The Defence of Rorke's Drift: Redcoats and Zulus
Volume 3 | Issue 1 - Film
Article by Robert James Whitley. Edited by Ellie Veryard. Research by Jack Barnes.
On the 11th of January 1879 the British ultimatum to the Zulus ran out and British forces, under the command of Lord Chelmsford, invaded the Zulu Kingdom. Lieutenant Gonville Bromhead was sent to Rorke’s Drift, a mission that had formerly been a trading station, now being used as a supply depot. It was never imagined that the depot would be attacked. During the campaign against the Zulu a well trained and well equipped British army of 1,800 soldiers were defeated by a native force equipped with mainly spears and cow hide shields. In the aftermath of this humiliating and inconceivable defeat the defence of Rourke’s drift would prove to be a welcome focal point for the British government. The bravery of the soldiers at Rorke’s Drift earned them a total of eleven Victoria crosses, a staggering achievement.
The successful defence of a small mission by a force of just over 150 troops against an army of as many as 4,000 Zulu warriors was immortalised in the 1964 film “Zulu”, directed, co-produced and co-written by blacklisted American screenwriter Cy Endfield. Narrated by Richard Burton and starring such icons as Stanley Baker and Michael Caine Zulu has proved to be a lasting success. In many respects it is the British equivalent of the American genre of cowboys and Indians. Redcoats and Zulus.
Without wishing to ruin the film for anyone who has yet to see it I will briefly outline the plot. As stated above, a small force of British soldiers, incorrectly referred to as the Welsh regiment, are sent to protect Rourke’s drift. Upon hearing the news of an impending Zulu attack and realising that they cannot retreat without leaving the wounded behind, the Welsh regiment decides to stay and fight. It doesn’t take long for the Natal Native Contingent to see sense and flee the scene and the Boer horsemen, who arrive to warn the British of the attack, ignore pleas for them to stay and fight. The men realise they are on their own. It is in this scene of desertion and desperation that the first attacks begin.
The films main protagonist is Private Henry Cook – “A thief, a coward, and an insubordinate barrack-room lawyer”. Initially being portrayed as a coward, Cook turns out to be an unlikely hero when the hospital he occupies, with other injured men, catches fire and comes under a sustained and heavy attack. Cook successfully takes charge and manages to lead many of the men to relative safety. The British spend the entire day and much of the night repelling repeated attacks. The following morning the Zulu’s attack once again in force only to be repelled by an ingenious trap laid by the British. The climatic end comes as the Zulu approach just as the men are at their weakest. Zulu chants are mistaken for mocking until it is revealed that in fact they are praising follow braves. It is in this scene of mutual understanding that the Zulu march on, as the British are left to contemplate on what had very nearly been their total destruction.
As much as one can praise the film for its entertaining brilliance, it cannot be denied that it is riddled with historical inaccuracies. While some errors are understandable and only to be expected in a product that’s primary purpose is to entertain, there are some that are simply laziness. However, there are no errors that would lead to the justification of completely denouncing the film.
It is the historian’s prerogative to be pedantic when it comes to historical accuracy and it is in this light that the author asks for forgiveness in the following paragraph. Zulu is littered with minor historical inaccuracies: the real soldiers of Rorke’s Drift wore stained helmets, not white ones; most of the men would have had facial hair rather than being clean shaven and many of the character personalities have been altered. Perhaps the most disappointing truth to learn is that there was no final attack by the Zulu in which they praise the British for being “fellow braves”. In fact the only reason the Zulu’s ended their opportunistic raid was because of the approach of a relief column.
The errors mentioned above are just a few examples from a list of many. Inaccuracies in weaponry, injuries and characters plague the film. However, the film does not seriously alter the events of history. While it is true that the attack was not ordered by King Cetshwayo; there was still a Zulu attack. Although the ending has been dramatised the fact remains that a small contingent of men did successfully defend themselves against a far larger force. The manipulation of history evident in Zulu is done partially out of laziness and partially to make the film interesting. Zulu cannot be compared with the gross distortion of the past evident in many films. Furthermore, although the film misses the British executing Zulu survivors after the battle, it does not attempt to demonize the Zulu in an effort to stir patriotism in the way that films such as “Braveheart” do (with regards to the English). The Zulu are shown to be the superior force in the film, allowing the British to live not out of fear, or defeat, but out of respect for their bravery. The film successfully stirs British patriotism without harming the image of the Zulu with the future South African political leader Mangosuthu Buthelezi playing the part of King Cetshwayo.
In conclusion, the film Zulu is a British classic, unique and entertaining. Admittedly it is probably more of a “lads” films and could probably be found in your father or even grandfathers VCR collection. That said, Zulu is a timeless classic that everyone should watch at least once. While anyone who has studies “The Uses of History” as part of their undergraduate course might wince from time to time, the vast majority of people can appreciate that while not 100% accurate it is hardly the gross misrepresentation of the past that so many films are guilty of.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
At the battle of Rorke’s Drift 17 British soldiers were killed, whilst 351 Zulus were confirmed dead.
The morning before the British suffered a heavy defeat at the battle of Isandlwana.
11 Victoria crosses were awarded over 2 days of fighting.