AZW books to avoid

Hi Arthur,

The Regimental Museum of The Royal Welsh. (RRW)

The museum holds extensive archive material; personal and official diaries, albums and photographs etc; much of which has never been published.

Access to the archives is available by appointment (normally Monday to Friday). Alternatively, email them and they will try to answer your query as long as it is pertinent to the Regiment.

You will have to pay a fee for access to the archives.



Regards

Waterloo

Arthur Wright wrote:

waterloo50 wrote:

This may have already been discussed before but I am just about to spend some of my hard earned cash on updating my AZW book collection. I'm still in the early stages of learning about the AZW and I'm worried that I may be spending my time reading books that are inaccurate. I have no wish to offend any authors whom I'm sure work hard to produce their work but some books are better than others. Are there any books out there that should be avoided? I have followed a recommended list of books from this forum but every now and then its nice to find a good book on my own.

I also understand that it may not be appropriate to name and shame so if Admin would like me to rephrase my question that's okay.

Kind regards

Waterloo52

Answering the question from the opposite end, I can, personally, recommend any writings by Ron Lock as I have personally seen the depths of his research and can vouch for the accuracy of his works and their accuracy. This would extend to works that he has co-authored with Mr. Peter Quantrill. I am currently reading "Zulu Victory" and find it an excellent read.

I have often found myself having to stop and verify claims and statements made by folk and unfortunately am not persuaded to accept things merely on the basis of the reputation of the person or persons making the claims or statements.

I am in much the same boat with regards being new to these matters and share similar concerns with regards investing wisely.

In summary, anything either by or co-authored by Ron Lock, I highly recommend. There is also an overview or Thesis on the missing five hours which you can find here. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Bonjour,
Unlike Arthur I think the quality of this book (I.E: "Zulu Victory") is very uneven.
Although I do not share at all the thesis of an organized conspiracy, the part about the blame and the cover-up is very interesting.
However, the analysis on the lack of ammunition as a cause of the disaster is totally debatable.
This is also the case for the intentions of the Zulus.
Moreover, this book contains some statements that are based on the imagination of the authors (“artistic licence”).
The book contains numerous notes (a very good point)…. unfortunately, some of which are inaccurate…as the photographs.

And you seem to forget this unfortunate incident about their work:

Peter Quantrill wrote on the Rorke’s Drift forum: (subject; “Missing five hours” / 22 Sept.2013)
“We have been discussing the Zulu regiments designated in Map 2, Campbell Collection, Durban, in which Ron and I have maintained that the Zulu regimental annotations were from Wood's original. The regiments are named, in our copy, along the dotted line of advance shown on Map 2 . You have indicated that the original only reflects the Nodwengu and Undi. This I have countered by stating that it was neither Ron nor I who were responsible for the naming of the regiments, but our copy has the regiments named.
Your legitimate contention has been of some concern to me, and I accordingly paid a visit on Friday to the Campbell Collections,where they gave me complete access to the 'Wood Papers.' The two original maps are marked Map 2 and Map 3, the latter showing designated regiments, left to right, with lines of attack. Map 2, however, only shows 'black dashes' to indicate the position of regiments without designating them, to the south of which is point X. You are therefore correct, but the mystery remains as to how they were annotated in capital letters and by whom? This is something neither Ron, nor I, in our dotage, could remember doing some four years ago.(2009, the draft work on TMFH.)
I then contacted our Land Surveyor Barry Bechard, a friend, and posed the question to him. He had surveyed and inserted the roads that were not in the original No. 2. He recollected that we had given a drawing to Clive Phelps, a Draughtsman who was duly acknowledged by us in TMFH. Phelps lives locally and I communicated with him yesterday. He confirmed the designation of the Zulu regiments shown in our copy of Map 2, were in his hand and taken from instructions from us, (presumably data from Map 3) and then placed by him in the positions reflected.
In our view it does not materially in any way effect the thrust of ones view of TMFH, rather a lack on our part, without excuses, of recalling the circumstances.
Both Ron and I would therefore unreservedly like to tender our apologies to you, which we hope that you will accept. When we placed the roads onto our Map 2 to help readers with the topography, we should also have, with an explanation, placed the regiments accordingly. This we did not and, unforgivingly, was an error of judgement on our part. This will also, hopefully, correct any historical misconceptions on the issue”.

In conclusion, this book gives me mixed feelings: exciting but somewhere unreliable:
See no offense against the work of Lock & Quantrill, you gave your opinion (and I respect it), I give mine: it’s the game.    

Cheers

The ammunition question as been debated. If you have anything to add. I'm sure there would be great interest.

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

old historian2 wrote:

The ammunition question as been debated. If you have anything to add. I'm sure there would be great interest.

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

I have nothing to add

I think that debate clearly showed there was an ammunition problem. I have read and re-read that debate many times,and concluded there was a problem. But open to change if a counter argument can be brought forward.

Old historian,
As you know for Knight and others authors (Whybra, Jackson...) there was no ammuntion problem on the firing line (with the possible exception of Durnford).
For them, the lack of ammunition is not the cause of the rupture of the firing line.
Lock and Quantrill think otherwise .
You studied the arguments of each author and the evidences, you are agree with the thesis of Lock and Quantrill, Where is the problem?
As I said previously it's your opinion and I respect it.
Cheers

No, no old chap. I agree with the debate on the forum, which goes into a bit more depth than Knight and L & Q.
I don't base my opinions on the authors. If that's what you do, then I respect that! and we shall leave it there. Not after an argument. Just thought by your post you had something new to add, as you stated the ammunition problem was debateable.

I don't know if you study also the Rorke's Drift forum but there are also solid arguments from the two camps based of course on testimonies.
All the difficulty is the interpretation given to these accounts...
Cheers.
Frédéric

I'll leave that website with you!

ymob wrote:

I don't know if you study also the Rorke's Drift forum but there are also solid arguments from the two camps based of course on testimonies.
All the difficulty is the interpretation given to these accounts...
Cheers.
Frédéric

A cross forum debate would be intersting? This one & the RDVC.

Perhaps both Administrators could arrange. Doesn't matter if members are on both. They go for either there was a problem or there wasn't.

Arthur Wright
Quote
"Answering the question from the opposite end, I can, personally, recommend any writings by Ron Lock as I have personally seen the depths of his research and can vouch for the accuracy of his works and their accuracy. This would extend to works that he has co-authored with Mr. Peter Quantrill. I am currently reading "Zulu Victory" and find it an excellent read."

Hi Arthur
One what basis can you vouch for the accuracy of L and Qs work, you have stated on a few occasions your 'infancy' in this field but your statement above seems to reflect a more learned approach?
Im really not questioning you at all but would appreciate a cards on the table situation!

I do have the utmost respect for both the gentlemen concerned but cannot elevate them to the pedestal you feel they deserve unfortunately.

Regards

Frank

kendrick Nelson wrote:

Avoid any books by author Adrian Greaves

Any reason why, I have some of his books, I cant see a problem with them! Could you elaborate!

When I first came on this forum, I was offered the advice that 'you should read everything and make your own mind up'. its what you think about the authors work that's important, not what other people think. Unless you are prepared to spend hours trawling through archives and pacing the battlefield the only real source of information that you will have, will be other peoples research. I don't think that I have heard anyone on this forum state that a particular AZW author is absolutely correct and infallible in their work.

What about books to suggest? A book on the right horn may aid the discussion on the forum

Yes,

You can always walk into a book shop and ask if they have 'The Right Horn', lol

Every morning for me personally

Sorry just being childish tho' at times I think the forum could do with a little light-hearted banter.