The Sydney Wars

by Stephen Gapps

The Sydney Wars tells the history of military engagements between Europeans and Aboriginal Australians – described as ‘this constant sort of war’ by one early colonist – around the greater Sydney region.

Telling the story of the first years of colonial Sydney in a new and original way, this provocative book is the first detailed account of the warfare that occurred across the Sydney region from the arrival of a British expedition in 1788 to the last recorded conflict in the area in 1817. The Sydney Wars sheds new light on how British and Aboriginal forces developed military tactics and how the violence played out.

Analysing the paramilitary roles of settlers and convicts and the militia defensive systems that were deployed, it shows that white settlers lived in fear, while Indigenous people fought back as their land and resources were taken away. Stephen Gapps details the violent conflict that formed part of a long period of colonial strategic efforts to secure the Sydney basin and, in time, the rest of the continent.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Australia, Historical, War

319 pages, Paperback

First published April 28, 2018

Reviews

[hayls 🐴 · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not many histories of colonial Australia go into the military history of the early colony. Resistance and guerriella warfare by First Nations people in Australia and other colonised countries, is generally not regarding as military history and therefore not seen as “warfare” at all. This leaves gaping holes in the histories of colonialism and does a disservice to histories of both the coloniser and colonised, especially the innocent lives lost on both sides.
It was quite strange to read a history of the areas I grew up in and know intimately - especially when the history has been to some extent deliberately hidden because it is undesirable and violent. Knowing that massacres and battles have been fought on land you were born on does change your relationship with it, ultimately for the better I think. I feel like I know the land of the Sydney basin much deeper now.

[Tim O'Neill · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a remarkable and painstakingly detailed military history of the conflict between Aboriginal Australians and Europeans in the Sydney basin between the first settlement in 1788 until 1817, when the conflict moved beyond the Blue Mountains. The methodical way Stephen Gapps works his way through the mass of evidence to create not just a narrative of the various clashes, murders, battles and massacres, but one that illuminates the patterns and changes in this evolving guerilla war is impressive. Gapps highlights elements that other histories have ignored or neglected, such as the highly militarised nature of the colony in its early years or the way seemingly unconnected Aboriginal attacks and plundering raids are actually evidence of highly effective tactics.

The fact that Gapps knows the area well and has a good understanding of the military context of the British forces and their tactics and equipment means that his analysis has a few wry asides. As a reenactor, for example, Gapps knows that other historians have seriously under-estimated how many shots per minute a trained soldier could fire with a flintlock. At another point he is able to note the more fanciful accounts of the Appin massacre of April 1816, which refer to Aborigines leaping over non-existent sheer cliffs imagined "from the comfort of [the historians'] libraries".

Gapps' conclusions pave the way for further future reassessment of the conflict in this period as a connected series of military actions and reactions and his final catalogue of the (recorded) casualties, black and white, by name, place and date, will be a useful resource. This is also a book that will make any Sydneysider look at the city, harbour and bush land around them with new eyes.

[Ali · Rating 2 out of 5]

There are genres that I love, and those I like, and those I can live with and then there is military history.
Look, I *should* love the fact that the war to colonise Australia has reached such recognition that we have military history take on the thing, and maybe if I had left it there I would have felt quietly happy about it. But no - I had to go and read it.
Gapps has an axe - or a musket - to grind in this book, which is basically that cultural (i.e. nonmilitary) historians have failed to understand the dynamics of invasion in the early colony because they haven't focused on the military tactics lens. He is not shy to name those historians in scathing contexts and probably the fact that both Grace Karskens and Inga Clendinnen are women added to my rising ire with his dismissive approach. And that Clendinnen changed Australian history fundamentally in her groundbreaking study - completely unacknowledged by Gapp. But mostly, tbh, it is because it reminded me of the 18-year-old first-year undergrad who once tried to tell me I had no idea about the Peloponnesian war because I didn't understand how spears worked. (To clarify - he did not check if I understood how spears work before making this assertion).
So for example, Gapps takes issue with Clendinnen's theory that Governor Philip's spearing was prearranged. Clendinnen, whose book is excellent by the way, carefully posits this theory based on an understanding of punishment practices among the Eora at the time. It is a controversial view, and at odds with the interpretations of the colonials at the time. It is not outrageous to suggest an alternate explanation. But in doing so, Gapps does not respond at all the work in cultural practice elaborated by Clendinnen, and instead simply asserts that she doesn't understand the dynamics of spear warfare, under which a nervous young man is quite likely to throw too soon - "Historians such as Inga Clendinnen and Grace Karskens suggest that ‘the true purpose of the meeting’ was ‘ritual punishment’. This misunderstands musket firing, spear throwing and other military tactics and actions."
Throughout the book, Gapps relies on an analysis of traditional conflict statistics - the number of deaths, the decisions to bring troops in, written requests for military supplies - to draw a history of what was going on. He pays little attention to non-military discussion or evidence - what was the social interactions between - well, anyone at all; what was going on economically, what were the political relations in either the Eora and surrounds or between the colony and Britain doing.
Unsurprisingly, his conclusions are not so much wrong as underwhelming. There was, he explains triumphantly, a war. This involved sophisticated tactics on both sides. I'm not sure that this is news to cultural historians, who have been arguing for this view for some time (albeit with less hyperbole). This tone of "I found something" already well understood is present in much of the book, including in his discussion of the implications of the 1789 smallpox plague.
He does also claim that historians have "ignored the fundamentally militarised nature of both colonial and Aboriginal societies." But I'll honestly say I'm not sure he made the case for the latter at all - I mean other than that they were capable of fighting - and in the former there is little discussion of the complex dynamic between governor and military, even though the rum dispute arguably indicated some of the rifts there were of enormous significance, and power was balanced between military and civil concerns.
What there is little discussion about *why* there was a war. I'm not of a view that this question requires a particularly ambiguous answer - there was a war because resources and land were being taken - but it is still surely the question that is most relevant. Weapons, in the end, don't fire themselves. People fight, and it is the why, not how, that I get excited about.
But then, this is why military history is not my thing. If it is yours - well you still have to get past the obnoxiousness. If military history is your thing, and you don't mind a bit of obnoxious narrator, you may well enjoy this book. I did not.

[Michael Lever · Rating 4 out of 5]

Certainly well researched from a documentary perspective, this book makes the case that colonial attitudes to warfare precluded attribution of this status to Aboriginal resistance to White invasion. And, that the nature of Aboriginal resistance was such that certainly warrants depiction as organised warfare. The problem with this argument however, is in its very strength. Gapps is totally reliant on white, written sources. He is adept at reading meaning into often dry governmental dispatches. Nevertheless, even if it is the case, that the colony did or should have perceived Aboriginal resistance as orchestrated warfare - there is simply no evidence to corroborate that Aboriginal people themselves saw their efforts as "War", or even that they possessed concepts of what Gapps refers to as warfare. Gapps makes no attempt to draw on ethnographic or anthropological evidence regarding Aboriginal conceptualisations of conflict. Or more importantly, local Aboriginal oral histories. It is sad then, but not unfeasible to say, that Gapps work is itself colonialist, in seeking to bestow upon Aboriginal people, a status deemed substantial by white society (wagers of war), but which may not have existed at all in Aboriginal worldviews of the time.

[Dulcie · Rating 2 out of 5]

From the starting point of such a fascinating subject, Gapps quickly lost me with his arrogance and oft repeated claim that everyone before him was a dill who had mis-interpreted the primary sources.
Tiresome.

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

In my mind this book seemed to be a very well researched book about the early days of settlement in the Sydney basin. Mr Gapps argues that from the beginning, the local Aboriginal peoples were making it clear that the English settlers were not welcome. While English histories mostly refer to this period as having harassment, theft and murder from the local Aboriginal people, Mr Gapp argues that in actuality it was a guerrilla campaign of war that last 30 years, with a slight lull when small pox took hold of the native people decimating their population. There is a well reasoned argument of a development of guerrilla tactics developed by Aboriginals to counteract the superior fire power of the English military patrols, winning quite a few skirmishes. Even as planning was in effect for the First Fleet One, there was discussion in the British ministries of planning for a protracted war, and in fact declared that"much attention to the military duties of your profession as could be needed in time of war." One of the first requests of the Governor Phillip after landing back to the home land was for more military personnel. There is also quite a bit of detail in how successive governors tried to mitigate conflict, by attempting to bring Aboriginals into the settlement and put to work and proclaiming punishments to be meted out for crimes against Aboriginal people. At time in negotiating with various tribal elders, it was clearly stated and noted in the English records that the settlers were not wanted - not just in Sydney or on the surrounding farms, or anywhere - they wanted the English gone. And so the war continued. An excellent read.

[Sally O'wheel · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book meticulously details the war between the British and the Australians in the years between Phillip and Macquarie. This book makes it clear that there was continuous war, both sides fairly evenly matched. Many died on both sides. The Aborigines fought ferociously for their land and used a variety of tactics. In some ways it made me more sympathetic to my ancestors. Once they had made the decision to invade the country, there was no other way out than war. That was the initial mistake. The people who made that decision, safely staying in London, should be the ones who are accountable for the tragedy that followed. The English labourers, soldiers, sailors and convicts who found themselves here, hoping for a better life, trying to farm the land on the Hawkesbury fought back and who are we to judge them? Likewise, the Aborigines had every right to defend their land. These people were all caught in an impossible situation, as were the Governors. It is the whole colonial project which was at fault.

Great book, quite hard to read but so well documented and important to know.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was generally a fascinating book that explored the wars between the Europeans and Indigenous peoples in Sydney between 1788-1817. A unique feature of ‘Sydney Wars’ is that it is a military history and instead of portraying Indigenous peoples as passive victims, Gapps describes how they fought, used violence and military tactics to defend their lands and fight off the invaders. Importantly, ‘Sydney Wars’ really demonstrates that Sydney and its surrounds (as well as all Australia) is a haunted landscape that saw violence and bloodshed on both sides.

However, I would have liked a more detailed look at indigenous life in Sydney prior to 1788 and at Indigenous weaponry and warfare in particular. Gapps also seems to have a habit of referring to “some historians” or “other historians” without actually referencing which historians he is actually talking about.

This is a great book that provides a unique look at Sydney’s Indigenous history that I would recommend to those interested in Australian military history and indigenous history in general.

[Lee McKerracher · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a book I would highly recommend to everyone and one that I would love to see on the high school curriculum.

It gives a comprehensive and well researched account of the wars in Sydney from 1788 to 1817. Throughout the book, Stephen Gapps was careful to note the sources of his information and where those sources were in agreement and when they contradicted.

It is clear that First Nations Peoples fought back following the invasion. This is also a complex history that included escaped convicts teaming up with local indigenous groups, collaboration and cooperation between indigenous groups and the British. But also recognising how the invasion was viewed by those original inhabitants and how justifiably they fought to retain their lands.

This is a brutal and violent part of our history and one that needs to be recognised.

[Greg · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book. A real eye-opener. Details all conflicts between white settlers and aborigines up to 1817 in the early colony of Sydney including important outposts such as Parramatta and Windsor. This history is quite different from other histories of the period in that it does not neglect the military aspects of the period both on the British side and the aboriginal side.

The seller society was dominated by the military. All major settlements and many minor settlements had British soldiers stationed in them. Many settlers were organised by the military into a citizens militia who were often called out in emergencies. The aboriginal warriors too were capable of military organisation. They were often conducting a guerrilla war with quite sophisticated military tactics.

[Kerrie A · Rating 5 out of 5]

I had recently read Eric Willmot's historical novel Pemulwuy the Rainbow Warrior, which doesn't have a huge bibliography/references list. Consequently, as a descendant of early NSW Colonists, I wanted to read a well researched non fiction resource book covering the Frontier Conflicts of that era - Stephen Gapp's Sydney Wars is that book. Some have criticised his writing style - yet I found it quite an easy, if at times uncomfortable, read.

What is helpful for my journey of discovery, and in my personal research, is how Stephen Gapps has covered the intentions, actions, impacts and casualties of BOTH sides, and with a solid body of references/resources.

[Jonathan Moore · Rating 5 out of 5]

Awesome- answers a lot of questions about early settlement and impact of indigenous tribes. Quite amazing that the aboriginals managed to mount a resistance so soon after smallpox swept through their population.

[Matthew Hickey · Rating 4 out of 5]

An impressively researched and readable history of conflict in early colonial times in and around Sydney.

[Stephen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Whilst I found the writing a little stilted it's a story that needs to be told. I am very glad I persevered.