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

Not sure if this is the right place to do this but, having followed all your remarkable posts for the past couple of years, my third novel, The Kraals of Ulundi, is due to hit the streets on 1st May. Some of my regular readers have offered to review an advanced PDF copy of the book and then post comments on or around publication date on Waterstones, Amazon - or anywhere else, for that matter. But I expect to find all my serious critics on here so, with heart firmly in mouth, wondered if anybody wants a peek??? Here's a link to my site...
website link
...and if anybody's interested, please e-mail me at: davemccall@talktalk.net

A Brave man indeed, 'Zulu Heart' revisited ? But good luck.

Regards

Ah, no, Springbok9. Zulu Heart is the alternative history novel about slavery in America, isn't it?? And Zulu Hart is the novel by Saul David about Isandlwana?? Anyway, mine picks up the story of the war where Michael Caine left off. Or, to be more precise, at Khambula

Sorry: Zulu Hart, obviously that forgettable.

Good luck with yours, your filling a void.

Regards

Well, I'm ashamed to say that I never read it but...

Hope its goes well Ebsworth. Possibly harder to write this type of book, than one where sources are readily available, in the archives.  

Thanks, Impi. Found some nice resources though - the translation of Paul Deléage's End of a Dynasty and the various works on William Hunt's (Farini's) Zulu shows at the Westminster Aquarium, etc

Hiya Ebsworth, with your mentioning
Deleage's work, i take it the P.I. will
feature in your book?. cheers.
xhosa2000

oh! and does your avatar reveal an interest
in the saga of the P.I.

Oh yes. I didn't think I could write about the Second Invasion with giving him at least a mention. Carey too, of course. And what are you doing in Manchester???

Well that has certainly piqued my interest, i will look out for it!.

what are you doing in Manchester???...er i was born and bred here!
lived in london for a few year's, back in the day. cheers xhosa

Thanks Xhosa. I worked in Salford for 12 years before I retired so spent most of my days in Manchester. Loved it! Though, as a Scouser, I'm not sure I'm allowed to admit that :) The Waterstones Arndale store normally lets me do a launch event there too so will let you know if I get one for Kraals

That almost makes you an honoury Manc!
you admitted it because your a scouse!
not back ward in coming forward you lot   

No probs, and your launch is just around
the corner, i have been known to haunt
both the arndale and the deansgate shops.
cheers xhosa

http://www.davidebsworth.com/page17.html

Dave was this the link, you meant to post!

Praise for The Kraals of Ulundi: “This is well-researched and solid historical fiction – a very worthwhile project.” Adrian Greaves, Anglo-Zulu War Historical Society and author of The Tribe That Washed Its Spears.

Nice one Dave, Pete. sounding promising!.

Welcome Ebsworth and good luck with the book , fiction isnt my cup of tea but I'm sure you'll get many readers .
Cheers , 90th.

Admin wrote:

http://www.davidebsworth.com/page17.html

Dave was this the link, you meant to post!

Thanks Admin. That's the page for the book itself but the original post worked OK too, since clicking on "website page" also takes you to the Home Page of my site and the Book Trailer

And thanks to 90th for the best wishes!

Kraals of Ulundi
I decided to take David up on his offer and he kindly sent me a copy of the book to read through and comment on.
So for better or worse here we go.
Im not a fan of historical fiction, unfortunately fiction tends to get blended with fact and get accepted as history. We have seen that to often in this ‘little Victorian War’, TWOTS is a classic example, historians are today still trying to correct some of the errors in that particular volume.
That being said, Davids book is an extremely good read. He hasn’t taken to many literal liberties with history and on the whole has gone to some extraordinary lengths to achieve accuracy.
His lead characters are fictional but slot into the main context seamlessly, and without to much of a stretch of the imagination.
He has filled in some gaps in the known history with some very plausible explanations, and has taken the trouble to point out where fact differs from fiction.
The book flows and reads extremely easily, the multiple story lines blend and finish well, the main actors are rounded and ‘live’. The background is real and vivid, the torture scene is enough to curl toes, plus other parts of the body.
Overall I had problems putting the book down and finished it in the early hours of the morning. Really a cracking good read and without doubt is not a cure for insomnia.
Does it overcome my earlier objections to Historical fiction? Yes it does. Emphatically.
Would I recommend it? Yes I would.
Congratulations David I hope you reap the success you deserve and I assume my cheque is in the post !   

Regards

Frank Allewell

Yes, of course. How much did we settle on in the end, Frank?

Seriously, I very much appreciate your comments and the time you took to read the book. HF is always difficult if you want (a) to get "the topic" to a wider audience; (b) to avoid upsetting the aficionados too much; and (c) to try and get some new perspectives on the story. In this case, while I might share the rest of the Forum's fascination with Isandlwana and Rorke's Drift, I had become increasingly miffed by the neglect shown by fiction writers to the rest of the conflict, and thought this deserved to be recified - at least, so far as I was able. Fiction writers haven't really bothered much, either, with the "Zulu" perspective. But that meant "testing" the story with some Zulu readers too and, fortunately, comrades in Durban have helped with that. So far it's been "thumbs up" from that direction too. Which brings me to the Forum's aficionados. The fact is that I have taken some modest liberties with the history but I've tried to highlight those in the Author's Notes and explain why I chose them. And then there are always going to be, first, simple mistakes that I just haven't spotted or, second, a few issues which are open to "dispute" - not least of which the still unresolved issue of a definitive meaning for "Isandlwana." All the same, I have done "the best that I can" and hope that a few of the other Forum comrades might also enjoy it. At the very least, I can see us all sharing many happy hours, within these pages, arguing about the content   

I too have a copy, haven't had time to read it yet, but thanks for your review Springbok.

I too have a copy, haven't had time to read it yet, but thanks for your review Springbok.

Its going to be interesting to see if you pick up the same points I did. David has made some changes by the way.
Cheers Pete

Springbok's right, of course. Anybody with a copy has the version before it went to the publisher but, as always happens, I guess, a couple of gaffs became apparent while we were going through the proofs - and hence the changes. But if anybody who's already agreed to review it would like the "final" version, please e-mail me again (davemccall@talktalk.net). Hope everybody's OK meanwhile

From my point if view, possibly one of the best books written, when it comes to weaving fact with fiction. The story stars  in March 1879 which is out of the norm, considering the two most talked about Battles were Jan.  Must admit found myself being captivated and no thought of missing pages to get to the end.  impressively researched, and highly readable. 

Possibly the mind-set of Rider Haggard, The  Anglo-Zulu War in Fact and Fiction. 

Great book David a Joy to read. Certainly would recommend. 

Can't tell you how much these comments mean to me. There are bound to be folk in the Forum who have perfectly justifiable criticisms of Kraals but if, overall, it's judged to be broadly passable by Forum members, I couldn't be more chuffed if I won the Booker Prize :)

Like Frank and 90th, I am not a fan of historical fiction, as Frank says, it tends to get blended with facts and then get accepted as being 'factual' history.

One need look no further than Baker's 1964 Film 'Zulu', in which the factual 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment which defended RD, have been relegated to the small print or excluded altogether in some places. These brave (mainly Englishmen), and the name of their regiment have been almost forgotten and replaced by a welsh myth as a result of Baker's almost fictional film.

The film also blackened the name of a very upstanding soldier who was awarded the VC, this brave Englishman being Henry Hook, who was portrayed in the film as being a loutish, gambling, no good, boozing, shirker, who only made an effort when the Zulu's broke into the hospital, his family walked out of the film in disgust at the way he was portrayed.

Best to keep fiction out of historical facts, it can lead to the fiction creating a myth, and eventually the myth replaces the truth, and you end up with the fictional version replacing the historical facts, as in the case of the Noble 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment of foot.

Morning MArtin
Now why didn't that come as a surprise ?   
   Cheers MAte

By the way David, I took the time to read the book again. It really is as Pete says above. Again, well done.

Cheers

Thanks Frank. Glad it stood up to a second reading. The thread about historical fact v. historical fiction is an interesting one for me, of course, Martin. The real shame for me about the film Zulu, by the way, is that actually the factual story is far more dramatic than the cinema version, and I have to agree that there is some appalling historical fiction. But I'd also have to (gently) point out that there is also a lot of very bad non-fiction written as "history". Leave aside the fact that most historians are only "interpreting" source documents themselves, or how many times no definitive interpretation exists (the manner of Pulleine's death; the level of culpability for Isandlwana between Durnford, Pulleine and Chelmsford; Carey's culpability for the Prince Imperial's death, etc, etc) when I'm researching novels I'm always astonished by how many times historians simply "get it wrong." And often on subjects that you'd assume to be definitively researched, such as the sequence of events during Napoleon's Hundred Days campaign - but actually there are appalling discrepancies even there. In defence of historical fiction writers, at least we are always keen to point out to readers that we've written "fiction in a historical setting" whereas a fair few historians (present company excluded, naturally!!!!) tend to publish their work as somehow unassailable. Finally, I think that there is this special place for historical fiction in the sense that, if we love our subjects (like this one) then we should also love extending it to the widest possible audience - and a huge amount of people who would really enjoy knowing more about the Anglo-Zulu War will simply not pick up a work of non-fiction to do so. Historical Fiction, so long as it is "good" HF, can fill that gap. And here's my best example. I remember, as a kid, reading a short account of the Dreyfus Affair. It rivetted me and I wanted to find out more but, over the years, the various "histories" covering the subject have simply been too dry and heavy (for me) to give me any deep understanding. Then along comes Robert Harris with An Officer and a Spy - for me, one of the best historical fictions ever written. Beautiful piece of work that will bring the "facts" of the Dreyfus story to a thousand times more people than the historians collectively will ever do!

Mr M. Cooper wrote:

Like Frank and 90th, I am not a fan of historical fiction, as Frank says, it tends to get blended with facts and then get accepted as being 'factual' history.

One need look no further than Baker's 1964 Film 'Zulu', in which the factual 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment which defended RD, have been relegated to the small print or excluded altogether in some places. These brave (mainly Englishmen), and the name of their regiment have been almost forgotten and replaced by a welsh myth as a result of Baker's almost fictional film.

The film also blackened the name of a very upstanding soldier who was awarded the VC, this brave Englishman being Henry Hook, who was portrayed in the film as being a loutish, gambling, no good, boozing, shirker, who only made an effort when the Zulu's broke into the hospital, his family walked out of the film in disgust at the way he was portrayed.

Best to keep fiction out of historical facts, it can lead to the fiction creating a myth, and eventually the myth replaces the truth, and you end up with the fictional version replacing the historical facts, as in the case of the Noble 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment of foot.

Even the well known Zulu war Historians rely on fiction, when it comes to summing up what took place at Isandlwana after the last Europeans and Colonials soldiers left! 

Without the odd fictional book, nothing else could be written on the Battle of Isandlwana. Any book that contains fiction based on facts can only be good to keep this interesting subject alive. 

"Even the well known Zulu war Historians rely on fiction"   

impi, surely the best known AZW historians rely on prime sources for their work, and also time lines are used to corroborate events.

The overwhelming use of 'licence' (fiction), that was used in Baker's film was far too much, and very unhelpful to the memory of the actual regiment and the actual men that heroically defended RD. Most ordinary people who have watched the film have come away thinking that the regiment and its men were welsh, and this fiction has become a myth which has become the 'norm' for most of those who have watched the film. When historical events and facts are replaced by fictitious 'licence' for the sake of getting bums on seats or making lots of money, then the true historical facts become secondary or hidden, and the fiction takes over from the facts, and this cannot be right.

Hmmm! Be interested to know what primary sources they used regarding the end of the Battle? Mentioned by Impi.

And I would be interested to know which "well known zulu war historians rely on fiction".

Genuine historians have to try to piece together witness accounts and put them in a time frame to see if they all fit in and corroborate the events near the end of the battle. Many witnesses can witness the same event and all can come up with different versions, some do it to cover their own tracks, others see things differently because they have viewed it from another vantage point, while others see things that they can only assume what has happened, or at the time it only looked to be that way. Written witness accounts have to be read very carefully to see if they match up with other written accounts, and some of those that fled the scene have to show themselves in a better light and may well have added things that never actually happened. So the genuine historians/researchers have quite a lot on their plate to get to the bottom of things before they can make public their work, jumping to conclusions is not the way to go.

Well, personally I always assume that readers/viewers are reasonably intellingent enough to know when they're reading fiction/watching a movie, as opposed to reading history/watching a documentary. I watched Zulu for the first time when I was fourteen, and never assumed for one minute that I was watching a factual account any more than when I'd seen Errol Flynn die at the Little Big Horn with his boots on! But I did go out and buy Donald Morris almost immediately afterwards. I'm not saying that a lot of people would have done the same - but I bet there were a fair few Zulu War afficionados who've trodden the same path. I think it's probably true that a lot of people think of the 24th as a "Welsh" regiment, but maybe that's also got a lot to do with the location of the very fine regimental museum. And at least the myth wasn't perpetuated in the 1979 Zulu Dawn (actually, I came away from that one thinking they were all Cockneys). And if there is a myth about the regiment being Welsh, it's not a myth that denigrates them, is it?? It was a British regiment, after all. If anything, the wickedness of the film is the way, as Martin says, that it denigrates poor Henry Hook. That was down to scriptwriters John Prebble and Cy Endfield, of course - and the former, as a historian himself, should certainly have known better.

"All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental"

It's ok assuming that readers/viewers are reasonably intelligent enough to know what is fact and what is fiction, the problem is,,,,,,,, many of them are not, and since 1964 many gullible people have believed what is shown and said in the film, and this has resulted in the myth that was caused by all the false welshness and fiction in the film.

Many websites often quote that the regiment was a welsh regiment and that the defenders were mainly welsh, obviously these places have not done any research to find out the facts or the truth, they just follow what has become the norm and perpetuate the myth caused by the film. This has resulted in the memory of the factual mainly Englishmen and the factual 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment taking a back seat and being replaced by a fictitious welsh regiment with fictitious welsh characters, and this, in my opinion, is an insult to the memory of the actual men and the actual regiment that defended RD. Baker knew what he was doing when he made the film, he had an anti English chip on his shoulder and made the film in such a way so has to make it appear that it was an all welsh affair, and this false myth still goes on today.

Zulu Dawn did still perpetuate the false welsh theme with the Williams characters and the M o H music and other details in the film, however, it was not as blatant as it was in Zulu, but even so, the film had a lot of errors in it, and both films should be remade.

I have nothing against fiction, what I do object to is mixing fiction with fact, because this can result in the fiction taking over from the fact and lead to history being altered, and this cannot be right, all one asks of history is the truth, but if the truth is hidden behind a wall of fiction and myth, it takes a lot of research by renowned historians to sort out the wheat from the chaff, and there is one hell of a lot of chaff in Baker's film.

Yes, the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment was, in my opinion, wrongly re-located to Brecon, however, by the start of the AZW neither battalion had ever been there. Proper research would have shown these facts, but Baker ignored all this and went along with the pretence that the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment was a welsh regiment, it was even stated that it was called the swb, when in actual fact the swb did not exist until two years after the AZW.

Since the film, the name of the Noble 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment has almost been erased from the pages of history and replaced by the swb, yet the regiment held this title for the best part of 100 years, longer than any other title in its entire history, this is no way to treat the honour and memory of the brave men that served, fought and died in the regiment with the line number and title of the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment. They deserve justice and recognition for their glorious deeds and battle honours, not just a mention in the small print or being written as just the 24th foot leaving the reader to assume that this was the line number of the swb (which it never was), this is what mixing fiction with fact can lead to.

John
That's not quite true, whilst the 'hero's' are fictitious the characters places and events are fact. Ive made it quite clear that I enjoyed the book, and Davids motives are well and truly above board, but Martin has a very valid point and its something I discussed with David before reading the book and my reticence with fact based fiction influencing history.
We have seen many many times on this forum alone how a small piece of disinformation can promote hugely rancorous debate.

Cheers

In America it is? Get out clause   

Thanks for the leg up springy, and you are correct, fact based fiction should never influence history, but in the case of the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment it seems to have taken over.

Just check some of the web sites, the name of the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment has been totally ignored and replaced by the swb, some sites even saying that the Duke of Marlborough was the swb's colonel, which is totally false as the name swb did not even exist until 1st July 1881, and that was two years after the AZW. It is as though the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment never existed at all, yet it held this title longer than any other title in its entire history, what a dishonour to the memory of the brave men that fought in its ranks.

One thing is for sure, the Noble 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment of foot, will never be forgotten in this household, and that is a fact, not fiction.

The 2nd / 24th Warwickshire regiment doesn't exsist anymore. But their battle honours stay with the new regiment.

Write fictional accounts. Facts Looks bad in the newspapers and upsets civilians at their breakfast.

Well, if it's any consolation at all, each of the presentations and launches I've been asked to do during the rest of this year in relation to The Kraals of Ulundi are broadly on the theme of "The Zulu War, Fact and Fiction" and, since this year marks the 50th anniversary of what I shall now forever call The Baker Film (I'll probably do so in the same way that we sometimes refer to The Scottish Play), I have naturally chosen to start with the fiction in that movie. Incidentally, I suppose I must concede the point made by many in relation to "fiction influencing history" particularly because it's Shakespeare's plays that have so entirely warped the view of entire generations about 15th century English history. But, that aside, by my reckoning, the presentations and launches are likely to give me a chance to debunk some of the AZW myths with several hundred folk face to face, hopefully in the same way as so many of the KZN battlefield tours. And, likewise, it also gives me a chance to talk about some of the many other heroes of that unique conflict, including the heroism of the Zulu regiments.

Don't get sucked in to portraying Ntshingwayo as a brilliant military strategist.

Cheers

springbok9 wrote:

Don't get sucked in to portraying Ntshingwayo as a brilliant military strategist.

Cheers

That's an interesting comment. Was he not then?

Hi Ray
Look closely at his conduct, almost gets his impi discovered on the 21st, same again morning of the 22nd. Has loose regiments swanning around over the plateau all morning of the 22nd. Moves his men out of cover to the headwaters of the Ngwebini and gets discovered by Raw. Looses total control chasing Raw et al and then looses 10 to 15% of his force to a numerically inferior force? The impi was very very close to actually giving up.
Then he losses total control of the right horn.
Hardly a brilliant general. Hes given far to much credit, up against a man like Wood or Buller he would have been in serious trouble Im afraid. He was lucky that Chelmsford split the force and he was up against Pulleine.
Just my opinion, and probably likely to get severely chastised for it.
    

Then of course, he managed to get 30,000 plus Zulus into a valley, under the noses of the British.

Your quite right Mr G, but how much was luck rather than Judgement? And outright stupidity from the imperial forces.
The only piece of tactical nous deserving of credit was attacking from the North rather than the expected South or East and don't forget there were two commanders so we don't know whos idea that was.

Cheers

David.

It seems that you will get many opportunities to debunk 'The Baker Film' with your theme of 'The Zulu War, Fact and Fiction'. I am very glad about this, as it will at least make several hundred people more wiser, and in some way help to give back the honour to the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment and its mainly Englishmen which was stolen from them by 'The Baker Film'. The more people that are informed about the true facts regarding the defence of RD the better, as it will help to keep the good name of the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment alive and hopefully also help to put right the wrong which was done by 'The Baker Film'.

'The Baker Film' will always be a classic, it got many people interested in the AZW, however, it also discredited the 24th (2nd Warwickshire) regiment and glorified a welsh regiment that did not exist during the AZW thus creating the welsh myth. It is a good job that I was not working for the board of film censors in 1964, because this fiction would never have been passed, makes me wonder if at the time the board consisted of all welsh members?

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