Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: lazs2 on January 07, 2006, 09:41:19 AM
-
"The Great Anglo-Boer War" by Farwell
Hardly talked about. I'm reading about it again in a little more depth than the footnotes we got in school..
Pretty much the brits came up with a really bad trumped up reason to invade the Orange free states and the Transvaal Boer regions (the Boers wouldn't let brits become Boer and vote and there was.... gold).
The Boer were farmers and had no military except for militia.. Every man from 16-60 (often undr and over those ages) was in the militia (sound familiar?) .
They were loosely organized in "comandos" and could elect their leaders... other than that... they were totaly independent... they could leave their group and join another if they didn't like the way it was going...
Every Boer was a crack shot and horseman and they all owned their own modern military rifles...
The American indian has been cridited for being the finest light cavalry but these Boers rivaled them...
The Militia beat back severl huge colored tribes in several wars and easily won the first war they fought with the brits (first Boer war) humiliating the british army....
They won most of the early battles against the brits in the second Boer war but the brits overwhelmed em and.... a new tactic... Boer women and children were rounded up and put in concentration camps...
The Boer were an ethnic mixture of the blood of Dutch, German, french, Scots and Irish and spoke their own language. Large rough and tough men skilled in the way of the rifle and horse.
lazs
Interesting read.
-
Oh... one of the things the brits did when they couldn't goad the Boer into walking out on the "negotiations" to prevent war (the Boer did not want war) was to declare that...
All Boer citizens were to disarm.
lazs
-
Just another example of what a bunch of common riflemen can do when the chips are down..................also a prime example of why we should never let ourself be disarmed under any circumstances.
-
Lazs, if you liked that, you might also like the story about the Zulu Wars, and the way the 140 strong British garrison at Rorke's Drift defended its position against swarms of Zulu Warriors. It was made into a cracking film in 1964, which had Michael Caine in it. The incident took place c1879, some 20 years before the Boer Wars. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/state/empire/zulu_01.shtml
-
wasn't like 900 brits killed by the zulus just a little before that battle at the drift?
I am enjoying the Boer war but I have to admit that my sympathies are with the Boers. I admire their courage. It seem that the brits squandered their scotts infantry in the boer wars. Fighting the Boers was not at all like fighting the zulu.
The Boers defeated the zulus and other tribes earlier also.
lazs
-
Around here we just hunt boers, and they don't fight back. Limeys were trying to do it without guns or something???? :(
-
Those are boArs Funked. Hehe. The boErs were a little different. Then of course you have the boREs, who might not seem dangerous but can be much more subtle. They simply lull you to sleep and then attack. :)
-
There is movie from 1980 about three aussie officers being tried for murdering boers during the 2nd boer war. Movie is called
'Breaker' Morant
They executed these officers (one named Morant) for war crimes after they were told to kill some captured boers by superior officers.
Great movie!
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Lazs, if you liked that, you might also like the story about the Zulu Wars, and the way the 140 strong British garrison at Rorke's Drift defended its position against swarms of Zulu Warriors. It was made into a cracking film in 1964, which had Michael Caine in it. The incident took place c1879, some 20 years before the Boer Wars. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/state/empire/zulu_01.shtml
Great. absolutely outstanding movie!
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Just another example of what a bunch of common riflemen can do when the chips are down
"Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun, and they have not." - Hillaire Balloc
-
Originally posted by lazs2
wasn't like 900 brits killed by the zulus just a little before that battle at the drift?
IIRC (big if) the General in charge (Chelmsford?) made a monumental f* up (many in fact) and got ambushed in a big way.
Spurred on by the victory, the Zulu's attacked the small 100 man garrison at Rourkes drift with about 5,000 men and lost.
It is still the record for the amount of VC's won.
-
Yeah them were the days, when the British army fought tribesmen and no-one else. If you saw someone in a skirt you shot em! Sharpened mango fruit can be a dangerous weapon.
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-9/48257/20029211530-0-Swoop.gif)
-
I saw an interesting "Secrets of the Dead" episode where they postulated that the reason the British were over run by Zulu warriors is because their rifles created a smoke screen. I can't remember the name of that famous rifle, but it did use a heavy charge, and it predated smokeless powder.
They were able to disprove the theory of the lack of ammo because of the number of smashed open ammo boxes lying around at the scene. They even went pretty in depth into the zulu warrior culture and zulu shamanism during the period. It was some good TV.
While we're on the subject. A story of a historical situation of a good infantry, actually they were cav scouts, leader who overcame overwhelming odds by applying fundemental infantry tactics is the account of the battle of Beecher's Island. Do a search on it. There are some good articles if you can find them.
-
Suave - one report I read said that although there was no shortage of ammo, a special key or tool was needed to open the ammo boxes, and only a few designated men had it. During battle, they were unable to open boxes of ammo because they couldn't find anyone who had the key.
-
the battle at rorke's drift is an example of how a small number of well lead and disciplined troops with good weapons and a good defensive position can defeat seemingly overwhelming numbers. the Brits were armed with the Martini-Henry rolling block single shot .450 cal rifle. The Brits commenced to volley fire on the attacking zulus at approximately 1000 meters. At 400 meters in volley fire the martini-henry rifles cut large swaths of men down and at 200 meters the projectiles reportedly were going completely through one warrior and striking the guy behind him. the withering fire prevented the zulus from coming in close enough to attack with their stabbing spears. after the second day of fighting King Cetaswayo of the zulus, satisfied with his victory at Isandhwala on the previous day, called off the attack. the brits buried 350 zulu dead and an estimated 300 more died from their wounds. the victory was was won by the outstanding leadership and the discipline of the men who faced what must have been an frightening situation to find yourself in. if "courage is not letting those around you see your fears" these guys certainly had it down.
-
They had plenty of ammo at Isandlwana and the boxes were easily opened.
Read all about it! (http://www.kwazulu.co.uk/myths.html)
access to the rounds was via a sliding wooden panel in the centre of the box. This was held in place by just one screw, and in an emergency it could be opened by the highly unorthadox method of giving the edge of the panel a hefty clout. This had the effect of splintering the wood around the screw.
-
The Boer had maxim guns just like the brits and... just like the brits, had no idea of what to do with em.
The Boer had the better weapons. they had crup guns and 37mm pom pom... the brits still had muzzle loading cannon. the Boer also had the excelent 7 x 57 Mauser while most brits had the horrible lee metford rifle.
The brits had millions of rounds of "dum dum" (HP/SP) ammo and used it... the Boer who used mausers used full jacket ammo but some farmers used soft point ammo because they had hunting rifles.
The brits tried to fight the boer with "lord" this and "lord" that and the same tactics used against spear chuckers and 17th century euros.
The Boer hit and run and were some of the best guerrilla fighters on the planet.
The brits exploited the Boer love of family by rounding up the Boer women and children and putting em into concentration camps to starve and die of disease and the elements.
The Boer had hoped to hold off the brits long enough to get germany or even America involved on their side... They allmost made it... that is what "breaker morant" is all about. They allmost made it... farmers with mausers held off "the worlds greatest army" for 3 years.... the brits threw everything they had at em.
As for the zulu... the brits used the martini henry in .577 it was a sturdy, short range black powder weapon of mediocre accuracy. It was also a single shot and took time to load. That is probly what happened... between the smoke and the low fire rate... a determined spear carrying army of superior numbers could easily over run em.
-
"The Boer had hoped to hold off the brits long enough to get germany or even America involved on their side... They allmost made it... that is what "breaker morant" is all about. They allmost made it... farmers with mausers held off "the worlds greatest army" for 3 years.... the brits threw everything they had at em."
That's the problem--they still lost, and at the end had only scorched earth and dead families to show for it. It's unwise to start a war you can't win on your own, under the hope that someone else will get involved on your behalf. It didn't work for the Confederates, either.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by lazs2
As for the zulu... the brits used the martini henry in .577 it was a sturdy, short range black powder weapon of mediocre accuracy. It was also a single shot and took time to load. That is probly what happened... between the smoke and the low fire rate... a determined spear carrying army of superior numbers could easily over run em.
Saw a documentary where they tested a theory of weapon jamming caused by the heating of the barrel after repeated shots.
Sure enough, it could be replicated. Theweapon would jam and we very hard to unjam. The brass casings also were soft and could jam up a weapon if the casing was a little bent out of shape Can't remember the show or the amount of rounds fired. was interesting though.
-
Lazs, would you mind sharing where your info on the British Martini-Henry used in the Zulu wars comes from? According to my info, Martini-Henry MkI and MkII (which are most likely what they would have been using in the 1870's - 1880's) were a .450 caliber rifle. There was also a carbine version, which used different (lighter) rounds, but still same caliber. In a pinch you could use either bullet in either gun, the one designed for the infantry rifle was just a bit stout in the carbine length gun (lots of recoil).
Problems with the early Martini-Henry were more based on the ammo available, not the gun itself. The original cartridge cases were made of a thin sheet of brass rolled around a mandrel, which was then soldered to an iron base. These cartridges were assembled by the orphaned children of British Soldiers, and were relatively cheap to produce. They were found to be vulnerable to being easily damaged, and produced inferior muzzle velocities. Later, the rolled brass case was replaced by a solid brass version which remedied both of these problems. The infantry rifle fired a .450 caliber, 480 grain bullet with 85 grains of black powder. The cavalry carbine fired a 410 grain bullet with 70 grains of black powder, making it very similar to the more well known .45-70, with similar ballistics. The Martini-Henry would not have (IMO) had the same effective range as say a Sharps or Springfield .45-70 because of differences in the lands and grooves, but thats just my opinion. I dont have any long range data on the Martini-Henry to back that up.
-
Guys Boer means farmer
south african language looks very similar to the dutch.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The Boer had maxim guns just like the brits and... just like the brits, had no idea of what to do with em.
The Boer had the better weapons. they had crup guns and 37mm pom pom... the brits still had muzzle loading cannon. the Boer also had the excelent 7 x 57 Mauser while most brits had the horrible lee metford rifle.
The brits had millions of rounds of "dum dum" (HP/SP) ammo and used it... the Boer who used mausers used full jacket ammo but some farmers used soft point ammo because they had hunting rifles.
The brits tried to fight the boer with "lord" this and "lord" that and the same tactics used against spear chuckers and 17th century euros.
The Boer hit and run and were some of the best guerrilla fighters on the planet.
The brits exploited the Boer love of family by rounding up the Boer women and children and putting em into concentration camps to starve and die of disease and the elements.
The Boer had hoped to hold off the brits long enough to get germany or even America involved on their side... They allmost made it... that is what "breaker morant" is all about. They allmost made it... farmers with mausers held off "the worlds greatest army" for 3 years.... the brits threw everything they had at em.
As for the zulu... the brits used the martini henry in .577 it was a sturdy, short range black powder weapon of mediocre accuracy. It was also a single shot and took time to load. That is probly what happened... between the smoke and the low fire rate... a determined spear carrying army of superior numbers could easily over run em.
So it's just another example of what a bunch of men armed with the latest and best in modern weaponry can do when the chips are down?
-
lol
This thread could very well go in all sorts of directions.
I see it as a cleverly disguised troll to have a snipe at the British.
I also can see exactly why lazs is so entralled by the Boers...or as they are now known, Afrikaners. Your kinda folks lazs.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Curval
or as they are now known, Afrikaners.
I thought that was spelt "Aafraakaaaeners".
-
Originally posted by Curval
I also can see exactly why lazs is so entralled by the Boers...or as they are now known, Afrikaners. Your kinda folks lazs.
Meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeow!
I suspect lazs hasn't met many true Afrikaners curval.
-
The Boers were good, but the Australian Mounted infantry were better...
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by Curval
I also can see exactly why lazs is so entralled by the Boers...or as they are now known, Afrikaners. Your kinda folks lazs.
LOL! Hard to know whether Lazs would be a natural Boer, or one of the white supremacists like Eugene Terreblanche! :lol I think the aptly named Terreblanche would earn the label "neocon" if he lived in the USA. For the benefit of our monolingual American friends, "Terreblanche" means "White Land" in French. Some of ET's cronies set up a whites only town in South Africa. I'm sure they had lots of guns. Anyway, Terreblanche was due to appear in court for the attempted murder of a black employee. I don't know how that went, but I do remember the Louis Theroux interview with Terreblanche. ET liked to drink, and LT got him drunk. Once ET was completely legless, LT turned up the wick and asked ever more hard hitting questions. ET was incensed, and tried to punch LT, but was so drunk he could barely stand up. At one point he was following LT around the room on his hands and knees. Funniest Theroux interview I ever saw. :lol
But naaah, Lazs isn't like ET. At least Lazs has a heart, some of which is his own. ;) Terreblanche is a complete arse IMO.
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
The Boers were good, but the Australian Mounted infantry were better...
Tronsky
Meh. The NZ Maori Battalion could beat all the Aussies, Boers AND Zulu's with 1 arm tied behind their backs by lunch time (and have em all cooked up in a hangi for lunch... the germans in WW1 and WW2 thought the maori boys were still cannibals).
-
Thats because the germans didn't have a decent rugby team...
I personally would never have a go at Kiwi solders, especially a battalion of Jake the Muss's however I don't think the maori battalion was in action during the boer war...I think they were still in Sth Auckland drinking Waikato or Lion Red flagons eh bro :aok
...either way, our Dominion troops (including your lot of sheep farmers) ate Lazs dutch superman for breakfast!
Tronsky
-
I will say this, a few years back a couple of aussie fencers showed up at my shop looking for work. they were travelling across the US and wanted to work their way across the continent. they needed to paid in cash. they were personable guys so I hired them on. The one guy who's name was menzies IIRC asked me " 'ow much fince does a yank crew instoll in a wake" (how much fence does an American crew install in a week) I told him the amount. set him up in a truck/tools with a map and explanations on how to reach his destination etc. by wednesday they had completed the week's work collected their pay and were out partying on the South Beach scene. The following monday they were back with the same results. this continued on until they tired of the SB partying and decided to move on. the last two weeks they worked all six days and did better than double the usual amount of work. I was impressed with their work ethic and their honesty. good guys that left us here with a very good impression of our cousins down under.
-
Star... sorry.. It was the 450 martini henry of about the same power as our 45-70.
Curval... The brits had slaughtered the blacks there by the thousands... The Boer were slave holders and didn't treat blacks any better than the brits did but... the war had nothing to do with slaves... it had to do with gold.
I admired the way they fought off the brits and the way that they fought.
I don't doubt that NZ or aussie troops are good but the boer won the first war with the biggest military might the first time and fought em to a standstill for 3 years the second. What country did austrailia or NZ fight?
lazs
-
I never said anything about slaves.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
What country did austrailia or NZ fight?
lazs
The aussies beat the world, and NZ beat the aussies. Thats all that matters.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
The aussies beat the world, and NZ beat the aussies. Thats all that matters.
lol
Originally posted by lazs2
I don't doubt that NZ or aussie troops are good but the boer won the first war with the biggest military might the first time and fought em to a standstill for 3 years the second. What country did austrailia or NZ fight?
lazs
Don't forget Lazs, the British didn't exactly park their whole army in the Transvaal, and when they did build up strength the Boers reverted to purely guerilla tactics...
As for us, there were no purely Australian formations. The units sent to south africa before and after federation were intergrated into British units. However it is a recognised fact that Australian mounted infantry were easily the equal of the Boers ie. Slingersfontein where 20 West Australian troopers held off an attack by a Boer commando 400 strong or the siege of Eland River.
Just as the dominions provided the finest soldiers for the British Empire for the later 2 world wars.
Trosnky
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
Guys Boer means farmer
south african language looks very similar to the dutch.
IIRC, most of the Boers were of Dutch ancestry.
ack-ack
-
The Boer War also introduced "concentration camps" to the world.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
The Boer War also introduced "concentration camps" to the world.
ack-ack
What's a "reserve" that aboriginals were forced to live on, vis a vis Canada, Oz and the US history?
-
In a strict sense Aboriginals weren't moved into reservations, however the idea of 'Terra Nullius' mean't the govt. and white settlement could take possesion of any land and move the inhabitants off, but the aboriginals weren't all moved into specially reserved areas.
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
The Boer War also introduced "concentration camps" to the world.
ack-ack
The USA used such camps in the Philippines around the same time as the Second Boer War. Spain used them even earlier in Cuba.
-
The Boer War also introduced "concentration camps" to the world.
The Spanish used a similar system in Cuba a few years earlier, and the US used a similar system in the Phillipines at the same time. As Thrawn points out, such camps had been used against aboriginal populations a lot earlier (for example, American Indians)
Don't forget Lazs, the British didn't exactly park their whole army in the Transvaal,
Yes, I believe the Boers had about a 4 to 1 advantage in soldiers in the first Boer war, and in the second they carried out guerrila attacks, because they couldn't win major battles.
In the end, of course, they lost the guerilla campaign as well.
The brits exploited the Boer love of family by rounding up the Boer women and children and putting em into concentration camps to starve and die of disease and the elements.
It was actually the end of the concentration camp policy that defeated the Boers.
The camps had been set up to house Boer families who had had their farms destroyed, either in fighting or to prevent them supplying the guerillas. In late 1901 Kitchener ordered no more Boer families to be brought in, unless they were starving, and the Boer guerillas had to look after their civilians. By the Boer congress of March 1902 they were complaining that the British were turning their families away from the camps.
-
The Boer outnumbered the brits 4/1 in the first Boer war? that is interesting... Maybe...If you count every farmer as a soldier but every single battle the brits enjoyed a numeric advantage or were fairly equal...
In the second Boer war, most of the early major battles the brits enjoyed superior numbers and took heavier casualties.. The brits assembled the greatest army they had ever assembeled since the napoleonic wars to fight the Boer and they did pretty badly.... If for instance... the Americans had lost so many men for casualties inflicted in either the vietnam war or the Iraq war we would be a laughing stock. People in england were stunned at the early loses by british troops. The war that on paper should have lasted a few weeks, drug on for 3 years.
The concentration camps were probly the first to consist of nothing but women and children civilians and the death rate was very high.. The brits didn't waste much resources on caring for Boer families... they let em die behind the wire.
The brits had caused the war in order to take away the gold of the free Boer states. The Boers were the ones on the high moral ground in that war.
lazs
-
In those wars there was no high moral ground. The Boers were constantly fighting each other, but when it came to:
1. The British
and in particular
2. The Africans
they put aside any differences they had and fought like heck.
Did the gold to which you refer belong to the Boers in some way? Other than by stealing it from the Africans, of course.
They were as bad as the Brits in every respect in this matter.
-
Somebody pinpoint just where the egotistical nationalistic chest thumping contimated this otherwise good thread. I want to know who the brittle tempered schmuck was.
-
I don't know... what I got out of it was an admiration for the courage of the Boer free state to stand up to the largest military force in history.... allthough they really had no choice.. They also had no help and had allready seen how people the brits disarmed were treated.
In the same place... I would have done the same thing as the Boer.
I think that another thing that came out was that brits did a lot better against unarmed people and or spear chucking ones than against....
farmers with modern weapons.
I also got that when brits want you to disarm it is useually the first step toward bad things happening to your country.
lazs
-
lazs...if you REALLY want to be amazed by members of a "free state" fighting against unimaginable odds read up on the Ethiopian Wars in the late 1930s. The Ethiopians fought the Italians with little more than spears and bows...and still won.
Perhaps you won't feel that you have anything in common with the Ethiopians in the same way you do with the Boers though....for some reason. lol
-
Winning a war of occupation against a population that has a 'rifleman' or 'militia' mentality and means is utterly impossible in modern times with forces constrained by PC 'rules of war'.
Unfortunately for the Boers, American Indians, Phillipinos, Cubans and most Europeans up through WWII, an army of occupation, faced with a militia or gurellia componenet supplied and succored by the indigent population usually resorts to the practical solution of imprisionment or 'liquidation' of the 'non combatant' population closest to the indigent attack..
Nowadays, rounding up the population of the village or town closest to the indigent attack and shooting or 'transporting' them is considered 'not cricket'. At least, this is a tactic untenable for our military in it's current engagement... Serbs, Croats, Russians and Checkens and virtually all African nations seem to be excluded from the 'cricket' club.
Occupying armies always look to removal of 'means' before attending to little details like winning the hearts and minds of the indigents. In circumstances where government slips from constitutional democracy towards something less appetizing, the guize changes quite a bit... first talk the populace into peacefully surrendering their 'means' by winning the 'hearts and minds' war first.
That's whats happening here in the US... and the battlefield for the 'hearts and minds' is in the school system, where are kids are taught from jump street that 'guns are BAD!', then in the local courts and elections where unconstitutional bans and encrochments on civil liberties are easily masked by political diatribe and prejudice, reinforced by orchestrated fear-mongering media hype outrage.
Based on the general populations reaction to the NSA 'Spying on Citizens' revelations it would appear we're pretty much screwed already... seems the population will wind up turning a blind eye to government intrusions on civil rights as long as it's in the name of 'public saftey'.
Whats Boer or Pidgen Dutch for 'gullible sheep'? That's what they'd call us, I'm thinkin. ;)
-
suave...you are right that I identify more with farmers who are armed and individualistic fighting british imperialism than I am with ethiopian tribes armed with spears fighting...... italians.
I am after all, and American with the American history of farmer militia defeating british forces.
I also identify with the fact that in both the American revelotion and the Boer war... that england first demanded that the civilian population disarm.
lazs
-
I guess it also comes to the point of how many soldiers you actually put into combat. If your resources are spread over the world you can't afford to put all your troops into one war because you're lowering defences elsewhere and also causing a logistical nightmare. This has happened with virtually every world power, inluding Britain in the past and the US more recently.
-
When have our resources been stretched to the point that we couldn't put as many men on the ground as we want to?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
When have our resources been stretched to the point that we couldn't put as many men on the ground as we want to?
lazs
Korea?
-
Yep Curval, was thinking of Korea and Vietnam
-
How so? We put enough forces on the ground to do the job in both cases. In the case of korea... the peace and lines still hold...
In the case of vietnam... we won the war but refused to honor our political commitment to support with arms and money the South... they could not win for much longer after we left but did win several major engagements with what we left in place... sad really. the troops and Abrams won the war...the politicians sold the South down the river.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
How so? We put enough forces on the ground to do the job in both cases. In the case of korea... the peace and lines still hold...
Your question was this:
"When have our resources been stretched to the point that we couldn't put as many men on the ground as we want to? "
At the beginning of the War the US and their allies were almost pushed into the sea. "Your" resources were seriously streched....and "you" wanted more men on the ground. Then, after going on the offense after the landings at Inchon "you" got too close to the Chinese border and the Chinese attacked. Thus began the long retreat when the US were seriously streched and "you" couldn't put enough men on the ground as you wanted.
-
Curval, I think you overlook the fact that the US had no "Empire" to rule or protect after WW2.
There was a tremendous drawdown of the US military in the years after the war and, truth be told, no one anticipated another war so soon.
So Korea wasn't a case of expanding or defending the "Empire", however you choose to view the Boer War. Korea was a reaction to an unexpected war, much in the same vein as Pearl Harbor.
The NK's kicked our rears to the Pusan Perimeter from about the end of June until mid-August when it sort of stalemated. Then came the Inchon landing and the situation reversed. Mac was at the 38th by the first days of October.
Bit of a different view. We didn't start the Korean war and we got caught short. OTOH, it took less than three months to push the NK's out and have them on their ass.
Carry on, however. I'm enjoying it.
-
Besides, the British arrived to help ya out.
habit of ours......
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-9/48257/20029211530-0-Swoop.gif)
-
LOL.
Habit of yours? Now there's a bit of nationalistic bait I think I'll just swim by!
-
I'm not overlooking it Toadster...I was simply answering a direct question that lazs asked:
"When have our resources been stretched to the point that we couldn't put as many men on the ground as we want to? "
I answered it.
-
As you like. Not that the situations are/were in the least similar.
-
Originally posted by Toad
LOL.
:D
Well at least we're not as late as you guys usually are when it's us that's getting the help.
Bait still stinky?
Okay.
:aok
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-9/48257/20029211530-0-Swoop.gif)
-
Yeah, pretty stinky.
You gents have a view of "late" that, as it happens, shows absolutely no knowledge of the US society, politics and culture at those two particular times.
Curious, because that view of "late" is so Euro-centric that it reminds of all the posts made here about how US folks only take a US view of events.
:)
-
Originally posted by Toad
As you like. Not that the situations are/were in the least similar.
Oh, I see...you want something similar to the Boer War, which you see as a war of British Imperialism (although the Boers were colonists themselves...but that wee detail is ignored).
How about The Little Big Horn then? That would bear some similarities...no? The horrible "invaders" caught unawaress by the locals and given a sound spanking, prior to the imperialists actually winning the war and claiming the land as their own. The US Calavry's resources were streched and couldn't get enough men to the scene of the battle.
Good? ;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yeah, pretty stinky.
You gents have a view of "late" that, as it happens, shows absolutely no knowledge of the US society, politics and culture at those two particular times.
Curious, because that view of "late" is so Euro-centric that it reminds of all the posts made here about how US folks only take a US view of events.
:)
1 year and half is not late ?
Good for us you were not really late :D (not that the US were prepared to enter war in 41)
-
Originally posted by Curval
Oh, I see...you want something similar to the Boer War, which you see as a war of British Imperialism (although the Boers were colonists themselves...but that wee detail is ignored).
How about The Little Big Horn then? That would bear some similarities...no? The horrible "invaders" caught unawaress by the locals and given a sound spanking, prior to the imperialists actually winning the war and claiming the land as their own. The US Calavry's resources were streched and couldn't get enough men to the scene of the battle.
Good? ;)
Better but only worth a nice try, for a few reasons.
One, you'll note I haven't really commented on which side was "right" in the Boer war. So, you're out of line framing my view as "British Imperialism". You don't really know my view.
Second, the Little Big Horn really isn't an apt comparison. If you've studied the campaign you'll realize the battle was one part of a larger campaign, whereas Laz is talking about an entire war.
Also, had Custer followed orders, the results probably would have been considerably different.
-
Originally posted by straffo
1 year and half is not late ?
Good for us you were not really late :D (not that the US were prepared to enter war in 41)
Ah, the Eurocentric view arrives!
Tell me Straffo, in order to be "late" one has to have a mutually agreed upon time for arrival, n'est pas?
What previous agreement did the US have with the warring nations in either conflict? Perhaps some mutual defense treaty? What?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Ah, the Eurocentric view arrives!
Tell me Straffo, in order to be "late" one has to have a mutually agreed upon time for arrival, n'est pas?
What previous agreement did the US have with the warring nations in either conflict? Perhaps some mutual defense treaty? What?
Yea the American people had little interest in sending our boys to die, to stop another war started by war mongering Euro's... Go figure. :D
-
Originally posted by Toad
One, you'll note I haven't really commented on which side was "right" in the Boer war. So, you're out of line framing my view as "British Imperialism". You don't really know my view.
Second, the Little Big Horn really isn't an apt comparison. If you've studied the campaign you'll realize the battle was one part of a larger campaign, whereas Laz is talking about an entire war.
Perhaps...but don't forget I was initially responding to lazs, whose comments like "The brits had caused the war in order to take away the gold of the free Boer states. The Boers were the ones on the high moral ground in that war" seem to indictae that he looks upon the war as one of Imperialistic might vs. the poor downtrodden "locals". So, I wasn't actually framing your view as anything...I was just sticking to the general theme. :)
I may not be able to find an EXACT comparison Toad...that would be like trying to find identical flakes of snow, especially with you nit-picking away as you are.
-
LOL. Yeah, nit-pick.
Ok, a subordinate commander with a small scouting type force disobeys the orders of the campaign commander and engages an enemy of unknown numbers with worn out horses and men in a short battle that has no effect on the overall outcome of the "war".
You're right...it's the same as the entire Boer war.
-
Toad...the fact remains that lazs asked this:
"When have our resources been stretched to the point that we couldn't put as many men on the ground as we want to?"
I answered it.
You responded by saying my example was not like the Boer War.
So what?
A simple question was asked and I answered it....twice.
-
heneh.
I'm sittin here askin myself "well daaaaam, would 'how many bermudian blue hats would it take to police the world' be a simple question...?? ..and does it have any more or less to do with the subject of the boer war...."
...but then i got a sudden headache; so i'm gonna hit the 'post' button now.
-
To recap: I don't think that either the Korean war or Custer's demise is a valid example of "our resources being stretched to the point that we couldn't put as many men on the ground as we wanted to".
Within 3 months of North Korea's attack, they had been pushed back behind the 38th. This was due to our "resources" deploying the necessary amount of troops. 90 days hardly indicates an inability to "put as many men on the ground as we wanted". Rather it indicates an amazing ability to ramp up from peacetime to essentially "war winning". Had Mac held at the 38th it would have been game, set and match in about 3 months total.
Custer? There's no record of Terry requesting any more men or stating he needed more men in his after action report. The three columns were actually considered more than sufficient for the task at hand. Again, no indication or resources being "stretched" to put the necessary number of troops in the field. Terry HAD the forces he wanted. Custer, against orders, followed the Indian trail and made a poor decision based on insufficient recon of the enemy forces. He ASSumed and you know where that leads.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Ah, the Eurocentric view arrives!
Tell me Straffo, in order to be "late" one has to have a mutually agreed upon time for arrival, n'est pas?
Depend of the area you come from example in Angers (my beloved town) being 15 min late for an appointment is considered normal and traditional (it's called the "quart d'heure angevin") it's even considered impolite to be right on time.
But in Paris being one hour late surprise no one as the transportation problem is a big factor.
What previous agreement did the US have with the warring nations in either conflict? Perhaps some mutual defense treaty? What? [/B]
none I know.
-
why should I bother? toad is doing an excellent job... the point is.... custer had all the men he wanted... he split em up cause he felt he had more than enough... he was wrong. He coulda had all he wanted.
We coulda put all the men in Korea we wanted if we had waited.
The Boer were a recognized free state in both the Transvaal and the Orange free states.. they had governments and property and charters...
The brits invaded to get their gold. There was never any mention of those Boer states not being independent.
In Korea... we were helping an free government defend itself from an invader... the complete opposite of britsh imperialism.
In the U.S. indian wars we were not attacking any government or any land owners... we were playing by their rules... The rules were... the biggest tribe slaughtered and enslaved all the others...
Same for the Boer and the brits in africa who fought the coloreds on their own terms. Who was running south africa before whites showed up? whichever tribe was the most powerful and brutal.
lazs
-
Originally posted by straffo
Depend of the area you come from example in Angers
I still don't understand how one can be late to a party to which you were not invited, had no obligation to attend and had absolutely no desire to attend.
-
Another really good book on the Boer war is "Boer Commando" by Deneys Reitz.
It is written by a Boer commando who fought in most of the major battles and from the beginning to the end.
lazs
-
I too find the find the Boer war fascinating partly because there is an Irish link. There is an archway at the entrance to a park in Dublin commemorating those of the Dublin Fusiliers regiment (British army) killed in the Boer war. It was given the derisive nickname of 'traitors gate' by many because in fact some Irish volunteered to fight for the Boers and on one famous occasion Irish fought Irish. Not for the first time in history either.
The Boer war is very interesting in part because of lessons learned which later were put to use in guerrilla warfare in Ireland during the Irish war of Independance. This time British didn't win!
I recently worked with some South Africans. They came to Ireland to find work. All of them Afrikaaners, effectively Boers. They had unpronounceable names and a very impressive work ethic. It was very strange to hear them speaking Afrikaaner. (It's a form of Dutch). They were quite conservative and religious. Very interesting people. I got a good insight into what the Boers must have been like. I think they would fit well in many red states in the USA. I saw no sign of racism either, interestingly.
It's a mistake to think that because someone is an Afrikaaner they must be some form of white supremacist. Those guys came to Ireland for work because they trouble finding work to match their skills in the new South Africa. But I never heard a word of complaint about it. Nor did they demonstrate any bad attitudes to the many Africans working in the same company.
There are couple of good books on the Boer war out there. I must check them out.
-
Yep, worked with some Afrikaaners on the wheat harvest in Colorado. Nice bunch of guys, hard working, no complaining. They're highly sought after on the harvest crews.