The New Zealand Wars and the Victorian Interpretation of Racial Conflict Paperback – July 1, 2015

This book changed kiwi undertanding of their history.

Twenty years after its publication, this remains one of the most controversial interpretations of an aspect of New Zealand history. The book opens with an inequivocal statement of intent: "This is a revisionist history of the New Zealand Wars." Although it was initially hailed as a brilliant new interpretation, however, large sections have since been discredited in detail.As examples, Belich claims (incorrectly) that Maori invented modern trench warfare; that the Ngapuhi chiefs Hone Heke and Kawiti 'won' the Northern War of 1845-6; that the British never understood, and therefore could not counter, Maori strategy; that the British defeat at Gate Pa in 1864 was the result of a Maori 'ambush'....the list goes on. What is interesting is that no military historian - Maori or non-Maori - has ever endorsed his interpretation.Belich's reputation suffered a blow in 1998, when a television series based on this book was parodied by satirists and ridiculed by military historians. His reputation suffered what should have been a fatal blow in 2000, when it was revealed that some of the references in the book did not exist, but had been 'created' to support the argument. Belich's dwindling number of supporters are now reduced to making silly comments about his critics, rather than debating points on their merits.Notwithstanding, this book is worth reading. However, it must be read alongside the earlier works that Belich dimisses with such contempt (particularly Cowan's 'New Zealand Wars'). Readers should be aware that Belich has no standing as a military historian. This is most clearly demonstrated by his use of the terms 'strategy' and 'tactics' indiscriminately, and his complete lack of comprehension of operational art.Probably the book's greatest value is as a demonstration of revisionism 'gone too far', and what happens when a historian arranges the 'facts' to suit his or her thesis, rather than testing his or her thesis against the facts.

Prof. Belich has become 'the authority' on the New Zealand Wars and this book has become the standard text. This is hugely unfortunate. Not only is Belich's thesis that the native Maori were tactical and strategic wizards that were more than capable of facing the might of Imperial Britain (and in the process 'invented' a totally new form of trench warfare) profoundly flawed, the manner in which be supports his thesis is somewhat dubious. Belich frequently leaves out information that conflicts with his argument and often deliberately misquotes sources in support of what he wants to say.The disagreement and debate regarding any given interpretation of an event is a normal and even critical part of the academic or social environment. The fact that Belich presents a revisionist thesis on a subject that has not been comprehensively dealt with for 60 or so years is to be applauded, and certainly the fact that it has provoked a renewed interest in the subject here in New Zealand is wonderful. Alas what is not so good is a social historian who masquerades as a military historian who, when he cannot bend a source to fit his thesis, ignores it.Roel van Leeuwen [email protected]

The first thing that you need to realise is that Belich is a social historian, not a military historian and is widely known for his radical anti-colonial views. This book is essentially a vehicle for promoting his revisionist agenda. Much of the content has already been shot down by a variety of military historians, including current Senior Lecturer of War Studies at Sandhurst, Christopher Pugsley.Belich reels off a series of ludicrous claims including:- The Maori 'invented' trench warfare in the mid-19th century (trenches had already been used in European conflicts, with the Lines of Torre Vedras being case in point)- Gate Pa took heavier shellfire per square inch than any point of the Somme in WW1 ( Gate Pa had an 8-hour bombardment with 16 field pieces and one large-calibre naval gun, as compared to 950 large-calibre modern artillery pieces deluging Bazentin Ridge with 650lb of shells per metre)- In the Anglo-Zulu War, Ulundi wasn't a 'great victory' (2,000+ Zulu dead, the capture of Cetshwayo and the burning of the Zulu capital apparently doesn't constitute a 'great victory')The book is a heavily distorted version of events coloured not only by the author's political bias, but by the fact he simply doesn't understand the mechanics of 19th century warfare and has no frame of reference to work from. He also deliberately omits key facts when they conflict with his views and cherrypicks quotes (often out of context) while ignoring contradictory material from the same source.A classic example is in Chapter 5, where Belich devotes 8 pages to the battle of Puketakuuere (which is fair enough), while the crushing Maori defeat at Redoubt No.3 (one of the heaviest by either side in the whole campaign) is covered in a single sentence with no mention of casualties. The later abortive Maori attack on Sentry Hill is also covered in a single sentence, with no reference to the 30+ Maori killed in the action. An interesting aside is that the Maori at Sentry Hill believed their 'Hau Hau' incantations and hand gestures would magically protect them from bullets as they casually sauntered towards the redoubt in open order. Predictably, Belich doesn't touch this with a bargepole.Then there's the more serious matter of Belich being caught making authoritive reference to fabricated quotes. When confronted about this, he attempted to claim that the 'quotes' he invented reflected the general views of the historical figure in question and it was something they 'would have said'. This kind of thing is generally referred to in academic circles as LYING.Basically, Belich has no credibility as a military historian whatsoever and this book was written expressly to rewrite history to match his ideals.

Notwithstanding the tea spluttered on the anoraks of the "military historians" who have seized on some perhaps (and probably deliberately) over egged claims, this is a landmark piece of New Zealand historical writing. In contrast the criticisms levelled at it seem shrill and inconsequential. The revelation of the formerly virtually unknown Titokowaru to the wider New Zealand public is itself enough to elevate this book far above the carping and quibbling of Professor Belich's critics.

I recently returned from North Island and toured the Waikato with James Belich's book in hand. As an indepth review of the New Zealand Wars or a primer for British-Maori relations, the book is indispensible.