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.