Talk:Battle of Majuba Hill

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


Untitled

Beefart says: There is a sentence ("During then...) in the third paragraph that is unintelligible. I am unable to correct it because I have no idea what the writer meant. Any clues, guys?

Perhaps they're trying to say 'during this time' or 'meanwhile'? --Loopy e 20:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biased. What is biased? Captainbeefart (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Vuur and beweeg". Vuur can be a noun or a verb but beweeg is only a verb. Fire and move makes more sense than fire and movement. Movement is beweeging.... Captainbeefart (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between British losses in the text and in the infobox. I dont doubt that both have valid sources, however the difference should at least be addressed. Perhaps we can offer a range of casualties in both sections rather than the single numbers that differ. Or perhaps can we just change overall British losses in the article to 285 for consistency? I'll change it now, but dont hesitate to change it to something better.DaltonCastle (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article reads like propaganda, specifically "Britain would never recover from the injury to its honor" and " The Boers showed that the British were not the invincible foe the world feared" did anyone really think the British were an unstoppable force? seems like an assertion aimed at making the Boers look heroic (i.e. I am under the impression the French were regarded as the premier military force in Europe until their defeat in the Franco-Prussian war (then of course it was the Prussians)).

I am also kind of iffy on "Since the American Revolution, Great Britain had never signed a treaty on unfavorable terms with anyone and had never lost the final engagements of the war. In every preceding conflict, even if the British suffered a defeat initially, they would retaliate with a decisive victory." as the outcome of the war of 1812 seems to contradict this "Britain dropped its demand for an independent Indian state, which was in any case hopeless after the defeat of the British and the death of Tecumseh at the Battle of the Thames; this concession allowed negotiations to resume at the end of October. The details were then easy to resolve since the basic plan was to exchange all captured territory and leave the boundary as it was before the war" which is something the Americans might be inclined to crow over as a victory but I doubt was seen as a triumph in the United Kingdom or a display of British might in Europe. 202.49.0.2 (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is odd. The fundamental problem is that the British did "retaliate with a decisive victory" eighteen years later, with the Second Boer War. Tens of thousands of Boer civilians were interned in concentration camps, thousands died of disease and malnutrition, Boer farms were burned and dug up, and ultimately the Boers were destroyed as a cohesive unit. I have the impression that even in Britain the First Boer War was a series of small battles that happened far away, sandwiched between the Second Anglo-Afghan War and the Mahdist War, both of which Britain won decisively. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Treaty of Ghent

Since the American Revolution, Great Britain had never signed a treaty on unfavorable terms with anyone. NOT TRUE.
In December 1814, the British government signed the Treaty of Ghent ending the War of 1812 on terms very favorable to the Americans.
Furthermore, there was the understandable delay of weeks in sending the news over the Atlantic via sailing ship. In January 1815, the Americans under General Andrew Jackson decisively crushed the British at the Battle of New Orleans !

Yes I agree there's definitely some inaccuracies in this article that we should address. Idk exactly how (ie:'very') favorable the Treaty of Ghent would necessarily be considered from an objective standard, the historical consensus as well as my view is that the terms were quite favorable to the US, where disagreement emerges i think is if it would be fair to call it clearly unfavorable to the British. The US essentially succeeded in it's 2nd war for independence and as emphasized further below, the US was able to establish itself as a military force to be respected, there were many other benefits to the US that don't require expansion on here but even though Britain's indigenous allies certainly lost out due to the US, once again, I am not sure if the UK "suffered unfavorable terms" since more or less they had to accept they had to respect the US and give back land taken during the war, there wasn't really anything material though that Britain lost even though we gained.
As to your second point, there is no room for informed disagreement here, Britain lost the final engagements of the War of 1812-in fact, despite some marginal successes in between, Britain was decisively defeated in every major closing engagement (Fort McHenry, Plattsburgh, the Great Lakes). In addition, contrary to popular belief, the War of 1812 did not actually end until February 1815 and so the Battle of New Orleans was fought before the conclusion of the war by any definition. OgamD218 (talk) 11:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since no objections have been made, I am going to make the proposed edits to this section.OgamD218 (talk) 12:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Majuba_Hill&oldid=1206173964"