Historical Resources on the Web

Featured

Custom Search

Updated 26 January 2012

Below the fold is a list of historical sources on the internet, this includes both primary and secondary source collections.  I am constantly updating this list when I run across useful sites.  Please point me at sites I miss in the comments section.

I am trying to keep this blog mostly academic or at least reasonably scholarly while at the same time making most of my source material easily available.  Therefore I thought it would be a good idea to put up a note about sources I use on the site. For the most part I will try to use online sources in my essays and blog posts for one main reason. There is tons of great information on the internet if you know where to look and how to search. I hope that by posting online sources it will point people to some of the many resources available online.  Occasionally I will use books from my personal library to cite some items that I just cannot find an online source for.

Continue reading

The Battle of Rorke’s Drift



The 1879 Battle of Rorke’s Drift is one of the most celebrated, and smallest battles in British history. It occurred in 18179 during the Zulu War in South Africa at the Mission and Supply Station of Rorke’s Drift. During the battle, some 179 British soldiers held off and defeated a force of over 4,500 Zulu warriors winning a eleven VC’s in the process.

The Battle itself occurred around Rorke’s Drift, a British mission station that had been converted to a logistics base and hospital by the British Army, it is located on the border between Natal Province in the colony of South Africa and Zululand. The battle occurred on the same day as the British defeat at the Battle of Isandlhwana on 22 January, 1879. Isandlhwana is one of the most inexplicanble British defeats, it is difficult to explain how over 1,000 rifle armed soldiers in a good defensive position were defeated by spear armed native warriors while Rorke’s Drift is the opposite. At Rorke’s Drift 139 identically armed soldiers defeated over 4,500 spear armed warriors. On the face of it, the Zulu’s should have been able to overwhelm the small British garrison even at the cost of horrendous casualties from British rifle’s. They the Zulus were defeated says more about the British than it does the Zulu warriors they faced.

Period Map of the Defenses at Rorke's Drift

The unit defending Rorke’s Drift was B Company of the 2nd Battalion, 24th regiment of Foot.  They had hastily prepared the mission station for defense by erecting barriers of grain sacks called “mealie” bags to form a perimeter around the station’s two stone buildings and encompassing a stone kraal inside the perimeter.  They also knocked out firing ports, or loopholes, in the stone walls of the buildings themselves.

The majority of the Zulu warriors were armed with spears but some had muskets and rifles.  They were poorly trained in the use of the firearms they had though.  The battle started around 1630 when a small column of some 500, Zulus approached the perimeter from the south. At that point the British opened fire at long range but the Zulus pressed their attack. The Zulu continued their attack and the main force eventually came up and began attacking near the hospital.

Around 1800 the Zulu’s finally managed to break into the hospital and began to spear the wounded soldiers there. The British fought back but the relentless pressure of the Zulus continual attacks eventually drove them from the hospital building into the inner courtyard and Kraal that was there. The British continued to withdraw and by 2200 the British had withdrawn to their final perimeter around the storehouse. Zulu attacks continued until approximately 0400 when the final push against the British position was repelled.

As dawn broke the British began to police up the battlefield but quickly maned their positions at 0700 when some Zulu warriors were spotted. These did not attack the outpost but continued away from the battlefield. AT 0800 the British relief force arrived and there were no more attacks or sightings of the enemy.

Of the 139 British defenders 17 had been killed and 10 wounded in the attack. Zulu casualties are estimated at 500 killed and an unknown number of wounded from a force of approximately 4,500.

11 Victoria Crosses were awarded to British soldiers after the battle, they went to:

  • Lieutenant John Rouse Merriott Chard, 5th Field Coy, Royal Engineers
  • Lieutenant Gonville Bromhead; B Coy, 2nd/24th Foot
  • Corporal William Wilson Allen; B Coy, 2nd/24th Foot
  • Private Frederick Hitch; B Coy, 2nd/24th Foot
  • Private Alfred Henry Hook; B Coy, 2nd/24th Foot
  • Private Robert Jones; B Coy, 2nd/24th Foot
  • Private William Jones; B Coy, 2nd/24th Foot
  • Private John Williams; B Coy, 2nd/24th Foot
  • Surgeon James Henry Reynolds; Army Medical Department
  • Acting Assistant Commissary James Langley Dalton; Commissariat and Transport Department
  • Corporal Christian Ferdinand Schiess; 2nd/3rd Natal Native Contingent

This is the highest number of VCs awarded to a single regiment for a single action but was not the highest number of VC’s awarded in a single action, that happened at the Second Relief of Lucknow, which occurred from 14–22 November 1857.

Some additional resources about the battle:  http://www.rorkesdriftvc.com/, http://britishbattles.com/zulu-war/rorkes-drift.htm, http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/zulu_01.shtml, and http://www.historyofwaronline.com/ZuluWar.html

Blitzkrieg and Other Funnies

I saw these posters several years ago at a site I can no longer remember and saw them again today in my random pictures folder.  I think they are hilarious so I decided to share them.  They no doubt exist in many other places on the intertubes as well.

Speaks for Itself

Patient Bear

Governments

This picture is from the deadliest Airshow Accident in history, which occurred at Sknyliv in the Ukraine on 27 July, 2002. 77 People died. We probably shouldn't be laughing at this but the sentence is hilarious.

If anyone knows where to attribute these please let me know in the comments, a sense of humor like this needs to be encouraged.

Book Review: Race & Economics: How Much Can be Blamed on Discrimination? by Walter E. Williams


I was first motivated to buy this book by the blizzard of negative articles and news pieces about it when it was first published. I also realize that I am opening myself to charges that I am not competent to comment or even post a review of this book because I am white, as the picture on the About Me page clearly shows. I am going to review it anyway because I think the book was worth reading and worth talking about even if someone disagrees with its conclusions.

Williams makes several highly controversial points in this book about policies that have kept black people and other minorities from achieving success in America. One of the things I liked the most about the book was that Dr. Williams makes extensive use of citations throughout the book so that the reader can look at his sources for the assertions he makes if they want.  This is not a common practice in books that seek to make controversial points with a political aspect to them and I applaud Dr. Williams for doing it.

The book is organized into seven chapters that cover the history of the black economic situation in America through to analysis of why and what policies have caused that situation to worsen.  The first and second are are historical overviews of the economic condition of blacks throughout American history and the real effects of discrimination on black employment and economic achievement.  One particular passage in chapter two that struck me discussed the practice of slaves being able to hire themselves out and how this discomfited free whites – “In 1856, white builders in Smithfield, North Carolina, complained that they were being underbid by quasi-free blacks in the construction of new houses and boats, and criticized white contractors who pursued such policies.” (p.21)  I had read before that the practice of slaves being allowed sell their labor was condemned in the antebellum South but this is one of the few concrete examples I have ever seen in print, the other being in a book about slavery I purchased at the Tuskegee University Museum bookstore about slavery a few years ago.

the next chapter deals with minimum wage laws and how they are self defeating from the standpoint of actually achieving what they are supposed to.  More importantly, he makes the point that minimum wage laws are not just harmful to blacks but to everybody, blacks and other minorities just being hit harder by these laws.  He includes a detailed discussion of the exact manner in which such laws are discriminatory. This chapter alone is worth the cost of the book.

The fourth and fifth chapters deal with licensing and the ways in which licensing laws tend to be discriminatory by increasing the cost of entry to a trade and driving up the cost of services delivered by those trades.  He does not blast all regulation but instead points out how ridiculous the licensing laws fro some profession really are.  The most illuminating portion of this chapter is the discussion of the historical background for some licensing requirements.

Chapter six is a discussion of racial terminology and its use and misuse in print and language.  The final chapter is a summary and conclusion of the arguments in the rest of the book.  His conclusion is elegant in it’s simplicity.  It is unlikely t be taken up by policy makers because he essentially blasts most liberal policies of the last forty plus years as being the failures that they are.  The unwritten subtext is that liberal policy makers like matters just the way they are despite their rhetoric to the contrary.

This provocative book should be require reading in all race/ethnic studies classes in America and should also be on the reading list of anybody who wants to look for realistic solutions to income inequality in America, especially policymakers.  That is unlikely to happen though.  Dr. Williams has produced a well written, damning indictment of social policy going back to the days of the New Deal and I highly recommend this book as food for thought, if nothing else.

Europe and Modern War



Saw an interesting piece awhile ago on the South African Business Day website called: GIDEON RACHMAN: Threat of war seems unreal in an age of peace. The essential point is that although war seems to have been eradicated in Europe, don’t count it out if the Euro crisis gets as bad as it possibly can.

I think it is naive in the extreme to think that because there has not been a major war in Europe for the past 65+ years that one cannot happen.  We should keep in mind that it was 49 years between the Congress of Vienna ending the Napoleonic Wars and the Prusso-Danish war of 1864 and if you don’t want to count that little war then 55 until the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71.  Just because peace has held for a long time does not mean that is the normal state of affairs.  Just look at the Wikipedia page listing European wars to get an idea of how bloody European history is.

The remarkable thing about the post-World War II period is that the major powers have not gone to war with each other.  That is mainly because of the Cold War dichotomy between the democratic-capitalist western Europe and the communist east.  The fact that the US kept significant forces in Europe along with the British helped ensure the peace too.  That presence, especially the US, is rapidly fading away.  The US Army in Europe (USAREUR) is a fore in search of a mission.  So far they have managed to continue to justify their existence using the conflicts in the Balkans and the War on Terrorism as excuses.  That will not last though as a simple cost analysis shows that it would be much cheaper to keep the troops in the US and deploy form there than do it from Europe, especially given the dominance of the US Navy at sea.  There is also the fact that the US is shifting its geostrategic view to Asia rather than Europe, that is where most if not all new conflicts will come from in the 21st century. I would predict that the US will be for all intents and purposes out of Europe within 10-15 Europe’s except for possibly a training base.  The rest of Europe is going to have to increase defense spending if they want to continue to be taken seriously on the world stage, they can no longer shelter behind the coat-tails of Uncle Sam, he is taking his marbles and going home sooner rather than later.

Next, we should consider the state of European defense spending and the European economy in general.  European defense spending is anemic at best.

Image from: http://blogs.cfr.org/lindsay/files/2011/06/Military-Expenditure-Select-NATO-Members.png

Britain and France spend the most and even they don’t spend but a fraction of what the US spends on defense.  The defense establishments of the rest of Europe are even more of a joke.  I have pointed out before the laughable state of European ,militaries which was demonstrated this past spring in Libya when Europe proved incapable of sustaining an air campaign less than 500 miles away from Europe without massive American logistical support.

Anyone who has been paying attention to financial news this year knows that the Euro is struggling and probably going to fail completely in 2012 or 2013.  What happens then is anyone’s guess.  That is where the specter of a European war comes in.  It is not inconceivable that the war could occur when the poor south gets booted by the not so poor north.  The only country in Europe in good economic shape is Germany but I don’t think that will last if the Euro and euro-zone economy implodes.  WHEN, not if, the Euro crumbles I fully expect runaway inflation in the Euro zone and panic as people see what little spending power they have now disappear.  Most Americans simply do not appreciate how little is left to the average person after big brother takes his share of their paycheck.  Imagine how angry Americans would be if they made $2,000 a month and Uncle Sam took $800 or $900 in taxes.  Taxes of which they see little benefit, but the 30% of the population on welfare does.

When Europeans lose their purchasing power and means of making ends meet what makes anyone think they won’t turn to nationalism again?  Because the Nazis were so bad?  Then how do you explain the rise of right-wing parties in Europe over the last few years and don’t think for a minute that the left is not just as bad.  Ask anyone who had their car burnt by leftists in Berlin this past summer how peaceful the left is, don’t forget Lenin and Stalin were leftists.  Stalin is the single greatest mass-murderer in history too.

As I alluded to at the beginning of this post, Europe has a bloody history, the past half century is the exception, not the rule.  If things go downhill either economically or societally I fully expect Europe to revert to their traditional nationalism and tribalism and take the gloves off.  If that happens, the Muslims in Europe should probably start looking or a way to go home because the first thing Europeans will do is target the other within before they target the other outside of their borders.  I think we are in for an interesting ride over the next few years.  Don’t forget to watch the economic news this year.

 

Book Review: The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman



The Guns of August is one of the classic histories of World War I. It was originally published in 1962 and has remained a mainstay of accounts of the opening months of the war ever since. The book reads more like fiction than reality as Mrs. Tuchman brings the main players alive through her descriptive style of writing. She effortlessly recounts the events of August, 1914 and tries to bring the reader into the mood of that month when world shaking events were happening. Not all of her conclusions about the cases of the war have withstood the test of time and she repeats some stories that have since been questioned particularly her accounts of German brutality in Belgium and the origins for the harshness. Those accounts have subsequently been shown to have a substantial basis in truth but myth has been so interwoven with the facts that the truth will probably never be known with any degree of certainty. She certainly indicts the conduct and motivation of some of the major commanders on both sides of the war but seems to have a particular dislike of Sir John French, the commander of the BEF, who she singles out for ridicule and disparagement just about every time he is mentioned in the book.

That being said, despite it’s faults The Guns of August is a very good introduction to WWI for someone who has never studied the war. The book was written for a mainstream audience and thus avoids the mind numbing dullness that the vast majority of history books seem to possess for the average reader. From the opening line, this books grabs the readers attention and carries them along until the end. After almost fifty years this is still one of the best histories of the opening of hostilities of World War I available and she be read by every student of the war and those readers simply interested in the war and its outcome.