Flag?

[oldrider]

Oh forgot they signed a Treaty with the British, all good.

Were the Pom's really serious or were they just trying to be more than a little patronising after the expense of North America etc?

[Voltaire]

Were the Pom's really serious or were they just trying to be more than a little patronising after the expense of North America etc?

Probably might be that the traders had supplied the locals with lots of weapons, and it was going to take some months to get the British Army here.

100 000 Maoris vs a couple of thousand honkies, from memory.

US was probably several million by that time and British would have struggled to beat the Americans.

[Erelyes]

They rigged the vote paper as much as they could by presenting the new flag on the top!

I think I found it.... the most tin foil hat post in this thread.

Has all the debate and discussion around changing the flag etc de-valued the current flag?

Depends on the opinion you hold I guess. I have sure seen more NZ flags around lately. I do wonder why there weren't so many flying before. It's all well and good bleating on about it, but actually demonstrating pride is different. That can only be positive though.

Yet I imagine there are those that will, if the current flag wins, continue to see it for what it is to them: a relic, and as such, best put away except for special occasions.

And if the new flag wins, people will continue to fly the current one (which is good). After all, the Confederate flag still means a lot to some people in the States.

[oldrider]

tinfoil hat?
Derisive attempt on behalf of blind conformists to discredit and stigmatise those who dare to question authority.
I.E. "You honestly believe the war is all about oil? Where's your tinfoil hat?"

Lets be very clear - I don't wear a tinfoil hat - I wear a tinfoil "sombrero" with pride! - Chuck all the shit you like it's really all about you anyway!

[Berries]

Poms and honkies on the same page eh?

I wonder if the same questions would be asked if the Portuguese had staked their claim on this particular landmass?

[idb]

I don't know why you would spoil your vote if you were voting as well, I can understand if you are not voting.

I am not voting and can't be arsed spoiling the papers so they went in the bin. Should have thought along these lines - usual Stuff shit.

Why aren't you voting?

[James Deuce]

Probably might be that the traders had supplied the locals with lots of weapons, and it was going to take some months to get the British Army here.

100 000 Maoris vs a couple of thousand honkies, from memory.

US was probably several million by that time and British would have struggled to beat the Americans.

The British Army wasn't that big pre-WW1, maybe 80,000 professional soldiers and the navy could field about 5000 Marines.

There is no way in hell Maori could have sustained 100,000 frontline troops for more than 3 months and certainly not all in one place. The big issue they faced was their manpower was needed to provide food and infrastructure as well as fight and their concept of "war" was vastly different to the Brits and did not involve killing as many people as possible.

This led to Kawiti devising strategic forts miles from anywhere so 5 Maori blokes could drag 2000 British blokes into difficult bush terrain and make them sustain unreasonable casualty figures, just from cannons rolling over the feet of the people pushing them. Kawiti continually outfought the British and only engaged them openly once and learned from his mistake even though it was a Maori victory. Concepts like shielded firing positions, trenches, and bunkers were all learned from Kawiti and incorporated into future engagements for the Brits.

[Oscar]

The British Army wasn't that big pre-WW1, maybe 80,000 professional soldiers and the navy could field about 5000 Marines.

There is no way in hell Maori could have sustained 100,000 frontline troops for more than 3 months and certainly not all in one place. The big issue they faced was their manpower was needed to provide food and infrastructure as well as fight and their concept of "war" was vastly different to the Brits and did not involve killing as many people as possible.

This led to Kawiti devising strategic forts miles from anywhere so 5 Maori blokes could drag 2000 British blokes into difficult bush terrain and make them sustain unreasonable casualty figures, just from cannons rolling over the feet of the people pushing them. Kawiti continually outfought the British and only engaged them openly once and learned from his mistake even though it was a Maori victory. Concepts like shielded firing positions, trenches, and bunkers were all learned from Kawiti and incorporated into future engagements for the Brits.

Ah, the old James Belich theory that Maori invented trench warfare?
And his other one - that Maori fought off the strength of the British Empire?

Trench warfare goes back to the Romans, at least.
As for "the Brits" as you call them - they were likely to be Sydney Militia.
Not exactly the cream of the British Army.

[James Deuce]

Ah, the old James Belich theory that Maori invented trench warfare?
And his other one - that Maori fought off the strength of the British Empire?

Trench warfare goes back to the Romans, at least.
As for "the Brits" as you call them - they were likely to be Sydney Militia.
Not exactly the cream of the British Army.

Nope, not trench warfare as a new concept. Strategic forts with firing positions at the base of the wall, not on top of it. It was not a "normal" fuzzy wuzzy tactic.

The point you make about the Sydney Militia is exactly my point. The Brits had little capability or desire to send professional British Army units to the other side of the world. They sent expendable plonkers to command colonial militia units. Sikhs at the time were Brits, as were Australians and Kiwis, so that point is moot.

[trufflebutter]

The British Army wasn't that big pre-WW1, maybe 80,000 professional soldiers and the navy could field about 5000 Marines.

There is no way in hell Maori could have sustained 100,000 frontline troops for more than 3 months and certainly not all in one place. The big issue they faced was their manpower was needed to provide food and infrastructure as well as fight and their concept of "war" was vastly different to the Brits and did not involve killing as many people as possible.

This led to Kawiti devising strategic forts miles from anywhere so 5 Maori blokes could drag 2000 British blokes into difficult bush terrain and make them sustain unreasonable casualty figures, just from cannons rolling over the feet of the people pushing them. Kawiti continually outfought the British and only engaged them openly once and learned from his mistake even though it was a Maori victory. Concepts like shielded firing positions, trenches, and bunkers were all learned from Kawiti and incorporated into future engagements for the Brits.

80,000 is quite large considering there was bugger all for to them do between 1868 and 1914.

[Banditbandit]

Probably might be that the traders had supplied the locals with lots of weapons, and it was going to take some months to get the British Army here.

100 000 Maoris vs a couple of thousand honkies, from memory.

US was probably several million by that time and British would have struggled to beat the Americans.

They struggled to beat us too .. the wars here ended as both sides fought themselves to a standstill .. no-one actually one ..

The point you make about the Sydney Militia is exactly my point. The Brits had little capability or desire to send professional British Army units to the other side of the world. They sent expendable plonkers to command colonial militia units. Sikhs at the time were Brits, as were Australians and Kiwis, so that point is moot.

The Brits did have a large-ish army .. many of them veterans of India - who had not gone home but were sent out here ..

BRITISH TROOPS IN NEW ZEALAND

After the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, British troops were stationed in New Zealand in varying numbers from 1840 to 1870 and, until the middle sixties, provided the chief protection for the colonists and bore the brunt of the fighting against the Maoris. The first troops to land in New Zealand were a detachment of the 80th Regiment which arrived from Sydney in April 1840, and 30 years later the last of the Imperial troops to depart were the main body of the 18th (Royal Irish Regiment), in February 1870. Throughout this period of New Zealand's history, British forces other than regiments of the line, served here. These consisted of naval detachments, Royal Marines, Royal Engineers, Royal Artillery, and the Commissariat and the Waggoners (the predecessors of the Royal Army Service Corps).

From a strength of a few hundred men in the early 1840s, the Imperial Government decided in 1847 to maintain, for the time being, 2,000 regular troops in the colony. Over the next 12 or 13 years this number varied, and in 1860 about the time of the outbreak of the first of the later Maori Wars, the strength of the British forces was down to approximately a thousand men. These troops, consisting of the 65th Regiment and detachments of artillery and engineers, were scattered in five different stations, at Auckland, Wellington, Napier, Wanganui, and New Plymouth. By the end of 1865, the Imperial forces in the colony totalled about 10,000 men, consisting of the 12th, 14th, 18th, 40th, 43rd, 50th, 57th, 65th, 68th, and 70th Regiments, two batteries of Field Artillery, and Royal Engineers and Military Train.

http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/1966/bri...in-new-zealand

Here's one of the leaders ..

Trevor Chute is said to have been born at Tralee, County Kerry, Ireland, on 31 July 1816, the son of Francis Chute and his wife, Mary Ann Bomford. He entered the army in 1832, served first in the Ceylon Rifles and then in the 70th (Surrey) Regiment, and was a major by 1847. Duty in Ireland in 1848 was followed by the 70th's transfer in 1849 to India, where Chute was promoted to lieutenant colonel and commanded the regiment at Peshawar. Becoming a full colonel in 1854, he organised flying columns for pacification purposes during the Indian mutiny of 1857–58.

Chute arrived in New Zealand in May 1861 with his regiment, which helped to construct the military road from Drury to the Waikato River.

http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/biograph...7/chute-trevor

[Banditbandit]

The silver fern was used in the bush to show the track at night , . Also used as bush toilet paper , so we are being led up the garden path to the toilet .

Hmm .. here are the war graves in Europe .. No flag with the union jack in sight here .. but interesting "logo"

[Akzle]

tinfoil hat?
Derisive attempt on behalf of blind conformists to discredit and stigmatise those who dare to question authority.
I.E. "You honestly believe the war is all about oil? Where's your tinfoil hat?"

Lets be very clear - I don't wear a tinfoil hat - I wear a tinfoil "sombrero" with pride! - Chuck all the shit you like it's really all about you anyway!

must spread....

[Voltaire]

[QUOTE=Banditbandit;1130953480]Hmm .. here are the war graves in Europe .. No flag with the union jack in sight here .. but interesting "logo"



Correct.

Here is pic of Tyne Cott near Ypres in Belgium. We found my wife's Grandmothers Brothers grave stone there.

I can't remember what the British grave stones had but don't recall a flag as such.

Saying at these graves were all done in the 1920's when the full horror of " the war to end all wars" struck home.

[Oscar]

Nope, not trench warfare as a new concept. Strategic forts with firing positions at the base of the wall, not on top of it. It was not a "normal" fuzzy wuzzy tactic.

The point you make about the Sydney Militia is exactly my point. The Brits had little capability or desire to send professional British Army units to the other side of the world. They sent expendable plonkers to command colonial militia units. Sikhs at the time were Brits, as were Australians and Kiwis, so that point is moot.

I wasn't having a go at you, just Belich.