OUR FRIEND THE ENEMY.
In venturing on a judgment of the British soldier, from a military
point of view, I may be told that only the man who has had a military
training is competent to express an opinion upon the individual
capacity of a soldier, be he Boer or Briton. That may be true, as long
as people only go theoretically to work; but after my two and a half
years of practical experience, my military friends may be gracious
enough to allow me to express my simple opinion concerning this
important factor, which is undoubtedly fundamental to the efficiency
of any army. At the same time I promise to be as impartial in my
judgment of the Boer as of the Briton as a fighter, or, at least, as
impartial as can be expected from a fallible Boer.
As an officer in the Boer army I encountered the British soldier in
many capacities and in many circumstances. The officer of the regular
British troops was always prepared to notify that he had no high
opinion of the officers of the irregular troops. At the same time the
volunteer officer was equally ready to heartily reciprocate the
compliment when it was passed upon him by the regular. To be honest, I
must say that I specifically give preference to the regular officer,
whom I regard as having more initiative, and as being more practical
and less artificial than his colleague, the irregular Imperial
officer. As regards courage I saw little to choose between them. I
certainly can draw no great distinction, since I have never been in a
position to fight on the same side as they.
Generally speaking, I consider the British officer a very brave man,
though I do think he sometimes is guilty of excess in that
respect--that is to say, that he goes impractically to work, and, the
young officer especially, is driven by ambition to do desperate and
stupid things. To this foolhardiness may be largely attributed the
heavy losses in officers suffered by the British Army in the War.
Since I fell into British hands I have found the officers to whom I
had been opposed on the battlefield treat me with the utmost
magnanimity. After having been in personal contact with a considerable
number of officers of various regiments I must plainly say that the
British officer is to be encountered in only two species: He is either
a gentleman or--the other. The officer of the first species is
prepared to be charitable to his antagonists, and generally assumes an
attitude of dignity and humanity; whereas the latter possesses all the
attributes of the idiot, and is not only detestable in the eyes of his
antagonists, but is also despised by his own _entourage_.
There have been unfortunate British officers in this War, and there
have been occasions when a disaster to the British has been
immediately attributed to the acts or the tactics of the commanding
officer. In this connection I will cite the regrettable instance of
General Gatacre at Stormberg. I do not think this reverse is to be
attributable to stupidity, or indiscretion, or cowardice.
There is a great deal of luck attached to any adventure in the field,
and ill-luck had pursued General Gatacre persistently. But undoubtedly
where bad luck pursues a commander on more than one occasion it is not
only expedient but necessary to dismiss such an officer, because his
troops lose confidence in him, and their spirit is undermined. It has
occurred in this War that incapable officers with good men and much
luck have performed wonders.
The British soldier, or "Tommy," who draws a very poor daily pay, for
which he has to perform a tremendous lot of work, is, if not the most
capable fighter, the most willing in all circumstances to offer
himself as a sacrifice at the altar of duty, or of what he considers
his duty, to his country. But if "Tommy" by any accident be asked to
deviate from the usual routine in which he has been trained, he is a
thoroughly helpless creature. This helplessness, in my opinion, is
caused by exaggerated discipline, and by the system under which
"Tommy" is not allowed to think for himself or to take care of
himself, and this individual helplessness has undoubtedly been one of
the shortcomings of the British soldier during the War. As regards the
fortitude of the ordinary British soldier, I must repeat what I have
already said--that he is a courageous, willing and faithful warrior,
and that it is to his fidelity and patriotism that the British Army
may attribute its success. I believe this to be a truism which will
defy even criticism.
There are, of course, exceptions to the courageous "Tommy." If I were
to draw any comparison between the nationalities, I would say that of
the soldiers with whom I was brought into contact on the battlefield,
the Irishmen and the Scotsmen were better fighting men than the
others. In regard to British soldiers generally, I would remark that,
if they could add good shooting and ability to judge distances to
their courage, then they would be perhaps perfect soldiers, and
certainly be doubly dangerous to their foes.
Taken as a whole "Tommy" is a very warm-hearted fellow, though as
regards humanity some distinction must be drawn between the regular
soldier and the enlisted volunteer, for the latter is less humane than
the former. This was too clearly shown by his conduct in the
transporting of women and children and in the plundering of
prisoners-of-war. But nevertheless "Tommy," generally speaking,
whether regular or irregular, was sympathetic with regard to our
wounded, and showed great kindness of heart to a maimed opponent.
I consider that the British infantry bore the brunt of the fighting of
this War, especially in its earlier stages. Where the cavalryman
failed to break through our lines the infantryman stepped in and paved
the way for him. We found we could always better stand an attack from
cavalry than from infantry, for this latter, advancing as it did in
scattered formation, was much less visible to our marksmen. When
advancing to the attack the British foot soldiers were wont to crawl
along on their faces, seeking cover whenever that was available; thus
advancing, and especially when they were supported by artillery, these
men proved very difficult indeed to repulse. In my opinion a
cavalryman has no chance against a good marksman when this latter
occupies a good position and is able to await attack. The British
cavalry horses are such stupendous creatures that given a good rifle
and a keen eye it is difficult for one to miss them. They certainly
make most excellent targets. It is my firm opinion that for usefulness
the cavalryman cannot be compared to the mounted infantryman. Indeed,
my experience during the last 14 months of my active participation in
the War taught me that the British mounted infantry was a very hard
nut to crack. Of course everything depended upon the quality of the
man and the horse. A good rifleman and a horseman, especially if he
were able to fire when mounted, was a very formidable foe. As for
horses, I may say that I do not wonder that the great unwieldy horses
for which the British cavalrymen have such a predilection cannot be
compared to the Basuto ponies with which we went to work. The African
pony has, in fact proved itself to be the only useful horse during the
campaign. The British cavalryman might have used elephants with almost
as much advantage as their colossal horses. Further, in my opinion,
the cavalrymen might just as well be discontinued as a branch of an
army, for there can be no doubt that the infantry, artillery, and
mounted infantry will be the only really useful and, indeed,
practicable soldiers of the future.
While I was writing the above a book was placed in my hand written by
Count Sternberg, with an introduction from the pen of Lieut-Colonel
Henderson. I doubt very much whether Colonel Henderson read the
manuscript of the Count's book before penning his introduction, for I
cannot suppose that he holds such small-minded and fantastic ideas
regarding South Africa as the Count expresses. In this memorable work
some extraordinary tales are told of the galloping and trotting feats
of the Basuto ponies. The confession that the Count makes that he did
not care upon which side he fought so long as he fought is indeed
extraordinary. That he ever fought at all the Boer officers who knew
him strongly doubt, and none of them will wonder that the Count's
bitterest experience in South Africa was that on one occasion some
naughty German ambulance people deprived him of a box of lager-beer.
This and other amateurs have already overwhelmed the reading public
with so much so-called criticism about this War, that I venture upon
delicate ground in offering my opinion. I will confine myself to
commenting upon what I saw and I know personally, for I know nothing
about the topography of Europe and I am not acquainted either with the
composition of the European armies or with their manner of fighting.