Like Wolves on the Fold by Lt Col Mike Snook

Like Wolves on the Fold by Lt Col Mike Snook

I have just finished reading this book, and to be quite honest, there is nothing in there that hasn’t already been written.
It started of well but then I found myself reading what I have already read in other books on this subject. The cover looks great and the book will suffice as gap filler.
I’m so disappointed. I will not be buying another book from this author.

Any other members brought this book, if yes what did they think.

24th. Yes I have this book, and your right this books seems to have been based upon the many other History book relating to the AZW.
I did not finish it for that reason.
I have kept hold of it purely because it cost so much. And like you I will not be purchasing any other publications from this Author.

I must admit it was a good effort, as there is so much written on this subject already. Maybe one day he will be up they’re with the rest of the well-known authors.

Here is a review by Dr Adrian Greaves The Anglo Zulu War Research Society.

"As someone who has spent considerable time preparing notes on the subject of Rorke’s Drift, I keenly awaited Col. Snook’s new book. It looked spectacular as I unpacked it and I enthusiastically settled down to learn more about the battle. The book is very well illustrated with numerous clear maps and attractive pictures, and portraits we have all seen before, though I was somewhat taken aback to see his publishers needed to use the two main cover pictures from my own recent books on the subject, as well as the previously agreed pictures from my private collection. But Col. Snook and I obviously share a taste in fine artwork, and I can’t fault him for that.

His text reads well and the battle flows excitingly, though I repeatedly felt that by having read so much about the battle elsewhere, it was rather like watching ZULU for the nth time, I instinctively knew what was coming next. As I moved through the book, I was eagerly waiting for some new material which I and other authors had missed - and I eventually found something new. I was intrigued to learn that, before the battle, C/Sgt Bourne had walked up the hill overlooking Rorke’s Drift to see what was going on. I had previously believed what Bourne had written, that he had also been detailed to take a skirmishing party out of camp to slow the advancing Zulus. Col. Snook obviously has new information on this, I would dearly like to know where it came from; he doesn’t tell us.

He also alludes to some of the long standing mysteries of Rorke’s Drift, but leaves us still guessing. I would love to know more about….. the Martini-Henry ammunition cases he says were found above the Oskarsberg terraces, unless he is referring to those I found there (and left there) when researching my own book. Some of the Zulu farmers had examples in their huts and, given an hour or so, were able to find more in the topsoil of their vegetable patches; so there is probably much more to this aspect of the story. The poor British dead seem to have been mercifully killed by one shot, which rules out Zulu blunderbusses, so what killed them if not Martini-Henry rounds? And what about the discrepancy of numbers of Zulu dead? The comments by those present indicate most were killed by the bayonet, how could this be? And the treatment of the Zulu wounded and prisoners after the battle needs further investigation, a subject that has been recently raised and needs resolution. And what of the official archaeology conducted at Rorke’s Drift? Why have no more than a handful of Martini-Henry cases ever been found at the Rorke’s Drift battle site? Did the British tidy up afterwards while anticipating a fresh Zulu attack, and in the pouring rain? And why did the archaeologists find no evidence of a battle? Of course we all know there was a battle, so, again, why no mention of this mystery? And where is the analysis of the post battle enquiry? And then there is the matter of the authenticity of Chard’s report, which the author quotes repeatedly. And so on.

About half way through the book he goes on for page after page about Col. Durnford at Isandlwana, and then I confess to having lost interest. He confusingly states that material on the Zulu side of the war is hard to come by. It’s in the libraries of KwaZulu Natal, the universities of Zululand, Pietermaritzburg and Durban, and the Killie Campbell Museum in Durban. There are also many research manuscripts written by a number of academics on the subject; their papers, references and bibliographies are all readily available from the Anglo Zulu War Historical Society.

So, my overall impression? This is difficult as I know that any book takes well over a year to prepare and so I want to be kind. Col. Snook has a fine style and as an editor of such material, I’m delighted for someone else to join the long list of RD authors – but not to retell us the same story. So, regretfully, I wouldn’t recommend this book purely because it’s a ‘retell’.

Fresh new books about the Zulu War do regularly appear and two recent works that met my expectations were from Col. Rodney Ashworth (also Royal Regiment of Wales, retd.) who wrote about the Heaton diary– what an interesting and fresh study. And then there is the book by Dr Sheldon Hall about the making of the film ZULU – what a remarkable publication; both are well researched and presented."

I actually found the book quite interesting. Mike Snook does raise a few good points. All of which are debatable, but so are all the other books written on this subject.

S.D

hi 24th.
I dont own a copy of Snook"s book , purely because i have read GREAVES review and thought it to expensive for what you get.
I have been guilty of buying some expensive books on the zulu war , but they had favourable reviews, or are much older pieces of work,
written by those who travelled zulu land not long after the war, or that had done quite extensive work looking up diaries etc etc.

cheers 90th

Saul David 1879 wrote:

I had previously believed what Bourne had written, that he had also been detailed to take a skirmishing party out of camp to slow the advancing Zulus. Col. Snook obviously has new information on this, I would dearly like to know where it came from; he doesn’t tell us.b]S.D

Bourne mentions it in his interview doesn't he, so its
not new infomation, its just been missed

Cheers
DB14

Mike's book is probably targetted towards beginners in the AZW, not experts and academics such as Saul David or Adrian Greaves. And the more choice and more colourful the cover, the better.
Milk's books tend to be very good, exciting, well written reads, but one wouldn't expect the depth of new material discovered to be any greater than that of any other keen (PhD) student of the subject.
As a Colonel of the Royal Welsh, expect him to interpret all the source material and bias it to effect a favourable light on the officers and men of the 24th.
As an infanteer, expect him to make intelligent and educated guesses and assumptions as to the actions of the men on the ground that day and fill in any gaps in knowledge as to their their movements and disposition with his own interpretation of what he thinks would have happened.
As an author, his style is captivating - yes, perhaps more so to beginners, but his books are a darn good read; not scholarly, academic works
As a man, I have no doubt that he is an honest, upstanding officer and a gentleman who one could trust with their life. I am sure that if a picture or two has been used without Greaves's permission, Mike would be the first to want to put that right.
His work on the Nile Expedition - Beyond the Reach of Empire - I have to confess, I haven't read it yet, is apparently a master piece, the definitive work on the subject. (OK, true, the only in depth analysis of the source material so far written, so nothing to compare it with). However, I would be very interested in Saul Davis's opinion of this book.
But finally, judge Mike's work as you find it. It is easy to criticise, but if you don't like what's on, change the channel.

Tasked. Here's a review by Elizabeth Hogan. No doubt CTSG will have something to say about this post. It's from the Anglo Zulu War Research Society.

"
Review By : Elizabeth Hogan
As readers of this review site may know, I didn’t exactly go overboard for Lieutenant Colonel Snook’s recent book about Isandlwana – and I’m not enthused by his latest book, Like the Wolves on the Fold – The defence of Rorke’s Drift 

 Lieutenant Colonel Snook is from the distinguished Royal Regiment of Wales, the regiment descended from the 2nd Battalion 24th Regiment (2nd Warwickshires) which fought at Rorke’s Drift. But he never mentions the English regiment actually involved in the battle. Is this to perpetuate the long-standing myth that the battle was fought by a Welsh regiment? I believe the Welsh flag now flies at both Rorke’s Drift and Isandlwana, not the flag of St. George or the Union flag under which the actual regiment fought.

 The first clue to the quality of the book’s content is given away by the word ‘retold’. The front cover credit, written by the highly respected Professor Richard Holmes states; ‘The Zulu attack on Rorke’s Drift thrillingly retold’. Holmes is spot on; Lieutenant Colonel Snook has retold the story – and I genuinely can’t find anything in LTWOTF that hasn’t been repeatedly retold, and retold better elsewhere. As for the illustrations, apart from his own location shots, all the pictures have been published before, many in currently available works. I notice, for example, Lieutenant Colonel Snook has copied two pictures first seen on the front covers of Dr Greaves’ two recent books published by Cassell, his best selling Rorke’s Drift  and Crossing the Buffalo. I agree the two pictures in question are magnificent but they are still very fresh in our memories. I would have thought Lieutenant Colonel Snook could have found something original.

 I found it irritating that Lieutenant Colonel Snook keeps referring back to his own earlier book (How can man die better?). He also continues to make statements that lack evidence, or fly in the face of it, and he gives his readers few meaningful references, a repeat of the serious failing of his earlier book.

  A few examples;

p.23 ‘Colour Sergeant Bourne decided to walk to the top of Shiyane’.  Bourne wrote that at lunchtime he went onto a small hill with some sergeants to look at Isandlwana, but was this Shiyane? Later on, as the Zulus approached Rorke’s Drift, Bourne was sent out from Rorke’s Drift with a skirmishing party to slow down the advancing Zulus. Has the detachment of Bourne and the skirmishers been overlooked?
P.28. ‘Bourne had thirty-four boxes of cartridges’ . This statement begs some questions; about the efficacy of the ammunition, rates of fire, determination and frequency of Zulu attacks - which other authors have tackled but Lieutenant Colonel Snook leaves unanswered.
p.50. He writes that ‘our grasp on the Zulu side of the story is tenuous’. Is it? He could have taken a little time to read the works of, for example, Ian Knight or Prof. John Laband. The evidence is there - it’s called ‘research’.
p.78. Lieutenant Colonel Snook tells us that, with the battle some two hours underway, the Zulus had already ‘taken dreadful punishment’ with ‘scores of dead’. To any reader this is curious; if they had been firing for some two hours at close range how can over one hundred well-trained soldiers, capable of firing five aimed shots per minute, only account for ‘scores of dead’?  As it then got dark, were most of the counted 351 dead Zulus killed after dark – if so how? No one would dream of suggesting this low count was due to poor leadership, defective weapons or poorly trained soldiers so, why are we not told what happened? Surely one controlled volley or a few minutes of ‘fire at will’ would have substantially contributed to this tally?
P 237. Lieutenant Colonel Snook incorrectly tells us about the wreath of Immortelles. A moment’s research would reveal that the original wreath was initially placed on the colour by the ladies of Durban – and replaced in England by Queen Victoria when the originals wilted.
 On the question of Etiquette, like many South Africans, I deplore the use of the word ‘kraal’ to denote a human homestead, unless used in a contemporary quotation. A kraal is for cattle not people, the careless use of the term has long been offensive to most people. Also, King Cetshwayo of the Zulus should always be King Cetshwayo, not just Cetshwayo. If Queen Victoria and Prince Dabulamanzi can be correctly designated, why not King Cetshwayo?

 The second half of the book threw me completely. Lieutenant Colonel Snook suddenly goes off on an oblique tangent and devotes 20 pages, one tenth of the text devoted to Rorke’s Drift, by reviewing Colonel Durnford’s role at the battle of Isandlwana. Should this section not have been published in his recent Isandlwana book?"

I would dismiss out of hand Elizabeth Hogan's review immediately and write it off as rubbish, simply because she goes off on one straight away about the Welsh Regiment/English Regiment thing which we have all agreed previously, is totally irrelevant.
The name South Wales Borderers or Royal Warwickshire regiment. Irrelevant. The depot was based in Brecon, Wales, and the soldiers were recruited from that area which straddles both England and Wales. English, Welsh, Irish and no doubts Sccotsmen as well, were recrited into the 24th and fought side by side at iSandlwana and RD. (And many other nationalities to boot).

I have not got hold of this book yet.
It became prohitively expensive in hard back.
I believe there is a soft cover edition out now.

Eric, I'm sure both LWOTF and HCMDB are available in paperback now.

[quote="tasker224"]I would dismiss out of hand Elizabeth Hogan's review immediately and write it off as rubbish, simply because she goes off on one straight away about the Welsh Regiment/English Regiment thing which we have all agreed previously, is totally irrelevant.
The name South Wales Borderers or Royal Warwickshire regiment. Irrelevant. The depot was based in Brecon, Wales, and the soldiers were recruited from that area which straddles both England and Wales.

Oh dear, So, Elizabeth is accused of 'going off on one' is she, well, well, well, it would appear that tasker is also 'going off on one' with this post, in fact tasker seems to 'go off on one' every time this subject of the 24th regiments real identity crops up.

Perhaps a read of page 222 in Ian Knight's book 'Companion to the Anglo-Zulu war' might help tasker to see that it is relevant that the proper title and origin of the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment is used when speaking or writing about the Anglo-Zulu War, it is the name of the regiment that those brave men fought under, not the swb, and they also fought under the Union Flag, not the Welsh Flag.

The snippet below is taken from Ian Knight's book.

In the popular imagination the principality of Wales will probably always be associated with the Anglo-Zulu war, but in fact the image of brave little Welshmen from the valleys singing 'men of Harlech' as they manned the barricades is almost entirely anachronistic and has more to do with the efforts of Stanley Baker and Ivor Emmanuel in the 1960's and the battlefield tourism industry of today than with the reality of 1879.

The impression is fuelled by the obvious regional origins of today's welsh regiment, yet in 1879 the 24th had only recently taken the first steps of it's association with Wales, and the connection was certainly not reflected in the regional origin of the men in it's ranks.

The 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiments association with Brecon began in 1873, and was done by the government of the day, when it reorganised the army into districts and subdistricts. The 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, notwithstanding it's historic Warwickshire associations, was attached to the twenty-fifth subdistrict, which encompassed the counties of Cardigan, Radnor, Brecon and Monmouth. (Monmouth did not become Welsh until 1976). By the beginning of the Anglo-Zulu campaign in January 1879 neither battalion had spent time in Brecon

Regards

Martin.

TBH, the simple lack of "gripping" new information that has come to life means, whoever the author, Snook, Greaves, Knight ,lock/Quantrill or David have really nothing new to offer but their slant on the subject, and for that I enjoy the debate, I do not criticise any writer I did enjoy Zulu Rising, HCMDB and Zulu Victory.

What no other Author has to add to their portfolio is someone with a 30 year military back ground the Mike Snook has, and as Tasker rightly wrote Mike has the intimate knowledge of how the military works, and Tommy Atkins" who, stripped of his flak jacket, SA80 and kevlar, is not dissimilar to his fore bare in the Dust of the Sudan or the Afghan plains of 1878

I know Mike has moved on to "other campaings" in particular the Sudan, his new work "Out of the Reach of Empire" is going to be a specific work on the war, he has called upon the specialist knowledge of his contacts to proof read his factual information to ensure he does not "surmise". So for that his work is to be applauded and to not have it in the library is simply not a option. Not many authors on the subject (Micheal Asher a huge exception), have spent time of the battlefields of Abu Klea, Tamaii or Tofrek, and without that first hand experience of the topography, simply cannot do justice to the reader, in respect to Lock/Quantrill and the AZW authors I cannot criticise any, I was mortified when I heard I did upset Ian a while back when I compared Zulu Rising as a "Tasty Stew", and I still stand by that, but I must go on to say, as a compendium of the Zulu war, IMO it will be the defining work for anyone wanting a full overview, and it is the piece to buy, along with Sauls works, Snook, L & Q and Greaves, As I am not an author of my own work on the subject, I am not in the position to "review" any other author.


For 24th and 90th I would say to dismiss Mikes works will leave a big hole in your library. I still think, despite of my perceived "biased" to my friend, that Mikes last two chapters in HCMDB, in which he freely admits is half fact half fiction, is probably the best description of the desperate last stands that took place 22.1.79, simply put, no one knows, and to read it still make the hairs on the back of my neck stand on end, because, as I put before, the soldier of the British army, with his back to the wall is still a fearsome animal irrespective if dressed in, Khaki, camo or Red serge.

Neil, why do you keep mentioning your friendship with Mike Snook ? All that does is convince us that you are not impartial where his work is concerned. We know who you are and we know who Mike is, and we are now reminded yet again that he is your friend, but this is a public forum about the Zulu War 1879, not Facebook.

I am looking forward to his book on the Sudan. There seems to be a resurgence of interest in this campaign especially in the toy soldier world at present. Obvioulsy Col Snook must be congratulated for managing to visit the Sudan battle fileds. I think getting there today is almost as dangerous as it was back in the time when STanley Baker and co were first exploring the Nile Basin.

DCF Moodie wrote his magnificent book on the Zulu wars, and decided to finish it with a Short Sketch of Southern Australia. No connection between the two concepts but he did it anyway. ( The book has probably the longest title in history).

Col Snook has done exactly the same thing by writing the second half of the book. The first half is a pleasant read, no better than any of hundreds of works on the subject. The second half is a repeat of HCMDB and an occasion to launch a further attack on his pet hate, Durnford.

The Col would have served his readers far better by rather covering the next few days at RD and Helpmekaar. The conversations between Chelmsford and Essex, Penn Symonds interviews with the suvivors etc.

What he brought to his dissection of the Battle at isandlwana was masterful, he couldnt repeat for RD. For that I would not reccomend the book.

Regards

Colin J

I mentioned it because if I don't the Wolves come out of the Fold and then slate me for being biased, since in the past there was personal attacks on him on other forums and there are various, who was it? DVD, C.J... Coll, he changed his name on a regular basis.

For your own peace of mind I edited the post,

. nuff said.

Neil, you are escalating this post unnecessarily. I merely was pointing out that this is a Zulu War discussion forum, and it is his book being discussed, not the man. I'm sure Mike is able to defend himself and/or book when necessary. Why also refer to incidents/members on other forums now ? The editing was enough.

Hi Neil.
I have HCMDB and you wont get any arguement from me regarding Mike's telling of the last stands at Isandlwana . Stirring and
Neck hair rising stuff for sure . My only gripe and I wouldnt really call it a gripe are the lack of footnotes , but as we all know none
of us will ever know the true story of what went on at Isandlwana , M. Snook calls it as he see's it through the eyes of a military man .
I thoroughly enjoyed it and will no doubt read it again .
cheers 90th.

Colin.

Quote :

Neil, why do you keep mentioning your friendship with Mike Snook.

Friendships with the authors can only benefit the forum don't you think.

Admin, usually, yes. However, not over-used and when not in keeping with the topic heading. Neil and his friendship with Mike Snook, and the latter's career have been referred to regularly, including in his books. Why keep repeating this when a comment(s) against one of Mike's books or his conclusions occur(s) ? History is one thing, a friendship outside of this, is another. Of course, that's maybe just the way I view it, but if an impartial opinion is not possible due to said friendship, then it defeats the discussing/debating process, as sometimes loyalty to someone can overrule valid independent thought.

Colin.

Quote :

Neil, why do you keep mentioning your friendship with Mike Snook ? All that does is convince us that you are not impartial where his work is concerned. We know who you are and we know who Mike is, and we are now reminded yet again that he is your friend, but this is a public forum about the Zulu War 1879, not Facebook.

As far as i can see, it started going off topic at the point above.

Impartial?

With such impassioned defence of Chelmsford and Durnford, there are a few members whos impartiallity could be called into question. But thats what this battle does to people, makes them very partisan. Worse than watching Liverpool v Man United at times.

Springbok, with respect, but Chelmsford and Durnford are long gone now and can't defend themselves or their decisions and actions. Mike Snook is an author who lives in the present and is very capable in defending himself when attacked. He is not being attacked here, but his book discussed. It is the views of the book that should be getting judged impartially. I left a post ending my part in this topic, but it's disappeared.