| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| El Crab |
Posted - October 09 2003 : 02:04:24 AM
Has anyone noticed the similarities between Little Big Horn and the battle of Isandlwana in Zululand, 1879? And of the similiarities between the 1879 Zulu campaign and the Sioux campaign of 1876? I've read a bit on the subject, and will soon offer up the similarities I've picked up on, but feel free to reply. |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - June 03 2005 : 10:47:42 PM
"You often say say the opposite of what you intended."
D.c. is an honorable, compassionate human being who, consistently, seeks the good in his fellow man. Never one to chastise, spew forth personal attacks, he always stays on the topic at hand. A true leader on this forum, he has never attempted to debase, ridicule, nor make unsubstantiated negative remarks regarding one's profession, race, nor Italian decent.
You Sir, are the epitome of all that is good in Homo Sapiens. I salute you and honor your presence. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - May 31 2005 : 11:36:45 AM
That's not a typo. Since you've gone out of your way to claim yourself a soldier, a cop, a teacher, and an Indian - none of which is relevant even if true - you might want to do the topic the courtesy of maintaining ground level standards. You often say the exact opposite of what you intended. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - May 30 2005 : 7:48:46 PM
Thank you for your unselfish efforts in perusing my every thread (for the last year) and correcting every mistake I make, think, or contemplate. Such commitment to excellence is very "atypical."
By the way, has my spellllllllingimproved? |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - May 30 2005 : 11:59:17 AM
You say the opposite of what you think you've said. Again. You mean "typical", not "atypical."
|
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - May 29 2005 : 3:13:22 PM
I do not have a lot of background in this field, but I do recall reading a scenario wherein the dispersion of the Royal Troops may have facilitated their down fall. Approaching the British Camp in their classic "Horn of the Bull(?)tactic, the Zulu warriors were approached by Col. Dunsford to the right flank,while one or two troops were extended to the front by the acting commander. These movements, I think, extended the troops to such a degree that enemy infiltration between the lines was possible.
This infiltration prevented the troopers from formulating a "British Square" where timely and consentrated disperses of fire would have decimated the Zulu lines as they approached.
Like you, I too, have been led to believe that too much has been made of the ammunition dispersion among the troops as a cause for their defeat;in both battles. I also agree that both commanders underestimated the enemy in there resolve to fight for their homes and way of life. Such an under-estimation of perceived "Savages" was atypical of military commanders of that era and did not end until the Viet-Nam action.
|
| aj |
Posted - May 29 2005 : 07:20:31 AM
At the battle of Isandhlwana, there was a certain ammunition problem but not as much as people think. The camp was spread out because of Lord Chelmsfords orders that it was only a temporary camp, for this reason te camp was not laargered.
The Martini-Henry rifle produces a lot of smoke when fired and sometimes jams, there was also an eclipse of the sun during the battle, so the imperial troops could see even less, by the time any of these factors was realised it was too late and the imperial line broke and they formed themselves into small groups, and four major groups, to make their last stands.
The imperial troops were very good with the bayonet and the Zulus had a lot of respect for the British when using their bayonets.
Isandhlwana was similar to the Little Big Horn because both commanders underestimated their enemy, but thats as far as the similarities go. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - October 02 2004 : 10:43:03 PM
"Gelded by your remarks Dunford."
If only that were true, the removal of your diminutive scrotums would go far to silence your cavernous mouth.
Your Pal, Joe |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - September 22 2004 : 4:00:01 PM
Wait, now. I have no intent of, or ability to, intimidate anyone, and it isn't my goal anyway. I don't call people names, either, much less obscene selections. The worst I've ever done is refer to Wiggs as a liar, which he is. Larsen listed his numerous failings in various threads.
Of the others, Wrangler, after ridiculing Gray, has yet to back up his assertions and brought along, as I recall, actual shills who came and left with him and whose posts simply praised Wrangler while pretending to be objective visitors to the site. A Seeker of Truth they called him. Giants walked among us once.
Bodden uses emoticons, for god's sake. Enough said. |
| benteens brother |
Posted - September 22 2004 : 08:49:30 AM
Good post Billy. I think DC is tongue in cheek most of the time but some people don't seem to realise it. I think anyone who has a problem with him needs to read the posts of 'Wild I' or El Crab who seem to be able to give as good as they get without getting personal. If you get upset I think he has achieved his aim of intimidating and dominating you. Throw it back at him and don't get upset and I think it will make things more entertaining. |
| BJMarkland |
Posted - September 22 2004 : 05:26:14 AM
I am staying out of the personality issues but do wish to note that after reading the entire thread, I did not see anything over the top while dealing with the topic. That the personal insults occurred are to be regretted. However, the primary antagonists: DC, Wrangler, and Frank, have a long and "merry" history.
Those who choose to take offense at the use of a perfectly valid anthropological term such as "stone age" really need to use less emotion and more logic. While we all have our opinions and the right to express them and, courtesy of Rich, the forum for such, we should also be prepared to accept criticism, valid or otherwise, of them.
If we choose to partake of this forum, why not try to use less emotion and more common sense, i.e., not everyone will agree. The moment we choose the emotional route we, to use a term coined by a regular poster, enter the purgatory of the "offensive circle." (Sorry, could not resist that..see how hard it is?)
And I almost fell to the floor laughing at the phrasing of DC's last to Frank. While I don't agree with the sentiment, I have to admire the turn of phrase.
Best of wishes,
Billy
(who is trying to figure out how to extricate himself from the "offensive circle.") |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - September 21 2004 : 9:51:07 PM
Andrew, you will not be the first individual to depart these murky shores of personal vendettas and crass remarks from two, well documented idiots. Sadly, you will not be the last. As for me, I will stand until the cows come home rather than allow two slimy, worms to dominate this forum. I hope that you will stand with the rest of the decent folk on this forum as well. |
| frankboddn |
Posted - September 21 2004 : 8:24:20 PM
Andrew, "his" response kind of speaks for itself and speaks volume. Won't dignify it with a reply. Hope you find something better. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - September 21 2004 : 11:55:39 AM
Gelded by your remarks, Durnford, I searched the web and, it is true, some portions of the Zulu were indeed early Iron age because they quickly absorbed other tribes with greater and lesser abilities than their own, especially under Shaka. The description of them as between Stone and Iron Age, and certainly not beyond, is pretty reasonable, given trading info is suspiciously vague. I'm not finding descriptions of forges in the villages, or anything about Zulu mining, or indications that much is made of metal at all. Wood, hide, and rock, mostly.
Still, I'm puzzled as to what you think an appropriate reaction should be to your dramatic announcement of retirement from the forum because you're too dignified for it, although not as dignified as the "many" others who have already left, and how this seems less childish to you than that which you condemn? Certainly think well of yourself if you deem your threatened absence is such a loss people will immediately quiver and repent.
Just ignore that which annoys you if you don't want to participate or argue it. What's the big deal? At the least, don't become ridiculous like Bodden and pretend you're away at "serious" forums for weeks at a time, appearing only to lick ankles or bark from between them. |
| frankboddn |
Posted - September 21 2004 : 01:57:39 AM
Andrew, I'd like to personally apologize  to you for my participation in the name calling and immature actions on this forum. Let's hope it's at an end. I sincerely hope that you won't let the actions of a few drive you from a forum where you have a special interest, such as the Zulu Campaign. Despite all our bickering, I think we can say that we all share our love of history. Thanks for calling this to our attention. |
| Durnford |
Posted - September 21 2004 : 12:41:55 AM
Incidentally, the Zulu's were 'smelting iron on their own' - I recall at least one source in this regard - and if I am not mistaken, the making of Assegaai (spear) heads was 'outsourced' to a particular community or clan of the Zulu recognised for their expertise in this regard.
This is the first time I have participated in a forum of this nature -primarily because of my fascination with the Zulu Campaign, and I hope that I have contributed positively towards the debate.
Unfortunately, and like many others before me, I have taken the decision to withdraw my participation.
Other readers may be amused at the tirades, name calling and general mud slinging which has occurred over the last while - I however consider the behaviour child-like. Such behaviour is not excused by your intelligence - it actually makes it more reprehensible. Surely you must have noticed that there were persons with far more to contribute than yourselves, who have simply voted with their feet.
These persons are not 'hapless' as someone suggested - they simply have dignity - certainly more dignity than I possess - and have chosen not to demean themselves by participating in this madness.
It is indeed unfortunate that this topic has been denegrated by persons actually not even interested in the subject.
Go read some books |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - September 17 2004 : 7:32:34 PM
The Stone Age is still going on in parts of the world. The criteria is: can the culture manufacture metal from ground to forge to weapon or whatever. In Borneo, in the Amazon, and maybe in Africa, there are cultures barely above hunter-gatherer notwithstanding the Nike t-shirts the camera crews gave them.
In 1876, the Sioux were Stone Age in that they could not manufacture metal. Or much of anything. They had not invented the wheel and, until the European invasion, had no real need for either. Non-necessity is the mother of non-invention. That Europe and the Middle East had all this stuff long ago doesn't mean it reflected the rest of the world. So: you're wrong. Amusing you buy the Euro-centric notion of cultural advance as applying everywhere.
If you assume that the culture is part of a bigger cuture, as the Sioux became part of the US, then the distinction vanishes, I suppose. But if you hold the plains Indians to be a separate culture, then they're stone age.
As for Custer, I don't imply his actions were stupid. I've said the opposite, EXCEPT for that which transpired after MTC, when I think he was wounded because the actions for which he's credited make no sense to me, and they normally do. I certainly think his acolytes act like idiots in their worship and the efforts to which they go to return him to this ludicrous former pedestal of prissy and divine competence. He was an aggressive and energetic officer with weaknesses and strengths. Even in his worst vanities, I cannot see him making some of the claims for himself that his fans do.
Just one more thing: your problem is, Wiggs, that I and others consistently use words and concepts you do not understand, that you don't realize you don't understand, and when you figure it out or have it drawn to your attention, you lie about it. For example, what do you think (sic) means? And once you look it up, why did you use it?
More examples? The numerous times you write sentences that mean the exact opposite of what you think they do. Functional illiteracy. You can't pat that into shape, Wiggs. |
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - September 17 2004 : 6:38:25 PM
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
You may not know what I mean, but I would wager that every other member of this board does, that includes your clone, Larsen.
Wiggs, don't you ever get tired of living in such a haze of paranoia and misreading? I don't know what's more annoying, emotionalizing technical terms so you can savor the scrawny privilege of being insulted, or doing it for the even leaner pedestal of being insulted on behalf of another party. Probably the latter.
I don't recall where DC said they were, but if a culture is prehistoric all it means is that they were not writing and recording history. I don't know if the Zulu were or were not, but if they were not, then there's nothing hurtful in the designation. You seek out reasons to be offended.
R. Larsen |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - September 17 2004 : 6:03:49 PM
There is an old adage, "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, its a duck." You consistently utilize terms and adjectives to describe events that ooze with obvious and transparent negative connotations. Rather than refer to Custer as an idiot, which you never have done, you consistently make disparaging remarks about his every action. This, of course, sends a very clear, subliminal message which reveals your true feelings about the man.
"Stone Age" given as a description to any group of people(other than those individuals who actually lived during that period) is as demeaning to that group as it gets. By the way, you do know that the Zulu's did not live during a prehistoric era? Once again a not so subtle message is sent forth.
You may not know what I mean, but I would wager that every other member of this board does, that includes your clone, Larsen. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - September 17 2004 : 5:43:37 PM
Also, out of curiosity, why the (sic)? |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - September 17 2004 : 5:18:46 PM
Not sure of your point, Wiggs. The Zulu WERE somewhere between Stone and Iron age. And they did beat the Brits badly, just as the Sioux slammed the 7th. There is no mutual exclusive. Martial abilities have little to do with their industrial ability.
Were the Zulu beginning to consistently smelt iron on their own? Lord knows the plains Indians weren't.
What metal they had was obtained in trade. Stone Age doesn't mean 'stupid.' It means they use stone, like flint. If the Zulu or Sioux had abilities that positioned them beyond the Iron Age, what was it? They certainly had no foundries, no mines.
What are you talking about?
As for winners writing history and the implication that it's therefore 'unfair as well as false' thesis, the United States, if anything, inflates the nobility and ability of its crushed enemies after they're safely beaten. Like Hirohito, Yamamoto, Robert Lee, and Rommel. Even Cornwallis is now portrayed as a great guy. And if Crazy Horse and Chief Joseph were elevated any more, they'd replace Christianity in reverence.
It's to the great fortune of the Native Americans that they lost to the Blue Coats or they'd have no memory of these people. Unfair?
Who, for example, were Sioux chiefs in the 1600's? Lost, all of it, despite the insistence that memories are preserved. Only campfire stories of conflation are told. |
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - September 17 2004 : 4:55:01 PM
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
This statement exemplifies the phenomenally slanted,un-substantiated, ethnocentric, sanctimonious,rhetoric that DC has inudated this forum with for sometime.
You're in no position to talk when you're posting identical claims about the Indians on the "From the Indian Side" board. Your illiteracy and self-righteousness are a fine mix, indeed --- always coming out half-baked.
R. Larsen
|
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - September 17 2004 : 1:07:53 PM
"The Brits are now reinventing (sic) the Zulu into something they weren't. the Zulu were somewhere between the Stone and Iron Age."
This statement exemplifies the phenomenally slanted,un-substantiated, ethnocentric, sanctimonious,rhetoric that DC has inudated this forum with for sometime. Utilizing a receipt of one 1/2 teaspoon of relative facts combined with four gallons of name calling, whining, and fatuous information, he concocts a brew that is palatable only to his mind.
I won't belabor the forum with examples of DC's crude tactics, we all are familiar with them. Devoid of any desire to particpate in an open forum where knowledge is exchanged and perceptions honestly reviewed, he unleashes a barrage of personal attacks and devious innuendos until the sheer weight of his audacity collapses the debate into a quagmire of muck.
Perhaps he was unaware that the martial abilities of the Zulu Nation, under Shaka, was admired by the very British troops who fought against them with equal valor and bravery.
Perhaps he was unaware that these "Stone Age" warriors handed a well trained, well equiped army one of its most devestating defeats in its history.
Perhaps if he read a book prior to wading into a fray of words with those who, obviously, know of which they speak his response would have been more appropiate.
Having no life, DC attempts to create one wherein he is the chief Guru to be admired by one and all. He therfore claims that his methods are merely attempts to "stir things up." In actuality, he hopes to remove, from the forum, anyone who seriously dissents
from his views.
To those members whom I have offended by this tirade of unrelated information, I apologize. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - September 15 2004 : 3:57:52 PM
Actually, Frank, I do a passing amount. I don't intimidate people. Ideas stir things up. What do you mean by "...isn't?" If you continue to call people names, it won't further yourself but, on the other hand, the journey to maturity begins with a tiny step, and after encoragement you WERE able to almost call me a name to my face (so to speak). Good boy. I'm sure when you return from your serious boards in two or three weeks you'll have calmed down. But still using emoticons.
|
| frankboddn |
Posted - September 15 2004 : 12:09:04 PM
Well, gee, dc. Regarding calling names, this subject was flowing nicely until you began the name calling with your whining footstomping remarks. Totally uncalled for. So if you can't handle and little give and take, go back to mommy and cry to her. Some people can dish it out and take it, and others? Well, there's individuals like you. It's okay to call people whiners, etc., but asshole, which is far more descriptive and appropriate in your case, isn't? What a lonely, pathetic life you must live if all you have to do in life is stir things up and try to intimidate people. Go back to your dollhouse and play with your things. As to the rest of the serious folks here, I apologize to you for even responding to her whiner remarks and getting this off subject. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - September 15 2004 : 10:35:36 AM
Come, Frank, you must be one of Wiggs' neighborhood children. Although, even they wouldn't use emoticons. "Serious" boards wouldn't have you, Frank, for that alone, and in any case would be composed of academics discussing stuff in detail you don't understand. The only time academics want to chat with the hoi poloi is when they're in retail and on the make, selling services or books or in customer relations for future sales, stroking correspondents' egos for their "enthusiasm" and "interest."
Perhaps eventually you'll summon the courage to call people obscene names directly, rather than doing so in a posting to someone else to shield yourself. It's still wrong, childish, cowardly, and boorish, but an ethical improvement none the less.
Regardless, this got steered away from Zulu by Wrangler's pout of January. |
|
|
