‘Christian Resistance’ leader arrested for alleged terrorism plot

rambo919

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
5,451
The Boers at the Battle of Blood River had the advantage of entrenchment, and I can also possibly allude to them having some form of side tactic.
It was not a very good kind of entrenchment though, the Impi's could if they thought of it have set any one part on fire and the rest would have burnt.

Also as I mentioned that kind of entrenchment means that the defenders completely loose line of sight making their ranged weapons semi-useless after a while. If any part of the entrenchment broke they would have been done for.
 

rambo919

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
5,451
I posted a map of the battle. The impis circled all the way around, after passing through a river and a donga to attack the front.

How fast do you think 3000 people can cross a river in a formation, while being shot at with cannon and musket fire?
They did not HAVE formations in the then western sense.... yes they could have crossed but only as an harrasment force not main attack until the defenders were occupied with the other side after which they could have flanked them.

During the entire battle they were trying to cross the river, they were trying all sides at once with a few concentrations.

The impis attacked in waves. The time between the waves allowed for reloading, setting up formations and so on.

The cannons were placed in gates between the wagons.

Terrain is critical. You have a massive advantage if you have the high ground. Ask King Henry V at the Battle of Argincourt, or the Duke of Wellington at the Battle of Waterloo.
Again.... Impi's did not do formations in blocks, they were fluid with only a few concentrations. It was cavalry tactics on foot.... you don't do cavalry tactics in the same way as you do foot tactics.
 

thechamp

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
22,883
Am I the only one who is bored by the Boer/Zulu war direction this thread has taken?
 

Fulcrum29

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
30,212
It was not a very good kind of entrenchment though, the Impi's could if they thought of it have set any one part on fire and the rest would have burnt.

Also as I mentioned that kind of entrenchment means that the defenders completely loose line of sight making their ranged weapons semi-useless after a while. If any part of the entrenchment broke they would have been done for.
That is why I mentioned side tactics. Pretorius led scouting expeditions so I guess that he had trained sharpshooters amongst his men. Stationened elsewhere, but close enough for picking off any opportunistic impi. I also assume this by the reason that the Voortrekkers must have had runners, for calling on assistance, if things went South.

Cilliers, though the 'dominie' of the Voortrekkers he was also a commander of the Kommandos.

I presume they weren't holding the fort together as one unit.

Nobody here served either side on that day, but at the end of the day it is clear that the Voortrekkers won the battle on the basis of tactical superiority.

One should note, just because we had gunpowder doesn't mean that swords, spears, hammers, amongst other things went out of fashion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ES1

buka001

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
4,925
They did not HAVE formations in the then western sense.... yes they could have crossed but only as an harrasment force not main attack until the defenders were occupied with the other side after which they could have flanked them.

During the entire battle they were trying to cross the river, they were trying all sides at once with a few concentrations.


Again.... Impi's did not do formations in blocks, they were fluid with only a few concentrations. It was cavalry tactics on foot.... you don't do cavalry tactics in the same way as you do foot tactics.
3000 odd people moving together as one will provide a big target.


Pretorius’ brilliant selection of a defensive position meant his men could concentrate their firepower on the tightly packed mass of charging warriors without worrying about being flanked. The Boers also employed an ingenious strategy to sustain an ordinarily impossible volume of fire. Pretorius had brought along some 200 African servants to look after the horses and draft animals, but also, crucially, to reload the weapons in combat. Not by accident, there were also more muskets than musketeers. As their servants feverishly reloaded the guns, each man was able to get off a shot about every five seconds, far faster than the Zulus had anticipated.
 

thechamp

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
22,883
Yes, you are, but offer something vaguely to steer the thread somewhere else, or live with it.
The Zulu/Boer war movement is too strong, I need support to steer the thread back to where it's supposed to go.
 

rambo919

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
5,451
That is why I mentioned side tactics. Pretorius led scouting expeditions so I guess that he had trained sharpshooters amongst his men. Stationened elsewhere, but close enough for picking off any opportunistic impi. I also assume this by the reason that the Voortrekkers must have had runners, for calling on assistance, if things went South.

Cilliers, though the 'dominie' of the Voortrekkers he was also a commander of the Kommandos.

I presume they weren't holding the fort together as one unit.

Nobody here served either side on that day, but at the end of the day it is clear that the Voortrekkers won the battle on the basis of tactical superiority.

One should note, just because we had gunpowder doesn't mean that swords, spears, hammers, amongst other things went out of fashion.
Interesting idea.... but you have the problem of communication and roaming Impi's.

The only practical possibility I can see is almost everyone in the main unit and a few despersed runners hidden on the outskirts to carry word of defeat in necessary. There was no possible way to get actual useful assistance at the time, the volunteers were on their own.

Remember smokeless cartridges only came later and the runners would not have wanted to attract any kind of attention.

I still maintain that tactical superiority being the only reason for victory is a hindsight assumption. If the Impi's ever sustained a big wave they would have overwhelmed the defenders easily.... though their hubris likely also had a hand in their comparative inferior fighting.... they had never suffered real defeat before that after all.

What interests me is how they kept routing as soon as they got close to the actual entrenchments..... to believe that simple fear of firearms seems racist to me especially since they had faced firearms all the way up to the entrenchments.

The general Impi might have been an uneducated fool but he was also a battle hardened killing machine.
 

Fulcrum29

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
30,212
Interesting idea.... but you have the problem of communication and roaming Impi's.

The only practical possibility I can see is almost everyone in the main unit and a few despersed runners hidden on the outskirts to carry word of defeat in necessary. There was no possible way to get actual useful assistance at the time, the volunteers were on their own.

Remember smokeless cartridges only came later and the runners would not have wanted to attract any kind of attention.

I still maintain that tactical superiority being the only reason for victory is a hindsight assumption. If the Impi's ever sustained a big wave they would have overwhelmed the defenders easily.... though their hubris likely also had a hand in their comparative inferior fighting.... they had never suffered real defeat before that after all.

What interests me is how they kept routing as soon as they got close to the actual entrenchments..... to believe that simple fear of firearms seems racist to me especially since they had faced firearms all the way up to the entrenchments.

The general Impi might have been an uneducated fool but he was also a battle hardened killing machine.
If you do know, according to the writings of that day the impi forces was charged, ~300 strong on horseback, once the Voortrekkers ran out of ammunition. The reason for my last paragraph. This routed the Zulu advancement.

300 /Cough

Pretorious led this charge.

Hardened killing machines can go both ways.

As for runners, this trek was on it's way to the Zulu capital, but Pretorius decided against a direct assault and opted for entrenching and waiting on the Zulu. I am sure they had a second company for securing supply.
 

rambo919

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
5,451
If you do know, according to the writings of that day the impi forces was charged, ~300 strong on horseback, once the Voortrekkers ran out of ammunition. The reason for my last paragraph. This routed the Zulu advancement.

300 /Cough

Pretorious led this charge.

Hardened killing machines can go both ways.

As for runners, this trek was on it's way to the Zulu capital, but Pretorius decided against a direct assault and opted for entrenching and waiting on the Zulu. I am sure they had a second company for securing supply.
Routed or temporarily halted? Do you mean during the actual main battle or just prior to it? I know many things were done to goad the enemy into attacking the entrenchment.

My point is if a group of warriors fights up a hill TOWARDS gun fire.... why would they suddenly rout just because of close up gun fire? It makes no sense.

A second supply company relatively undefended? Sounds like a terrible strategic mistake if you are taking up a entrenchment position unless you are sure that you can actually goad the enemy into only attacking the entrenchment. If you are planning a relatively short entrenchment and then persuit..... would you not want your supply with you initially so that you can then split up when pursuit begins?
 

LazyLion

King of de Jungle
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
102,420
Guys, please get back on topic, or we will have to start doing some deleting in this here thread.
 

Mar Vin

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2019
Messages
620
I clearly think that these peeps are incredibly STUPID / Misinformed / Misguided / Misled / stuck in the propaganda of the past.
Their stupidity actually works better for those they see as their enemies ......
However
I imagine -- IF -- your family was wiped out by a gang of black farm invaders YOU would also want to join a "Christian-Resistance" movement
I would !
Go out with a bang instead of a whimper ......

“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed;
if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may
come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.


Winston S Churchill
aggg....that farm k@k again....
where were you when they posted the Fritz/Anele story???
 
Top