Being an infrequently written and temporarily named column (until I think of something better) on topics related -- some however indirectly -- to the hobby of wargaming.
When Gladiator came to the cinema, I saw it within the first week. When the film came to cable television, I saw it twice more. And when the film was available on video, I rented it for yet another viewing. Let me assure the reader that I do not suffer from short- nor mid-term memory loss. I simply thought the film was very well done. Having an interest in Roman History - apparent by the collection of Colleen McCullough texts on my bookshelf - it was great to see some of that history brought to celluloid life. (Of course, the period of the film and the era of the texts are separated by quite a number of years, but still ... ) The first third of the film was more to my liking, actually. The latter parts of the film moved a little slowly with the obvious exceptions of the arena combat sequences. These I found supergraphic and gory, but then, wasn't that Rome? To be certain, the battle scenes in the woods of Germania were very powerful as well. (I was thinking that in some respects, they echoed the opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan.) In fact, the chance to review these scenes was the primary reason behind watching it on cable and renting it on video.
Not until the third viewing however, did I pay particular attention to the audio track, so wrapped up was I in the visual spectacle of cohorts advancing against a woodline held by barbarians. Being a sometime Ancients enthusiast, I was also very interested in the reconstruction of this kind of combat / warfare: what with the chieftain sounding like the Swedish Chef from The Muppet Show, but looking like something out of the mind of Tim Burton; and with Roman horse (heavy cavalry?) making a wide flanking maneuver and then charging through the same woods that were occupied by the Germanic horde. (I'd have to review my ARMATI and DBA rules, but I would hazard a guess that such action is pretty much "frowned upon.") Then there is the question of why the "Germans" did not wait to strike until the cohorts were negotiating the tree line.
But back to point. There was something very familiar about portions of the barbarian war cry / chant that I couldn't quite place. Then, on my fourth viewing, it finally dawned on me. What I was hearing was the tribal chant made by the Zulu warriors in that superb 1964 film, Zulu. I was at once embarrassed for not having recognized it straight away, and then fascinated and repulsed by the fact that it was used in a film made some 35 years later. (In my less serious and perhaps more sarcastic moments, I now think it would have been funny to see the Roman lines break into a stirring chorus in Latin? - of Men of Harlich. But then, this would have been a very much inside joke.)
Last month (July, 2001), I was fortunate enough to see (while thumbing through the TV guide) that PBS was beginning a series titled, "Science of the Dead." Normally, I tend to shy away from death, having seen quite enough of it when I worked in a Level 1 Trauma Center. However, as the concern of this particular episode of the series was the British defeat at The Battle of Isandhlwana, and, as I'm something - but only something - of a student of this war, I made sure my schedule permitted uninterrupted viewing.
The premise of the episode was revisiting the battle in order to figure out just what happened: to figure out how "primitive" warriors could best well-trained, wellarmed, red-coated soldiers in open battle. Ian Knight (a published historian of the conflict, and related to a great-uncle who fought and died on the very field) was the program commentator and "tour guide." There were a number of other professionals consulted and in attendance as well. These ranged from battlefield archaeologist (What a cool career that would be! And why weren't there any brochures on such a field at my high school for career day?!), to a botanist who specialized in South African flora. There were also several types of pathologists and other scientific personnel, like firearms experts, present. Most interesting, was an interview conducted with a Zulu medicine man, who also had a family connection to the battle.
The "accepted" history was examined, and in most every case, over turned. Theories and arguments were advanced on all fronts. The rate of fire of the English troops was analyzed; the sturdiness of the Martini-Henry rifle inspected. Battlefield markers were reviewed for accuracy and bones were uncovered that pointed to different deployments than those related in history texts. The "question" of ammunition supply/availability was examined too, and it was demonstrated that the average soldier could have broken open a box with the butt of his rifle. Therefore, no special tools were needed. Conditions as well as command and control were placed under a microscope; it being detennined that the lunar eclipse and smoke caused by the discharge of the Martini-Henry made it difficult not only to see the advance of the Zulu warriors, but to see friendly ranks in the fight. The lines were dispersed (placed in open order) in order to cover a greater frontage of the encampment. While this action initially prevented the line being flanked, it also served to weaken the volume of fire and strength in defense when engaged in close combat.
It appears that in addition to their "normal" level of ferocity, the Zulu warriors were even more prepared for the engagement. The medicine man commented on the practice of snorting or drinking certain concoctions prior to battle. The botanist confirmed this by analyzing some of the plant matter. In summary, the Zulus were intoxicated or "high." I've read so often the accounts of Western troops / units being fortified with an extra ration of brandy or two before marching into battle. It was quite interesting to be presented with evidence that this kind of activity took place in other cultures.
Overall, I thought the program was excellent. However, as sometimes happens with historical research, the program raised more questions than it provided answers. After the program concluded, I pulled The Zulu War: A Pictorial History, by Michael Barthorp from a shelf. Re-reading the chapter on Isandhlwana, I could find no mention nor reference to the lunar eclipse. This text reports the battle commencing at about mid day and ending a couple of hours later. I found several references to the effectiveness of the British fire power, as well as coverage of the involvement of the N.N.C. and Durnford's Horse. Curiously, the PBS program did not even mention any other troops than the English regulars. With respect to the question of fire power, the program's argument seemed to contradict itself. It was stated that when in closed ranks, the smoke from the rifles obscured the view. In the course of the engagement, the companies were spread out, and so, at least I would think, eliminated the problem associated with the black powder weapon. But there was no follow up in the program. There was however, some time spent on the action of the Martini-Henry. It was demonstrated that after a number of rounds (the exact number escapes me, but it was at least 12), the rifle tends to foul and so, jam.
Barthorp's book counts a British force total of 1253 troops, of which less than half, or approximately 597, were regular infantry. (50) Facing a host of some 20,000 Zulus, this gives a ratio of roughly 30 to 1. It was to prove a deadly ratio for the British camp. How odd then, that in a subsequent battle, that of Rorke's Drift, a ratio of roughly 40 to 1 in favor of the Zulus would result in a prolonged battle / siege, and a British victory.
The "theme" or situation of a small, professional garrison facing overwhelming odds was oft repeated in Diana Preston's excellent book, The Boxer Rebellion: The Dramatic Story of China's War on Foreigners That Shook the World in the Summer of 1900. As with the Zulu War of 1879, 1 am certainly just a part time student of international developments in China during the summer of 1900. In fact, I would admit that a lot of my knowledge of this particular conflict is based on the Hollywood movie, 55 Days at Peking.
By pure happenstance - and, as the publication date of her text indicates, a couple of years after it first appeared - I stumbled across her book on a recent trip to a local Barnes & Noble Bookstore. The next four days were spent in delicious seclusion from the horrid weather, devouring this wellresearched and well-written narrative. It was both fascinating and horrifying to read about the trials and tribulations of missionaries and their converts in late 19th century China. It was also very interesting to discover and read about the battles and sieges that took place outside of the Foreign Legation Quarter in Peking.
On pages 31 through 34 of MWAN issue 111, John Lloyd Retzer offers some starting points for the conduct of wargames of the Boxer Rebellion. Presently, I have just started a solo-campaign loosely based on the English Civil War. I am also thinking about a re-fight of The Battle of Shiloh, as I've re-read sections of Larry J. Daniel's masterful work. So, I find myself in a position of only thinking about the possibilities of wargaming this period. Having done an adaptation of the Fire & FuryC rules system, I'm thinking about looking at how it could be applied to wargames pitting the Boxers and Imperial troops against the Major Powers. However, with the numbers involved and terrain of most actions, I think a variation on The Sword and The Flame might be more readily completed.
Getting back to the text proper, I was fascinated (I know I keep using that word) to find out that future President Herbert Hoover and his wife Lou, were in Tienstin during the Summer of 1900. And then, leading a unit of Royal Navy "troops" (marines, sailors, etc.), was one Captain John Jellicoe. He later would co-command (along with Beatty, who was also in China at that time) the British fleet at Jutland in 1916. Finally, and prophetically, there was the overall Allied commander, one Field Marshal Count von Waldersee. He died less than five years after the Rebellion, with a feeling of a great war to come between Germany and Britain.
It's been quite some time since I've watched the movie starring David Niven and Charlton Heston. I could not help but think about the film and its perspective as I worked my way through Preston's text. (I would guess that Niven was Sir Claude MacDonald, the British Minister to Peking. There is some slight resemblance. As for Heston, well, my less certain guess is that he portrayed Captain McCalla, commanding the small detachment of United States Marines. There was also a love story between Heston and some supporting female lead, wasn't there?) In the course of the actual event(s), I was struck by how much of a leading role the female population of the Legation played. Women such as Polly Condit Smith and the ladies of the Squiers family are to be much admired.
Unfortunately, space constraints and a desire to hold the interest of the reader preclude my going into greater detail with respect to the depth of this book. For example, I'm leaving out mention of the "international gun"; the surprising fighting ability of the Japanese troops (not my assessment, but that of other troops and personalities who were there); the "silliness" of the politics involved (that is my assessment); and finally, the variety of ways in which one might prepare horse meat for consumption. However, for those who have seen and enjoyed the movie, and who have even the slightest interest in turn of the century "goings on" in China, I heartily recommend this scholarly work.
Back to MWAN #114 Table of Contents
Back to MWAN List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Magazine List
© Copyright 2001 Hal Thinglum
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com