Thursday, January 18, 2024

The "Blessings" of Civilization

Battle of Isandlwana
Charles Edwin Fripp (PD)
Having slept much better on Tuesday night (but nowhere near long enough to have much effect on my recovery efforts) I am in a better mood today than I was yesterday. So more of a substantial post today. Maybe. We'll see.

In much of the world, in olden times, life was, or could be, as Hobbes¹ put it, nasty, brutish, and short. Without the blessings of civilization things could, and did, get out of control at times.

Whereas with civilization ... (visions of World War II, Vietnam, Gaza, and Ukraine all spring into my head at once)

Yeah, problematic.

Anyhoo, back in the 19th Century the British Empire was very much a going concern, even though they'd lost much of North America in the previous century, the Empire continued to grow. Africa was one place where the Europeans found "room to grow."

I don't know if you've ever seen the films Zulu and Zulu Dawn (and if you haven't, you should) but they cover one particularly nasty bit of empire building in the year 1879. The first film, Zulu, covers the action at a place called Rorke's Drift.  The second covers the events at the Battle of Isandlwana, not that far from Rorke's Drift (see map below). These fights occurred during the Anglo-Zulu War (this is a good synopsis of that war).

(Source)
The Battle of Isandlwana was an unmitigated disaster for the British Empire. A British camp of nearly 2,000 men (both British and colonial troops) were attacked and overwhelmed by a native force of well over 10,000 (some sources give the total Zulu force as 20,000 men, of whom 10,000 to 15,000 were actually engaged in the fighting.)

Modern rifles (single shot breechloaders) and a couple of cannon on the one side (British) and on the other (Zulu) mostly spears and cowhide shields. The British lost over 1,300 killed, the Zulu as many as 5,000. (Sources vary.)

Part of that Zulu force went on to assault the British troops garrisoning Rorke's Drift. There, roughly 140 men held off a Zulu force of 3,000 to 5,000. Again, modern weapons against shields and spears, this time though the British had the advantage of prepared defenses, buildings and what were essentially sand bags (actually "mealie" bags, sacks of corn in American parlance).

What was it all about? Well, in essence the British wanted all of Southern Africa under their sway. They needed a port for their navy in the area, a protected port. As one colonial administrator put it, I paraphrase, with a Zulu king independent on the borders of Natal, all the other little chieftains in the area had some hope of standing up to the might of the British Empire.

So thousands had to die so that the Royal Navy could have protected facilities on the Cape of Good Hope.

It's an interesting war to read about and two very good movies to watch, Some historical inaccuracies in both but minor given the scope of the films. Zulu was Michael Caine's first big role and Peter O'Toole's portrayal of Lord Chelmsford (the British commander responsible for the initial invasion of Zululand and the defeat at Isandlwana) is spot on. I highly recommend both films.

All this from a comment about the 46th Psalm the other day (Masoretic or Septuagint?). Just to be clear, this one ...

He maketh wars to cease unto the end of the earth; he breaketh the bow, and cutteth the spear in sunder; he burneth the chariot in the fire.
Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.
The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge.


(Masoretic numbering, for sure.)

With a tip of the hat to Colour Sergeant Bourne ...





¹ Thomas Hobbes (05 Apr 1588 – 20 Dec 1679), English philosopher, in his book Leviathan stated as regards man's "natural" state - "In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently no culture of the earth, no navigation nor the use of commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." (Source)

34 comments:

  1. Red uniforms and white headgear, yegads! Sixty years since Zulu came out Sarge, encouraging to hear your sleep is improving.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 60 years!?!? Damn, I'm feeling kinda old right now.

      Delete
  2. Had to delete the first attempt because the formatting didn't take. Try again

    Good that you are on the upswing. Keep it up.

    Some of the best exchanges in "Zulu":
    Lieutenant Gonville Bromhead : Damn the levies man... Cowardly blacks!
    Adendorff : What the hell do you mean "cowardly blacks?" They died on your side, didn't they? And who the hell do you think is coming to wipe out your little command? The Grenadier Guards?

    Lieutenant Gonville Bromhead : Sixty! We dropped at least 60, wouldn't you say?
    Adendorff : That leaves only 3,940.

    I'll have to watch "Zulu Dawn" on prime. For some reason I've never taken to it. Might be because the first time I saw it was on late night television and it was broken up too much. I think it's free on Prime

    Re: Masoretic Text (MT) v. Septuagint (LXX), The LXX is a Greek version and the MT is a later Hebrew version, Hebrew having almost been lost with the LXX was compiled. There are some significant differences. What's interesting is that the Dead Sea SCrolls sometimes support the MT, in other places support the LXX. Fun times.

    On the numbering of the Psalms,

    Greek (LXX) Numbering Hebrew (MT) Numbering
    1-8 1-8
    9 9 and 10
    10-112 11-113
    113 114 and 115
    114 116:1-9
    115 116:10-19
    116-145 117-146
    146 147:1-11
    147 147:12-20
    148-150 148-150

    If that doesn't work, see https://www.oca.org/liturgics/outlines/septuagint-numbering-psalms for the comparison of numbering.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I read an article about this the other day, my head still hurts.

      The Bromhead/Adendorff exchanges were good, and very much on point.

      Delete
  3. Life in the olden days... "olden days" is relative, without penicillin my life would have been "short"! Penicillin saved me when I was 4.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yup, olden days - much lower life expectancy if you're born into the wrong social class.

      Delete
  4. Ah, Hobbes. One of the excerpts of which every budding Political Science major (including myself) was forced to read and opine on.

    Zulu and Zulu Dawn are both very good (I believe one or both are on The Tube of You). The disbelief of Chelmsford (Peter O'Toole) at the suggestion of an attack and his ponderously slow reaction really represents the worst of the British Military hierarchy. If you have not read it, the Osprey book on the Zulu Wars is also very good and gives an overview of the period and the campaign.

    For those that might not remember, the British went on to fight another war in this same area of the world against the Boers (1899-1902).

    The problem of all empires: We need that place for protection/trade/delightful faction spot. Then we need that place to protect the first place. Then we need a third place to protect places one and two. And so it goes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The very best book on this period (IMHO) is The Washing of the Spears by Donald R. Morris. I highly recommend this for a good understanding of the war.

      There were actually two Boer wars, the first from December 1880 to March 1881 (very short) and then the one usually referred to as The Boer War, was actually the second one, which lasted from October of 1899 to May of 1902. (There was another event, Jameson Raid, which took place over New Year's weekend 1895/1896, separate from those two.) A very messy political situation in that area back in the day.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the recommendation Sarge!

      I did see the reference to "The Second Boer War"; it did not register there was one before.

      Delete
    3. Second Sarge's recommendation of WASHING OF THE SPEARS. I'd also like to add the following to everyone's reading list.
      Like Lions They Fought by Robert Edgerton
      From Osprey Press: Queen Victoria's Enemies (1): Southern Africa by Ian Knight [Men-at-arms Series #212]
      The Zulu War by Angus McBride [no number, possibly first of the MAA series, ca. 1976]
      Rorke's Drift 1879 by Ian Knight [Campaign Series 41]
      Queen Victoria's Little Wars by Byron Farwell
      And now that Iran and Pakistan are exchanging rocket fire we can move on to the Northwest Frontier. F**k "Interesting Times."

      Delete
    4. An excellent choice of reading material, Stretch!

      Delete
  5. Re: Nasty, brutish, and short. I think of it as "Harsh, dreary, and likely to die in infancy." For most, unending, grinding labor, with a high likelihood of casting off the mortal coil before the age of 5. Take out the infant mortality, and young females dying in childbirth, and the average age shoots way up. At least into the 60s.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your description is more apropos for the majority of mankind.

      Delete
    2. Through all time and ages. When we were living in the Sunday school room at church about 12 years ago we counted our blessings because we knew that we were better off than about 75% of all people alive today, we had a God who lives us in spite of our faults, shelter, food, potable water, access to sanitation facilities, and each other.

      Delete
  6. Civilization was spread by conversion or coercion in the spread of the Islamic caliphate, the Spanish conquest of the new world and beyond, or the British Empire upon which the sun never set (until it did), or even our own expansion onto the world stage. Religious texts and weaponry varied, sicmitar and Koran for the Muslims. Bible and rapier for the Spanish. We went "under the starry flag, civilizing with a Krag." The Brits went forth with Brown Besses, Sniders and Martini-Henry rifles in their expansion.

    The single-shot Martini was the mainstay of the Zulu wars, and its .577-450 cartridge was a rather stout load with a 480 grain bullet and 85 grains of powder. (The U.S. .45-70 used 70 grains of powder and first a 405 then 500 grain bullet). The .577-450 designation refers to its origins with the .577 Snider cartridge case, which was lengthened for more capacity and necked down to .450 caliber bullet.)

    U.S. Navy ordnance inspector, Lieutenant W.W. Kimball, an advocate for small bore rifles, and especially the Lee bolt action adopted by the U.S. Navy, wrote this about the Martini-Henry in 1889 shortly after the Brits adopted what we call the .303 caliber Lee-Enfield:

    "England has lately adopted a small-bore - 0.303 inch calibre – modified Lee magazine rifle - a Lee with most of the strong points of the mechanism modified out - after making a long series of most amusing steps of development in order to reach the conclusion that this arm was suited to her needs. For some years she has been more than content with her famous 0.45 inch calibre single-loading Martini-Henry rifles and Boxer cartridges - guns almost as bad in principle of breech mechanism as our own [trapdoor] Springfields, and cartridges even worse than the United States regulation ones - and in her late “wars with peoples who wear not the trousers,” her soldiers have gallantly fired on the enemy when they knew full well what a horrible punishment they were to receive from the brutal recoil of their weapons, and have borne their torture with true English grit. An English officer informed the writer that the practice was a great aid to gallantry in battle in South Africa, for “when a fellow has been so brutally pounded by his own rifle half a hundred times, he don't so much mind having an assegai as big as a shovel stuck through him; it's rather a relief, don't you know.”

    John Blackshoe

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Maiwand". Different continent, same results. Although the Afghans did have modern artillery. Once those non-compliant natives get into the line and it goes hand to hand, things get bad really quick- they have been experts in spear and sword work for a thousand years and fully up to date on their studies. Never get into a hammer fight with a carpenter, as it were.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "There was thirty dead an' wounded on the ground we wouldn't keep -
      No, there wasn't more than twenty when the front began to go;
      But, Christ! along the line o' flight they cut us up like sheep,
      An' that was all we gained by doing so.

      I 'eard the knives be'ind me, but I dursn't face my man,
      Nor I don't know where I went to, 'cause I didn't 'alt to see,
      Till I 'eard a beggar squealin' out for quarter as 'e ran,
      An' I thought I knew the voice an' - it was me!

      We was 'idin' under bedsteads more than 'arf a march away;
      We was lyin' up like rabbits all about the countryside;
      An' the major cursed 'is Maker 'cause 'e lived to see that day'
      An' the colonel broke 'is sword acrost, an' cried."
      - Kipling

      A nasty fight indeed.

      Delete
  8. Barbarians are always at the Gates. A thriving civilization always is pushing the Gates farther away. It's when the civilization stops thriving that the Barbs get closer and closer.

    Both Zulu movies are excellent and show the issues of a stagnant supply system greatly. Why weren't the troops at Isandlwana flowing in supplies? Because they were at Roarke's Drift. Bad for the troopies at Isandlwana, good for the troopies at Roarke's. (Yes, a simplification, but...)

    And you can't forget to factor in that the Zulu nation was in an expansionistic moment also.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually the Zulus were not expanding at that point in time, that was Shaka's thing. But they did a couple of things which the British felt were barbaric, also they didn't like the idea of an independent king with a very motivated armed force under his control at their doorstep.

      These days we grow our own barbarians in our backyards, we don't need anybody at the gates, they're already inside.

      Delete
  9. How many Boers did the Brits murder to get South Africa? And then they have the gall to prosecute "war crimes" in WWII, after what they did to Boer families during the second Boer war...

    ReplyDelete
  10. The events of the Zulu war and the Boer war lead to a series of reforms of the British Army. The events of the Crimean War, American Civil War and the Franco Prussian war also influenced events. It was starting to dawn on the politicians, if not the military that future wars involving the continental powers were likely to be on a large scale and the traditional British approach of 'gifted amateurs' might not work. The Cardwell and Childers reforms improved the organisation and administration of the army as earlier reforms had established a staff college as well as abolishing the purchasing of commissions.
    It was the Haldane reforms of 1906-12 that laid the foundations of an army that would trained and equipped to take part in a major conflict. There had been other changes post the Boer Wars that were aimed at fitting the British Army to take part in modern war. By all accounts Haldane was a very clever man, one of his remarks was along the lines of 'intelligence seems to be a bar to promotion in the British Army'. A bit tongue in cheek but I can see where he was coming from.
    Finally the Boer wars revealed just how dire the state of health of the nation was. In some areas up to 60% of volunteers were rejected on health grounds and the average was around 40% of applicants per area being rejected.
    Retired

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wonder what would have been the fate of the "Old Contemptibles" in 1914 had those reforms not be in place?

      Delete
    2. Chaos for the initial mobilization I would imagine. Kitchener was one of the few who recognised that a future European war would take place on a huge scale. He realised that it would take up to two years to raise, train and equip a modern army. As it was the BEF had suffered 80% by the end of 1914. The French had suffered about 1 million casualties in the same time.
      Retired

      Delete
    3. I think the horrific casualties in the early going of 1914 stunned everyone, yet it shouldn't have.

      Delete
    4. Yet they kept charging the machine guns across no man's land until 1918.

      Delete
    5. It took a very long time for the generals to learn another way.

      Generals always insist on fighting the last war.

      Delete
  11. I think the Generals are usually fighting the war they had as Lieutenants. The politicians are fighting the war they read in comic books when they were in second grade.

    There -are- exceptions to that, I suspect. They're mostly ignored.

    Glad you're on the mend, Sarge.

    ReplyDelete

Just be polite... that's all I ask. (For Buck)
Can't be nice, go somewhere else...

NOTE: Comments on posts over 5 days old go into moderation, automatically.