|
|
Post by joewiggs on Oct 18, 2012 16:16:59 GMT -5
The battle of Isandlwana has fascinated me for many years, partly due to it's similarity to Custer's "last Stand." How so?
A powerful, modern nation sought to subdue a group of aboriginals without a shred of remorse because (simply put) they could. At both of these historically insignificant battles, both armies that represented these monumental military powers were soundly whipped and exterminated.
How such such an astounding chain of events occur?
What was the critical difference between the two events that, nevertheless, brought about the same conclusions?
To answer the first question;greed and ethnocentric sense of superiority'
The second question; the Sioux had two thousand warriors (minimum)
while the Zulu's had approximately 20,000 warriors.
Identical conclusions(extermination) occurred as a result of a "white" superiority that placed both armies in such an insipid position of defense that death was inevitable.
Chelmsford (Terry) believed that Dunford and Peline (Custer) had sufficient forces to defeat any enemy in the field. Not Certain of the enemies location, Chelmsford (Terry) moved out to establish a new camp site. When a report arrived to the Dunford/Peline camp which claimed that 500 Zulus were reported to be moving east of their camp, Dunford (Custer) rode out to meet this group.
The final result was that, as we all know, the extermination of Peline and Dunford (Custer.)
One last similarity; Dunford/Peline (Custer) received total blame for the fatal results of their perspective battles.
|
|
|
|
Post by strange on Oct 18, 2012 22:57:10 GMT -5
The battle of Isandlwana has fascinated me for many years, partly due to it's similarity to Custer's "last Stand." How so? A powerful, modern nation sought to subdue a group of aboriginals without a shred of remorse because (simply put) they could. At both of these historically insignificant battles, both armies that represented these monumental military powers were soundly whipped and exterminated. How such such an astounding chain of events occur? What was the critical difference between the two events that, nevertheless, brought about the same conclusions? To answer the first question;greed and ethnocentric sense of superiority' The second question; the Sioux had two thousand warriors (minimum) while the Zulu's had approximately 20,000 warriors. Identical conclusions(extermination) occurred as a result of a "white" superiority that placed both armies in such an insipid position of defense that death was inevitable. Chelmsford (Terry) believed that Dunford and Peline (Custer) had sufficient forces to defeat any enemy in the field. Not Certain of the enemies location, Chelmsford (Terry) moved out to establish a new camp site. When a report arrived to the Dunford/Peline camp which claimed that 500 Zulus were reported to be moving east of their camp, Dunford (Custer) rode out to meet this group. The final result was that, as we all know, the extermination of Peline and Dunford (Custer.) One last similarity; Dunford/Peline (Custer) received total blame for the fatal results of their perspective battles. I'm still hoping to read more on these guys. Mainly I'm just interested in Shaka Zulu and he got assassinated before the wars with the British happened (in fact, I recall hearing that he tried to ally with the British). The thing to understand about the Zulus was that Shaka had basically taught them everything they knew, and they learned just enough to put up a pretty good fight against the British but (as far as I assume) the Zulus never got any firearms. The Indians were the opposite, they had lots of weaponry and zero tactics whereas the Zulu had all tactics but no guns. Do correct me if I'm wrong here, I haven't read on these things, but I love Shaka and I'm hoping to learn more on him. |
|
|
|
Post by stumblingbear on Oct 19, 2012 10:21:11 GMT -5
The thing I remember about him as that he was very close to his mother who loved him and protected him when things were going badly for both of them. When his mother died Shaka turned ballistic and demand that the entire Zulu Nation mourn her for quite a long time. Anybody who did not show enough sadness or any who were even suspected of not caring another were brutally killed. This went on for quite some time.
Finally, when Shaka had mourned enough, the enemies he made during this time rose against him. I think his half brothers assassinated his as he was leaving his home. I also think (not sure) that he actually cried for mercy as they were stabling him.
Hard to believe that such a man would have cried for mercy. He was so touch all his life.
|
|
|
|
Post by strange on Oct 19, 2012 15:04:17 GMT -5
The thing I remember about him as that he was very close to his mother who loved him and protected him when things were going badly for both of them. When his mother died Shaka turned ballistic and demand that the entire Zulu Nation mourn her for quite a long time. Anybody who did not show enough sadness or any who were even suspected of not caring another were brutally killed. This went on for quite some time. Finally, when Shaka had mourned enough, the enemies he made during this time rose against him. I think his half brothers assassinated his as he was leaving his home. I also think (not sure) that he actually cried for mercy as they were stabling him. Hard to believe that such a man would have cried for mercy. He was so touch all his life. Shaka Zu Lu would order everyone into sexual abstinence on quite a regular basis and it really ticked off the men. He used it for training, and he also appears to have used it in mourning. He even demanded that no crops be planted and no animals have offspring, out of respect for his mother's passing. His brothers were too big fat guys, by the way. There's contemporary drawings of them that gave me a chuckle. Shaka, on the other hand, was quite powerful (there is a drawing of him too). I've heard it mentioned that when Shaka got older and less imposing, that was when they felt more confident to go up against him. |
|
|
|
Post by stumblingbear on Oct 19, 2012 17:14:00 GMT -5
Thanks Strange, that explains a lot! I remember watching a serial about Shaka on T.V. that implied that he developed a whole new way of fighting. Instead of throwing spears from a distance he trained his men to charge up close with spears with much shorter handles, that could not be thrown. A charge of that type would often result in Shaka's enemy running away instead of making a stand. The part of the serial about his mother's death and his way of handling it was, I assumed, an exaggeration by script writers. he must have been really close to his mother!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Nov 3, 2012 17:55:22 GMT -5
Strange , I think this will interest you. " When Shaka's mother Nandi died, for example, the monarch ordered a massive outpouring of grief including mass executions, forbidding the planting of crops or the use of milk, and the killing of all pregnant women and their husbands. Oral sources record that in this period of devastation, a singular Zulu, a man named Gala, eventually stood up to Shaka and objected to these measures, pointing out that Nandi was not the first person to die in Zululand.
Taken aback by such candid talk, the Zulu King is supposed to have called off the destructive edicts, rewarding the blunt teller-of-truths with a gift cattle"Now I believe that to be a very impressive act by Gala. |
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Nov 3, 2012 18:39:26 GMT -5
Gala gets my vote for the Man of the Year! Going up to Shaka and saying what he did when Skaka was killing folks for just getting pregnant? Gala, you the man!  |
|
|
|
Post by stumblingbear on Nov 9, 2012 18:01:36 GMT -5
"Though Shaka probably did not invent the iklwa, according to Zulu scholar John laband, the leader did insist that his warriors train with the weapon which gave them a terrifying advantage over opponents who clung to the traditional practice of throwing their spears and avoiding hand-to-hand conflict."
It turns out that the throwing spear was not stopped, both weapons were used. Throwing spear from a distance and the iklwa close up. This gave the Zulu's a advantage because they were never without the short, stabbing spear.
|
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Nov 10, 2012 19:41:01 GMT -5
You know something, the more I read about the life of Shaka the more I am glad I was born in New Jersey!  |
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Nov 21, 2012 18:37:35 GMT -5
This should blow everyone's mind. The Spartan, Pantites (Panties?) was sent away from Thermopylae by the King on a diplomatic mission. Missing the last seconds of the battle, he was ribbed by his fellow Spartans for not being their that he killed himself. Can you believe that! |
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Nov 21, 2012 20:07:09 GMT -5
The Spartans were obsessed with the idea of achieving glory on the battlefield to include dying which was the ultimate proof of manhood. Pantites was lucky to have been only "ribbed" by his countrymen for if he was really guilty of cowardice his fate would have been very harsh indeed. as things turned out, he was allowed to take his own life in a less barbaric way than his contemporaries would have chosen.
PS By the way you are on the wrong subject page.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Nov 22, 2012 8:05:31 GMT -5
This should blow everyone's mind. The Spartan, Pantites (Panties?) was sent away from Thermopylae by the King on a diplomatic mission. Missing the last seconds of the battle, he was ribbed by his fellow Spartans for not being their that he killed himself. Can you believe that! Actually he [Pan-ti-tes, pronounced Pan ti -tees] hung himself. And you had to know of their culture to understand that. Which might not be to far off for everyone in the U.S. to appreciate, up close and personal, as we become more like the socialist democratic state Sparta was, and least like what the US was supposed to be - a Republic. I won't go into the morbid details of their government, its structure and what it could be compared to today other than to say, have you ever hear of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam? As for culture. They threw imperfect infants off of cliffs. So if your child had a misshapened something or other, they didn't let that infant live. Do you believe that? Well its true. And like most totalitarian regimes around the world today, that have noble words in their title, like that one expressed above, doesn't mean they're as kind to their own people as you would like them to be. We weren't ever a democracy, wasn't supposed to be one. And like most selfish ignorant Americans today, we've become one. Bring on the next great reality show, bring back the ancient games of Rome for our sport and pleasure. Can you believe that? Americans have become so jaded in their senses that to say that it won't happen is unlikely, because the next great reality show to hit the air waves is about to be broadcast right into your living rooms, where you eat, drink and be merry as you watch and hear live all the distressing calls who have ever called 911, and watch them squirm, beg, borrow or steal for life. Hey, what the hell, its the ultimate in reality shows isn't it. But in these good old U.S. of A. Can you believe that could have ever happened? Its just a stones throw from those Roman games I mentioned, lets see some slave ripped to shreds by a lion, then ask, can you believe that? |
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Nov 22, 2012 23:08:04 GMT -5
This should blow everyone's mind. The Spartan, Pantites (Panties?) was sent away from Thermopylae by the King on a diplomatic mission. Missing the last seconds of the battle, he was ribbed by his fellow Spartans for not being their that he killed himself. Can you believe that! Actually he [Pan-ti-tes, pronounced Pan ti -tees] hung himself. And you had to know of their culture to understand that. Which might not be to far off for everyone in the U.S. to appreciate, up close and personal, as we become more like the socialist democratic state Sparta was, and least like what the US was supposed to be - a Republic. I won't go into the morbid details of their government, its structure and what it could be compared to today other than to say, have you ever hear of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam? As for culture. They threw imperfect infants off of cliffs. So if your child had a misshapened something or other, they didn't let that infant live. Tis true. And like most totalitarian regimes around the world today, that have noble words in their title, like that one expressed above, doesn't mean they're as kind to their own people as you would like them to be. We weren't ever a democracy, wasn't supposed to be one. And like most selfish ignorant Americans today, we've become one. Bring on the next great reality show, bring back the ancient games of Rome for our sport and pleasure. Americans have become so jaded in their senses that to say that it won't happen is unlikely, because the next great reality show to hit the air waves is about to be broadcast right into your living rooms, where you eat, drink and be merry as you watch and hear live all the distressing calls who have ever called 911, and watch them squirm, beg, borrow or steal for life. Hey, what the hell, its the ultimate in reality shows isn't it. But in these good old U.S. of A. who would have thunk such a thing was possible. Its just a stones throw from those Roman games I mentioned, lets see some slave ripped to shreds by a lion. Pantites was sent to get more troops, can't remember which one's right now. And as innocent as it was to us, as it wasn't his fault he didn't die with the others. The Spartans had a shield with a big V imprinted on it. And the women had a saying for their men, "come home with your shield or on it" the virtual epitome of Victory or Death. I knew of this conflict when I was about 10 years old as I had watched a movie called, you guessed it, The three hundred spartans. It starred a popular actor at the time whose name was Richard Egan. I couldn't get enough of it and read every book on the subject I could get my hands on. And even at one time had the comic book version of it. Darn, think what that one would be worth now. And by the way... if you can get that movie, do so, its a whole lot better than the garbage they put on the screen these days about it. Again, my apologies WB. |
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Dec 27, 2012 12:08:02 GMT -5
tbw, I have no ideal how i could have possibly missed this gem!?! You are so right! Richard Egan (and cast) put all of the contemporary portrayals to shame.
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on May 25, 2013 18:15:19 GMT -5
I just came to a realization that may or may not be true;if Pullien had with drawn his troops into a "British Square" rather then sending his troops out, "Towards the enemy" would not the combined and dense fire power save the day? What do you think?  |
|
