The New Zealand Wars

Blue Wolf

Banned
For those of you from the northern hemisphere, New Zealand is a country in the South Pacific with a history of strained relations between the native Maori and the European settlers. This tension caused a war in the 1860’s between the Maori Kingitanga movement and the Colonial Government which absorbed one-fourth of all British troops outside of Britain and India. If you want some info, just go to Wikipedia for the article.

Anyway, want I am suggesting is that the Maori population at the time was a lot bigger, due to Hongi Hika dying before he started the Musket Wars (these wars slaughtered 20, 000 Maori during the 1820’s). With this greater population the Maori may have been able to go on the offensive and possibly attack the European settlements in New Zealand, rather than merely fighting for their survival. This could lead to an embarrassing peace treaty with Britain and the creation of Maori state in the King Country, but who knows? I would appreciate your opinions.

If this doesn’t make sense, just read over the wiki articles on anything you don’t understand. :)
 
Well, if the Maoris hadn't actually eaten all the explorers that tried to contact them previous to the arrival of the British, they could have given the Japanese a run for the money in colonising the western coast of the New World.
 
IIRC the Musket wars were primarily in Northland, with less fighting occuring in Waikato and Taranaki as the balance of power had evened out more with the further distribution of muskets. They also resulted in an adoption of better defensive tactics by the Maori, that were essential to their defense in the later Land Wars.

I'm no expert on the Musket Wars or anything, however I would hesitate to say that the death rate of 20,000 is perhaps more of a result of European introduced disease than actual fighting.

If the musket wars did not occur however (and I don't see how they could be stopped, but maybe someone else can think of a POD) then perhaps the British would enjoy a number of earlier, easier victories intially, however being bogged down later on, with a larger Maori population to contend with. I cannot remember their names, but there were a couple of pretty successful (successful in evading capture and inspiring terror) guerilla movements.

Ultimately however, I think that the Maori were doomed to lose any war with the British, save perhaps another major conflict resulting in the UK abandoning support for the protection of colonial expansion in New Zealand.
 
Well, if the Maoris hadn't actually eaten all the explorers that tried to contact them previous to the arrival of the British, they could have given the Japanese a run for the money in colonising the western coast of the New World.

Your kidding right?

The Maori were in big trouble around the time that the Europeans arrived, they had wiped out all the big game in New Zealand (Moas, adzebills, swans, geese etc.) and even the population of seals were decling.
Their only crop was Kumara, and that couldn't be grown in the South Island except in certain conditions.

If they had a temperate climate crop, say something like Potatoes (perhaps from South America) and a domestic animal or two (aside from dogs) then they would be considerably better off.

Furthermore there was only one recorded pre-British explorer to reach NZ- Abel Tasman in 1642- and that was around 300 years after the first Maori.
 
Didn't the Maori do quite well in developing rapidly after contact with europeeans? Seems I've heards something about that?
 
Didn't the Maori do quite well in developing rapidly after contact with europeeans? Seems I've heards something about that?

Well, here at least, the fate of the Maori are compared to that of Australia's aboriginals most often- which of course where from a completely different origin and had far less technology, they also faced a lot more racism, right into the latter part of the 20th century. They ended up much worse off than the Maori.

The Maori were also familiar with war, constant food shortages meant that they constantly fought for the last few decades or centuries prior to European contact. Perhaps this resulted in a quick adoption of British weapons and devising new tactics.

The signing of the Treaty of Waitangi ensured that they received a pretty fair deal (as fair as an invading power with far greater technology gives at least) for a few years anyway, prior to the Land Wars in the 1860s, and the Maori did rather well trading with the British and cultivating their own crops in the Waikato etc. This deal meant that they were better off than virtually any of the other native people that the British had contact with.

This of course was all destroyed following the Land Wars and the courts shooting down Maori land rights until the last few decades.
 
If the war between the Maori and Europeans was happened instead of Treaty of Waitangi, the Maoris like Aborigines in Australia will overwhelmingly defeated to the Europeans.
 
If the war between the Maori and Europeans was happened instead of Treaty of Waitangi, the Maoris like Aborigines in Australia will overwhelmingly defeated to the Europeans.

A series of wars did happen in OTL, many years after the Treaty of Waitangi was signed. The Treaty was intended to gurantee the use of land (some consider it the right of estate) to the Maori people, ie customary title. However a number of well known court decisions in the middle of the 19th century found the treaty to be "a simple nullity"(1).

Subsequently local courts gave no meaning to the treaty in domestic law, and land rights for Maori were ignored. When a bunch of settlers tried to further growth of settlements into Maori owned areas, they came up agasint oppisition. And a sympathetic govener (George Grey) fabricated reasons for war, and it went from there.

For almost the next century Maori land rights were neglected, and Maori culture almost vanished. The "Wi Parata principle"(2).

(Just a little background for anyone about the treaty, it's a little related to the OP anyway...sorta)


(1): The case of Wi Parata v Bishop of Wellington
(2): Wi Parata principle = the lack of authority of the treaty unless it were to be incorperated into 'municiple law'- which it never was, and remains so until this day.
 

Blue Wolf

Banned
IIRC the Musket wars were primarily in Northland, with less fighting occuring in Waikato and Taranaki as the balance of power had evened out more with the further distribution of muskets. They also resulted in an adoption of better defensive tactics by the Maori, that were essential to their defense in the later Land Wars.

I'm no expert on the Musket Wars or anything, however I would hesitate to say that the death rate of 20,000 is perhaps more of a result of European introduced disease than actual fighting.

If the musket wars did not occur however (and I don't see how they could be stopped, but maybe someone else can think of a POD) then perhaps the British would enjoy a number of earlier, easier victories intially, however being bogged down later on, with a larger Maori population to contend with. I cannot remember their names, but there were a couple of pretty successful (successful in evading capture and inspiring terror) guerilla movements.

Ultimately however, I think that the Maori were doomed to lose any war with the British, save perhaps another major conflict resulting in the UK abandoning support for the protection of colonial expansion in New Zealand.

The New Zealand Wars were actually extremely difficult for the British. This was the first conflict in which trench warfare was used - the Maori built fortresses that contained bomb shelters, trenches that ran through out the entire pa (fortress) and had bullet-proof palisades with loopholes to fire through. Only one or two of these forts were taken after a battle by the British, the rest were simply empty when the British arrived. Also, the amount of casualties the British suffered when attempting to take a pa far outstripped the casualties of the defenders. Most of the time a force of 2000 British would fail to take a pa defended by 300-400 Maori, who, after killling as many British as they could, would simply abandon the pa. So there were no clear victories in the war... in fact, therwe was never even a peace treaty. The Maori soldiers simply stopped fighting, because there was to few of them (only around 500 fighting at any one time). If there had been more a live at the time, they could have combiend their excellent defensive strategy with some startegic raiding and retaken the North Island from the settlers.

I ahve also checked wikipedia and it confirms the 20,000 number, but disease probably did assist in many fo the deaths. Remember, the Musket Wars spread across the whole North Island, not just one area.
 

Blue Wolf

Banned
If the war between the Maori and Europeans was happened instead of Treaty of Waitangi, the Maoris like Aborigines in Australia will overwhelmingly defeated to the Europeans.

The Aborigines were a stone age people who barely knew how to construct rafts, let alone any weapon other than a sharpened stick. The Maori were more advanced and easily adapted to the prescence of Europeans in their country, organising themselves into a fighting force that resisted the colonial government for over a decade.

The aborigines were a primitive, peaceful people who were hunted down like wild animals by the Europeans. The Maoris were advanced and aggressive and they almost won. There is no comparison. Really.
 
The New Zealand Wars were actually extremely difficult for the British. This was the first conflict in which trench warfare was used - the Maori built fortresses that contained bomb shelters, trenches that ran through out the entire pa (fortress) and had bullet-proof palisades with loopholes to fire through. Only one or two of these forts were taken after a battle by the British, the rest were simply empty when the British arrived. Also, the amount of casualties the British suffered when attempting to take a pa far outstripped the casualties of the defenders. Most of the time a force of 2000 British would fail to take a pa defended by 300-400 Maori, who, after killling as many British as they could, would simply abandon the pa. So there were no clear victories in the war... in fact, therwe was never even a peace treaty. The Maori soldiers simply stopped fighting, because there was to few of them (only around 500 fighting at any one time). If there had been more a live at the time, they could have combiend their excellent defensive strategy with some startegic raiding and retaken the North Island from the settlers.

I ahve also checked wikipedia and it confirms the 20,000 number, but disease probably did assist in many fo the deaths. Remember, the Musket Wars spread across the whole North Island, not just one area.

Uh, I'd double check your wikipedia figure, it's not a bad site overall, but for numbers I generally don't trust it. :)

Anyway, I agree that the fighting was exceptionally tought. But the Maori were always limited in their numbers of fighting men, armnaments, ammunition and supplies. Remember a big issue for them was that they were running out of food because all the men were fighting, and they couldn't get anymore ammunition. I remember hearing that they were using peach stones when they ran out of musket shot.

If the British were intent on sending so many men to New Zealand, they would of been content IMO to just fight more of a war of attrition, which would ultimately doom the Maori.
 

Blue Wolf

Banned
Uh, I'd double check your wikipedia figure, it's not a bad site overall, but for numbers I generally don't trust it. :)

Anyway, I agree that the fighting was exceptionally tought. But the Maori were always limited in their numbers of fighting men, armnaments, ammunition and supplies. Remember a big issue for them was that they were running out of food because all the men were fighting, and they couldn't get anymore ammunition. I remember hearing that they were using peach stones when they ran out of musket shot.

If the British were intent on sending so many men to New Zealand, they would of been content IMO to just fight more of a war of attrition, which would ultimately doom the Maori.

Yeah, that's true, the Maori soldiers were also the farmers, etc, but if there were 20,000 more then some could be permanent soldiers and some could be permanent farmers, meaning they could afford to lose a few men in raids, rather than taking care not to lose any.

Maybe you should flick to wikipedia right now and look at the article on the Musket Wars. I'm looking at it right now, and it is saying 20000.
 
Yeah, that's true, the Maori soldiers were also the farmers, etc, but if there were 20,000 more then some could be permanent soldiers and some could be permanent farmers, meaning they could afford to lose a few men in raids, rather than taking care not to lose any.

Maybe you should flick to wikipedia right now and look at the article on the Musket Wars. I'm looking at it right now, and it is saying 20000.

Okay, misread something, I thought that it said that the highest death toll was 20,000, and the wikipedia article didn't have it cited, but this link agrees with it:
http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/war/new-zealands-19th-century-wars/the-musket-wars

Says that it was the lowest, as does Michael King's The Penguin History of New Zealand.
 

Blue Wolf

Banned
Okay, misread something, I thought that it said that the highest death toll was 20,000, and the wikipedia article didn't have it cited, but this link agrees with it:
http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/war/new-zealands-19th-century-wars/the-musket-wars

Says that it was the lowest, as does Michael King's The Penguin History of New Zealand.

Yeah, it does sound high, but the Maori were very efficent killers before the Europeans arrived. The muskets just mad eit easier. So what do you think... with a few extra men, would something have gone differently?
 
Yeah, it does sound high, but the Maori were very efficent killers before the Europeans arrived. The muskets just mad eit easier. So what do you think... with a few extra men, would something have gone differently?

Perhaps.

Did the musket wars kill around 10% of the Maori population at the time?
Anyway, another 10% more people would have a few butterflies.

There would be more 'natives' to make the European settlers in places like Auckland more weary of them (there was a quiet fear that the Waikato Maori would surge north and destroy Auckland, although they had no reason to).

It would also make the Waikato and Taranaki areas more populated, perhaps allowing for more growth, and even some light industrial development. More farmers would of course mean more food, as you said, and perhaps more people to make/trade ammunition and weapons and fortifications.

There would also be more fighters, and a much greater threat in Northland. This could potential split the British forces, as the Kingi movement had largely replaced tribal systems. A more stretched British army fighting on more than two fronts could be the tipping.

On the other hand, what is the POD?
Do the Maori have muskets, and just fight less, or do they not fight at all?
If the latter occurs, then they may not learn effective musket fighting tactics, and the fortified pa may not be developed in time. Experiance with these weapons would not exist also, making them an easier foe for the Empire.
 

Blue Wolf

Banned
I think the POD would be Hongi Hika dying, thus he nerver started the Musket Wars and... yeah. Is this plausable, though? Could someone else have just used the same idea? Te Rauparaha perhaps?
 
I think the POD would be Hongi Hika dying, thus he nerver started the Musket Wars and... yeah. Is this plausable, though? Could someone else have just used the same idea? Te Rauparaha perhaps?

I think that if he did not acquire arms, then someone else could of. Then again if he did not no-one could of obtained them offshore- the result being far fewer Maori muskets and probably less fighting (highly unlikely that no fighting would occur).
 

Blue Wolf

Banned
I think that if he did not acquire arms, then someone else could of. Then again if he did not no-one could of obtained them offshore- the result being far fewer Maori muskets and probably less fighting (highly unlikely that no fighting would occur).

That's right, he went to england and traded all his gifts from the king for guns... clever guy...
 
Top