Zulu Movie Myths

Another 'mistake' or omission in the film is the local South African Cavalry who refuse to stand and fight with them. Firstly they were Black African troopers not white as shown in the film. They did stay and fight but broke almost immediately the Zulu appeared.

What is shown in the film (as the cavalry stream by not by the pleas of a Swedish missionary) are the African infantry fleeing as well but what is not is their European NCO's ran as well or that the redcoats opened fired upon them as they ran killing at least one-- as it happens a European NCO.

Another film myth is Commissary Dalton is shown as 'upper class' pen pusher who can not handle his rifle in reality he was ex senior NCO reemployed because he knew how to deal with civilian contractors who'd try to 'rob the army blind' and all the ticks of the Quartermasters.

As a civilian he was initially refused a VC but there was uproar among the defenders because he was at the heart of the defence, indeed some historians give him the credit and not Chard of organising the defence ( I think a little unfairly but Dalton was at the centre of things).

A true episode is when he calmly asks "Pot that fellow somebody" it is reported he said that as a Zulu was about to kill him but not because he didn't know how to use his rifle but rather he had a blockage and was a sign of his calmness. He then cleared it and kept up an accurate fire (think he was an ex instructor).

As for fighting to the end, considering the place and time, this is quite believable. White men out on the High Veldt. Yes, not much chance of survival with all those Zulus about. This wasn't, after all, a typical European battlefield with all kinds of armies and uniforms mucking about. Surviving on your own was nearly impossible. Certainly better to hang together and try to fight it out.

I believe that was also the motivating factor in the Foreign Legion stand at Cameron. Unless you could pass for a Mexican, and even this was subject to challenge to verify that you were on the right side, it was better to fight for as long as you could.

Originally posted by Mountain Man A classic film, as is its companion epic Zulu Dawn about the defeat at Islandwhana.

I didn't like that film even less accurate than Zulu.

redcoats break and run? bullshit they formed rally companies and fought to the end.

Even the companies caught in line with no chance to form square formed pathetic little groups back to back-- at least that's what the Zulu said.

Originally posted by Kevinmeath I am not sure I would go along with 'decent types' but certainly no worse or better than anyone else.   They didn't take prisoners-- what do you want a prisoner for? but niether did the British   They killed wounded found but so did the Boers and the British.   They 'washed spears' to be part of the 'kill' so it can be seen as a mark of respect.

I guess there were practical reasons for such butchery: killing a helpless enemy prevents him recovering and killing you

I am not sure I would go along with 'decent types' but certainly no worse or better than anyone else.

The Zulus were brave warriors, but i never understood why they butchered the wounded. A helpless enemy posed no threat to them

Originally Michael Caine was going to play Hook. But the director took one look at him and cast him as an officer

Regardless of its imperialistic message, i enjoyed Zulu. It's a bit like a British western

The helmets of the British soldiers wouldn't have been white. They were dyed with tea to make the wearer less of an easy target

The gap between hollywood and historical accuracy, in general, is legendary in most occasions. That the good curator is pointing that out is not a serious threat to the valor of heroism on both sides that day. Matter of fact I ken his pain.