Jump to content

Talk:Xhosa Wars

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Creation of Article

[edit]

Hi, I created the article Xhosa Wars, but I didn't realise that their was already an article. Please Merge. Samuel 15:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merged

I don't know who merged, but did he not lose the edit history of 'Cape Frontier Wars'? JMK 11:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This must be the most biased anti-European article I have ever read anywhere. I shall check the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica to see what it says, but I am prepared to lay a very large bet that the differences are huge. Just what academic book written befor the last 25 years of angst refers to the 'Xhosa Wars'. I mean, 60,000 cattle. Errr... just who did the count? Beyond belief. David Lauder 20:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xhosa Wars vs. Kaffir Wars? …using wikEd

[edit]

I am the last person around to advise revisionist history, but I believe that even to be historically correct in calling them the Kaffir Wars would set of a maelstrom of controversy. (For example, even the memorial plaques to British casualties in the Grahamstown cathedral have been covered to avoid insensitivity.) --Lmcelhiney 17:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

neutrality

[edit]

Could whoever put the POV dispute tage on the main page please tell me whats wrong with the article, the tag is pointless with out a dispute. Samuel 00:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Xhosa Wars" doesn't sound neutral to me. Xhosa is a language. If the original title was "Cape Frontier Wars", that is neutral. Why was it dropped? I've heard of "Kaffir Wars", but the usual term used by historians is "Frontier Wars", not merely because the term "Kaffir" is now derogatory, but also because it views the wars from one side only. One could equally well call them "Colonist Wars", viewing them from the other side.

So "Cape Frontier Wars" is a better neutral term. SteveH (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The usage on the Internet is split even (Britannica Online uses Cape Frontier), but doesn't Cape Frontier have a British bias? The wars was fought in the Xhosa's (AmaXhosa in this case, a people, not just a language) land, or the land beyond the Cape Province (hence Cape Frontier) but since from the Xhosa's perspective their land is the battlefield, the term is equally neutral. We could call it the Anglo-Xhosa wars, but that would mean we are coming up with a new term. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 23:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xhosa Wars is the term most commonly used by historians. Anglo-Xhosa Wars might be an alternative, but as Samuell points out we would be coining an entirely new term which goes against policy. Editors who dislike the term "Xhosa Wars" need to produce sources that show this is non-neutral and controversial. I am removing the tag for now, as the case for it hasn't been clearly made. It can be re-added if somebody produces evidence that there are nuetraily issues. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the linguistic connection of the tribes is what brings Xhosa is used which limits the conflicts involved to those incidents. Frontier does have the connotation that the incidents are viewed from the Europeans rather than the in-place albeit potentially boundary lines of the aborigines76.170.88.72 (talk) 09:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Smith

[edit]

I pretty sure that Harry Smith did not lead the British troops in 1806 who were sent to help the Boers. At least, not **the** Sir Harry Smith, 1st Baronet Aliwal, to whom the link leads, and who in 1806 was an 18-year-old 2nd Lieutenant in the newly-formed 95th Rifles. I know nothing about the Xhosa wars, so haven't changed the article, but someone who knows should find out who did lead the expedition, and fix. KiwiBiggles 21:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the Gregorydavid has restored the link I removed, to Harry Smith. The article here http://samilitaryhistory.org/vol031ah.html makes it pretty clear that, even if the commander of the British forces in 1806 was called Harry Smith, it was some other Harry Smith. Unless someone can provide references that Harry Smith Baronet Aliwal served part of his very early career in South Africa, I am going to re-remove the link. KiwiBiggles (talk) 05:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article links to Sir Harry Smith, 1st Baronet, We also have is Dictionary of National Biography entry on Wiki Source s:Smith, Harry George Wakelyn (DNB00). It says he was:

Harry received a commission as ensign in the 95th foot, afterwards the rifle brigade, on 17 May 1805, and, being promoted to be lieutenant on 15 Aug. the same year, was quartered at Shorncliffe. In June 1806 he embarked for service under Sir Samuel Auchmuty [q. v.] in South America. In January 1807 a landing was effected at Maldonado, near the mouth of the La Plata river, after some fighting, and the suburbs of Monte Video were occupied. On the 20th the enemy made a sortie with six thousand men, when the riflemen suffered severely. The attack, after a breach had been made on 3 Feb., was led by the riflemen and the place captured. Smith also took part on 5 July in the disastrous attack on Buenos Ayres, and he returned with his regiment to England, arriving at Hythe in December 1807.

In the autumn of 1808 Smith embarked with some companies of the second battalion for the Peninsula, and landed at Coruña on 26 Oct. In December he was brigaded with the 43rd and 52nd foot under Brigadier-general Robert Craufurd [q. v.], and served throughout the retreat to and the battle of Coruña on 16 Jan. 1809. Embarking the same night, he arrived at Portsmouth on the 21st, and, after spending two months at Whittlesea, proceeded to Hythe.

So the link must be wrong. -- PBS (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs correction

[edit]

Somehow this article has become totally disjointed. I am in the process of obtaining relevant information pertaining to each of the wars..Gregorydavid 22:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple spellings of Xhosa names

[edit]

There are a couple of likely errors in names here due to multiple European spellings of Xhosa names. Unfortunately, I do not have any good solid references for these changes, so I will leave this under discussion for now.

Makana's attack on Grahamstown seems to be listed twice here. The article states that Makana attacked Grahamstown on 22 April 1817, and also that Maqana attacked Grahamstown in 1819, promising that Settler bullets would turn to water. This is very likely the same event, and the same man. His name was Makana, and he was also known as Nxele. The bullets turning to water sounds correct, and he did end up on Robben Island.

Kreli, referred to under the heading 9th Xhosa war, is as far as I know actually Sarhili, chief of the Gcaleka.

Halfsnail 09:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right, see the names of Xhosa prophets, and those sent to Robben Island. Also some references refer to the same wars by different numbers, ie maybe from the British perspective and others from the Dutch or South African perspective. There is some work to be done..Gregorydavid 10:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars

[edit]

I do not agree with the reduction of the number of sections listing each specific war. Maybe the templates only should have been removed Samuel.Gregorydavid 10:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trans-Kei War?

[edit]

Some books refer to the Transkei or Trans-Kei War, i.e. of the Transkei. But is this the same as the Xhosa/Kaffir/Cape Frontier wars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.98 (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work being done

[edit]

I see user:JMK has been doing good work re-writing the sections.Gregorydavid (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map is incorrectly labeled and drawn

[edit]

The map of the eastern frontier of the colony of the Cape of Good Hope is both incorrectly labeled and drawn. The map is labeled "c.1835", but British Kaffraria was not officially declared by Governor Smith until December 1847, and East London was not founded until January 1848. The map appears to be a colorized reproduction of the map found on p. 262 in Smith's autobiography, which is labelled as being c.1850 in that book's list of illustrations.

More importantly, however, the shading of British Kaffraria, is incorrect. The western boundary of British Kaffraria extended to the Kei River, not beyond as currently indicated. See C.A. Bayly, Atlas of the British Empire, p. 83.

137.165.201.94 (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


You seem to have a knowledge of this war. I can assume that since you are editing from Williams College, you must have something to do with the African History program there. But it would be great if you could cite your sources (they don't need to be web based). If you need any help in this matter, feel free to contact me at my talk page. Thank you Samuell Lift me up or put me down 14:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peires [1] has a map [p 162]of "territorial losses 1779-1850" showing that the area between the Keiskamma and the Kei was (part of) the "Province of Queen Adelaide" between 1835-37 and then (all of) British Kaffraria from 1847. Dates are in the article on British Kaffraria but it doesn't give borders. The eastern boundary of the map is clearly wrong for either c. 1835 or c. 1850. But it's a nice map, so what about "Frontiers (plural) c. 1835-1850?". Peires' map gives the sequence of territorial loses thus, to 1850: "Zuurveld 1779-1819" (between Bushmans and Fish R's);"Kat River Valley 1819-1829"; "Ceded Territory 1819" = (part of) "Province of Queen Adelaide 1835-37" = "District of Victoria 1847" = Fish to Keiskamma Rivers and inland. The map more or less covers this, but obviously it needs a "Frontier" on the Kei too. regards Keepitshort (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Peires JB. The House of Phalo: A history of the Xhosa people in the days of their independence. Johannesburg: Ravan Press, 1987. ISBN 0 86975 214 6

6th war "Fingo people"

[edit]

It seems that the names by which native populations are called is their word or meaning for "themselves" or "people". Can the term "Fingo people" be interpreted as Fingo being some European aberration of the Fengu name which may mean or represent "people" in that language therefore "Fingo people" literally would be people people?76.170.88.72 (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Xhosa Wars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Xhosa Wars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

Analyse the impact of colonial advances on the Xhosa 41.121.111.146 (talk) 07:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Xhosa_Wars&oldid=1238547391"