The Zulu and American Civil War: a Comparative Presentation
Conflicts have many forms. It may be as simple as a disagreement, a sibling rivalry in the family, a bitter feud among friends, a clan jealousy, a gang fight, or a war between nations. All conflicts and wars have roots and reasons that are sometimes elusive to understand or even know. From ancient times to present, quarrels may have started from simple or even trivial differences and disagreements. Often, these small disputes, when ignored, have even escalated to a clash between ethnic groups bent on wiping out each other entirely.
The Concept of War
In his book, (1995) cited several theories on the origin of war. Although he employed the sociological, anthropological and psychological perspective of the nature of conflicts, it gives some insight into understanding man’s behavior. One of the cited theories is the competition theory, which states that organisms compete over scarce or limited resources. In the animal kingdom, this is seen in the form of neutralism, mutual inhibition, competition, amensalism, parasitism, predation, commensalisms, proto-cooperation, and mutualism. It can be noted that in this theory, competition does not necessarily result in violence; rather, in the case of multiple participating species, some groups tend to gravitate together against another competitor.
also cited in the same book that throughout history, war had been accepted as a normal way of ending arguments, disagreements and conflicts of interest between human groups. He further states that war is a trinity composed of (1) primordial violence, hatred, and enmity, (2) play of chance and probability, and (3) its element of subordination. Group selection as an evolutionary theory of war was described by as a trait of a grouped species to unanimously decide or choose something because of its benefit or advantage to the group. This ‘good-for-the-species’ thinking is stated simply in the words ‘for the greater good’. also cited in the same book that throughout history, war had been accepted as a normal way of ending arguments, disagreements and conflicts of interest between human groups. He further states that war is a trinity composed of (1) primordial violence, hatred and enmity, (2) play of chance and probability, and (3) its element of subordination.
The 19th century anthropologists otherwise came to a different conclusion: that the class struggles and wars were created because of the appearance of surplus production and socio-economic classes. In the history of mankind, there are many recorded as well as undocumented occurrences of war. They possess individual characteristics that are unique and used in association to their own identities. Among the numerous histories of wars, it could be assumed that the Zulu War and the Civil War of the United States are among the most popular wars in world history due to its historical implications and worldwide effects.
This paper aims to enumerate the similarities and differences between the Zulu War and the Civil War. Specifically, a comparison of the armies, tactics, weapons, battles, commanders, politics, and strategies will also be provided in order to substantiate the report.
THE ZULU WAR
Also known as Anglo-Zulu War, the Zulu War was the battle between Britain and the Zulus in 1879 and occurred in eastern South Africa. The war is certainly similar and was preceded with the several previous conflicts and colonial wars took place in the African continent. Historical briefs state that this war possesses critical and complex origins, vague decisions, and other factors that led to bloody battles among the participants – the natives and the British forces.
However, facts state that the origin of the dispute lies mainly in the territorial problems as invasion and colonialism (1990). Back tracking in 1854, the territory was named as the republic of Utrecth. Then, the Boers received a deed of cession from king . A commission conducted a boundary survey to mark the limits of the territory in 1860 and to obtain Zulu but it failed. Here comes the invasion of (brother of the son of king ) to the town. This action led the assembly of several armies on the boundary headed by There are many actions done to reconcile the differences of both parties. But the aggravating situation and the affecting factors are inevitable.
The British are in search of trade and profit when they saw Zululand (2002). Then, they sprung up on the southern boundaries of the land. They adopted the “forward policy” in order to bring up other British colonies. With the consequences of succeeding events, the conflict came into a state of aggravation.
Prior to the war, the Tugela River marked the boundary of the British colony and the Zulus. When became the king, he formed 40,000 to 60,000 men because he did not submit into British supremacy. He received an ultimatum from Natal to disband his troops and pay damages for the alleged insult that he made (2000). When he did not responded, British forces headed by Lord Chelmsford attacked them.
As the bottom line of the history, there is a presence of land acquisition and territorial colonialism, ideological conflict, and battle of principles and ancestral domains by among the mentioned characters.
Politics, Commanders and Armies, and Tactics
With different intervention and attempts, the political rule of to the Zulus revived the military of his uncle , which is another influential individual throughout the history (1990). succeeded in making his army units equipped with firearms. Under his rule, there are actions in inducing the Kaffirs in the Transkei to raise war. There is also assistance offered to allies like in his fight against the Transvaal. Overall, rule is tyrannous. The tension between the ruling party and the Transvaal persisted and when Britain entered in 1877 for the Transvaal, they suffered and lived with the current problems.
After the issuance of an ultimatum by the lieutenant-governor of Natal in February of 1878 on the issue of boundary, the Cetshwayo rule neglected it (2000; 2002). In January 1879, the British force under the leadership of Lieutenant General , 2nd invaded Zululand. The British have a total of 5000 Europeans and 8200 Africans forces directly commanded by him while 1400 Europeans and 400 Africans are stationed in Utrecht. The British troops attacked Zululand in three columns – Lower Tugela, Utrecht, and Rorke’s Drift.
has a total of 40,000 men. The British entry was opposed. The Rorke’s Rift advanced near Isandlwana and Lord divide the forces to move out and support another allies. Upon his departure, Colonel camp was surprised by the immediate attack of nearly 20,000 Zulu armies. The other attacks became more intense.
For the Zulus, they carried an offensive attack by deploying their popular “buffalo horns” (1990). It composed of the following elements: the “horns” or bordering right and left wing elements to surround and pin the enemy – consist of the younger troops, the “chest” or the primary central force – prime fighters, and the “loins” or reserves – older veterans. The Zulu forces developed their encirclement tactics to cope up with the attacks of the combatants. They also controlled their troop movement by having some tricky elements like three points attacking in the encirclement battle. The Zulu armies obtained a higher command status and unit leadership.
Provided with the aforementioned strengths, they loss the battle. With the cooperation of all forces, the British gained a victorious ending with about 100 men killed as to compare 12,000 to 15,000 Zulu armies. This is the fall of the Zulus. After the war, there is a hard reorganization and everyone suffered the aftermaths.
Weapons and Results
According to records as well as to the imaginary assumption of the existing living condition of the period, it could be said that the weapons of the people are not exactly the same as of today (1999). The European troops are armed with modern armors and artillery. They are supplemented with allies and levies – locals and natives.
Historically, the warfare of the Zulu forces was ritualistic and ceremonial in nature. When rise in power, he adapted a number of tribal practices (1990). Thus, the practical problems of military command throughout the ages played a part in organization of the Zulu fighting machine. Even though they have a great number of people, confidence, unit leadership, and mobility, the problem in the modern weaponry hindered them. Thus, introduced new kinds of traditional weapons. He threw the long and light weapon and substituted it with a heavy and short spear. He also utilized larger and heavier cowhide protection. Then, he trained his men to be more effective in combat. He was praised for the fact that he combat their enemies with barefoot. But even though the Zulu armies are not upgraded in their military equipments, they are considered one of the most astonishing native victories of the colonial period because of the bravery that they shown. With the brutal motives of , there are major changes in the weapons, organizations, and tactics. Logistics also developed as dependent to the current changes in the army. Further, the age-grade regimental system is dominant.
The use of modern arms by the British forces caused the Zulus to fall even with their large number of people. Their number was not equivalent to the modern firearms and artillery. Thus, they failed the war.
THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR
“…but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive,
and the other would accept war rather than let it perish,
and the war came.”
, 2nd Inaugural Address
4 March 1865
( 2006)
Of all the considerable factors that contributed to withdrawal of Southern States from the Union and Civil War, the role of slavery and race in motivating both Southerners and Northerners usually draws the most attention and the hottest debate ( 1996). Certainly political and economic concerns played their part, yet these hinged invariably on issues and competing interests that arose from slavery and the institutions as well as the ideals built upon that institution. Many “unreconstructed Southerners” continue to insist that the sectional conflict originated over states’ rights, not slavery, although these people seldom complete the thought by specifying which “rights” they mean ( 1996). This reasoning usually entails the arguments that few white Southerners owned slaves and therefore had no interest in preserving the institution, and that most white Northerners were racist and did not initially invade Dixie for any desire to free African Americans. Although truth exists in both of these assumptions, an enormous amount of scholarship on these very issues points to the centrality of slavery and race in the coming of the war.
The American Civil War is a sectional feud between the Confederate States of America and the United States of America. It is considered as the largest historical event that extensively came into view in American public consciousness. As what was noted by (2000), over a hundred years after the first shot was fired, “its genesis is still fiercely debated and its symbols heralded and protested.” The Civil War shoved a great deal of reexamination on federalism, civil rights, and democratic-republicanism. As for people’s perception, the war translated the American regime from a federalist system based on freedom to a centralized state that circumscribed liberty in the name of public order.
The Civil War has significantly and enormously influenced the centralization and nationalization of the American federal system. It settled incessantly the national concern over whether a state could constitutionally separate from the Union. The Northern states wanted a centralized government while on the other hand; Southern states wanted a decentralized form. In depth analysis depicted that slavery is was one of the primary reasons for these contradicting concerns (1998).
Historically, the reasons of the war range from the complexity of political issues, competing understanding of the principles of slavery, federalism, expansionism, sectionalism, economics, modernization, and competing ideas of nationalism of the Antebellum period ( 1999). As recorded, a total of 970,000 casualties (about 3 percent of the total population) including 560,324 deaths.
Commanders and Armies
In totality, the participants of the two forces are former military men and products of the United States ( 1994). According to the records of the U.S. War Dept., (no date), the leaders and soldiers of the war are:
South – includes military commanders and strategists such as P.G.T.
North –
Tactics, Weapons, Politics, and Results
Considering the fact that the most military leaders of the war are graduates of the United States in West Point, they both posses the same characteristics inherent in the academy. Armies and Navies used tactics characterized by massing forces collectively in large formations to convey the greatest possible military capability to abide on an enemy. However, the only significant difference to note is the fact that they differ in purposes in fighting. Confederates are fighting for liberty and independence from a tyrannous leadership while the Union is for the preservation of the nation (1994). The American Civil War is appropriately called as “the first modern war” in the history. With this premise, it could be deemed that there is a fast development of the previous armors and artillery being used.
After the admitted defeat of the Confederate forces, the war ended. But the war had lasting aftermath to the American politics and culture as a whole (2003). It could also be deemed that it created a bigger effect in the global perspective. The conflict of interests and ideology is among the underlying principle to the politics of the war. The aims of ending slavery, movement towards economic progress, and leadership dominance complicate the internal relation of the states. The results of the war paved way to the period of reconstruction
Synthesis
The Zulu War of Africa and the American Civil War possess many attributes in common but unique in the given period of time and location. They involved many number of armies, utilized and developed various innovation in weaponry and military tactics, and the results paved way to upward movement of the nation. However, there are also some differences in participants and motives of the war as presented in the reports and findings above.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment