...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
Rahotep101
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Just call me Jari: [QB] LOL, an Indutrialized, High I.Q White Army with Guns was wiped out by Spear Chuckers.. Isandhlwana, 1879. The battle at Isandhlwana. The battle that took place at Isandhlwana, which is now Durban in South Africa, was part of a larger colonial campaign that the British Empire fought during the 19th century in Africa. African natives, known as the Zulus, had opposed the British occupation and scored a major victory when British troops, in response to the Zulu nation ignoring an ultimatum, marched on the capital of Ulundi. A force of some 25,000 Zulu warriors camped in wait for one of the marching British columns. The Zulus were well prepared for the battle, they had even managed to acquire a number of guns which they used to fire on the British as they marched. The British were also well prepared, and the Zulu trap was spotted by a British scout. Recognising that their opportunity was now or never, the Zulu warriors, realising they had been discovered, marched quickly on the British column. Being lightly armed and armoured, the Zulus moved quickly and were able to surround the British positions as they were adopting defensive formations. [b]Determined waves of Zulu warriors eventually forced a hand-to-hand engagement which overwhelmed the British troops. Some 1000 British and 2000 Zulus died after the Zulu forces cut off the line of retreat back to Rorkes Drift.[/b] Once again it is interesting to consider the historical context and the way that this battle is often discussed in the British mainstream. The fact that the colours of the 24th regiment (the British unit that fought in the battle) were not captured by the enemy and were recovered after being washed up down stream from a river where it is surmised that a Lt. Coghill died defending the banner is often seen as a coded victory for the honour of the British army. What actually happened to the Regimental colours is a matter of historical interpretation as not a single soldier survived to tell the tale. Ultimately the Zulus were defeated when they pushed on to Rorkes Drift as a precursor to an invasion of the land occupied by European settlers in Natal. They were finally defeated at Ulundi when well-drilled British troops beat back a similar Zulu attack. Spurious counter argument... Britain conquered the Zulu capital at Ulundi soon after the battle at Isandhlwana. [b]This is true, but it cannot paper over the cracks of the fact that an entire column of British troops were wiped out.[/b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: [qb] There is no logic to this thread calling white northern europeans (particularly the ethnic-british) as savages when they colonised Africa. If northern europeans were so primitive or savage how did they manage to conquer virtually the whole of Africa? When the Europeans arrived with artillary, guns etc the native sub-saharan africans were living in mud huts with wooden spears. This is how 139 british soldiers managed to defeat and defend their post from 4,000+ Zulus in the Battle of Rorke's Drift. The Zulus were primitive savages in rags with spears, while the British were armed with guns, armour, ammo and sophisticated equipment. http://www.friedgold.co.uk/battles.html Basically afrocentrism stems from a self-hatred...blacks know their history nowhere compares to europeans so they invent a pseudo-history. [/qb][/QUOTE] [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3