Talk:Flagstaff War

Untitled
''The following stub article was deleted from The Flagstaff War and that page was redirected to First Maori War. -- kiwiinapanic 14:28, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)''

The Flagstaff War took place on March 11, 1845, in New Zealand. On that day, Chief Hone-Heke led 700 Maoris in the burning of the white settlement Kororareka, which was built in breach of the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi.

Original research
The "so who won the war" section seems like original research to me. --AW 20:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Also I think much of the "who won the war" section is disputable:

- Even on the stated war aims, Maori did loose complete control control over the far north within a few years; the area was utterly European in law and government by the time of the Waikato invasion, and largely European in culture within a generation. - Both sides often claim victory, especially in asymetrical conflicts - (Hamas and Israel spring to mind). But wars are rarely a simple matter of one side losing and another winning. This is a problem still marring the histiography of the New Zealand Wars. It is simplistic to follow the 19th century European concept of victory being whoever held the field at the end of a battle. It is also simplisitic to present Maori as having a series of military victories and victorious tactical retreats. There was no battle of Britian to follow Dunkirk - the 1865 end game was Pakeha control over New Zealand, where the majority of the descendents of Maori were loyal subjects of Victoria, practising an increasingly European culture, and even the handful of dissenters, (be they Te Kooti or Te Whiti), used culturally foreign tactics to pursue their largely futile protests.

- The emphasis on the Treaty of Waitangi is a modern preoccupation, with no real evidence that it was the root of Hekes complaint; I would suggest rather than being concerned about the nicities of international jurisprudence, he was concerned with establishing a reputation as a great warrior and with growing European settlement and control, and this was inevitable with or without a treaty - the treaty was a sign of increasing Pakeha power, not the cause of it. It is an anachronism to conflate the two.

But that is just my opinion, and no doubt a minority one - definitely NOT intended to be in the article :-) Winstonwolfe 04:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Response
No, it is not original research; everything mentioned in this section is taken from various historical accounts. However it is an attempt to summarise the situation in the months immediately following the war. There has been in NZ for many years an assumption that the war was between the British and the Maori, it wasn't that clear cut at the time. Secondly there is still an assumption that the British won the war because they won the subsequent peace, ie took all the land and disenfranchised the Maori. However that is looking at it from one perspective only; and down the wrong end of the telescope of history. Did the Maori who fought for Hone Heke and Kawiti feel they had lost the war? Somehow I doubt it. Perhaps questioning the received truth/version is original research; but then perhaps that is the function of historians. Which I am not, just a Wikipedian trying to keep the questions open. ping 07:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC) How else can you judge victory except from a historical persepctive. I think the truth you described as recieved has not been current for 50 years, and your own view is now mainstream. My comment was to doubt an anylasis based on the dualistic concepts of winning or losing. But as noted these are personal views FYI, and i am not proposing altering the article. Winstonwolfe 23:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ruapekapeka
No separate article has been written, but from the dead end link I assume means someone thinks there should be one. I can do a quick article, but someone else would do it better. In the mean time, I've added some photosWinstonwolfe 23:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Response

You've quoted: No, it is not original research; everything mentioned in this section is taken from various historical accounts. However it is an attempt to summarise the situation in the months immediately following the war. There has been in NZ for many years an assumption that the war was between the British and the Maori, it wasn't that clear cut at the time. Secondly there is still an assumption that the British won the war because they won the subsequent peace, ie took all the land and disenfranchised the Maori.

Took all the land? Go into the Maori Land Court in Whangarei and read the block files to some of the land still owned by Maori, in Northland. Land ownership, by Maori in Northland, still super-exceeds before the British influx. If Maori lost all their lands in the north, then why am I still a successor to some Maori owned lands and entitled to succeed to it?

Article assessment
The article is not far from B class. If somebody with knowledge of the subject and the sources provided suitable inline citations for all major points, it could be elevated.  Schwede 66  19:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

What to do?
The following about Ruapekapeka appears in the article:
 * "This pā had been constructed by Te Ruki Kawiti and was a designed that improved on the two palisade design of the Ohaeawai Pā; the Ruapekapeka Pā was build with three palisades as a defence against cannon and musket fire and as a barrier to attempts to assault the pā".

It is referenced to Carleton's book The Life of Henry Williams which I don't have access to.

Its claim of a two palisade pa at Ohaeawai is at odds with the information in the church on the Oaeawai pa site. A plaque/sign in the church says that before the battle Kawiti doubled the size of the Ohaeawai pa and strengthened it, and it had three rows of puriri palisades. A diagram of the pa also shows three rows of palisades.

Shall I change the article? Moriori (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Reply to Moriori (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * I have improved the Carleton, 'The Life of Henry Williams' reference - it is online Carleton, Vol. II, The Life of Henry Williams


 * I have found the plan of Ohaeawai made by a soldier in 1845: New Zealand History Online this shows 2 front palisades – ditch – inner palisade. I had misunderstood another contemporary source who referred to Ohaeawai having 2 palisades - that source was talking about the 2 front palisades. See the changes I have made to Battle of Ohaeawai.


 * I have changed the Ruapekapeka material you extract above to read:


 * "This pā was constructed by Te Ruki Kawiti and improved on the design used at the Ohaeawai Pā. Lieutenant Balneavis, who took part in the siege described Ruapekapeka in his journal as "a model of engineering, with a treble stockade, and huts inside, these also fortified. A large embankment in rear of it, full of under-ground holes for the men to live in; communications with subhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Flagstaff_Warterranean passages enfilading the ditch"."


 * See also the changes I have made to the Ruapekapeka page.


 * The Department of Conservation sign on the Ruapekapeka page (and information at the Department of Conservation website) describes the design of Ruapekapeka pa as having a single front palisade – ditch – inner palisade. I don't have access to Department of Conservation archaeology reports on Ruapekapeka which they used to justify the info on the sign. I would suggest that the journal of Lieutenant Balneavis (who was at the battle and involve in burning the pa) is a better source as archaeology of a wooden/earth site 100+ years after the battle may not result in a clear understanding of the construction of Ruapekapeka.  However I will leave you to decide how to resolve this conundrum.MozzazzoM (talk) 11:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Conundrum indeed but I think the way we have it is much better now. We know that Ohaeawai had three palisades, and Ruapekapeka probably two. That wouldn't necessarily prevent Ruapekapeka from being an improvement on Ohaeawai. Cheers Moriori (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

US involvement
I've removed the listing of the USA as a "belligerent" in this conflict. The article's only mention of any direct US involvement is in aiding the evacuation of Kororareka. There is no mention of any combat role of the US military. -Helvetica (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flagstaff War. 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://archive.is/20130112165137/http://www.maoridictionary.co.nz/index.cfm?dictionaryKeywords=ngakau+mahaki&n=1&sp=1 to http://www.maoridictionary.co.nz/index.cfm?dictionaryKeywords=ngakau+mahaki&n=1&sp=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Battle of the Sticks
I was unable to find any other sources for Battle of the Sticks. It's possible that some sort of battle happened but with inaccurate record-keeping. I tried mapping out the location of Heke's and Nene's pas and found no sign of a Taumata-Karamu hill between them. The same source that is cited also says that Heke's pa was named Puketutu where in reality, it was a pa at Puketutu. Richienb (talk) 08:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Belligerents
The belligerents section of the infobox lists United Kingdom: Colony of New Zealand (sure), and Māori. Isn’t “Māori” a bit misleading here? As far as I can tell, only Ngāpuhi were involved. Obviously the infobox demands a style that isn’t always suited, but I’m out of my area of expertise on both this topic and military articles in general. — HTGS (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)