Hey, nationalistic creep, don't you think it means anything to New Zealanders? And it's Australian and New Zealand Army Corps, not Corp. Australia never produced fighters of the quality of the Maori Battalion. In WWII, the Germans feared and respected the Maori Battalion more than any other foe.
Nationalism Nannygoat? you seem guilty as well. The Australians threw their lives away for The Commonwealth, as did New Zealanders, as did the Englishmen. Corp/corps, Flamebait, please just let it go. This is pure conjecture, Maori battalions were massacred along with every other poor soul that thought German machine gunners were useless technological idiocies.
It's not pure conjecture, it's what the Germans themselves said. And FYI, there was only one Maori Battalion. Nationalism? I don't think so, New Zealanders have never denied that the ANZACs were composed of the troops from both countries. It's the Australians who consistently pretend that the ANZACs were a purely Australian force.
I think the proof is in the pudding- any fool who ignores what the initials ANZAC stand for should be accused of idiocy as well as Nationalism/Jingoism. The Germans comended many allied divisions, Ludendorff himself constantly drilled German training camps with the idea that they were up against the best. (He was refering to the English) I don't think you have any grounding to conclusively say that the Maoris fought harder than anyone else.
Nannygoatgruff 1) You're an idiot. 2) You are a nationalistic creep. 3) This article was not written by me; if you ahve a problem with it, take it up with the author. 4) This article is clearly, as the title indicates, about the Australian Light Horse Regiments, which were part of the ANZAC force but not the whole of it. 5) Look up the source of the word Corp/Corps. 6) Provide some evidence to support your claims of Maori greatness perhaps. 7) You're an idiot.
So the best you can do is an "et tu, quoque", and you call me an idiot? Well nobody ever said Australians were bright. There were Kiwis signed up with the Australian Light Horse, as it happens. I knew some of them personally (they've passed on now). Of course the article is far too dishonest to admit that. I am not the nationalistic one here, New Zealanders have never denied that "ANZAC" includes Australians. It's the Australians who have created, and perpetuate, the myth that the ANZACs were purely Australian. I lived 18 months in Australia and my kids even got taught in school that "ANZAC" equals "Australian". Proof of the Maori Battalion's superiority. Well, for one thing, the Germans themselves said the Maori Battalion were the best fighters. They said in North Africa the sound they feared most, nore than the shelling or anything, was the sound of the MAori Battalion doing the haka. It meant they were about to be attacked by the most savage of all the Allied troops. Also, for the attack on Monte Cassino, who did the Allies pick for what they knew whould be a very difficult and bloody battle? The New Zealanders and in particular, the Maori Battalion. The only person to win a Victoria Cross and bar (i.e. two Victoria Crosses) was a Kiwi, not an Australian.
Nannygoatgruff The Australian Light Horse had members from many nations. However, they were Australian regiments, as you can tell from the name, and the article is about those Australian regiments. No Australian I have ever known or even heard of has denied there were Kiwis in the ANZAC forces. You have not provided proof of this Maori superiority. All you've done is say "I heard a guy say once..."
Nannygoat, Adam posted an article written about the lighthorse, who were an Australian regiment. He never once even insinuated that ANZAC was a purely Australian force. I'm sure hes very very sorry for not mentioning, perhaps in a "small" aside, that ANZAC day means a lot to Kiwis too. Perhaps he'll remember next time. There were Australians in bomber command in England during WW2, and nearly every other branch of the british services as well... and Kiwis for that matter... but you don't see us making pathetic little cry baby waaah's about how we are never mentioned. I was never taught that ANZAC meant anything other than Australian and New Zealand Army Corps in school either, and neither was anyone else I know... attention seeking lies will get you nowhere. Do all Kiwis have this... er... "small"... syndrome? I play against a lot of you on the internet in gaming circles, and you all seem to have this... "little"... problem. All you had to do if you wanted recognition was post an equivalent article about the Maori regiment, but noooo... you had to have a cry instead. Get over it.
um i always learned at school that it was both that Australia and New Zeland worked together oviously we are going to learn more about the Australians and i am embarised to admit that i don't know if there were NZ'es at galipoly altho i assume there were and as to the NZ forces being the most feared i herd the same about the Aussies i herd that our own forces wanted Aussie scouts cause WE were the best i bet every country thinks they were of corse they are wrong cause Australians are naturly surperior to EVERYONE but you can't fault there tryingPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
anzacs Both nations involved in the birth of the anzacs were the very finest of troops. But to say that doing battle with maori battalions Was worse than against other newzealand battalions or australian battalions,is poopy cock. dont forget that aussies also did battle along side maori's in the maori wars, against maoris.
The unfortunate part about Adam's statement is that he has allowed emotive writing to overtake fact. The Australian Light Horse did not shoot their horses as they went aboard ship to sail home! (how would they have found remounts to put down the Arab rebellion in Egypt??) At the end of the war, horses were classified into 4 catagories. A & B were SOLD to the British & Indian forces remaining in the Middle East. C class were generally sold to locals & Ds were destroyed, and in most cases they were destroyed by squads selected at Regimental level and allocated to REMOUNT UNITS to carry out the task. Rarely would they have shot their own horses. I get very tired of hearing this rubbish and that espoused by religious fanatics who write their own history to suit their theology. They write of 800 men taking Beersheba. What rot! There were a lot more than 800 men there that day and the total number of the 4th & 12th regiments who rode in the charge is more likely to have been in the vicinity of 600. So please, before you write an article like this, check your facts, open your mind and look for supportive evicence.
Rob Thomas I didn't write the article. I get tired of idiots who can't read what I post. So please, before you comment on my posts, actually read what is there and find supportinve evidence. So far all you've done is bullshit along about stuff that I didn't actually write.
From http://www.lighthorse.org.au/histbatt/beersheba.htm And some pics: http://www.lighthorse.org.au/histbatt/Rathkeyphotos.htm
If you post something Adam, you take responsibility for the information you post. May I suggest that rather than posting large slabs of other peoples work you start checking the sources and have a bit of credibility. What I post I write.
Hey Robby, easy on Adam. Dont make me go Ninja on your assPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And around here you can post however and whatever you like, welcome to SciforumsPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Welcome to SciForums, Rob! Could you post your references for this information? I would be interested in reading more. Peace. __________________ Youth is the first victim of war - the first fruit of peace. It takes 20 years or more of peace to make a man; it takes only 20 seconds of war to destroy him. -- King Boudewijn I, King of Belgium (1934-1993)
There is no simple reference for the numbers on duty at that time. You will need to go through the regimental diaries of 4th LHR, 12th LHR and 11th LHR to check how many men were on leave, sick, or posted to other duties at the time....... I can assure you it doesnt equal 800 or anywhere near that number. For there to be 800 riders from the two regiments they would have had to have nearly their full complement on duty at the time and there were many who were simply not there. As far as an accurate number who took part in the charge goes,,, it has never been possible to collate a complete list.
