Imperial Strategy and the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879.pdf - 0 views
-
O’CONNOR On 22 January 1879, the British army suffered its worst colonial defeat of the nineteenth century when 1,500 men armed with the most modern weapons then available were wiped out at the battle of Isandlwana by a Zulu army––an impi––of 25,000 warriors armed only with spears.
-
mokoena03 on 28 Apr 23The 22 January 1879 is a significant date because it was a massacre where men died. At the battle of Isandlwana.
-
-
t bayonet point, they fought a last-round defense against 4,000 Zulu warriors which earned them a victory and eleven Victoria Crosses––the highest number of the highest award for bravery ever bestowed on a single day in British military history.
-
The British army then fought against 4000 Zulu warriors. This was a remarkable British military history
-
-
It has often been posited that the British Empire provides an example of greedy capitalists dispossessing indigenous peoples in their search for new markets and raw materials, 1 yet whenever one looks into the particular circumstances of an episode of expansion, it is very difficult to isolate a viable economic motive.
-
The British Empire was a greedy empire that wanted to take away the resources, and belongings of the indigenous people and own everything. They did this during their search for new markets and raw material
-
- ...8 more annotations...
-
expanded her control over wide areas of Southern Africa during the nineteenth century against the opposition of indigenous peoples and the original Dutch settlers, the Boers, while at the same time repudiating any desire for an increase in territory or responsibility
-
-
This article will argue that the roots of this war lay in the strategic importance of the Cape route to India and the particular strategic situation of the British Empire in 1879.
-
The roots of the Anglo-Zulu War lay in the strategic importance of the Cape route to India
-
-
Cetshwayo, however, was not a passive victim in the process that led to war. Rather , he was a shrewd leader who unfortunately suffered from an overwhelming ignorance of the extent of British power
-
King Cetshwayo was a leader who was suffering from ignorance of the extent of the British empire
-
-
Frere, however, making Cape Town secure was only part of the answer to external threats, and he argued that there were a number of opportunities for European powers to intervene in Southern Africa if they so wished.
-
Frere believed that they were many possibilities for European powers to intervene in South Africa.
-
-
ly , Cetshwayo had looked to the British as a potential ally against Boer land claims in the Disputed Territory along the Transvaal-Zululand border. Now he was in direct dispute with them.
-
At first King Cetshwayo did not see the Europeans as enemies or rivalries. However, that changed because of everything that has been happening, and now that he was aware of the European's plans he was thus in direct dispute with them.
-
-
Frere’s context was, therefore, that of a leading strategic thinker sent out to prepare a vulnerable point in the empire for a widely expected war with Russia that would include as a feature the possibility of a cruiser attack or commando raid on the ports of South Africa.
-
The war had key role players or people who played important roles in the war, Like Frere, King Cetshwayo, and others. Frere was a British leading strategic thinker, who was sent out to prepare vulnerable points in the empire.
-
-
The king has changed his tone. He says that he is tired of talking and now intends to fight and that he can easily eat up the whole lot of whitemen [sic] like pieces of meat and then not have enough... that as soon as Secucuni heard that fighting had begun, he would attack us also.
-
The Zulu King Cetshwayo got tired of playing nice, he then decided to go to war.
-
-
the Anglo–Zulu War of 1879: an unauthorized aggression conducted for reasons of geopolitical strategy by a man who considered himself to have the interests of the empire at heart and who distrusted the good faith of politicians. It was emphatically not, as has often been claimed in historiography,
-
