Flangelo12:
Dem don call one of them out for South Africa for running his mouth.

Flangelo12:
Dem don call one of them out for South Africa for running his mouth.

RedboneSmith:
Poltical fragmentation was the reason it took long to subdue the Igbo. They weren't necessarily better at military strategy than the other groups you mentioned.

In Igboland, every village had to be engaged and defeated separately. And as there are thousands of villages, this will understandably take a long time.

But the Hausas and the Yorubas who had been consolidated into fewer centralised states, it would obviously not take the same amount of time. All the British needed to do was defeat the central authorities and the subordinate villages fell in line.

RedboneSmith:
Poltical fragmentation was the reason it took long to subdue the Igbo. They weren't necessarily better at military strategy than the other groups you mentioned.

In Igboland, every village had to be engaged and defeated separately. And as there are thousands of villages, this will understandably take a long time.

But the Hausas and the Yorubas who had been consolidated into fewer centralised states, it would obviously not take the same amount of time. All the British needed to do was defeat the central authorities and the subordinate villages fell in line.

RedboneSmith:
Poltical fragmentation was the reason it took long to subdue the Igbo. They weren't necessarily better at military strategy than the other groups you mentioned.

In Igboland, every village had to be engaged and defeated separately. And as there are thousands of villages, this will understandably take a long time.

But the Hausas and the Yorubas who had been consolidated into fewer centralised states, it would obviously not take the same amount of time. All the British needed to do was defeat the central authorities and the subordinate villages fell in line.

ChebeNdigboCalm:
From the mid 19th to the early 20th centuries, native states were defeated one after the other and bound together as "Nigeria".

When 'studying' the history of that area, the standard narrative that appears in surface level descriptions is as follows:

1. Hausa kingdoms were great but became corrupt and Usman dan fodio took over creating Sokoto caliphate which prompted the intensification of jihadists (also slave) raids into the south.
2. Kingdom of Benin were dominating all their neighbours, made great earthworks, made cool art, had an enviable capital city and once had control of lagos + western igbos.
3. Oyo empire had a calvary. Subjugated dahomey but lost to them later. Had very powerful armies that started fighting each other.
4. Igbos had no king and were poorer than their neighbours. Often dominated by neighbours. They lived in villages but did have a state called arochukwu and a religious state called nri. No armies, not very powerful.

But one has to examine things carefully. What actually happened when the British came to subjugate.

1. Hausas, Fulanis and Nupe trooped out in their thousands to fight, fielding armies of 10000, 15000 and sometimes 20000. They were defeated in short encounters with the british.
In Bida, the Bida army was nowhere to be seen when the British came.
In Kano the Kano emirate boasted thousands of infantry with a massive calvary of 3000 at kwatarkwashi. The British suffered only 44 casualties. Generally British army was around 600 to 1000 men in these conflicts.

2. The Benin kingdom destroyed 250 British infiltrators before they got the chance to be armed. When the actual army came a year later with 1200 men, they destroyed the city and the benin army only losing 8 men.

3. The Yoruba practically put up no resistance. The only notable war was the admirable effort of the Ijebus. In which there were about 500 british soldiers who suffered 56 dead and around 30 wounded. There were maybe 2 or 3 days of battle. Whilst the Ijebu had 8000 warriors and suffered 1000 dead.

4. The Igbo fought the British at every significant Igbo settlement. The Aro alone fought them for months in the Anglo Aro war which had 1600 british troops and 7500 Aro soildiers. In that one war the british losses were 700-800 killed or wounded (half the invading force as casualties). The Aro had heavy but unknown casualties, they pulled dead and wounded away from the trenches so the British did not discover the bodies. Is there something missing? Why did people supposedly in a much poorer and unsophisticated condition than the rest put up an exponentially better fight against the largest british force mustered in pre-colonial Nigeria?

Now the igbo anioma people (boasted to be igbo "slaves" of benin when suited and non igbo people when trying to diminish the size of igboland), have always been claimed to be under benin empire by surface level sources. I agree that the ika may have been but I strongly oppose that the rest may have followed suit. How is it that the anioma fought the british for 30 years whilst the bini lost in a few days?

Other very notable group resistance are the Olokoro, ezza and afikpo.

My theory is this. If you read the accounts (in london gazette archives) admitted by the leaders of the expeditions into igboland, you would see that countless towns were razed to the ground(without exaggeration) and that is only what was admitted.

I suspect that actually, the anthropologists that came into Igboland, saw an Igboland which was recovering from the ravages of war as the only major ethnicity to resist strongly in all corners. Igboland was vastly undocumented until about 1910 when most of these conflicts were concluded or drawing to a close.

I am asking that the comments in response are not drawn from tribal affiliation or hatred. I like truthful history and though I am Igbo, I genuinely objectively thought this through.

davidnazee:


The British only remember the great war they fought with Benin Kingdom not the little skirmish they had with the igbos..

RedboneSmith:
Poltical fragmentation was the reason it took long to subdue the Igbo. They weren't necessarily better at military strategy than the other groups you mentioned.

In Igboland, every village had to be engaged and defeated separately. And as there are thousands of villages, this will understandably take a long time.

But the Hausas and the Yorubas who had been consolidated into fewer centralised states, it would obviously not take the same amount of time. All the British needed to do was defeat the central authorities and the subordinate villages fell in line.

obiekunie01:


Actually, soldiers are far more easier to defeat when they are fragmented - hence reason why armies form coalition treaties to defeat a larger and more stronger armies.


If only you people will put aside the pull-then-down syndrome and look at the igbo tribe with clear mind to really know what made them so outstanding.

FACT IS NO TIBE IN NIGERIA CAN SURVIVE FOR A YEAR THE INJUSTICE, MAGINALISATION, BRUTALITY, HATE AND OUTRIGHT DENIAL OF THEIR BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS THAT THE IGBOS HAVE BEEN SURVINNIG FOR MORE THAN 50 YEARS NOW.

ChebeNdigboCalm:


Also I disagree with the notion that they "weren't any better at military strategy". Read Colonel Montaro's account. I think that is exactly what makes the difference. Throwing more men in does not change the outcome. Else we will see far more casualties inflicted on the british in northern Nigeria.

The only possible factors in my opinion are:

1. Igbos were better armed.
2. Igbos had better tactics, whether for communication, use of environment, formation of warriors etc
3. Igbos were more determined
4. Igbos had better knowledge of British tactics.

ChebeNdigboCalm:


You have a point but it doesn't change the fact that the British forces suffered casualties at a much higher rate. That is attributed to more than fragmentation. If anything fragmentation is great for war. You would have less people to fight at any one time. Its warfare 101. Reread the statistics I put out there. Compare Ijebu to Aro.

Addition:

I can confidently say that anyone who suggests this as a reason why an army suffers more casualties in a single battle or struggles with conquering has not being reading up on other wars or paths of conquest. Other tribes in east Africa with a similarish structure were not as difficult. We literally have the phrase "divide and conquer" for a reason.

holocron:


For this simple reason:
Igbos warring is hit and run guerrilla warfare taking advantage of the forest environment for cover, whereas the British preference is frontal assault where their artillery, machine guns and accompanying tactics offer advantages. So before the soldiers will arrive a village, the whole inhabitants will disappear into the surrounding forest and fight from there. And that village was politically autonomous.

holocron:


I think"divide and conquer" refers to dismembering the political unity of and entity and conquering before the components can become politically independent. If you don't conquer fast you may create a hydra headed monster whereby 9 new heads grow after cutting off only 1. The British met the Igbos fragmented but politically independent just like the ancient Greek city states of Sparta, Athens, etc

ChebeNdigboCalm:


Also I disagree with the notion that they "weren't any better at military strategy". Read Colonel Montaro's account. I think that is exactly what makes the difference. Throwing more men in does not change the outcome. Else we will see far more casualties inflicted on the british in northern Nigeria.

The only possible factors in my opinion are:

1. Igbos were better armed.
2. Igbos had better tactics, whether for communication, use of environment, formation of warriors etc
3. Igbos were more determined
4. Igbos had better knowledge of British tactics.

holocron:


He said 'political fragmentation' but you responded on 'military fragmentation'. Military fragmentation with one political authority does not offer much advantages.

The same political fragmentation was what made Al Qaeda formidable enough to resist the might of the great USA for over a decade.
Al Qaeda operated on numerous independent cells only guided by one central philosophy elucidated from time to time by an elusive Osama bin laden, and his successors.

RedboneSmith:


I always use my words carefully. Now, when I said "not necessarily better at military strategy than other groups", I was not saying the Igbo did not fight with skill. I have read "Bush Fighting" and knew some Igbo groups made good use of trenches and forest covering in their fights against colonialists. What I meant was that they were not necessarily BETTER than other groups whose territories were completely brought under Colonial rule in shorter time. Have you read about the British campaigns in Northern Nigeria? Have you read Harry Johnston's descriptions of Fulani fighting techniques? Even the Yorùbá of the 19th century had notable military generals and tacticians.

What made the difference in how colonialism engulfed the different groups had nothing to do with the Igbo being better at military tactics. The political geography was the number one deciding factor.

ChebeNdigboCalm:


The facts dont agree with you. The only way to prove what is more or less effective is live demonstration. Complexity of strategy doesnt necessarily make it better. You are asking me if I read about the campaigns in Northern Nigeria when I already gave a brief talk about them. You are asking me if I read about Yoruba tactics as well when gave an example of Yoruba vs British forces. The question I am asking you is, have you read about the details of different battles in different places at different times? I admire your opinion when it comes to linguistics and culture but war...not so much.

Redbone, political geography is a wide broad net. You need to be more specific. Political fragmentation DOESN'T improve the military capabilities of any state. Just like any other theory, it doesnt change depending on location.

Please read to understand. POLITICAL FRAGMENTATION INDEED MEANS MILITARY FRAGMENTATION. Why? How can you have military unity without political unity? An agreement would have to made to face a superpower like the British.
During the Aro expedition, the Olokoro(politically and consequently militarily fragmented) stood idly by. But they were not far from the war geographically. Also the forces fought by the British at and around different villages (that were politically and therefore military united) were the same Aro forces.
Whilst fragmentation meant that the British fought more wars against the igbos, it did not mean that the igbo warriors could put up any better of a fight. Therefore no fragmentation was not a positive effect for Igbo forces.

I want to STRESS once again that the difference is exponential. The Anglo-Aro War was not just another skirmish in the African bush.

Slightly off topic. I am not trying to slander you lr anything but...I have seen you comment on many things Igbo. And it seems you yourself might be igbo. Your opinion is generally leaning on the negative side when it comes to the Igbo. I am not someone who likes the braggadocious attitude Nigerians bring to studying history. But I equally dislike the idea of always being contrarian.

ChebeNdigboCalm:


I wonder, what exactly do you mean?

If you are saying the skirmish the british had with Benin lasting a few days maximum and only inflicting 8 casualties is more famous then I agree. The plaques taken certainly made it famous.

But do not make an uninformed assumption. The Anglo-Aro war has the title, 'War', for a reason. The Benin expedition, was not a war. It was a battle that had far fewer resources used up.

You are an example of someone who doesnt have an appreciation for history but is motivated by tribal affiliation and hatred. I placed the statistics in front of you.

Anglo-Aro WAR:
British SOLDIERS: ~1600 excluding porters
Aro forces: ~7500
British casualties: 700-800
Length: 5 MONTHS

Benin EXPEDITION 1897:
British SOLDIERS: ~1200
Benin forces: Unknown but far higher
British casualties: 8 killed (idk how many injured)
Length: 5 DAYS


Which one is a skirmish Nairaland.

Also I have no hatred towards Edo people. The destruction of the 250 "traders" was very cunning and showed why Benin had so much influence.

ChebeNdigboCalm:


I wonder, what exactly do you mean?

If you are saying the skirmish the british had with Benin lasting a few days maximum and only inflicting 8 casualties is more famous then I agree. The plaques taken certainly made it famous.

But do not make an uninformed assumption. The Anglo-Aro war has the title, 'War', for a reason. The Benin expedition, was not a war. It was a battle that had far fewer resources used up.

You are an example of someone who doesnt have an appreciation for history but is motivated by tribal affiliation and hatred. I placed the statistics in front of you.

Anglo-Aro WAR:
British SOLDIERS: ~1600 excluding porters
Aro forces: ~7500
British casualties: 700-800
Length: 5 MONTHS

Benin EXPEDITION 1897:
British SOLDIERS: ~1200
Benin forces: Unknown but far higher
British casualties: 8 killed (idk how many injured)
Length: 5 DAYS


Which one is a skirmish Nairaland.

Also I have no hatred towards Edo people. The destruction of the 250 "traders" was very cunning and showed why Benin had so much influence.

ChebeNdigboCalm:


The facts dont agree with you. The only way to prove what is more or less effective is live demonstration. Complexity of strategy doesnt necessarily make it better. You are asking me if I read about the campaigns in Northern Nigeria when I already gave a brief talk about them. You are asking me if I read about Yoruba tactics as well when gave an example of Yoruba vs British forces. The question I am asking you is, have you read about the details of different battles in different places at different times? I admire your opinion when it comes to linguistics and culture but war...not so much.

Redbone, political geography is a wide broad net. You need to be more specific. Political fragmentation DOESN'T improve the military capabilities of any state. Just like any other theory, it doesnt change depending on location.

Please read to understand. POLITICAL FRAGMENTATION INDEED MEANS MILITARY FRAGMENTATION. Why? How can you have military unity without political unity? An agreement would have to made to face a superpower like the British.
During the Aro expedition, the Olokoro(politically and consequently militarily fragmented) stood idly by. But they were not far from the war geographically. Also the forces fought by the British at and around different villages (that were politically and therefore military united) were the same Aro forces.
Whilst fragmentation meant that the British fought more wars against the igbos, it did not mean that the igbo warriors could put up any better of a fight. Therefore no fragmentation was not a positive effect for Igbo forces.

I want to STRESS once again that the difference is exponential. The Anglo-Aro War was not just another skirmish in the African bush.

Slightly off topic. I am not trying to slander you lr anything but...I have seen you comment on many things Igbo. And it seems you yourself might be igbo. Your opinion is generally leaning on the negative side when it comes to the Igbo. I am not someone who likes the braggadocious attitude Nigerians bring to studying history. But I equally dislike the idea of always being contrarian.

davidnazee:


The Igbo and British had little skirmishes not a war like you make it seem and cannot be compared to the war British fought against the Benins.

Benin EXPEDITION 1897:

British SOLDIERS: ~1200
British African recruits (igbos, Yorubas, ibibios) over 10,000
British weapons:
100 gatlin guns
200 canons
Dynamites
2 warships

Benin forces: 10,000+
Weapons;
Several canons (weaker than British canons)
Rifles

British casualties: 200 British killed, over 7,000 British African recruits slaughtered.
2 columns of British SOLDIERS deafeated, only the 3rd column made it to the capital and took it.

Length: 2 weeks capital fell, 2 years whole Edo land subdued.

ChebeNdigboCalm:
From the mid 19th to the early 20th centuries, native states were defeated one after the other and bound together as "Nigeria".

When 'studying' the history of that area, the standard narrative that appears in surface level descriptions is as follows:

1. Hausa kingdoms were great but became corrupt and Usman dan fodio took over creating Sokoto caliphate which prompted the intensification of jihadists (also slave) raids into the south.
2. Kingdom of Benin were dominating all their neighbours, made great earthworks, made cool art, had an enviable capital city and once had control of lagos + western igbos.
3. Oyo empire had a calvary. Subjugated dahomey but lost to them later. Had very powerful armies that started fighting each other.
4. Igbos had no king and were poorer than their neighbours. Often dominated by neighbours. They lived in villages but did have a state called arochukwu and a religious state called nri. No armies, not very powerful.

But one has to examine things carefully. What actually happened when the British came to subjugate.

1. Hausas, Fulanis and Nupe trooped out in their thousands to fight, fielding armies of 10000, 15000 and sometimes 20000. They were defeated in short encounters with the british.
In Bida, the Bida army was nowhere to be seen when the British came.
In Kano the Kano emirate boasted thousands of infantry with a massive calvary of 3000 at kwatarkwashi. The British suffered only 44 casualties. Generally British army was around 600 to 1000 men in these conflicts.

2. The Benin kingdom destroyed 250 British infiltrators before they got the chance to be armed. When the actual army came a year later with 1200 men, they destroyed the city and the benin army only losing 8 men.

3. The Yoruba practically put up no resistance. The only notable war was the admirable effort of the Ijebus. In which there were about 500 british soldiers who suffered 56 dead and around 30 wounded. There were maybe 2 or 3 days of battle. Whilst the Ijebu had 8000 warriors and suffered 1000 dead.

4. The Igbo fought the British at every significant Igbo settlement. The Aro alone fought them for months in the Anglo Aro war which had 1600 british troops and 7500 Aro soildiers. In that one war the british losses were 700-800 killed or wounded (half the invading force as casualties). The Aro had heavy but unknown casualties, they pulled dead and wounded away from the trenches so the British did not discover the bodies. Is there something missing? Why did people supposedly in a much poorer and unsophisticated condition than the rest put up an exponentially better fight against the largest british force mustered in pre-colonial Nigeria?

Now the igbo anioma people (boasted to be igbo "slaves" of benin when suited and non igbo people when trying to diminish the size of igboland), have always been claimed to be under benin empire by surface level sources. I agree that the ika may have been but I strongly oppose that the rest may have followed suit. How is it that the anioma fought the british for 30 years whilst the bini lost in a few days?

Other very notable group resistance are the Olokoro, ezza and afikpo.

My theory is this. If you read the accounts (in london gazette archives) admitted by the leaders of the expeditions into igboland, you would see that countless towns were razed to the ground(without exaggeration) and that is only what was admitted.

I suspect that actually, the anthropologists that came into Igboland, saw an Igboland which was recovering from the ravages of war as the only major ethnicity to resist strongly in all corners. Igboland was vastly undocumented until about 1910 when most of these conflicts were concluded or drawing to a close.

I am asking that the comments in response are not drawn from tribal affiliation or hatred. I like truthful history and though I am Igbo, I genuinely objectively thought this through.

ChebeNdigboCalm:
From the mid 19th to the early 20th centuries, native states were defeated one after the other and bound together as "Nigeria".

When 'studying' the history of that area, the standard narrative that appears in surface level descriptions is as follows:

1. Hausa kingdoms were great but became corrupt and Usman dan fodio took over creating Sokoto caliphate which prompted the intensification of jihadists (also slave) raids into the south.
2. Kingdom of Benin were dominating all their neighbours, made great earthworks, made cool art, had an enviable capital city and once had control of lagos + western igbos.
3. Oyo empire had a calvary. Subjugated dahomey but lost to them later. Had very powerful armies that started fighting each other.
4. Igbos had no king and were poorer than their neighbours. Often dominated by neighbours. They lived in villages but did have a state called arochukwu and a religious state called nri. No armies, not very powerful.

But one has to examine things carefully. What actually happened when the British came to subjugate.

1. Hausas, Fulanis and Nupe trooped out in their thousands to fight, fielding armies of 10000, 15000 and sometimes 20000. They were defeated in short encounters with the british.
In Bida, the Bida army was nowhere to be seen when the British came.
In Kano the Kano emirate boasted thousands of infantry with a massive calvary of 3000 at kwatarkwashi. The British suffered only 44 casualties. Generally British army was around 600 to 1000 men in these conflicts.

2. The Benin kingdom destroyed 250 British infiltrators before they got the chance to be armed. When the actual army came a year later with 1200 men, they destroyed the city and the benin army only losing 8 men.

3. The Yoruba practically put up no resistance. The only notable war was the admirable effort of the Ijebus. In which there were about 500 british soldiers who suffered 56 dead and around 30 wounded. There were maybe 2 or 3 days of battle. Whilst the Ijebu had 8000 warriors and suffered 1000 dead.

4. The Igbo fought the British at every significant Igbo settlement. The Aro alone fought them for months in the Anglo Aro war which had 1600 british troops and 7500 Aro soildiers. In that one war the british losses were 700-800 killed or wounded (half the invading force as casualties). The Aro had heavy but unknown casualties, they pulled dead and wounded away from the trenches so the British did not discover the bodies. Is there something missing? Why did people supposedly in a much poorer and unsophisticated condition than the rest put up an exponentially better fight against the largest british force mustered in pre-colonial Nigeria?

Now the igbo anioma people (boasted to be igbo "slaves" of benin when suited and non igbo people when trying to diminish the size of igboland), have always been claimed to be under benin empire by surface level sources. I agree that the ika may have been but I strongly oppose that the rest may have followed suit. How is it that the anioma fought the british for 30 years whilst the bini lost in a few days?

Other very notable group resistance are the Olokoro, ezza and afikpo.

My theory is this. If you read the accounts (in london gazette archives) admitted by the leaders of the expeditions into igboland, you would see that countless towns were razed to the ground(without exaggeration) and that is only what was admitted.

I suspect that actually, the anthropologists that came into Igboland, saw an Igboland which was recovering from the ravages of war as the only major ethnicity to resist strongly in all corners. Igboland was vastly undocumented until about 1910 when most of these conflicts were concluded or drawing to a close.

I am asking that the comments in response are not drawn from tribal affiliation or hatred. I like truthful history and though I am Igbo, I genuinely objectively thought this through.

Thebadpolitican:



Do you how many British soldiers the Benin moat swallowed alone


And how many general asoro killed at sokonba

You should have not included Benin in this your writeup, you just spoilt the thread by doing so

The Benin wars with the British was very detailed and was so racially inclined that accurate figures couldn't be gotten, the British wanted to look way superior than the primitive Black as they assumed in the face of the news

RedboneSmith:


What facts don't agree with me? How long did the Anglo-Aro war last? How long did the Ezza hold out against the British? Compare the duration of those two conflicts with the duration of other specific British wars of conquests in the West and in the North.

When people talk about Ekuemeku and how long the movement lasted, they often do not realise that it wasn't a continuous state of intense warfare between the Brits and the people. For most of the period that Ekumeku was resistant, they avoided actual battles with the British. They focused on acts of sabotage. Burning a building here. Killing a saboteur there. When the British got tired of that and went all out on them, the movement crumbled rather fast.

About being Igbo. Yes, I am. About being contrarian and being negative about the Igbo, I find that quite funny. Even though I am used to Igbos here saying that. Anyone who has open-mindedly been following me will see plenty occasions where I defend the Igbo passionately, chopping insults from non-Igbos in the process. It's only emotional people that will think I am being contrarian because I am not interested in entertaining falsehoods and mistruths in the course of defending the Igbo.

I mean, I didn't even say anything negative about the Igbo. All I said was they were not necessarily better military tacticians vis-a-vis their neighbours. The fact that you find this to be a slur on Igbo people tells me quite a lot.

ChebeNdigboCalm:


Please go ahead abd quote the figures for me. Trust me I am NOT here to trivialise the powerful benin kingdom.

Thebadpolitican:


Bro it swallow a lot ,nobody was there to count

This is to tell you that figure up there you posted was purely fallacious

If anyone tell you a figure then that figure could be wrong

ChebeNdigboCalm:


Trust me I am NOT here to trivialise the powerful benin kingdom.