Talk:Tauranga campaign

Grammar and sources

This article desperately needs sources and the writing in its body is largely conjectural, unencyclopaedic and just plain bad. Since it includes bizarre sentences like "What happened?" I would surmise that it was copied from some other website or book and therefore might be a copyright violation, but I have no evidence to back that claim up. I've edited parts of the Gate Pa section, but since most of that section contains conjecture about who thought what and where the British likely dropped their bombs, the entire thing would need a rewrite or otherwise very careful editing. I'll try to salvage what I can in that section, but I would encourage others to check my work and rewrite the other sections. Cumulus Clouds 21:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Military Statistics

In a 19th century European army it was military doctrine that attackers needed at least a 3:1 numerical advantage to dislodge a well dug in, determined enemy. The British army had the advantage of many superior weapons and a strong logistics train - was one of General Cameron's strengths,following the horrors of Crimea. He was always able to resupply his large armies with supplies by a well organized shipping organization. This was helped by the installing of the new telegraph system back to Auckland. They also the use of local guides both European and Maori. The mounted troops could move more swiftly on horseback than the rebel Maori warriors who always walked. Maori always lost when attacked in open country. European troops were always able to eject rebel Maori from an entrenched dug in position-sometimes with few casualties sometimes not. Some of the Maori wounded casualty figures are probably inaccurate as rebels tried to conceal their dead and wounded.

In nearly all battles the ratio of dead to wounded is 1:3 in other words when 68 are dead it is likely the real number of wounded was about 210. In the Napoleonic Wars the ratio was 2:1 as medical treatment was very poor. In the NZ wars the wounded that were captured were often the severely wounded. Many of these rebels survived thanks to advanced medical treatment, good food and care-something that Cameron insisted on after Crimea. He had numerous doctors with his entourage. Rebel walking wounded no doubt escaped in the heat of the battle and were uncounted whereas the British counted all their wounded, often leading to the wrong impression in some accounts. Chris Pugsly, a retired Lt Colonel in the NZ Defence force is the only modern military expert to examine the wars from a military point of view in a series of articles in NZ Defence Quarterly (no longer produced.) His investigation and findings are sometimes at odds with general historians over military matters. The tendency over time has been for the number of dead to get lower as troops wear more protective gear and immediate advanced medical treatment is available. Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 04:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Removing POV adjectives

I have removed a few POV adjectives which distort the importance of one battle. To say Gate Pa was a defeat for the British is drawing along bow. They did suffer more casualties(but they had more replacements) but the battle did not slow the campaign to rein in the rebelling Kingitanga movement nor did it effect the successful outcome of the campaign though it did cause the leaders to reconsider their objectives. The "Rebels" fled the field and a short time later suffered a final decisive defeat in the region -as decisive as the Battle of Orakau in the Waikato. Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 11:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Michael King (Penguin History of New Zealand, pg 216) calls it a "significant victory" for the Maori.
• James Belich (The Zealand Wars, pg 188) refers to the battle as a "military disaster" for the British and he quotes The Times of 1863 which called it a defeat "perhaps unparalleled in the British military annals." On pg 332 he describes Gate Pa as a "humiliating defeat".
• The New Zealand History Online website, under the subheading "Defeat", calls it "a major disaster for the British military" and a "heavy defeat". Elsewhere it calls it a "humiliating defeat".[1]
• James Cowan's list of the extent of British losses leaves no doubt which side he believed won.

Your claim above is ludicrous and your own edit ("Gate Pā was one of the few defeats of the British military in the New Zealand wars") confirms that. Your edits continue to be biased and poorly written. What does "loyal of the government" mean? And the term "rebel Maori" is just wrong. It's a term that might have been acceptable a century ago, but in an age when so much of the Crown's military actions have been found to have been illegal and a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi, it's ludicrous and offensive. BlackCab (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

"Loyal to the government" means that they were Maori who were not in rebellion. Loyal Maori are usually known as kupapa, though the world has come to have wrong and unfortunate connotations. Quotes from Belich are always suspect. He has publicly admitted his early writing(ie History of NZ) has an anti British bias as well as significant errors of fact and currently there are university courses in Nz that take his book as a case study of how an author's mindset can distort history. Perhaps you should sign up?

There were about 73 battles/conflicts of various types in the NZ wars of which the Maori were partly successful in 7 or 8. In some cases it is fair to say the conflict was a draw but in nearly all cases the government forces were triumphant. Lauding Gate Pa is like saying the Battle of the Bulge was an outstanding Nazi victory in the context of WW2. There are some analogies -the element of surprise and a last gasp effort by fanatics. The most important fact is that in every way that matters the cause of the Maori Kingitanga rebels was defeated totally and completely. Not only did they formally surrender, Maori were not allowed to set up an independant Maori NZ territory nor were they allowed to have their own law and order, nor were any of the Kingites recognized or allowed to have any official status in NZ law. The Queen of England twice rejected their appeals for independant status in law.

The current Maori "king " was a truck driver most of his life and his son was in court today for stealing surfboards.

You completely overlook the real reason for the Treaty Tribunal and for the Queen's various formulaic apologies. Have a close look at South African "justice" institutions and your eyes will be opened! Either that or living in Australia you just don't comprehend. Perhaps if Aboriginees made up 20% or 50% of Australia's population, were actively militant and had formed widespread violent criminal gangs, your attitude would be different. As has been pointed out by many current historians and current lecturers it is quite wrong to assume that because the tribunal/government acted in a certain way the evidence presented to support their decisions was based on accurate historical facts. As is the case with the British and Northern Ireland,contemporary political decisions are made which override such things as historical accuracy or justice in the interests of national or regional peace and harmony. That is why the Treaty tribunal was never set up by the government as a court. If it had been then many or most of the "facts" which were presented would have been banned as hearsay and witnesses'"evidence" could have been cross examined. With most of the evidence presented in Maori and on private marae this was guaranteed to keep both the main steam media and general public at bay. Maori have along tradition of banning media they don't like from reporting what happens on marae. This still happens today.

What is the word when a group of people take up arms against the government and peaceful settlers-try to assassinate the Governor,kidnap settlers' wives and children, steal their property, murder isolated settlers,try to attack the largest city in the land,set up their own government with bank, police force,laws, printing press in an effort to establish a completely independent Maori nation? War? Armed insurrection? Rebellion? Succeeding from the Nation? There is very little difference between what happened in USA and NZ in the 1860's. The South were called "rebels" because they tried to withdraw from the USA and set up their own nation -this is exactly what the Kingitanga Maori were doing in NZ.Claudia

An IP editor continues to remove the word "crush" from the sentence that reads " "The campaign was a sequel to of the invasion of Waikato, which aimed to crush the Māori King (Kingitanga) Movement ..." The editor claims this is "POV language", implying this is an editor's opinion that contradicts that of reliable published sources. Below is a selection of what historians have stated.

• James Belich in his Teara Encyclopedia article on Duncan Cameron (see [2]) states: "Governor Thomas Gore Browne was planning an invasion of Waikato to crush the Maori King movement."
• Belich (The New Zealand Wars, p.122) says the Waikato invasion was aimed at "destroying Kingite power."
• BJ Dalton (War and Politics in New Zealand, 1855-1870, p.162) speaks of Grey's determination to "establish the Queen's supremacy by force".
• WH Oliver (The Story of New Zealand, pg 88, says Grey was "determined to smash the King movement."
• Ranginui Walker (Struggle Without End, pg 122) says Grey set out to topple the king and take land by conquest.

The use of "crush" in this context is entirely justified. BlackCab (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Casualties toll

An IP editor has changed the Maori number of casualties from 108 killed or fatally wounded and 10 captured to 108 killed and 44 wounded. [3] I'm curious about the source for this info, but looking at this again, I can see the infobox does contain some errors with the casualties.

The NZ History Online articles on Gate Pa and Te Ranga give these figures for the Maori toll:

• Gate Pa: 15 killed by shellfire.
• Te Ranga: 108 found dead, 43 taken prisoner. Among the prisoners, 32 were wounded and 15 later died of their wounds.
• Total for the Tauranga campaign: 123 killed, plus 15 mortally wounded (total deaths: 138); 17 wounded.

Belich (who disputes the figures broadly accepted by other historians) concludes that the toll at Te Ranga was 68 dead in the trenches, 15 fatally wounded and 12 injured, plus 10 taken prisoner, uninjured. His death toll then for that battle is 83 dead and 12 injured. Adding his total to the 15 Gate Pa casualties equals 98 Maori killed in the Tauranga campaign plus 12 injured.

The infobox should then show Maori casualties for the entire Tauranga campaign as 98 to 123 killed or fatally wounded, 12 to 17 wounded. BlackCab (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)