The epitamy of british history and military lies.

O'Leprosy

Watched a programme on the History channel about the Battle of Isandlwana in 1879 where a Zulu army defeated a british force. This battle was 10 times larger than the defence of Rourke's Drift (made famous in the movie Zulu).

850 british were killed at the battle. 50 escaped. The excuse given by the british was that their was a shortage of ammunition and with the sheer mass of Zulus the brave chaps were finally over run.

But this event was dwarfed by the black propaganda regarding the supposedly tenacious defence of Rourke's Drift .I've often wondered about the truth of this alleged titanic defence. And now it turns out that this fortunate incident happened just after they got a hiding from a bunch of mere 'savages' the day before.........A fine example of british history and military lies.

Eleven Victoria Crosses were awarded to defenders of Rorke's Drift for alleged actions carried out, the most ever received by a regiment for a single action. One of the VC winners later shot himself in his garden chasing imaginery Zulus. Another died in a workhouse in Manchester shouting " the Zulus are trying to get me". Another a corporal died in poverty many years later on a ship to England, his only possession was his VC. I suppose they had outlived their usefullness, and were treated with the same indifference that the british ruling class have for their own ordinary people or anyone else.

Two officers were rewarded Victoria Crosses for Isandlwana after fleeing the battle supposedly to save the regiment's colours. On hearing this, another officer publicly stated " It is monsterous trying to make heros out of those who tried to save their own skin while bolting".

A mega issue was made out by the british media of the fact that the Zulus went round cutting open the stomachs of the dead british soldiers after the battle. However as a descendant of the Zulu king said, it was Zulu practise to do this even with their own people as they believed it realised the dead persons soul. Ofcourse nothing was said about the british soldiers baynetting 100's of wounded Zulus to death at Rourke's Drift - a fact also conveniently left out of the film.

Rourke's Drift - the epitamy of british history and military lies.

DublinWriter

O'Leprosy wrote:

Two officers were rewarded Victoria Crosses for Isandlwana after fleeing the battle supposedly to save the regiment's colours. On hearing this, another officer publicly stated " It is monsterous trying to make heros out of those who tried to save their own skin while bolting".

There's a lot of controvesy and argument surrounding a lot of the early VC awardees as the criteria for awarding it became much tougher in the 20th century.

Mick86

O'Leprosy wrote:

Watched a programme on the History channel about the Battle of Isandlwana in 1879 where a Zulu army defeated a british force. This battle was 10 times larger than the defence of Rourke's Drift (made famous in the movie Zulu)..

The legends surrounding the Battle of Islandwana have pretty much been discredited of late. Not least by programs on the History Channel.

There was no shortage of ammo. Historians armed with metal detectors have found bits of ammo box and spent cartridge cases galore at the site. Enough to prove that lack of ammunition wasn't the cause of the defeat. The defenders of the British camp at Isandlwana were spread too thin on the ground and the Zulus overcame them by weight of numbers. Also Chelmsford, the commander of the Army, split his forces and led the main body off into the wilds of Zululand.

I don't see how the Defence of Rorke's Drift can be considered a bunch of lies. The facts are that a little over 100 men held the place for 24 hours against overwhelming odds. It was natural for the British to make much of that battle to counteract the defeat of the previous day. I can't see the problem with awarding VCs to men who quite probably earned them. Incidentally they weren't all from the same Regiment. Seven awardees were men of the 24th Foot but Lt Chard was a Royal Engineer, Commissary Dalton was in the Army Commissary Dept, Cpl Schiess was in the Natal Native Contingent and Surgeon Reynolds in the Army Medical Dept. Nor is 11 the most for any battle, 19 were awarded for the Battle of Inkerman. The subsequent fates of the men who participated has no bearing on the battle itself. However they didn't all end as failures, Colour Sergeant Bourne was commissioned and made it to the rank of Colonel. He was stationed in Dublin during the Great War and he died in 1944.

The two officers who got Victoria Crosses having fled the battlefield of Isandlwana were Lts Melville and Coghill. They were amongst the first posthumous winners almost 30 years after the battle. The VC could not be awarded posthumously in 1879.

The Zulus did cut open the bodies of their dead enemies to let their spirits free of the body. What is natural to a Zulu is blasphemy to us. And the British did massacre many Zulus but then the Zulus weren't taking many prisoners either.

And it's epitome not epitamy.

DublinWriter wrote:

There's a lot of controvesy and argument surrounding a lot of the early VC awardees as the criteria for awarding it became much tougher in the 20th century.

There weren't so many bravery awards around back then. For instance the Military Medal and Military Cross only came into being in 1915.

O'Leprosy

Mick86 wrote:

The legends surrounding the Battle of Islandwana have pretty much been discredited of late. Not least by programs on the History Channel.

There was no shortage of ammo. Historians armed with metal detectors have found bits of ammo box and spent cartridge cases galore at the site. Enough to prove that lack of ammunition wasn't the cause of the defeat. The defenders of the British camp at Isandlwana were spread too thin on the ground and the Zulus overcame them by weight of numbers. Also Chelmsford, the commander of the Army, split his forces and led the main body off into the wilds of Zululand.

I don't see how the Defence of Rorke's Drift can be considered a bunch of lies. The facts are that a little over 100 men held the place for 24 hours against overwhelming odds. It was natural for the British to make much of that battle to counteract the defeat of the previous day. I can't see the problem with awarding VCs to men who quite probably earned them. Incidentally they weren't all from the same Regiment. Seven awardees were men of the 24th Foot but Lt Chard was a Royal Engineer, Commissary Dalton was in the Army Commissary Dept, Cpl Schiess was in the Natal Native Contingent and Surgeon Reynolds in the Army Medical Dept. Nor is 11 the most for any battle, 19 were awarded for the Battle of Inkerman. The subsequent fates of the men who participated has no bearing on the battle itself. However they didn't all end as failures, Colour Sergeant Bourne was commissioned and made it to the rank of Colonel. He was stationed in Dublin during the Great War and he died in 1944.

The two officers who got Victoria Crosses having fled the battlefield of Isandlwana were Lts Melville and Coghill. They were amongst the first posthumous winners almost 30 years after the battle. The VC could not be awarded posthumously in 1879.

The Zulus did cut open the bodies of their dead enemies to let their spirits free of the body. What is natural to a Zulu is blasphemy to us. And the British did massacre many Zulus but then the Zulus weren't taking many prisoners either.

And it's epitome not epitamy.



There weren't so many bravery awards around back then. For instance the Military Medal and Military Cross only came into being in 1915.

Fair enough comments Mick, I'd still be very skeptical about the whole thing. Other soldiers held out against an enemy for 24 hours or more, didn't get showered with medals though.

Copper

I find that accounts of British military history by British historians are generally cringeworthy. Very few British historians are impartial in their accounts of British defeats and most glorify their victories and blow them out of all proportions.

For example, if you compare accounts of the Napoleonic Wars (in which Britain was constantly humiliated) by British historians and American historians they would differ greatly. Programmes and books by British historians focus on the relatively insignificant battle of Waterloo. This is because they were on the winning side. Rarely do you see accounts of the coalitions 60 odd defeats, or of battles which changed history, such as Austerlitz, purely because Britain was on the losing side.

Fratton Fred

O'Leprosy wrote:

Watched a programme on the History channel about the Battle of Isandlwana in 1879 where a Zulu army defeated a british force. This battle was 10 times larger than the defence of Rourke's Drift (made famous in the movie Zulu).

850 british were killed at the battle. 50 escaped. The excuse given by the british was that their was a shortage of ammunition and with the sheer mass of Zulus the brave chaps were finally over run.

But this event was dwarfed by the black propaganda regarding the supposedly tenacious defence of Rourke's Drift .I've often wondered about the truth of this alleged titanic defence. And now it turns out that this fortunate incident happened just after they got a hiding from a bunch of mere 'savages' the day before.........A fine example of british history and military lies.

Eleven Victoria Crosses were awarded to defenders of Rorke's Drift for alleged actions carried out, the most ever received by a regiment for a single action. One of the VC winners later shot himself in his garden chasing imaginery Zulus. Another died in a workhouse in Manchester shouting " the Zulus are trying to get me". Another a corporal died in poverty many years later on a ship to England, his only possession was his VC. I suppose they had outlived their usefullness, and were treated with the same indifference that the british ruling class have for their own ordinary people or anyone else.

Two officers were rewarded Victoria Crosses for Isandlwana after fleeing the battle supposedly to save the regiment's colours. On hearing this, another officer publicly stated " It is monsterous trying to make heros out of those who tried to save their own skin while bolting".

A mega issue was made out by the british media of the fact that the Zulus went round cutting open the stomachs of the dead british soldiers after the battle. However as a descendant of the Zulu king said, it was Zulu practise to do this even with their own people as they believed it realised the dead persons soul. Ofcourse nothing was said about the british soldiers baynetting 100's of wounded Zulus to death at Rourke's Drift - a fact also conveniently left out of the film.

Rourke's Drift - the epitamy of british history and military lies.

and your point is?

tell me what country glorifies defeat? it is only natural for an army to concentrate on victories rather then their defeats, especially when publc opinion for oveseas campaigns was very important, the Napoleaonic wars being a good example.

Fratton Fred

Copper wrote:

For example, if you compare accounts of the Napoleonic Wars (in which Britain was constantly humiliated) by British historians and American historians they would differ greatly. Programmes and books by British historians focus on the relatively insignificant battle of Waterloo. This is because they were on the winning side. Rarely do you see accounts of the coalitions 60 odd defeats, or of battles which changed history, such as Austerlitz, purely because Britain was on the losing side.

from Wikipedia

The Battle of Waterloo, fought on 18 June 1815, was Napoleon Bonaparte's last battle. His defeat put a final end to his rule as Emperor of France. The Battle of Waterloo also marked the end of the period known as the Hundred Days, which began in March 1815 after Napoleon's return from Elba, where he had been exiled after his defeat at the battle of Leipzig in 1813.

After Napoleon returned to power, many countries which had previously resisted his rule began to assemble armies to oppose him. The principal armies of Napoleon's opponents were commanded by the United Kingdom's Duke of Wellington, and Prussia's Gebhard von Blücher. These armies were close to France's north east frontier, and Napoleon chose to attack them rather than wait for them to cross into France.

While the campaign hung in the balance for most of its duration, the decisive battle became the Battle of Waterloo. Allied forces, under Wellington, withstood a final French attack, and counter-attacked while the Prussians, arriving in force, broke through on Napoleon's right flank.

and that is insignificant because....?

mike65

O'Leprosy = troll?

Mike.

Fratton Fred

mike65 wrote:

O'Leprosy = troll?

Mike.

I have seen little to think otherwise :rolleyes:

mike65

I reckon he sits at the pc with only the glow of a candle-lit tricolour typing words like British Bastards Oppression Ireland Colonial into google!

Mike.

Mick86

O'Leprosy wrote:

Fair enough comments Mick, I'd still be very skeptical about the whole thing. Other soldiers held out against an enemy for 24 hours or more, didn't get showered with medals though.

Yes but those soldiers weren't coming off the back of a really, really bad defeat. And it became harder and harder to earn the award as time went by- only one was awarded on D-Day for instance. Undoubtedly the British government needed a good PR story and Rorke's Drift was it.

Copper wrote:

I find that accounts of British military history by British historians are generally cringeworthy. Very few British historians are impartial in their accounts of British defeats and most glorify their victories and blow them out of all proportions.

Yes, when you consider the impartiality of Irish historians discussing our own history, the British are absolutely shocking.

Copper wrote:

For example, if you compare accounts of the Napoleonic Wars (in which Britain was constantly humiliated) by British historians and American historians they would differ greatly. Programmes and books by British historians focus on the relatively insignificant battle of Waterloo. This is because they were on the winning side. Rarely do you see accounts of the coalitions 60 odd defeats, or of battles which changed history, such as Austerlitz, purely because Britain was on the losing side.

I've never heard anyone refer to Waterloo as insignificant before and the British did not participate in Austerlitz. When did all these British humiliations take place? There was the Corunna debacle but after that the Brits basically won all their battles in the Peninsula. They beat the French in Egypt. Nelson made a hobby out of defeating the French.

Erin Go Brath

mike65 wrote:

O'Leprosy = troll?

Mike.

O'Leprosy raises an interesting, and valid point about propaganda. All you do is come on call him/her a troll. :rolleyes:

mike65 = troll, sounds more accurate to me.

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote:

O'Leprosy raises an interesting, and valid point about propaganda. All you do is come on call him/her a troll. :rolleyes:

mike65 = troll, sounds more accurate to me.

but it is not an attempt at raising an interesting point about propoganda, it's another pathetic anti British post.

odonnell

im sorry about this and i always try to have something constructive to say when posting in response to a thread but this time you will have to forgive me for being a little angered by this thread.

To ME, this looks like nothing more than another piece of Brit bashing wrapped up in a large dose of disrespect for people who have died. You may not like the British, you may not like British history, but what gives you the right to go tearing it to shreds and poking at it from your comfortable chair?

Its very easy to take ANY major battle ever fought and turn it on its head - so why is the zulu war the epitome of "British Lies"??? Dont you know that history is written by the victor, and often until 50 years ago, hardly ever written at all (we didnt have BBC war correspondents in Africa im sure) - so lets not pick to pieces something which A) didnt involve us, and was too long ago for us to really know what was going on in that day, motives, incentives, political situations etc etc....

Seriously - this is nothing more than a bit of Brit Bashing mate... Im sure Ireland has its fair shair of querky stories, and dodgy reports to buck up public opinion. But seriously - correct me if im taking this all wrong - is this genuinely about propoganda and a bit of thigh slapping? If it is - why the seering title mate - theres a lot of British people on these boards.

Zambia

I would have prefered the post to be called "What actually happened at Roukes Drift"

Because it does sound a little Brit bashing but we will move on...

Besides were the Soldiers at Roukes Drift Primarily Welsh ?

odonnell

I think they were primarily Welsh yes...

....but thats still British you know, and for anyone here who doesn't know - English does NOT = British, and when people go on a misguided English bashing tirade - they offend a lot of us whos ancestors and relatives have died in the wars who aren't English.

Zambia

odonnell wrote:

I think they were primarily Welsh yes...

....but thats still British you know, and for anyone here who doesn't know - English does NOT = British, and when people go on a misguided English bashing tirade - they offend a lot of us whos ancestors and relatives have died in the wars who aren't English.

I agree

And i was actually mistaken the regiment was actually staffed by Engilish troops...the film appears to be mistaken

odonnell

Zambia232 wrote:

I agree

And i was actually mistaken the regiment was actually staffed by Engilish troops...the film appears to be mistaken

Where did you read that mate? As i understand it it was indeed predominantly Welsh troops? But there were various regiments there - engineers, foot, sappers etc...

Fratton Fred

odonnell wrote:

I think they were primarily Welsh yes...

....but thats still British you know, and for anyone here who doesn't know - English does NOT = British, and when people go on a misguided English bashing tirade - they offend a lot of us whos ancestors and relatives have died in the wars who aren't English.

so English bashing is fine, but Brit bashing is not

odonnell

Fratton Fred wrote:

so English bashing is fine, but Brit bashing is not

knew youd pick up on that.... :rolleyes:

You get my point though im sure! Just trying to point out that its a double jeopardy insult to go Brit Bashing when you dont actually know who youre bashing you know?

Fratton Fred

odonnell wrote:

knew youd pick up on that.... :rolleyes:

You get my point though im sure! Just trying to point out that its a double jeopardy insult to go Brit Bashing when you dont actually know who youre bashing you know?

I get your point, no problem.

Zambia

odonnell wrote:

Where did you read that mate? As i understand it it was indeed predominantly Welsh troops? But there were various regiments there - engineers, foot, sappers etc...

True I thought so to

Due to the film Zulu, many people believe that the defenders of Isandlwana and Rorke's Drift were Welsh. In fact the Regiment did not begin to recruit Welsh soldiers primarily until a decade after the end of the Zulu War. Most of the men were in fact English as corrected in the film Zulu Dawn.

from this article in wiki I will research that further as we all know wiki is not infalible , if we find it false i will dispute it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Isandlwana

odonnell

Zambia232 wrote:

True I thought so to

Due to the film Zulu, many people believe that the defenders of Isandlwana and Rorke's Drift were Welsh. In fact the Regiment did not begin to recruit Welsh soldiers primarily until a decade after the end of the Zulu War. Most of the men were in fact English as corrected in the film Zulu Dawn.

from this article in wiki I will research that further as we all know wiki is not infalible , if we find it false i will dispute it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Isandlwana

Nice one mate, good digging. I know they renamed two of the units to Welsh units some time after the event, but I just as soon assumed it was a welsh based regiment historically - you know, much like the old Argyle and Sutherland Highlanders, the Black Watch etc...

The movies eh?

Erin Go Brath

I'm sure i'll be pilloried by some for my views on the Anglo-Zulu War, and for offending British sensibilities. I don't mean to come across as an English/Brit Basher either, but this war it seems to me is just another in a long list of British Imperialist/Colonialist greed wars.

Reasons behind the Anglo-Zulu War:

Taken from http://www.kwazulu.co.uk/home.html
"The war was provoked by an unwarranted act of British aggression. The Zulu kingdom had first emerged early in the nineteenth century, with its heartland lying along the eastern seaboard of southern Africa, north of modern Durban. Within a few years, British adventurers were attracted to Zululand in search of trade and profit, and by the 1840s a British colony - Natal - had sprung up on the southern borders of Zululand. By the 1870s, the British had begun to adopt a 'forward policy' in the region, hoping to bring the various British colonies, Boer republics and independent African groups under common control, with a view to implementing a policy of economic development.

The British High Commissioner in South Africa, Sir Henry Bartle Frere, believed that the robust and economically self-reliant Zulu kingdom was a threat to this policy. In December 1878 he picked a quarrel with the Zulu king, Cetshwayo kaMpande, in the belief that the Zulu army - armed primarily with shields and spears - would soon collapse in the face of British Imperial might."

Victorian crosses can be awarded to whoever. I'm sorry but I've no sympathy for the British trying to expand their empire by contriving illegal wars. Squaring up to locals with their powder guns, while locals have to defend themselves with bows and arrows. Again, I'm not meaning to offend any English or British person on these boards. I'm just displaying my abhorrence of these wars that come about because of greed primarily!

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote:

I'm sure i'll be pilloried by some for my views on the Anglo-Zulu War, and for offending British sensibilities. I don't mean to come across as an English/Brit Basher either, but this war it seems to me is just another in a long list of British Imperialist/Colonialist greed wars.

Reasons behind the Anglo-Zulu War:

Taken from http://www.kwazulu.co.uk/home.html
"The war was provoked by an unwarranted act of British aggression. The Zulu kingdom had first emerged early in the nineteenth century, with its heartland lying along the eastern seaboard of southern Africa, north of modern Durban. Within a few years, British adventurers were attracted to Zululand in search of trade and profit, and by the 1840s a British colony - Natal - had sprung up on the southern borders of Zululand. By the 1870s, the British had begun to adopt a 'forward policy' in the region, hoping to bring the various British colonies, Boer republics and independent African groups under common control, with a view to implementing a policy of economic development.

The British High Commissioner in South Africa, Sir Henry Bartle Frere, believed that the robust and economically self-reliant Zulu kingdom was a threat to this policy. In December 1878 he picked a quarrel with the Zulu king, Cetshwayo kaMpande, in the belief that the Zulu army - armed primarily with shields and spears - would soon collapse in the face of British Imperial might."

Victorian crosses can be awarded to whoever. I'm sorry but I've no sympathy for the British trying to expand their empire by contriving illegal wars. Squaring up to locals with their powder guns, while locals have to defend themselves with bows and arrows. Again, I'm not meaning to offend any English or British person on these boards. I'm just displaying my abhorrence of these wars that come about because of greed primarily!

You are right, the Zulu wars were typical British colonialism, but everyone was at it in those days and whilst that is no excuse, it is one of the reasons why the British were there in the first place. If it had not been the British, it may well have been the French, the Dutch or the Belgians.

Victoria Crosses are awarded for acts of bravery in the face of the enemy. Soldiers do not decide who the enemy is, that is down to politicians. Defending wounded men rather than fleeing was pretty brave in the first place, then the following acts, evacuating the hospital etc sound worthy of recognition in my opinion.

odonnell

Erin Go Brath wrote:

I'm sure i'll be pilloried by some for my views on the Anglo-Zulu War, and for offending British sensibilities. I don't mean to come across as an English/Brit Basher either, but this war it seems to me is just another in a long list of British Imperialist/Colonialist greed wars.

Reasons behind the Anglo-Zulu War:

Taken from http://www.kwazulu.co.uk/home.html
"The war was provoked by an unwarranted act of British aggression. The Zulu kingdom had first emerged early in the nineteenth century, with its heartland lying along the eastern seaboard of southern Africa, north of modern Durban. Within a few years, British adventurers were attracted to Zululand in search of trade and profit, and by the 1840s a British colony - Natal - had sprung up on the southern borders of Zululand. By the 1870s, the British had begun to adopt a 'forward policy' in the region, hoping to bring the various British colonies, Boer republics and independent African groups under common control, with a view to implementing a policy of economic development.

The British High Commissioner in South Africa, Sir Henry Bartle Frere, believed that the robust and economically self-reliant Zulu kingdom was a threat to this policy. In December 1878 he picked a quarrel with the Zulu king, Cetshwayo kaMpande, in the belief that the Zulu army - armed primarily with shields and spears - would soon collapse in the face of British Imperial might."

Victorian crosses can be awarded to whoever. I'm sorry but I've no sympathy for the British trying to expand their empire by contriving illegal wars. Squaring up to locals with their powder guns, while locals have to defend themselves with bows and arrows. Again, I'm not meaning to offend any English or British person on these boards. I'm just displaying my abhorrence of these wars that come about because of greed primarily!

Mate - I would never, for one, be offended by what you just said, or by any other opinion expressed in ernest on any historical event. You neednt walk on egg shells - surely you see the point we are trying to make regarding the OP. I do get offended when a thread is quite blatantly nothing to do with a balanced and well-read opinion, but more obviously a 'here's another horrible/stupid/arrogant/etc. thing them swines did, therefor i can feel ok about hating them so much'. Because thats how the OP reads.

Now, i realise we are on an Irish based forum and that this should be expected to a certain degree - but should that make it ok?

I agree with you by the way - Whilst not my favourite period of UK history, having a very flimsy knowledge of it, I would be hard pressed to say I see the 'right' in what Britannia was doing in those days. Everyone seemed to be at it for sure, and no thats no excuse - but its a different time, and should be judged under different standards to todays. Conquest was a way of life back then wasnt it? Ive got no sympathy for ANY aggressor - but Im Scottish, and I like to think a balanced view can win-out - and in the end all conquest got anyone was trouble in the long run. Look at the Spanish, the Dutch, The French, The Germans, The Romans, The Greeks, The Egyptians, etc... !!

On the point of the OP, to bring this back to normal - throughout history there have been bias reports and downright lies for various reasons. Propaganda is (in the modern world) a type of warfare, and also a vote-winner. TV culture makes us eas targets for false reporting and advertising, They did it with Nam, they did it with WWII, WWI, and no doubt they did it in the days of Queen Vic. Before that the christians did it everywhere they went (one famous piece of text portrays the authors anger at witnessing a pictish ascension ritual involving the new tribal leader having sex with a horse which then formed a strong basis for fearing the picts as devil worshippers at the time), etc. So false reports are nothing new and everyone does it. Why pick on the British and make this one event the epitome???? British history is all bad, and full of military lies is it?

And let me also point out - a wounded cow or horse is put out of its misery - why would ANY military force in the world NOT bayonette an injured / mortally wounded soldier of the opposing force? Dont try to use every single angle of armed conflict as a case against the British mate - there is such a thing as context, and I doubt youve ever seen battle to tell us how YOU would act.

Fenian

Dont try to use every single angle of armed conflict as a case against the British mate - there is such a thing as context

Being Irish we know all too well how the British act during armed conflicts, as do many other nations.
The British have very few qualms about using any method to secure victory. Yet when the opposing side uses your own methods they're "terrorists" and "gunmen".
I'm a Republican, and make no apologises for it. So my views and opinions are quite biased. Yet I do try to look at things from both sides.
That said, if you look at some of the actions by the British military through the centuries, you'll find some of the most despicable acts of barbarism ever inflicted on another human being.
I can understand how British people might look at those acts and excuse them, for whatever reason. Just like I excuse some of the IRA's atrocities.

SpitfireIV

Fenian wrote:

Just like I excuse some of the IRA's atrocities.

I'm a Republican, and make no apologises for it. So my views and opinions are quite biased. Yet I do try to look at things from both sides.

If you can excuse some of the atrocities carried out by the IRA then you obviously arent looking at history from both sides, why would you choose to 'excuse' them anyway?? Murder is murder whether carried out by an Irish or British gun (or bomb in this case).

Mick86

Zambia232 wrote:

Besides were the Soldiers at Roukes Drift Primarily Welsh ?

No. Before 1881 the association of a regiment with a particular area was unofficial and meaningless. So while the 24th Foot afterwards became the South Wales Borderers, in 1879 it was actually linked with Warwickshire.

Of the VC winners-

Chard, Bromhead, Allen, Hitch, Hook, William Jones and Dalton were English.

Robert Jones and John Fielding were Welsh.

Surgeon Reynolds was Irish.

Cpl Schiess was Swiss.

Other notable participants,

Clr Sgt Bourne- English

Pte Roy- Scottish

Wheeler Cantwell-Irish

Rev George Smith- English

Driver Robson- English

Assistant Commissary Dunne-Irish

Storekeeper Byrne-Irish

Clr Sgt Maybin-English

Sgt Henry Gallagher-Irish

Pte John Jobbins-Welsh

Pte Evan Jones-Welsh

Pte George Edwards-English

Drummer James Keeffe-English

Other defenders had foreign sounding names like Patrick Desmond, William Horrigan, Thomas Barry, Thomas Burke, Thomas Buckley, Thomas Collins, John Connolly, Anthony and Timothy Connors, Thomas Driscoll, John Fagan, James Hagan, William Halley, Michael Kiely, Thomas Lynch, two John Lyons, Cpl McMahon, John Meehan, John Murphy, John Scanlon and Michael and Patrick Tobin.

I wonder why the film didn't portray the Rev Smith at all. He played a prominent part in the action, passing out ammunition and warning the lads about their foul language.:D

Erin Go Brath wrote:

I don't mean to come across as an English/Brit Basher either, but this war it seems to me is just another in a long list of British Imperialist/Colonialist greed wars. .....

Of course it was.

That said the French, Germans, Belgians, Dutch, Italians and Americans managed to extend and maintain their empires with due regard to the human rights and dignity of the people whose land they were stealing. Which is why they hardly ever get a mention from the anti-imperialists.

Fenian

CroppyBoy1798 wrote:

If you can excuse some of the atrocities carried out by the IRA then you obviously arent looking at history from both sides, why would you choose to 'excuse' them anyway?? Murder is murder whether carried out by an Irish or British gun (or bomb in this case).

Justify would of been a better word to use.
I said I try to look at things from both sides.
Do you think the United Irishmen who fought in 1798 were murderers?
They killed people. What makes them so different from the people who continue the fight?

Bomb in what case?

I justify/excuse the killings because I believe that it's the only way to unite the island and break the connection with Britian.
Many people justify killing in order to defend the sovereignty of their nation, and in my opinion if you don't agree with that then having croppyboy as your nick is a disgrace to the people who died in 1798.
Or maybe you just like the clothes and weapons they used, not their ideals.

Don't turn around and say that the modern day Republicans are any different from Republicans back then, because they are the same. They are/were both willing to kill other human beings in order to achieve something they believed in.
I can also understand why the Yeomen fought against them.
The Republicans wanted freedom, the Yeomen wanted oppression.
See, I do try and see things from both sides.

SpitfireIV

Fenian wrote:

Do you think the United Irishmen who fought in 1798 were murderers?
They killed people. What makes them so different from the people who continue the fight?

I dont think 1798 can in anyway be compared to the situation today, or the past 30 odd years. The late 18th century was a very different time. The reign of terror and opression which was commonplace throught the country from 1796 onwards was brutal, an opression which drove people to arms as they had no other choice, either wait and be shot in your bed or take to the hills and fight. As I said it was a different time, now there is goverment in place, opportunities to sit and work out agreements over the table, as people we have moved on.

1798 was about establishing a republic for all religions and creeds, Catholic, Prodestant etc etc. Today its stupid mindless hooliganism, tit for tat killings and organised crime.

So how do the glorious ideals of todays 'freedom fighters' of today compare with those of the leaders of '98??


Do I think they were murders? Yes, of course they were, they killed, but they didnt target civilians, they didnt carry out wanton acts of murder, or carry out a religious war, targeting prodestants etc. It cant be denyed that there were cold blooded murders carried out, and the deaths at Scullabouge, but 1798 was NOT a religious war!

.....in my opinion if you don't agree with that then having croppyboy as your nick is a disgrace to the people who died in 1798.
Or maybe you just like the clothes and weapons they used, not their ideals.

Having CroppyBoy as nickname is a disgrace? Why, because I couldnt give a damn or a care for a bunch of drug running murders up North?? Let me tell you if the leaders of 1798 could see what was going on in Ireland today they would turn in there graves. It is THEY who carrying on this senceless fight and bigottery who shame the leaders of '98 and there ideals. I'm only too well aware of the bloodshed, murder, deaths and terror that was inflicted before, during and after the rebellion, so you neednt tell me matey that my name is a disgrace to them, you couldnt be further from the truth!

Sure, there is no denying I like the cloths, weapons, tales, folklore etc etc, is it not ok to just have an interest in that? Can my area of interest not be limited to that particular period without having to believe in ideals of an organisation, or a fight that I have no belief in?? I also have an interest in Michael Collins....again, doesnt mean that I'm a staunch die hard republican or a 'free stater' as some republicans would like to brand you, I enjoy learning about Michaels life....nothing more.

I am not a 'Republican' in the scence of the word, I believe in my country, I'm proud to be Irish, I enjoy its history and culture. I dont however believe in, or have any regard for any para military movement or the likes that promote death and destruction as there means of achieving 'freedom', Nothern Ireland will never be part of a 'United Ireland', we are never going to kick the British out, end of story.

So if 1798 has thought me anything, its that armed struggle is not the way forward, easy to say that with hindsight of course.

odonnell

Fenian wrote:

Being Irish we know all too well how the British act during armed conflicts, as do many other nations.
The British have very few qualms about using any method to secure victory. Yet when the opposing side uses your own methods they're "terrorists" and "gunmen".
I'm a Republican, and make no apologises for it. So my views and opinions are quite biased. Yet I do try to look at things from both sides.
That said, if you look at some of the actions by the British military through the centuries, you'll find some of the most despicable acts of barbarism ever inflicted on another human being.
I can understand how British people might look at those acts and excuse them, for whatever reason. Just like I excuse some of the IRA's atrocities.

Mate, i KNOW the overpowering Irish sentiment toward the 'British' and have been on the receiving end of quite a few tirades against me personally just because Im Scottish - and im not talkin in the forums, im talkin in the pub, in a car park, in Dunnes for crying out loud - and to me it seems that a lot of you boys tend to dwell. Now im not saying its an excuse (or as you rightly pointed out - justification may be a better term), or justification for how the imperialist UK went about its business - but you have to remember here - they are NOT and never have been the only ones, nor the worst of the bunch to go about on a path of conquest. Im sorry but your tales of barbarism probably couldnt come CLOSE to some of the tales of Roman, Egyptian, Greek conquest - then we look at the Japanese and the Germans during WWII - ultimately brutal even to their prisoners, then we look at the Americans and good old 'native americans' ...

So i mean, it isnt REALLY the case that the British are one of the worst or most brutal as you like to see them at all! There have been far worse and a longer line of aggressive nations in this world without threads which seem to be nothing more than a finger pointing excercise. Seriously - this is nothing more than a thread by a guy who seems to me, to dwell on anything anti-british ... Sorry O'Leprosy but you do seem to do this mate... and I for one, whilst Scottish and not too sure if your beef is with the British or the English here - I still dont like it.

Irish and British history is another matter entirely - what gives any of you the right to start poking a stick at British conflicts for the sake of saying "oooh they are just all liars i tell you, liars!!!....and and and theyre BRUTAL!! theyre BRUTAL!!!!! look at what they did to those poor zulus... the germans would never have done that..."

surely you can see why id get annoyed at this sort of approach no?

odonnell

[edit] this posted twice for some obscure boardsie reason

Zambia

I concur with the Scot... Start a new thread if you wish to debate the history of the IRA.

Erin Go Brath

odonnell wrote:

Mate, i KNOW the overpowering Irish sentiment toward the 'British' and have been on the receiving end of quite a few tirades against me personally just because Im Scottish - and im not talkin in the forums, im talkin in the pub, in a car park, in Dunnes for crying out loud - and to me it seems that a lot of you boys tend to dwell.

Just to start, I'm sorry to hear about the grief you've been getting. It's just a small minority of idiots I'm sure. Everywhere has them unfortunately.

On the dwelling on the past point; it's more complicated. You have to remember the shabby way Britain has treated Ireland for centuries to get to the root of this. The Plantation of Ulster, the Penal Laws, the Act of Union, Britain's foreign policy during the Great Famine 1845-1850 which resulted in the death of 1 million Irishmen, and the emigration of another million, the murder of our 1916 heroes, the Black and tans, the artificial partitioning of our country, bloody sunday, treatment of 1981 hunger strikers, collusion with loyalist terrorists, the list goes on and on. You can hardly blame Irishmen for mistrusting our near neighbours because of all thats happened, some of it in the recent past. The fact that 6 of our counties still remains in British jurisdiction is also a factor.

odonnell wrote:

it isnt REALLY the case that the British are one of the worst or most brutal as you like to see them at all! There have been far worse and a longer line of aggressive nations in this world

I agree with you here to an extent. In global terms there has been many powerful nations throughout the centuries, which plundered smaller and weaker nations, committing terrible atrocities. The Romans, Egyptians and Greeks in their day as you point out would certainly give the British empire a run for their money in the barbarity stakes.
However, none of them invaded us, and oppressed us for centuries so we probably let them off the hook more in that respect.

odonnell wrote:

what gives any of you the right to start poking a stick at British conflicts for the sake of saying "oooh they are just all liars i tell you, liars!!!....and and and theyre BRUTAL!! theyre BRUTAL!!!!! look at what they did to those poor zulus... the germans would never have done that..."

surely you can see why id get annoyed at this sort of approach no?

Anybody has the right to stand up and say and unjust conflict in unjust. We, as Irish people know too well from our history what it means to be oppressed, and thus we clearly would have an affinity with smaller oppressed nations of the world. Britains history of lies, propaganda, and brutality is well documented for all to see!

Fratton Fred

Mick86 wrote:

That said the French, Germans, Belgians, Dutch, Italians and Americans managed to extend and maintain their empires with due regard to the human rights and dignity of the people whose land they were stealing. Which is why they hardly ever get a mention from the anti-imperialists.

Ask the people of Portugal how their human rights were during the occupation by Napoleons armies. Take a look at the history of the Hugenots as well. They had a rather significant involvement in something called the slave trade as well.

Germany, well, do we need to get into that

Belgium, check out Roger Casement's report on their antics, he was quite vocal on the subject.

Italy, I'm sure there is something to do with the Romans, I can;t quite remember. The old Venetians were a pretty brutal bunch as well.

America, I'd call the attempted genocide and forced rehoming of entire tribes of people a bit of a slight on their human rights.


It happened all over the world, it was the way the world was back then. The Romans were at it, the Turks, the Greeks, Hannibal was a bit of a rogue in his day as well.

odonnell

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Just to start, I'm sorry to hear about the grief you've been getting. It's just a small minority of idiots I'm sure. Everywhere has them unfortunately.

On the dwelling on the past point; it's more complicated. You have to remember the shabby way Britain has treated Ireland for centuries to get to the root of this. The Plantation of Ulster, the Penal Laws, the Act of Union, Britain's foreign policy during the Great Famine 1845-1850 which resulted in the death of 1 million Irishmen, and the emigration of another million, the murder of our 1916 heroes, the Black and tans, the artificial partitioning of our country, bloody sunday, treatment of 1981 hunger strikers, collusion with loyalist terrorists, the list goes on and on. You can hardly blame Irishmen for mistrusting our near neighbours because of all thats happened, some of it in the recent past. The fact that 6 of our counties still remains in British jurisdiction is also a factor.


I agree with you here to an extent. In global terms there has been many powerful nations throughout the centuries, which plundered smaller and weaker nations, committing terrible atrocities. The Romans, Egyptians and Greeks in their day as you point out would certainly give the British empire a run for their money in the barbarity stakes.
However, none of them invaded us, and oppressed us for centuries so we probably let them off the hook more in that respect.



Anybody has the right to stand up and say and unjust conflict in unjust. We, as Irish people know too well from our history what it means to be oppressed, and thus we clearly would have an affinity with smaller oppressed nations of the world. Britains history of lies, propaganda, and brutality is well documented for all to see!

I think thats fair enough mate...i really see where you, and a lot of people with the same sentiments as yourself, are coming from. But this is a curious one for me to really have a non-bias view on. Obviously i understand the animosity which is all but bred into you - the same thing exists in Scotland through thousands of years of conflict with our uhmm, southerly neighbours!

So i get that and thats cool... and I have no quam whatsoever disecting military history or otherwise - where i DO draw that line nowadays bud, is when the topic is started not as a legitimate conversation starter - but as an excercise in brit bashing. I often envisage someone sitting around chalking up just another reason to hate people from the UK.

soldering iron

There was no shortage of ammo. Historians armed with metal detectors have found bits of ammo box and spent cartridge cases galore at the site. Enough to prove that lack of ammunition wasn't the cause of the defeat. The defenders of the British camp at Isandlwana were spread too thin on the ground and the Zulus overcame them by weight of numbers. Also Chelmsford, the commander of the Army, split his forces and led the main body off into the wilds of Zululand.

The historians who reenacted the battle also found the ammunition box screws where bent a right angles, indicating that the boxes where broken open with a rifle butt.The rifle that were use also had a tendency to jam if over heated,when the rifles jamed the front riflemen and they fell back to the next line.It is also speculated that the first of the Zulu warrior that charged the british Army line, where to some degree on something (what i do not know) this substance enhanced the bravery of the warrior with his spear/shield.
The british goverment of the time did commit some atrocities, and showed total disregard for al fellow humans , but that is history.

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote:

On the dwelling on the past point; it's more complicated. You have to remember the shabby way Britain has treated Ireland for centuries to get to the root of this. The Plantation of Ulster, the Penal Laws, the Act of Union, Britain's foreign policy during the Great Famine 1845-1850 which resulted in the death of 1 million Irishmen, and the emigration of another million, the murder of our 1916 heroes, the Black and tans, the artificial partitioning of our country, bloody sunday, treatment of 1981 hunger strikers, collusion with loyalist terrorists, the list goes on and on. You can hardly blame Irishmen for mistrusting our near neighbours because of all thats happened, some of it in the recent past. The fact that 6 of our counties still remains in British jurisdiction is also a factor.

Ironic that you give examples of British propaganda, then quote republican propaganda in reply.

Maybe you could give an explanation of the following, or is this more propaganda. (From Wikipedia, so it may not be unbiased)

The number of Protestants killed in the early months of the uprising is the subject of debate. Early Parliamentarian pamphlets claimed that over 100,000 settlers had lost their lives. In fact, recent research has suggested that the number is far more modest, in the region of 4,000 or so killed, though many thousands were expelled from their homes. It is estimated that up to 12,000 Protestants may have lost their lives in total, the majority dying of cold or disease after being expelled from their homes in the depths of winter. The general pattern around the country was that the violence of the attacks intensified the longer the rebellion went on. At first, there were beatings and robbing of local Protestants, then house burnings and expulsions and finally widespread killings, most of them concentrated in Ulster. In one notorious incident, the Protestant inhabitants of Portadown were taken captive and then massacred on the bridge in the town. In County Armagh, recent research has shown that about 1,250 Protestants were killed in the early months of the rebellion, or about a quarter of the Protestant population.

Modern historians have stressed that the massacres of 1641 had an overwhelming psychological impact on the Protestant settler community. Whereas before the Rebellion, inter-communal relationships had been improving, after it, many Protestants in Ireland took the attitude that the native Irish Catholic community could never be trusted again. This attitude led many settlers to take merciless reprisals on Catholics when they got the chance, particularly in 1642-43 when a Scottish Covenanter army landed in Ulster. Massacres of Catholic civilians or prisoners in 1641-42 occurred at Kilwarlin woods near Newry, Rathlin Island, Glenmaquinn near Strabane and elsewhere. In addition, the English Parliament passed an Ordinance of No Quarter against the Irish rebels, meaning that prisoners were to be killed when taken. William Lecky, the 19th century historian of the rebellion, concluded that, "it is hard to know on which side the balance of cruelty rests".

The widespread killing of civilians was brought under control to some degree in 1642, when Owen Roe O'Neill arrived in Ulster to command the Irish Catholic forces and hanged several rebels for attacks on civilians. Thereafter, the war, though still brutal, was fought in line with the code of conduct that both O'Neill and the Scottish commander Robert Munro had learned as professional soldiers in continental Europe.

In the long term, the cycle of massacres initiated in 1641 polarised Irish politics along sectarian lines. The effects of this can still be seen, particularly in Northern Ireland today. The bitterness created by the massacres of 1641 proved extremely long lasting. Ulster Protestants commemorated the anniversary of the rebellion on every October 23 for over two hundred years after the event. Images of the massacres of 1641 are still represented on the banners of the Orange Order. Even today, the killings are thought of by some as an example of attempted genocide. In fact, if the figure of 12,000 deaths is accurate, this would represent less than 10% of the British settler population in Ireland, though in Ulster the ratio of deaths to the settler population would have been somewhat higher.

I am not using this as an excuse, or to justiy the actions of the British, what I prefer to do is look for reasons and try and get them in context of the events of the day.

Mick86

Fratton Fred wrote:

Ask the people of Portugal how their human rights were during the occupation by Napoleons armies. Take a look at the history of the Hugenots as well. They had a rather significant involvement in something called the slave trade as well.

Germany, well, do we need to get into that

Belgium, check out Roger Casement's report on their antics, he was quite vocal on the subject.

Italy, I'm sure there is something to do with the Romans, I can;t quite remember. The old Venetians were a pretty brutal bunch as well.

America, I'd call the attempted genocide and forced rehoming of entire tribes of people a bit of a slight on their human rights.


It happened all over the world, it was the way the world was back then. The Romans were at it, the Turks, the Greeks, Hannibal was a bit of a rogue in his day as well.

I was trying to be sarcastic.

Fratton Fred wrote:

I am not using this as an excuse, or to justiy the actions of the British, what I prefer to do is look for reasons and try and get them in context of the events of the day.

It's possible that up to 1/3 of the Rorke's Drift garrison wasn't British at all. There were about thirty men with Irish names present.

Fratton Fred

Mick86 wrote:

I was trying to be sarcastic.

Phew. Sarcasm is best spoken I find.

Mick86 wrote:

It's possible that up to 1/3 of the Rorke's Drift garrison wasn't British at all. There were about thirty men with Irish names present.

Who, at the time of the Zulu wars, were considered by the British to be British. Many people conveniently forget the Irish presence in the British Army. Not all Ulstermen either.

Erin Go Brath

Fratton Fred wrote:

Ironic that you give examples of British propaganda, then quote republican propaganda in reply.

Its not republican propoganda though. It's historical fact. Are you denying Britains role is the said atrocities?

Typical British propaganda i'm referring to is stuff like telling the world that Britain is invading a country for the good of the poor backward savages that reside within. Whereas in reality, it generally was for their own ends, bolstering the empire.

Not sure where your going with the wiki excerpt about the 1641 massacre

csk

Fratton Fred wrote:

Who, at the time of the Zulu wars, were considered by the British to be British. Many people conveniently forget the Irish presence in the British Army. Not all Ulstermen either.

Just on the point of Irish people in the British Army and since someone else mentioned Napolean. Over 33% of Wellington's Army was Irish so its fair to say t if it wasn't for us Irish we would all be speaking French now.:D

Although most Irish people "conveniently forget" for good reason the Irish presence in the British Army. Most Irish people entered the British Army out of economic reasons not for the "Queen and Empire" Victorian romanticism that some people (not saying you) like to hint at.

Irish people are usually against the naked imperialism that went hand in hand with the British Army. Quite reasonable one would imagine seeing as they have been on the receiving end up until relatively recently.

csk

As for the toic at hand. I don't see the problem. All Governments Armies etc. use spin and propaganda. Why would they highlight a major loss like Isandlwana?

Especially given the context of the time where the British would not have spat on a zulu if he was on fire as the saying goes. Indeed weren't they referred to as "Fuzzy wuzzies" (or was that a different set of Natives?). British people looked down on Zulus as less than Human so its only natural they would not advertise a major loss.

Fratton Fred

csk wrote:

As for the toic at hand. I don't see the problem. All Governments Armies etc. use spin and propaganda. Why would they highlight a major loss like Isandlwana?

Especially given the context of the time where the British would not have spat on a zulu if he was on fire as the saying goes. Indeed weren't they referred to as "Fuzzy wuzzies" (or was that a different set of Natives?). British people looked down on Zulus as less than Human so its only natural they would not advertise a major loss.

that's not fair, it wasn't just the Zulus (and it wasn't just the British).

Racism was big in those days. Slavery had not long been abolished and to most europeans, Africans were just savages.

csk

Fratton Fred wrote:

that's not fair, it wasn't just the Zulus (and it wasn't just the British).

Racism was big in those days. Slavery had not long been abolished and to most europeans, Africans were just savages.

Context of the time yadda yadda yadda. Still doesn't make racism right nor Imperialism for that matter.

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Its not republican propoganda though. It's historical fact. Are you denying Britains role is the said atrocities?

Typical British propaganda i'm referring to is stuff like telling the world that Britain is invading a country for the good of the poor backward savages that reside within. Whereas in reality, it generally was for their own ends, bolstering the empire.

Not sure where your going with the wiki excerpt about the 1641 massacre

bringing civilisation to the world:rolleyes: I know, it's not exactly factual but it serves a purpose, a bit like "800 years of British oppression". Little more than just rallying cries to the troops.

The purpose of the Wiki post (and after looking further, I realise it is a piece of strong unionist propoganda, it was not my intention to use it in the way Paisley et al do) is to demonstrate that there is two sides, conveniently forgotten when the purpose serves.

You can talk of the plantations, but not mention the murder of thousands of people? that's not exactly a balanced view.

You can tak of the murder of the 1916 heroes, but to you they are heroes, to some they are nothing more than traitors. Besides, their executions did more for a free Ireland than the Rising ever did.

The famine we have talked to death.

The penal laws were not aimed at Ireland, they were aimed at Catholics, wrong though they were, I do not think they should be used as an example of Britains oppression in Ireland.

bloody Sunday was an appalling massacre, even more shocking is that no one has been brought to account for it.

The Hunger strikers, to you they were heroes, to me they were nothing more than terrorists trying to manipulate a government.

we can go forever, but lets try and get this balanced and into context.

Fratton Fred

csk wrote:

Context of the time yadda yadda yadda. Still doesn't make racism right nor Imperialism for that matter.

fwiw, I agree.

csk

Fratton Fred wrote:

You can tak of the murder of the 1916 heroes, but to you they are heroes, to some they are nothing more than traitors. Besides, their executions did more for a free Ireland than the Rising ever did.

Not to get into this again but that's not necessarily true. The Rising and the executions cannot be separated.

Fratton Fred

csk wrote:

Not to get into this again but that's not necessarily true. The Rising and the executions cannot be separated.

it was not my intention seperate the two.

Erin Go Brath

Fratton Fred wrote:

You can talk of the plantations, but not mention the murder of thousands of people? that's not exactly a balanced view.

Who decided on the plantation, and caused the conflict in the first place? Do remind me. :rolleyes:

Fratton Fred wrote:

You can tak of the murder of the 1916 heroes, but to you they are heroes, to some they are nothing more than traitors.

Yeah they were traitors.......................to the crown.

Fratton Fred wrote:

The penal laws were not aimed at Ireland, they were aimed at Catholics, wrong though they were, I do not think they should be used as an example of Britains oppression in Ireland.

The penal laws are a perfect example of British oppression in Ireland. Coming over here trying to inflict a new made up religion on people, and persecuting them for sticking to their original beliefs. That's oppression in any language.

Fratton Fred wrote:

bloody Sunday was an appalling massacre, even more shocking is that no one has been brought to account for it.

Yes it was.

Fratton Fred wrote:

The Hunger strikers, to you they were heroes, to me they were nothing more than terrorists trying to manipulate a government.

I know we've done this one in a previous thread, but Maggie Thatcher turning her back on citizens in her jurisdiction was not just irresponsible, but sickening.