British Empire

[Crazy Eddie]

Rorke's Drift was particularly heroic given that the same force of Zulu's had just defeated an army of 1600 British and about 2500 native soliers at Isandhlwana, and was now armed with the same rifles as the 125 soldiers holding the drift.
I don't think that a wall made from feed sacks and a couple of overturned wagons really describes "a heavily fortified position" either.

One of the VCs was awarded to a man from my home town, BTW.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Actually it was the reserve forces of the Zulu impi at Roarke's Drift, mostly the youngest and oldest warriors, rather than the prime regiments.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Even the Zulu reserves were still a force to be reckoned with. Being unused at Isandhlwana, they were still fresh, and I expect given a great morale boost from their victory. I doubt there are very many people who would be prepared to make a stand under the same conditions as at Rorke's Drift.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

It was indeed a strong force, numerous and brave, even if not in the prime of their carreer.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Ja, 'twas the right horn of the impi, IIRC, and they had already unnerved the NNC contingent to the extent that they fled to Helpmakaar.
The big difference between Isandlwhana and Rorke's Drift is that the QM's weren't hoarding ammunition, and the position was somewhat more defensible than the unlaagered encampment. This allowed for a greater concentration of firepower over a smaller area, as was shown throughout the night as they contracted their line.

 

[Adamski]

They did fight a few battles though. Some in NZ

During the first war in 1845 At Oheawai there was massive loss of British life as the British regular charge encountered the fortified Maori pa for the first time. It was a minor defeat for the British, or a stalemate at best strategically.

They marched through bush,river and hill country to lay siege to Ruapekapeka, bombarding it for days before finally assaulting, and being repulsed from the pa.

In 1863 at Rangiriri on the Waikato River they assaulted a massive pa (fortress) complex, by frontal attack, after a minimum of softening up with a few cannons and an armed barge. They sent the fighting Irish regiment in, and the sailors with their ladders, and yet the Maoris held the day. It was incredible though for the red and blue charges kept coming. The British wouldn't believe that indisciplined irregulars could hold them. But the fortresses were well made. After a day or two of heavy fighting, the position was surrendered, or taken under a flag of truce as some on the Maori side said.

There's more stories like this if anyone's still listening!

 

[Pangur Bán]

originally posted by Hamlet

The English never conquered Scotland. They were both technically united by the act of Union to form The UK. However, Scotland was never actually annexed militarily.

The word conquered is not confined to only direct military takeover. The fact is that prior to the act of union England wore Scotland down economically by trade legislation and by sabotaging the Darien project. When it came down to it, the Scottish negotiators were chosen by the English indirectly through the queen and the treaty itself was accepted by the Scottish parliament because of hopes of financial gain and compensation backed up by lies and an underlying threat of force. The act of union was not a treaty between 2 equal and free states; it was a de facto takeover of Scotland by England. To view it otherwise is illusory.
Plus, the rebellion of 1715 was not just an attempt to restore the Stewarts but also to revoke the act of union. This revolt had strong popular support in Scotland and was crushed through military force. Also, Oliver Cromwell had conquered Scotland in the middle of the 17th century and many of the decisions taken in Scotland thereafter were taken by people who owed allegiance to London.

Scotland was conquered by England.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Indeed, and the issue was definitely laid to rest with the Battle of Culloden in 1745. What followed was a bona fide military occupation, ie: a conquest.

 

[JoeM]

Boo Yah Hamlet! We won! RaspberryRaspberry.

Now that's finally settled, could the Scots stop having a go at the English all the time?

Maybe we can watch football matches and cheer the same sides now!

p.s. What's the emoticon for blowing raspberrys?

 

[redtom]

The usual reasons for why Britain has always had a small professional army are:
1)Armies in Britain has been despised since Cromwell's time thats why Britain's has never been huge. Cromwell was a bastard, diposed an autocrat to become an autocrat(yes, I know its not as simple as that, I know about the Rump Parliament etc.) He created a huge army that terrified the locals reorganising the state, threatening any non-conformists and people who liked to have fun (damn puritans). So since then Britain has never really unless in forced to eg. Napoleonic with the homeguard, Conscript during WWI, WWII, and temporarily post war. Because it could afford to so it hired other armies, mecernaries and allies to do the land fighting with its tiny professional army.
2)Its never really needed a huge army as it has no land borders until 1917 with Republic of Ireland.

 

[Ozz]

Originally posted by redtom
Cromwell was a bastard, diposed an autocrat to become an autocrat(yes, I know its not as simple as that, I know about the Rump Parliament etc

Give some credit where credit is due. The English leaders of both sides were ALL bastards every one of them. Cromwell left a very differient England than what he found. England wasn't ready for a Republic, and France was'nt ready when they had their revolution. They both returned to Monarchy. Compare Cromwell to Rosepierre, he smells like roses.