The History Poker Blog: Discussion
Theres a problem here, being that theres different versions of the Battle of Mulinuu - Massacre of the British. Some British writers calling it a native rebellion, some saying only 4 British were killed but 8 fatally wounded, which really means 12 were killed. An account says 11 were killed, many wounded.
Whats interesting is that the Battle is all about the British reinstalling their beloved Malietoa King of Samoa, but the thing is, it's not a British style Monarch and the British writers or the NZ public at the time don't seem to understand that it's the Samoan counsels that entitle. The same Samoan counsels that seem to have ordered the attack on the Barracouta, so theres no real winning here, even if Malietoa had 2,000 British blue-jackets under his command, he would have lost his own face, and be deemed a true traitor, with his family being killed or exiled.
Lies upon lies. I wasnt even there and from research its clear how chow the Battle went down. At the beginning, most say they came ashore with 50 men, that number has been established, and they probably had a few scouting the area. According to an article, as the talks commenced, an argument ensued, and shots were fired. A report seems to have come from one of the British scouts that the Barracouta's men were being surrounded, and after the fighting had started soldiers and guards began to take cover.
Now at this point theres only one place for the Barrcouta's crew to go after the fighting starts, which is back to the ship, being that the Western Samoans are armed to the teeth each with revolvers, and the US is backing them as their new arms dealer. Yet in one version, the British writer says things like "the natives wouldn't put down their arms", well of course they wouldn't put down their arms, they had the British blue-jackets and crew surrounded. It seems that even though the Western Samoan Taimua and Faipule Government, the Eastern Samoan Government, and the United States Government are all agreed that the British are not welcome, its the British writers who still seem to not get the picture. The British writers don't want the NZ or Australian public to know that they, the Brits, are the idiot-Rebels in yet another fight they can not win.
Not only that, the British writers seem to quickly over look the fact that the Captain Stevens, supposedly a decorated British soldier, has taken "political hostages", one being an American Colonel and personal Agent to the President of the United States.
Accounts of the battle say that the Barracouta's men just went to the ship. Well, in battle thats called a retreat, they retreated to the ship and I suspect they did that retreating with hostages. It was a hostage situation, the 3 prisoners were from the meeting.
The argument in the meeting must have resulted in a hostage taking situation, they didnt just leave casually or run for cover so swiftly, out running a Samoan warrior being impossible for a blue-jacket British. As they were talking, the report came in of them being surrounded, and when they felt discussions souring, 3 hostages were taken, a cowardly move which let them retreat safely back to the Barracouta ship. The British men who died on the spot were most likely on the outer flanks, being clipped off, men away from the center body of the main Barracouta crew as they moved backwards, which is why the numbers shot are so low. All accounts do say that the Barracouta Ship stayed overnight, because the ship itself was most likely surrounded by Samoan vessels, no where to go. So all night you have no firing, the battle just stops, even with accounts saying there were 3 prisoners (hostages).
After a night, it seems the Samoan Counsels settled to let them live. It would seem the Malietoa at the time would have had some impact on this outcome.
I can just see what the News headlines back then could have been "The Royal Navy defeated by Samoa, then retreats in a cowardly hostage situation", that couldn't have been very good for that Imperial image or for that Malietoa rank.