Talk:Breaker Morant/Archive 1

old comments
Movie details were not dumped; I moved and included them in a stub.Quill 00:57, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Great article! Just some clarifications though:


 * "Daisy reportedly threw him out after he failed to pay for the wedding and then stole some pigs and a saddle." Who reports this?
 * "On the return journey to the fort, Morant's unit stopped for the night at the store of a British trader, Mr Hays, who was well known for his hospitality. After they left, Hays was raided by a party of Boers who looted everything he owned, even dragging Mrs Hays' wedding ring from her finger. When they arrived back at Fort Edward, they learned that a convoy under Lt Neel had arrived from Pietersburg the previous day, just in time to reinforce Capt. Taylor against a strong Boer force that attacked the fort. During the encounter one Carbineer was wounded and several horses were shot and it was at this time that Taylor had a native shot for refusing to give him information about the Boers' movements. Neel and Picton then returned to Pietersburg and" - and what?
 * "But according to Nick Bleszynski, the order was common knowledge among the Bushveldt Carbineers and other regiments well before Morant's arrival at Fort Edward in mid-190 and it was widely known among the troops that several other units of the British forces in South Africa had shot Boer prisoners." - mid-190? What date is this meant to be?
 * "There have been claims that they were destroyed, or that they were sealed in the British Army archives for 100 years, or that they are still in South Africa and were never sent back to England." Who claims this?

Apart from this, the story needs wikifying and fixing of the linked date and a run through a spell checker. It could also do with some images. Otherwise, this is as fine a story I have ever seen on Wikipedia! The authors are to be congratulated on their excellent prose, their holding to NPOV and the representations of both points of view, and the obviously large amount of research they have done in putting this story together!!

Ta bu shi da yu 13:39, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This has been improving all the time, but I've still got some comments -


 * no one's managed to find a picture of him yet?
 * this article is really in need of breaking down with Summary style - I think about three or four articles could be broken away from this one, at the current length
 * we still need to watch the opinion here -
 * there's a definite judgement at the beginning ("handsome, roguish and talented Morant has become a larrikin folk hero", "romantic but elusive")
 * most of the article seems to be reasonably neutral, but the ending seems to make the judgment that Bleszynski is correct

Apart from that, this is looking really good. Ambi 14:20, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

re: comments
REALLY appreciate your feedback and advice folks. Thank you for the incredibly generous comments! I'm honoured.

re: preceding comments:

I think "handsome, roguish and talented" is a reasonable statement:


 * the 1900 picture in Bleszinski's book shows him to be a very handsome, debonair guy


 * he was certainly reputed to have been both a ladies' man and a booze-hound, and he evidently had a chequered past -- in other words, a bit of a rogue.


 * he was a published poet and a friend of or known to some of the most famous Australian poets of his day; he was also a renowned horseman who had been trained by one of SCOTLANDS best - he was talented.

I also believe the conclusion is fair, given the balance of evidence. The trial records have never been produced, and if the British cared to close the matter for good, and their evidence proves Morant's guilt, beyond reasonable doubt, why not produce them? In their absence, we are forced to rely on Witton's book. I have it before me now and I assure you that he goes into such lengthy, precise detail that he clearly either compiled it from very accurate notes, or he's making the whole thing up.

I stand by my view that there are HUGE questions over almost every aspect of the case: evidence, conduct, verdicts, the lot. Morant admitted killing Visser and the Boers; the question is why. He says he was following orders. There is so much room for doubt on just about every facet of this case -- if it was a civilian trial and I was on the jury, there's no way I could convict -- there is just too much flimsy, conflicting or tainted evidence.

Consider this:

- the prosecutor and TWO members of the court were suddenly removed and replaced -- DURING the trial, without explanation. If that happened in a civiliian trial, it would be aborted in a heartbeat

- lots of the prosecution evidence was hearsay, crucial bits were uncorroborated or contested -- by contrast there was plenty of corroboration of Morant's version of events -- yet the court accepted this evidence without any further investigation.

- testimony was taken and accepted from witnesses known to have been antagonistic to Morant, e.g. he Hesse case. So many dodgy aspects to this one. For this one a whole new court (???) was constituted to hear it and it was heard in camera. Why?

Hesse was carrying a pass from Captain Taylor -- why would Morant kill him? Surely the Boers had better reason, if he was so obviously 'approved of' by the local British commander, who also happened to be, surprise, surprise, the local British intelligence officer?

Another witness (Sharp) said that Morant he saw Morant talking to Hesse, who then left, and then Handock supposedly rode after him -- but the same witness testified that Handcock didn't even take the same road!

No-one saw who killed Hesse, Morant had no obvious motive, Sharp as good as admitted that he hated Morant, admitted that he went out of his way to find a supposed eye-witness and (says Witton) admitted telling another trooper that:

"'... he [Sharp] would walk barefoot from Spelonken to Pietersburg to be of the firing party to shoot Morant'"

and this was followed a sequence of circumstantial evidence from other witnesses that IMO wouldn't have convicted Hitler if he'd been in the dock!

Consider also:

- crucial witnesses were conveniently taken out of the country

- all the British troops involved escaped serious penalty; only the Australians were convicted,

- Capt. Taylor was involved in virtually everything that happened, was (as the ranking senior officer after Hunt's death) technically responsible, but he was aquitted.

Remember: this fellow was an army intelligence officer who was in effective command of the entire district and admitted the same in court. Hunt and his detachment worked under Taylor's overall command. He knew everything that was going on, was given reports about on everything that happened ... was known to have summarily shot an African for refusing to give him information ... and his nickname among the Africans was "Killer" ...

I think that adds up to a lot of very serious questions about the validity of the court-martial. Not to mention the fact that Witton was eventually pardoned by the king and released. Why pardon a guilty man?

I think the only conclusion from the available first-hand evidence is that Morant should have been reprimanded or cashiered at worst. The case is full of holes.


 * It may well be the most logical conclusion based on the evidence, but at the same time, it isn't our place to be making conclusions - simply stating the facts. I think you've done a fine job of handling the disputed facts, which can be rather difficult, but in the conclusion, we really should be stating all sides, and leaving the innocence or guilt up to the reader. I hate to be painful about this, but if I don't pick up on it, someone else will.


 * It's the same again in the intro - he probably was "roguish, handsome and talented", but it's not a neutral statement. Rather, can we show the picture, instead of stating it? Who said he was a ladies man? We could quote them. Instead of saying "talented", why not put this sentence (he was a published poet and a friend of or known to some of the most famous Australian poets of his day; he was also a renowned horseman who had been trained by one of England's best) in the article. It could be good to add which poets, too. It says the same thing, but based on facts rather than conclusions. Ambi 23:39, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

re: comments (2)
Thanks for the excellent feedback/criticism -- I agree with the points made and will revise accordingly.

Major problem is length (it's a boy thing haha). Can we split this into summary style as suggested? I think that's probably the best idea -- I have a great deal more information about the trial especially, which I think needs to be included, but is far too detailed to include in the current article, which is already way over size. Many thanks!

- User:Dunks58


 * What info is it? Perhaps we could put this information into their own articles and wikilink in our main article. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:19, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I think every single one of the sections here could just about sustain a seperate article on them, particularly if Dunks has even more information. The trials would be the easiest to seperate, as they're the most clear-cut. Ambi 07:54, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Agreed - I certainly think the trials can be split off - dunks

FA standard?
This article is pretty fantastic, and very comprehensive. Would anyone be willing to guide it through FAC? I might suggest this at AWNB as potential subject for a "feature article drive" (or "work up" as in the Canberra Project).--cj | talk 15:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Great article
I think this article is well done and on it's way to FA status. --Bad carpet 17:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Reverend Hesse
Numerous references are made to a German missionary, Reverend Predikant C.H.D. Hesse. The Reverend's surname is in fact Heese.


 * I've corrected this in both articles.


 * "...his name was Heese, not Hesse...almost everyone writing officially at the time of his death and the trials which followed made the same error; the result, I imagine, of somebody's poor handwriting in the first instance." Kit Denton from "Closed File"


 * --Currawong 276 17:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Here are two other sources to justify the name correction.


 * "A German missionary, Daniel Heese (sometime referred to as Hesse) came by and saw the bodies. He was soon found killed a short way from the scene of the killing of the prisoners." "Unit 7. Investigating Australia’s involvement in wars 1899-2002." Page 11. Published by the Australian Department of Defence.


 * "Australian nationalism and the lost lessons of the Boer War" By Adam Henry. Published on the Australian War Memorial's website.
 * --Currawong 276 11:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations
Members of the WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 20:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for GA Delisting
This article's GA status has been revoked because it fails criterion 2. b. of 'What is a Good Article?', which states;


 * (b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required (this criterion is disputed by editors on Physics and Mathematics pages who have proposed a subject-specific guideline on citation, as well as some other editors &mdash; see talk page).

LuciferMorgan 08:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Reworked some entries Felt the article was so lacking in citations that myth and fact so interwoven that as a 'new comer' reader I was confused and mislead. Added material with citations, broke out a section on the literature into primary sources and myth making sources. Cited Wilcox's writings. Don't agree with all he wrote, but he is an historian who can't be ignored in the Morant debate. Classified Bleszynski's writing as myth maker, along with Denton and Cutlack - though good works in their own [w]rite they aren't history. Also added more literature into the references. Hope this doesn't offend anyone and also hope it gives a bit of clarity. Tonyob 00:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Famous Last Words
Removed removed wikilink from 'famous last words' because it linked to a totally unrelated article. Martan 04:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

"Closed File" By Kit Denton
Hello Wikipedians! I'm a little concerned about this article, and the related Court Martial article, as it seems to be written without any knowledge of Kit Denton's book "Closed File", which was his non-fiction, historical follow up to "The Breaker".

Also, there is no mention of the alleged confession that George Whitton communicated to James Thomas:

"Morant told me that Handcock had broken down and confessed to everything, including shooting Heese."

Have a look at the following.

I'm pretty new to editing Wikipedia so I wont jump in just yet, but it would be great if those interested (and more experienced) would take these points on board. Thanks. --Currawong 276 16:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in the section "Arrests"
"Curiously, in the cases of Hannam and Hammett, the panel found that there were no charges to answer."

In the preceeding list of the seven men arrested, no "Hammett" was mentioned.

This paragraph directly contradicts itself. In addition the bit about the diary from the Scottish archive should be confirmed and moved to the references section."Poore in fact specifically noted that: '... Most of De Wet's (the Boer commando leader's) men were dressed in our uniform, so Lord K. has issued an order to say that all men caught in our uniform are to be tried on the spot and the sentence confirmed by the commanding officer.' Again Poore did not say this in his diary which is in the Scottish Archive in Edinburgh" --Jarsyl (talk) 08:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

"Execution and aftermath": needs work
This section also needs some attention. There is a somewhat messy block of text which appears to be a direct quote. If so, it should be set off from the surrounding text.

There is an embedded reference "(Cited in his introduction)" that should be verified and moved to the references section.

The last paragraph in this section which begins "Some years ago" appears out of place and needs clarification and/or editing for flow.

--Jarsyl (talk) 09:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Facts of the execution
Nice Article, but I have a problem with the following paragraph dealing with the facts of the execution:

"Shortly after 5am, Lieutenants Harry Morant and Peter Handcock were led out of the fort at Pietersburg to be executed"... "Witton, who was by then at Pretoria railway station, heard the volley of shots that killed his comrades."

Pietersburg is a considerable distance from Pretoria (approx. 250 km). If Morant and Handcock were executed in Pietersburg, it would not have been possible for Witton to hear volley of shots from Pretoria. Morant and Handcock must have been executed in (or near) Pretoria.

Witton's book states "Leaving Pietersburg on the morning of 21st February, we arrived at Pretoria the following day"... "With the exception of Major Lenehan, who was sent on to Capetown, we were driven to the old Pretoria Gaol"... [27th February] "at the Pretoria Railway Station I distinctly heard in the clear morning air the report of the volley of the firing party". Bleszynski's book also states that they were taken to Pretoria several days before the execution, and "were shot on a lonely veldt outside Pretoria at dawn".

I believe the paragraph in the article should be changed to remove the reference to "the fort at Pietersburg", and possibly substituted with "the old Pretoria Gaol".

—Preceding unsigned comment added by MoreCoffee (talk • contribs) 01:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Divergence
Though generally excellent, I think the article wanders away from encyclopedia and into comment when making glib statements about "thousands" of Anzacs being "needlessly slaughtered". Indeed many were lost and the outcome, as with just about any military campaign in history, might have been different if certain decisions had gone the other way. But it should be remembered that for all its Anzac connotations, about 75% of the troops at Gallipoli were British, such a landing on hostile shores had never been attempted on that scale in modern warfare before; and for all the mistakes lessons were learned, and learned relatively quickly - look at how successful the British were on D-Day compared with the Americans.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.144.132.66 (talk) 09:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment
Perhaps Witton would have been acquitted unless he had the following strikes against him:
 * 1) He was a "Colonist" and not a native-born Englishman
 * 2) He was a ranker and not a member of the "Gentry Officer Corps"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.197 (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Murder is murder, whether committed by a colonial or an English/Scottish/Irish soldier. The officer corps was not generally gentry. Morant would have faded into history as one of many murderers who have received their just deserts, if Witton hadn't published his book in an attempt to justify his own ignoble part in this tale.JohnC (talk) 04:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Morant was an officer and generally thought to be English born Hugo999 (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed Morant WAS an officer, as were Hancock and Witton. It's amazing that we can claim that "Australian soldiers were victimised" on the basis of three men out of the tens of thousands of Australians who fought in South Africa! What is more, they were not part of any Australian contingent, but joined the BRITISH ARMY! Morant was a POM anyway, that is fact, not even "generally thought" although there are disputes as to his ancestry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.39.162.130 (talk) 11:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Quality needs improving - multiple references to people that were not introduced/explained earlier in the article (see 'Wilcox', various soldiers). Also a lot of unverified claims, grammatical/spelling errors (e.g. Fort Edwards vs Fort Edward). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.44.172.89 (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

section title on "myth-making" books
I've altered this title as I do believe it is accurate -- while Bleszinski's book may well contribute to Morant's mythical status, it is by no means a novel IMO and presents itself as a non-fiction work.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunks58 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Fiction is not history
In this section I'm deleting "Urban Myth" since nothing in the article mentions anything which meets the normal definition/meaning of Urban Legend.Nitpyck (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The entire article needs to be reorganised. The references to fiction should be separated from the known facts. These are actually very clear. Unfortunately there is a significant element of anti-British historical revisionism at work here. Morant (who was himself British) was a bully and a mass murderer. I am a little surprised that even Australians should have ever wanted to treat him as a victim or hero. He was neither.JohnC (talk) 04:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Fiction is not history
I'm puzzled by this header. It seems un-wikilike and preachy. Is there a NPOV version that could be substituted? DulcetTone (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. While I don't necessarily disagree with the facts of the section, it is written in an extremely POV tone. 145.53.23.37 (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious, original research, not encyclopedic
Why do so many of those commenting on this page fall over themselves to praise the wonders of this article? I think it does not read like a Wikipedia article at all. It reads awfully like "original research". Although there are many references to other authors' works on the subject, the main author of this article is clearly, in my view, juggling them to create a new synthesis all of his own - not merely reporting the facts of who claims what. In fact the main author, whoever he (or she) is, unmasks himself on this comments page, coming out with his true opinions, the ones he cloaks with dubious objectivity in the actual article. (Although I can't understand why the missing transcripts, in the article presumed lost, are here, seemingly, being deliberately concealed by the UK governement). The part where he says how honoured he is by the adulation from other readers shows how far all this strays from Wikipedia-ishness. In short, this is not a good article and needs lots of editing - probably a massive shortening. I think the Australian myth aspect has clouded and confused the issues here. APW (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Reads more like an essay than a wiki article. Well written in its own way but not appropriate in this context.99.240.139.189 (talk) 04:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Much of the article seems to be written by someone "on a mission" to get his side of the case known. There are entire passages that are not referenced and that sound like they could only be taken from the Breaker Morant movie (How exactly does the author claim to know about the conversation about paganism before the execution? That's nonsense. It surely can't be in Witten's book if Witten was already on a train at the time, and I can't think of other sources that would preserve this). There are also sentences that are completely biased. Take this dandy sentence for example: "The mistakes made by many historians over 108 years of debate, is that they have failed to understand that there are serious questions over the legality of the trials and sentences of Lieutenants Morant, Handcock and Witton." It's articles like this that make me question the value of Wikipedia.67.193.201.42 (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * With reference to the above remarks ... 1) my "mission" in editing the bulk of this article several years ago was to add as much information as possible from a variety of sources I then had access to, in the limited time I had available. If bias is evident, I would contend that it reflects the highly partial nature of the sources I had access to (most notably Witton). I exhort others to edit the article to expand and improve it, and to seek out relevant citations and add them, instead of pointlessly bitching about what hasn't been done and what they don't like about this artcle 2) At the time I undertook the bulk of this edit, I was in the fortunate position of having access to a rare print copy of Witton's book, but I was not then fully familiar with the intricaies of in-line references, so yes, I edited the article essentially as an essay, with the intention of returning to it later and adding citations as time permitted. Although I no longer have access to that book, but it is now freely available on Project Gutendberg, so anyone with a few minutes to spare could assist by adding citations for this source. 3) The "pagan" quote comes directly from Witton and I have now added a reference for this. 4) I did not write the rather opinionated sentence quoted above regarding "mistakes by historians" and agree that it is poorly written and does not conform to NPOV. It reads to me like a clumsy re-edit of part of something I wrote much earlier. I might have originally said something to the effect that "if Witton's account is correct, it raises serious questions" etc, but IMO that sentence is a sloppy rewrite by some later editor, so don't blame me. Dunks (talk) 05:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The execution of war is often unfortunately like the execution of war criminals; clouded in myth,obscured by political machinations and motivated by base emotions. The role of soldiers is derided by many, but the biggest injustice must be the perpetuation of lies and untruths about actions in battle or times of war. Is there an independent international body that judges these matters from a neutral point of view? Maybe Wikipedia can save those under the spell of patriotism from their partial blindness.Good luck and best wishes to those who support peace in the search for the facts of war.Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 09:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'm getting sick to death of this "victim" stuff of Morant, and the projection of some post movie view on the past of 100 years ago. From what I've seen there wasn't a huge outcry in Australia, and certainly not a rise in anti-British sentiment, nor was there due to the landings in Gallipoli either - the talk then was about our brave boys consecrating the new nation in blood and all that. If you want to look at resentment about Britain's Imperial position, the conscription debates are better, or the bodyline series! As it was the ALP government lead by an Irish Catholic refused to enact the Statute of Westminster in Australia, so this should give the lie that there was this mass anti-British groundswell at the time. Certainly I doubt the Morant trial would have had much of an effect. Let's look beyond Kit Denton, and that Scots immigrant with an East European name. Firstly, Morant was a "bloody Pom", not even an "Aussie colonial". Secondly, they WERE NOT in any of the Australian contingents, but joined an irregular part of the BRITISH ARMY, called the Bush Velt Carabineers. This “never again” stuff is clearly rubbish. Thousands of Australians joined the British Army (as opposed to the AIF) and some of them WERE shot for desertion etc during World War One, and without apparently any protest from this supposedly “resentful” Australia. The AIF didn’t have the death penalty for desertion, but I doubt there is any evidence that this was due to the Morant trial.

As for Morant and Hancock. I feel sorry for them, but they WERE War Criminals. Morant went on his killing spree because his friend was killed and mutilated, NOT because of some claimed order by Kitchener. It is one thing to claim that Kitchener himself should have been put on trial (perhaps he should have) but another thing entirely that Morant and Hancock should be “pardoned” for their crimes simply because others got away with other dubious actions. Surely it would be better to make a celebrity out of some shell shocked World War One soldier shot for desertion than a pair of vengeful War Criminals, no matter how well made and “realistic” a film is. As I understand it, one of the reasons why those two in particular came to trial was because an Australian journalist heard about the case and wouldn’t let it die until some official action was taken (don’t have the reference to hand) – perhaps an early victim of “trial by media”? I also find it strange that the author complains about the various histories of the War only giving this case a small amount of attention, as if the trial of two lower ranking officers is somehow the most important event in a 3 year war which involved hundreds of thousands of men from across the world and in which tens of thousands died! That is EXTREMELY parochial.

I agree that the article is very NPOV, doesn't acknowledge that they were guilty of serious crimes, even if Kitchener's conduct of the war was brutal in general, quotes from the film as if it were a supportable fact, and makes claims about Australia at the start of the 20th Century which is really just '80's and '90's mythology based on projecting post dismissal attitudes onto the past. This is an interesting topic but this article is in serious need of rework. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.39.162.130 (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Tagged for reasons already given. I would add that some of the "armed commandos" killed by these men were in fact women and children (one of them 6 years old, see "Zombie Myths of Australian Military History"). The article at present doesn't mention this at all. This is a major omission. It seems there may be a WP:COI issue here as some editors appear to be connected with the pardon campaign.Rettens2 (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

there is more than a whiff of biased [and bullshit] in this article,they were a murdering rabble and morant was in charge he got what he deserved,there are good articles on the web about this subject but this isn't one of them,wheather it was policy or not morants own men put him in front of the firing squad and they ADMITTED the murder of the priest according to witton years later,he was also responsible for the deaths of women and children.....there was no pommy biased against an aussie.Bullseye30 (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Alfred Taylor
In section Aftermath I have deleted the phrase that Alfred Taylor inter alia "became a Member of Parliament" as his Wikipedia article does not support his being the member of any legislature, in Britain or otherwise. If he ever was, please let us know the nationality of the legislature.Cloptonson (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

TRIAL OF LIEUTENANTS HH MORANT, PJ HANDCOCK, GR WITTON AND H PICTON
I read in the Morant article that the court papers had gone missing and were never found. Yesterday 6 June 2016 I found the following references after a search on the webpage of the South African National Archives (NAAIRS). This trial and correspondence is indexed on the South African National Archives webpage.. If one can visit the National Archives in Pretoria, South Africa one can request to see the files. It may shed more light on the subject and/or lay to rest many conjectures:

DEPOT    TAB SR/SN    000/00 SOURCE   PMO TYPE     LEER VOLUME_NO 47 SYSTEM   01 REFERENCE PM3198/02 PART     1 DESCRIPTION         TRIAL OF LIEUTENANTS HH MORANT, PJ HANDCOCK, GR WITTON AND H PICTON, ALL MEMBERS OF THE BUSHVELDT CARBINEERS. STARTING 1902 ENDING   1902 _________________________________________________________________________________________ DEPOT    TAB SR/SN    000/00 SOURCE   PMO TYPE     LEER VOLUME_NO 81 SYSTEM   01 REFERENCE MC21/02 PART     1 DESCRIPTION         CORRESPONDENCE RE HESSE MORANT AND HUNDCOCK. STARTING 1902 ENDING   1902. . ____________________________________________________________________________________ DEPOT    TAB SOURCE   CS                                                                    TYPE      LEER VOLUME_NO 58 SYSTEM   01 REFERENCE 203/02 PART     1 DESCRIPTION         TRIAL OF LIEUT. HH MORANT. REQUESTING TO KNOW IF CAPT. PURLAND WILL BE AVAILABLE AND WILLING TO DEFEND ABOVE. STARTING 1902 ENDING   1902 __________________________________________________________________________________________ The archives index also shows that his death notice and will is filed at the National archives in Pretoria. . The images can be downloaded from familysearch.org.. His will was included and in it he leaves his personal possessions to various individuals including one Francis Morant in England.. DEPOT    TAB SOURCE   MHG TYPE     LEER VOLUME_NO 0 SYSTEM   01 REFERENCE 5526 PART     1 DESCRIPTION         MORANT, HARRY HARRORD. STARTING 19040000 ENDING   19040000 MMcCleland (talk) 08:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Influence on Australian military policy?
This article does not address the question, but did the case influence the Australian decision not to carry out the death penalty in the Australian forces in WWI? This appears to have been the impression of one Canadian military historian I have corresponded with, and the case would have been a recent memory in 1914.Cloptonson (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I find it is mentioned in the separate article Court Martial of Breaker Morant, in that reaction to the case caused the Australian government to insist in WWI that British military authorities would not try Australian soldiers, but does not mention avoiding death penalty (which in the event was never carried out on Australians). I will lift this into this article with the citation from book by Jooste and Webster, Innocent Blood (2002). I am conscious of the book's late year of publication and the relative sketchiness in such a detailed article but this can be a nucleus for a more detailed coverage of the case's effect, using earlier published citations where available.Cloptonson (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * " ... caused the Australian government to insist in WWI that British military authorities would not try Australian soldiers ..." - there were no 'Australian soldiers', they were all British subjects and liable under King's Regulations to the same responsibilities and obligation, as well as judicial procedures, as any other British personnel.


 * Australia had no separate citizenship until after WW II.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Breaker Morant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110413183250/http://cas.awm.gov.au/screen_img/A05829 to http://cas.awm.gov.au/screen_img/A05829
 * Added tag to http://www.zoutnet.co.za/details.asp?StoNum=8728

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Enlistment Dates A Total Mess
Over two sections, the article gives three entirely different versions on enlistment into the BVC:

1st account:

Cpt Hunt returns to South Africa to command BVC squadron, convinces Morant to join him. Morant enlists 1 Apr 1901.

[Captain Hunt, who was still "signed on", returned to South Africa to command the B squadron of the Bushveldt Carbineers, whereas Morant (who had intended that his military service end) followed him soon afterward not having found the forgiveness he sought in England. Originally, he returned to South Africa to accept a commission with Baden Powell's Transvaal Constabulary; he was convinced by Hunt to instead accept a commission with the Bushveldt Carbineers (BVC). Lieutenant Morant enlisted as a commissioned officer of the Bushveldt Carbineers (BVC) on 1 April 1901.]

2nd account:

Morant joins BVC after returning from leave. Cpt Hunt joins the BVC *after* him.

[On his return from leave, Morant joined one of these irregular units, the Bushveldt Carbineers, a 320-man regiment that had been formed and commanded during February 1901 by an Australian, Colonel Robert Lenehan. After his friend's example, Captain Hunt joined the BVC soon after.]

3rd account:

Cpt Hunt is ordered to command BVC squadron in July 1901, requests the transfer of his friends including Morant.

[In response, Captain Percy Frederic Hunt, "an Englishman, a former Lieutenant in Kitchener's Fighting Scouts, and a fine horseman" was ordered to the Northern Transvaal and given command of the Bushveldt Carbineers "B Squadron". Before departing Pietersburg on the night of 11 July 1901, Captain Hunt successfully "requested the transfer of certain officers and friends of his" to his new field of command. These men included Lieutenants Morant, Charles Hannam, and Harry Picton.[25]]

Not only is this three different versions of the reason they joined and the order they joined, it's two different dates. The first account has him enlisting in April, the third has Hunt requesting his transfer in July, two months later.

What a total mess.

61.245.132.151 (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)8/July/2019

Breaker Morant is known for one thing
and that is, his war crimes and his controversial convicition in court. There is no dispute that he committed these murders; the dispute is about whether he was singled out for his war crimes and was following orders from above. But neither changes the fact that he was a war criminal. He was also a drover, horseman, poet, military officer, but that's not what he is known for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.204.248.175 (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this to the talk page, but surely there's a noticeable consensus against your edit. See the recent edit summaries, and they all are clearly against calling him a war criminal.  Mainly because the term didn't come in to use till after WW2, but also I believe due to the fact that in guerrilla warfare, these types of killings were common. Morant was singled out for international political reasons.--Dmol (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Morant was 'singled out' because he was unwise and hot-headed enough to do what he did in front of multiple potentially hostile witnesses, some of them civilian, who could not be kept quiet for the purpose of sustaining morale, both at home, and in the field, and who would be delighted to later testify against him in a public court of law. Morant's initial killings may have been in the circumstances understandable and even excusable in the extremes of hot-blooded action, but the subsequent ones were plain murder, and would be easily provable in a court of law.


 * If men from any other British unit had done what Morant did, in the same manner, they would have suffered the same treatment. The Imperial Forces leadership had no choice but to make an example of him. The leadership were well aware of what went on, on both sides, but the public nature of Morant's actions made his offences un-ignorable, no matter how much the leadership understood his actions, even if they didn't actually sympathise with them.


 * Other instances of what Morant did probably did occur on both sides, but they were not done in such a public fashion that they brought The Regiment and Imperial Force in to such public disrepute - this was the age of the war correspondent and national newspapers.


 * If Morant's crimes could have been 'swept under the carpet' - rightly or wrongly - the Imperial leadership would have done so. As it was, Morant's actions caused considerable embarrassment to the leaderships of both the British and Australian forces.


 * The public nature of Morant's actions made it necessary to make an example of him. The Imperial leadership had no other choice.


 * ... and if any of the so-called 'historians' on the matter had done their research properly instead of trying to massage the story for their own agendas and purposes the above 'facts of life' would have been self-evident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.197 (talk) 10:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Lieutenant Morant was convicted of murder. As has been pointed out, the term 'war criminal' is anachronistic, and its use in the context of the  article is unhistorical.  Featuring as it does in the introduction is argumentative and suggests a lack of objectivity.  It would be better to make the point in a section contrasting the sympathy for Morant and Handcock at the time, and subsequently, with the alternative view. JF42 (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The term is not strictly anachronistic, because the Hague Convention of 1899, in force from September 1900, specifically outlawed the killing of enemy combatants who had surrendered. Offences under the Convention would be described as war crimes. The actual charges against Morant were of murder, which is a war crime where it occurs, in war, against the laws of war. You could, perhaps, try to argue that Boer guerrillas at that stage of the war were not legitimate combatants, but Boer troops were mostly irregular militiamen anyway. It would still be a crime to kill them after they gave themselves up. Even if, as is sometimes claimed, Lord Kitchener or any superior officer had given a 'Take no prisoners' order, this would be irrelevant, since Morant did take prisoners and then killed them. Khamba Tendal (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

"Forgiveness" ???
"not having found the forgiveness he sought"

WHAT is this all about ???

Forgiveness for what ? Sought from whom ? RobinClay (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Poor English / Australain - needs re-writing
"some members of the BVC were responsible for shooting Boer POWs"

NEVER use "responsible" when you mean "to blame"

EITHER they shot them or they didn't. They were not "responsible" - unless perhaps they gave the order - but "some members" is too vague for that level of refinement.

RobinClay (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

War crimes
Let's not get too legalistic about referring to what Morant was convicted of (murder on active service) as "war crimes". As Pictet notes in the commentary on the GCs, breaches of the laws and customs of war are commonly referred to as war crimes. The laws and customs of war as they existed at that time (essentially the Geneva Convention of 1864 and Hague Convention of 1899) had been codified to some extent in British military law (the Army Act as amended and the Queen's Regulations – for the administration of discipline), through the creation of the offence of "murder while on active service" (s41 of the Army Act 1881 incorporated the criminal law of England, including what remains the common-law offence of murder). That is what Morant was convicted of. He wasn't convicted of an offence which included the phrase "war crime" (such wording of offences hasn't been around for very long, in Australia it was only codified in the Criminal Code 1995), but he committed breaches of the laws and customs of war, which are commonly known as "war crimes". And there is nothing "alleged" about it. It was a crime and he was convicted of it by a properly constituted British military court. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Number of victims
There has been some edit-warring about the number of Morant's victims between "9" and "13+". I'll summarise who the article says Morant was convicted of murdering here: All up, nine by my count. Morant was acquitted of the murder of Heese (and presumably of his servant, although it seems unlikely the court cared about his fate). It isn't clear in the article whether Morant was convicted of the murders of Roelf van Staden and his sons Roelf and Christiaan. Even if they were included, that adds up to 12. Where does the number 13+ come from? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * First trial
 * 1) Floris Visser
 * Second trial
 * 1) C.P.J. Smit
 * 2) M. Logenaar
 * 3) M. Baaukens
 * 4) W.D. Vahrmeijer
 * 5) G.K. Westerhof
 * 6) B. Wouters
 * 7) J.J. Du Preez
 * 8) Pauskie


 * Morant was responsible for the murders of Floris Visser, Daniel Heese, Roelf van Staden and his sons, Roelf and Christiaan, and the massacre of the 8 unarmed Boer POWs who you've named above.
 * I am sorry for not clarifying that Morant was convicted of murdering the van Staden family.
 * Morant was indeed convicted of murdering the van Staden family. That is stated in the separate article covering his court-martial and comes with a citation.
 * Overall, Morant was convicted of 12 counts of murder and one count of inciting murder. The only charge which he was acquitted of was for the murder of Daniel Heese. However, we know that he was actually guilty of that charge since Handcock confessed to killing him afterwards. I wrote that Morant had "13+ victims" since, as you mentioned, they may have killed Heese's servant. Lightiggy (talk) 04:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Then add the citation to a reliable source for the conviction of the murders of the van Staden's in this article . That would take it to 12. If a reliable source says Handcock confessed to killing Heese he could be added to Handcock's tally, but Morant was acquitted of it, so we can't add Heese to Morant's tally unless at least one reliable source does that. In my view, given he was acquitted of it, we would need more than one reliable source, and preferably at least one high quality source, preferably an academic one. To do so ourselves is original research. In the absence of a reliable source that states that Morant was guilty of killing Heese or inciting his murder, we have a tally of 12 for Morant, assuming the source for Morant being convicted of killing the van Staden's is reliable. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Leach
Isn’t Leach self-published? What are his qualifications? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Vital article?
How on earth is this a vital article? An article about a low-ranking war criminal who was the subject of a very misleading movie. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * TBF, level 5 is the lowest level of vital article, of which there are apparently 50,000. Whether this deserves to be among those 50,000, I won't speculate. I did some fairly cursory checking and couldn't figure out how one gets a vital article delisted, but it might be worth asking the question. DonIago (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Witton is a completely unreliable source
Witton' book fails WP:RS because it is not "independent of the subject". It should not be used for anything in this article. Others can be cited as to its existence and the reception it received. I will be removing all material regarding Witton as a source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)