William Tyler
The Zulu Wars
William Tyler - The Zulu Wars
- Our study today, our story today begins and ends before the period of what Europeans call the Scramble for Africa. The Scramble for Africa is when European nations like Britain, sought to carve up the continent of Africa between them in the latter part of the 19th century. But our story begins before that. It begins in the year 1806, in the middle of the wars between Britain and France and indeed France and pretty well everybody else, the Napoleonic Wars. In 1806, the British Navy captured the tip of modern day South Africa. In other words, the Cape. It took the Cape from the Dutch. The Dutch in 1806 have been forced to become allies of the French, much against their wishes, but they were now incorporated within Bonaparte’s Empire. The threat to Britain was simply that now the French could use the Cape as a refuelling station for food, for water, and indeed to mend their ships. And that would be a great threat to British trade with the Far East and in particular, of course, with the jewel in the English crown of India. And that is why the British first stepped foot in South Africa. It was not part of the Scramble for Africa. It predates that by something like 80, 70, 80 years. The British then sought to control the Cape for the same reasons that they feared the French would because British shipping could, because it had previously when the Dutch held it, and Dutch were our allies. Now the Dutch are French allies, the port at Cape Town is closed to us, but now we can use it because we’ve taken it, we can refuel in terms of food and water and if necessary, and it was necessary on both outward and back journeys to look after the ships. Very often, take barnacles and things off them to repair spires and so on and so forth. Ashley Jackson.
For those of you who want to know what books I’m using on my blog is a list of all the books I’m using both in today’s talk and tomorrow’s talk. And this is in the short Oxford series. I love this series partly because it’s short, but partly because it means that the academics who’ve written the books have to be really concentrated on what they say. And this is the book called simply, “The British Empire,” by Ashley Jackson. And Jackson writes in this way, “expansion in South Africa,” and it’s expansion by Britain. “Expansion in South Africa was a drawn out process in which disputes over land, labour, and cattle,” emphasis on cattle, “led to many wars between African states and settlers, sometimes backed by British troops. Colonial authorities were unable to control local conflicts or to establish firm frontiers.” Backed by British troops. A long time ago, when Adam Smith wrote “The Wealth of Nations,” he pointed out that the British Empire would never be able to keep going because it needed so many troops to defend it. And South Africa’s story that I’m telling, tomorrow in particular with the Boers, is an example of that, but it’s also an example today. Now, I said that the British came in 1806 and the greatest clash with indigenous peoples came in 1879 with an expanding African nation, the Zulu nation. We call the conflict with the Zulus either the Zulu War or more normally today the Anglo-Zulu War. Now the Zulu War, the Anglo-Zulu War, took place in the year 1879. Really at the height of the British Empire. Very often people take something like 1870 as the height of the British Empire in terms of British power.
The war took place in 1879, but it took place within a wider European-African context because by 1879, the Scramble for Africa has begun between the European nations. There’s no agreed date when this so-called scramble began, but I’m minded to take the year 1870 as the starting point. Historian April Madden has written, now she’d written this in a magazine-style book, the details on my blog, called “The History of Africa.” And April Madden has written in this way. She writes, “when the Scramble for Africa began in 1870, around 10% of the African continent was under European control. By 1914, when it ended with the beginning of the First World War, only Liberia and Ethiopia was still independent African countries.” You can say, “well, that’s interesting, but so what?” Well, the so what is because Africa as a continent politically has not recovered from that to this very day. Not least because the European, the European settlers and European imperialists drew lines in Africa, which were straight lines ignoring tribal and language boundaries. And you can just take any map of Africa to see that. So if the British arrived in South Africa in 1806, now some of you are saying, “yes, why aren’t you talking about the Dutch?” ‘Cause I’m going to talk about the Dutch tomorrow with the Boer War. So if the British arrived in 1806, when did the Zulus rise to power? And that is a very interesting question because the Zulus themselves were expanding and expanding in imperial terms.
One of the what-ifs of history is if the Boers and the British had not come to South Africa, what sort of South Africa would’ve emerged? And it seems to me you can make a very firm case that the South Africa which would’ve emerged would’ve been a Zululand, an Imperial Zululand with firm borders and all subject peoples within that empire were precisely that, subject peoples. It’s an interesting study and it highlights the fact that Eurocentric looks at history played down, not just the Zulu empire, but all African empires, not only of the 19th century, but right back to the Middle Ages. And we judge by European values and terms, and we shouldn’t. We should look at it in its own context and in its own context, the Zulu Empire was a massive undertaking. In fact, the Zulus had begun around- We can’t be precise because we don’t know the date. Around the time that the British first arrived at the first decade of the 19th century from a small, but, so a small clan within a tribe to begin to expand. And why? Well, they had a great leader who had a vision of making the Zulu more important, more powerful, and of course, himself. And then of course is Shaka, S H A K A. S H A K A. The great founder of the Zulu Empire. By 1879, the year of the war between the Zulus and the British, the Zulus are described as a Zulu nation. It isn’t a nation in the sense of, hmm, what should we take as an example? It’s very difficult really these days. It’s not a nation like the French Nation. This is a nation made up of various different tribes in South Africa. And if you say, yes, but, if you said in a very 19th century way, but they’re all African, how wrong you would be because the cultures were different, the languages were different. But the Zulu culture predominated. Those of you who are South African know all of this only too well. But it’s important for those who don’t know the South African story, that the Zulus incorporated tribes, many of whom were quite happy to call themselves Zulu, whilst maintaining their own language and to an extent their own culture.
This is a further magazine history called “The Zulu.” The Anglo-Zulu War. Again, details are on my blog. It’s interesting that a lot of magazine-style books are now emerging, which employ scholars to write the articles. Now, I imagine that they get paid quite a lot of money to write. I’m waiting for a telephone call, but I haven’t had one. And in this one, I wanted to read you just a little, little pieces to sort of set the scene. “The Anglo Zulu War of 1879 was, at its heart, a collision of imperial powers.” That’s what I’ve been trying to say. “Over six decades, what had begun as a minor tribe,” the Zulu, “had become a ruthless warrior state whose conquests have resulted in vast columns of refugees leaving their lands for the shelter of British Cape Colony. And it made the Zulu the master of the only resource that really mattered to either Boer or Bantu alike, cattle.” They controlled the land, they controlled the grasslands. So this is an interesting African story. The Zulu Empire is expanding. Those who could not face inverted commerce, enslavement or being subject to the Zulu, many of them left for the British because they thought that was preferable than staying within Zululand. Cattle is the important- We know, and we will come to that tomorrow about gold and diamond and roads and all the rest of it, but cattle was the important issue. So sort of think about Australia and sheep, if you like. It’s cattle that are important. Then I’ve got a second quotation that I would like to share, very short one. “Shaka,” with who we’ve met, Shaka, “was the sole ruler by right of conquest.” This is a beginning of the 19th century. “And his destruction of rivals sundered the old tribal loyalties until those who lived under the Zulu began to identify Zulu themselves.” So the idea that things were sort of static when Europeans arrived, it is totally untrue. In South Africa’s case, as I’ve said just now, the rise of the Zulu nation from the beginning of the 19th century through to 1879 was an incredible change to the way Black tribal South Africans were required to live.
The idea that the British or the Boers conquered the tribes is in part, of course, it’s in part true, but it’s also in part untrue because the Zulus did it first. There’s a little reading here. This is again an Oxford short history. This is simply called “African History” by Parker and Rathbone. This is, I think one of the very good books in the series. Again, it’s on my book list. And Parker and Rathbone show this, say this, “the forging of Zulu identity in southern Africa. This involves state building, military conquest, physical expansion, the absorption of refugees and defeated people, and ultimately, defeat and colonisation at the hands of the British Empire. Consequently, the meaning of being Zulu shifted over time, just as those claiming to be or being identified as Zulu constituted a rapidly-changing population. But around 1820, the word Zulu connoted a clan name that are the rulers of a small kingdom.” It goes on to say, “this identity was fundamentally a political identity as there were other kingdoms in the wider region that were not so incorporated,” think Zimbabwe, “but which shared many cultural attributes, including language with the Zulu.” Again, it highlights the Eurocentric emphasis of our history that we remain, and I include myself in that, that we remain largely ignorant of African history pre-colonization, but also at the moment of colonisation. And you see, the European involvement in Africa really cuts the development of Africa that would happen. Now, there had been big empires, both in the northeast and the northwest of Africa, as well as further south, think of the early developments in Zimbabwe, for example, and here in the 19th century of the Zulu.
It didn’t look like European imperial powers, but why should it? And by cutting across all of that, the Europeans cut the natural development of Africa. And by doing that, they created an unnatural Africa. An unnatural Africa, which today, has caused problems. Think of Nigeria divided between Christian and Islam. Now, that wasn’t the case in African Africa before the British came because of course those were two entirely separate regions governed separately under different laws. The British simply came in and locked it all together. And so did the French elsewhere and so on and so forth. So one of the problems with Islam now in the northwest of the country, in places like Niger and Nigeria and so on, Chad, is this problem of differing peoples which has not been resolved. Of course, it has been made worse by empires, not least the importation of Indians into South Africa. You remember that Gandhi spent a great deal of time in South Africa and was as racist against the Africans as white British or white Boers were racist against the Africans. Okay, that’s about some of the sort of background, some of the sort of to get you, as it were, on the right page in a sense. Although I guess lots of South Africans listening already got a whole list of things they disagree with. And that’ll be fun after we finish in the question and answer. Up to the year 1879, the Zulu had intimidated the Boer farmers by force. In other words, they kept the Boers at a distance in order to protect the cattle grounds, the grasslands from the Boer. As regards to British, they had an uneasy truce with the British. Now, one thing you have to always know about British imperialism is you don’t trust the British. Truces with the British are only supported by the British as long as they benefit the British. And in 1879, saw all of that very fragile peace in South Africa, a fragile peace interwoven by clashes, of course, between Boer and Zulu, British and Zulu, and British and Boer, that’s a given, but in 1879, that structure broke apart and the Anglo-Zulu War erupted.
In a sense, the Anglo-Zulu War was inevitable as the clash of two empires, Zulu and British. Inevitably, because the British believed in white supremacy and could therefore not allow the Zulu to dictate the terms of contact. In other words, just as I suggest now in a different way, any truce that might be held would only be held sometime. Inevitably because the Zulu believed the land was theirs. A very indigenous view, of course. Think about North America and and indigenous peoples. Except here, the Zululand wasn’t Zululand 100, 80 or 100 years before. It was land that the Zulus themselves had conquered, but they believed that the land was theirs and that the white British tribe could be defeated in the same way as they defeated other Black African tribes. A major miscalculation, of course. Why? Because the British could simply bring in more and more men and more and better arms and war materiel. Think the United States and the First World War in 1917, more men, more war materiel. But it was the Dutch Boer that really kicked off this war. You see, in 1833, the British had abolished slavery throughout the empire, and this caused a great lament amongst the Boers who had slaves, Black, and refused to give them up. And so the Boers went on what we know as the Great Trek. And in this Great Trek, they trekked into the interior, and by going into the interior, yes, they got away from the British, but they met the Zulu. They met the Zulu on the grasslands of Natal. Piers Brendon in his book, “The Decline and Fall of the British Empire,” again, on my blog you can find the details, one British officer said of the Boers post-The Great Trek, “the Boer advance was remorseless. One thing is clear, that the white man wanted the Black man’s land.
That he got leave from the Blacks to graze his cattle in the first instance, then came over and put up a shanty, then a house, then more Boers came and so on until, as the Zulus told us, the Boers were like a toad that comes hopping and hopping until it hot right into the middle of the house.” It’s a very interesting description. In 1843, in order to keep peace between the Boer and Zulu, the British simply annexed Natal. We ruled, we the British now ruled in Natal with all the trappings of British imperialism. By 1872, the Zulus greatest problem became not the British in newly-administered British Natal, but the Boers in Boer-administered Transvaal. Why? Because the Boer Transvaal government claimed a thousand-mile strip of Zululand. It’s all about land, it’s all about cattle grazing. This is not the same, but those of you listening in the States can see the parallels with the expansion of white Americans into indigenous, what we used to call indigenous Indian lands and territory, not then cattle and cattle. The white Americans brought cattle in. The indigenous Americans lived quite differently. But the Zulu in South Africa had a cattle-based economy, which was the same as the Boer-based economy. And so they’re fighting over land. In the book, “Zulu, by Saul David, which is perhaps the best single book on the Zulu and the Zulu War, in this book, he said rather ominously, I’ve got to find the right page. I’ve got a feeling I may have picked up the wrong book. I think I have. Wrong book. I’ll get the right book. Okay, I’ll get there in the end. Don’t worry. Here we are. This is what I wanted to read. "The Zululand’s fate was about to be decided.” Who by? By the Boers in the Transvaal? No.
By the British in Natal? No. “By the broad brush strokes of a British government minister over 8,000 miles away.” His name was Lord Carnarvon, he was secretary of state for the colonies in the British government. And he was quite clear. He wanted to secure British power in South Africa. This of course is now in the era of the Scramble for Africa. So the government policy in London is to secure British power in South Africa. They saw what, their image of what this would be was a Federation of British and Boer states. We’ll come to that again tomorrow when the union of South Africa is formed in the early 20th century. This was a vision during the Scramble for Africa. So Bartle Frere was sent as British High Commissioner to achieve this. These men, Lord Carnarvon and Frere, are both of the high imperial dynasties, if you like, of the British Empire. But they couldn’t do it. They thought they could negotiate with the Boers. Well, we’ll see that that didn’t work tomorrow. But there was a further problem, or the first problem they encountered were the Zulu. And they needed to deal with the very impressive chief of Zulu, Ketshwayo, K E T S H W A Y O, Ketshwayo. Frere, demanded from him that he disband the Zulu army. What, disband the Zulu army? Of course he can’t do that. That’s the basis of the man’s power. It’s the basis of the Zulu empire. Of course he can’t disband the army. And that inevitably led to war. On the 1st of January, 1879, war came. Lord Chelmsford decided to invade Zululand. He is the commander-in-chief, British commander-in-chief in South Africa. Rather stupidly, at least in hindsight, he divided his army into three separate columns. But those of you who’ve served in the military or those who’ve ever done any military training at all, can see the folly of that in unknown territory. His plan was to surround the Zulu capital of Ulundi. U L U N D I. Jess, could we have the map up?
I think a map will certainly appear. Here we are. Now, Ulundi is on the right, you see the word Zululand on the right, go toward the sea, and you can see the word Ulundi Now there are three places that are important in the story. There’s Ulundi, the capital, south of that Isandlwana, and then to the left of Isandlwana is Rorke’s Drift. Those are the three places that feature in the story of the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879, Ulundi, Isandlwana, and Rorke’s Drift. So you’ve got a picture of where it is. You see Durban and Natal further down the coast, and at the bottom of the map you see the Cape Province. Ignore the other bits of the story. Pretoria up in Transvaal, you can ignore the other bits of the map. What is important is that as Lord Carnarvon and Frere saw it, Zululand had to be brought under British control and the best way of doing that is to say, get rid of the army, and then you all have to accept British control. The Zulu said no and it leads to war. This is an example, if you like, of European hubris. Lord Chelmsford is reported to have said, quote, this is Chelmsford, “If I’m called upon to conduct operations against Zulus, I shall show them how hopelessly inferior they are to us in fighting power, even though they may be numerically stronger.” And Piers Brendon adds a little piece here, which I will again share with you, and it goes like this, “the high commissioner, Frere, issued an ultimatum demanding Zulu disarmament. The irascible colonial secretary Carnarvon complained that he could not control Frere like a telegraph. The submarine cable only reached Cape Town in December of 1879 and that he probably could not control him with a telegraph.
So a British army set out, white-helmeted red coats, straw-boated blue jackets, sailors, and slouch-hatted colonials, as well as 9,000 African levies, about half the total force. Wheels creaked, sandbox cracked, and the band played, 'I’m Leaving Thee In Sorrow, Annie,’ the tune that had sent Confederate troops off to fight in the American Civil War. General Lord Chelmsford’s army, which advanced in three columns and a vast plume of dust, may pitifully slow progress. The Zulus whose impis,” that’s the Zulu regiments, “could move three times as fast as British infantry nicknamed the British Pack Oxen. But it was a 17,000 four-legged oxen needed to pull his 2,500 supply waggons, which really encumbered Chelmsford and he found it too time consuming to form a lager each evening as Boer leaders advised him. The general, whom senior officers thought unfit to be a corporal, believed in the invincibility of British fervour, and were it only that the Zulus would avoid a pitch battle.” Hubris, hubris. It would of course eventually end in a British victory and that was an inevitable outcome of this imperial war. Because although Ketshwayo had bought guns, mainly from Germany, they were mostly out of date and very few modern ones and the Zulus didn’t use them very effectively anyhow, just odd warriors had them. But they weren’t used in a combined way. They basically fought with assegai spears and cudgels and of course their cow hide shields. The British could deploy automatic guns and artillery. Cecil Rhodes remark, not in relationship to the Zulu, but in relationship to the Bantu, he said on one occasion, “each wave of warriors left a thick deposit of corpses on the ground. There is no waste with the Maxim guns.”
What an appal- I mean, Rhodes is a quite appalling character. Chelmsford was not only confident, I think you could say that he was cocky. And at a place we know well today, on the map, Isandlwana, on the 22nd of January, 1879, he met the Zulu. He did not have the expected victory he imagined. He didn’t even really have a draw, either, but an overwhelming defeat. The British casualties were just under one and a half thousand men. And a Zulu records, and Saul David says this in his book, quotes it in his book, “Zulu,” this is what an a Zulu warrior said, “Dun-dun went the British officer’s revolver as he was firing from right to left. And I came beside him and stuck my assegai under his right arm, pushing it through his body until it came out between his ribs on the left side. As soon as he fell, I pulled the assegai out and slit his stomach, so I knew he should not shoot any more of my people.” The British thought that was appalling, the slitting of the stomach, the disembowelment, but actually it was a Zulu cultural belief, a ritual to release the spirit of their victims into the hereafter. Cultural differences are always interesting and people struggle with cultural differences. And of course, in the British Empire, the British simply ignore cultural differences unless it was in India and that’s a different story altogether. The Zulus lost an estimated, well, we don’t know, maybe as low as 1000, maybe as high as 3000 warriors and something like 2000 wounded, but the wounded Zulus were mostly to die because Zulu medicine was unable to cope with bullet wounds.
The importance of the battle was back in Britain. This is Britain at the height of its power. And Saul David writes this. Saul David says this, if I can read this to you, it will, I hope, make sense. He writes, “ordinary Britains were reeling under the blow to their country’s military prestige. They’d only learnt that a war was being fought at the beginning of February.” It had begun in January. “A week or so later came the news of Isandlwana. ‘How,’ they asked over countless breakfast tables, ‘could a modern British army be defeated by spear-wielding savages?’” Which is how they would’ve seen the Zulu. “The press was similarly perplexed. No such disaster as that at Itandula,” they got the word wrong, “ought to have been possible with a disciplined force, said the illustrated London News.” It was a terrible, terrible time. At the same time as the fight at Isandlwana, there was another fight at Rorke’s Drift, the setting for Michael Caine’s famous film, “Zulu.” Lieutenant John Chard and his unit, he was an engineer, were tasked with repairing a river bridge. As the army, Chelmsford’s main force, advanced to its defeat at Isandlwana, Chard and his men were left isolated, and I read in this to indicate what then happened. “Chard’s entire world was the bridge. Not only was it now vulnerable to attack because he’d been left on his own, but he and army doctrine asserted that in the field an engineer should be protected by infantry.
On a black morning of the 22nd of January, ‘79, Chard heads up the road to Isandlwana to clarify his orders. Chard arrives to discover that Chelmsford and half the force had already moved on. From Isandlwana, Zulus are invisible on the hills, but Chard is assured that the defence of the bridge has been accounted for by the general staff. A company of 124th regiment of foot under Captain Thomas Rainford had been called up from Natal.” Chard is on his own. The Victorians, the British Victorians, are appalled by defeat. This doesn’t happen to us, we’re British. But they also cry out for heroes. This is the great age of the hero. If today is the great age of the of the nonentity celebrity, then the 19th century was the great age of the sometimes dodgy hero. Chard fought in action, which is a scene in the film, “Zulu,” that became a set story in later Victorian England and indeed, I was taught at school in the 1950s of English gallantry and heroism in the face of almost certain defeat and death. That it didn’t end in defeat and death was remarkable. They managed to hold on until the Zulu withdrew. Chard received the Victoria Cross, 10 others received the Victoria Cross, and in 1907, two others who had died during the seizure of Rorke’s Drift also were given posthumously Victoria Crosses. In 1879, Victoria Crosses couldn’t be given posthumously. By 1907, they could.
Their families asked that these two men should be given it and so the action at Rorke’s Drift led to 12 Victoria crosses being awarded. The British lost 17 killed and 15 wounded. The Zulu, 351 killed. And roughly, we dunno, roughly, we know 351 'cause the British counted the bodies and roughly 500 wounded. The aftermath. The aftermath was a mopping up operation in which the British appear, if you like, at their very, very worst. And this is David again writing and he writes this, “Many of the British were bent on revenge. Commander Hamilton Brown of the first 3rd NNC recorded what happened when a large number of wounded and worn out Zulus were discovered in nearby fields.” Direct quote, “'my two companies of Zulus with some of my noncoms and a few of the 14 quickly drew these fields and killed them with bayonet, butt, and sada. It was beastly, but there’s nothing else to do. War is war and savage war is the worst of the lot. Moreover, our member worked up to a pitch of fury by the sights they had seen in the morning and the mutilated bodies of the poor fellows laying in front of the burned hospital of Rorke’s Drift.’” Such is war. But remember, the mutilated bodies were part of the Zulu culture. This was them honouring the British dead, not mutilating them. No understanding by the British of what the Zulu had intended. At home, this defeat was, well, it led to questions in the house. “In Parliament in London, Disraeli was struggling to put a brave face on this terrible news from South Africa. Disraeli says it is a military disaster, a terrible military disaster, but I think we may say it is no more.” He said that in the House of Lords on the 13th of February.
He went on to say, “it is not a military defeat arising from the failing energies or resources of the country. It is from accidental and, at this moment, not clearly understood circumstances, that the calamity has arisen. It would, I think, be desirable that no one should hazard an opinion as the causes of the disaster until we receive those official authentic accounts, which are, of course, now on their way.” Well, that’s a typical politician’s answer, isn’t it? A typical answer. This isn’t a defeat, of course it isn’t. This an accident? It has to be. We’re British. And anyhow, we can’t say anything until we have more evidence, pushing it into, as we say, the long grass. He went on to say, “at the moment, I’m sure, the recollection of those 80 men, that’s Rorke’s Drift, who for 12 hours in a full-on hope-” Full-on hope’s the military term of the people who are at the front who give their lives so that the rest can come up to win the battle. In this case, the full-on hope was a genuine full-on hope ‘cause there was no support coming. He goes on to say, “We must not forget the exhibition of heroic valour by those who have been spared. At this moment, I’m sure the recollection of those 80 men who, for 12 hours in a full-on hope kept at bay 4,000 of the enemy and ultimately repulsed them, will prove that the stamina and valour of the English soldiery have not diminished,” said Disraeli. Disraeli went on to say that the reinforcements were being sent, quote, “in numbers much beyond what has been applied for.” He added, “none of this would necessarily weaken other areas of British foreign policy because Russia was gradually carrying out the terms of the Treaty of Berlin and affairs in Afghanistan were in a satisfactory state.” Gosh. Nothing changes in this world, does it?
Russia and Afghanistan is what… Afghanistan because of the threat to India. That’s what he’s worried about. And Russian interference in Afghanistan. As for the Zulu, this is a mere irritant. Disraeli must have been extremely angry. But Saul David goes on to say this, “In private, Disraeli was much less angry. He informed his confidant, Lady Chesterfield, quote, 'the terrible disaster has shaken me to the core. And what increases the grief is that I have not only to endure it, but to sustain others and to keep a bold front before an unscrupulous enemy.’” What did the ordinary British soldier think of it? This is another book, again on my book list, called “The Washing of the Spears” by Donald Morris. It it was perhaps the classic book on the Zulus and the Zulu War before Saul David’s book. And in this book, Morris writes this, he quotes a man who was at Rorke’s Drift called Robert Head. “Robert Head was not given to letter writing, but he had a brother who lived in Cape Town. Head borrowed the stub of a pencil and began to search for a piece of paper. To his astonishment, he found that paper was valuable, not simply to be had for the asking. He finally had to give someone over a day’s pay for a piece of paper. Even then, it was badly charred, with one edge burned away in a ragged line. It was all he needed, however.” So this is in the aftermath of Rorke’s Drift.
So Robert sits down on a biscuit box, one of those big square old-fashioned boxes, and went down to write with great concentration licking his pencil undoubtedly, to his brother. “I now send you these few lines to inform you of what I dare say you will have seen in the paper before you receive this. We under Lieutenant Chard and Bromhead had a nice night of it at Rorke’s Drift. I call it, I never shall forget the name, as the same place about as long as I live. I dare say the old fool in command will make a great fuss over these two officers commanding our company. and in keeping the Zulu back. Back with the private soldier. What will he get? Nothing. Only he may get the praise of the public.” The old fool is Lord Chelmsford. “Now I shall, if God spares me, live and see dear old England again. I shall find what I say to be true. So now as I had to give a shilling for this bit of paper, you’ll only be able to know I’m ready and willing to lose my life, to win back for our sister battalion renown. So kindest love to all. I am jolly, only short of a pipe and backing.” The voice of the ordinary squad lead. In July, 1879, it only began in January, the war is over with a victory at the second important battle. The Battle of Ulundi, the chief’s village, which Lord Chelmsford now reinforced, takes. The Zulu had made overtures towards Chelmsford for peace, but he rejected them. It’s interesting why. Sometimes in history, it isn’t big decisions, but it’s decisions made by someone on the grounds of what’s best for them. I’ve used this phrase before, which was a phrase that my chairman of governors used to use in the city, which is, how does it affect us? And how did it affect Chelmsford?
Well, the British were sending out Lord Wolseley to take command, and Chelmsford would be still there, but under the orders of Wolseley, so he decided he’d better act now whilst he could act on his own to regain some of his standing. And so he advanced on the Zulu capital, that’s not an appropriate word, really, but the Zulu centre in the village of Ulundi. And Piers Brendon writes in- Sorry, I need to tell you how many people were involved, don’t I? At the Battle of Ulundi, there were 20,000 Zulu and the British were between 12 and 15,000, but had 10 cannon and two Gatling guns. So it was going to be a clear opportunity for a British victory. The Zulus lost 473 killed, again, counted by the British and over a thousand wounded. The British lost between 1318 killed and 69 to 89 wounded. Numbers, you might say. Well, yes, but significant numbers nonetheless, for it marked the end of the Zulu kingdom as an independent African nation. And it also, I’ve lost my picture. I don’t need that. So what happens afterwards? Well, part of the story now develops into a British-Boer story, which is the story for tomorrow. But I haven’t quite finished. There’s one or two things I need to say. One or two things that will be helpful to read. This is Piers Brendon, “Wolseley, who’s now in South Africa, divided the Zulu kingdom into 13 separate chiefdoms.” Divided rule. “Nominally answerable to a British resident, which led to civil strife and the disintegration of Zulu power.” Inevitably. “Ketshwayo himself was imprisoned in Cape Town Castle where he donned western clothes in place of his leopard skins and his necklace of lions claws.” Now, sometimes in the stories of the Victorian British empire, you come across stories which make you cringe. So prepare to cringe. “His necklace of lion’s claws, he took off. Wolseley claimed his necklace as his prize. He had the claws individually mounted and engraved and sent to individual ladies in Britain.
So he’s sending his girlfriends, if you like, and family, female members of his family, a necklace with a lions nail, paw, which had been taken from Ketshwayo. There’s something awfully awful about that. I mean, truly awful. I’m sure most of you feel the same. Brendon goes on, even in a grey flannel suit, Ketshwayo retained his regal bearing and he apparently sought to retained his wild prerogatives.” This is fun. Sorry, I can’t do this with a straight face. “He offered 50 head of cattle for the attractive wife of the new high commissioner.” I always wonder that if the high commissioner sat there having a glass of G&T and thought, “hmm now, 50 cattle. I dunno, really.” What an extraordinary story. Even more extraordinary, Ketshwayo came, was invited to London. “In due course, says Brendon, "Ketshwayo visited England where he was greeted by the public and received by Queen Victoria.” He was welcomed by Mr. Gladstone, who invited him to stay in his own house in Holly Street.“ This is a man that had been portrayed as a barbarian, as a savage, disembowelling British soldiers, and he’s invited to meet Queen Victoria. Can you imagine? What a pity we don’t have a have a film that. "Oh, I say, you’re Mr. Ketshwayo. How do you do? Would you like a cup of tea?” It’s just sort of unimaginable. But it’s important. It’s important because of another way that the British looked on certain indigenous people, like the Sikhs, for example, in India or the Dirks. There was this phrase, which came from the 18th century, actually from the 17th century, but it was used more in the 18th century onwards, which was the phrase, noble savage.
Now if you think about it, those two words really don’t go together. But the Europeans developed, particularly the British, the idea of the noble savage and the Zulu and Ketshwayo became the noble savage. They had been so brave, and their culture was so interesting that these weren’t just savages, these were noble savages. And if you want a definition of a noble savage, it goes like this. “It was a stock character who was uncorrupted by civilization. As such, the noble savage symbolised innate goodness and moral superiority of a primitive people living in harmony with nature.” Now, that’s the way we begin in the States, for example, to see indigenous people today and their relationship with the environment in the green world, which we all inhabit or wish to inhabit. And here was this concept long before. Now, this idea of the noble savage of Ketshwayo being invited to meet the queen has led to the film, “Zulu,” it’s led to the rugby song, “Zulu,” which I’m certainly not going to refer to in terms of what its content is. And today in South Africa, the Zulu War, Rorke’s Drift, Isandlwana, and Ulundi have become tourist attractions, not just for professional military historians or for amateur military historians, but actually, for ordinary British tourists. This is an advert that comes from Natal for a half-day trip for tourists. Discover more about one of the most famous battles in the Anglo-Zulu war. As you step onto the battlefield of Isandlwana, you’ll witness the historic site where the British forces were defeated by the Zulu. Walk in the footsteps of these warriors and see the monuments which stand as a poignant reminder to the loss of life which shapes South African history. Whoa.
First of all, the tours tend to ignore Ulundi and feature on the defeat at Isandlwana ‘cause the British always like a defeat provided we win in the end, and they emphasise Rorke’s Drift because we all like Victorian heroes. What an extraordinary thing then has occurred that the Zulu War fought, what, 140 odd years ago is now the subject of tourism bringing Zulus money from tourists. It is, well, we are obsessed in this day and age, although in the past, I have to say, people did visit battlefields. It’s not true to say it’s a modern development. It’s just that more of us have the opportunity to visit battlefields and the opportunity to visit battlefields far away. To just think about the huge number of people who visit Napoleonic battlefields in Spain, but in particular, the First World War battlefields Northern France and the D-Day landing sites. Huge, huge numbers of tourists go. We’re fascinated by the stories, but we don’t, or not in large numbers, visit Boer War battlefield sites. It is the image of the noble savage which grabs us, as it grabbed Queen Victoria when she- I mean, she wouldn’t have meant met Ketshwayo if she didn’t want to. You couldn’t force the old dear to do what she didn’t want to do. Now, I’ve got to finish and I thought, I thought I might finish in a way that talks about the British Empire. When I was a child at school and in a prep school, we used to sing hymns, Christian hymns in the morning. We didn’t really have a service, but we always sang a Christian hymn.
And the hymn that was perhaps most popular was “Onward Christian Soldiers.” It appealed to little boys. It was militaristic, had a thumping tune and everything else. Makes you wonder what was being drilled into us as late as the 1950s. But there was a Victorian parody of the hymn to remind us that even at the height of empire, there were those who questioned the morality of empire. And the parody of the hymn goes like this, “Onward Christian soldiers onto heathen lands, prayer books in your pockets, rifles in your hands, take the glorious tidings where trade can be done, spread the peaceful Gospel with the Maxim gun. Wow. End of story for today, but not the end of me talking about South Africa, because tomorrow I talk about the Boer War and the consequences of that live with us today. I don’t agree with what I read out this now about that it lives with us still. I don’t think until some South Africans tell me otherwise that the Zulu war really has an impact, except in the sense that the Zulu lost power, lost leadership of Black African power. Yes, I’d accept that. Let me stop and say, we’ll see if we’ve got any questions, shall we? Or points.
Q&A and Comments:
I’ve got people near me, for example, putting things in about the crisis in the Middle East. I don’t wish to be rude, but I think it’s better that we leave that because there’s going to be opportunities for you to do all of that. I think I’ll stick, if you don’t mind, with what I’ve been talking about.
Oh, Michael Polansky says, the British first came to Cape in '95, the first British, whoops, occupation when they landed and defeated the Dutch colonists. Yes, okay, but it’s 1806, which is the key date of the British involvement.
Thank you, Rita, for giving details of my blog.
Jonathan writes, the Zulu king, Dinuzulu, that’s the son of Ketshwayo, by the way, was exiled by the British to island of St. Helena as was Bonaparte. The difference was that Dinuzulu was eventually allowed to return, whereas Napoleon died there. On a personal note, I took the same ship route from Durban to St. Helena, as did Dinuzulu. The British were always sending people, or one of the last to go was Makarios from Cyprus. Do you remember? He was sent off to an island in the Indian Ocean.
Oh, I’m sorry. Yona says two points, a growth pattern of the Zulu empire, significant parallels with that of the Roman Empire. It does. Absolutely right.
Q: And a fundamental question, when was writing introduced to the African states and when was tribal cultural histories first written down?
A: That is a very good question. Basically, the histories were written down by Europeans, but that is not true because in the north, in North Africa, we’ve got writings that goes right back to earliest times in places like Egypt and Ethiopia. And we’ve got writings there. Well, in Ethiopia, we’ve got writings because the arrival of Christianity, but we’ve got early writings. But mainly if we’re talking about Black Africa, south of the Sahel, then it’s largely, we are dependent upon tribal stories being written down when Europeans came, and then of course written down later by Africans themselves. But we’re dependent on, a lot of the history is dependent on the archaeology.
Rita? Oh, Rita, right. Sorry, you’ve just given another reference.
Christopher, I was born and grew up South Africa. the correct pronunciation is sha-kah and not sha-ker. And Boer pronounced boor and not boar. I’m sorry. I actually looked up the pronunciation of Shaka and that’s why I pronounced it in that way. So I’m sorry that I offended you with that. Pronunciation is difficult. I’ve always said Boer and that may be simply is a British pronunciation. Gosh, pronunciations are a nightmare, I have to tell you, and particularly for someone, and assegai, and particularly for someone like me who is appalling at languages. I like Latin where my pronunciation cannot be a faulted because no one knows for sure how they spoke. But I take your point. You’re absolutely right to correct.
Alan says, we had a set workbook at school by Rider Haggard, "Nada the Lily,” about the Zulu Empire.
Q: How authentic was his writing, specifically the Zulu?
A: I have to admit, Alan, I have not, I have not read that novel, and so I’m not sure. I can’t really answer that question. Maybe someone else has read it who could give you an answer.
Q: Joan, how many died?
A: Ultimately, very few. Very low thousands, very few people died. It’s quite different, and indeed, most of the imperial wars, very few people died. The Boer War tomorrow is different.
Please remove the map. Oh, wonderful, George. I put the map on because everyone had been complaining they wanted a map, so that’s wonderful, George. I love you deeply. Louis Napoleon, Prince Imperial of the French served with the British army and was killed in the Anglo-Zulu War. He was indeed. He was the son of Napoleon III who took exile here in Britain, and his, well, it was really very remiss of the British to ever put him in a position where he could have lost his life. It was not a, mind you, the French were only too happy that he died because it ended any chances of any Bonapartist restoration in France.
Sandy, just finished reading “Empire Land,” a good read, but he quotes Gladston saying, “The Zulus have been sorted for defending against your artillery with their naked bodies. And remember the rights of the savage.” In the '50s, I was taught as the Zulus came south, the British were coming north. We did study the empire with some discrimination and admired the Zulus. I take it, Sandy, that you received, as it were, a British-style education and not a Boer one. My father, as a young man, was working in St. Ann Square in Manchester. I know it well, Kathy. He remembered a small gathering of old men in uniform standing in front of a statue in the square. They were conducting a memorial ceremony.
Q: Could they have been old soldiers of the World War?
A: Absolutely. Absolutely. And then of course, as everybody knows who’s British, there’s large numbers of memorials to World War I, but there are memorials, too, to the Boer War. In the town I live, Worthing, about a mile, mile and a half down the road on the front, this is a seaside town, on the front is a memorial to the Boer War. Barbara, the award of the Victoria is used to cover up the defeated Rorke’s Drift. It wasn’t a defeat at Rorke’s Drift, but it was used to cover up the defeat at Isandlwana. The losses at Maiwand in Afghanistan in 1880 was also a cover. Yes, yes, absolutely.
Oh, Barbara, you corrected yourself hours before I suggested you. I’m so sorry. You’re absolutely right. You can have your gold star back, Barbara. You were absolutely right.
Between the mid eight- Jonathan, between the mid 1980s and mid 1990s, about 15,000 people were killed in the feud between the forces of the king of Zulus and the AMC. Yes, I’m aware of that. I’m not talking about modern South Africa because my knowledge is not sufficient to do that. That’s why I agreed I would talk about imperial South Africa. Yes, Britain’s were involved in other wars in South Africa, absolutely.
Q: Compared to other colonial powers, can one say Britain was relatively better benign?
A: Well, if there are Black Africans listening tonight, they would simply not agree with that. That’s a much bigger question, Howard, than I can answer quickly. There were dreadful things done by the British right across the empire and right through to the bitter end, like the treatment of the Mau Mau in Kenya, for example, which was horrendous. And tomorrow we shall look at the terrible treatment of Boer. I’m sorry, I’m going to have to say Boer. I can’t do it by pronunciation any other way. I’m going to get tongue tied. Women and children in concentration camps.
Catherine tells the story of Louis Napoleon, the Prince Imperial. She adds in, which we haven’t said yet, inspired by the outcome of Rorke’s Drift, if he pleaded with Queen Victoria to be allowed to join British forces in Zululand. Reluctantly she agreed and with great anxiety, senior officers accepted him. On a scouting expedition with a small posse, he and his fellow troop was dismounted to open country. They were surprised by a small group of farm Zulus. The troop remounted, but the prince’s horse bolted, leaving him alone. He was killed by the Zulu and fell with his face to the foe. Oh, everyone fell with their face to the foe in British army reports. No one fell with their face facing the other way. He might have faced, he might well indeed have faced the foe as he died, but he equally might not have done. No, you are quite right in that story.
Sorry, I should have said, Catherine, you are absolutely right. Galaxy S20. I hope this isn’t an artificial intelligence, but actually a real person.
Oh, Monty. It’s Monty. Monty, I think Zulu witch doctors told the Boers to cover themselves in a preparation and gave them to melt the bullets on impact. One of the interesting things, Monty, is right across, not just Africa, think of America, for example, the States and India, everywhere, the stories of indigenous people covering themselves. Think of the Boxer Rebellion in China, covering themselves in some way to prevent modern bullets. It’s, well, dreadful. Thanks, I’m glad you enjoyed it.
Carol, namely I’m sad to read your comment while… Oh, right. Okay. I think I’m going to leave the question of the current events in Israel and Palestine. I can’t begin to get involved and answer a question because it will only set the fires alight here and I dread actually going back to the news when I finish this in case something else has happened.
Q: Muriel, do you know Dr. Raters work in the battlefields? In the time, he was very well thought of. His story, who led tours on that and knew a great deal. He was sadly killed some years ago in a rather horrific murderous attack.
A: Yes, I have heard of him and knew the story.
Faye says, Rider Haggard’s books were pure fiction, although he used Southern Africa as his setting. That’s an answer to an earlier question about whatever the novel, and I’ve forgotten the title. I’m really sorry to all of those I’m offending about pronunciation of Boer I’m unlikely to be able to change my pronunciation after nearly 80 years by tomorrow. I’ll have to stick with the English pronunciation. I’m really sorry to have offended you, but I imagine you aren’t, you could be… No, you aren’t, you can’t- Well, you might have family who are Boer, I guess.
As you said, says Gina, cattle was very important economically. A number of heads of cattle was important for the dowry that any young Zulu lady about to get married. When I told my American daughter-in-law’s mother about this South African custom, she replied that the cattle were on its way. It was coming freezer ready. Oh, Gina, I love those sorts of stories. Oh, you’re one after my own heart. That’s a fantastic story.
And Josie adds, oh. Thank you, Josie. I’m not offended by people correcting me. I’m just saying if it’s a one-off, I can do it. But if it’s a core word that I’ve learned to speak one way. You just have to remember Churchill and his French, and that’s my last defence. And it’s not defendable, you’re right, but you know what I mean, so at least we’re on the same page.
Sue Muser says, listening to these lectures takes me back some six odd years, my school days and history classes. I always admitted the Zulu warriors and their beautiful head work, bead work, I’m sorry, bead work. And I end on another correction. Thanks for the corrections. At least everybody else will know how to pronounce things. And I’m sorry that I’ve not done that for some of you tonight, but I hope that didn’t spoil your enjoyment of it.
George, you’re my friend for life. But I do have a map tomorrow just for those who are not South African and can’t place where Transvaal is in relationship to Natal. We are a generation that know our geography because we did it at school with maps and recoloring and all the rest of it. And I used to have a stamp collection as a child. And so I had stamps of Natal and Transvaal and in fact, recently I’ve begun to collect stamps again. And it’s quite interesting. I collect them purely on historical grounds. And it’s interesting collecting some of the Boer Republic stamps, I have to say.
I’m going to stop there. Thank you ever so much for joining me. I’ve missed you all, absolutely. But I look forward to seeing you very quickly again, because five o'clock tomorrow, we shall, I’m going to have to spell this word. I’m now getting… I’m going to talk about the Anglo-Boer War, the second of the wars and this does have modern implications, as everyone will be aware. So thank you very much. See you tomorrow.