Talk:Battle of Blood River

I deleted the following:

In 1978 a prominent Pretoria academic Floors van Jaarsveld questioned the motivation behind the commemoration of the victory and was subsequently tarred and feathered during a public lecture by members of the Afrikaner Resistance Movement.

Reason: This is a military history article; not relevant.

Luidier 09:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

---

I changed the sentence "As usual, the ox wagons were drawn into a protective circle (Afrikaans: laager)" to "As usual, the ox wagons were drawn into a protective circle or laager)". This is because the English form, "laager" while sharing the same root as the Afrikaans word is not the same. The Afrikaans word is laer. Booshank 16:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

---

I believe that the information contained under the heading “interpretations of the meaning of the battle” in this article is too opinionated, and that this section should be removed until more supporting evidence can be found. Remember, this incident happened over 160 years ago, so main resources should only be of that created during or not too long after that time.

Let me elaborate: “Afrikaners accepted that the Battle demonstrated God's intervention, and hence their divine right to exist. The claim in the official guidebook of the Voortrekker Monument (unveiled during the centenary celebrations of the Great Trek on December 16, 1949) that Afrikaners were a nation of heroes exemplifies the conclusions drawn from such events. In time, some Afrikaners came to consider the site and the commemoration of the day as sacred.” 1.) First of all, what is the exact resource for this information? 2.) Afrikaner were religious people of the Christian believe, thus it was by their believe that God intervened. 3.) “...and hence their divine right to exist...” Which Afrikaner in those times said it was their “divine right” to exist after the battle? The context or structure of this sentence gives the impression that they “didn’t actually have the right” to exist...? 4.) “were a nation of heroes...” “... exemplifies the conclusions drawn from such events.” I don’t think this sentence gives enough details of “heroes” to what event? Blood river event? And to what conclusion? The conclusion that “Afrikaners came to consider the site and the commemoration of the day as sacred”??? This sentence implies that the Afrikaner came to that conclusion after 16 December 1949, after published works of person’s such as G.M. Theal, while in actual fact: The jurisdiction of South Africa did not exist before 1910, and the Boers Republics were constantly under thread, so they never had a fixed opportunity to commemorate a day such as 16 December (like on 19 December 1949) and after 1910 the Afrikaner cultured parties of that time did not manage the country until 1948. So they could have concluded that before since 1938 and not the Afrikaner after 1949, who just lived on the tradition as most cultured would. 5.) “In time, some Afrikaners came to consider the site and the commemoration of the day as sacred.” Given point 4’s detail, they could have considered the site and the commemoration of the day as sacred since 1838, it just was not “exemplified” as much back then due to the situation mentioned in no 4. “In time” implies that this happened only after 1949 (closer to today’s time), and was not a "believe" of the Afrikaner of that time, but a believe among Afrikaners only in today’s time or closer to today’s time.

“Even some Afrikaners were uneasy with the official version. Mackenzie notes that a Dutch Reformed clergymen later wrote that Blood River " 'was not a battle, it was an execution' "” Meckenzie made the note of a Dutch reformed clergymen, but does “one Dutch person” give substantial evidence to write a sentence such as “Even some Afrikaners were uneasy with the official version”?

EV Wool 17:56, 17 November 2007 (CAT)

Currently, the sections above seems to lean heavily on one historian's (Mackenzie's) views. I would like to see a wider range of views represented. 207.169.186.10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC).

Better one professional historian than the unsupported description of an amateur with no respect for objectivity, based only on based on word of mouth. The numbers in the infobox should be edited to a more believvable number or removed completely. They are completely unsupported.--90.240.34.121 (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Casualties

The number of casualties suffered by the Zulus would be impossible for such a small group of citizen-soldiers to inflict, regardless of how better armed they were. McKenzie's criticism is a start. He states that thirty years latter and armed with better weapons and in a similar defensive position, a professional British force could not inflict a similar number of casualties. This more rational opinion is not reflected in the battle box because his estimation, if he ever gave one, is not included or has been deleted. There are too many factors which could have lead to the details of this engagement being altered from the truth. Given the lack of reliable sources, I belief both the number of Zulus and their casualties should be marked as unknown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.34.121 (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The number is not only possible, it is highly probable and the death toll was probably much higher. The Voortrekkers learn't their lesson at the Battle of Italeni. The battlefield was carefully chosen by Andries Pretorius. The battle lasted longer than two hours and the citizen-soldiers were armed with three muskets each. Five waves of Zulus rushed the laager to within 50 yards only to be driven back by 400 men firing point blank into them. The two artillery pieces, a 6 and 4 pounder, loaded with grapeshot, were reported to have cleared pathways in the ranks of the Zulus. So 400 men firing 3 volleys into 5 waves of Zulus at point blank range would mean 6000 shots fired at the enemy as a minimum. This discounts the artillery, opportunistic fire and the horse back persuit after the battle. Killing 3000 is totally believable ratio even though it is low at 50%. Sixty years later, these same kind of citizen-soldiers, would terrorize the British troops with their accuracy and kill ratio at much further distances. JG Bantjes, Andries Pretorius's secretary, had a journal in which he described the battle in detail. He published this account a few months later in a Cape newspaper. Andries Pretorius, himself, wrote a summary report of the battle.

McKenzie criticism is totally unfounded. "Chelmsford had underestimated the disciplined, well-led, well-motivated and confident Zulus. The failure to secure an effective defensive position, the poor intelligence on the location of the main Zulu army, Chelmsford's decision to split his force in half, and the Zulus' tactical exploitation of the terrain and the weaknesses in the British formation, all combined to prove catastrophic for the troops at Isandlwana." The British at Isandlwana were not in a similar defensive position, far from it. "The British under Chelmsford pitched camp at Isandlwana on 20 January, but did not follow standing orders to entrench. No laager (circling of the wagons) was formed. Chelmsford did not see the need for one, stating, "It would take a week to make." But the chief reason for the failure to take defensive precautions appears to have been that the British command severely underestimated the Zulus' capabilities"

British arrogance and under estimation of the Zulus as just local natives led to the humiliating defeat at Isandlwana.

Furthermore "The two battalions of native troops were in Durnford's line. While all the officers and NCOs carried rifles, only one in 10 in the ranks had a firearm, and those few weapons were muzzle-loading muskets with limited ammunition"

So we have two battalions of practically unarmed soldiers yet McKenzie refers to the force as "armed with better weapons"?

McKenzie seems to know more than anybody else because "There was no casualty count of the Zulu losses by the British such as made in many of the other battles since they abandoned the field. Nor was there any count by the Zulu. Modern historians have rejected and reduced the older unfounded estimates. Historians Lock and Quantrill estimate the Zulu casualties as "... perhaps between 1,500 and 2,000 dead. Historian Ian Knight stated: "Zulu casualties were almost as heavy. Although it is impossible to say with certainty, at least 1,000 were killed outright in the assault..."

"Given the lack of reliable sources, I belief both the number of Zulus and their casualties should be marked as unknown" This is incorrect. There are reliable published sources, they are just not in English but in Dutch. There were also many eye witneses on both sides whose accounts were documented. Many have also been translated into Afrikaans which is closely related to Dutch. Coetzee Andre (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Marked as 'unknown'!? There were hundreds of eyewitnesses who both recorded the number (as around 10,000) and taught it to their children. If you doubt the validity of the number Zulus then you're welcome to do some in-depth research of the progression of the battle and I'll think you'll find that it was quite possible for 3,000 Zulus to be slain (remember, many were shot from behind as they tried to flee across the Ncome River, which led to the water being stained with their blood and the whole thing being remembered as 'The Battle of Blood River.') Invmog (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The number of killed is preposterous. And the source of the claim should be considered given its only one side making the claim. The number of Zulus present is certainly possible. However, wiki policy requires statements be sourced whatever reason suggests. If a number of legitimate secondary sources put forward a lower casualty figure then that number can be used.Tttom1 (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The number of 3000 killed comes from one report written after the battle and pretty much has been taken up without much question by all historians, that report barely mentions wounded and says nothing about prisoners. Given the period and muskets of that time there should have been far more wounded than killed unless perhaps the wounded were killed once the Zulu army was driven off. However, to say this is original research see: WP:NOR.Tttom1 (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You only need one reliable source to present claims as fact in seems like. "Josephus's works are the chief source next to the Bible for the history and antiquity of ancient Palestine, and provide a significant and independent extra-Biblical account of such figures as Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, John the Baptist, James the Just, and possibly Jesus of Nazareth." How come we accept Josephus's works, which are 2000 years old but not various Voortrekker diaries and eye witness accounts that are 200 years old? The Boer's at Blood River were a punishment commando ("straf kommando" in Afrikaans) sent to punish the Zulus for their treachery and the murder of Piet Retief during negotiations.

The Boer's were excellent shots that could judge distance very well and seldom missed. These claims made 55 years later during during the Anglo-Boer war were also relevant during the days of the Voortrekkers.

At Rorke's Drift 150 British soldiers officially killed 351 Zulus yet trooper William James Clarke of the Natal Mounted Police described in his diary that "altogether we buried 375 Zulus and some wounded were thrown into the grave. Seeing the manner in which our wounded had been mutilated after being dragged from the hospital ... we were very bitter and did not spare wounded Zulus" Samuel Pitt, who served as a private in B Company during the battle, told The Western Mail in 1914 that the official enemy death toll was too low: "We reckon we had accounted for 875, but the books will tell you 400 or 500"

Now we can examine the Battle of Blood River more closely. The commando was a fighting commando with every person there willing, able and ready to fight. Every man was a crack shot. In order to reach the "official" death toll of 3000 every man would have to have killed a little over 6 Zulus and this excludes artillery. With a firing rate of 2 -3 shots per minute and at a range of about 45m (50 tree in Afrikaans) I doubt there any misses.

However, the leader of these Voortrekkers, Andries Pretorius, had secretary, JG Bantjes, who had a journal in which he described the battle in detail. He published this a few months later in a Cape newspaper. Andries Pretorius, himself wrote a brief report after the battle. In this he states that the 2 artillery pieces were loaded with grapeshot and pointed over the open area towards the advancing Zulus. These two canon are reported to have opened up passages in the Zulu ranks with each shot. The Voortrekkers mowed down the front line of the attackers when they were about 50 yards away which caused the next line to trip and fall over their comrades which caused consternation in the Zulu ranks. This gave the Boer's time to unleash another few volleys before the Zulus recovered. They fell back, which gave the Voortrekkers time to reload. On average each person had three muskets. The Zulus tried three charges before falling back out of musket range. Andries Pretorius and a few men on horse back went closer and shot at the Zulus, baiting them. It was during this incident that he was wounded. The Zulus charged at them and they retreated but brought the Zulus within range again and they were mowed down once more by about 400 men firing from the cover of the laager. When the battle had progressed a little over two hours, Andries Pretorius saw the indecisiveness of the Impi's after 5 waves of unsuccessful assaults with not one enemy killed yet, he ordered 150 men to mount and charge the Zulus. They then broke and fled. Another 150 Boer's mounted and pursued them and only returned to the laager three hours later.

To conclude there were 400 men firing three muskets each at five waves of Zulus at close range, this excludes the opportunity shots which there constantly taken and the artillery pieces, which means 6000 shots fired point blank. The 3000 dead is a believable number, albeit less than I believe were really killed given the pursuit on horse back, and is reported by multiple sources and eye witnesses. This is the officially reported death toll and like Rorke's Drift, I believe the real count is probably higher. The same reasoning would also apply to the wounded as at Rorke's Drift as the battle report states that the fleeing Zulus could not cross the river and the donga (channel) quick enough and were mowed down as they ran and this caused the river to run red and hence the name Blood River.

Coetzee Andre (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC) Coetzee Andre (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Zulu Atrocities

Some one has removed the sentence "They even smashed the skulls of babies against the wheels of the trekker ox-wagon" without discussion as they said it was unrelated to article. I'd say it is related to the article as it helps to give the necessary background of the article by pointing out that the Zulus weren't happy go-lucky guys out minding their own business when the 'terrible' Trekkers barged into their land and began shooting thousands of them. The Trekkers who were led by Piet Retief, as explained in the article, obtained land in a fair manner when they were butchered and then their caravan was attacked and all the people (young and old) were massacred. Next they came to the Trekkers led by Pretorius with the aim to kill them also and this article explains the outcome. Any discussion or comments on this subject are welcome, but let us reach an agreement before we change the already-established article. Invmog (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed it because it is not our job to criticize the Zulu, especially since it is not about this battle itself. It is clearly loaded language, intended to make a judgment on the Zulu, rather than a neutral description.

To add, I don't think the article describes the trekkers as terrible, though I haven't read it in detail. If it does we are better off fixing that than adding negative things about Zulu to compensate. It's not a competition of who was the most cruel after all. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with you that we should not unnecessarily try to criticize the Zulu nor add things which are not related to the article I still believe that it is an important part of the background story which leads up to the battle, it basically lets the reader know that these Boers knew that the Zulu would not show mercy to even the most innocent ones among them. Dingane wanted the Boers out of his territory using whatever means necessary which did not stop short of brutally murdering infants.Invmog (talk) 04:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Lose that sentence. It is clearly POV. Wizzy…☎ 07:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The sentence "Millions of prisoners died in the concentration camps through mistreatment, disease, starvation, overwork or were executed as unfit for labor" seems POV as well then and in fact, that entire article, Nazi concentration camps, seem terribly POV, maybe it should be removed altogether! Certainly not, this is Wikipedia, here we report historic facts backed up with references, etc., if you don't want the Zulu to sound like barbarians in this article then you can build a time machine and go back and tell them to shape up their act, but on Wikipedia we're not allowed to re-write history just because it paints some people in a 'negative' light. Invmog (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

South African history is always written from the white perspective - because we wrote things down. I have no doubt many atrocities were committed by the English and the Boers - which were not written down. How about killing an estimated 500 men, women, and children and babies ? Wizzy…☎ 16:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

We aren't supposed to rewrite history to make the Zulu look worse either. The baby-killing is not about the Battle of Blood River, and picked out clearly to support a side. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, y'all're probably right. Is there any article which lists the things done by the Boers, the British, and the Zulu? Invmog (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know actually. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Great Trek

I think that some mention should be made of the Great Trek seeing as it was because of the Great Trek that the Trekkers were even in Zulu lands to begin with. Its clearly an important part of the history and essentially sheds more light on why the British was unwilling to supply ammunitions and food to the Trekkers.

Wikidrama

treacherous act - battered bodies - Can we make this look better than a scandalised Africaner broadsheet ? Wizzy…☎ 16:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Volks-Raad

The Volksraad did not exist until 1857, two decades after the Battle of Blood River. When were these supposed democratic elections held? --NJR_ZA (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems I was wrong here and the Volksraad article is also in error. The Volksraad did indeed exist at least from 1839. --NJR_ZA (talk) 08:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

References

"Impaled"?

The page on Piet Retief doesn't say anything about the 100 people with Piet being impaled before he was clubbed to death. It says they were ALL clubbed to death, while Piet was forced to watch. I also note that the infobox says that there were "12,000-21,000 (not recorded)" Zulus present. I've read two or three other pages that give the number as "around 10,000", and it's odd that it says "not recorded", because I see in one of the comments above that someone says that "there were hundreds of witnesses who recorded the number as 10,000". One of the quoted passages int he text gives the number as 30,000. So where did the 21,000 number come from, where is the 10,000 that all the other pages mention, and how can it be "not recorded", since it's obviously been recorded a number of times, in various numbers? The problem is that the numbers don't agree, not that they were never written down.

Next, the section about the battle is somewhat disjointed. It starts out with them forming laager, the Zulus massing, the leader staying on the other side of the river. Then the Zulus attack, and are mown down. Suddenly jumps back to November again, and we're just departing to fight the Zulus, and it goes all through until they wake up one morning "to find all of Zululand there". Then, somehow, the Zulus are advancing over the dead that fell in the previous attack (even though they apparently just arrived). In between, there is some mysterious reference about the Zulus taking "3 days" to prepare magical protections:

   "In ceremonies that lasted about three days, izinyanga zempi, specialist war doctors, prepared izinteleze medicines which made warriors invincible in the face of their opponents."

Presumably this includes several days before they arrived on the battlefield, and we're not talking about them sitting around for three days while the Afrikaaners watched? And then the mysterious

  "This could explain why Dambuza's forces were sitting on the ground close to the wagon laager when the Trekkers opened fire during the day."

This seems to be some random piece of trivia without any context or background. When did this happen? How? Were the Trekkers firing on the sitting men or someone else? Best I can come up with is that it's saying that when the initial attack came within range and the battle opened with the Trekkers firing on the advancing Zulus, for some reason, some of the Zulus were sitting on the ground rather than joining the others, and what they were likely doing is completing some magic ceremony. That seems plausible, but it's complete speculation on my part, since no further detail is given.

As for the number given of "3,000" killed, it's possible, but implausible. Even with breechloaders, that would be a very surprising number, and these guys only had muzzleloaders (if they were smoothbores instead of rifle-muskets, it would definitely be impossible). In order for less than 500 guys to kill 3,000 enemy, each would have to kill 6 Zulus (for 450 men, it rounds up to 7). This doesn't sound like a lot, but it's a much greater number than is usually achieved by warriors outside of Hollywood. It's extremely rare for a group of men to kill much more than their own number. The vast majority of shots don't hit their target (in a Civil War battle, it took something like several thousand shots fired to hit one man, on average, which means an astonishing number of shots fired on days like Antietam, where 20,000 men fell). So, for the Afrikaans to kill 3,000 Zulu is greatly outside the normal ratio, although just possible, assuming they were particularly cool-headed, excellent shots, and the Zulus bunched into large masses of men at close range and stayed there while they were gunned down. And, of course, that the Afrikaaners slaughtered the wounded after the battle, because as a rule, there are 3-4 men wounded for every 1 killed outright by gunfire (that's why the word "casualties" includes dead, wounded and missing, dead generally being the smallest number by far). I can't imagine the Afrikaaners caring for wounded Zulus, nor adding another 9,000 wounded Zulus to the already improbable casualty list, so I think it's safe to assume that around 3,000 Zulu were shot, and left on the battlefield, where they were subsequently dispatched by the Afrikaaners or simply left to bleed to death. Although, like I said, "3,000" is an impressive number, and one can't help but wonder if anyone bothered to count, or if they just looked at the piles of dead and made a quick estimate. A pile of 300 dead men looks like a lot more than it really is. AnnaGoFast (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

"Like thunder"

I found a source for the quotation from Bantjes' journal[1]. Here's the section that is translated here, starting "Sunday, December 16":

[Zondag, de 16e December, werd voor ons als geboren; de lucht was open, het weder klaar en helder.

Naauweliks zag men het schemerlicht aanbreken, of de wachten, die nog op hunne posten waren, en nauweliks zien konden, ontwaarden dat de Zulus aan het naderen waren. De patrouilles nu, waren allen, in het leger 's daags te voren by malkander geroepen, door alarm-seinen, met het kanon.

De vyand dan naderde, in volle vaart, en eensklaps hadden zy het lager aan alle zyden omsingeld. Onderwyl werd het licht, zodat men hen konde zien naderen, terwyl hunne voorgangers reeds waren terug geschoten.

Hun aannaderen leverde (hoewel akelig door de grote magt), echter 'n schoon gezigt op; zy naderden by regimenten, ieder kaptein met zyne manschappen achteraan, (zo hadden de patrouilles 's daags tevoren hen ook zien opkomen), tot dat allen ons omsingeld hadden.

Ik konde hen niet tellen, doch men zegt, dat 'n gevangene Kaffer, het getal van zes en dertig regimenten opgaf, welke regimenten men ten getalle van "negen à tien duizend man" moet berekenen.

Het gevecht nu ging aan, en de kanonnen werden uit ieder poort gelost; zo werd het gevecht hevig, zelfs in 't schieten met klein-geweren, zo van onze als van hunne zyde. Nadat zulks nu ruim twee uren, op 't horloge had geduurd, gaf de Hoofd-Kommandant orders, (terwyl de vyand gedurig 't lager bestormde, en hy vreesde, dat onze ammnnitie verminderen zoude,) "dat de poorten geopend en te paard tegen hen gevochten moest worden."] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)

In particular the sentence

zo werd het gevecht hevig, zelfs in 't schieten met klein-geweren, zo van onze als van hunne zyde.

is translated as

such that the battle was fierce and noisy, even the discharging of small arms fire from our marksmen on all sides was like thunder.

The word "thunder" (Dutch/Afrikaans donder) doesn't appear in this sentence, indeed it doesn't appear anywhere in my source. What is the source for this translation? I think a more reasonable translation would be something like

such that the battle was fierce, from our side as from theirs, even in the firing [or discharge] of small arms.

On the face of it this doesn't seem to be talking about the sound of the battle at all, but rather describing the fighting. (I presume "from their side" doesn't mean the Zulus had small arms to fire, just that the fighting was fierce on their side, hence my switching the order of clauses to clarify that.) Admittedly I'm not fluent in Dutch, so perhaps more can be read into the word hevig ("fierce") than I think, but I'm pretty sure "thunder" is an embellishment in the translation. Hairy Dude (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I am Dutch myself, and I also have some affinity with old Dutch. The current translation is not very literal and shuffles the word order more than I would like at times. This is not a bad translation, it is a dynamic equivalent translation. I think in this context a more formal translation would be called for, but I have no idea if this translation is widely accepted or not.

To my ear, noise is strongly implied, which would make the usage of the word thunder defensible. This can be supported by the fact that these canons are extremely loud.

What is weird is that the source you give estimates each regiment to contain nine to ten thousand each. This would put the Zulu army at 324000-360000, which is not very likely(?).

A last remark I have about this translation is that the Dutch/Afrikaans version contains the word "kaffer", which is translated with "Zulu". Shouldn't the translation reflect this? Or was its use in this context not the racial pejorative it is understood to be today? Muxarin (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Battle of Blood River. 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/20081101165214/http://www.info.gov.za/aboutsa/holidays.htm to http://www.info.gov.za/aboutsa/holidays.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081101165214/http://www.info.gov.za/aboutsa/holidays.htm to http://www.info.gov.za/aboutsa/holidays.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202113810/http://www.cas.sc.edu/HIST/Faculty/mackenzie.html to http://www.cas.sc.edu/HIST/Faculty/mackenzie.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070617052708/http://www.pietermaritzburg.co.za:80/factfile/default.asp?txt=historical_sites to http://www.pietermaritzburg.co.za/factfile/default.asp?txt=historical_sites
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930165334/http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/1998/990319514p1023.htm to http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/1998/990319514p1023.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100122090323/http://www.eshowe.com:80/article/articlestatic/53/1/18/ to http://www.eshowe.com/article/articlestatic/53/1/18/

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Blood River. 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/20101015203610/http://www.bloedrivier.org/ to http://www.bloedrivier.org/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eshowe.com/article/articlestatic/53/1/18/

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. 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Battle section repetition

The Battle is recounted 3 times in succession. Can someone with expertise rewrite to eliminate redundancies and condense into a single consecutive narrative? ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Civilizing the negroes

The negroes were tamed and made to be civilized. Shamefully however, the black man has been allowed to revert to his feral way of mayhem and massacre.

2600:6C56:6408:71:3563:B7D4:B0CA:3A25 (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)annonymous

Great Invasion

“Great invasion of the Easter regions by the Bantu (Kaffirs), irritated by the constant encroachment of the Dutch cattlemen and farmers. The natives were driven back with some difficulty.”

The great Trek occurred as a result of of the abolition of the slavery of Africans in Africa. The current article is written as if the South Africans were not previously enslaved on their home lands. It’s written as if the Dutch were not upset about the abolition of slavery. It’s almost as if the land belonged to the Dutch to begin with and they were defending their presence against a foreign enemy. In short it’s being edited by colonizer sympathizers. MyEncyclopediaIsOlderThanYours (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Zulu/Inaccurate Sources?

Hello, I was reading the article and I was just curious if there were any Zulu records on this battle. Even if they didn't largely keep written sources I want to assume there would be some recounting from the other side. I mostly mention this because I do not think the casualty count as displayed is credible. I do believe casualties listed may reflect the nature of the battle, but to give exact numbers with the evidence coming from only the winning side seems misleading. After taking a quick glance at other battles of the Great Trek, no other combat between the Zulu and Boers depicts this high of a ratio of Zulu deaths. Even British sources for battles during the Anglo-Zulu War generally depict far fewer Zulu casualties than this specific battle. The exception to this was the Battle of Isandlwana where the Zulu casualty numbers were not recorded and only estimated[1].

Additionally, the article claims that "While the Trekkers were being entertained by Dingane's dancing warriors/soldiers, Dingane suddenly accused the visiting party of witchcraft and ordered his men: "Bulalani abathakathi" (Kill the sorcerers...).[6] Dingane's soldiers bludgeoned Retief's party to death.[7]" The source cited in the article for this claim states that "Dingane got up and yelled "Bulalani abathakathi" ("kill the magicians") and the warrior immediately killed the Boer representatives. In reality they were killed outside the royal kraal on the execution rock called Matiwane." The way that the article is written seems to imply that the trekkers WERE in fact killed immediately, which does not seem to be the case. I believe this section should be rewritten, as the way the information is presented gives an inaccurate image of the actual events. Elaboration on how immediate the execution of the trekkers was, as well as the location of the execution, should be included.

Also, I'm fairly sure that the trekkers in the cited image have been stabbed with spears rather than being bludgeoned to death. This detail should probably be changed as well. I would suggest: "While the Trekkers were being entertained by Dingane's dancing warriors/soldiers, Dingane suddenly accused the visiting party of witchcraft and ordered his men: "Bulalani abathakathi" (Kill the sorcerers...). Retief's party was taken outside of the royal kraal and executed by Dingane's men."

I am not very experienced with Wikipedia editing or etiquette so I am currently leaving the sources and article as is, but I personally suggest that the citing of the kings excecutions and death count for the battle be re written. I also would suggest to use less definite language on this article as much of this information is obscured, although I may be unfamilliar with Wikipedia so forgive me if this is definite style of writing is standard practice Ashemus (talk) 07:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Blood rivier

Die is die oudste Rivier in suid afrika 102.130.105.254 (talk) 13:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)