"Conspiracy of Silence" Topic

This is the title of a new book (published 2013) I've borrowed from the library. Subtitled 'Queensland's frontier killing times', it's primary intent is a cataloguing of all known massacres of Aboriginal people in Queensland, from the establishment of the Moreton Bay penal settlement in 1824, onwards. However, as has often been the case with past writers on this subject, the author fails to provide a clear definition of the term 'massacre' at the outset, and therefore leaves his terms of reference unnecessarily fuzzy (the haziness of his thesis is obvious from his detailed maps: a crossed spears symbol is used to mark the sites of a couple of 'Aboriginal victories in battle'). Consequently, the book includes a fair number of references to and descriptions of skirmishes, some of which are new to me.

As I've mentioned previously on these boards, the covert nature of this conflict (suggested by the book's title) means that detailed descriptions of frontier skirmishes are extremely elusive, so as I've done in the past, I reproduce the most complete here for your enlightenment.

Thomas Davis, the father of the author Steele Rudd of 'On Our Selection' and 'Dad and Dave' fame, was a frontier settler in the mid nineteenth century. His memoirs contain many references to his experiences with the indigenous people of Queensland. Here, from 1856, he describes the settler reaction to news that 'the blacks were gathering on Donga Creek with the object of attacking Wirabone Station':

'With little delay a well-equipped party, consisting of Sergeant Graham and black police, Dick Walker – once an officer in the English army – James Norman, Matthew Goggs, Harry Whitty and myself, was soon riding hard through sand and mulga to… Donga Creek. There camped on both sides of the stream was a mob of fully four hundred blacks… With our firearms resting on our thighs we rode up… Though confused, they stubbornly held their ground. Into the thick of them we emptied our pieces. Their tactics became warlike. In a short time we were almost surrounded. Compelled to fall back we separated and from behind trees cut gaps in their numbers with our rifles. Still their determination never lessened. Some of our party were wounded – myself among the number. A spear pierced my thigh and pinned me to the saddle… Fair in the face of powder and ball rushed two or three daring fellows making for Dick Walker. Only one reached him… They fell, rolled, struggled in the grass… Walker dropped his revolver. His hand went quickly to his side, and the next instant the naked man was ripped from the lower part of his abdomen to his brisket. The shades of night came down and we rode some miles and and camped. Rest or sleep we could not.'

An earlier skirmish from Bingera (Burgarrah) Station in 1854, north east of what was later to become St George:

'… some blacks called for their gins and were refused possession. No force was attempted, but the blacks in strong numbers rounded up and drove away every working horse that was on the place. The Native Police at Surat were informed and went in pursuit, and at Waggor they came upon the blacks numbering between two and three hundred shepherding the Bingera horses… The Lieutenant gave the word to fire and a fearful conflict began. The blacks stood their ground and fought bravely – fought until the dead lay thick about them – and only retreated when darknesss set in. When morning broke upon the scene they had all disappeared and nothing but the dead remained.'

These accounts serve to reinforce the fact already evident from previous first-hand accounts of skirmishes I've posted on TMP that, when not victims of a surprise dawn attack on a sleeping camp full of women and children, and when they had access to their weapons, Aboriginal warriors often fought as courageously as any indigenous people anywhere in the world, and more bravely than many.

An 1861 anecdote from former Native Police Commandant Frederick 'Filibuster' Walker's expedition in search of the explorers Burke and Wills reveals that Aboriginal tactics were so well known and understood on the frontier as to have acquired English names:

'… they were stretching out in a half moon, in three parties. This move, which my men term stockyarding, is, I believe, peculiar to blacks throwing spears with a woomera, the object being to concentrate a shower of spears…'

The details revealed in these accounts support those already known to me in confirming the historical accuracy of my own frontier skirmish game, 'Boomerang'.

Thanks for this. Dreadfully facsinating. Not sure something I'd be comfortable wargaming though.

Whilst I'm normally one to look upon any trendy lefty, pinko liberal, pot-smoking, hippy-dippy 'more offended than thou' wingeing with a jaundiced eye, I do wholeheartedly welcome the resurgence of this interest in the Indigenous perspective on early settlement/invasion.

Not before time, in my view, I do think it has to be out there before there can be true reconciliation.

But, in my opinion, not a subject for a relaxing wargame, not for a long while…

Celebrating the service and achievements of Indigenous Soldiers in WW1 in the forthcoming anniversaries, now that would be very welcome!

Would you be equally uncomfortable with a tabletop recreation of Darkest Africa, Sparker?

Interesting question. I do take your point, but yes, if it was recreating something of a one sided massacre…

Look, I'm not claiming any logic here, I just, personally, don't feel comfortable with it…and equally I wouldn't feel at home with wargaming My Lai or Katyn Forest either. Its just rather ugly, not to say one sided, despite the courage displayed by the warriors in question.

Pardon my confusion, but you responded 'yes, if it was recreating something of a one-sided massacre'. I presume you actually meant 'no'. I think you'll find that, in terms of game balance, DA games are as evenly matched as those set in any other period; otherwise, what would be the point of playing?

Umm… do I really need to point out the difference between a massacre of defenceless civilians (My Lai) or unarmed prisoners(Katyn)and a fight between armed opponents such as those described in my original post – unequal weapons technologies notwithstanding? I doubt that there was much opportunity for a display of courage on the part of the victims of those two atrocities you mention. The settlers/Native Police may have been much better armed, but they were also outnumbered by around twenty to one. As you saw in the second fight, this numerical superiority allowed the Aborigines to surround them; so, as is typical in colonial conflicts, there are factors other than technology at work in determining the balance of forces.

By your thinking (if not logic) the vast majority of colonial engagements would qualify as massacres – and I have indeed, from time to time (but in works of general or social, rather than military history)seen them described as such. So I'm assuming you impose upon yourself a blanket proscription against playing colonial games.

Well I did say I wasn#t being logical here, but I do have an aspiration to eventually wargame the Sudan Campaigns, because evidently there is all to play for – The Mahdis initially overcame the Egyptian forces, and even with direct British intervention things did not go well – Abu Klea. But I wouldn't invest any time in doing Omdurman, for example. Not from any moral standpoint, but simply as its too onesided.

However its more time and disorganisation that is keeping me from Colonials at present if I'm honest.

Look mate – all power to your arm – anything that makes people think and gets these events out there has to be a good thing, all I'm saying, personally, is that its not to my taste.

I posted this information primarily for those with a genuine interest in the subject (and from past exchanges I know they exist on these boards), not to generate debate about the topic's validity.

I too favour the earlier Sudan campaigns when it comes to gaming the Sudan… Campaign, and for the same reason, despite the fact that, once the British took charge, the best the Mahdists could achieve against the colonial forces was a temporarily broken square – and at the cost of horrendous casualties. But when it comes to victory/defeat, we play for the historical possibilities, not to reproduce the historical outcomes. Otherwise, given the rate of tactical and strategic success of native forces, no one would even consider colonials a worthwhile tabletop subject.

Asymmetric warfare – of any period – is always going to be a challenge to represent on the tabletop such that both sides have an equal chance of obtaining 'victory'. In order to achieve game balance it's necessary to play with the concept of victory and fine tune it to our chosen conflict. Outcomes which outside our particular historical context might not appear ostensibly to match the commonly understood definition of the term can be victories both in game terms, and in terms of our historical context. So, while total destruction of an enemy force is a possibility in conventional warfare, or for the colonial forces in asymmetric warfare, it was rarely achievable for native forces; but then it was rarely necessary in colonial warfare.

Having perhaps read more than anyone of Australian frontier conflict, I believe I have as thorough an understanding as is possible of the factors influencing victory and defeat, at both the tactical and strategic level. At the tactical level the universal object of colonial forces was always 'dispersal', that is, to cause a concentration of Aborigines to break up and flee – whether the target of their attack consisted of surprised, unarmed and unresisting family groups, or armed and prepared warriors. Once this objective had been achieved the pursuit (usually mounted) commenced, with the Aborigines now reduced to unresisting easy targets on foot. So, any engagement in which the colonials fail to achieve this outcome can be considered a colonial defeat. In the 1856 fight described above the colonials abandoned the field without having 'dispersed' their adversaries; on these terms, an Aboriginal victory.

I should point out that when Davis wrote '… with our rifles.' he was referring to the civilians present. At this time Native Mounted Police troopers were armed with a double-barreled smoothbore muzzle-loading percussion carbine of the same type that equipped the Cape Mounted Rifles in South Africa, with an effective range of about 60 yards, and probably a revolver.

I've just discovered that the full and complete text of 'The Recollections of Thomas Davis' is available online. It's relatively brief, and it's not hard to find the incidents cited here, along with others. There are many details that were omitted from the quotes in Bottoms' book (such as both sides' casualties in the Burgarrah Station fight). Despite having himself fought the Aborigines, Davis demonstrates a much knowledge and understanding of Aboriginal culture, and a good deal of sympathy for the plight of the indigenous victims of colonialism in Australia and more generally.

A little analysis of the Donga creek fight suggests that the settlers and police really had no choice but to retreat: they had wounded to tend to, including removing spears that could only have impeded their ability to function effectively, but if they'd attempted to do so on site, individually they would have been in danger of losing the advantage being mounted gave them of retiring out of danger at will, and being individually cut-off and surrounded.

Also, note that most Aboriginal warriors principally relied on missile weapons, and only initiated hand-to-hand combat when an opponent was impaired in some way: wounded or unable to return fire. Davis doesn't specify, but presumably Walker was attacked because he was one of the wounded. This is exactly how my game 'Boomerang' treats close combat. Most warriors can't launch mass charges (rushes, in game terminology), but a single base (up to three warriors) can launch an attack on an unloaded/incapacitated enemy figure. In fact, having not seen it when designing my game, I was taken aback reading the account of the 1856 fight at how closely it resembles a 'Boomerang' AAR.

'…, Davis demonstrates much knowledge…'

The full text reveals that the figure of four hundred cited for the camp at Donga Creek includes women and children, so the number of warriors was probably only about two hundred, reducing the odds to ten to one or less (the number of NMP troopers isn't given, but would have been somewhere between six and eighteen).

From the article 'Looking for the Proverbial Needle? The Archaeology of Australian Colonial Frontier Massacres', by Litster and Wallis in the academic journal 'Archaeology in Oceania 46 (2011), comes just such a definition as alluded to above: '… when using the term massacre herein we are referring to an event involving two parties:

. Victims – a group comprising more than one person, typically possessing inferior weaponry with which to defend themselves and,

. Perpetrators – another group, who distinguish themselves from their victims by having the power to kill without substantial risk of physically injuring themselves, and who might generally be considered to have instigated the event.

I think that covers most colonial battles and skirmishes; certainly those involving native forces with no/few firearms or no/little knowledge of correct firearms use, anyway.