‘Savage warfare: Violence and the rule of colonial difference in early British counterinsurgency’
Kim A. Wagner
Kim A. Wagner examines the violence inherent in British colonial counterinsurgency during the
height of the Empire
Wagner argues that
● Colonial military doctrine and practices were heavily racialised, influenced by imperial
ideologies and a body of colonial ‘expertise’ that viewed the enemies of the Empire as
inherently different and inferior
● This difference, termed the “rule of colonial difference,” justified the use of extreme violence
and the development of new technologies (eg expanding Dum-Dum bullet) designed to inflict
maximum damage on colonial subjects
1.1 Challenging Conventional Narratives of Restraint and 'Soft Approach'
Wagner challenges conventional narratives that portray British colonial warfare as characterised by
restraint and a ‘soft approach’
● Critiques historians who downplay the brutality of British colonialism by focusing on isolated
‘episodes’ of violence or comparing them to German or Belgian atrocities
● Wagner argues that this selective focus obscures the systemic nature of colonial violence and
perpetuates a myth of British exceptionalism
1.2 C.E. Callwell and the Doctrine of 'Savage Warfare'
C.E. Callwell’s influential 1896 book: “Small Wars: Their Principles and Practice”
→ Illustrate the racialised assumptions underpinning British military thinking
● Callwell’s work is often lauded by military historians as a timeless masterpiece
offering valuable lessons in counterinsurgency
● However, Wagner argues that Callwell’s doctrine of 'savage warfare' was established
on a fundamental distinction between 'civilised' and 'uncivilised' peoples → shaped
both the objectives and the methods of colonial warfare
1.3 Key Tenets of 'Savage Warfare'
‘Savage warfare’ required the regular troops of ‘civilised’ nations to adapt to the methods of their
‘savage’ enemies. This adaptation involved:
● Disregard for conventional rules of war: the absence of formal government institutions among
'uncivilised' peoples justified the use of tactics that would be considered unacceptable in
conflicts between 'civilised' nations (eg practices like cattle lifting, village burning and the
infliction of ‘havoc’) which shocked humanitarians
● The principle of 'overawing' the enemy: Callwell believed that 'uncivilised' people were
driven by emotion and instinct rather than reason, and could only be subdued through
overwhelming force and terror → advocated for a ‘big casualty list’ and the complete
destruction of the enemy, citing the US Army’s campaigns against Native Americans as a
model
, ● Justification of exemplary violence: the principle of ‘overawing’ legitimised the use of
exemplary violence, including massacres, to instil fear and prevent future rebellions
1.4 The Dum-Dum Bullet: Technology and the Racialisation of Violence
Wagner uses the development and deployment of the Dum-Dum bullet to illustrate the
convergence of racist discourse, ballistic technology and medical knowledge in 'savage
warfare'
The Dum-Dum bullet: an expanding bullet designed to inflict massive wounds → developed in
response to concerns that the standard Lee-Metford rifle bullet lacked ‘stopping power’ against
'savages'
● Perceived lack of stopping power was attributed to the supposedly lower nervous sensitivity
of 'uncivilised' people, who were often compared to wild animals
● The Dum-Dum bullet was enthusiastically adopted by the British Army in India and its
devastating effects were widely celebrated in the press
● However, the wounding of Piper Findlater, a British soldier, by a Dum-Dum bullet during the
Tirah Campaign in 1897 exposed the hypocrisy of a weapon designed to be used against
'fanatics' but not against 'civilised' Europeans
1.5 The Hague Convention and the Persistence of Colonial Violence
Despite growing international criticism, Britain refused to sign the 1899 Hague Convention
prohibiting the use of expanding bullets in warfare
→ The British government argued that such bullets were 'indispensable' in colonial campaigns,
highlighting the enduring belief in the need for differentiated levels of violence against
'civilised' and 'uncivilised' enemies
Although Britain eventually abandoned the Dum-Dum bullet in 1902, this was driven by pragmatic
concerns rather than moral considerations
● Wagner argues that the belief in the efficacy and necessity of exemplary force against
anti-colonial movements persisted throughout the twentieth century, manifesting in different
forms and justifications in later colonial conflicts
1.6 Conclusion: Decolonising the History of Colonial Warfare
Wagner emphasises the importance of recognising the systemic nature of colonial violence and the
role of racialised thinking in shaping British military doctrine and practice
● Wagner argues that understanding the 'rule of colonial difference' is essential for decolonising
the history of colonial warfare and challenging narratives of British exceptionalism
● By acknowledging the brutality inherent in 'savage warfare', we can better understand the
lasting legacies of colonial violence and its impact on contemporary society
, Chapter 6, ‘Permanent security in history: Empire and settler colonialism’
Dirk Moses
Moses explores the concept of permanent security in the context of imperial formations, arguing
that they have been the dominant political form for millennia.
Purpose of permanent security practices
1. Ensure lasting dominance and
2. Prevent future threats
Permanent security practices have been integral to the expansion and consolidation of empires
throughout history
2 main types of empires:
1. Empires of exploitation: primarily aim to subjugate existing populations and extract resources
for the benefit of the metropole (eg British in India)
2. Settler colonies: primary objective is to replace indigenous populations with the conquering
race
2.1 Empires of Exploitation: Subjugation, Extraction, and Illiberal Permanent Security
Empires of exploitation (eg the British in India) primarily aim to subjugate existing populations and
extract resources for the benefit of the metropole
This form of imperial rule relies on illiberal permanent security practices, often characterised by:
● Conquest and domination: using military force to establish control over territory and people,
often leading to significant disruption of conquered communities
● Reprisal and revenge killing: violent escalation in response to local resistance, aiming to
stamp out dissent permanently and prevent future uprisings
● Terror as a tool of governance: employing massacres, deportations, and other forms of
violence to instil fear and maintain control over subjugated populations
Examples of illiberal permanent security practices in empires of exploitation:
● Roman empire: the destruction of Carthage and Numantia, motivated by accusations of
treachery and the desire for revenge and permanent security
● William the conqueror: the "Harrying of the North" in England, a scorched-earth campaign
intended to cripple Saxon resistance and prevent future Danish attacks
● Mongol empire: brutal reprisals against populations perceived as disloyal, demonstrating an
extreme form of permanent security logic
2.2 The Transition to Global Capitalism and the Rise of Settler Colonialism
The 19th century witnessed a significant shift from land-based empires focused on tribute and taxation
to European empires driven by global capitalism and centralised military states. This period also
marked the rise of settler colonialism: a distinct form of imperial expansion where the primary
objective is to replace indigenous populations with the conquering race.
, "So-called originary accumulation" (Karl Marx): refers to the violent and unjust way wealth and
resources were taken away from people to kickstart the capitalist system
● Note: while Marx primarily focused on the expropriation of the English peasantry, he
acknowledged the crucial role of imperial violence and plunder in accumulating capital
outside Europe
2.3 Settler Colonialism: Elimination, Expansion, and Liberal Permanent Security
Settler colonialism (eg European settlements in the Americas, Australia, and New Zealand) operates
on a "logic of elimination" aimed at eradicating the indigenous presence to acquire land for settlement
and expansion
Patrick Wolfe defined settler colonialism as a structure rather than an event, driven by the ceaseless
need to secure land for agricultural expansion, leading to the perpetual displacement of indigenous
populations
This form of colonialism relies on liberal permanent security practices, often characterised by:
● Justification of violence: settler violence against indigenous resistance is framed as legitimate
self-defence and necessary for progress and civilisation
● Normalisation of dispossession: the violent expropriation of land and resources is often
downplayed or justified through legal and ideological frameworks
● Expansionist tendencies: the drive for land acquisition fuels continuous expansion and
displacement of indigenous populations
Examples of liberal permanent security practices in settler colonies:
● British colonisation of Ireland: the violent suppression of Irish resistance and the
implementation of policies aimed at eradicating Irish culture and identity
● British colonisation of Australia: the dispossession of Aboriginal land, massacres, and the
establishment of institutions like the Mounted Native Police that enforced the logic of
elimination
● US expansion westward: the displacement and massacre of Native Americans, often justified
as necessary for westward expansion and Manifest Destiny
2.4 The Soviet Union: Paranoia, Preemption, and Permanent Security as State Policy
The Soviet Union under Stalin provides a compelling example of permanent security practices
implemented as state policy, driven by paranoia about internal and external enemies
→ The Soviet leadership, shaped by the experience of the Russian Civil War and a belief in
perpetual conflict with the West, adopted a security paradigm that divided the population into
loyal and dangerous elements
→ resulted in the persecution of "enemy classes" like the kulaks and the deportation of
entire ethnic groups deemed "unreliable"
Kim A. Wagner
Kim A. Wagner examines the violence inherent in British colonial counterinsurgency during the
height of the Empire
Wagner argues that
● Colonial military doctrine and practices were heavily racialised, influenced by imperial
ideologies and a body of colonial ‘expertise’ that viewed the enemies of the Empire as
inherently different and inferior
● This difference, termed the “rule of colonial difference,” justified the use of extreme violence
and the development of new technologies (eg expanding Dum-Dum bullet) designed to inflict
maximum damage on colonial subjects
1.1 Challenging Conventional Narratives of Restraint and 'Soft Approach'
Wagner challenges conventional narratives that portray British colonial warfare as characterised by
restraint and a ‘soft approach’
● Critiques historians who downplay the brutality of British colonialism by focusing on isolated
‘episodes’ of violence or comparing them to German or Belgian atrocities
● Wagner argues that this selective focus obscures the systemic nature of colonial violence and
perpetuates a myth of British exceptionalism
1.2 C.E. Callwell and the Doctrine of 'Savage Warfare'
C.E. Callwell’s influential 1896 book: “Small Wars: Their Principles and Practice”
→ Illustrate the racialised assumptions underpinning British military thinking
● Callwell’s work is often lauded by military historians as a timeless masterpiece
offering valuable lessons in counterinsurgency
● However, Wagner argues that Callwell’s doctrine of 'savage warfare' was established
on a fundamental distinction between 'civilised' and 'uncivilised' peoples → shaped
both the objectives and the methods of colonial warfare
1.3 Key Tenets of 'Savage Warfare'
‘Savage warfare’ required the regular troops of ‘civilised’ nations to adapt to the methods of their
‘savage’ enemies. This adaptation involved:
● Disregard for conventional rules of war: the absence of formal government institutions among
'uncivilised' peoples justified the use of tactics that would be considered unacceptable in
conflicts between 'civilised' nations (eg practices like cattle lifting, village burning and the
infliction of ‘havoc’) which shocked humanitarians
● The principle of 'overawing' the enemy: Callwell believed that 'uncivilised' people were
driven by emotion and instinct rather than reason, and could only be subdued through
overwhelming force and terror → advocated for a ‘big casualty list’ and the complete
destruction of the enemy, citing the US Army’s campaigns against Native Americans as a
model
, ● Justification of exemplary violence: the principle of ‘overawing’ legitimised the use of
exemplary violence, including massacres, to instil fear and prevent future rebellions
1.4 The Dum-Dum Bullet: Technology and the Racialisation of Violence
Wagner uses the development and deployment of the Dum-Dum bullet to illustrate the
convergence of racist discourse, ballistic technology and medical knowledge in 'savage
warfare'
The Dum-Dum bullet: an expanding bullet designed to inflict massive wounds → developed in
response to concerns that the standard Lee-Metford rifle bullet lacked ‘stopping power’ against
'savages'
● Perceived lack of stopping power was attributed to the supposedly lower nervous sensitivity
of 'uncivilised' people, who were often compared to wild animals
● The Dum-Dum bullet was enthusiastically adopted by the British Army in India and its
devastating effects were widely celebrated in the press
● However, the wounding of Piper Findlater, a British soldier, by a Dum-Dum bullet during the
Tirah Campaign in 1897 exposed the hypocrisy of a weapon designed to be used against
'fanatics' but not against 'civilised' Europeans
1.5 The Hague Convention and the Persistence of Colonial Violence
Despite growing international criticism, Britain refused to sign the 1899 Hague Convention
prohibiting the use of expanding bullets in warfare
→ The British government argued that such bullets were 'indispensable' in colonial campaigns,
highlighting the enduring belief in the need for differentiated levels of violence against
'civilised' and 'uncivilised' enemies
Although Britain eventually abandoned the Dum-Dum bullet in 1902, this was driven by pragmatic
concerns rather than moral considerations
● Wagner argues that the belief in the efficacy and necessity of exemplary force against
anti-colonial movements persisted throughout the twentieth century, manifesting in different
forms and justifications in later colonial conflicts
1.6 Conclusion: Decolonising the History of Colonial Warfare
Wagner emphasises the importance of recognising the systemic nature of colonial violence and the
role of racialised thinking in shaping British military doctrine and practice
● Wagner argues that understanding the 'rule of colonial difference' is essential for decolonising
the history of colonial warfare and challenging narratives of British exceptionalism
● By acknowledging the brutality inherent in 'savage warfare', we can better understand the
lasting legacies of colonial violence and its impact on contemporary society
, Chapter 6, ‘Permanent security in history: Empire and settler colonialism’
Dirk Moses
Moses explores the concept of permanent security in the context of imperial formations, arguing
that they have been the dominant political form for millennia.
Purpose of permanent security practices
1. Ensure lasting dominance and
2. Prevent future threats
Permanent security practices have been integral to the expansion and consolidation of empires
throughout history
2 main types of empires:
1. Empires of exploitation: primarily aim to subjugate existing populations and extract resources
for the benefit of the metropole (eg British in India)
2. Settler colonies: primary objective is to replace indigenous populations with the conquering
race
2.1 Empires of Exploitation: Subjugation, Extraction, and Illiberal Permanent Security
Empires of exploitation (eg the British in India) primarily aim to subjugate existing populations and
extract resources for the benefit of the metropole
This form of imperial rule relies on illiberal permanent security practices, often characterised by:
● Conquest and domination: using military force to establish control over territory and people,
often leading to significant disruption of conquered communities
● Reprisal and revenge killing: violent escalation in response to local resistance, aiming to
stamp out dissent permanently and prevent future uprisings
● Terror as a tool of governance: employing massacres, deportations, and other forms of
violence to instil fear and maintain control over subjugated populations
Examples of illiberal permanent security practices in empires of exploitation:
● Roman empire: the destruction of Carthage and Numantia, motivated by accusations of
treachery and the desire for revenge and permanent security
● William the conqueror: the "Harrying of the North" in England, a scorched-earth campaign
intended to cripple Saxon resistance and prevent future Danish attacks
● Mongol empire: brutal reprisals against populations perceived as disloyal, demonstrating an
extreme form of permanent security logic
2.2 The Transition to Global Capitalism and the Rise of Settler Colonialism
The 19th century witnessed a significant shift from land-based empires focused on tribute and taxation
to European empires driven by global capitalism and centralised military states. This period also
marked the rise of settler colonialism: a distinct form of imperial expansion where the primary
objective is to replace indigenous populations with the conquering race.
, "So-called originary accumulation" (Karl Marx): refers to the violent and unjust way wealth and
resources were taken away from people to kickstart the capitalist system
● Note: while Marx primarily focused on the expropriation of the English peasantry, he
acknowledged the crucial role of imperial violence and plunder in accumulating capital
outside Europe
2.3 Settler Colonialism: Elimination, Expansion, and Liberal Permanent Security
Settler colonialism (eg European settlements in the Americas, Australia, and New Zealand) operates
on a "logic of elimination" aimed at eradicating the indigenous presence to acquire land for settlement
and expansion
Patrick Wolfe defined settler colonialism as a structure rather than an event, driven by the ceaseless
need to secure land for agricultural expansion, leading to the perpetual displacement of indigenous
populations
This form of colonialism relies on liberal permanent security practices, often characterised by:
● Justification of violence: settler violence against indigenous resistance is framed as legitimate
self-defence and necessary for progress and civilisation
● Normalisation of dispossession: the violent expropriation of land and resources is often
downplayed or justified through legal and ideological frameworks
● Expansionist tendencies: the drive for land acquisition fuels continuous expansion and
displacement of indigenous populations
Examples of liberal permanent security practices in settler colonies:
● British colonisation of Ireland: the violent suppression of Irish resistance and the
implementation of policies aimed at eradicating Irish culture and identity
● British colonisation of Australia: the dispossession of Aboriginal land, massacres, and the
establishment of institutions like the Mounted Native Police that enforced the logic of
elimination
● US expansion westward: the displacement and massacre of Native Americans, often justified
as necessary for westward expansion and Manifest Destiny
2.4 The Soviet Union: Paranoia, Preemption, and Permanent Security as State Policy
The Soviet Union under Stalin provides a compelling example of permanent security practices
implemented as state policy, driven by paranoia about internal and external enemies
→ The Soviet leadership, shaped by the experience of the Russian Civil War and a belief in
perpetual conflict with the West, adopted a security paradigm that divided the population into
loyal and dangerous elements
→ resulted in the persecution of "enemy classes" like the kulaks and the deportation of
entire ethnic groups deemed "unreliable"
