic ? He broke open the brandy bottle before leaving the hospital but only took one swig .
Back to top Go down
90th

avatar

Posts : 9341
Join date : 2009-04-07
Age : 61
Location : Melbourne, Australia

PostSubject: Wht the inaccuracies Mr Baker / Mr Endfield   Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:13 am

Hi Gary .
That's true , he was made out to be a malingerer ( bludger / loafer ) . Reynold's does call him '' My Malingering Hector '' if I'm not mistaken .
Cheers 90th. Very Happy
Back to top Go down
garywilson1

avatar

Posts : 374
Join date : 2009-01-22
Age : 55
Location : Timisoara , Romania

PostSubject: Re: why the inaccuracies Mr Baker/ Mr Endfield   Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:58 am

Yes , he also asked Reynolds for a drop of medicinal brandy before he lanced the boil but i think i would have done the same :lol:
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: why the inaccuracies Mr Baker/ Mr Endfield   

Back to top Go down
 
why the inaccuracies Mr Baker/ Mr Endfield
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 2Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
WWW.1879ZULUWAR.COM  :: FOR DISCUSSIONS RELATED TO "ZULU", "ZULU DAWN",-
Jump to: