machine gun — the Dutch term for a machine gun — was the principal automatic weapon of the Dutch colonial army in the Atjeh-oorlog, deployed in fixed positions at the outposts and in mobile columns. Kruisheer’s ATJEH ‘96 records mitrailleurs at Lamsoet (one on field-carriage, one on breastwork-carriage), at where it was twice made unserviceable and twice repaired under fire by Sgt. son, and in the field columns of the spring 1896 counter-offensives. The mitrailleur’s loss on 17 April 1896 during the disastrous battle of Senelop — together with the loss of a 7 cm L.A. kanon — was one of the most serious Dutch matériel losses of the period: the captured mitrailleur was subsequently brought by Panglima Polim to Senelop and used against the Dutch.
Etymology and Meaning
The word mitrailleur is French, derived from small shot, grapeshot, and originally denoted a multi-barrel volley gun of the mid-nineteenth century (the mitrailleuse of the Franco-Prussian War, 1870–71). By the 1890s the Dutch colonial army’s mitrailleur was a true machine gun — likely the Maxim or a similar automatic weapon — mounted either on a field carriage for mobile use or on a breastwork carriage for fixed defence. The chest with barrels was a key component: the loss of this chest at Senelop on 17 April 1896 effectively destroyed the weapon’s utility. The Dutch term was widely used in the Nederlandsch-Indië army alongside the more specific gun-type names.
Historical Context
In the first semester of 1896 the mitrailleur was a critical force-multiplier for small Dutch garrisons exposed to Achehnese attack. At Lamsoet the deployment of two mitrailleurs (one on field-carriage, one on breastwork-carriage) reflected the post’s strategic importance and its vulnerability to assault. At blokhuis Aloer Oe the mitrailleur was the garrison’s principal defensive weapon during the siege of 28 March–29 March 1896; it was twice made unserviceable by enemy fire and twice repaired by No. 40248 of the artillery — an act for which son received formal recognition. The battle of Senelop of 17 April 1896 saw the catastrophic loss of the field-carriage mitrailleur’s kast met loopen — the chest with barrels — together with a 7 cm L.A. kanon and a 12 cm mortier, when a Dutch column under Van Heutsz was driven back in retreat. The captured mitrailleur was reportedly set up at the Oelee Nehen versterking and brought by Panglima Polim to Senelop; it was searched for in vain on 2 May 1896.
Examples in the Source
Kruisheer’s principal mitrailleur references include: the mitrailleur at Lamsoet — one on field-carriage, one on breastwork-carriage. The mitrailleur at blokhuis Aloer Oe — twice made unserviceable and twice repaired by Sgt. son during the siege of 28–29 March 1896. The mitrailleur lost at Senelop on 17 April 1896 — the chest with barrels lost in Van Heutsz’s disastrous retreat. The captured mitrailleur — reportedly set up at the Oelee Nehen versterking and brought by Panglima Polim to Senelop; searched for in vain on 2 May 1896. The mitrailleur appears repeatedly in the ammunition-expenditure reports of the spring 1896 operations. The combination of mitrailleur and 7 cm L.A. kanon was the standard armament of a defended Dutch post.
Significance
The mitrailleur is the technological symbol of the asymmetric warfare of the Aceh War. On the Dutch side, the mitrailleur was the principal means by which a small garrison could hold a blokhuis against mass Achehnese assault; on the Achehnese side, the capture of a mitrailleur at Senelop was a strategic windfall, giving the resistance a brief window of technological parity. The Dutch loss of the mitrailleur and the 7 cm L.A. kanon at Senelop was therefore one of the most consequential matériel losses of the period, materially affecting the balance of forces in the sagi XXV through May 1896. The repeated Dutch searches for the captured weapon — and the strategic concern about its possible use against Dutch positions — testify to the perceived importance of the weapon.
Account in Hooijer’s De verlaten posten in Groot-Atjeh (1897)
The mitrailleur was the multi-barrelled rapid-fire gun mounted in several of the Dutch posts of Groot-Atjeh during the alliance period, recorded by G. B. Hooijer at Biloel, Lam Soet and Senelop, and prepared for but never delivered at Kroeng Gloempang.
Emplacements
At Biloel two field-pieces and a mitrailleur were placed in battery in the two bastions of the fortification raised around the old Messigit. At Lam Soet, a mitrailleur was mounted in the hut projecting behind the commandant’s summer-house on the rampart; Hooijer noted that it zelden of nooit behoefde gebruikt te worden, seldom or never had to be used, since after the completion of the blokhuis at Lampaleuh the neighbourhood was quiet and safe. At Senelop the bastion above the kitchen was armed with a gun and a mitrailleur, and the other bastion with the same pieces.
At Kroeng Gloempang, beneath the flag, was een plaats voor een mitrailleur gereed gemaakt, die hier echter nimmer verscheen — a place had been prepared for a mitrailleur which, however, never appeared there.
See Also
- Buitellinie
- Blokhuis
- Dutch artillery pieces
- Siege of blokhuis Aloer Oe (28–29 March 1896)
- Battle of Senelop (17 April 1896)
- Panglima Polim
- son
- Joannes Benedictus van Heutsz
- Lamsoet
- Senelop
- Biloel
- Lam Soet
- Kroeng Gloempang
- Benteng
Sources
ATJEH ‘96, door A. Kruisheer, Kapitein der Infanterie O.I.L., met 2 kaarten en 4 portretten (Weltevreden: N.V. Boekhandel Visser & Co, 1913). Instituut Kern, Leiden. OCR-filename: 20260715_163243_DLP-89-Atjeh_96_Met_2_kaarten_en4_DOORA_KRUISHEER_Kapiteinder_Infanterie_nemoretriever-ocr-v1_OCR.txt, pp. 21, 40–41, 55, 106–107, 109, 113–114, 117, 138, 144, 148, 155, 157, 180.
De verlaten posten in Groot-Atjeh, door G. B. Hooijer, Gep. Luit.-Kolonel O. I. Leger, met 24 platen (Haarlem: De Erven F. Bohn; Batavia: G. Kolff & Co., 1897). Koninklijk Instituut voor de Tropen, Centrale Boekerij, Amsterdam. OCR-filename: 20260719_140140_DLP-134-De_verlaten_posten_in_Groot_Atjeh_Nemotron-OCR-v2_OCR.txt, pp. 12, 49, 51, 53.
Acknowledgement of sources. This article is a single consolidated account combining the material previously held in this entry with the account given in De verlaten posten in Groot-Atjeh (1897) by G. B. Hooijer. Dutch terminology has been rendered in English, the original Dutch being retained only in direct quotations and in bibliographic citations.