"Colonial Australia" Topic

No new books; just some new ideas.

I haven't had reason to comment on this subject since discovering Raymond Kerkhove's paper on frontier conflict ('A Different Mode of War', in case you missed it – available online), but long-percolating facts have brewed up some new thoughts.

I've said in past posts that when colonial Australia finally gets some miniature love the focus will have to be 1860 – 1880 because of its popular culture exposure. Previously I've thought of this as a necessary compromise, believing that earlier phases of settlement/conquest, despite being less well known to the masses, are probably better suited to tabletop representation.

The later period was of course the high-watermark of the bushranging era, when all the most notorious outlaws had their run, so its attraction from that perspective isn't in doubt. It's the frontier conflict angle I'd convinced myself was less appealing, due to the increase in the settler technological advantage over time.

The Native Mounted Police was at the forefront of the conquest process from its inception in 1849 onward, but despite troopers' primary armament being a smooth-bore, muzzle-loading DB carbine, casualties in its early years were relatively light, with negligible fatalities. However, when we get to the 1860s the evidence suggests that the casualty rate rose significantly, and that fatalities were much more common. In fact Edward Kennedy, who served as an officer during this period, insisted that a quarter of all officers (including NCOs?) were KIA.

In his history of the force, 'Secret War', Jonathan Richards dismisses this claim with reference to his own research into the official records of the force's white personnel, that found that only four officers were killed over its entire existence. However, there's a huge gap in his account: in the book he admits that he was unable to find any records whatsoever for fifty NCOs and officers who served during the 1860s. It's likely that Kennedy was referring specifically to the period during which he served, rather than the entire life of the force, and without access to primary documentary sources with which to prove him wrong Richards had no basis to refute his claim.

If this is indeed the case, what might be the explanation? The answer isn't too hard to find. The Aboriginal tribes of southern Queensland didn't use the woomera, which means that their spears would only have had a maximum range of about 40 yards; substantially out-ranged by the the NMP carbine, which was reckoned to have an effective range of 60 yards. When settlement advanced into central and northern QLD in the 1860s the NMP came up against tribes that did use the woomera. The NMP was now out-ranged, and its revolvers didn't help, having an even shorter effective range than the carbine. This disparity was probably a major factor in the rearmament of the force with the Snider carbine (although it would undoubtedly have happened eventually anyway). That process started in the early 1870s, but thanks to government parsimony some NMP sections had to make do with their antiquated DB carbines into the mid-1870s. Additionally, there was a widespread belief amongst denizens of the frontier that the tribes had more 'pluck' the farther north you went.

In combination these factors mean that the 1860s and early 1870s are a historical window during which the NMP had a much higher chance of getting the worst of a skirmish than in earlier and later decades, thus neatly coinciding with the most attractive era for bushranging, and reinforcing the period's suitability for skirmish games.

I studied frontier history as an undergraduate, and I got to say I never came across anything indicating a 25% KIA rate. That's a huge number!

Not such a huge number; the NMP never exceeded a strength of 250 at any point in its existence, so in global military historical terms the numbers are, to use the US vernacular, 'small beer'.

The obvious question is: how intensely did you study specifically the NMP and its operations? How many and which official NMP-related primary sources did you access and, more importantly, read? With all due respect McWong, if Richards, a professional academic who's dedicated years of his research efforts to the history of the NMP couldn't find any official service records for those fifty personnel I think it's highly unlikely that a mere undergraduate researching assignments would have – but I'm prepared to be corrected :-).

I do wonder if the reason those particular records have seemingly 'disappeared' might be contemporary institutional embarrassment at the relative casualty figures for the period in question.

A couple of additional points:

Even in decades outside 'the window' the NMP often suffered casualties, but the low lethality of Aboriginal weapons meant that most of these were only wounded. Many troopers and officers suffered multiple wounds, despite having the very major technological advantage of breech-loading carbines that seriously out-ranged woomera-launched spears, and boomerangs. Frederick Urquhart, who served in Kalkatungu (Kalkadoon) country in the 1880s and commanded the colonial force at Battle Mountain, was wounded at least twice during his service. I have a photo of him reading a book while recuperating from a spear wound.

I should add that, aside from Kennedy's assertion, in his book 'Queensland Frontier' Glenville Pike mentions a number of NMP reverses dating to the 1860s, and also the necessity of resorting to fortified police posts over the open camps of other decades.

Pike was a 'colourful' writer, rather than an academic historian, but I have no reason to doubt that his account is in essence correct. Unlike Holthouse, I've never seen any accusations of creative manipulation of the historical facts levelled at him.

Beyond Pike there's a couple of references to serious NMP defeats in other works that support the idea of the 1860s being a particularly challenging period for the force.

A small correction: '… was wounded at least thrice…'. In addition to two spear wounds there was, of course, that nasty lump of ant bed at Battle Mountain.

I seem to recall a range of 28mm Aborigines but cannot remember the manufacturer

Blaze Away.

Hi Henry,

Any thoughts on: Dark emu : black seeds agriculture or accident? /​ Bruce Pascoe. Broome, Western Australia Magabala Books, 2014.

Dark Emu puts forward an argument for a reconsideration of the hunter-gatherer tag for precolonial Aboriginal Australians. The evidence insists that Aboriginal people right across the continent were using domesticated plants, sowing, harvesting, irrigating and storing-behaviours inconsistent with the hunter-gatherer tag. Gerritsen and Gammage in their latest books support this premise but Pascoe takes this further and challenges the hunter-gatherer tag as a convenient lie. Almost all the evidence comes from the records and diaries of the Australian explorers, impeccable sources.

There are some wargaming implications here I think.

Does anybody have a site or book that might have what Australian military uniforms looked like in the 1860's-1880's. I assume it's very similar to the British in some regard, but considering how different the NZ troops are in the maori wars of that period I never like to assume anything.

Try 'Australian Military Uniforms, 1800 – 1982', by Monty Wedd.