Victoria's Little Wars: Best/Favorite Commanders (1 Viewer)

[swalterh]

Have your read Corelli Barnett's The Swordbearers: Supreme Command in the First World War? Barnett looks at Moltke, Jellicoe, Pétain and Ludendorff and ties their character to their nation's performance over the course of the war. I am at a beach resort at the moment and separated from my library but he worked out how many families in England had a yearly income that would have permitted them to send their sons to the naval college in the decades prior to WW1. I will check when I return home but it was clear that the brains behind the fleet were drawn from an unbelievably narrow section of society. Barnett is a great critic of the impact of tradition on British thinking but it made compelling reading. He also made a name for himself criticising Montgomery, calling him, among other things, 'an emotional cripple'.

Sorry to say that I haven’t read Barnett’s Swordbearers. It sounds like an interesting read, I’ll add it to my amazon.com wish list. The points you continuously raise about the interworking’s and culture of the British military establishment are very interesting and IMO deserve closer examination when considering the reasons behind the events that facilitated the Rise of the Empire during the Victorian era. I as well find the aspects of military culture fascinating. One of my favorite questions to ask is what are the aspects and circumstances that make a particular system work? I hope you enjoy your vacation and look forward to continued discussions on this and other topics once you become reunited with your library.

 

[swalterh]

You can thumb through it here:
http://www.amazon.com/Queen-Victori...ictoria's+commanders+osprey#reader_1841760544

Thanks for providing the link. I personally already have a copy and have picked through it a little bit. I'm merely trying to encourage anybody who's interested in the period to post their thoughts on some of their favorite topics that might develope into a positive and enjoyable discussion. My personal area of expertise is on conflicts involving the American and Prussian/German militaries. I'm interested to learn what people who have more of a vested interest in the British system and campaigns have to say.

 

[swalterh]

Oh boy! Another great thread with a bottomless amount of possibilities. In addition to the afore-mentioned Byron Farwell's excellent book, I would like to add a couple by Brian Bond that I found very well done. 'Victorian Military Campaigns' is a book similar to Farwell's in concept, brief studies of campaigns, but isn't a study of the same ones. Also a book titled 'The Victorian Army and the Staff College 1854-1914'. Bond has done military leadership studies of other periods, as well.
My favorite leaders have all been mentioned; Wolseley, Wood, Roberts. Hard to find men more involved in the period and more important to the Empire.
One of the most interesting aspects of the Victorian military period is the alarming regularity in which Great Britain would start any given involvment with a stunning military disaster, or suffer one during the progress of one of the 'little wars'. The history of the period is just replete with one disaster after another, almost all followed by a more focused involvment and then ultimate victory. -- Al

Al

You make some interesting points. The British did seem to possess a pathological propensity to suffer major defeats throughout the entire period. I’d be interested to hear some of your thoughts as to why you think this was the case. I find it difficult to find fault with the system of recruitment, training and discipline at the enlisted level. Throughout the conflicts the performance of the enlisted soldiers seems to be consistent in both victory and defeat. I believe that it had more to do with the varying quality of leadership and competence in the officer corps due in large part to the remnants of the purchase system.

 

[swalterh]

The Zulu War does seem to swamp other campaigns of this era but Freddie 'Bobs' Roberts is one of my favourite but not necessarily best commanders of Queen Vic's reign. Wolseley was an excellent commander, logistically savvy and an excellent self-publicist to boot.

But Roberts really did see the changing face of warfare from the Mutiny to the more guerilla style conflict of the Second Boer War and therefore spanned the majority of her reign.

He even died visiting the troops during the early stages of the Great War. Great? Arguable. Legendary? Certainly.

I think that one of the most interesting aspects about Freddie “Bob” Roberts is his popularity amongst the enlisted men that none of the other prominent Victorian commanders seemed to equal. He also made his reputation in India, on the Frontier and in Afghanistan. Not exactly the most archetypal operational theatre for martial pomp and romanticism.

 

[lancer]

Al

You make some interesting points. The British did seem to possess a pathological propensity to suffer major defeats throughout the entire period. I’d be interested to hear some of your thoughts as to why you think this was the case. I find it difficult to find fault with the system of recruitment, training and discipline at the enlisted level. Throughout the conflicts the performance of the enlisted soldiers seems to be consistent in both victory and defeat. I believe that it had more to do with the varying quality of leadership and competence in the officer corps due in large part to the remnants of the purchase system.

Shane, I would certainly agree with your analysis about the leadership. I must confess that I really know little about the 'little wars', just enough to get into trouble in most cases. I have really only deeply read about the Zulu War, with a smattering in the Boer Wars, and one or two others. I am just impressed by the disasters that GB was able to absorb before getting in gear and taking care of business. The First Boer War was a glaring exception, where defeats such as Laing's Nek and Majuba Hill were not made good. The learning curve could be long and expensive such as in 1899 when the first campains under Buller and Methuen lead to defeat after defeat culminating in 'Black Week' and then Spion Kop. I really am hoping to learn a lot from this thread to supplement my slim knowledge in the many small wars and personalities that inhabit them. -- Al

 

[swalterh]

This might be akin to throwing another grenade into the room, but I was wondering if anyone wants to share opinions about how the British army (with its much more colonial focus and regimental/territorial structure) compares with some of the armies on the continent during the period.

(i.e. Prussian compulsory system with large reserve contingent, French large standing army of long service regulars and small colonial contingent, Austrian large standing territorial based system, Russian compulsory impressment of serfs)

I think that a discussion of this and similar topics would provide some significant perspective on the situation leading up to the Great War. For instance, the German army was largely based on the preceding Prussian system of compulsory service where the actual standing army was small and utilized mainly as a training force. The German Army could rapidly expand its fighting force upon mobilization when it called up its reserve formations into active service. The British on the other hand were traditionally very contemptuous of a large standing army stationed in its home territory. This is a big reason the original BEF that opposed the German drive in 1914 was a very small highly professional organization.

I think that the British Army’s successes during the Victorian Era did little to prepare it for the conflict in 1914. The rapid Prussian victories over Austria (1866) and France (1870) impressed many of the prominent commanders of the Victorian era. Roberts was one who foresaw the dangers posed by the German military system and attempted to reform the army’s organizational structure along Prussian lines. This of course was met by much resistance from the civilian government.

Following the American Civil War and German Wars of Unification, the British army undertook a massive publishing and translation effort to provide as much literature as possible to educate their officer corps. This was to provide ample material on the latest concepts regarding military operations directed on a continental level. Given that the British army was designed for and possessed more experience with smaller localized operations, the staff colleges were devoted to concentrated study of the German and American conflicts. Unfortunately the civilian government did not offer much support for the “lessons learned” faction within the British Army.

These are merely a few thought to ponder. Please feel free to take it in whatever direction you want. Battle record, command structure, prominent personalities, recruitment and training, tactical doctrine, weapons systems, institutional culture etc.…

 

[swalterh]

Well, I don' t know, I just find that these " little wars" were not wars between "states", but very often just agression wars from an organized army against rather primitive locals, so I wouldn' t call them " wars", maybe just "military operations of colonization".
If you don' t feel stimulated enough, you can just ignore my posts...

I don' t know which commanders were the best, but all colonial wars were a war crime, whatever country did them( also Italy, France,Germany, Belgium).Which one of these countries made more crimes that would be for another thread. Colonization was made by organized, modern armies against local, almost disarmed and often primitive people.Writing the story of crimes, atrocities made by europeans would be too long to make here, just as an example in Belgian Congo they cut africans' hands and feet for minor crimes, italians even gassed Ethiopians....

Great Britain attacked South Africa when they discovered there diamonds, killed peaceful boer farmers, destroyed their free republics, and then the Zulus. in India were also made massacres during Gandhi' s life. In South Africa and in India locals were treated in the best case in a kind of paternalism, and in the worst with racism.

Today, we have other forms of colonialism, more hidden, more sophisticated.

Didn’t the Boers have to take the land from the people who originally had it in order to form their free republics? And those “peaceful” Boer farmers certainly developed some wicked marksmanship abilities (much to the Brit’s consternation). You make some interesting generalizations regarding the nature of European colonialism/imperialism. You are correct that many of these “wars” were waged by a more organized and technologically sophisticated military establishment against less organized and less sophisticated societies. I think from the discussion we were having on the ACW thread this was part of the reason behind the Union victory over their less organized and industrialized opponents.

I suppose the lesson to be gleaned from this is that if you don’t want to get squashed by a bigger power you better figure out some way to counter its advantages. The Spartans were smaller and less sophisticated than there Greek neighbors, but somehow figured out how to keep them from picking on them too much.

Also, let’s not forget the multitude of multi-national fighting formations that participated with the British during their imperial expansion. Are we to discredit their service and bravery because they helped the British conquer their neighbors?

Besides, the Zulus and Afghans didn’t make a bad showing when mixing it up with the Red/Khaki coats. As a matter of fact these peoples were able to inflict some pretty nasty defeats on the British that resulted in entire formations being wiped out (not to mention causing utter shock and embarrassment to the British public). So, it’s not as if the British were exclusively beating up on “helpless” opponents.

And yes, the game continues to this day. As it will for as long as humans populate this planet.

 

[swalterh]

Shane, I would certainly agree with your analysis about the leadership. I must confess that I really know little about the 'little wars', just enough to get into trouble in most cases. I have really only deeply read about the Zulu War, with a smattering in the Boer Wars, and one or two others. I am just impressed by the disasters that GB was able to absorb before getting in gear and taking care of business. The First Boer War was a glaring exception, where defeats such as Laing's Nek and Majuba Hill were not made good. The learning curve could be long and expensive such as in 1899 when the first campains under Buller and Methuen lead to defeat after defeat culminating in 'Black Week' and then Spion Kop. I really am hoping to learn a lot from this thread to supplement my slim knowledge in the many small wars and personalities that inhabit them. -- Al

I’m still interested to hear some opinions about Lord Chelmsford and his performance in the Zulu War. I think that part of the reason for the disaster at Islandlwana and the “near run thing” at Rorke’s Drift occurred because of a gross superiority complex on the part of the senior commanders of the British expedition. Chelmsford started off the campaign very aggressively and seemed to hold his enemy in contempt as is evidenced by his complete disregard for the security of his force. How does a “professional officer” allow himself to be deceived into striking at thin air while the enemy main body slips around him and attacks the elements of the 24th Foot encamped at Islandlwana?

Now some of the factors involved in the defeat at Islandlwana can’t be blamed on Chelmsford. The fact that the commissary department provided ammunition boxes that required screwdrivers to open was not particularly helpful to the poor chaps about to be overwhelmed by approaching Zulus. The fact that they couldn’t find enough screwdrivers to open the ammunition crates, and were unable to replenish their depleted cartridge pouches is one of the unfortunate “duh” moments of the Imperial era.

The public relations disaster of the Prince Imperial biting the dust probably didn’t bode well for Chelmsford’s popularity at court.

Fortunately for Chelmsford’s reputation he was able to recover from Islandlwana and eventually achieved victory before he could be replaced by Wolseley. That long boat ride from England to whatever God forsaken place they were fighting in saved a few Victorian Commanders from being sacked even though they had already been “officially” sacked. This campaign is certainly consistent with the trend of how British campaigns were conducted during the period (Let’s get ‘em… Oh crap… wipe blood from face… Let’s get ‘em again… ha, take that… that’ll teach you to disrespect the Queen’s Army). I suppose it will always get the lion’s share of the attention thanks to the epic depiction of the stand at Rorke’s Drift in the film. I still think a film needs to be made that showcases the highlander’s assault on the works at Tel el-Kebir. The Brits actually kept the royalty alive during that one. Maybe because he was the Queen’s favorite.

 

[jazzeum]

Didn’t the Boers have to take the land from the people who originally had it in order to form their free republics? And those “peaceful” Boer farmers certainly developed some wicked marksmanship abilities (much to the Brit’s consternation). You make some interesting generalizations regarding the nature of European colonialism/imperialism. You are correct that many of these “wars” were waged by a more organized and technologically sophisticated military establishment against less organized and less sophisticated societies. I think from the discussion we were having on the ACW thread this was part of the reason behind the Union victory over their less organized and industrialized opponents.

I suppose the lesson to be gleaned from this is that if you don’t want to get squashed by a bigger power you better figure out some way to counter its advantages. The Spartans were smaller and less sophisticated than there Greek neighbors, but somehow figured out how to keep them from picking on them too much.

Also, let’s not forget the multitude of multi-national fighting formations that participated with the British during their imperial expansion. Are we to discredit their service and bravery because they helped the British conquer their neighbors?

Besides, the Zulus and Afghans didn’t make a bad showing when mixing it up with the Red/Khaki coats. As a matter of fact these peoples were able to inflict some pretty nasty defeats on the British that resulted in entire formations being wiped out (not to mention causing utter shock and embarrassment to the British public). So, it’s not as if the British were exclusively beating up on “helpless” opponents.

And yes, the game continues to this day. As it will for as long as humans populate this planet.

I wasn't going to raise the issue because it probably should be discussed elsewhere but since you chose to respond to Poppo he happens to be correct and you just can't conveniently explain it away by saying go get a bigger gun. A case in point is the Belgian Congo. That country was raped and denuded by King Leopoldo and its people mercilessly killed for its natural resources. Suggest you read King Leopold's Ghost by Adam Hochschild. Rarely has the African's experience with Europeans (whether in Africa or what become the United States) or the Europeans' experience with other native societies in Central America or South America been a pleasant one. Yes, it is now history and we study the exploits of the conquerors and the colonializers but let's not sugarcoat it either.

 

[marco55]

I wasn't going to raise the issue because it probably should be discussed elsewhere but since you chose to respond to Poppo he happens to be correct and you just can't conveniently explain it away by saying go get a bigger gun. A case in point is the Belgian Congo. That country was raped and denuded by King Leopoldo and its people mercilessly killed for its natural resources. Suggest you read King Leopold's Ghost by Adam Hochschild.

Brad it is true what you say but again this is about the best commanders during this period.We all know what colonialism brought.
Mark

 

[jazzeum]

Mark,

I agree and would have ignored Poppo's posts but since he chose to respond to them a reply was needed.

Brad

 

[marco55]

I understand that but let us not get drawn into that.

Mark

 

[jazzeum]

Again, I fully agree.

 

[swalterh]

I wasn't going to raise the issue because it probably should be discussed elsewhere but since you chose to respond to Poppo he happens to be correct and you just can't conveniently explain it away by saying go get a bigger gun. A case in point is the Belgian Congo. That country was raped and denuded by King Leopoldo and its people mercilessly killed for its natural resources. Suggest you read King Leopold's Ghost by Adam Hochschild. Rarely has the African's experience with Europeans (whether in Africa or what become the United States) or the Europeans' experience with other native societies in Central America or South America been a pleasant one. Yes, it is now history and we study the exploits of the conquerors and the colonializers but let's not sugarcoat it either.

Well, I don' t know, I just find that these " little wars" were not wars between "states", but very often just agression wars from an organized army against rather primitive locals, so I wouldn' t call them " wars", maybe just "military operations of colonization".
If you don' t feel stimulated enough, you can just ignore my posts...

I don' t know which commanders were the best, but all colonial wars were a war crime, whatever country did them( also Italy, France,Germany, Belgium).Which one of these countries made more crimes that would be for another thread. Colonization was made by organized, modern armies against local, almost disarmed and often primitive people.Writing the story of crimes, atrocities made by europeans would be too long to make here, just as an example in Belgian Congo they cut africans' hands and feet for minor crimes, italians even gassed Ethiopians....

Great Britain attacked South Africa when they discovered there diamonds, killed peaceful boer farmers, destroyed their free republics, and then the Zulus. in India were also made massacres during Gandhi' s life. In South Africa and in India locals were treated in the best case in a kind of paternalism, and in the worst with racism.

Today, we have other forms of colonialism, more hidden, more sophisticated.

To everyone on the forum, please accept my most sincere apology for creating this thread. Apparently the topic of Victoria’s Little Wars and other aspects related to the colonial period do not constitute appropriate subject matter to be discussed amongst this community.

Unfortunately it seems that the events occurring during the time period are too emotionally charged to allow for us to carry on a meaningful intellectual discussion without being jackpotted by members who have continued to use provocative remarks which have only served to create an uncomfortable atmosphere for other members to carry on with the discussion.

I will hereby cease to continue commentary on this thread.

Again I apologize for my failure to completely grasp the divisiveness of these issues.

Shane

 

[marco55]

Shane,you have nothing to apologize for.If we take out all the time periods which might bother people we would have NONE.The human race as a whole is like a child.We are learning step by step.We now have more compassion for our fellow humans then people did in the past.Yes there are many horrible things that happen but us,the world is better.100-200 years from now the people of the future hopefully will be better than we that are living now.
Mark

 

[Jack]

To everyone on the forum, please accept my most sincere apology for creating this thread. Apparently the topic of Victoria’s Little Wars and other aspects related to the colonial period do not constitute appropriate subject matter to be discussed amongst this community.

Unfortunately it seems that the events occurring during the time period are too emotionally charged to allow for us to carry on a meaningful intellectual discussion without being jackpotted by members who have continued to use provocative remarks which have only served to create an uncomfortable atmosphere for other members to carry on with the discussion.

I will hereby cease to continue commentary on this thread.

Again I apologize for my failure to completely grasp the divisiveness of these issues.

Shane

Shane

Irony (from the Ancient Greek εἰρωνεία eirōneía), meaning dissimulation or feigned ignorance, is a rhetorical device, literary technique, or situation in which there is an incongruity between the literal and the implied meaning (Thanks Wikipedia!)

Keep the thread going - I am enjoying the access to a good history discussion.

Jack

 

[Poppo]

To everyone on the forum, please accept my most sincere apology for creating this thread. Apparently the topic of Victoria’s Little Wars and other aspects related to the colonial period do not constitute appropriate subject matter to be discussed amongst this community.

Unfortunately it seems that the events occurring during the time period are too emotionally charged to allow for us to carry on a meaningful intellectual discussion without being jackpotted by members who have continued to use provocative remarks which have only served to create an uncomfortable atmosphere for other members to carry on with the discussion.

I will hereby cease to continue commentary on this thread.

Again I apologize for my failure to completely grasp the divisiveness of these issues.

Shane

Shane, you don' t have to apologize at all...The subject is good and historical. The question is that (I think) nobody knows enough about this very selective subject:redface2:. You are very cultivated and prepared in military history and it is very interesting to read your very well written threads and posts; so I hope you will write more and more on this subject and others.

I was a little( or more) out of the topic so I stopped writing.

By the way, speaking about the military questions of the british army in Victorian age, I guess that lord Kitchener was one of the biggest personalities, am I right?

 

[jazzeum]

I agree with Poppo. Please keep it going. I enjoyed your posts here and on the Civil War thread. I don't think Poppo should have raised it but he did and it's been dealt with. Heck, a lot of figures in my collection are from that period.

So, please continue and apologies if I caused anyone discomfort. Btw, I have the book myself and enjoyed it :smile2:

Brad

 

[swalterh]

Brad & Poppo

Thank you for your kind words regarding my posts. I have thoroughly enjoyed both discussion threads and look forward to continued discussions on this and other threads with you and other members who elect to contribute their thoughts and opinions.

I and surely many others agree with your opinions and thoughts regarding the events that transpired in the Congo while the country was under Belgian possession. This situation can be described as nothing less than a human tragedy.

When we consider this issue and others like it, I am merely suggesting that when we interject certain language into our arguments it serves to heighten the degree of seriousness in the debate. Usage of specific terms implies that the individuals and countries that partook in these described activities are to be considered serious offenders of established statutes under current international and military law. It is my view that these terms should be used judiciously when sharing opinions and thoughts regarding historical events that occurred before the Nuremburg trails (1945-46).

I believe continued discussion of these and other matters concerning the nature of violations of international agreements would make for an interesting discussion, but as you both and others have mentioned, on another thread.

I would be happy to continue with our discussion here if we can all agree to try to stay on the topic of the military aspects of the Victorian wars.

Thanks again,

Shane

 

[Terp152]

Like Jack on the ACW thread, I don't have enough knowledge to make an intelligent comment on this subject. But, I enjoy reading the posts. Hope everyone continues with such an interesting and thought provoking topic. I've learned something every day. Chris