Page:American Historical Review, Volume 12.djvu/322

312 A British Officer Kitchener, White, Buller, Warren, Methuen, Gatacre, French, Hunter, Ian Hamilton, Colvile, Kekewich, Baden-Powell, and many others state in turn his version of the part he played in the war, and of the motives by which he was guided. The gaps are filled in by the evidence of staff and departmental officers. The characteristics, the weakness, and the strength of the troops which fought in South Africa, and of the machinery for their administration are set forth in full, and commented upon by both professional and amateur ob- servers. No government and no army administration have per- haps ever before placed their cards on the table after this fashion on the conclusion of a war. Unfortunately this very frankness de- feated the object aimed at, the institution of a sound system of army reform. The Report was published in the holiday season, and created a momentary sensation, but the evidence was too vol- uminous. Not one man in a thousand, possibly not one man in a million of the population of the United Kingdom has ever studied carefully these unique volumes of the testimony of men who have seen the truth and know it. The newspaper summaries of the Report were alone scanned by the general public, and with such unappreciative carelessness that the nation a few months later allowed itself to be lulled to sleep again by another report, that of the Esher Committee. Whether army reformers will ever now digest the evidence given before the War Commission seems doubtful, but for the historian at any rate there are few documents which will repay more fully exhaustive study. A good regimental history with a clear account of the part played by an individual unit in a campaign, its marches, formations, and triumphs is a real treasure-trove to the writer of military his- tory. Unfortunately the South African campaign has failed to produce the abundant crop of such works that might have been expected. With some exceptions, such as the Guards, the Innis- killing Dragoons, the Royal Scots, the Yorkshire Regiment, the Rifle Brigade, the Essex, and the Connaught Rangers, regimental achievements remain unrecorded, or, if written, have not been pub- lished. The omission is surprising, for in no other army is regi- mental esprit de corps more cherished and regimental distinctions more tenaciously maintained than in the British service. The ex- planations of this neglect would seem to be that the value of his- torical records was not appreciated by regimental officers before the war, and, except as a disagreeable form of mental torture invented for examination purposes, the study of military liistorv was rarely