A friend, Peter Thomas, who served in Vietnam at the same time as the blog, decided to ask his AI friend what it thought about the Frontier Wars. After some input from him he got the following answer. On checking AI got one or two things wrong, but the exercise is interesting, nevertheless.  

The most significant result is that, if  you rely on official Australian history sources, there is a strong argument that many of the conflicts between British settlers (and colonial authorities) and Aboriginal peoples meet accepted historical definitions of war, even though they were not formally declared wars by governments at the time.

Argument: The conflicts should be regarded as war

The strongest official argument can be constructed as follows:

1. The conflict was organised and sustained.
   Aboriginal nations mounted organised resistance to the expansion of British settlement over more than a century (from 1788 into the early twentieth century in some regions). Colonial governments responded with military expeditions, armed police, and settler militias. This was not a series of isolated crimes or riots but an extended campaign over territory.
2. The objective was control of territory.
   Modern military historians generally define war as organised armed violence between political groups for political objectives. The Australian War Memorial now notes that warfare followed colonisation as Indigenous peoples defended their traditional lands against colonial expansion.
3. Both sides employed military tactics.
   Aboriginal groups conducted ambushes, raids, strategic withdrawals, and coordinated attacks using detailed knowledge of terrain. Colonial forces replied with punitive expeditions, armed patrols, and military operations. These characteristics resemble irregular or guerrilla warfare rather than conventional European battlefield warfare.
4. Modern Australian military historians increasingly classify the conflict as warfare.
   The Australian War Memorial states that Australian military historians have used the term “Frontier Wars” for decades and that, for at least the past 25 years, Australian historians have largely agreed that these conflicts constituted warfare.

Official Australian War Memorial position

The Australian War Memorial’s position has evolved.

A 2014 statement explained that, although the frontier conflicts were a tragic part of Australian history, the Memorial’s charter focused on commemorating members of Australia’s military forces and therefore did not interpret its role as telling that story.

More recently, however, the Memorial has published historical material acknowledging:

“Today there is wide acceptance that conflict and violence between settlers and Indigenous Australians should be considered war.”

It further notes that historical scholarship supports describing these conflicts as the Frontier Wars.

This reflects a significant shift in official historical interpretation, even though the Memorial’s commemorative role remains governed by its legislative purpose.

Why were they not called “wars” at the time?

Several reasons explain this:

• Britain never issued a formal declaration of war against Aboriginal peoples.
• Colonial governments generally regarded Aboriginal resistance as a policing or security problem rather than warfare.
• Much of the fighting involved local settlers, mounted police, and colonial troops rather than large conventional armies.
• Nineteenth-century legal and political attitudes often denied Aboriginal societies recognition as sovereign nations.

These factors affected terminology rather than the actual nature of the fighting.

Counter-argument

Some historians and commentators argue these conflicts should not be classified as war because:

• there was no declared war;
• there was no recognised sovereign state opposing Britain;
• many encounters were localised rather than centrally directed;
• violence varied considerably between regions.

This argument influenced the Australian War Memorial’s earlier approach.

Overall assessment

Using current official Australian War Memorial historical material, the balance of evidence supports describing these conflicts as the Australian Frontier Wars. While they differed from conventional interstate wars, they possessed the essential characteristics of prolonged organised armed conflict over land, sovereignty and political control. The principal debate today is less about whether sustained warfare occurred and more about how it should be commemorated and interpreted within Australia’s national institutions.

If you are preparing a formal submission or historical paper, I can also provide:

• a legal argument based on international definitions of war (Hague and Geneva traditions),
• the views of leading Australian military historians such as John Connor, David Horner and Jeffrey Grey, and
• a comparison with conflicts such as the New Zealand Wars and the Anglo-Zulu War, which help explain why many historians classify the Australian frontier conflicts as wars.

Using text, provide material expanding the above three dot paras.

Certainly. The following expands each of the three areas in a style suitable for a historical paper or formal submission.

1. Legal Argument Based on International Definitions of War

While no formal declaration of war was ever issued between the British Crown and Australia’s Aboriginal peoples, modern legal and historical analysis recognises that a declaration is not a prerequisite for the existence of war. Contemporary international law defines armed conflict according to the nature and intensity of the hostilities, rather than the terminology employed by governments.

The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, and later the Geneva Conventions of 1949, shifted emphasis from formal declarations to the factual existence of organised armed conflict. Modern international humanitarian law similarly recognises both international and non-international armed conflicts where organised groups engage in sustained hostilities for political or territorial objectives.

Applying these principles retrospectively, many historians argue that the Australian frontier conflicts possessed the essential characteristics of warfare. Aboriginal groups organised resistance to defend their lands, communities and resources. Colonial governments responded with military detachments, mounted police, punitive expeditions and armed settlers acting under governmental authority or sanction. The objectives on both sides extended well beyond isolated criminal acts, involving the defence or acquisition of territory and the assertion of political control.

Accordingly, although the conflicts were not recognised as “wars” by nineteenth-century colonial administrations, they satisfy many of the characteristics now used by military historians and legal scholars to identify armed conflict.

2. Views of Leading Australian Military Historians

Over the past several decades, a broad body of Australian scholarship has increasingly characterised the frontier conflicts as warfare rather than sporadic frontier violence.

Military historian John Connor, author of The Australian Frontier Wars, 1788–1838, argues that Aboriginal resistance demonstrated many of the features associated with irregular warfare. He describes organised campaigns, strategic planning, ambushes, intelligence gathering and coordinated attacks directed against settlers and colonial forces.

Professor David Horner, the Official Historian of Australian peacekeeping and military operations and a former Head of the Australian Defence Force Academy, has acknowledged that military historians have long regarded the frontier conflicts as an important chapter in Australia’s military history. While recognising that they differed from conventional European warfare, he notes that they involved organised armed resistance and military responses extending over many decades.

Similarly, the late Professor Jeffrey Grey, one of Australia’s most respected military historians, accepted that the frontier conflicts formed part of Australia’s military past and should be studied within the broader history of warfare. He observed that the absence of formal declarations or conventional battlefields does not prevent historians from recognising sustained organised violence as war.

Collectively, these historians demonstrate that the concept of the Australian Frontier Wars is well established within Australian military scholarship and is no longer confined to social or Indigenous history alone.

3. Comparison with Other Colonial Wars

Comparison with other conflicts fought by the British Empire illustrates why many historians classify Australia’s frontier conflicts as wars.

The New Zealand Wars (1845–1872) are universally recognised as wars despite involving dispersed engagements, guerrilla tactics and irregular forces. Māori tribes defended their territories against British expansion through organised military resistance, while British regular troops, colonial militia and volunteer forces conducted sustained campaigns. The absence of continuous large-scale battles did not diminish the conflicts’ status as wars.

Likewise, the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879 involved conflict between British imperial forces and an Indigenous African kingdom. Although the Zulu military organisation was very different from that of European armies, historians universally recognise the campaign as a war because it involved organised political communities fighting for sovereignty and territorial control.

Australia’s frontier conflicts share many of these characteristics. Aboriginal peoples fought to defend traditional lands and maintain their political and cultural independence. Colonial governments committed military units, mounted police and armed settlers to secure territory for expanding settlement. The campaigns varied greatly in scale across the continent, but collectively they extended for more than a century and resulted in thousands of casualties.

For these reasons, many contemporary historians argue that the Australian Frontier Wars are more appropriately compared with other recognised colonial wars than with isolated criminal disturbances or local policing actions. The principal distinction lies not in the character of the fighting, but in the historical language used by colonial governments and later Australian institutions.

Note: Professor David Horner was not a former head of ADFA as AI said but he did work with it. Any other corrections are welcome.