Talk:Musket Wars

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

New Zealand: Māori Start‑class Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Māori task force (assessed as High-importance). Military history: South Pacific This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force

If Angela Ballara is to be believed and there is no real reason not to, the standard interpretaion of the musket wars -echoed in this Wiki article, may be somewhat wrong. Ballara argues strongly and to my mind quite convincingly, that the Musket Wars were really not that different to pre musket wars in the sense that thet were violent, warlike expressions of the normal Maori tikanga or culture. As Ballara explains it, many of the 'fights' (a word used by the missionaries)were not actual wars or battles but part of the normal system of lore or kawa, to provide checks and balances on Maori behaviour.In particular she explains the system of taua muru as a payback system used by Maori in cases of what they saw as relatively minor offending.The muru was equal to a system of "legitimized or acceptable" plunder of the perpetrator's resources.Ballara says that if the perpetrator accepted the plundering then the utu or payback was satisfied and that ended the matter. The plundering could be avoided by the perpetrator or their hapu offering resouces such as potatoes, pigs etc in compensation-when this was done and accepted, the matter was ended. A twist, that was strange to Europeans, was that events like an accident to a chief were also punished by muru, as if the chief's accident had been bought upon him by a curse. Also strange to Europeans was the random killing of the first people a taua came across when engaged in a hunt for utu-regardless of if the victim had anything to do with the cause of the utu or not.Ballara says that even missionaries and christiam Maori who were with them, were not completely immune to this aspect of kawa.

I would appreciate comments or other sources that give this same intepretation. I notice that the M W are called inter iwi wars -I believe this may be wrong as it seems they were MOST often inter hapu wars,sometimes alliances of kin related hapu and only some of the wars around the migration of large groups-such as Te Rauparaha's down to Kapiti, involved whole iwi.The intro could be ammended to reflect this? Claudia, May 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.32.33 (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems very strange than in the Battle of Hingikaka-a premusket, traditional war about 8,000 Maori were killed in just 1 battle, yet only 18,000 Maori died in the long running Musket Wars that went on for 37 years - involving hundreds of different battles -all using the far more deadly muskets to a greater or lesser extent. There does not seem to be any recognition of the death by exile factor. It is likely that at least 7 complete hapu vanished. This says nothing of death by introduced disease -like measles as an added factor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.36.191 (talk) 04:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the figure quoted are from vague sources-especially the figures for the battle of Hingikaka. It is not until recently that historians have been able to fix the DATE of the battle with any degree of certainty, so it is highly unlikely that the number are in any way accurate. Generally details of the battle come from the winner and were used to reinforce mana without much effort at what we would call historical accuracy. I have never seen or heard of any archaeology that supports these huge numbers. The figures for the "500" actual battles in the Musket Wars are also likely to be poor. The overall estimate of deaths was calculated by New Zealand's foremost demographer from the best information available but could easily be out by 20% or more. I agree that the wiping out of hapu (and in some cases iwi) suggests bigger number. This may be the case in the Whanganui, Manawatu, Wellington,Upper South Island invasion by Te Rauparaha. Very few Pakeha were around to take notes! It seems that survivors of massacres were incorporated in the victor's hapu/iwi in the 1820s and 30s. The best documented of the Musket Wars was the invasion of the Chatham Islands by Ngati Mutanga and Ngati Tama in 1835. This shows that the initial killings were large scale and followed by a well thought out campaign of(traditional?)torture and terror which destroyed the Moriori psychologically. In later law cases in the 1870s Ngati Mutanga argued that this was normal Maori practice. It maybe that because Moriori were such a culturally passive iwi the numbers killed were actually low compared to the mainland hapu /iwi who would have put up more of a fight. Also remember that the terms hapu and iwi are in fact far fluid in terms of status and numbers. Hapu just generally means a smaller group -200 seems to be realistic figure- of people who lived reasonably close together and cooperated on a regular basis. Iwi seldom lived or worked close together unless an area was very productive. In poor ares even hapu were widely scattered.

I have undone this edit by 122.62.226.243

Maori also attacked Moriori on the Chatham Islands in a well orchestrated onslaught that began in 1835 and did not end until the 1860s.[1] LMS missionaries who arrived in the North during the wars attempted to modify the often barbaric behaviour of individuals such as Hongi Hika but were subjected to immense psychological pressure and continuous ridicule. Their food supply and living conditions were controlled by Maori.One missionary was entrapped by living with a Maori women. He was forced into servicing firearms for the marauding hapu so they could continue their wars .[2]

Firstly this is way too detailed (and badly written) to be in the lede. Secondly The references contain no page numbers, and I have some genuine concern that they support what is written.

My undoing has been instantly undone undone by 75.95.245.49 an IP in Hawai'i maybe my edit summary wasn't clear - rather than undoing this again I'm expressing my concerns here so it can be discussed. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Hawaiian editor obviously knows their history. Yes, the 2 iwi did plan an invasion from Wellington. Yes, it was extremely well planned. Yes, it began in 1835. Yes, slavery on the Chathams continued until 1860. Yes, the London Missionary Society's main job was to modify the barbaric unchristian behaviour of northern Maori. Yes, one of the missionaries was caught in what is generally known (these days) as a honey trap and forced to service muskets so Maori could continue the wars. All this and far more horrendous detail is from Michael King's "Morori" which was used as a main source by the Waitangi Treaty Tribunal in rebutting the claims of Ngati Mutanga and Ngati Tama to Tangata Whenua status in the Chathams and from Kings "Penguin History of NZ"re Northern history. Moon and Belich also wrote about the details of northern Maori and the LMS in endless detail. Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question above was more the appropriateness of the detail for the lead paragraph rather than any single piece of truthfulness - If you write this up properly referenced in the appropriate part of the "correct" article and make it actually reflect what the references say - not what you want them to say I'm sure no one will revert your work. Perhaps trying it out in your sandbox would be a good idea to get everything right before copying into the article.Andrewgprout (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is desperately in need of a major overhaul. It is poorly written, badly referenced and often deviates from Wikipedia style. BlackCab (TALK) 07:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun rewriting the article. More edits and cleanups to follow. BlackCab (TALK) 06:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have a strange idea of what constitutes a poor quality article. Removing important detail significantly lowers the value of the article. Wikipedia is not SHORT on space ! It appears from the material selectively removed you may have other motives. Reinstatement of detail will follow shortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.178.77 (talk) 10:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Material that is poorly written, inadequately sourced or not relevant to the topic will continue to be removed. BlackCab (TALK) 06:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Material that was sourced and has been selectively removed to create a wrong or incorrect impression will be reinstated in the interests of a fair, neutral and factually correct article.115.188.178.77 (talk) 23:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Musket 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211020817/http://www.eu-sol.net/public/plant-histories/potato-history/spread-of-the-potato to http://www.eu-sol.net/public/plant-histories/potato-history/spread-of-the-potato

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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) 21:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lede says "The Musket Wars were fought...between 1807 and 1845....Responsibility for the beginning of the musket wars is usually attributed to Ngāpuhi chief Hongi Hika, who in 1818 used newly acquired muskets to launch devastating raids..." Heke started the wars 11 years after they started! Moriori (talk) 01:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the "Responsibility for the beginning of the musket wars" wording, so its kind of implied but not stated. I think it works. - Snori (talk) 10:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also wonder about the 1845 end date that the article is using. 1839 or 1840 would seem much more reasonable, and 1830s seems to be what's typically used elsewhere. - Snori (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back I see that it was here as 1842 for a long while (unsure on what grounds), but was changed to 1845 on 25 July by an IP. Based on the fact that the latest event we have in the article is dated 1837 I've now changed it to that. - Snori (talk) 06:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This section is really quite unrelated to the topic, but instead belongs with New Zealand Wars. - Snori (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These should be mentioned. The great chief Hongi Hika was not a passive receiver of muskets. Born into a traditional society, he had the brilliance to take himself all the way to England to get more muskets.

Also, one of the major motivations for the wars in general was food. The losing side got eaten. Literally, in large numbers. Should be mentioned. Tuntable (talk) 09:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]