It was 135 years ago today...

Snickers Man

Come see the Yanks lose one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFjdz2bRHRg

PatsytheNazi

Snickers Man wrote: »

Come see the Yanks lose one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFjdz2bRHRg

And don't forget when the good guys won at Isandlwana in 1879 !!!!!!

Surely it's time we denounced the men from Ireland who served in these land grabbing, genocidal armies - instead of laying wreaths to them and have church services on Rememberance Sunday etc

Manach

God rest the men who died, especially those of Irish descent: irishsoldiers.html

goose2005

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

And don't forget when the good guys won at Isandlwana in 1879 !!!!!!

Surely it's time we denounced the men from Ireland who served in these land grabbing, genocidal armies - instead of laying wreaths to them and have church services on Rememberance Sunday etc

In fairness the Zulus were also land-grabbers and genocidal.

"Although the numbers and geographical extent of the killings during Shaka's reign have been exaggerated by many white commentators, there is little doubt that Shaka (and his successor, Dingane, who ruled during the period from 1828 to 1840) did order the extermination of large numbers of people, including innocent civilians. Some of this killing was ordered out of personal vindictiveness, but even that done "for reasons of state" could still be considered genocide. Like other perpetrators of genocide, both Shaka and Dingane targeted whole categories of people for elimination, including at various times all the subjects of the Ndwandwe, Mthethwa, Langeni, Thembu, and Qwabe kingdoms. On the other hand, Shaka and Dingane did not always ruthlessly pursue such objectives to their logical conclusions, but rather relented and even incorporated some of their former enemies as full-fledged subjects of the Zulu kingdom. Over time, many of Shaka and Dingane's victims, or at least their descendants, not only forgave and forgot, but even came to identify themselves as Zulus."

gbee

Isandlwana in 1879 was a monumental disaster for the British Forces. Saved only by the spectacular stand off at Rourke's Drift. Several Irish in that too, one got a medal.

Custer was also a monumental failure, ignored intelligence, refused to believe the enemy was as strong or could organise a mass attack.

He disobeyed orders, left two Gatling guns behind, carried only individual issues of munitions, failed to wait for reply which would have said he was on his own, chose an indefensible position, was attacked immediately and routed ~ no 'last stand' it was just a few individual soldiers running, stopping and firing.

Only a small force of soldiers but up any resistance, the majority were killed on the run without returning fire.

All the corpses were mutilated in disgust by the victors, except Custer.

Many lessons were learnt, the importance of communications, intelligence and good munitions. The army had been slow to adopt the newer repeater rifles, preferring the more power and longer range single shot weapons they had.

Which is why Custer chose an otherwise stupid position as he was expecting to lay fire from a greater distance but the speed of the response and the unreliability of the individual rounds meant that the enemy closed distance and laid deadly fire from their shorter range weapons and caused in immediate rout of the US troops.

Judgement Day

Reminded me of an earlier thread on Famous Last Words....

General Armstrong Custer was the last man to die along with his entire command, and anecdotally his last words on seeing the enormous Indian force (estimated 1,800+) facing his (200+) detachment of the 7th Cavalry were "Hurrah, boys, we've got them! We'll finish them up and then go home to our station." These last words are often referred to as "Where did all these f.......n indians come from?"

Always makes me smile but then again I don't suppose it was so damn funny if you happened to be amongst his unfortunate command.

Judgement Day

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

And don't forget when the good guys won at Isandlwana in 1879 !!!!!!

Surely it's time we denounced the men from Ireland who served in these land grabbing, genocidal armies - instead of laying wreaths to them and have church services on Rememberance Sunday etc

Patsy - each to his own. Those of us who choose to remember those who served in the British forces will continue to do so, while those of a Republican tradition will commemorate their people in their way.

mikemac

How is it that so few people know about Isandlwana but Rourke's Drift is celebrated.
Rourke's Drift was only a sideshow and certainly soldiers including some Irish were brave and heroic it smacks of salvaging a victory from a defeat.
Eleven Victoria Crosses awarded

As for Custer, he was a blundering fool who lead men to their death. But still so well known today

Snickers Man

gbee wrote: »

Custer was also a monumental failure......

True. Finished bottom of his class at West Point, the US military academy.

gbee wrote:

Only a small force of soldiers but up any resistance, the majority were killed on the run without returning fire.

All the corpses were mutilated in disgust by the victors, except Custer.

Actually I thought the only corpse left unscalped was that of the Irish born Myles Keogh which might have been because of the bravery he showed (he had been decorated many times) or because the superstitious Cheyenne/Sioux caught sight of a Miraculous Medal he was wearng and were wary of incurring the wrath of the Gods.

Snickers Man

Manach wrote: »

God rest the men who died, especially those of Irish descent: irishsoldiers.html

Two observations:

1) What a bunch of short arses! Tallest man there was 5' 11".

2) Only one Irish born officer. That tells a tale. Good enough to be cannon fodder (or arrow fodder); not trusted enough to be in charge.

Looks to me like the 7th cavalry resembled the British Army of the time in more ways than one.

gbee

Snickers Man wrote: »

Cheyenne/Sioux caught sight of a Miraculous Medal he was wearng and were wary of incurring the wrath of the Gods.

Very possibly true, the Indians were very superstitious and were fearful of other Gods even if they did not believe in them themselves.

They would and did respect bravery and other religious customs, but they did not think too much of the average preacher ~ forked tongue and all that.

You know they excepted to meet their enemy again in the afterlife, hence their mutilations to give them the advantage in the coming battles.

dpe

mikemac wrote: »

How is it that so few people know about Isandlwana but Rourke's Drift is celebrated.
Rourke's Drift was only a sideshow and certainly soldiers including some Irish were brave and heroic it smacks of salvaging a victory from a defeat.
Eleven Victoria Crosses awarded

As for Custer, he was a blundering fool who lead men to their death. But still so well known today

Rorke's Drift is so well known precisely because of the defeat at Isandlwana. Propoganda is not a 20th century invention, and the sheer number of VCs was designed to divert attention from the earlier defeat. It worked too. (This isn't to take away from the bravery of the men concerned, but if it had been a more typical action there's no way so many medals would have been issued).

Snickers Man wrote:

Two observations:

1) What a bunch of short arses! Tallest man there was 5' 11".

2) Only one Irish born officer. That tells a tale. Good enough to be cannon fodder (or arrow fodder); not trusted enough to be in charge.

Looks to me like the 7th cavalry resembled the British Army of the time in more ways than one.

1. Pretty normal for the time. It was a phenomenon noted in WWI as well; British and Irish troops were typically way shorter than American or ANZAC soliders because of sh1t diet and working conditions.

2. Not really, the US Army had a lot of senior officers of Irish descent, but there was a class system in play, and the officer class had contracted massively post Civil-War (don't forget the US Army was traditionally a pretty small force), with the West Pointers keeping most of the commands for themselves, especially in the "glamourous" commands like the cavalry. Most Irishmen came from urban areas like NY and Boston, and by default ended up in the Infantry or Artillery.

MarchDub

Well I'll say this for the Americans - they're never afraid to confront their own mistakes, past or present. Something that IMO comes harder to imperialist Europeans. One of the largest museums - an enormous building - on the Mall in Washington DC is the one dedicated to the history of the American Indians. And throughout the exhibits are shown, in great details, the injustice endured by Native Americans during the settlements.

http://www.nmai.si.edu/

MarchDub

goose2005 wrote: »

In fairness the Zulus were also land-grabbers and genocidal.

"Although the numbers and geographical extent of the killings during Shaka's reign have been exaggerated by many white commentators, there is little doubt that Shaka (and his successor, Dingane, who ruled during the period from 1828 to 1840) did order the extermination of large numbers of people, including innocent civilians. Some of this killing was ordered out of personal vindictiveness, but even that done "for reasons of state" could still be considered genocide. Like other perpetrators of genocide, both Shaka and Dingane targeted whole categories of people for elimination, including at various times all the subjects of the Ndwandwe, Mthethwa, Langeni, Thembu, and Qwabe kingdoms. On the other hand, Shaka and Dingane did not always ruthlessly pursue such objectives to their logical conclusions, but rather relented and even incorporated some of their former enemies as full-fledged subjects of the Zulu kingdom. Over time, many of Shaka and Dingane's victims, or at least their descendants, not only forgave and forgot, but even came to identify themselves as Zulus."

Could you give the source for that quote?

gbee

dpe wrote: »

Rorke's Drift is so well known precisely because of the defeat at Isandlwana.

The Rourke's Drift defenders were a detachment from the Isandlwana force as a rear guard, not meant to see action.

The contrast in command styles is the biggest difference IMO. If the Isandlwana officers commanded their men and supplied them in the same manner as Lt. John Chard, VC and Lt. Gonville Bromhead, VC had, then Rourke's Drift would probably have remained a little known backwater supply station.

Judgement Day

mikemac wrote: »

How is it that so few people know about Isandlwana but Rourke's Drift is celebrated.
Rourke's Drift was only a sideshow and certainly soldiers including some Irish were brave and heroic it smacks of salvaging a victory from a defeat.
Eleven Victoria Crosses awarded

As for Custer, he was a blundering fool who lead men to their death. But still so well known today

Probably has a lot to do with movie release dates too - "Zulu" (the one about Rorke's Drift) starring Stanley Baker and Michael Caine came out in 1964 and "Zulu Dawn" the one about Isandlwana starrring Burt Lancaster, Peter O'Toole, John Mills etc. only came out in 1979. Some great performances in both and "Zulu Dawn" really brings home the significance of the annihilation of a modern European army by an army of natives.

PatsytheNazi

gbee wrote: »

Isandlwana in 1879 was a monumental disaster for the British Forces. Saved only by the spectacular stand off at Rourke's Drift.

mikemac wrote: »

How is it that so few people know about Isandlwana but Rourke's Drift is celebrated.
Rourke's Drift was only a sideshow and certainly soldiers including some Irish were brave and heroic it smacks of salvaging a victory from a defeat.
Eleven Victoria Crosses awarded

dpe wrote: »

Rorke's Drift is so well known precisely because of the defeat at Isandlwana. Propoganda is not a 20th century invention, and the sheer number of VCs was designed to divert attention from the earlier defeat. It worked too.

Wasn't it very fortuitous that the British boys - according to themselves ofcourse - displayed such great British pluck against the Fuzzy Wuzzy's after getting their asses handed to them just a few days before hand :rolleyes:

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

Well I'll say this for the Americans - they're never afraid to confront their own mistakes, past or present. Something that IMO comes harder to imperialist Europeans. One of the largest museums - an enormous building - on the Mall in Washington DC is the one dedicated to the history of the American Indians. And throughout the exhibits are shown, in great details, the injustice endured by Native Americans during the settlements.

http://www.nmai.si.edu/

And yet being the first to shout genocide in other countries, fail to acknowledge genocide metered out by their forefathers.

gbee

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

displayed such great British pluck against the Fuzzy Wuzzy's :

This attitude did not change until WW1 when it was finally recognised that officers needed to be trained and not simply appointed to commanding posts by right of passage from the nobility and gentry classes.

The [humble] officers in charge of Rourke's Drift were in fact academy graduates.

PatsytheNazi

gbee wrote: »

This attitude did not change until WW1 when it was finally recognised that officers needed to be trained and not simply appointed to commanding posts by right of passage from the nobility and gentry classes.

The [humble] officers in charge of Rourke's Drift were in fact academy graduates.

Just like the ' cadets ' killed at Kilmicheal ?

gbee

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Just like the ' cadets ' killed at Kilmicheal ?

The Auxiliaries were composed mostly of Officers from the old school ie nobility and 'retired' during WW1 so I think no, is the answer.

who the fug

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Just like the ' cadets ' killed at Kilmicheal ?

No them lads in Kilmicheal were police, them lads at Roukes Drift were regular army.

There was no display of pluck against the Fuzzy Wuzzy's in Sudan, old Kitchener was very meticulous about sorting that problem out.

Logistics and overwhelming fire power (He was a US General before his time, also probably spoke better Arabic than Lawerence of Arabia ).

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And yet being the first to shout genocide in other countries, fail to acknowledge genocide metered out by their forefathers.

Not sure what you are referring to? The point I am making is that the exhibits at the Native American museum at the Smithsonian in Washington DC deal with the very issue of mass killings - I was also at an exhibit [which included lectures and visuals] in the educational branch there a few years ago which dealt quite openly with this very issue.

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

Not sure what you are referring to? The point I am making is that the exhibits at the Native American museum at the Smithsonian in Washington DC deal with the very issue of mass killings - I was also at an exhibit [which included lectures and visuals] in the educational branch there a few years ago which dealt quite openly with this very issue.

I'm aware of the effort put in to recognise the wrongs inflicted on the native Americans, but I have never heard an American use the "G" word.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm aware of the effort put in to recognise the wrongs inflicted on the native Americans, but I have never heard an American use the "G" word.

Oh I have - in fact a very simple Google search brought this NY High School Essay up with easy reference to the word 'Genocide' via Native Americans:

http://www.iearn.org/hgp/aeti/aeti-1997/native-americans.html

[Now, I'm not vouching for the value of the essay - just the use of the word]

It's become quite commonplace within the US to use this as regarding Native Americans. Like I said much public money in the US has been spent on bringing out the atrocities committed against the American Indians.

PatsytheNazi

The sad irony of the Battle of the Litttle Big Horn was that the Indians (rightly) became fearful that the much more powerful US army would return in even greater numbers and annihalte every one of them in revenge to show what happens when you get the better of whitey. And hence I think many had to flee to Canada ?

gbee

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agoJC7Vc5Hk

This is part of a 4 part docu which sets a new theory [for me] as to why Custer was apparently so off base for a military engagement.

If this is docu is supported it suggests that Custer went after the women and children and was effectively defeated by soft ground where he attempted to cross the river.

Had he crossed the river when he caught up with the fleeing non combatants he might have had the same result as Battle of Wa****a River?

This docu somewhat changes my views, but there are still military mistakes and effectively a a mutiny and dereliction of duty.

dpe

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Wasn't it very fortuitous that the British boys - according to themselves ofcourse - displayed such great British pluck against the Fuzzy Wuzzy's after getting their asses handed to them just a few days before hand :rolleyes:

No it wasn't fortuitous, read what I said. They fought well but the action itself was blown out of all proportion to cover up the stink of the earlier defeat. Unlike some people I'm not blind to my own country's shortcomings, but I also don't feel a pathalogical need to begrudge their successes either. Get help.

PatsytheNazi

dpe wrote: »

No it wasn't fortuitous, read what I said. They fought well but the action itself was blown out of all proportion to cover up the stink of the earlier defeat. Unlike some people I'm not blind to my own country's shortcomings, but I also don't feel a pathalogical need to begrudge their successes either. Get help.

Correct dpe, apologies from PatsytheProvo

KerranJast

Snickers Man wrote: »

Two observations:

1) What a bunch of short arses! Tallest man there was 5' 11".

Shorter men were specifically selected for US Cavalry duty to reduce the load on the horses. The vast ranges in the US meant months of travel on tours and they couldn't afford to have to replace horses as frequently as they would in Europe.

Little Bighorn was a huge strategic blunder on Custers part. As mentioned his refusal to take gatling guns or reinforcements. Also his dismissal of his Indian scouts insistence that there were much more warriors than he assumed.
There was also a logistical screwup where his strategy of capturing the women and children as hostages to force a surrender back fired when there were too many of them to move with the troops he had.

Also the incredible situation where the warriors were armed with Henry repeaters and other more modern rapid fire weaponry whereas the Cav troopers had to rely on Springfield single shot rifles. The ground around Little Bighorn was undulating and hilly with lots of sage brush. It was perfect for fast moving skirmish troops to be able to move into close range using cover to negate the longer range of the Springfield rifle.

The Lakota Sioux ultimately paid the price for the rout though at Wounded Knee.

Snickers Man

Judgement Day wrote: »

Probably has a lot to do with movie release dates too - "Zulu" (the one about Rorke's Drift) starring Stanley Baker and Michael Caine came out in 1964 and "Zulu Dawn" the one about Isandlwana starrring Burt Lancaster, Peter O'Toole, John Mills etc. only came out in 1979.

Incidentally, my choice of the headlne "Come see the Yanks lose one" is based on an anecdote I heard from a good ol' boy from Carolina who told me that when Zulu was launched, at the height of the Civil Rights struggle in the US, it was billed in some parts of the deep south as "Come see the **** lose one"

Ths is true.