Mystery Of The Zulu Dawn (1 Viewer)

[The Lt.]

For a well rounded education on Rorke's Drift as well as Isandlwana I recommend you spend sometime for those of you who are not aware of it by visiting www.rorkesdriftvc.com you can spend hours getting various opinions of what took place both factual and hypertherical on both events. You'll find that the threads and comments on the subject are talked about and debated by some of the most well read on the the events that took place on the 22nd and 22rd of January 1879 at both Rorke's Drift and Isandlwana. While there check out The Telling of The Zulu War with Toy Soldiers which appears iin the games/modeling and wargaming section.......The Lt.

 

[Njja]

Damian,
I am in complete agreement with you. Durnford is the one that is associated these days with Gen. Custer, both in flambouyance, looks and character. However, nothing Durnford did was directly responsible for Chelmsford's larger error of underestimation. Durnford was also going out from camp under the assumption that Chelmsfords foray was about to be encircled.
The book is wonderful for it's maps and layout of the battlefield and the tactical standpoint, some of the premises are conjecture, which you can choose to believe or not.

I think a lot of people give General Custer a bad rap. He had a spectacular record in the Civil War. He was told the Indian force was far less then he encountered......and he used tactics he had used successfully many times in the past while fighting the Indians.

I do not think he intended to lead his troops and family members to the slaughter. Sometimes in life you find yourself in a situation beyond your control, you can run or make your stand.

No one can question his courage, he stood his ground and made his stand, and personally I for one could care less about the Indians. I wouldn't support a statue of any of them were it made of snow in the saraha.

 

[Njja]

For a well rounded education on Rorke's Drift as well as Isandlwana I recommend you spend sometime for those of you who are not aware of it by visiting www.rorkesdriftvc.com you can spend hours getting various opinions of what took place both factual and hypertherical on both events. You'll find that the threads and comments on the subject are talked about and debated by some of the most well read on the the events that took place on the 22nd and 22rd of January 1879 at both Rorke's Drift and Isandlwana........The Lt.

I would very much like to hear your personal opinion, I bet you can give us
a real earful

Since you have already given us many pleasant eyefuls why not

 

[1879fanatic]

I think a lot of people give General Custer a bad rap. He had a spectacular record in the Civil War. He was told the Indian force was far less then he encountered......and he used tactics he had used successfully many times in the past while fighting the Indians.

I do not think he intended to lead his troops and family members to the slaughter. Sometimes in life you find yourself in a situation beyond your control, you can run or make your stand.

No one can question his courage, he stood his ground and made his stand, and personally I for one could care less about the Indians. I wouldn't support a statue of any of them were it made of snow in the saraha.

And Custer tried very hard to place where he did in his WPMA grad class.! Mike

 

[Spitfrnd]

No one can question his courage, he stood his ground and made his stand, and personally I for one could care less about the Indians. I wouldn't support a statue of any of them were it made of snow in the saraha.

I am sure the Indians would say the same about the yellow legs, especially Custer. Frankly our so-called conquest of the west was hardly our finest hour. We learned alot from our native american neighbors and should have learned more. We also should have kept our treaties, not stolen their lands, not slaughtered their innocents and not interned them on worthless land that not would support them. As to a statue, I am afraid that is just too much like pi**ing in the wind at this point.

 

[Njja]

I am sure the Indians would say the same about the yellow legs, especially Custer.

You are correct, but here is my point, men if they must, should make war on
other men.

When the early settlers came west then walked onto land just as the indians
had eariler. This is life, if the two sides wanted to battle it out for ultimate control......such is mans way.

The indians chose to burn and torture women and children, to scalpe them and do unspeakable things to helpless people.

Then you ask the victor for mercy? You cry foul, when you are treated less
then fair?

The soldiers of the little big horn were subjected to unspeakable acts, and the Indians paid the price for their actions.

It can be said, their beliefs influenced their actions, that does not reduce the outcome.

If the mexican's had given quarter to the defenders of the Alamo they might still own Texas.

In karate you are taught to use just enough force to allow you to walk away, not to leave someone a cripple to teach them a lesson.

I would have more compassion for the Indians if they left the women and children alone.

 

[trooper]

Even the most critical commentator of Custer would not dispute his personal courage, he always led from the front. But his grasp of tactics was minimal to say the least. During the Civil War he repeatedly led his men into difficulties because of lack of forward observation resulting in his brigade suffering the heaviest casualties of any during that period. His only tactic was the charge, and if that failed charge again with more men. During the Indian Wars he and the 7th were only engaged in one major incident, the Wa****a, the rest of their experience was in long, pounding pursuits with the Indians peeling off in small bunches until there was nothing left to chase. This became so engrained as the norm that when the Indians changed their tactics and stood and fought the cavalry were completely wrong footed. Custer had fragmented his command to try to prevent the enemy running with the result that Reno was badly mauled and forced to dig in while Custer himself was cut off and wiped out. All the excuses about being outgunned, the carbines jamming etc cannot deny that Custer was defeated because of his
inept tactics and being out manoeuvered by a supposedly inferior enemy.

 

[Spitfrnd]

You are correct, but here is my point, men if they must, should make war on other men.

When the early settlers came west then walked onto land just as the indians
had eariler. This is life, if the two sides wanted to battle it out for ultimate control......such is mans way.

The indians chose to burn and torture women and children, to scalpe them and do unspeakable things to helpless people.

Then you ask the victor for mercy? You cry foul, when you are treated less
then fair?

The soldiers of the little big horn were subjected to unspeakable acts, and the Indians paid the price for their actions.
...
I would have more compassion for the Indians if they left the women and children alone.

Well I think you need to consider the time lines and differences between tribes more carefully to draw such conclusions. As in most things, it is much more complicated and less one sided than your post suggests. Some facts are well established however. With most tribes, the US military response was far disproportionate to the actions which were used to justify them and for most tribes, the US compliance with the treaties was pitiful and not justified by the native american action. By the time of the Little Big Horn, many of those same soldiers (or their peers) had already done unspeakable acts to many harmless native americans so the cause and effect you note is somewhat reversed.

I simply do not think you can justify American western expansion by the notion that men will be men. At that time, we were supposed to be a nation of law and honor, not savagery, as was the case with most of the tribes. The problem is that we did not apply these principles in most cases to our interaction with many of the tribes. From the Indians prospective, if your enemy acts without honor, how can you treat him with honor?

 

[Njja]

Okay, now I completely understand. What ever the Indians did to women, children and captives was OK. No Problem.....certainly not their fault.

Every act of brutality, injustice, and inhumanity.......why its ok......they
probably had a good reason.

I can't argue with that.......I mean why bother

 

[trooper]

Is this not a question of culture clash? It seems to me to be on a par with the difference between our way of thinking and that of the Japanese concept of bushido in WW2, or the terrorist suicide bomber of today. Even in everyday life there are countries who accept the stoning of women and the mutilation of wrongdoers as being quite normal, although we think them barbaric. To the Indians their behaviour was quite normal, in our eyes it was and is abhorrent.

 

[OzDigger]

I think it's more a question of broad negative racist generalisations that should not be allowed on an International Public Forum.

You can't condemn a race or nation based on the actions of a few different tribes, gangs or random individuals. There is ample evidence proving that Indians helped many American Explorers, and Settlers etc in the West. And you can be absolutely positive that American reprisal actions and disease etc killed far more Indian women and children than the reverse situation.

YES, this thread has gone way off course. So let's get back to the Zulu Dawn.

 

[Njja]

Trooper:

A terrorist suicide bomber......is a victim of culture clash?

Something is seriously wrong with our current educational system.

Look its quiet simple, many people such as the indians, vietcong, terrorists,
choose to fight by mulitating their adversaries to terrorize them.

Can some professor, or individual find a way to justify this......certainly.

Do we really want to live in a world that justifies such acts?

Recently an old woman with a walker was brutally beaten and robbed by
a man, should he be punished......or should we ask him why he felt angry?

I'm sure he could explain his actions. You listen, I'll put him in jail. I'll live with
the guilt, but another old woman will be spared his rage.

 

[Spitfrnd]

Okay, now I completely understand. What ever the Indians did to women, children and captives was OK. No Problem.....certainly not their fault.

Every act of brutality, injustice, and inhumanity.......why its ok......they
probably had a good reason.

I can't argue with that.......I mean why bother

Oh come on Njja, you know quite well I said nothing close to that. Oz has it pretty close this time. I would add that acts of brutality do not justify acts of brutality. That is frequently the measure of the degree of evolution of a civilization actually. I don't know about you but I have relatives on both sides of these examples of inhumanity but I'll be dam* if I am proud of it. Now I am happy to return to Zulu land if you like.

 

[Njja]

Oh come on Njja, you know quite well I said nothing close to that.

By the time of the Little Big Horn, many of those same soldiers (or their peers) had already done unspeakable acts to many harmless native americans so the cause and effect you note is somewhat reversed.

I must have mis-understood your above quote.

I agree, lets allow this thread to resume its original intent.

 

[Deitz]

I am sure the Indians would say the same about the yellow legs, especially Custer. Frankly our so-called conquest of the west was hardly our finest hour. We learned alot from our native american neighbors and should have learned more. We also should have kept our treaties, not stolen their lands, not slaughtered their innocents and not interned them on worthless land that not would support them. As to a statue, I am afraid that is just too much like pi**ing in the wind at this point.

This thread has gotten way off the topic.

I just wonder, I often hear how we stole the Native American's land. For the people who feel we stole their land, has anyone given their land they own back to any Native Americans?

Although I am new to the forums, I think we should keep politics out of threads.

 

[Njja]

BINGO

Ah.......anyone have any more Zulu pictures

 

[Rob]

Yes lets get back to the very interesting subject in hand.As for the movie version of events,well i quite enjoyed 'Zulu Dawn' but it wasn't a patch on 'Zulu' imho.Would love to go there one day,must be a great battlfield tour to take.


Rob

 

[Spitfrnd]

This thread has gotten way off the topic.

I just wonder, I often hear how we stole the Native American's land. For the people who feel we stole their land, has anyone given their land they own back to any Native Americans?

Although I am new to the forums, I think we should keep politics out of threads.

Maybe you would like to start. I am fine to keep politics out of threads but I am not fine letting folks make a political remark and then hide behind that principle. As I said, let's return to Zulu land and let the Indians be unless you want to get political.

 

[The Lt.]

I would very much like to hear your personal opinion, I bet you can give us
a real earful

Since you have already given us many pleasant eyefuls why not

Returning to the Subject Matter Njja the attached will shed more light on the subject matter than I can with others to follow as they apply.....The Lt.

http://www.rorkesdriftvc.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1264

http://www.rorkesdriftvc.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1224

 

[UKReb]

I kinda get real peeved sometimes with this forum!-
Keeping politics out of the comments is the rule of the forum which all of us should and in the main conform to.

But Zulu's and the Sioux are surely a part of our hobby and interest in military history and darn it! every single time a thread gets real interesting and informative it peters out due to someone being upset about someones view. It happened on the WWII revisionist and the Conte Zulu threads when someone nominates themselves as the pacifier to get it back on track and it dies. Guys you are all just too nice sometimes and a nice that evolves a healthy debate into a dull or dead thread.

Any of us who are really interested- plus a whole passel of historians immediately identify the correalation between Isandlwhana and the Little Big Horn-it's pretty obvious why one draws the comparison and fully acceptable why when discussing one campaign it can inevitably drift into another.

Most revisionist historians have sentimentalised the noble Indian as a vulnerable, innocent people who had their lands stolen from them by a rapacious and expansionist USA. The truth is that the Sioux displaced and massacred the Crow from the plains as they had indeed years before pushed the Comanche south who in turn drove the Tinde people into the sterile deserts of the South west where they were renamed the Apache. The Indian was at war with each other long before the whiteman appeared and the massacres they inflicted on each other makes the Wash-ita look insignificant. Likewise the Zulu under Shaka all the way through to Cetwayo; they were warriors and killers and they massacred their own in the hundreds. Now we come to the murderous whites and the treatment meted out on these indigenous people, yes they were corrupt and sometimes evil. We know the greed for Gold was the reason behind the Sioux wars dreamt up by Grant, Sheridan and Sherman while Bartle Frere and Chelmsford dreamt up the Zulu War for a dozen dubious reasons. It's called history and it happened, what version appeals to your view is surely what a debate between like minded guys is all about- Isn't it???? on this forum I'm really beginning to have my doubts.

I agree with Spit/njja and Oz's comments all of which are very very relevant to the thread but I dont get upset at someones interpretations of history and the facts if they do not conform with my views- it's called in my book having a healthy debate- but here we get this continuous thread killing on really interesting subjects. I dont know what this tells me but it's frustrating as hell.

But anyway lets get back to Zulu Dawn and the jammed guns or lack of screwdrivers afterall on this forum it's much safer and so so much nicer.

Reb