The Royal American Regiment

During the struggle between France and Britain for control of North America, in the conflict known to Americans as the French and Indian War, the British forces had met with some early disasters that made it clear that some new military units with special skills would be needed to fight this war. A large British force under General Edward Braddock had been wiped out fighting the traditional way, as if they were on a European battlefield, by a much smaller force of French and Indians who used the wooded terrain to their advantage. After word of this humiliation reached London, King George II gave royal assent to the formation of a new regiment for the British army on Christmas Day, 1755. This was the birthday of the 60th Royal American Regiment (originally the 62nd, it was renumbered a few years later) which was to include four battalions, made up of many foreign soldiers with woodland experience, provided they were Protestant of course (so as not to have any risk of sympathy with the Catholic French), for service in North America.

John Campbell, 4th Earl of Loudoun, who was then commander-in-chief of British forces in North America and Governor-General of Virginia, was appointed to the mostly ceremonial post of colonel-in-chief of the new regiment. The idea for the regiment originated with a Swiss soldier and comrade of the Duke of Cumberland named Colonel Jacques Prevost. It was he who suggested that a special unit of men expert at fighting in heavily wooded areas was what was needed in waging war in the wilds of North America. The ranks were to include a large percentage of Germans, some from the German states, others recruited from German-Americans in the colonies. To fully fill out the four battalions, large numbers of Irish were later recruited. These were men who had been rejected for service in other regiments of the Irish establishment for the British army, a point to remember. The battalions formed up in New York but as far as leadership went, this was a regiment ‘for’ America and not ‘of’ America to be sure. For the first time ever, the British army also commissioned a number of foreign officers to lead a regular regiment. Out of 101 commissioned officers of the regiment, alongside English, Irish and Scots about half were foreigners, German and Swiss with some Dutch, though none could rise above the rank of lieutenant colonel so as to ensure that a proper Briton was always in command.

The principle behind the Royal American Regiment was not a unique one. Having a force that could fight the French-backed Indians using Indian tactics was also the idea behind the famous Rogers’ Rangers from which the current special forces of the U.S. Army claims descent. However, the Rangers were irregular troops and the very nature of their job and how they carried it out ensured that they were a rough, rowdy and undisciplined bunch. With the Royal American Regiment it was hoped that the British army could have a unit that combined some of the backwoods fighting skills of the Rangers with the discipline and reliability of British regulars. Given its background and composition, some have referred to it as a mixture of a colonial regiment and a foreign legion. They were dressed, originally, like any other British regiment save for the fact that they had no lace on their coats, just plain blue turn backs (blue being the traditional color of “royal” regiments). However, they would ultimately look very different in the field than what their original appearance was.

Colonel Prevost had suggested a short jacket, Indian leggings, a leather cap he called a ‘bonnet l’Allemand’ and even a simple kilt as the sort of outfit best suited to wilderness warfare in America. There is no evidence that they ever wore kilts but much of the rest was eventually how the Royal Americans ended up. The traditional red coat was cut a bit shorter, Indian-style leather leggings did tend to replace the regulation black cloth leggings they were issued and many even took to wearing Indian moccasins in place of their standard shoes. There is some evidence that leather caps such as Prevost described were worn but others wore the usual cocked hat of the period, though after some time in the field these were sometimes cut down to more closely resemble the typical leather cap often worn by light infantry. Among the other regiments of the British army, the Royal Americans had a distinctively ‘frontier’ look to them, dressed more practically for serious fighting in the woods than for parade-ground panache. What is interesting is that this regiment of American colonists, German and Swiss soldiers of fortune and Irish rejects, proved itself to be one of the best in the British army.

One of the battalion commanders, Henri Bouquet, a Swiss, literally wrote the book on tactics that were later adopted by the whole British army and which remained standard for over a century to come. He and his fellow battalion commanders turned their diverse volunteers, many of whom had less than the best reputation, into true experts at wilderness warfare and the changes to their uniform and their habits reflected that. During the French and Indian War as it carried on, the Royal Americans at first had little opportunity to do what they were best suited for and fought in a number of battles in the traditional style. At that, however, they still did very well and they saw action at the siege of Louisbourg in 1758, the Cape Sable Campaign and the final victory at the battle of Quebec in 1759 as well as the subsequent advance of Montreal. It was at Quebec that their performance earned them the praise of the famous General James Wolfe, from whom they took their official regimental motto “Celer et Audax” (Swift and Bold). However, later, during Pontiac’s Rebellion, they were able to prove themselves as experts at frontier fighting particularly as Bouquet led them to victory at the battle of Bushy Run which culminated in a fearsome charge by the Royal Americans that is still remembered.

This victory, won by a few hundred Scots highlanders and the Royal Americans, enabled Bouquet to lift the siege of Fort Pitt and was the turning point in putting down the rebellion. Afterwards, the regiment was moved back to Europe though one battalion always remained on station. After the American War for Independence, this was, of course, in Canada where it remained until 1824. However, the 60th Royal Americans saw action on other battlefields far from where they had intended to serve. During the Napoleonic era they served with distinction in the Peninsular War. A fifth battalion was raised and armed with the superb Baker rifle, acquitting itself very well against the French. The other, musket-armed battalions served in other parts of Europe and around the world in defense of the British Empire such as in the islands of the West Indies. The success of the rifle battalion, however, gained them the most notoriety and more were recruited and they served alongside other famous units like the 95th Rifles and the King’s German Legion during the fierce fighting in Spain. Another battalion was even raised specifically for service in the War of 1812, once again, in North America.

Because of the success of the rifle battalions in the struggle against Napoleon, in 1815 their name was changed to the Duke of York’s Own Rifle Corps and, in 1830, to the King’s Royal Rifle Corps. During the glory days of the British Empire the KRRC served in campaigns all over the world in Egypt, Afghanistan, India, Burma, China, South Africa and Canada. They played a critical part in the Boer War, was heavily expanded in World War I and fought on the western, Greek and Italian fronts. In World War II they were part of the BEF sent to France and elements played a key part in holding off the Germans from wiping out the British during the Dunkirk evacuation. They later fought in Greece, the island of Crete and took part in the doomed Operation Market Garden in The Netherlands after the Allies fought their way back into western Europe. In 1958 they had yet another name change and in recent decades there have been further name changes, renumbering of units and the combination of units as the British army had been continuously downsized. Today, the tradition of the Royal American Regiment technically is held by the 2nd Battalion of “The Rifles”, a unit that was formed from ‘merging’ several regiments.

To the extent that the old 60th Royal Americans are remembered, I am glad that this is the case and one can see traces of their influence in units of the Canadian army still. However, the habit of merging numerous regiments never passed muster with me. One unit simply cannot truly embody and carry on the traditions of so many others and it seems to be a way for politicians to abolish old and glorious regiments without having to admit that they have, for all intents and purposes, been abolished. The Royal Americans, later the King’s Royal Rifle Corps, is certainly not the only British military unit to suffer this fate, nor was it the last. It seems a shame after so long and so valorous a record of service to Queen and Country but, alas, recent British governments have had other, higher, priorities than national defense. Britons once had to choose between a welfare state and an empire and they chose the welfare state. Since then, the choice seems to have been between maintaining that state and having a military and, unfortunately in my view, the welfare state has been chosen yet again.

Soldier of Monarchy: Field Marshal Robert, First Baron Napier of Magdala

One of the most accomplished soldiers Britain has ever produced, Robert Napier had a colorful career that spanned the globe in the service of the British Empire. Born in Ceylon on December 6, 1810, the son of a British officer, he was educated at the Addiscombe Military Seminary before being given a commission in the Bengal Engineers in 1826. After further education he was posted to India in 1828 and did a great deal of good with the Royal Engineers there in improving the infrastructure for farming. He earned promotion to captain before being sent to England due to poor health but he was soon back again to participate in the First Anglo-Sikh War. Napier saw action at the Battles of Mudki, Ferozeshah (where he was badly wounded the first of many times) and Sobraon from 1845 to 1846. He received further promotion and was chief engineer at the siege of Kote Kangra in the Punjab. When, not long after, the Second Anglo-Sikh War broke out, he directed the siege of Multan in 1848 and was again wounded but still had enough fight in him to be on hand for the storming of the place and the fall of Chiniot. For his service at the Battle of Gujrat and the final surrender of the Sikh forces he was promoted to lieutenant colonel.

After further service in more battles on the Northwest frontier of India he attained the brevet rank of colonel and was wounded again in the Indian Mutiny during the two efforts to relieve Lucknow, a desperate siege that captivated public attention in Victorian Britain. Once again, his injury was not sufficient to keep him out of action and he was on hand for the final victory at Lucknow in 1858. His star still rising, he was deputy commander of the march on Gwalior and commanded a brigade at the Battle of Morar. After the capture of Gwalior it was Napier and his men who pursued the retreating rebels and, with only 700 men, wiped out a force of 12,000 rebels at the plains of Jaora Alipur. Given the command of a division in the aftermath of this success he aided in the capture of Paori, totally defeated Prince Ferozepore at Ranode and secured the final victory for the Raj by forcing the surrender of Man Singh and Tatya Tope in early 1859. By the time the Indian Mutiny was over, Robert Napier had covered himself in glory and was one of the most respected officers in the British army with a reputation for doing much with little.

Having proven himself on the battlefields of India, his next assignment would see him win further victories in East Asia. After the First Opium War, Chinese attacks on the British and other westerners continued as well as the drive for the further opening of trade. This resulted in the Second Opium War or Arrow War which saw Great Britain and the France of Napoleon III teaming up to take on the Great Qing Empire. In January of 1860 Napier was given a divisional command with the main British expeditionary force in China and that summer fought with distinction at the Battle of the Taku Forts. This opened the way to Peking and the Chinese forts along the Pearl River fell like dominos in the aftermath. The following month Napier and his men fought their way into Peking itself and in response to continued resistance demolished the “Old” Summer Palace in October. Napier was raised to the brevet rank of major-general and shortly thereafter the permanent rank of colonel. (FYI: a “brevet” rank essentially means that one has the authority of a higher rank than you actually hold but not the salary!) Having further distinguished himself in China, Napier was soon back in India where he was given command of the Bombay Army and received further promotion to lieutenant-general. He even served as Viceroy of India for a short time after the death of Lord Elgin until his replacement arrived.

It was, however, his next assignment that would see General Napier rise to his greatest fame and which would usher him into the ranks of the aristocracy. Having won victories in India and China it was time to give Africa a try. A rather ugly scene had developed after a local scoundrel managed to usurp the throne of Abyssinia and declare himself “Emperor Tewodros II” (not an uncommon occurrence). However, rather than restricting himself to terrorizing his own people (though he did plenty of that), Tewodros II tried to gain recognition from the crowned heads of Europe and when Her Majesty Queen Victoria did not immediately reply to his letter, he took captive what Europeans he could get his hands on (an envoy and some missionaries) and held them hostage in barbaric conditions. The British had not the slightest interest in Abyssinia (Ethiopia) but a lesson had to be meted out lest every savage chieftain in all the dark corners of the world should get ideas. A rescue expedition was arranged and Lt. General Robert Napier was given command, setting out for the Ethiopian highlands in January of 1868.

Napier had at his command about 13,000 British and Indian troops, quite an expedition for the time, causing some to refer to the episode as the most expensive ‘affair of honor’ in British history. With a huge population to draw upon, Tewodros should have been able to swamp the Anglo-Indian force with numbers but this was not to be as, although he has achieved hero status today (God knoweth why), he was disliked if not reviled by a great many of his countrymen (even his wife couldn’t stand him). As a result, the Anglo-Indian force probably had more trouble simply with the rugged, wild terrain than they did with the Ethiopian army, many of whom fled from the ranks of the vicious and erratic emperor rather than confront the invaders. Napier also established friendly contact with numerous local chiefs, even enlisting some of them to help supply his army as Tewodros was extremely unpopular amongst most of the local potentates, most of whom viewed him as illegitimate and most of whom also wanted his job. When Napier informed him that the British Empire had no desire to add Abyssinia to their list of colonial holdings but were merely out to rescue the hostages and teach the upstart emperor a lesson, most were only too happy to cooperate with their invaders.

After more of his army had ran away rather than face combat, Tewodros was only able to scrape together 9,000 men to confront Napier at the pivotal Battle of Magdala. The British did not think that Tewodros would be so stupid as to leave his defensive positions to attack their superior force but he was and the disciplined ranks of British and Indian soldiers cut them down in volley after volley of rifle fire. The horrific losses made Tewodros release two of the hostages with an offer of peace but General Napier was having no half-way measures and demanded the release of all the hostages and the unconditional surrender of the emperor. Being unwilling to humble himself, Tewodros refused and after an opening bombardment, Napier ordered his men to storm the enemy fortress. Resistance was crushed, Tewodros shot himself in a last act of cowardice and his remaining troops promptly surrendered. Nearly 2,000 Ethiopians had been killed or wounded while Napier’s army suffered only 20 men wounded, two of whom later died. The hostages were rescued, the town was razed to the ground, the locals learned never to cross the British Empire and General Napier was the hero of the hour. For his extremely successful campaign Napier was ennobled by Her Majesty Queen Victoria  with the title of First Baron Napier of Magdala in honor of his victory.

Civilian honors came his way as well and in 1870 Lord Napier was appointed Commander-in-Chief, India with the rank of full general. In 1876 he was made Governor of Gibraltar and, when stepping down from that post in 1883, was promoted to the rank of field marshal. Lord Napier had achieved fame in India, China and Africa, becoming one of the greatest military heroes of the Victorian age and a symbol of the military success of the British Empire around the world. In his old age he was made honorary colonel of the Third London Rifle Volunteer Corps, commandant of the Royal Engineers and was made Constable of the Tower of London in 1887. After a colorful life and very successful military career, Lord Napier passed away from influenza in London on January 14, 1890 and was buried, like a military hero, with all due honors in St Paul’s Cathedral.

Britain and the War It Couldn't Win

In the history of mankind, no political entity ever came close to matching the British Empire at its peak. After World War I, the British Empire; the United Kingdom, its territories, protectorates, mandates, the Empire of India and associated Commonwealths covered more land and sea and included more peoples than any other empire in the history of the world. George VI, the last British King-Emperor, reigned over an empire larger than that of Alexander the Great, Caesar Trajan or Genghis Khan. Winston Churchill, at the height of the battle of Britain, famously said that, “…if the British Empire, and its commonwealths, last for a thousand years, men will still say, ‘THIS was their finest hour’”. Absolutely no one could deny that this was true. Yet, the British Empire was not to last a thousand years and almost before World War II was over, the dissolution of this monument to Anglo-Saxon civilization had already begun. Because it was so large, covering so many diverse lands and peoples, there has never been a greater setback to the cause of monarchy than the break-up of the British Empire whose collapse gave birth to so many republics across Africa and southern Asia. How could this have happened?

The causes of this catastrophe can be categorized in a number of ways. There were economic, strategic, military and political reasons for it. One of the greatest strengths of the British people, at least to my mind, was their ability to admit their own mistakes, look at them honestly and improve themselves going forward. The examples of this are numerous, in numerous fields, from politics to the military. However, when it came to foreign policy, past wisdom seemed to be increasingly forgotten in the events leading up to World War II. The First World War had left the British Empire at its peak in terms of size, but in economic terms it was stretched to the breaking point. The total war that Britain embarked on in 1914 had caused all other considerations to be set aside in favor of destroying Imperial Germany. Part of that included putting the British Empire deep in debt to the United States to buy the food, war materials and other necessary resources to keep Britain in the fight so that, by the time it was over, Britain owed billions of dollars to America. This, combined with a rise in the socialist movement within the trade unions after the war meant that the British Empire was economically unprepared for the strain and expense of an even larger, costlier world war in 1939. Before it was over, by choosing to fight in 1939 the British government was forced to turn over virtually its entire gold reserve to the United States to sustain the war effort.

In strategic terms, the strength of the British Empire depended on maintaining control of several vital “choke points” around the globe. British leaders had, for centuries, taken care to bring these “choke points” under the control of London so that, about the only one Britain did not control was the Panama Canal. To keep open the trade and supply lines vital to maintaining the empire, Britain had to maintain control of several strategic points such as Gibraltar, Malta and the Suez Canal through the Mediterranean and Singapore in South East Asia. After World War I all of these strategic points were totally secure and yet, due to foreign policy decisions, all were threatened by the start of World War II. In terms of foreign policy, the traditional British practice was to remain aloof from the continent to focus on maintaining control of the oceans and maritime trade routes which were vital to the empire. Britain would intervene on the continent only if the balance of power was disrupted to the point to become a potential threat to Britain’s global possessions. However, after World War I the British government began making extensive promises to continental powers and made several decisions which imperiled Britain’s strategic “choke points” around the globe.

One of the first such decisions was ending the alliance Britain had with the Empire of Japan since 1902. When representatives of the British Empire met to discuss the treaty, all but Canada favored renewing the alliance. The Canadian Prime Minister feared that his country would suffer if trouble developed between Japan and the United States while the British Empire was allied to Japan. Naturally, the United States wanted an end to the alliance as American business feared that it would allow Japan to dominate Asian markets. Ultimately, Britain decided it was better to end the alliance with Japan to improve relations with the United States. However, while Britain was already in a position in which it was certainly necessary to keep on good terms with America, this was not necessarily beneficial to the British Empire as a whole. Under the terms of the original 1902 treaty, Japan was bound to defend the British possessions in Asia in case of trouble. There were even provisions requiring Japan to deploy sizable numbers of troops to India if the subcontinent ever rose up in rebellion against British rule. Needless to say, the United States was not about to make similar promises and by ending the treaty, Japan immediately ceased to be an ally and became a potential threat. This, combined with post-war reductions in naval armaments, meant that British possessions were left vulnerable and it placed vital strategic positions, such as Singapore, open to Japanese attack.

Of course, there had been increased tensions with Japan since the end of World War I and one could reasonably argue that Japan would have been a potential enemy in any event. Was Japan really adhering to the alliance in good faith? Especially since the war with Russia, many Asian colonial dissident groups looked to Japan for inspiration and support in throwing off British rule and such rebel groups were not lacking in sympathizers within Japan. Racist sentiments were growing, coinciding with the pan-Asian movement that aimed to expel all Europeans from the region. Therefore, the case could be made that by ending the alliance and drawing closer to the United States, Britain was simply preparing for a time when Japan would break the alliance anyway. Yet, as things stood prior to the outbreak of World War II, nothing Japan had done had threatened British possessions or interests in the region. Japanese expansion had focused on northeast Asia, far from the British sphere of influence in China or British holdings in India and Southeast Asia. The choice to go to war with Germany in 1939, however, removed all British options in Asia. Forced to focus British military force on Europe and North Africa, British possessions in Asia were ripe for attack and only American military assistance could stop Japan from striking the British Empire while Britain itself was fighting a titanic struggle in the west against the Germans. Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia and Burma would all ultimately fall to the Japanese and while British rule would be restored after the war, it was not to last for long.

In the west, other foreign policy decisions also turned another former ally into a potential (and ultimately actual) enemy which was the Kingdom of Italy, which just happened to sit astride the vital British lifeline through the Mediterranean from Gibraltar to Suez. Originally, even after Mussolini came to power in 1921, there were no serious problems in Anglo-Italian relations. In contrast to Hitler’s admiration of the Fascist dictator, Mussolini was not well disposed to the Nazi leader. When Nazis in Austria assassinated the chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss, it was Mussolini who rushed Italian troops to the border and forced Hitler to back down. However, the Duce was rather annoyed that neither Britain nor France supported him in the emergency. However, what proved to be the breaking point in Anglo-Italian relations was the outbreak of the Second Italo-Abyssinian War in 1935. Here was a case of high-minded principle coming into conflict with British imperial interests. Popular opinion in Britain, as with most of the rest of the liberal-democratic world, was firmly in sympathy with Ethiopia (though neither side was liberal or democratic) and yet the interests of the British Empire were not at all impacted by the issue of whether Haile Selassie or Victor Emmanuel III were Emperor of Ethiopia.

Public opinion, however, proved decisive and the British joined in placing sanctions on Italy which were not strong enough to cripple the Italian war effort but were strong enough to enrage public opinion against what Mussolini called the “plutocratic democracies of the west”, primarily Britain and France. In the end, despite the sanctions, the Italians conquered Ethiopia in seven months and Haile Selassie went into exile in England. Mussolini, because of the sanctions, was always particularly infuriated by efforts to use economic pressure to force a course of action and the sanctions imposed on Italy because of the war in Abyssinia represented a burning of bridges between the United Kingdom and the Kingdom of Italy. Mussolini put aside his past feelings and embraced the one major power that had not joined in the sanctions against Italy: Nazi Germany. Too late, Britain seemed to recognize that Hitler was the real threat that had to be opposed and tried to get Italy to come back alongside Britain and France in opposing Germany but this request was made, embarrassingly, while the sanctions were still in effect and needless to say, Mussolini was content to stand with Hitler and forsake any friendship with the British Empire.

Rather like World War II as a whole, Britain had taken a stand, almost universally considered on the moral high ground but which proved detrimental to the strategic interests of the British Empire. Italy had gone from an enemy of Germany to her primary ally and the British lifeline through the Mediterranean was under threat. And, it proved to be rather useless anyway as the British government ultimately recognized Italian rule of Abyssinia in 1938. So, the sanctions did no good, Ethiopia was still conquered, Britain eventually accepted the conquest and all that was achieved was to the benefit of Nazi Germany which gained an ally that threatened Britain’s lifeline in the Mediterranean and a free hand to annex Austria which Mussolini no longer objected to after the Abyssinian war. This also had some serious ramifications for the cause of monarchy which often goes unmentioned in histories of the build-up to World War II. It is not entirely out of order to suggest that the Franco-British opposition to the Italian conquest of Abyssinia thwarted a very real possibility of a restoration of the Hapsburg monarchy.

Previous efforts to restore the Hapsburg monarchy had been centered on Hungary and were thwarted by real or perceived Franco-British opposition as well as the unwillingness of the regent Admiral Horthy to give up power. Austria, however, was a different story as it became clear fairly early on that the only foreign countries which really mattered to Austria were Germany on one hand and Italy on the other. There had been an effort at a revival of nationalism in the country under the leadership of the “Austrofascists” led by Englebert Dollfuss. Dollfuss had courted the monarchists but never brought them home from the dance. His successor (after his aforementioned assassination by local Nazis), Kurt von Schuschnigg, was a different story. He took more pro-monarchy steps than his predecessor, actually met with the heir to the throne, Archduke Otto and stated that the monarchy would be restored within one year. He even broached the subject to Mussolini who had no objection and even considered that (yet another) royal marriage between the Houses of Hapsburg and Savoy would be beneficial. According to what Schuschnigg told Archduke Otto, it was not a question of “if” the monarchy would be restored but simply “when”. All that changed with the Abyssinian war, after which Mussolini dropped his opposition to Germany annexing Austria and Hitler did so enthusiastically, conspicuously naming his invasion plan “Operation Otto”.

Finally, it is also true that while Britain was attempting to draw a line in the sand against Italy, it was making agreements with Hitler’s Germany. As most know, there were several points at which German expansion could have been stopped. When the German military moved back to the French border, even Hitler admitted that the French could have easily stopped him but Britain wouldn’t back up France and so France did nothing. Austria was an opportunity but was lost due to the opposition to the Italo-Abyssinian War. Czechoslovakia was another but it too was lost and partly due to the fact that the German cause seemed to be not entirely unjust. There were some in the Allied nations who felt rather guilty about the treatment of Germany after World War I and who felt that German desires for a redress of Versailles were not unreasonable. However, the bottom line is that so long as Hitler focused his expansion on Eastern Europe there was little to nothing that Britain could really do to stop him. When Britain finally decided that they would let Hitler go no further the issue in question was Poland and there simply wasn’t anything Britain could do to aid Poland in the event of a German attack. Britain gave Poland a war guarantee and did go to war with Germany over the German invasion but while Britain could go to war with Germany in retribution for invading Poland there was no way Britain could actually help defend Poland and stop Hitler from conquering it in the first place.

It is also an obvious, if unpleasant, fact that the interests of the British Empire were in no way threatened by the German flag being raised over Danzig or German road and rail links being established with the isolated rump of East Prussia which is what the German-Polish dispute centered on. The only power on earth that was positioned to stop the Germans in Poland was the Soviet Union and Hitler and Stalin had signed a pact and the Soviets were even prepared to take eastern Poland when war broke out, which they did. Obviously, given that, there was nothing Britain could do to actually help Poland and British military preparedness had been woefully neglected, particularly considering the course of British foreign policy. In 1939 Britain was pledged to defend a country it couldn’t reach with an army it didn’t have to thwart a country that did not, as yet, pose any threat to the British Empire. A very small minority of writers have argued that Britain fostered the build-up to war by giving the war guarantee to Poland, without which the Poles might have been more willing to give in to Hitler’s demands regarding Danzig and corridor. That just might be possible, but sounds like pandering to anti-British sentiment to me. Poland made mistakes on its own and does not seem to have been inclined to surrender territory under any circumstances. It was a country that had known years of subjugation and it is not surprising that the Poles were rather hostile toward their former masters after regaining independence as well as being over-confident after giving the incompetent Bolsheviks a thrashing in 1920.

Whether Britain did the right thing in declaring war on Germany on behalf of Poland in 1939 is hardly debatable. That is what is usually focused on. What is not is the question; was it prudent? In terms of the British Empire and the place of Great Britain as a major power, the answer must be “no”. Britain had nothing to gain and everything to lose because, right or wrong, it was a war that Britain could not win. Of course, the British Empire did not immediately go to war with all the Axis powers in 1939 but given recent policy it should have been obvious that such an outcome was highly probable and that was a war that was simply beyond the strength and resources of Britain to win. Britain had to have considerable help, which ultimately meant an unsavory alliance with Stalin (and thus the loss of the independence of those countries Britain went to war over in the first place) as well becoming totally indebted to the United States, the only country economically powerful enough to lend the money needed even before the USA came into the war. In short, the British Empire had entered into a war which could only be won in concert with two other countries, both of which were led by men opposed to the British Empire continuing.

The British didn’t have to go to war in 1939 nor did Britain have to continue to fight after the conquest of France and the retreat from Dunkirk. That they did so is something that everyone in Europe and not a few countries around the world who have no wish to imagine living under Axis domination should be grateful for. Because Britain became, necessarily, a more minor player in the war from 1942 onward alongside the massive militaries of America and Russia, the world tends to forget that it was Great Britain and the British Empire that took a stand, fighting a war in which they stood to gain nothing and which they had no realistic hope of being able to win prior to 1942. The British government willingly chose to sacrifice the greatest empire in history and Britain’s place as a top-tier power in order to wage war against Germany (and later Italy and Japan) in order to ensure that none of the Axis powers would be great powers themselves. Those who are quick to criticize the British Empire should think about that and what might have happened if the British had just given up on having an empire some time before and just how much they sacrificed in order to see the Axis powers defeated.

Whether the sacrifice was worth it or not is a judgment call and not the sort of thing one can ever know for sure as there is no way of knowing precisely how the world situation would have developed in the event of an Axis victory. What we do know for sure is that even if Britain had self-interested motives, viewing a Europe with Nazi Germany as the dominant power, Italy having control of the Horn of Africa or sacrificing American goodwill in exchange for the continued alliance with Japan as all being potentially bad for British interests in the long-run, the fact remains that the actions of Britain were not self-interested at all and while others certainly gained a great deal from World War II, Britain certainly gained nothing but the knowledge that if Britain would no longer be a great power, none of the Axis countries would either. Whether it was a fair trade depends on whether or not one views the current world order as positive or negative but the fact that Britain made the decision and sacrificed the empire to fight a war that could not be won on British, imperial and commonwealth strength alone is beyond question.

It did not, of course, have to happen that way. British policy makers could have said that unless America was prepared to make a better offer, the Japanese alliance would be maintained. After all, if there had been trouble with Japan in the future, the same factors which caused America to oppose the alliance would have ensured that America would have stood with Britain anyway. The British government could have said that Ethiopian independence was not worth losing Mussolini as an enemy of Hitler and block against the German annexation of Austria. In that event, if Britain had still decided that Danzig and the Polish corridor was worth a war with Germany, it would have been a more localized conflict that Britain stood a better chance of winning without having Malta, Suez, India and Singapore under threat at the same time. Being able to focus the Royal Navy and RAF in particular on Europe rather than stretching them over the Mediterranean, North Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, would have been a considerable advantage. However, all things being as they were, when Britain chose to go to war in 1939, British leadership was simply impossible to maintain. It was impossible because Britain had only America to turn to for the money, munitions and resources essential to fighting the war and thus had to ultimately defer to the wishes of the United States just as, likewise, Britain had little choice but to agree to the extensive demands of Stalin for fear that he would capitulate or make a separate peace that would allow the Axis forces to concentrate all their strength on Great Britain.

It would be quite easy for monarchists who do not look down on the British Empire as is so fashionable these days, to look at its demise and the resulting upswing in the number of republics around the world, and say that it was too great a price to pay. It is certainly very easy to moan and groan about the world order that prevails today and wish that things could be different. However, I would say that, even for such monarchists, what would be an even more terrible vision than the British Empire going down in order to defeat the Axis powers would have been for Britain to have remained aloof only to see the likes of Clement Attlee elected to power and then the dissolution of the British Empire anyway, without even a great struggle to say that, at the end of the day, it was worth it. Friends and enemies of the British Empire alike would do well to give that some thought. Again, no one can say what would have happened for sure and I have puzzled over whether it was worth it or not, but that is ultimately for the British and Commonwealth Realms to determine. It is certainly though, something to think about and consider carefully whenever the subject of the British Empire comes up.

Guest Article: On the Trail of Empire By AB Royalist

A few weeks ago I spent a weekend in Calgary with my wife and daughter before the weather changed over to fall, and while there we took the opportunity to visit Heritage Park. I was quite impressed with their effort to recreate the spirit of southern Alberta around 100 years ago, with their mix of replica and relocated period buildings and actors playing the part of typical town folk, and I'd highly recommend a visit.

Another thing that struck me about the place was there were no Maple Leaf flags of any kind, and the flags were either Union Jacks or Canadian Red Ensigns which seemed to be piratically on every street corner. Likewise the actors played their parts very well, and I found the mix of the western town feel, the flags, and the obvious patriotism towards the British Empire shown by the characters to be striking; for while they were proud to be Canadian they were equally proud of being British and belong to the Empire, which I found to be both intoxicating yet bittersweet; for this is what the late British Empire was like for a fleeting instant before being undone, and has never been the same since.

For sadly after World War I, politicians in the various Dominions began a concerted effort to achieve full independence, while also downplaying their British ties in favor of a new artificial nationalism, and as the years passed renounced their Britishness altogether while retaining membership of that useless talk shop Commonwealth as a sop; and when I think about it these actions make me angry. For what the peoples of the Dominions forget, is that the very term 'British' was originally fostered as a way of binding together otherwise disparate peoples and nationalities, with a unity far greater and more glorious than what could be achieved on their own. This was first demonstrated during the Union of the Crowns, when Scotland and England entered into a personal union by sharing a common monarch, and a little later with the Act of Union of 1707. Consequently the inhabitants of the United Kingdom began thinking of themselves as English or Scottish first, and British second; and the creation of the Dominions merely extended the principle. For you could think of yourself as Canadian, Australian, or South African, while also being British.

Its high time people in Britain, and the Dominions stopped being ashamed of their glorious history as part of the old British Empire, realize that by themselves are merely minor or unimportant players on the international scene, and embrace the legacy of Empire by once again banding together into a unity far more formidable; that would also serve as a counterweight to the United States, Europe and China. This doesn't mean of course that the Dominions become slaves to Britain, but rather that they emphasize and focus on the things they share in common, while also retaining their unique national identity.

The first step on this path would be to ditch the legacy of liberal, left-wing political correctness; namely the hushed and ashamed connotations surrounding the British Empire, by reverting the name of the 'Commonwealth' back to the 'British Commonwealth'. Secondly the piratically meaningless Commonwealth Citizenship should be scrapped, and replaced by a new British Citizenship which would actually be useful, while Britain would rename its British Citizenship to United Kingdom citizenship; both to avoid confusion and to emphasize both the real dual nature and international scope of the word British.

Thus anyone born or naturalized in the United Kingdom and the Dominions, would automatically possess British Citizenship in addition to their original nationality and consequently be able to free move and settle in the United Kingdom and the Dominions, with the right to work and vote just like any native born person. This isn't as far fetched as it might seem, as nationals of any of the European Union states automatically have EU citizenship, and can freely move, settle, work and vote throughout the EU; and these countries have far less in common than British Commonwealth countries too! Thus there's really no excuse why members of the British Commonwealth couldn't do the same.

Thirdly Britain and Ireland need to realize they have nothing in common with the rest of Europe and it would be far better for them to leave the European Union asap, and direct their trade, energy and focus on the Dominions and their other Commonwealth brethren, with whom they share far more in common. This of course means the Irish need to swallow a little dose of pride, get over the whole Easter Rising thing which happened long enough ago to be water under the bridge; and stop getting hung up over Northern Ireland. Yes I know partition sucks, and believe me both myself and my fellow Brits would love to get shot of Northern Ireland, however if Irish Nationalists started reproducing more than the Unionists then the problem will take care of itself, just saying... Now where was I? Ah yes, the fact is that my Irish brethren and fellow British countrymen need to realize that it would be far better being members of an alliance of sovereign independent British Commonwealth states, than continue the insidious, national soul destroying rule of Brussels.

Fourthly the British Commonwealth should have its own institutions modeled after the EU, such as a Commonwealth Parliament to legislate over matters that effect the Commonwealth as a whole; such as trade; a common market; common citizenship as previously mentioned, a British Judicial Council comprised of senior judges from member states on a rotating basis serving as a court of final appeal, but unlike their EU counterparts these institutions would have no jurisdiction over purely national laws; and finally above all, the British Commonwealth would be a defensive alliance like NATO; with a unified Supreme Command in the event of war, although other countries would likely think twice before attacking any member of this British Commonwealth.

Finally many of these countries should get off their republican high horse, and embrace the monarchy anew in places like Australia and New Zealand, or restore it in places like Ireland, South Africa and India. I'm not picky if these republican countries either adopt the British monarch as their own monarch again, or have a separate monarch for themselves like Tonga has, just as long as they ditch their failed republican systems. For only a monarch can reign and govern independently of any corporation, special interest group, lobby or association (to whom republican leaders and politicians are really beholden to, not the people...); while serving as a focal point of national and international unity. Consequently I say Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, should be upgraded from boring and useless title of 'Head of the Commonwealth' to 'Empress of the British Commonwealth', which in addition to being far more regal, dignified, and glorious; would actually be worth something! Of course I'm not suggesting that monarchs in places like Tonga or Malaysia be subordinate to the Queen, but that she would essentially be first among equals with greater respect and honour shown to Her Majesty when visiting these places, by virtue of the ancient legacy of her Crown from whom all their concepts of national liberty sprung forth.

This only by banding together in this way can the nations of the British Commonwealth truly arise again to something far more greater and glorious, than the sum of their parts...

The Problem with Churchill

New member of the blogosphere (and longtime Mad Monarchist member) AB Royalist takes a critical look at the much celebrated Prime Minister Winston Churchill and his role in the downfall of the grand old British Empire. If you can stand a point of view sure to be controversial have a look at The Problem with Churchill Part I and Part II. Is it perhaps partly due to the near deification of Churchill by the much reviled "neoconservative" clan that more seem to be looking at Sir Winston in a different light these days? Those familiar only with the inspiring speeches of the days of the Blitz might be surprised to find out some of the less known facts about Mr. Churchill. Was he a visionary leader or a chronic blunderer? Have a read and decide for yourselves. I can imagine there will be some strong reactions to this.

War of 1812 Wednesday, Part I, Causes and Background of the War

Probably no other war the United States has ever fought is less remembered or more unusual than the War of 1812. There are a number of possibilities for this. It may be due to the fact that some people simply lumped the conflict together with the American Revolution; a rather unimportant aftershock. It may be because nothing of great significance was achieved because of the war. However, it is more likely that this lapse of memory is due to the fact that the United States, so proud of her illustrious military record, failed to achieve any of her objectives in the war and indeed was fortunate to have escaped with her territory intact. In spite of this, some have claimed the War of 1812 to be an American victory, while the majority of others view it as a stalemate. The British and Canadian perspective, needless to say, is quite different and in this case considerably more accurate.

To understand the causes of the War of 1812, which was a conflict many in the United States did not want, it is essential to know a little bit of the global politics of the day. During the late 18th and early 19th centuries, following the French Revolution, Napoleon Bonaparte had made France the ruler of continental Europe. The French were able to defeat Spain, Prussia, Austria, Russia and other powers with Great Britain alone holding out because her naval mastery kept Napoleon from invading the British Isles. As a result, both sides declared blockades against each other to bring economic pressure to bear against their enemy. This effected the United States which, as a neutral power, had been making money hand over fist selling supplies to both sides. The United States protested these blockades, but against the naval might of Great Britain, could do very little about it, nor were all Americans sympathetic to the French regime of Napoleon.

The ongoing naval battle between France and Britain also effected America with the issue of impressments. The Royal Navy was stretched to the limit fighting Napoleon and blockading Europe, so every able-bodied sailor was needed. However, life was hard in the British fleet and hundreds of sailors deserted over time. Knowing nothing but the sea, many of these deserters found work on American merchant ships. When these vessels were stopped by the British blockading ships, British deserters were removed and impressed back into the Royal Navy. The United States disapproved of this and claimed that many of the men being impressed by British ships were not British deserters but American citizens. Britain, engaged in a life or death struggle against a dictator who had taken over half of Europe, felt little sympathy for any American who was taken by mistake into naval service. The issue did finally come to blows however in 1807 when the USS Chesapeake was stopped by the British frigate HMS Leopard only to have the American commander, Captain James Barron, refused to allow the British search his ship for deserters. In response, the Leopard fired on the Chesapeake, the British boarded the ship by force, removed four Royal Navy deserters and had one of them hanged.

The British later apologized for the incident, but the overall situation continued. The United States tried to retaliate by passing the Embargo Act which stopped all foreign trade, and as a result almost ruined the entire economy of the New England states which depended on commerce for their livelihoods. It also hurt southern states which could not sell cotton or tobacco to Britain, virtually shutting off their only income. After 15 months this nonsense was stopped, but none of the other actions taken had any effect either. Moreover, when the United States promised to restore free trade with any nation that lifted her restrictions, Napoleon pretended to do so hoping to incite America to join his war against the British. He would soon get his wish and actions such as this only made Britain view America as not only less than neutral but supportive of the dictator Napoleon and his conquest of Europe.

There was also, it must not be forgotten, still lingering rivalry from the American Revolution. Much of this focused on the American Indians and their treatment by both sides. Many Indians had sided with Britain during the Revolution since the American colonists were eager to expand westward and seize the land Britain had granted the Indians only a short time before. During the frontier conflicts after the Revolution Britain continued to support the Indians in the Northwest Territory as they resisted the incursions of United States settlers. General William Henry Harrison had defeated an Indian confederacy led by the Shawnee Chief Tecumseh in 1811, but the Indians were not pacified and continued to look to British forces in Canada for support. Chief Tecumseh would prove to be a vital commander in the upcoming conflict.

That same year, negotiations with Britain continued to go nowhere and the aggressiveness of the United States was growing, fueled by a desire for expansion and conquest. President James Madison forbid all trade with Britain and asked the Congress to prepare for war with the British Empire. The country, however, was not united on the subject of war. The so-called "War Hawks" were mostly from the southern and western states under such men as Henry Clay of Kentucky and John C. Calhoun of South Carolina. They were eager most of all for the conquest of Canada. During the American Revolution Canada had been invaded but British and Indian troops under Sir Guy Carleton had defeated the attempt and many in the US were anxious for revenge. National arrogance played a great part in this. Many Americans were so convinced of the superiority of their country and government that they believed the Canadians would welcome their invasion with open arms. One politician, commenting on the weak defenses to the north remarked that the Kentucky militia alone would be enough to conquer Canada. Indeed, with Britain locked in combat with Napoleon, Canada seemed like a huge, undefended prize simply waiting to be taken.

This view was not universal though. Many New England states were totally opposed to a war with Britain. Conquering Canada mattered little to them in comparison to how their economy would be ruined by cutting off all trade with the British Empire. The problems so far had already taken a heavy toll on their businesses and many were not prepared to tolerate conditions becoming any worse. Many people in the US also sympathized with Great Britain carrying on the fight against Napoleon and were not happy with the prospect of effectively entering a world war on the side of a French dictator bent on conquest. The divisions became so heated that the same month war was declared riots broke out in Baltimore against the anti-war Federalists which raged for four months. The War of 1812 was probably the most unpopular war the United States ever fought up until the Vietnam conflict. Yet, as many as there were who opposed the war, there were many more who favored aggressive action against Britain. These people believed in the "Manifest Destiny" of the United States to rule all of North America and war with Britain seemed the perfect way to finally wipe out the British-backed Indians hindering US occupation of the Northwest Territory, grabbing the vast expanses of Canada as well as perhaps taking Florida from Britain's Spanish ally.

Ultimately, it was the expansionists who won out, along with those who were simply eager to throw the weight of America around and demand some concessions from Great Britain to recognize their claim to be a legitimate world power and not simply some upstart rebel colonies which would soon fall apart. At the request of President Madison, on June 18, 1812 the United States Congress formally declared war on Great Britain. America, especially the War Hawks, were jubilant and optimistic, though in hindsight there was certainly no reason to be. The United States army was miniscule and scattered across the frontier in remote garrisons. There was hardly a navy to speak of and there was still no institution for the training of military officers. Britain, on the contrary, had the best navy in the world, a veteran army which had experience fighting the largest battles yet seen in the western world and more than holding their own. The Americans however, disdaining regular army troops and drawing an idealistic but flawed conclusion from the Revolution were confident that their civilian militia would be more than enough to gain control of North America while the best British troops were still tied down fighting the French in Europe.

Continued next week with "1812 - The First Year"

MM Video: British Empire at War

The Battle of Isandlwana

The battle of Isandlwana was the major opening clash of the Anglo-Zulu War and one of the greatest African victories over European forces in history. Only twice has the scale of the victory at Isandlwana been surpassed on the continent of Africa. It was during the Victorian Era when the British Empire seemed to many to be the most permanent and indestructible force in the world, yet, British forces suffered a stunning if not crushing defeat at the hands of an army of Zulu warriors armed mostly with primitive spears and shields. To this day the battle of Isandlwana ranks as the worst defeat ever suffered by the British army at the hands of a native, indigenous force. The clash had its roots in the efforts of colonial officials to unite, under the banner of the British Empire, the disparate peoples of southern Africa, particularly the Boer Republic of South Africa and the Kingdom of Zululand. However, British agents met their match in the Zulu King Cetshwayo who, since coming to the throne, had expanded his influence at the expense of the Boers, outwitted British negotiators and enlarged and modernized his army, resurrecting the tried and true methods of the great King Shaka while also starting to provide his warriors with firearms. These were few and largely antiquated but were a start.

King Cetshwayo

British and Boer settlers accused the Zulus of encroaching on their land and when British agents demanded that King Cetshwayo disband his army in response to this the King decided on war to expel the British invaders. As in most of these cases there are two sides to the story. According to the British they launched a military expedition to defend their own and Afrikaner territory from Zulu raids while according to the Zulus the British intentionally provoked a conflict in order to conquer their country and they were doing no more than defending themselves against an invasion. In any event, a British army marched against the Zulus led by Lord Frederic Thesiger, 2nd Baron Chelmsford. His plan was for a 3-pronged invasion of Zululand with the largest central column under his own command, numbering 7,800 men. On January 11, 1879 they crossed the Buffalo River into Zulu territory. His force was mostly British troops but also included several hundred men (mostly Zulus themselves) of the Natal Native Contingent under European officers. There were some irregular cavalry, a six gun field artillery battery and a battery of Congreve rockets. It was, by any standard, a formidable force.

However, in their haste, the British had set off during the rainy season and this bogged down the columns, slowing their advance and gave the Zulus amble time to react. The British had hoped the Zulus would be dispersed harvesting their crops but the invasion happened to coincide with a routine muster of the army so that it was possible for the Zulus to react immediately to the oncoming threat. King Cetshwayo was alerted to the British presence and dispatched an army of about 24,000 warriors to intercept them. The Zulu warriors, led by Ntshigwayo kaMahole, greatly outpaced the British and undertook careful screening measures to ensure that they were not sighted by their enemy. In no time at all they were within striking distance of the British column under Lord Chelmsford which had pitched camp at Isandlwana on January 20. Greatly overconfident, the British failed to entrench or take any precautions for an attack. Lord Chelmsford was more concerned with the logistical problem of supplying his army in a vast wilderness than he was with defense.

The British then committed one of the most obvious mistakes in dividing their forces in the face of a numerically superior enemy. When troops of the Natal Native Contingent spotted one of the Zulu scouting parties Lord Chelmsford took about half of his British regulars and hundreds of local troops in pursuing this small band which naturally led them away from the main Zulu army. This left the British camp even weaker, exposed in open country with a large army of confident, determined and experienced Zulu warriors within easy striking distance. The British camp was guarded by only about 1,700 men under Lt. Colonel Henry Pulleine, an officer with no combat experience and with the support of only two artillery pieces.

In contrast, the Zulu princes were quick to recognize that they had caught their enemy at an extreme disadvantage and immediately seized the initiative and gave orders for an attack using classic Zulu tactics. On January 22, 1879 the Zulus came forward using about 10,000 to 15,000 men of their total strength of about 20,000. Colonel Pulleine deployed his few troops into a thin semi-circle to meet the on-rushing Zulus. Some British units, such as the rocket battery, were taken by surprise and overrun almost immediately. The Zulus fanned out in their classic “buffalo” formation and their center was held off for a time, taking considerable casualties due to the rapid, disciplined volley-fire of the British regulars with their modern rifles. However, the “left horn” of the Zulu “buffalo” made a determined and tenacious attack and soon had the British right flank crumbling away. Colonel Anthony Durnford and his men on the right flank had been the first to come under attack and finally his men were forced to retreat in the face of the Zulu onslaught. This allowed the African warriors to get around the fire of other nearby units and overwhelm them. Colonel Pulleine finally ordered his men to fall back to their camp, which the regulars at least accomplished in good order.

In early afternoon there was a solar eclipse but the impressive phenomenon seemed to have no effect on the battle. The Zulus swarmed around the camp, forcing the British troops into an ever tighter formation until they were literally fighting back-to-back. When they ran out of ammunition they met spears and shields with bayonets or swung their rifles like clubs. The British were wiped out, the Union flag was captured though at least one regimental flag was saved when an officer grabbed it and fled on horseback. The Zulus had been given orders to spare any civilians and this saved the life of a few officers who were not wearing the red uniform the Zulus identified with British soldiers. For the rest, there was no mercy, which was traditional in Zulu warfare. Of the 1,700 British and supporting forces engaged only about 400 survived. Most of the men of the Natal Native Contingent who were captured were executed afterwards as traitors by the Zulus. Some bodies were mutilated afterwards, which made for shocking news in Britain, but was simply in keeping with the local custom of taking trophies after a victory. Hard numbers are difficult to obtain on the part of the Zulus involved but it is estimated that about a thousand were killed in the battle with probably twice as many being wounded.

Lord Chelmsford and his force, alerted to the battle, returned late in the day but found nothing left and proceeded on to the mission station at Rorke’s Drift. The battle of Isandlwana was a stunning blow to the pride of the British Empire. The invasion of Zululand was totally defeated and had to be given up entirely. The Zulus had won a great victory and successfully defended their homeland. However, being so isolated, the victory gave them no long-term strategic advantage. It would be only a matter of time before the British attacked again, with more men, more caution and a greater determination to have their revenge. For a time though, after news of the epic Zulu victory spread, British positions throughout South Africa fell into near-panic at the fear that the Zulus might follow-up their success with a large-scale invasion south. However, King Cetshwayo was no fool and gave strict orders to his army against crossing the border. He wanted it made clear that they were fighting a defensive war only and would remain on their own territory. He hoped to avoid a full-scale war with Britain but, though the Disraeli government in London fell, that hope was in vain. The British high command feared that if the defeat at Isandlwana did not go unanswered it might encourage native wars and rebellions in other parts of the British Empire.

The war would go on, Britain would win and though the Zulu kingdom would survive (even to this day) it would never again be an independent, sovereign nation. Still, the battle of Isandlwana had an immense impact on the native peoples of southern Africa. The image of British invincibility had been destroyed and the British gained a healthy respect for the abilities of the Zulu warriors and would never underestimate them or be so careless again. Lord Chelmsford blamed his subordinates for the defeat, though the mistakes were his own, but he was saved from potential disgrace by the favor of Queen Victoria who gave him a chance to redeem himself in the following campaign. As would later be done with the battle of Adowa in East Africa, the battle of Isandlwana would be remembered for generations and used by African nationalists as an illustration of the prowess of their people in their campaign against European colonial rule and in favor of independence. In time, many more Africans other than the Zulus would come to regard the battle of Isandlwana as “their” victory.

The Battle of Rorke's Drift

It was on this day in 1879 that one of the most famous little battles in British history began at the remote mission station of Rorke’s Drift in what is today South Africa when around 150 British troops were attacked by upwards of 4,000 Zulu warriors in the Anglo-Zulu War. The astounding thing is that, despite those seemingly hopeless odds, the British were victorious. The forces of Queen Victoria at Rorke’s Drift were led by Lieutenant John Chard of the Royal Engineers and Lieutenant Gonville Bromhead of the 24th Regiment of Foot. The Zulus were led by Prince Dabulamanzi kaMpande. The battle was supposed to have been a simple ‘mopping up’ operation on the part of the Zulus after they had wiped out a British column of over a thousand men at the battle of Isandlwana in the worst defeat suffered by a European army at the hands of a non-European foe prior to being surpassed by the Italian defeat at Adowa who were later surpassed by the Spanish defeat at Annual in 1921. The heroism of the British forces at Rorke’s Drift was, therefore, something badly needed for the morale of the British Empire after suffering so devastating a loss. Not only did the handful of men at the isolated mission station repulse repeated attacks by a vastly larger enemy, they forged a record of courage that remains unsurpassed in British military history to this day. Since the institution of the Victoria Cross in 1856, the highest award for battlefield heroism the British monarch can bestow, more were earned at Rorke’s Drift (11) than in any other engagement to date.

That was how I first became aware of the action at Rorke’s Drift as my history professor at the time was an avowed Anglophile whose special area of expertise was the history of the Victoria Cross. Most people probably know about it thanks to the classic 1964 film “Zulu” starring Stanley Baker and Michael Caine. The movie actually has a royal connection as the man playing Zulu King Cetshwayo was one of his relatives, Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi who later became famous as a political leader and a somewhat controversial one at that for his strident anti-communism and break with the African National Congress. The film famously contains a number of historical inaccuracies but is entertaining for all of that and correctly shows the daunting odds and courage displayed by both sides in the battle. The little outpost had heard, of course, about the annihilation of the column under General Lord Chelmsford at Isandlwana but knew that it would be hopeless to try to retreat in open country slowed by the many sick and injured they would have to carry along with them. So, they decided to stay and fight it out at Rorke’s Drift, knowing it would be a fight to the death since, as was demonstrated at Isandlwana, the Zulus were not in the habit of taking prisoners, particularly when it came to British regulars.

The Zulus were mostly part of a reserve force that had seen no combat at Isandlwana and were fresh and eager. Added to this was the fact that the Zulus were of a time-honored warrior tradition, very fit and possessing incredible stamina. The British force, by comparison, consisted of a large number of wounded men, some men of the Natal Native Contingent were armed only with spears and their commanders would not have been considered top-notch at the time. Lt. Chard did not have the best reputation in the army, Lt. Bromhead was half deaf and their ranking NCO was the youngest in the army. They were, on the whole, better armed than their enemies who mostly fought with primitive melee weapons though a number did have rifles. The British were better trained in the art of modern warfare but the Zulus also had a primitive but quite effective system of command and control with established tactics that had worked for them in the past. Finally, given their immense numerical superiority there should have been no doubt that they would have defeated the little British outpost and that fairly quickly and completely. The redcoats hastily improvised the best fortifications they could with the space and materials on hand and then waited for the waves of Zulu warriors to come crashing down around them.

The Zulus were not actually supposed to attack Rorke’s Drift. King Cetshwayo was no fool and realized that if he were to provoke a general war with the British Empire he would surely lose. He wanted to repel them from his claimed territory but gave orders against invading that of his enemies. As it turned out, the defeat at Isandlwana enraged British public opinion against the Zulus while the action at Rorke’s Drift inspired them that victory was possible and obtainable. Prince Dabulamanzi made the attack on the mission station on his own authority, being known for his aggressiveness and for being what we would today call a ‘war hawk’. After an initial clash with a small troop of the Natal Native Horse the cavalrymen retreated, leaving the men at Rorke’s Drift on their own. At that point most of the native troops there abandoned the post as well. At about 4:30 PM the Zulus came on, taking as much fire as the British could put out, in attack after attack before recoiling to catch their breath and try again.

The fighting was fierce and often hand to hand as the British fought desperately for their lives against wave after wave of Zulu warriors. For the redcoats, absolutely every casualty counted. As he lost men, Lt. Chard was forced to slowly give ground, abandoning his north perimeter wall and a few rooms in the buildings on that side to the Zulus. Still, in the best tradition of the British infantrymen, they kept order, maintained discipline, stood and gave fire until the enemy was right upon them and then fought them off with the bayonet. The fighting went on through the evening and into the night. Time and time again the British position was all but overrun but each time the heroic soldiers desperately fought their way back and held their ground. Crowds of Zulus were everywhere and the hospital had to be abandoned during the night as the two sides fought from room to room. Chard and Bromhead had improvised some interior lines and as their losses mounted pulled back more and more to maintain a defensible position. The Zulus, for their part, took very heavy losses but continued to attack with tenacious determination. As the night dragged on the British were finally reduced to a mere handful of men, many of them wounded, and they were almost out of ammunition. Mention must also be made of the medics, commissary men and the field chaplain who acquitted themselves just as heroically as the combat infantrymen, tending the wounded in the midst of battle, bringing up ammunition and taking part in the battle themselves.

When dawn broke the next morning it was clear the British could not withstand another attack. If the Zulus had come on once more in all likelihood they would have swiftly taken Rorke’s Drift and massacred the remaining survivors. However, the Zulus had lost about a thousand men killed or wounded so that even their feisty chieftain had to admit that the little mission station was simply not worth it. To the great relief of the British survivors the Zulus decided not to try again and retreated. Sometime after 8AM a British relief force arrived under Lord Chelmsford so that the work of clearing the field and burying the dead could commence. It had been one of the fiercest battles in the history of the British Empire, lasting only hours and not of immense strategic importance but seeing some of the most brutal and desperate combat imaginable. It also saw some of the finest acts of bravery and heroism in the annals of British military history. Eleven men received the Victoria Cross, the most ever given to the men of one regiment for a single action, and four received Distinguished Conduct Medals for conspicuous valor in the face of the enemy. Another man, by all accounts, would have received the Victoria Cross had he not died in the battle as there was no provision at that time for posthumous awards.

Today, I doubt few people outside of military historians in the UK are all that familiar with the action at Rorke’s Drift and most would probably, I am sad to say, feel uncomfortable or even ashamed about it. White Europeans fighting African natives, that’s just terrible and brings up all that history of colonialism and the British Empire that the modern “citizens” of the UK would prefer to forget about or apologize for. Of course, it is a false dilemma to say one must choose between being either a jingoistic racist or someone ashamed of your own history. I look at Rorke’s Drift and see a clash of two kingdoms, unfortunate, but each with a great military tradition behind them and each displaying the heights of courage and tenacity. Ultimately, as we know, the Anglo-Zulu War ended in an “Anglo” victory with the Zulus losing their independence. However, we cannot assume that would not have happened anyway as the British (and most other Europeans for that matter) have now left South Africa and the Zulu kingdom is still not exactly independent but they seem to be okay with that. When remembering Rorke’s Drift and the wider war there is no reason for either side to be ashamed. The British troops were doing their duty and they and the Zulus alike displayed matchless courage. Britain was ultimately victorious but the Zulus had given them a fight like few other non-European peoples ever did.