With regard to the question--Was it tactically right to capture this hill?--said by both sides to be the key of the position, it seems an absurd question to ask; for if the advance could have been accomplished without taking it, it could not rightly be called the key of the position. Nevertheless, some critics have maintained that its capture was a blunder, and that, had it not been abandoned, our chances of success would have been no greater. Sir Charles Warren has discussed this question in one of his contributions to the ‘National Review’ in 1901 on ‘Some Lessons from the South African War,’ and it will not be out of place to quote his views on the subject which are given in the following extract: ‘_The Capture of a Hill._--Commanding sites in the vicinity of contending troops must always attract attention, because there is a natural impulse in man to strive for the higher ground. Recent criticisms, however, have rather deprecated this longing and have minimised the advantages the higher ground presents from a failure to comprehend the principles which govern the subject. ‘It is quite true that in the defence of flat-topped hills, such as are found in South Africa, it is difficult to obtain a good fire down the steep slopes from trenches running along the edge or outer crest, without partly exposing the defenders. It is also admitted that strong positions can be taken up in gently swelling low ground with good glacis, or flat surfaces, for frontal fire; but the command of view from the summits of hills, and the immunity from being seen, must for a long time to come be powerful factors in the choice of defensive lines. ‘The Boers, with a shrewdness and skill which smacks somewhat of European military aid, have, in cases where practicable, taken advantage of both conditions, by holding the outer edges, or crests, of flat-topped hills lightly, and by placing their main trenches about a mile behind on the hill’s comparatively flat surface. They thus derived all the advantage of the smooth glacis for frontal fire, while they had command of view without being seen into, could not in many instances be touched by long-range guns, and in a great measure debarred the attack from using field guns against them, because the only positions they could be placed in were under rifle fire.