Talk:Battle of Rangiriri

Shot markers etc

Although contemporary sketches clearly show kingitanga and other flags behind the rebel fortification, there is no evidence that they were being used as markers,although it is possible. The British artillary were only about 700m away on a low hill and using telescopes could clearly have seen the fall of shot-initially at least- until dust obscured the target. The Armstrong guns in use were highly accurate but the small calibre would have had little effect on the central bunker. For Maori exposed in the long trench system it could have been a different matter. Even then they were relatively safe apart froma direct hit in the trench. This was unlikely due to the flat trajectory of the Armstrong-it was a gun not a howitzer.Psycholgically the noise would have been very impressive and debilitating.This may explain the real reason why many of the defenders took off during the battle. The idea that they suddenly remembered they need to plant their gardens is nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.190.90 (talk) 03:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Material removed

I have deleted the following unsourced material per WP:BURDEN, which states: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material."

Most Māori,about 70%, did not support the rebellion, NEEDS CITATION either remaining neutral or actively fighting with the government. Even in the Waikato many hapu,especially in the lower Waikato and Pokeno area, joined the government side to fight the rebels. This service was recognised by the return of 314,364 acres to Kupapa chiefs in 1865 about 6 months after the war ended.<ref>Te Puea .M.King. Reed.2003.P 21.</REF>FALSIFIED CITATION As well, many Queenite chiefs were given the huge sum of 1,000 pounds each for their loyal support. NEEDS CITATION

But Māori rebels did surprise and kill isolated civilians south of Auckland such as Runciman and Papakura. Most of the settlers killed were unarmed farmers, including children. NEEDS CITATION

The material may be restored if appropriate sources are provided. BlackCab (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The article is afflicted with the same problems that have long riddled the Invasion of the Waikato article, which I identified at Talk:Invasion of Waikato#Rewrite and cleanup. I have completed the first stage of the cleanup of that article and am now about to embark on cleaning up the Battle of Rangiriri section. This spinout article is the obvious place to start, and from that I'll create a brief summary at the main Invasion article. BlackCab (talk) 03:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I have completed the overhaul of the article, removing poorly-written, unsourced and irrelevant material. I have added sources and covered the battle from start to finish. Unfortunately the IP editor who has for some time regarded the article as his/her playground has returned, adding a number of edits that are patently false. I have marked these in bold below:

• The Battle of Rangiriri was one of the largest of 18 engagements in the invasion of the Waikato. (Which source states there were 18 engagements? The article did correctly say the battle was "a major" engagement.)
• More than 1400 British troops,together with kupapa Maori who acted as guides defeated, about 500 warriors... (There is no reference in the source material to kupapa guides. They may have helped, but it is of no consequence in the coverage of the battle.)
• ... which was resisting the expansion of British attempt to destroy the rebel Kingitanga movement in the central North Island. ("expansion of British attempt" is sloppy writing; the battle was not an expansion of an attempt to destroy the Kingitanga movement. "Rebel" was a term used in 19th century newspapers and books to refer to the Maori occupants of the land. It is loaded, inaccurate and non-neutral.)
• Most initial settlers were miltitary but most left with in a few years and the Waikato remained an economic backwater until the invention of refrigeration and the development of the modern dairy industry in the 1890s. (Says who? And the spelling is rubbish.)
• Since early 1863 Kingitanga forces attacked the British in Taranaki.For some time they had been contemplating an attack on Auckland and NGati Hau constructed an elaborte military base and grew large quantities of food on the northern border, in anticipation of an attack on Auckland. After a series of defeats rebel Maori retreated into the Waikato and formed the Meremere line. (The Oakura ambush in Taranaki was unrelated to the Meremere line. The spelling, again, is careless. What military base did Ngati Hau build near Auckland? What is the source for the claim that they were growing large quantities of food in preparation for what would have been a quick raid on Auckland? What series of defeats? Why is "rebel" used again? All of this is an editor's opinion and is quite inaccurate. The reason for the formation of the Meremere line is already described in the article.)

I have removed these edits and will continue to remove unsourced and inaccurate statements. BlackCab (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Realignment of road?

Something is not right here as the existing road runs some 30m to the left(and well below ) of the central redoubt, which is still clearly visible and marked by a large display board. The road (SH 1)runs through the double trench that ran short distance -about 100m down to Lake Kopuera. The highway is in a cutting so "restoration" is not really possible(the central redoubt remains on the small hill above the cutting.) It would be hard to move the road to the east as there is a small lake in the way about 150m further south and I doubt they will put the highway through the middle of Rangiriri?? Perhaps they were talking about widening the road a bit to put in an extra lane or 2 as that part of the highway is incredibly busy. Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC) Talk in the Waikato Times of the nearby bridge,just to the south, being temporarily shut.

Ive had the chance to inspect what they are doing at the Pa. There has been no work done in or near the central redoubt. A new 4 lane? highway is being constructed well to the WEST of the central redoubt,on the flat land nearer the river. The roadworks are well advanced but there is a 30m section where the old double trench line was built in 1863 that has been left. It seems to have been converted into a drain by the local farmer. Im guessing that is where the historical dig was in progress that was mentioned in the press a few months back. It looks like once the study is done it will just be paved over for good. Claudia

Surrounded at Rangiriri

Belich makes great play of the facts around whether the rebel defenders in the Pa were surrounded or not. Belich made a lot of errors when looking at the battle-it is clear he never visited the site or he would (or should) have seen many of the things he write in his "NZ Wars" were very wrong. ie he got the wrong lake to the east and he got length of the eastern trench totally wrong. He said it was about 500m when in fact it is about 90m. If it had been Lake Waikare (which he wrongly claimed) the distance would have been about 1km anyway. He used these figures as the basis of his assertion that the main problem for the defenders was lack of numbers. When you use the correct places and the correct distances it is easy to show this is a totally wrong idea. It is obvious that about 200 of the 500 or so in the pa escaped.

What is not so obvious is the distribution of the government troops. It is clear there were soldiers in front,to the British right (river end), around the central redoubt -mainly to the British right and to the rear. Troops from the 14th chased defenders fleeing through the swamp and after sometime returned but did not re-enter the eastern trench. Belich asks why? If he had visited it would have been apparent, as it was to military officer and historian Chris Pugsley. From the central redoubt, which still contained at least 180 defenders,the east trench runs straight and down hill for 90m to the swamp/lake shore. Musket range is about 80- 100m so anyone sitting in the trench was a clear shot from the redoubt. The top of the redoubt to the lake edge was about a 15m-18m drop. Even in the dark the defenders could gave just fired blindly down the trench and be sure of hitting somebody. A single man fleeing could run that distance down hill in about 15-20 seconds. The 200 might have taken 10mts.

As events were to show at Orakau, it is hard to stop a group of people determined to flee, if the move is sudden. Most accounts agree that the British soldiers also occupied a ridge further to the south east (where the kupapa officer/magistrate Te Wheoro afterwards built his redoubt). Sketches done at the time indicate this whole area was covered by long grass, not bush, so anyone emerging from the central redoubt would be visible as the distance was about 350m BUT the defenders would have been well out of musket shot effective range. An 1863 sharp shooter may have had a lucky shot but there was no reason for defenders to leave the trench so only the top of their head was visible in daylight. We know the " Tawhiao 200" decamped at NIGHT so they would have been invisible from 350m and unless they were very careless the soldiers would not have heard a thing. Its apparent that the British solders attacking the central redoubt from the British right who camped the night just outside the redoubt, never heard a thing.

We can guess that the heavily clothed 14th regiment soldiers would have been wet and tired and hungry from chasing defenders through the swamp. We dont know if they retraced their steps so they may have re-emerged at a different point. No doubt they were very tired and certainly not anxious to sit right in the "exit lane" trench, within easy musket distance.

For interest: the west double trench is about 250m long, with the lower part nearest the river 200m long and nearly flat,then a rise to within 20m of the central redoubt where there is another short, fairly flat 20m section of trench. Belich says the whole line was 1000 yards long-wrong again it was actually 496m -less than half that distance.

Actually Belich did visit the site: he is filmed standing there in the episode on the Battle of Rangiriri in his New Zealand Wars DVD. But there does seem to be a problem. His book (p.143) and his TV program both claim the defensive line ran from the Waikato River to Lake Waikere. He acknowledges that "for some reason contemporary accounts usually give 500 yards for the length of the front", but estimates it is closer to 1000 yards. He draws on Cowan (citing p.318 of Cowan's Vol I, which actually contains no estimate of length!) but fails to acknowledge that Cowan's text refers to the line running from the river to "the small lake on the east"; on p.328 his map clearly identifies the lake as "Lake Kapuwera". Are there other sources that would help to clear this up? BlackCab (talk) 03:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that ! I had a chuckle to myself. If I recall the TV series correctly it was even more revisionist in its tenor than his book. I didnt see it all as I was studying in Melbourne around then. I wonder if his eye sight was not great or if he was not that great with maths or visualizing? The book has all the signs of being rushed ,though it apparently wasn't. The mistake with the distance throws out another of his pet theories that the Pa was undermanned by defenders.ie the density of defenders was twice what Belich stated. I checked in Bohan's Climates of war -he made the same mistakes,although ironically he is very critical of Belich's book , calling it "flawed". He goes into chapter and verse about Belichs' boobs over the military earthworks question. The only other person likely to get it right is Chris Pugsley who I think may have found Belich's book professionally insulting being a military man himself. I have a few copies of NZ Defence Quarterly somewhere- I think I was getting them gratis due to my army work in my "free"time way back but Im sure I havent got his Rangiriri analysis quarterly.

Misquoting Cowan?Tut tut! I notice that Belich was critical of modern historians for not seeking Maori opinions. I think he forgot that Cowan regularly talked with the old Maori warriors -his account of Orakau refers to this directly. I think by the time the 1950s plus historians came around they didnt live in the Waikato, they didnt speak Maori and of course the Maori defenders were well dead. Its interesting that Te Hurinui- Jones who knew EVERYONE in Tainui, was the most suspicious of their accounts and refused point blank to write about Te Puea because he "knew too much" that would blacken her name-this according to Michael King. Pei would only write about the Tainui old days. Kelly of course, just "copied" Pei's research when he thought Pei was dying of cancer. Even King only got censored accounts of TE Puea's life with the family and Kingitanga holding back critical documents. Claudia.

No apology for this battle

The crown apology mentioned is not for this battle but for the war in general.It is not appropriate in this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 06:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It would be worth adding at Invasion of Waikato though, presumably. BlackCab (talk) 08:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no mention of the "Invasion of Waikato" in the crown apology either. The apology seems to be more directed at criticizing the default Victorian ideology which was the basis for NZ government culture and decision making in the mid 19th century. Can a late 20th century people apologise for how people thought 150 years earlier? Does it make any sense? I am now waiting for the Vikings to apologise for destroying Lindisfarne! Really a bit of political/cultural massaging."Mana massaging" perhaps ??Claudia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The opening words of the Waikato Raupatu Claims Settlement Act 1995 and Section 2.8 of the Waikato-Tanui Deed of Settlement (contained as wiki links in the Invasion article) both contain a very explicit apology for the New Zealand Government's dispatch of "its forces across the Mangataawhiri in July 1863" (the invasion), their labelling the Waikato Maori as rebels and the subsequently confiscation of Waikato land. There was a judgment that those actions were unjust and in breach of the Treaty. I see no apology for any "thoughts" the leaders of the time had. So the wording of the Wikipedia article (which is presumably what you're here to discuss) would be correct. BlackCab (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Belich on Rangiriri

Belich is one of the main sources sited for this article but has been severely criticized for his clumsy and inaccurate account of events by C Pugsley and other military historians. Pugsley and Lt Col.Richard Taylor say that Belich was writing a military history but was not a military authority and did not understand even basic military terms. In his book he used both terms strategy and tactics inaccurately and interchangeably. He did not understand the difference between ammunition, bullets and gunpowder, nor did he visit battle fields to walk the battles as is normal for military historians.This led to critical mistakes in his analysis of Rangiriri. In addition Belich got time and distances muddled as well as the place names of even large well known geographical features. He totally misrepresented the place of Maori using trench warfare. He wrote the book in London without visiting most of the battle sites and only years later visited the sites during the filming of his later TV series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.178.77 (talk) 05:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Cowan was correct -the rebels had run out of ammunition ie bullets. Belich is correct that Rebels still had "ammunition" ie gunpowder(they had the ability to make their own low grade powder)but he clearly did not understand the difference between ammunition and bullets ie projectiles. Belich's statement therefore makes no sense ie they did not have the means to carry on fighting and is misleading. His argument that they were capable of still fighting is made nonsense. His comments about "waiting for reinforcement" dont make sense either -about half of the rebel force had actually left the pa in the middle of the battle during the night. The only alleged reinforcements were a small group of Ngati Haua who approached the battle on the wrong side of the river.The British controlled the river with their gunboats.The British routinely captured waka for their own use or smashed all unneeded Maori waka (canoes) they found. Given Ngati Haua's very luke warm support of the war,(and especially pitched battles) their attempt to surrender immediately after Rangiriri and that they arrived after the battle was over,the statement about reinforcements should go too. Belich's comments about the British not surrounding the Pa again shows his poor understanding of British military tactics. It was SOP to avoid this in the "modern"1860 style battle because of the danger of "overs" from artillary firing high explosive shells.Even the standard military musket had a "a danger " range of about 900m,although it was not accurate at this range.115.188.178.77 (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Writing rambling comments without paragraph breaks means your comments are unlikely to be read by anyone. It is not for Wikipedia editors to decide which historians are right or wrong and then arbitrarily remove one point of view. I have restored the original wording which presents both historians' views. BlackCab (TALK) 23:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)