Talk:Battle of Spion Kop

Renaming of page

Discussion on renaming this page has been archived at Talk:Battle of Spion Kop/Archive 1.

A vote was taken, and the decision was to leave it where it is. Wizzy…☎ 13:50, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

For completeness I added the Dutch name of the battle to the text; as questioned in the archive on the topic, Dutch combines separate words the same as Afrikaans does, thus Slag bij Spionkop. The difference is that Afrikaans uses van, meaning of, while Dutch uses bij, meaning near or at for the designation of battlefields. Michel Doortmont (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Lol, the official name is Spioenkop! — Adriaan (T★C) 16:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite

I have modified the article to provide a better picture of the actual events. I will undetake further modifications when I have time. I dont know how to reference things in wiki yet but my sources are "The Boer War" by Thomas Packenham and a visit to the battlefield an the literature available there.

Regards, Jon. 29/09/2006

Nice job. Wizzy…☎ 10:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverse slope defence

Sorry but I dispute this

'The Boers sited their defensive positions not on the crests of hills but instead on the rear slope, out of sight of enemy forces, a tactic unfamiliar to British military orthodoxy.'

Since its what Wellington used in the Peninsula War and at Waterloo.Koonan the almost civilised 01:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you and furthermore think its neither true nor relevant to this battle and so have removed it.

172.202.248.205 14:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Boer artillery?

The infobox gives artillery strength for the British but not the Boers, although the article mentions Boer shelling. This seems like an anomaly. --Graminophile 17:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The only reference that I can find is to "three field guns and two pom-poms" although this is hardly specific enough to include in the article. I'll see what I can dig up. Jonewer 08:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've found a source for information on the Boer Artillery at Spion Kop. In his message to Sir Charles Warren dated 24 January 1900, during the battle, Col. Thorneycroft states that: quote "They (the Boers) have the long-range gun, three of the shorter range, and one Maxim-Nordenfelt." I've added the reference. In his official report of the action dated 26 January 1900 he states that the Boers began the battle with 3 field guns and one pom-pom, but after the Scottish Rifles arrived: "The heavy fire continued, and the Boers brought a gun and a Maxim-Nordenfelt to bear on us from the east..." That makes a total of six guns including two pom-poms. Hopefully that helps. Tristan benedict (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Almost forgot, there is a photograph of a captured Boer Maxim-Nordenfelt pom-pom at Wikimedia commons-[1], if anyone wants to add it to the article. Tristan benedict (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Lancashire Fusiliers

In your report on the LFs Attempt to surrender appears to be a misunderstanding, I have enclosed a small extract from the fusiliers Museum web site which gives a different view of the circumstances surrounding this portion of the battle.

Soon after the Middlesex entered the fight, the Boers made another attempt to procure the surrender of our men by walking towards the trench with their rifles slung, as if they themselves wished to submit. This is typical of their tactics on too many occasions during the campaign, and the cool audacity with which it was carried out often ensured its success by disarming suspicion. In this instance, the particulars are best related by Major Savile, of the Middlesex Regiment, who was in command of an adjacent trench. The only troops actually close to me were a party of the Lancashire Fusiliers inside a schanze; ‘F’ company of other troops. A good many shells from the big guns burst near us, and a Lance-Corporal of the Fusiliers was killed. The only point I could see rifle-fire proceeding from was a trench, the third, I believe, occupied by our troops on the right. Presently I heard a great deal of shouting from this trench, where there were about fifty men. They were calling for reinforcements, and shouting “The Boers are coming up.” Two or three minutes afterwards I saw a party of about forty Boers walking towards this trench. They came up quite coolly; most of them had their rifles slung, and all, so far as I could observe, had their hands up. “Our men in the trench - they were Fusiliers - were then standing up also, with their hands up, and shouting ‘The Boers are giving in’! ‘The Boers are giving in’! I did not know what to think, but ordered a company of my regiment to fix bayonets. Just then, when the Boers were close to the trench, someone - whether an enemy or one of our men - fired a shot. In an instant there was a mêlée. We were fighting hand to hand. I shot the Boer, and he dropped, clinging, however, to his rifle as he fell, and covering me most carefully. He fired and I fell. Subsequently to my being hit, parties of Boers passed over me, trying on the same trick, holding up their hands as if they were asking for quarter. But our men refused to be taken in again, and fired, killing and driving them back.” The losses to both sides in this fight at close quarters are not known; but those who witnessed it say that they were heavy, and the occurrence as related by Major Savile is corroborated by Captain Tidswell, by whom it was witnessed. The Boers now realised that it was impossible to drive the British from the summit. If we were compelled to retire from the entrenchment we had a better position to fall back on, in the huge boulders which lay above the dressing station, which would afford us a good field of fire. They now resolved to shell our men off the hill-top. So, from all their sheltered positions, a perfect tornado of shell fire was poured on the hill-top, and maintained from three pm till the shades of evening mercifully interposed. At other places their shrapnel failed, the soft ground nullifying its effect, but the rock-bound summit of Spion Kop suited the percussion shrapnel of the Boers, which was accurately laid and swept the whole plateau with deadly effect.

To suggest that a regiment was attempting to surrender when in fact there seems evidence to suggest that it was in fact nothing more than a rouse by the enemy who where known to have attempted this kind of deception before. I have read other accounts of this battle and the Lancashire fusiliers came out of it covered in glory, it was because of the courage displayed here that the regiment was awarded the primrose hackle and many other honour’s and awards heaped on this distinguished Lancashire regiment.--90.193.232.99 (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Spion Kop height

The height indicated for the hill (430 m), is probably the relative height from the ground, not the height above mean sea level. In fact the plateau of Ladysmith has an average height of about 1000 meters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mario1952 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The article follows the common misconception that the British trenches were lower than the Boer positions, and that this is why the trenches gave liitle shelter from Boer fire. But, as the map in the article shows, Spion Kop is higher than the surrounding hills. The reason that the much of the British position was exposed to fire was that the ground was not level. Many sections of trench were on ground higher than, but sloping towards, the Boer positions. (See "Into the Jaws of Death", Lt Col Mike Snook, Frontline Books) Chris Jones. 24 Oct 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.202.38 (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

–––– I have just returned from visiting Spion Kop. The British position was higher than the surrounding Boer positions not lower. The defensive trenches were prepared (inadequately) back from the crest (in foggy night-time conditions according to my guide). Once the error was realised, the British had to advance to the crest of the hill to see down the slopes and repel Boers climbing up.

The Boers were also firing from neighbouring positions which were slightly lower (as already pointed out, the map makes this clear). The point is that British soldiers provided a silhouette as they peered over the crest or over their trenches. Being higher is not necessarily an advantage, especially when being fired on by Boers. I gather the Boers were excellent marksmen as they grew up hunting game which bolts if the first shot misses.

The British trenches were shallow - so my guide explained - because of British mistakes and incompetence. The plan was for Thorneycroft's men each to take a sandbag up the hill, but the order was not communicated and the pile of bags was left at camp. Also much of the trenching equipment was left behind. The top of Spion Kop is rocky and no wonder the sappers were only able to dig shallow trenches with the limited picks and spades. Sandbags might have made a big difference.

Sorry not to provide sources for this but I can confirm the height issue from my own eyes - MichaelSurrey (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)MichaelSurrey –––

"The Hero of Spionkop"

1894666925 Louwrens Penning, ‎Marietjie Nelson - 2006 "As the second Boer War continues into 1900, Louis Wessels , having been nursed back to health by his fiancee after a serious wounding, leads his commando to defeat the British at the battle of Spionkop."

...Surprising that this person is not mentioned in the article given the prominence in sources In ictu oculi (talk) 08:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

He's not mentioned because that stuff is all fictitious. Louis Wessels did exist, but his commando only took a significant part at a later stage of the war. The principal Boer commanders at Spion Kop were Louis Botha, Schalk Burger (who ran away), Henrik Prinsloo of the Carolina Commando and Opperman of the Pretoria Commando. In addition, the Boers did not win the battle. They lost it. The British won it, and then gave up the Kop because their commanders didn't realise they'd won. Oddly enough, Botha predicted that the British might do this, but could not stop most of his confreres from legging it anyway.Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Infobox terminology

The infobox lists the result of the battle as a "Boer victory" but does not make it evident who the Boers were, so it's pretty much impossible for a person new the the subject to tell if it was a UK or SAR win. Is there an elegant way to make the infobox clearer on this point? —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 22:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The 'Boers' -- an Afrikaans word meaning farmers or peasants, like the German 'Bauer' -- were up-country colonial settlers of mostly Dutch ancestry, who at that time had two independent states, the Transvaal ('South African Republic') under President Kruger and the Orange Free State under President Steyn. They had few regular troops except the artillery -- they had bought slightly surprising amounts of modern artillery from Schneider-Le Creusot in France, Krupp in Germany and even Maxim-Nordenfelt in Britain -- and relied mainly on civilian militias, known as 'commandos', who could be called up to act as mounted infantry. The men wore their own civilian suits and carried government-issued German Mauser rifles and German or locally-manufactured ammunition. (The Transvaal was highly industrialised since the discovery of the Rand gold seam.)

Spion Kop was a British defeat rather than a Boer victory, since the British did actually win the battle, but their commanders failed to appreciate this and withdrew them from the Kop unnecessarily. Even Thorneycroft, who was in charge on the Kop itself, had no idea what was going on and lost his nerve around 2am -- perhaps understandably given his experiences during the day and the fact that Warren had not bothered to keep him informed. Churchill told him that Warren was now sending the big guns up to consolidate, but Thorneycroft wouldn't listen and ordered the troops off the Kop, even though the troops were quite happy to stay. Had Thorneycroft not done this, then, since Schalk Burger and most of the Boers had run away, Ladysmith would have been relieved about a month sooner than it was. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Gandhi

The article's suggestion that Gandhi 'was decorated' for his actions at Spion Kop is misleading. He was not. Along with three dozen other members of the Indian Ambulance Corps he qualified for the Queen's South Africa Medal, which was a campaign medal and not a gallantry award. The entire army was eligible for it and so were many civilian auxiliaries. The rules for the award are likely to have specified a certain minimum number of days' service, which may be why relatively few of the Indians qualified. Without sight of Gandhi's actual medal one can't say which clasps he was awarded. There was no individual clasp for Spion Kop, since it was a defeat (or rather a victory that the commanders threw away due to a failure to appreciate the situation), but he probably qualified for the Natal clasp. Depending on his subsequent actions he may have qualified for the Tugela Heights and Relief of Ladysmith clasps. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Scousers

Why did Liverpool call it the spion kop did a lot of people from Liverpool fight in that battle 86.12.226.133 (talk) 09:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Original name

I believe there were 2 names ie "Spion kop" and "Spioen kop" in a previous version. However, it was changed to only "Spioenkop", even in the paragraph that explains the differences between the two names! I tried to fix it but the paragraph still doesn't read well. I further believe that all the references to places outside South-Africa should read "spion" and not "spioen", as it was only chanegd to spioen in later years 41.13.4.116 (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The spellings were changed without discussion in November 2022 by a single-edit contributor. I’ve changed them back, except where the current location is being referred to, for the reasons given in the 'Note about the name' section (and which were there in the article at the time). And yes, places that actually use the old spelling shouldn’t be changed just to fit someone’s agenda. Xyl 54 (talk) 10:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Order of battle

I’ve hidden the order of battle added with this edit a while ago, because I’m not sure what we should do with it but didn’t want to delete it out of hand.
The first problem is it looks messy: there are no links, and it would be better in a list format like other OOBs. Also, it only has the British forces; a proper OOB should have the Boer forces listed also.
Second, it is incorrect, when compared to the OOB given by Conan Doyle (which we have here, in wikisource), and it lists the whole of Warren’s force ( two divisions) whereas the force that attacked Spion Kop was only two battalions (Blomfields and Woodgates).
Third, if we are to have an OOB at all, it should be in a separate section (as with other, similar, pages), not dumped in the middle of a body of text. Thoughts? Xyl 54 (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)