TOPIC:

During my quest to find all the local men who served during the Boer War I have noted a few articles in the press which confirm the changes in attitude which occurred once the war was well underway. An article appearing in the Rotherham Advertiser of 23rd Jun 1900 talks of the appearance of those men returning home, saying “...many wounded or fallen sick, but all show signs of the hardships they have endured ......a haggard look in their pale faces and their gait is unsteady, all of which speak more eloquently of the horrors of war than the most graphic newspaper description ever written.”

A further comment is made in the edition of 18th Aug 1900 on the difficulties faced by the officers and men serving in SA. Those people who were hasty in their criticism after reverses were now more aware of the “nature of the country and its suitability for the guerrilla warfare practised by the Boers amongst a hostile people who never miss an opportunity of giving information to the enemy as to our troop movements.” It concludes that the reverses could have been more numerous and more disastrous.

By 6th Apr 1901 Aldred, 10th Earl of Scarborough, who was Commandant of the Yorkshire Dragoons from 1891 to 1908 and had served in SA, had written an article for the “Empire Review” {does anyone know about this journal? Been unable to find any information} - this was also published in the Rotherham Advertiser. In this piece he stated that a few months campaigning in SA had convinced him of the need to change the training given to the men. He goes as far as to say that the cavalry tradition must go by the board. He thought that the British cavalry and the mounted infantryman were both unsuitable and what was needed was something like the Imperial Yeomanry and the Colonial corps. Attention should be devoted to ensuring the men were good shots and good riders and also able to judge distances well. He also said “The Yeoman must also be practised in marching, bivouacking and outpost work on strictly service conditions, and he must be taught how to care for and look after his horse.” Part of the article is difficult to read but I think the Earl was making the point that many men who went to SA without preconceived notions of field movements, close formations etc performed better than others.

Weren’t there issues raised with the training given to both contingents of the IY? I understand both suffered disasters but didn’t the second show improvement later in 1901? This is a topic I shall have to devote more study to as I am finding quite a number of local men serving with the IY.

Hello,
I don't agree with the Earl of Scarborough, the Anglo Boer War was very much a war for mounted infantry, I certainly don't agree regarding the Imperial Yeomanry either, they took rather more than they gave back in my opinion, your average regular MI/Lancer/Hussar etc was worth ten of those.
Regarding cavalry, the Earl clearly fails to understand that each arm and service existed for a reason, quite unforgivable given that he had been a regular cavalry officer, the British cavalry, at the end of the century, was let down by it's choice of weapon, whist there was little wrong with the lance, their sword and that bloody awful carbine were not fit for purpose, by 1908 however, these issues were in the past and they really were the best in the world, some years ahead of their counterparts on the continent, moreover, they proved it in August 1914!
I certainly would not have stood in front of them!
Regards Frank Kelley

volunteer1860 wrote: During my quest to find all the local men who served during the Boer War I have noted a few articles in the press which confirm the changes in attitude which occurred once the war was well underway. An article appearing in the Rotherham Advertiser of 23rd Jun 1900 talks of the appearance of those men returning home, saying “...many wounded or fallen sick, but all show signs of the hardships they have endured ......a haggard look in their pale faces and their gait is unsteady, all of which speak more eloquently of the horrors of war than the most graphic newspaper description ever written.”

A further comment is made in the edition of 18th Aug 1900 on the difficulties faced by the officers and men serving in SA. Those people who were hasty in their criticism after reverses were now more aware of the “nature of the country and its suitability for the guerrilla warfare practised by the Boers amongst a hostile people who never miss an opportunity of giving information to the enemy as to our troop movements.” It concludes that the reverses could have been more numerous and more disastrous.

By 6th Apr 1901 Aldred, 10th Earl of Scarborough, who was Commandant of the Yorkshire Dragoons from 1891 to 1908 and had served in SA, had written an article for the “Empire Review” {does anyone know about this journal? Been unable to find any information} - this was also published in the Rotherham Advertiser. In this piece he stated that a few months campaigning in SA had convinced him of the need to change the training given to the men. He goes as far as to say that the cavalry tradition must go by the board. He thought that the British cavalry and the mounted infantryman were both unsuitable and what was needed was something like the Imperial Yeomanry and the Colonial corps. Attention should be devoted to ensuring the men were good shots and good riders and also able to judge distances well. He also said “The Yeoman must also be practised in marching, bivouacking and outpost work on strictly service conditions, and he must be taught how to care for and look after his horse.” Part of the article is difficult to read but I think the Earl was making the point that many men who went to SA without preconceived notions of field movements, close formations etc performed better than others.

Weren’t there issues raised with the training given to both contingents of the IY? I understand both suffered disasters but didn’t the second show improvement later in 1901? This is a topic I shall have to devote more study to as I am finding quite a number of local men serving with the IY.

Frank,

Very good points made, of which I totally agree.

Paul

Frank Kelley wrote: Hello,
I don't agree with the Earl of Scarborough, the Anglo Boer War was very much a war for mounted infantry, I certainly don't agree regarding the Imperial Yeomanry either, they took rather more than they gave back in my opinion, your average regular MI/Lancer/Hussar etc was worth ten of those.
Regarding cavalry, the Earl clearly fails to understand that each arm and service existed for a reason, the British cavalry was let down by it's choice of weapon, whist there was little wrong with the lance, their sword and that bloody awful carbine were not fit for purpose, by 1908 however, these issues were in the past and they really were the best in the world, some years ahead of their counterparts on the continent, moreover, they proved it in August 1914!
I certainly would not have stood in front of them!
Regards Frank Kelley

volunteer1860 wrote: During my quest to find all the local men who served during the Boer War I have noted a few articles in the press which confirm the changes in attitude which occurred once the war was well underway. An article appearing in the Rotherham Advertiser of 23rd Jun 1900 talks of the appearance of those men returning home, saying “...many wounded or fallen sick, but all show signs of the hardships they have endured ......a haggard look in their pale faces and their gait is unsteady, all of which speak more eloquently of the horrors of war than the most graphic newspaper description ever written.”

A further comment is made in the edition of 18th Aug 1900 on the difficulties faced by the officers and men serving in SA. Those people who were hasty in their criticism after reverses were now more aware of the “nature of the country and its suitability for the guerrilla warfare practised by the Boers amongst a hostile people who never miss an opportunity of giving information to the enemy as to our troop movements.” It concludes that the reverses could have been more numerous and more disastrous.

By 6th Apr 1901 Aldred, 10th Earl of Scarborough, who was Commandant of the Yorkshire Dragoons from 1891 to 1908 and had served in SA, had written an article for the “Empire Review” {does anyone know about this journal? Been unable to find any information} - this was also published in the Rotherham Advertiser. In this piece he stated that a few months campaigning in SA had convinced him of the need to change the training given to the men. He goes as far as to say that the cavalry tradition must go by the board. He thought that the British cavalry and the mounted infantryman were both unsuitable and what was needed was something like the Imperial Yeomanry and the Colonial corps. Attention should be devoted to ensuring the men were good shots and good riders and also able to judge distances well. He also said “The Yeoman must also be practised in marching, bivouacking and outpost work on strictly service conditions, and he must be taught how to care for and look after his horse.” Part of the article is difficult to read but I think the Earl was making the point that many men who went to SA without preconceived notions of field movements, close formations etc performed better than others.

Weren’t there issues raised with the training given to both contingents of the IY? I understand both suffered disasters but didn’t the second show improvement later in 1901? This is a topic I shall have to devote more study to as I am finding quite a number of local men serving with the IY.

Well he was there and was a military man, so he probably knows what he is talking about.

But I think you need to look at the tone of what he is saying and not take it too literally. It is about the tradition and the training. Instead of being a smart cavalry rider and learning sword drill, they needed to learn how to actually campaign in harsh conditions. It sounds like he is saying stop the parade ground work and train them in how to deal with actual conditions in the field.

I agree with the Earl's comment about "the Colonial corps". The officer commanding the Composite Regiment of the Mounted Brigade during the Ladysmith relief operations, Major (later General Sir Hubert) Gough wrote:
"I learnt more in one day with the Natal Carbineers than I had learnt in 10 years with the regular cavalry."

Lances, swords and large, heavy horses had no place in the Boer War, and I think it was the South African, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and the mixed irregular mounted units that were best suited to a war with the Boers.

Brett

Thanks for your comments.

It sounds reasonable to me to emphasise the practical skills needed in the field, but wouldn't the traditional sword drill etc improve co-ordination and discipline, though it was becoming of less use on the actual battlefield?

This morning I spotted a letter from a Trooper Wooliscroft to his father in which he says a Col Scobell had thanked the Yorkshire Hussars for the admirable way they performed their duties in SA (newspaper dated 24th May 1902). He praised their discipline and the good tone of the squadron. References were made to the "inefficiency" of some IY in 1901, but Col Scobell thought that if they had been half as good as the Yorkshire Hussars then no one could have faulted them. They were commanded by a Capt S J Brodrick.

I am correct in thinking the Col Scobell referred to was Henry Jenner Scobell?