Sadly not an Australian choking an emu with his bare hands – but instead holding an emu killed by Australian solders published by the Land Newspaper on 25 November 1932

(19) EMU WAR

The “war” the Australian army lost to flocks of flightless birds, since immortalised in meme. Although groups of emus are more commonly known as herds – or mobs.

The Australian army was the best in the world, man for man, as it had demonstrated in the First World War, and would demonstrate by stopping the German army at Tobruk and the Japanese army at Kokoda in the Second World War, but it lost to emus in 1932.

Of course, it wasn’t an actual war – the Emu War or Great Emu War was just the humorous tag given to it by the media – but a nuisance wildlife management military operation to curb the population of emus, apparently as many as 20,000, damaging farmland in Western Australia.

And there’s the rub, as the Australian army undertook a task it was not designed for, despite taking to it with machine guns – having seen their effectiveness in the First World War. Unfortunately, the emus didn’t charge at guns like the human soldiers of that war, but evaded or fled from fire.

Calling it a defeat, however, is unfair – the army did kill and wound a substantial number of emus, particularly as their skill at hunting them improved, such that by the end they were killing approximately 100 emus a week, ultimately killing almost 1,000 emus at the rate of ten rounds per confirmed kill, while also claiming 2,500 emus as wounded.

It just wasn’t economic – the emus were difficult to locate in substantial numbers and keep within range as well as scattering and evading pursuit. Even mounting a gun on a truck wasn’t effective – it wasn’t able to gain on fleeing emus and the roughness of ground prevented the gunner from firing.

And so the state and federal governments resisted further calls for military culls (in 1934, 1943 and 1948), resorting instead to the far more effective means of bounties to professional hunters.

So why the special mention amidst actual wars in history?

Well, because it does illustrate a number of themes, some of which are of note or interest for historical wars.

One is humanity’s hubris in waging war on nature, albeit more metaphorically rather than literally, not least in pest or nuisance wildlife management. Interestingly, Australia wasn’t the only nation to be “defeated” waging war against birds. Famously, China waged war against sparrows as part of its Four Pests Campaign to much more disastrous results – as the loss of crops to insects spared from sparrow predation was a contributing factor to the catastrophic famine of the Great Leap Forward.

Another is the military forces of humanity being humbled by the forces of nature in historical wars – most of all weather, which has swept away what have otherwise seemed overwhelming military forces, particularly in war at sea. It also applies to terrain – John Keegan in A History of Warfare notes how terrain (and climate) has been a limiting factor in wars throughout history, such that the majority of battles occur in surprisingly small or narrow territories on a global scale.

Occasionally, those forces of nature have included animals – with two of the most famous occurring in the Second World War, although unfortunately both are somewhat inflated and one almost so apocryphal as to be urban legend. The first involved sharks preying on the sailors from the cruiser Indianapolis when it was sunk by Japanese submarine in July 1945, made famous by iconic narration of it in the film Jaws.

The other involved crocodiles preying on Japanese soldiers trapped in mangroves by the British in the Battle of Ramree Island in Burma from January 1945 to February 1945. At one stage, they were reported to have killed all but twenty of a thousand Japanese soldiers, but sadly for fans of crocodile horror such as myself, this has been discounted to almost the reverse – at most they killed up to twenty soldiers, although they may also have scavenged on the bodies of Japanese soldiers killed by other causes.

Of course, the true unsung champions of animal destruction of human forces at war are insect vectors and the diseases they carry, which have been as effective as hostile weather in wiping out whole armies.

And then you have the theme of humanity’s use of animals in or for war or military operations. Of course, the horse is standout here, but war has seen a whole range of animals used in it – from more commonplace ones such as elephants, camels, donkeys or mules, oxen or cattle, dogs and pigeons, to more exotic animals such as pigs, moose, rats, dolphins, sea lions and others. And then you get to the truly bizarre, such as entomological warfare or animal-borne bombs – with my personal favorite as the American bat bomb project against the Japanese, taking my quip that the Americans fight wars like Batman to a literal extreme

To that you can add wars named for animals, of which there are a surprising number, albeit including similarly non-military conflicts such as the Cod Wars over fishing between the United Kingdom and Iceland, or border conflicts or near-war situations such as the Crab Wars or Pig War – with perhaps the Beaver Wars being the most intense actual wars named for animals.

And finally you have the military approximations from the Emu War itself, particularly for guerrilla war.

As one ornithologist observed, “The machine-gunners’ dreams of point blank fire into serried masses of Emus were soon dissipated. The Emu command had evidently ordered guerrilla tactics, and its unwieldy army soon split up into innumerable small units that made use of the military equipment uneconomic. A crestfallen field force therefore withdrew from the combat area after about a month”

And the commander of the operation, Major Meredith, observed after their withdrawal – ” If we had a military division with the bullet-carrying capacity of these birds it would face any army in the world … They can face machine guns with the invulnerability of tanks. They are like Zulus whom even dum-dum bullets could not stop”.

RATING: 4 STARS****
X-TIER (WILD TIER)

Map of participants in World War II for Wikipedia “World War” under licence https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en

(18) WORLD WAR

World wars are a recurring theme in history beyond the wars designated as such, the First and Second World Wars – which might also be considered as a continuation of the same world war with Germany. To the extent that I like to quip about world wars from World War Zero to World War X, while ranking my top 10 entries on the scale of world war.

On the World War X-side of the equation, the Third World War loomed – and still looms – large in popular imagination, indeed larger than it did in history. Of course, in popular imagination, the Third World War evokes or is synonymous with the omnipresent (and omnicidal) threat of worldwide nuclear destruction that underlay the Cold War (and beyond). Although some argue that the Cold War WAS the Third World War, aptly enough as its actual fighting was in the Third World, with the War on Terror as the Fourth World War.

Other wars with the world war label have included the First and Second Congo Wars, particularly the latter, which has been described as Africa’s world war – for the scale of casualties and number of African nations drawn into it.

The World War Zero side of the equation – involving at least proto-world wars – is even more persuasive. I’ve read one historian argue persuasively that the Napoleonic Wars were more global than WW1, while no less than Winston Churchill claimed the Seven Years War as the first world war. I like to observe that the American Revolutionary War was in effect a world war against Britain.

Really, any war involving one or more European states from the Spanish Conquest of the Americas onwards might be labelled a world war, once those European states acquired substantial maritime empire and power in continents beyond Europe.

However, it becomes a little trickier prior to the emergence of European maritime power or empires beyond Europe. An archaeologist has controversially dubbed the Late Bronze Age Collapse as World War Zero, but this seems a little bombastic – the Muslim or Mongol conquests seem better claimants.

Indeed, the casualties of the Mongol conquests exceed those of the First World War and come close to the Second in absolute terms, while substantially exceeding even the latter in relative terms of percentage of world population.

But yes – there are no world wars to rival the wars that are officially known as such, particularly the Second, which was more destructive, extensive and pervasive than the First, despite largely being a continuation of it.

RATING: 4 STARS****

X-TIER (WILD TIER)

The Battle of Bunker’s Hill, June 17, 1775 by John Trumball in 1786

(17) WARS OF INDEPENDENCE & SUCCESSION

The archetypal wars of political states.

Admittedly wars of independence require a state to actually survive after it is subjugated by or subject to another state. Or rather, the concept of a people or nation to at least survive or remain intact – let alone emerge or aspire to its own state – when subjugated by or subject to another state. In modern parlance, the concept of national self-determination.

So you don’t see too many of them in pre-modern history, when states or peoples fought more for stakes of survival from being absorbed – or dismembered or destroyed altogether.

On occasion, there were peoples or nations approximating the modern concepts of national self-determination that rose up against the states that ruled them – although such pre-modern conflicts tend to be styled as rebellions or revolts rather than the more modern style of revolutions or wars of independence, not least because they tended to lose.

The Roman Empire offers the example par excellence – the various Jewish revolts, among the best known of their type because of their religious significance, particularly for Christianity as hints of it seeped into the New Testament. Also notable is the Iceni revolt led by Boudicea in Britain.

However, for your definitive war of independence – the one that both defined and started the wave of modern wars of independence – you have to go to none other than the American War of Independence. There were wars of independence before it, but without the same profile, influence or effect – although the Eighty Years War is an arguable close contender. It’s odd to think that before the Dutch war for independence, it was the Spanish Netherlands.

But as I said, the American War of Independence ushered in the various waves of modern wars of independence styled as such in name and effect. The first wave was in the same hemisphere, with the Haitian War of Independence following close behind it, and the various larger Latin American wars of independence in the early nineteenth century. But the other hemisphere soon followed, particularly with the various European wars of independence against the Ottoman Empire.

Of course, the high tide of wars of independence came with the wave of decolonisation in the European empires from the Second World War onwards.

On the other hand, wars of succession may well predate sophisticated political states or concepts of nationhood, perhaps back to rivals contending for prehistoric tribal chiefdoms, although the wars themselves may well lack the same depth or sophistication. More like palace coups – or duels.

But wars of succession certainly are a recurring feature upon the emergence of political states – namely political states of absolute monarchy, as a “war of succession is a war prompted by a succession crisis in which two or more individuals claim the right of successor to a deceased or deposed monarch”.

The insanely convoluted Wars of the Diadochi – or Wars of Alexander’s Successors – are some of the most famous wars of succession, and most of the endless Roman or Byzantine civil wars were essentially wars of succession.

Where wars of succession become more complicated is when foreign powers intervene, allying themselves with a faction. Such was the case in the heyday of wars of succession, the wars titled as such but that were effectively global conflicts between rival European powers, in early modern history – wars such as the War of the Spanish Succession or the War of the Austrian Succession.

My personal favorite, however, is the more metaphorical uses of the term, not for nations vying against each other for the successor to the throne of a nation, but as claimants in the vacuum or void left by the collapse or decline of a great power or multinational empire.

Herman Wouk’s duology of The Winds of War, and War and Remembrance, featured excerpts from the memoirs of fictional German general von Roon – who styled the Second World War as the War of British Succession, with Germany vying for world power from the decline of the British Empire, only of course to lose to the United States (and with the Soviet Union to expend so much blood only to transfer world power from one Anglo-Saxon power to another).

In a less fictional and more historical sense, historian J.M Roberts styled most Middle East wars as wars of Ottoman Succession, over national boundaries in the wake of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire – including the Arab-Israeli wars and the Gulf War prompted by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.

Most recently, I’ve seen reference to a quite a few wars between and within the post-Soviet republics styled as wars of Soviet Succession.

RATING: 4 STARS****
X-TIER (WILD TIER)

Collage of paintings representing battles of the Hundred Years’ War by Blaue Max for Wikipedia “Hundred Years War” under licence https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

(16) WARS OF YEARS & DAYS

Yes – all wars are literally wars of years or days (well, except for the Anglo-Zanzibar War of forty minutes or so) but this special mention is for the wars named by historians as such for their duration.

Of course, those titles may not be exact – the Hundred Years War lasted 116 years (intermittently).

Speaking of which, the Hundred Years War between England and France from 1337 to 1453 is one of the most prominent wars named for their duration, at least by years, famed for such things as Joan of Arc and the Battle of Agincourt.

Another would be the Thirty Years War, a war I have to concede that I know less well than I should, given that it is the definitive war of early modern history, largely ending wars of religion in Europe while also the origins of modern international law between states with the Peace of Westphalia.

There’s also the Seven Years War, which I similarly have to concede I know less well than I should, as no less than Winston Churchill claimed it as the first world war.

However, the Hundred Years War and Thiry Years have particular resonance as some historians have argued for a second Anglo-French Hundred Years War from 1689 to 1815, for no less prize than global predominance, while others have argued for the two world wars as the Second Thirty Years War from 1914 to 1945.

As for the most prominent war of days (or is that day war), the prize would have to go to the Six Day War, the third Arab-Israeli War in 1967 – in which Israel won a crushing victory and one which still shapes the Middle East today, among other things through the territory obtained by Israel from it.

RATING: 4 STARS****

X-TIER (WILD TIER)

The defense of Rorke’s Drift 1879 – painting by Alphonse de Neuville 1880

(15) BRITISH COLONIAL WARS –
ANGLO-ZULU & ANGLO-ZANZIBAR WARS (1879 & 1896)

The Battle of Rorke’s Drift.

That’s it – that’s the entry. Well that and the 1964 film Zulu which depicted it.

Also not quite, as British colonial wars are the archetypal wars fought by European maritime empires as they carved up the world, with the British Empire coming out in the top spot. Don’t worry – we’ll get back to Rorke’s Drift, but Britain fought numerous colonial wars.

Arguably, the most decisive colonial war or wars fought by Britain were the Napoleonic Wars. For one thing, with all the focus on their European theaters, we forget how much of the Napoleonic Wars were fought beyond Europe – and just how much of those were in essence colonial wars, with Britain coming out on top. For another, Britain’s victory in the Napoleonic Wars laid the foundations for its naval supremacy, Pax Britannica and what is sometimes called the second British Empire (to distinguish it from the first British empire until American independence).

Although its naval supremacy was the primary instrument of its empire, Britain was surprisingly versatile with a colonial army that tended to punch above its weight in numbers, which were surprisingly small, in part of course due to superior firepower (and plain old firing drill) over its colonial adversaries.

In the words of Hillaire Belloc –
“Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun, and they have not”

So which of Britain’s prolific colonial wars to pick for this entry? As you can see, I’ve gone with the Anglo-Zulu and Anglo-Zanzibar Wars, firstly because I like the alliterative effect, but also because they are aptly representative of Britain’s colonial wars.

The Anglo-Zanzibar War is, however, the archetypal British colonial victory through superior firepower. Not coincidentally, it also holds the title of the shortest war in history – 38 minutes to 45 minutes, depending on which record you go by.

It was proverbial gunboat diplomacy – bonus points for involving actual gunboats, two craft with that designation, among the five British ships. Essentially, the wrong sultan succeeded to the Zanzibar Sultanate. Wrong, that is, from the perspective of the British, who preferred another one – so they simply rolled up in their ships and shelled the palace until they got the right one. Yes – they also stormed the palace with a contingent of marines or sailors and pro-British Zanzibaris. The British suffered one casualty – a wounded sailor – to about 500 Zanzibari casualties.

And with remarkably wry humor, the British billed Zanzibar for the shells the British used, among the other terms of surrender, because the British built their empire on a budget. With its puppet sultan, Zanzibar continued to be absorbed into the British Empire, and was subsequently merged with the former German colony of Tanganyika to become British Tanzania.

Now back to Rorke’s Drift, if you’re a fan of the Battle of Helm’s Deep in The Lord of The Rings film (The Two Towers), then you’re a fan of the Battle of Rorke’s Drift, as the former was filmed in a manner deliberately reminiscent of the film Zulu according to Jackson.

Indeed, Rorke’s Drift was seen at the time as the Helm’s Deep of the British Empire, a victory snatched from the jaws of the crushing defeat by the Zulus at the Battle of Isandlwana (as well as the seedy origins of the Anglo-Zulu War).

Even if contemporary observers might see Britain and its empire more as Mordor (or Isengard to America’s Mordor) rather than the Shire as Tolkien did.

If anything, Rorke’s Drift was even more epic than Helm’s Deep – as a small company of less than 150 soldiers attached to the Royal Engineers (including a substantial number of sick and wounded) fought off a force of about 3-4,000 Zulus.

Taking a step back, Rorke’s Drift was a small albeit highly celebrated part of the Anglo-Zulu War, with the British soldiers finding themselves in the path of a Zulu force in the aftermath of the opening Zulu victory at Isandlwana.

The Anglo-Zulu War itself might be seen as the last of a series of Zulu wars, from the foundation of the Zulu Kingdom as a formidable military power under Shaka. Unfortunately for his successors, the Zulu Kingdom found itself against a bigger and even more aggressive tribe – the Anglo tribe of the British Empire – and Isandlwana proved itself to be the Zulu high point of the war.

Back to Rorke’s Drift, I tend to default to its depiction in the film Zulu, which while generally accurate to the historical battle, does of course have inaccuracies (with perhaps the most egregious involving the depiction of Private Hook, a model soldier, as a rogue redeemed in the battle). The film may also be seen as somewhat problematic in these times given its celebration of British imperial victory – I don’t care.

Indeed the film tends to glamorize both sides in the battle – with the Zulus depicted as a brave, intelligent, capable, resourceful and ultimately honorable adversary. And if anyone can resist the stirring orchestral theme by John Barry, I don’t know what to say.

The British soldiers were led by Lieutenant Chard, portrayed by Stanley Baker, and his second in command Lieutenant Bromhead, portrayed by a young Michael Caine in his breakthrough film role. Deciding that retreat isn’t an option as they will move too slowly with their sick or wounded and the Zulus will catch them out in the open, they have no option but to stand and fight behind improvised barricade defenses.

Throughout the day and night (into the following day) after the Zulu force surrounds them, wave after wave of Zulu attackers are desperately and narrowly repelled by the British defenders. At one point, the Zulus succeed in setting fire to the field hospital, leading to tense scenes of the evacuation of patients under fierce attack by Zulu warriors – and British Surgeon-Major James Henry Reynolds calmly continues his surgery on a wounded soldier with fighting all around him. And yes – he got a Victoria Cross.

The British defenders retreat to the shortened lines of their inner barricades. One tactic you see through the film is the use of multiple ranks of soldiers to maintain a nearly continuous volley of fire with their bolt-action rifles. None more so than the climactic scene with three such ranks used (after falling back from desperate hand-to-hand combat at an outer barricade) to defend a massive assault by Zulu warriors. And as the camera pans back, you see the fallen Zulu warriors mere inches away from the front rank of breathless British soldiers – an impressive feat of holding the line.

That’s when you start to think from the preceding sense of overwhelming doom that hangs over the British soldiers – holy crap, they’re actually going to make it! And then – no, holy crap, they’re not…as the Zulu force masses on the hill overlooking Rorke’s Drift, seemingly barely diminished, while the British are exhausted and running low on ammunition. Lieutenant van den Burgh, their Afrikaaner advisor serving with the Natal Native Contingent, sinks to his knees and rebukes the British officers (and arguably their imperialism as well) – “Haven’t you had enough? We’re all dead!”

And then, holy crap again – as the Zulus chant, raising their spears. “They’re taunting us!” Michael Caine’s character exclaims. Van den Burgh laughs – “You couldn’t be more wrong – they’re saluting us as fellow braves!”. And then the Zulus slowly turn and walk away, still chanting, until a lone warrior is left, before he too turns and leaves.

Sadly, the historical battle ended in a more prosaic way, without the Zulus saluting the British (but more withdrawing from strategic sense and an advancing British relief column). I prefer to think it ended the way it did in the film.

11 Victoria Crosses were awarded to the defenders of Rorke’s Drift, with 17 killed and 11 wounded from their number in the battle – having inflicted 20 casualties for every one of theirs, with 351 confirmed killed from the Zulu forces (and about 500 wounded).

Britain’s colonial wars – and European colonial wars in general – exemplified the less gallant but undeniably effective side of the art of war, picking curb stomp battles, albeit usually through superior firepower rather than superior numbers. All nations would like wars like the Anglo side of the Anglo-Zanzibar War, whether or not they like to admit it – they just usually lack the means. And even if the British occasionally got stomped rather than doing the stomping, as in the Anglo-Zulu War (although they ultimately won that too).

RATING: 4 STARS****
A-TIER (TOP TIER)