New Historical Fiction: The Kraals of Ulundi: A Novel of the Zulu War

Thanks Xhosa and hope it doesn't disappoint! Wonderful that you bought from Foyles too. They are SO helpful. My local Waterstones too. It's technically Publication Day for Kraals, so we set up a stand there this morning in advance of next week's launch event and sold the first copy while still arranging the display. A local lady with a passion for the Zulu War and, thankfully, no illusions about That Baker Film. Actually, she was keen to have details of the Forum so may join us, which would be neat. Not sure how many female members there are already. Anybody know? Then, when I got home just now, there's a lovely e-mail from Anthony Durnford's great-great-niece, who'd also picked up a copy. Anyway, here's a link to today's press release...
Wrexham Leader
...and, since nobody else seems to have mentioned it, happy May Day to you all!!

xhosa2000 wrote:

Received my copy today from Foyle's. ist imp
very presentable, liking the larger format.also
the Historical disclaimer, i dont do historical
fiction as the norm, thing's like Sharpe and
hornblower did not work for me, but this is on
a subject that will always endure for me, when
people say the film Zulu introduced them to the
Anglo Zulu War, i think fine!  i saw that film a
few months before my 10th birthday and when
i look back the fifty years that was ago, i cant
believe i'm still ever increasing my enthusiasm
to learn more, even the slightest minutiae can
make my day. did i choose to study African
History and the Anglo Zulu War..no, iv'e known
for a long time now,,it chose me!. i look forward
to reading a good yarn.

Excellent post. Speaks for most of us!

 

Ray
Further to my comments on Tshingwayo is this snippet from the Illustrated London News of comments from Cetswayo: 'He sent them bound with his army under Mavumgwanas charge, to be delivered up to the General at Rorkes Drift.' And again: 'The King protests that he never ordered his army to attack the English column and his Induna Mavumgwana is now in disgrace for having permitted it.'
So possibly begs the question as to who was in charge at iSandlwana?

Cheers

Very interesting Frank, i always
considered that it was a joint
command! with Tshingwayo and
Mavumgwana.

Dammit, I forgot to mention that the first of my presentations about the background to The Kraals of Ulundi is tomorrow (Saturday 10th May) at Waterstones in Wrexham, North Wales, beginning at 12.00 noon. Then one at Foyles in Bristol on Friday 23rd May, beginning at 6.00pm. And then at Shortlands Library, Bromley (not TOO far from Chislehurst) on Monday 2nd June, beginning at 2.15pm. This last one, at Shortlands, is basically a commemoration of the 135th anniversary of Prince Imperial's demise. But debunking the myths of That Baker Film will be high on my agenda at each of them. If anybody HAPPENS to be in any of those areas on the dates in question, you'd be very welcome to join me, and I'll try to keep everybody posted on further events.

A bit too far to travel from my part of this once great country, but nice to see that the debunking of 'the Baker film' is high on the agenda. I would love to see some of the looks on peoples faces when they realise that Baker deliberately falsified the historical facts and conned many people into believing in a myth with his almost fictional film.

What a pity that others who have the golden opportunity to put right the wrong done to the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment don't bother doing so.

Good luck with the book.

He didn't falsified the film. At the time of making the film. It wasn't the Warwickshires.

I read peter storey's bio on Baker,
he certainly did have an agenda!.
and moreover the events depicted
portray the 2nd Warwickshire Regt
and none other.

Spot on Les.

Yes, Baker certainly did have an agenda, and it was that anti English chip on his shoulder that prompted him to make the film the way he did.

There must have been some sort of research done before making the film, and he would have known that the regiment that fought at RD was the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, however, he decided to deliberately alter the historical facts to make it appear that it was an all welsh affair, and thereby discredit the mainly Englishmen and their regiment [the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment], and substitute them and their regiment for a mythical all welsh regiment with a name that did not even exist at the time of the AZW therefor dishonouring the memory of the mainly Englishmen and the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment.

He was a welshman with an anti English chip on his shoulder, yet ironically he played the part of an Englishman, how two faced can some folk be?

Correct again Les, the honour of defending RD belongs to the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment and none other.

Martin the first words spoken at the start of the film Zulu.

Survived the first launch presentation for The Kraals of Ulundi last Saturday at Waterstones in Wrexham, North Wales. Great audience! Myths duly debunked!

Next one in Bristol - Foyles, Cabot Circus, Friday 23rd May, 6.00pm.

The third one is interesting. Shortlands Library, Bromley. Not TOO far from Chislehurst. To commemorate the 135th anniversary of Louis Napoleon's death. Monday 2nd June (yes, I KNOW it's a day late but they're shut on Sundays!), 2.15-3.30

Ebsworth wrote:

Survived the first launch presentation for The Kraals of Ulundi

We knew you would   

John, Your point being?   

Glad all went well at the first launch and that there was a good audience, also glad that the myths were duly debunked.

Keep up the good work, and hopefully those myths will eventually be killed off and the honour restored to the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment of foot.

Ebsworth wrote:

Myths duly debunked!

I think you are taking a very smart approach. Out of curiosity however, what percentage of the myths would you say concern the colonials vs. the Zulu vs. the British Army?

And how does the distribution of myths differ in the film vs. generally?

Does the audience show an enthusiasm (through follow on questions etc...) for one subject vs. another?

That's a very good question, Six-Pounder!

To be honest, I think the BIG myth - definitely perpetuated by That Baker Film rather than Zulu Dawn - is that folk believe the British Empire was the innocent victim of an almost unprovoked attack at Rorke's Drift while its army was going about the normal and peaceful business of building pontoon bridges in the wilderness.

The SECOND big myth is definitely about the "Welshness" of the 24th but Martin has admirably covered this a couple of times. The "Stanley Baker" effect. Although it would infuriate Baker, I assume, to know that, among the myths, NOBODY has yet been aware that Baker himself was Welsh. That's got to be an irony, right?

The THIRD myth does indeed concern the colonists. You can't explain the background to the war without spending at least a couple of minutes on the state of the southern African colonies at the time. So there is NO understanding about the number of Europeans living in Cape Colony or the Transvaal at the time, the quality of life in towns like Durban or PM, the proximity of so many settlers both around and within Zululand, etc.

FOURTH, the Zulus' way of life, its organisation and economy, its relative stability - at least, in the late 1870s.

I've had follow-on questions about each of these. But mostly (and maybe this is because, naturally, I don't cover it so much in the presentation) they've been "what happened next?" questions. And these have been almost exclusively about "what happened next to the Zulus." That's maybe because I specifically mention Robben Island in relation to Cetshwayo. And you can see a light bulb switch on. You can almost hear the question being formed in folks' minds, Could there possibly be a link between That Baker Film and the Nelson Mandela movie that we saw last week??? I've only done three of these so far, Six-Pounder, but at each of them we've run out of time answering that one  

I really don't believe that Baker ever wanted or deigned to make a historically exact movie. He was financially driven I have copies of the interviews with his wife and various actors/ friends etc. that emphasis that point. I generally take the mickey out of Martin because he really is the only person Ive ever met that is prepared to draw the fine lines he does.
There are so many Regiments that have lost their identities, my own being the 11th Hussars ( PAO ) is been swallowed in the various army cuts.
Bakers film is to be applauded for its pivotal roll in bringing to the publics attention the heroics of the occasion, not denigrated because he chose for artistic licence over history.
Im pretty sure that Mickey Rooney, James Cagney and John Wayne didn't win the war, but I enjoyed their movies, Oh yes must not forget that true hero of the Vietnam War 'the Italian Stallion'.
That scene of dear old Ivor belting out his patriotic melodies, as if the Zulus really gave a toss, will live on long after Martins little rants. Plus of course the 9 men of Harlech that were present at the battle.
I believe there were 59 errors in the movie, from wrist watches, cheetah trainers, Zulus wearing wet suits to the absurd location and depiction of the battle itself. But like the mistake with the nomenclature of the regiment..................... who the hell cares ! Glorify in the knowledge that Stanley Baker and Cy Enfield motivated generations of people to look closely at the battles and give the true recognition to the individuals that deserved it.

Ebsworth
Im trying to relate to your comment on linking Robben Island with Cetshwayo?

Cheers

A view from the bio of Baker by Shail..

https://s1297.photobucket.com/user/xhosa2000/media/stanleyaschardvc_zps9b121d6c.jpg.html?sort=6&o=0

springbok9 wrote:

Ebsworth
Im trying to relate to your comment on linking Robben Island with Cetshwayo?

Cheers

   Springbok, wrt ZULU I congratulate you for seeing the forest among the trees and stating it clearly above.  Your comments about the "absurd location" amused me because until I visited the battlefield I had not the slightest inkling where it was filmed. It all struck me as the height of authenticity, and compared to many films made on back lots about American history, it still is!  And, of course, the two AZW films at least partially motivated me to visit your part of the world (but books certainly did contribute as well!)

That said, your (ironic?) question/comment above amused me no end.  I am tempted to say, "Perhaps that's because like the vast majority of Ebsworth's audience (I'm ASSUMING) you are white!" but that wouldn't be fair or politically correct.  In all likelihood a "minority audience" (as we say here, though in S. Africa that label would be decidedly inaccurate) would have little better idea of the historical background...but far greater sensitivity to the concept of "Robben Island."

Given what Ebsworth is saying about the starting point of many audience members he is doing "God's work." I hope it helps him sell more books. For me the value of historical fiction, whether it be literary, like Mantel's superb WOLF HALL, or a bodice ripper like GONE WITH THE WIND, is to provide a gateway to nonfiction accounts, and even to inspire thinking about what history actually is: "a lie agreed upon."

xhosa2000 wrote:

A view from the bio of Baker by Shail..

https://s1297.photobucket.com/user/xhosa2000/media/stanleyaschardvc_zps9b121d6c.jpg.html?sort=6&o=0

I'm not much with appearances, but isn't that Michael Caine as "Chard, V.C."? But I'm sure everything in this entry should be taken completely at face value too...

Greetings 6pd.
Actually Im just your average man of Africa out of Lancashire. Go figure that one . Dave was very kind to allow me to read the manuscript before publication ( Still waiting for my signed copy Dave !!!!!). I don't recall a link between Cetshwayo and Robben Island though, hence my question. Im assuming therefore its a link that's cropped up in his lectures. Hope to hell he doesn't have him staying on the island? It was a leper colony until 1891. Plus of course he was held in the Castle of Good Hope and Oude Moulen.
I loved the movie, some time back Admin was kind enough to allow me to run a poll asking how the forum members became interested in the Zulu War, the movies won hands down.
So that explains my comments above, Baker could have portrayed the men as any regiment he wanted and it would not have affected the results one tiny little bit. So academically Martin is 100% correct, but, the movie and the actually defence was not about the Nationality or the Regiment it was about the men, the occasion and the actions. AND it inspired many many people to want to know more. So Martin you should be eternally gratefull in that as a result of the movie the research that followed brought into prominence the roll of the 24th( 2nd Warickshire ) regiment of foot.

springbok9 wrote:

I don't recall a link between Cetshwayo and Robben Island though, hence my question. Im assuming therefore its a link that's cropped up in his lectures.  Hope to hell he doesn't have him staying on the island? It was a leper colony until 1891. Plus of course he was held in the Castle of Good Hope and Oude Moulen.

I believe I have seen an etching or cartoon of him embarking from or landing on Robben Island en route to England.  In any case I do believe he was held there, albeit not on a long term basis.  My understanding is that Robben Island contained a leper colony but has been put to use as a place of internment as well during the colonial period...and of course, after.

As for your poll, I voted.  I think it made your point wrt the film quite convincingly.  I know this will matter not one wit to Martin, but if Scotland has its way, and the UK passes into history, the average American will never detect it.  I have found that the terms "Great Britain" and "England" are used here completely interchangeably by all but professional historians. Of course, we do know from BRAVE HEART that Scotland exists...and seems to have been oppressed by the English like the Irish...but surely Wales was a product of the fervid imagination of J.R. Tolkien, no?  (That said, my roommate in college called himself a "Llewellyn-American" or some such.)

But my point is that Great Britain will have come and gone without it really registering here.  Regardless of class or politics, the Irish, Welsh, Scottish and English just all have picturesque accents...which we completely confuse with those in S. Africa and Australia.  

The images in ZULU however will abide.

xhosa2000 wrote:


I'm not much with appearances, but isn't that Michael Caine as "Chard, V.C."?.

Hiya 6pdr, nice to hear from you, but, What?.

6pd
'but surely Wales was a product of the fervid imagination of J.R. Tolkien, no?' Ah Calumny and Blasphemy your not going to heaven in fact never set foot in Wales, ever, I say this for your own safety.   
The etching/sketch you refer to is I think the boarding of the surfboat at Point Durnford. The island was only cleared of the leper colony in 1891, long after Cetshwayos time in Cape Town.

Cheers, ( you really are an insular load of characters that side of the great divide)   

xhosa2000 wrote:

xhosa2000 wrote:


I'm not much with appearances, but isn't that Michael Caine as "Chard, V.C."?.

Hiya 6pdr, nice to hear from you, but, What?.

I was referring to the caption on the photo in the link. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that the picture is labelled Stanley Baker while it is actually a picture of Michael Caine, no? That's why I was talking about taking things about "face value."

springbok9 wrote:

6pd
'but surely Wales was a product of the fervid imagination of J.R. Tolkien, no?'  Ah Calumny and Blasphemy your not going to heaven in fact never set foot in Wales, ever, I say this for your own safety.    
The etching/sketch you refer to is I think the boarding of the surfboat at Point Durnford. The island was only cleared of the leper colony in 1891, long after Cetshwayos time in Cape Town.

Cheers, ( you really are an insular load of characters that side of the great divide)   

Yes, it was definitely a "surfboat" I think, so that must be the one. Point Durnford you say? Hmmm, then I must have seen it mislabelled at some point...since it couldn't be that my memory is flawed.   

Considering that there are huge numbers of Scotch-Irish descendants here, you just might have a point.

6pdr, where's your head at! the two pieces of text were
taken from Bakers bio, the photo i grant is not one that
is routinely seen, is also from the Baker bio..as for the rest,
adobe photoshop! to merge the lot into a semblance of a
page with the real chard and the inside page of the press
release from Zulu. and finally..what!its so obviously Baker,
he and Caine look nothing alike. strange!. but i feel ive
missed the point semantically speaking.

xhosa2000 wrote:

the photo i grant is not one that
is routinely seen, is also from the Baker bio..to merge the lot into a semblance of a
page with the real chard and the inside page of the press
release from Zulu...its so obviously Baker,
he and Caine look nothing alike. strange!. but i feel ive
missed the point semantically speaking.  

No semantic trickery here. I just thought it looked like Michael Caine in profile.

k mate ta!

Here is Baker as that Officer of Engineers.

https://s1297.photobucket.com/user/xhosa2000/media/stanleyaschard_zps536e81af.jpg.html?sort=6&o=0

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
He's thinking. How can I wind up Martin Cooper.   

thanks for that Chard!. wicked bit of projection. :)

xhosa2000 wrote:

thanks for that Chard!. wicked bit of projection.  :)

   Funny...both of you.

Stinkers, stinkers, absolute stinkers      

I have mentioned lots of times that Baker was a welshman and that he had an agenda, and yes, the film got many people interested in the AZW, however, through making the film the way he did, it gives the totally false impression to the ordinary watcher that the men and the regiment were welsh, which is totally wrong. Through making the film the way he did he totally disregarded the mainly English men and their regiment the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, and stolen their honour and glory and given it to a mythical welsh regiment who's name did not even exist during the AZW, and since then, the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment have been ignored, and the honour and glory that rightly belongs to them has been handed on a plate to a then none existant welsh regiment called the swb who's descendants now claim it as their own along with all the rest of its history and honours pre 1881, even claiming that Marlborough was the swb's colonel (what a load of tripe). The film has caused the welsh to wrap themselves in these honours, and glory themselves in something that does not rightfully belong to them, as everything pre 1881 belongs to their predecessors, however, to try to get around this fact they cleverly avoid using the regiments full title of the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment of foot and just use '24th foot' or '24th regiment', thus giving the impression to the reader that this was the line number of the swb (which it never was).

My old regiment has gone through name changes and amalgamations, however, the GREAT name of 'LANCASHIRE' is still proudly part of its title, and the 'RED ROSE' is its badge, but sadly for the historic county of Warwickshire there is now no regiment that bears its noble name, one of its regiments is lost to fusiliers, and the other is sadly lost in a land that is not of its origin, and its proud name has been ignored and avoided and substituted for the swb.

Shame on all who do not recognise the acheivements, honour and the glory of the Noble 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment of foot.

And your still a lot of absolute stinkers.  

Chard
It worked as well.   

Cheers

No, the story itself definitely doesn't have Cetshwayo staying on Robben Island but, as it happens, I also thought he was there for a while en route to England. Cornelius Vijn tells us that the King had a fear of being sent there when he was "on the run" after Ulundi. And Harriet Green's excellent History of Robben Island, 1488-1990 details the 26 people who were imprisoned there between 1874 and 1880, including Langalibelele (but not Cetshwayo). In fact, she details that, at the time, the island had several institutions that included the leper colony, the prison, a lunatic asylum and various others. Is she wrong then??? And yes, I'm afraid I've allowed my mouth to run away with me at the presentations, dogmatically claiming that Cetshwayo was there too. But the broader point still holds good, I think - that there is a direct link that leads directly from the treatment of Cetshwayo and the amaZulu post-Ulundi, and all the way though the apartheid era, to that symbol of Robben Island itself - that most folk here in the UK simply wouldn't understand.

Ebsworth wrote:

Harriet Green's excellent History of Robben Island, 1488-1990 details the 26 people who were imprisoned there between 1874 and 1880, including Langalibelele (but not Cetshwayo).

Aargh! Yes! That's it.

Quote :

In fact, she details that, at the time, the island had several institutions that included the leper colony, the prison, a lunatic asylum and various others. Is she wrong then???

It's not a small island. I am pretty sure I read there was more than the leper colony there...but not in Green's book, though she might well have been the ultimate source.

Quote :

And yes, I'm afraid I've allowed my mouth to run away with me at the presentations, dogmatically claiming that Cetshwayo was there too. But the broader point still holds good, I think - that there is a direct link that leads directly from the treatment of Cetshwayo and the amaZulu post-Ulundi, and all the way though the apartheid era, to that symbol of Robben Island itself - that most folk here in the UK simply wouldn't understand.

Close enough for somebody writing historical fiction IMO. If your book serves as a gateway, then you have done your job. If somebody from one of your presentations tracks you down to correct you on the point, then you will have done it very well indeed!.

This is the point that's been raised a few times about Historical Fiction in that flights of fancy become acceptable, Cetshwayo being on Robben Island being an example. Giving a lecture a couple of years ago I was asked a number of questions that all had an origin in ZULU. So comes back to Martins point really.

I still wish I'd had time during the KZN trip to visit Cape Town and Robbens Island though. It's exactly the reason for visiting locations rather than taking one's "knowledge" of them for granted. I will, of course, be more factual about Cetshwayo's fate in future presentations while still making the link between the AZW and its formative role in shaping South Africa's subsequent history. Next event is just one week away - Friday 23rd, 6.00pm in Bristol (Foyles, Cabot Circus). I served sangria at the Spanish Civil War gigs. But what refreshments should I offer for the AZW??

Hi David
Try some uTshwala Besizulu. Malt and millet takes a few days to brew up but oh so tasty, Its the traditional celebration brew, or even uMqombothi, bit thicker and more chewing needed though.   

Cheers

If all else fails try Skokiaan, a drink of choice for the SERIOUS boys in the townships. Its frightening !
But will certainly give your audience a taste of Africa, may blind them a tad but they will enjoy the taste.

Cheers

springbok9 wrote:

This is the point that's been raised a few times about Historical Fiction in that flights of fancy become acceptable, Cetshwayo being on Robben Island being an example. Giving a lecture a couple of years ago I was asked a number of questions that all had an origin in ZULU. So comes back to Martins point really.

Springbok,

There is NO question that films have a hugely disproportionate impact on historical imagination...and when they are egregiously misleading "flights of fancy" that is unfortunate. But I think your earlier answer to Martin was bang on. It's a matter of proportion.

Think of it like this -- there is the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. Historians should stick to the letter of the law, but it's fine if artists get a few details wrong when that brings out the spirit of the law more vividly. (Yes -- even if, like Baker, the artist has an agenda...which it seems Martin is right about.)

I would also point out that Mr. Ebsworth has written a book, not (yet at least) produced a movie about the topic. And his mistake has been in presenting information in promotion of that work. Does Cetshwayo end up on Robben Island in his novel? I doubt it or he would have caught the mistake. (I've just started reading it, but so far it's quite well researched and sticking close to reality...)

In any case it would not ruin a historical novel for me if I discovered that Cetshwayo stopped off at Robben Island as long as it also included his time spent imprisoned in England and meeting the Queen etc...

As for promoting the book, instead of starting with Cetshwayo, Mr. Ebsworth need only begin his lecture with Langalibalele kaMthimkhulu...(and that might also bring up Anthony Durnford who admittedly had also admittedly deceased before his tale starts.)

And therein lays the rub.
Is David giving a lecture or promoting a book? If the former then historical accuracy is paramount, if the later then he could be describing Harry Flashman and entertaining his audience. And for a book promo its about entertainment not education. One cant pass of one as the other. Not that Im suggesting David is doing that. We had some lengthy discussions before the book went into print and looked at a number of issues, some we agreed to differ over others we didn't.
By the way how would my color effect my appraisal and understanding of the political history of SA??
Cheers

springbok9 wrote:

And therein lays the rub.
Is David giving a lecture or promoting a book?....One cant pass of one as the other.

Agreed, except I'd go a step further. If he is presenting it as history, regardless of forum, then accuracy (so far as possible) is absolutely paramount. (And let me hasten to say I've seen nothing on this board to indicate that Mr. Ebsworth feels any differently. He simply made a mistake.) My point is simple. If even one person uses his presentation/book as a portal to pass through on the way to proving his mistake to him, we've all won because we'll have a new convert to our cause.

Quote :

By the way how would my color effect my appraisal and understanding of the political history of SA??

As an individual that is impossible to say of course but as a group there are infinite ways it might alter your perceptions. Ask yourself Springbok, if a friend or family member had spent time incarcerated (especially for a political cause,) do you think you might have a different attitude towards Robben Island as a symbol? I think you might well do.

Agreed all the way down the line. This is my last post for a while unfortunately going under the knife in a few hours and Im being nagged by two lovely ladies in white to put the laptop away. One is Zulu coincidently.
So have fun. be in touch soon

Cheers

Frank, good luck mate, stay strong!   

Thinking of you mate!!

Hope all goes well springy mate, keep your chin up, your in our thoughts pal.