Thesis--Freiburg im Breisgau. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 450-470).

This dissertation traces the complex ways in which non-European military cultures - often designated as 'savage' - and the expeditions undertaken against them - regularly conceptualised as 'savage warfare' - were understood in the Victorian imagination. It addresses how these understandings shifted across time in relation to developments such as imperial expansion; cultural and intellectual shifts including the rise of evolutionary theory; and the practical issues that emerged in response to the undertaking of wars where such opponents were met on the field of battle. It is distinctive in working at the intersection of nineteenth-century intellectual, cultural, imperial and military history, and utilises a wide range of sources. The nineteenth century was a unique period during which this eclectic and differentiated debate - which both explored and contributed to the construction of ideas on 'savagery' - arose due to the proliferation of cross-cultural knowledge and the development of periodical culture. As members of the armed forces were on the front-line of cross-cultural interactions, the military context shines a light on the richness of this discourse and helps to frame a complex debate about the boundaries between 'civilisation' and 'savagery'. While understandings of 'savagery' that embodied assumptions of ruthlessness, bloodthirstiness, and a lack of moral understanding can be traced in British perceptions of 'savage' warriors during this period, this dissertation argues that the designation of a warrior culture as 'savage' was not uncontested, nor did it preclude the admission of 'civilised' characteristics, or criticisms with regard to British conduct in 'savage' wars. By uncovering the competing discourses on how 'savage' warriors were perceived during this period, this dissertation reinforces critiques of the 'cultural determinist' notion that military cultures are fixed; emphasises the lack of coherence with regard to British perceptions of 'savage' warriors, thus contributing to scholarship that has identified the inconsistent nature of 'orientalism'; and challenges conventional periodisation of the development of colonial racism and anti-humanitarianism during the nineteenth century.

This thesis deals with the political, military and social aspects of the volunteer movement in Great Britain during the wars against revolutionary and Napoleonic France. It explores the nature and purpose of the volunteer infantry, yeomanry cavalry, and armed associations: their organisation, administration, membership, and political adherences. Several questions concerning the political nature of volunteering are addressed, and it is shown that both the volunteers' motivation and the government's reasons for raising a voluntary force were more closely related to military than to political considerations. The occupational structure and political allegiances of several corps are analysed, revealing a broad range of political allegiance. The conclusion is drawn that the volunteers were more a 'constitutional' force than a partisan one. This thesis also investigates the ways in which the volunteer movement posed a challenge to the established social and political order, particularly in its autonomy and 'democratic' organisation. The central government and local authorities were, however, well aware of the potential threat, and precautions were taken against its development. The workings of the volunteer 'system' are explored in order to judge the validity of contemporary criticism of volunteer autonomy, and it is concluded that fears of apparently democratic organisation were exaggerated. The question of volunteer loyalty is investigated by examining the means of selection, individuals' motives, and the response of corps to peace-keeping duties. Finally, an assessment of the position of the movement in contemporary society shows it to have been closely related to the ambivalent concept of the 'citizen-soldier'. Extensive use is made of manuscript sources, particularly the papers of the Home and War Offices held in the Public Record Office, and official and private correspondence in the British Library and several county record offices.

The Indian wars of early New England were traumatic events. During King Philip's, King William's, and Queen Anne's Wars (1675 to 1715) dozens of towns sustained attacks, and English communities and their inhabitants were buffeted and challenged by the experience. The scholarship on colonial warfare and New England as a whole has focused on change and development that occurred as a result of these wars. War places great stress on individuals and societies, forcing them to act in new ways and often to reevaluate and abandon old habits. New Englanders and their communities did change dramatically as a result of repeated wars with the region's natives and their French allies. Yet New Englanders were also resistant to change, and this persistence of core culture ideals is often as historians analyze the transformation of New England from colonies to provinces.;Beyond the extensive physical damage, the conflicts challenged the identities and values of English colonists in myriad ways. In the midst of battle, many men failed to live up to the expectations of their gender, while some women stepped beyond theirs to act in a manly fashion. Despite the troubling behavior of cowardly men and manly women, gender norms and roles in New England did not change under the pressures of Indian wars, in part due to the uncoordinated management by ecclesiastical and political leaders of the narratives of the conflicts. Alternately chastising and praising their constituents, leaders offered examples of "proper" behavior, reasserted control over "amazons" and "viragos," and created larger-than-life heroes.;Indian raids forced hundreds of English settlers from their homes, putting great stress on towns and colonies and creating the dilemma of either aiding refugees (and abandoning the traditional insular nature of towns) or excluding and expelling them (failing John Winthrop's exhortation to bind together). Historians argue that traditional aid through family and towns was incapable of meeting the demand. Instead, New England's governments responded by relieving towns of this responsibility. However, this aid was actually limited and narrowly directed. Towns remained exclusive, gathering in those they were obliged to aid through familial or proprietary connections and allowing outsiders to remain only conditionally. Following the natural hierarchy of their community, refugees sought to support themselves before turning to family and friends, and sought town and colony aid only when traditional sources were exhausted.;Finally, in the midst of Indian wars, New Englanders often had to "dispose of" captured Indians. Having suffered grievously in the wars, New Englanders might have abandoned the law (albeit English law for Englishmen) and exacted revenge. Many prisoners suffered vigilante justice, and others faced servitude or public execution after a formal trial. New Englanders are rightly criticized for their actions, but while the colonists' treatment of prisoners was "uncivil" by modern standards, when viewed through the context of the time, New England's leaders tempered the "rage of the people," and the colonies remained within bounds of tradition and law.;New Englanders resisted changes to the core cultural ideas and institutions of patriarchy, localized community, and morality based in English law. Though these notions of gender, community, and morality were battered by war, they survived and remained central to New England identity.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.