Now a tactical operation cannot be right or wrong merely because some
subsequent action makes it futile. We have the evidence of the Boers
that they considered Spion Kop the key of the position and that, had
it been held, Ladysmith would probably have been won. Surely, then,
the blame of failure should not be thrown upon the General who
ordered it to be taken, but on the officer who abandoned it without
sufficient reason and without consulting him.
Mr. Oppenheim has written a defence of this officer in the
‘Nineteenth Century,’ in which he says that Lieut.-Colonel
Thorneycroft had to come to some decision, and that he had
held on all day hoping for the presence or intervention of a
superior officer. But Lieut.-Colonel Thorneycroft was himself a
brigadier-general commanding the colonels in command of two brigades,
and the only use he made of this position was to force them to
withdraw; while Major-General Coke, his superior officer, was on the
summit from half-past three to half-past six, and Lieut.-Colonel
Thorneycroft does not appear to have made any effort to get
instructions from him or to refer to him before ordering a retirement
at dark.
Mr. Oppenheim states that Lieut.-Colonel Thorneycroft did not know
that stores of ammunition, water, food, &c., were on their way up;
but this is no excuse, because, if he had gone to his proper post of
command, he would have known it; but he stuck to his own corps, and
never really exercised the command until he decided to retire. He
also states that all agreed it was impossible to hold the hill. But
Colonel Hill and Major-General Coke evidently did not agree. Colonel
Hill had made preparations for intrenching, and knew where the tools
and sandbags were, although Colonel Thorneycroft did not.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account