why the inaccuracies Mr Baker/ Mr Endfield

i note there has been a lot of debate (mainly by a few ) with regards to Welsh vs British . For me , i really dont care here in Aussie . The only thing i am concerned about is the inaccuracies depicted by Baker and Endfield in the film.I WOULD ASK WHY. I also understand its a film and so must be entertaining. But why must they say its a Welsh Regiment .the song ,Men of Harlech, the use of Martini henry rifles by the Zulu etc etc .When the film Zulu is brought up for talk here everyone is" shot to pieces "with the inaccuracies. lol

Another issue with me has been the "overplaying"of Vereker in the Zulu Dawn film. Vereker is hardly ever mentioned in any books that i have read on Isandhlwautf and to add insult to injury they have him rescueing the Flag or at least playing some part in the flag rescue. c-----------p.My understanding the only thing Vereker did was to pinch someones horse and politely gave it back. (what a gentleman) which cost him his life . But he did stay and fight so praise to him for that.

Hello rayhun, welcome to the forum.

To answer the first part of your question. It is not really a Welsh v English thing, it's more of fact v fiction.

The main problem with the film 'Zulu' is that it gave out the false imression that the regiment that fought in the defence of Rorke's Drift was a Welsh regiment by the name of The South Wales Borderers. It implied that the regiment was a Welsh regiment "with a few foreigners from England in it". There were numerous Welsh characters in the film that in actual fact were not present at RD. It implied that there was a Welsh choir (to add to the impression of it being a Welsh regiment), this was to lead up to the 'sing off' (that never took place), so that the false 'Owen' character (played by Ivor Emmanuel), could sing a Welsh song (M o H), again to add false Welshness to the film. The film also implied that the V.C's won by the regiment nearly all went to Welshmen (because of their Welsh sounding names), but in actual fact, all the V.C'S won by the 24th foot, went to Englishmen (even though some had Welsh sounding names, all were English).

The reason why all this false Welshness happened is because Baker was himself Welsh, and it appears that he had a score to settle with the English (because of what he assumed that the English had done to his ancestors a few hundred years before he was born), and he saw his chance to get a bit of his own back by making it appear that the 24th foot was a Welsh regiment, and therefor give the credit to a mythical Welsh regiment who's name did not even exist at the time of the Zulu war.

The facts are that the regiment was raised in England, it was raised for the defence of the English kingdom, it had the English County name of the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment of foot, and it was under this English County title that it fought in the AZW at both iSandlwana and at Rorke's Drift. However, because of Bakers 1964 film 'Zulu', most uninitiated and gullible people believe what they see on the screen is the truth, and fall for this myth created by Baker and his almost fictional film. Also notice that Baker was Welsh, yet ironically he played an Englishman.

The film is that full of inaccuracies, false Welshness, deliberate mistakes, and all sorts of stuff called "licence", that it should be remade, and next time give the people the REAL name of the regiment, and get it historically accurate.

There may well have been some Martini Henry rifles used by the Zulus, but not many, these would most likely have been taken from the escaping troops from iSandlwana that were killed when they encountered these Zulus on their way to RD.

The best thing about this film is the music score, and that was by John Barry Prendergast, an Englishman.

The other film 'Zulu Dawn' also as many inaccuracies, but is a bit more to fact than 'Zulu', but even in this film, the real name of the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment is not mentioned, and there is also that song (M o H) being played by the band, again giving the false impression that the regiment was Welsh.

All in all, I would say that both films should be remade.

Martin.

Rayhun
Greetings and welcome.
There are lots of mistakes in the film, they do lead to popular conceptions and occasionally seem to pop up as fact. There are publications on the battles that do just that as well, perpetuate myths and inaccuracies. Your own post by miss spelling iSandlwana is actually a rather ironic case in point. The spelling you used was brought about by a mistake in scanning a book section onto the web.

Cheers

Springbok. Ray didn't spell it the way it's displayed in his his post it was down to word censoring. Which was taken off, but for some reason the odd "Isandhlwautf" creaps in.im seeing Peter tonight so will have a word.

Ray
Sorry mate.

OH
as always I bow to your wisdom.

Cheers

Quote :

as always I bow to your wisdom

I wish her in doors would do the same.

I bowed for the missus once, to much temptation for he,r nearly had to get her foot surgically removed from the nether regions

My God -----i promise ill never spell isandlwana again . Ill just call it Sandy Wana

Hopefully that covers it lol

David (rayhun)

Sorry Fellas -------the spelling was a case of a bad keyboard . And im sticking to that reason /excuse



David

Hi springy.

I find that a mixture of lubricating oil and a few squirts from the grease gun works wonders. :lol:

Have you got any more photo's to post up mate? I thought that the others you sent Pete to post were fantastic, they were a great help for those of us that most likely will never get the chance to visit the sites.

Much appreciated my friend, and very good of you to share these photo's with the other members of the forum.

Many thanks springy.

Martin.

Ah music to my ears.

What in particular would you like to see Martin ?
I was planing on some of the more obscure photos, Dartnells bivvi, Mangeni Gorge, Milnes view of the Camp, Qwabe Valley.
If theres anything specific let me know.

Cheers

I wouldn't mind seeing the view that the troops had of the Zulu advance from their various positions, and also any views of Col Durnfords donga, and the view that they had from it. Any other photo's that you have planned to post, would be gratefully accepted.

Again mate, much obliged.

Martin.

Hi Martin
Ive sent Pete a portion of a series of shots showing Durnfords Donga and his retreat. Cant show the whole series Im afraid, youll have to buy the book.

Cheers

:lol: Hi Springbok. :lol: x many .
Cheers 90th.

Hi springy.

Yes my friend, I found them under the heading "The retreat from the Donga", they are just brilliant, many thanks mate.

Don't forget to put my name down for the book.

Martin.

Gents have I missed something. Is Springbok writing a book.

Hi Pete (Admin).

It would appear so, read his post today at 4.12pm, (unless of course springy is having a lark), but I hope that he is writing a book, he is well knowledged in the subject of the AZW, and also has the benefit of almost being on the doorstep (so to speak), and the photo's that he has taken are invaluable to those of us who cannot visit the sites, and thanks Pete for posting them up on the forum, much appreciated.

Regards.

Martin.

I haven't sent him my invoice yet, for posting the photos.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Nice one Pete.

Hi All.
I hope he ( springbok ) publishes it in english !. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Damn Colonials . :lol:
My Africaans is fairly ordinary . .
Cheers 90th. ( Waiting for my copy ! )

My neighbour speaks Africaans so no problem for me . Multicultural society ! :lol:

Hi Gary.

:lol: :lol: :lol: .
Cheers 90th.

I thought i had replied to this but it looks like either my response carried in it something totally offensive and i didnt realize it, or(more likely) i didnt hit send before i left the page.

I am a film maker and might be able to shed some light on this.
Now first i am not from the UK, i am a cousin Jonathon, while my family is made of all four kingdoms in the UK we have been here since the 1640s when walter raleigh left a few of us at roanoke.. so the silly in fighting and being upset because my medieval were conquered by someone else so i can not say that there was not some ulterior motive in making this a welsh "thing" it might, but chances are it doesnt and there are a few things that are more important to film makers.. things like budget and most of the issues in the film are based that, or the fact that historical accuracy is NOT something that was popular in films until rather recently.

First Budget
Films cost money and producers are always producers. they want it cheap and they want the best return on investment. So there are places where you will skimp. the rifles used were probably the first thing. you can see the men in the backgrounds of the scenes using bolt action rifles(prbably ww2 vintage) that is because they didnt have enough martini henrys to go around, and that is probably the same reason you see the zulus using the weapons on the heights. the producers didnt have muskets so they used what they ahd. I will bet my whole years pay no one said "well they wouldnt have those" because no one cared(see my next point)

Historical accuracy

Ever see the movie patton? check out the german "tigers" in that movie. they are american tanks from korea. why because that was what was available. Hollywood, especially in the 60s didnt give a rats ass about accuracy. and even before then its bad. gunga din? i can not even place that in time because of all the anacronisms and mixed up eras, What about Charge of the light Brigade? that posits that whole charge was made to get revenge on surat khan who killed all the light brigades families in a Cawnpore-esque massacre that didnt happen till well after the crimean war.

So the fact that you are actually looking for historical accuracy makes about as much sense as looking for it in say john waynes Ghangis Khan.. its BONKERS and you should all stop that now.. but thats my opinion :)

no part of this is also a lack of research. They knew enough but not all. its like if a person who wasnt a huge fan of history made the movie based on what they remember.
Does anyone here have any idea what they were taught in school back then? I dont. How do we know that basic public school had it wrong, and that was the white washed version they were taught.
if you go to the 24th museum they have all this zulu war stuff in there, so if the museum says its the case, then people not looking to do ALL the reseach will find that an ok answer..

Look at the uniforms.. everyone says those helmet plates dont belong and that is true for the 24th they did not, but the 90th did and so did the rifles and so did some officers in other units. and they also wear them in the home service uniform.. how much research doyou think the costume department did? some basic looking. there was no internet back then, there werent countless books written on it. in fact how many years did you all watch the movie in complete ignorance of these inaccuracies?

Obivously some things were changed to make the story more "interesting" making Witt a crazy drunk, making Bourne fit the general "ideal" of the color sgt. Even going to make Hooke drunk.. they could have used one of the real drunks thats true and allen leaps to mind.. however two things on the hook issue. 1 you would not care a tot for hook if they didnt make him what he was in the movie.. he wouldnt be a name, he would be like one of the other 14 guys who got a VC that day(and most can only name three, hook being one the Bromhead and Chard being the others) so there is that. 2. they needed to do certain things in the movie to make the broad points they needed to make. Hook is the drunk who learns honor during the battle and it makes his change of heart to help maxfield all the more powerful.
the same thing with Hitch and Allen, they need to be that way for thier interplay and pathos to work

My guess is that very little of it is intentional, its a mix of budget, poor research and a general disinterest in accuracy in the first place.

In fact they did exactly what they set out to do and given that it is more than likely responsible for you interest in this period you should show a little more reverence for the source. it is what its meant to be a gripping action yarn and nothing more. its not saving private ryan with or thin red line with grandiose epic landscapes and a drive to be acccurate. its an englsih cowboys and indian movie(meant to get in on that craze) and it does a great job at that.

So i think its a little unfair to say they did it "intentionally" as i mentioned there are things they did to make the story work and add some depth to people that we really do not know a lot about. in lieu of knowing the real drama we got made up personal drama, but THAT is what really makes a movie.

Oh and one last thing.. of all the things they got wrong the one thing they got right I was totally surprised at.. Dalton actually says "pot that chap somebody".. my friends and i get a lot of milage out of that(does he also add"before he hurts someone" which is a daft thing to say in battle really)

MadDrDevo. Excellent thanks for posting. Makes a lot of sense.

Thanks.. i like being part of the community and look forward to joining the discussion!

Very interesting and very sensible . Look forward to reading more from you .

Hi MadDrDevo.
It certainly makes sense as there was no internet or the plethora of written work on the zulu war back in 1964 . Lets look at another film with shocking inaccuracies ........... The last ' Pearl Harbour ' movie , I swear the ships that were blown up were from the 60's or 70's . :lol: :lol: :lol: .
Cheers 90th.

Talking of poetic licence............14 VC,s??
Nice post

Cheers

14 VC ,s hello and goodbye
Really

David

I can partly understand the basics of MadDrDevo post, however, suggesting that Baker and Co did this "unintentionally" is definitely wrong. The whole "Welshness" thing was done very much intentionally, to give the false impression to the gullible public that the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment was Welsh, and therefor give the credit, honour and glory to a mythical Welsh regiment whos name did not even exist during the AZW. If the so called "researchers" had done a quick check of the British regiments that fought in the AZW, they would have seen immediately that there were NO Welsh regiments that took part in this war.

Trying to alter history to make things "more interesting" is not the done thing (although it seems very common to do this in Hollywood). Many gullible people believe what they see on the screen is fact, and this then breeds a myth, and if enough people allow this myth to live on, it eventually replaces the factual truth, and this cannot be right.

Henry Hook was a model soldier, a very brave and honourable man, and it was disgusting the way that he was portrayed in this film. His family walked out of the premier in disgust when they saw the way he had been portrayed in this film, they were very distressed. This was no way to treat the memory of a very brave soldier, even if it was done to make it "more interesting", what a liberty. Even James Booth was upset when he found out that Hooks family were distressed by his portrayal of Hook. So in the name of making things "more interesting", a very noble, brave and honourable man, is now remembered as being a layabout and shyster, who only did what he did to get out of the burning building and save his skin.

A mixture of penny pinching on the budget, very poor research, and a total disinterest in historical accuracy, is no excuse.

And to say that little of it was done "intentionally" is really an understatement, Baker knew exactly what he wanted to create by making this film the way he did, all this false "Welshness" was done very much "intentionally" believe me.

If it means trying to alter historical fact and taking liberties of all description, including the wrongful portayal of many of the men that were there, just to make a movie "more interesting", then that is a very sad state of affairs, and one that I have no wish to be party with.

Unlike many others, my interest in the AZW goes back long before this almost "fictional" film was made, so it did not inspire me to become interested in this war. When I first went to see this film, and although it was powerful for its time, and has since become a classic, something about it did not ring true, as I recalled my old grandfather telling people of a relative who fought in this battle, and he said that the regiment was called the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment, so when it was said that this regiment was Welsh, and that it was called the SWB, I became determined to find out the truth, and all one asks of history is the truth, but this film could not be further from it.

springbok9 wrote:

Talking of poetic licence............14 VC,s??
Nice post

Cheers

sorry 10 or 11 my bad.. the point still remains.. he would one of several guys who doesnt get mentioned.. because they were never in the movie

sorry im a film maker because i dont like numbers

[quote="90th"]Hi MadDrDevo.
It certainly makes sense as there was no internet or the plethora of written work on the zulu war back in 1964 . Lets look at another film with shocking inaccuracies ........... The last ' Pearl Harbour ' movie , I swear the ships that were blown up were from the 60's or 70's . :lol: :lol: :lol: .
Cheers 90th. [/quote

AH but there is a reason for this too. Micheal Bay, the director(also did transformers) is like baker here.. he isnt looking to make an accurate movie, he was looking to make something in which.. if you will excuse the "french", Love Blew UP. So its an illustration of the same point.

I mean if i made a movie about this stuff it would be accurate, at this point a lot of my friends refuse to watch war movies with me as i constantly point out whats not right

Wow.. Cooper im just floored. Clearly i have struck a nerve and if this is a hard subject then maybe we need to stop.. but if you can handle this and understand that i am not making attacks then please read on

So first you say it right here "all one asks of history is the truth" i agree. but you forget this fact and its far stronger.. all people ask of the movies is entertainment.. not education. and i would have more to say about those that watch movies to be educated. And people that believe everything they see in the movies as fact are generally not the people you want to talk to about history anyway.

So you are looking for something you arent going to find there.

Again i am an american, we kicked our english over lords out, so the whole holding on to hatred over ancestral is really foreign to me. So maybe there is a psychology there that i am failing to understand. And maybe he did want to make a Welsh movie and maybe there is an ulterior motive.

But the name change happens in 1881, they moved the depot just before that, so its easy to see someone with passing interest getting that wrong. I would bet if the people in wales have some colonial angst against the British then I would bet this is a popular myth over there long before the movie was made.
Again its one thing to say they were trying to slight people, and another to say they were historically inrresponsible.

now lets talk about hook.. yes he was a basic BORING soldier. a tee totaler.. yes that is the kind of character that is going to be considered "cool" to a 60s audience. and that is part of it a huge part of movie making is getting butts in seats.
and since your interest in the war outdates the movie did you think hook was an interesting character? probably not, and yet here we are discussing him and he is getting more "immortality" from that.. and a far more fair shake as both you and I and pretty much anyone on this site knows the truth..

but you also have a simple view of hook in the movie. he starts out as the kind of guy who only looks after himself. he tries to save maxfield and it looks in the film like he is the one that gets everyone out of the hospital. you also know he gets a medal, people who look after only themselves rarely get medals.. so they created an interesting arc.. what else can we say about hook in this battle? what were his personal demons? if you were to make this character what would you do to make him "human" in your audiences eyes.
something like this should not get the simple whitewashed characters you get in your typical action movie. "the kid" the guy from brooklyn(in every US ww2 movie) the cool officer, the underrated second in command.. no you have to give these people foils and faults to make them interesting.. so what were hooks real faults? we dont know

As for portaying people incorrectly in movies.
Ghengis Khan by john wayne seems wrong.. and his characterization was a lot off.
here check this link.. yes its a comedy article BUT its all true. they also covered the inaccuracies of Zulu on this site

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


from the same site but the point is the same.. movies SAVED by historical inaccuacies
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

and here are 40 more and most of these movies are considered historical dramas and SHOULD be accurate. some are biopics!
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Incidentally both Zulu and Charge of the Light Brigade are on the list above
and some of these are films about people far more famous and "important" in history than Henry Hook.

So again i really believe a lot of it was a lack of knowledge possibly coupled with willful ignorance(they wanted it to be welsh so "its welsh and be damned with the truth" kind of thinking) and a lack of easily accessable knowledge and budget all conspired to make the movie what it is..

and frankly its a great movie for all its inaccuracies.. i say it again would we be discussing this if it werent for the movie? Mr Cooper might be here on this site alone i think if it werent for that movie.

I am also a wargamer, and i have to say that one of the most often sited reasons people got into wargaming was Zulu. And wargaming certainly drives a great deal of the research(osprey publishing knows who buys thier books) and in general this movie has created interest in the era, especially through its controversy.
Cooper you said your self your drive to learn the truth came from this movie.. coupled with what a relative said but the movie made you look deeper.

Quote :

I am a film maker and might be able to shed some light on this.

Any we know.

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:

Quote :

I am a film maker and might be able to shed some light on this.

Any we know.

Allow me to amend that.. failed film maker.

the movie i started work doing was called Chasing Amy. its a comedy by Kevin Smith(and american director did Clerks, Mallrats, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back and Dogma, also Jersey Girl, he is the reason we have a Ben Affleck.. thats not a good selling point is it?)

I worked on a couple of independent films in New York CIty where i used to live.. and I was the Director of Photography on a movie i helped write.. but it was a short film and it was TERRIBLE.. so now i do sales because i am not abysmal at it :)

SO i was just doing some reading and Cooper i hate to keep bringing this up but you have such a hate hard on about this its intriguing..

So here is some interesting information about the time line of the 24th.. and i think given the sheer number of names and lunacy of the british convention of naming their regiments we should just call it that.. the 24th

ok in 1689 the regiment was one of 14 created by a charter. the first "captain" was a Sir Edward Derring.. at this point they are called Derrings Regiment of Foote(love the extra E)

in 1717 the name changes for the first of many times.. and is changed to Howards Greens. reflecting the new leader and the facing colors

1753 they start numbering the regiments.. its then called The 24th (Cornwallis') Regiment of Foot(no E)

on 1756 a second battalion is raised in Liecestershire(i think spelled that wrong) that battalion will later become the 69th regiment and further on will become the second battalion of the..... WELCH REGIMENT.. so there is a connection to wales even this early

August of 1782 they decide to begin naming the regiments after the counties and when they will become the 2nd Warwickshires a name they will have for about 100 years
In 1881(7 or 8 years after the depot was moved to the wales border) they change the name to the south wales borderers to reflect the new station


In the end its the same regiment and any of those names used above would be correct. If we made a movie about Marlborough we couldnt use the name 24th even with out being inaccurate and i suppose if Cooper is so caught up in the Original name he needs to go back even FURTHER along. Given that it was one of 14 raised it couldnt even have been the 24th regiment raised at the time(there werent enough)

So its very silly to get all worked up about the name. it changes every 100 years or so and at this point the name SWB has been around the longest(unless the british army did away with that after say ww2, i dont know i have not finished reading the book)

Speaking of the book, i got all this information from the 1975 osprey publishings The South Wales Borderers .

There was a whole section i wanted to cut and paste that explains how they men were more bummed they lost the green facings for the white ones(good call Pascal) than they were the name change.. especially as the depot had been on the welsh border for, as i said, about 8 years..



Some one else said though that in reality they were all English regiments, even Highlanders are fighting in the english army

So maybe we can just call them the 24th as that name applies the best

I think you are missing the point. Martin is just trying to clarify. That the Regiment that fought at the Battle Of Rorkes Drift we're from Warwickshire which is in England, not Wales. And the regiments that fought at Rorkes Drift and Isandlwana were the 1st/24th Regiment of foot and the 2nd/24th Regiment of foot. Not the South Wales Borderers.

The fact that the Welsh connection is brought into the lime-light in Zulu is because Stanley Baker was from Wales.

Just out of curiosity. Why wasn't the Welsh so prominent in the Battle Of Isandlwana. Or we're they just English and Coloinals in that one.

Chelmsfordthescapegoat wrote:

I think you are missing the point. Martin is just trying to clarify. That the Regiment that fought at the Battle Of Rorkes Drift we're from Warwickshire which is in England, not Wales. And the regiments that fought at Rorkes Drift and Isandlwana were the 1st/24th Regiment of foot and the 2nd/24th Regiment of foot. Not the South Wales Borderers.

The fact that the Welsh connection is brought into the lime-light in Zulu is because Stanley Baker was from Wales.

the 24th is both the south wales borderers AND the south warwickshires AND derrings regiment AND howards greens.

they all refer to the same "lineage" i guess. they just have different names. Calling them the 24th is just fine. the same men who fought with marlborough are in the same regiment as those that would fight in south africa, different name, same regiment.. its the same regiment that fights with the name South Wales Borderers.. thats my point.. what you call it and when it was called what is very much inconsequential
the battle honours for the 24th dont change after 1881 they dont start over. In the minds of the "regiment" that rather strange "club" that is a british regiment it is the same. The men who drank a toast to the regiment toast the same 24th
If that makes sense

and while baker was welsh, is he really so wrong calling them the south wales borderers a few years early? especially since the depot was moved to that area prior to that anyway.. i just dont think its some huge conspiracy to undermine britian or anything

another point
" The regiment's regimental depot had been moved to Brecon in Wales in 1873 and this, understandably, led to the regiment having close links with South Wales."

to make matters more confusing.."In 1969 the regiment was amalgamated with the Welch Regiment to form the Royal Regiment of Wales (24th/41st Foot)"

Sorry ill stop now, this probably isnt as cool for you all as it is for me.. but i like debate and discussion so i hope im not crossing bounds

Some good points being raised.

and so say all of us Coops.

If i was Hook,s ancestors i would have a lot to say about his portrayal

The fact he was a teetotaller is a bit disturbing to me . LOL

David rayhun

What made the film directors pick on Henry Hook" and portray him in the way they did.

littlehand wrote:

What made the film directors pick on Henry Hook" and portray him in the way they did.

its hard to say what makes one person more interesting than another. i would say hook might have been picked because he wrote his account but then what about Lugg who never shows up..

its more interesting given they made him an alcholic and that fit so many others better.. i guess it was his being in the hospital and they needed someone interesting to make that work.. everyone else whos name you see is pretty much outside

I'm sure I read that on the first showing of Zulu, Hooks grand daughters walked out in utter disgust at the way he was portraid.

Yes, people want to be entertained by a film, but if it means altering history at the drop of a hat just to give some people entertainment, then again, that is a no no. Why should important events in history be put through the shredder and churned out totally altered just to entertain the uneducated twonks that will believe almost anything that they see on the screen. Oh and by the way, the Americans didn't kick out the Brtish, they merely helped the French to do something that they couldn't do themselves, and a few years later the French got their come uppence at Waterloo at the hands of the British.

Yes, there is something that you failing to understand. The regiment was raised in England, it was raised for the defence of England, it was later given an English county title, and it was under this English county title that the regiment fought during the AZW, at both iSandlwana and Rorke's Drift. And although the regiment had its depot moved (by the government of the day), to the borders of south Wales in 1873, neither battalion had been to Brecon by the start of the AZW. There is also something else you are missing, why move a regiment with an English county title to the borders of south Wales, and at the same time move a regiment already in the borders of south Wales (43rd Monmouthshire) into an English county?

I say again, that altering history and making people into something that they were not, just for the sake of entertaining the uneducated, and that sacrificing fact for fiction just to get bums on seats, is totally wrong in my book. If these uneducated oafs who couldn't give a hoot about history want to watch fiction, then let them watch stuff like star wars or some other similar tripe. The film makers have no right to mess about with historical events and turn them into a load of fictional fantasy, just for the sake of entertainment and getting bums on seats, and making pots of money by sacrificing historical facts and peoples reputations.

You have got it wrong about the 69th. This was the old 2nd Battalion of the 24th foot, it was redesignated the 69th (later South Lincolnshire) regiment. It had NO connection whatsoever with Wales until 1881, when it was amalgamated with the 41st foot to become the Welch regiment.

You may also be interested to know that none of the antecedent regiments now forming the Royal Welsh are not actually Welsh regiments.

The 23rd was raised by Lord Herbert of Chirbury in Shropshire, and assembled in Ludlow, Shropshire.

The 24th was raised in Kent, and later became the 2nd Warwickshire regiment.

The 41st was raised as an invalids and Chelsea out patients regiment.

The 69th is explained above.

So, you see, the Royal "Welsh" is not really "Welsh" at all.

The name of the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment was in existence for much longer than the name SWB, however, it is always the SWB that gets credited with everything that the Noble 24th did prior to 1881, this is because of the myth created by Bakers Welsh ego, and the Welsh do not want the myth busting. The real name of the regiment that fought in the AZW is never mentioned, neither is its English origins, the Welsh do not want the truth to come out about how it was the 2nd Warwickshire regiment that fought the battle of Rorke's Drift, they would rather let the uninitiated public believe that it was a Welsh regiment called the SWB. You said in an earlier post that people wouldn't watch war films with you because you picked the bone out of all the inaccuracies, so why do you appear to condone all the inaccuracies in this film?

I don't think Hook was made out to be an alcoholic ? He broke open the brandy bottle before leaving the hospital but only took one swig .

Hi Gary .
That's true , he was made out to be a malingerer ( bludger / loafer ) . Reynold's does call him '' My Malingering Hector '' if I'm not mistaken .
Cheers 90th.

Yes , he also asked Reynolds for a drop of medicinal brandy before he lanced the boil but i think i would have done the same :lol: