What do you think?
Rate this book
Boer Wars: A History From Beginning to End
Boer Wars As General Patton once said, “The Boers? Those sons of bitches fight for the hell of it." The reputation of the Boer is not entirely unearned. At a time when South Africa was a place inhabited by the toughest of men, only those who lived in the saddle with a gun in their hands could possibly survive. Inside you will read about... ✓ The Creation of the Boer ✓ Growing Tensions ✓ Colley Steps In ✓ The End of the First War ✓ The Jameson Raid ✓ Stage The Boer Offensive ✓ Stage The Empire Strikes Back ✓ Stage Scorched Earth ✓ The End of the Boer Who were the Boers, and what was the conflict that would lead them into a fight to the death with England in the First and Second Anglo-Boer wars? Was this a colonial uprising? Or a freedom-fight gone horribly wrong?
47 pages, Kindle Edition
Published March 1, 2017
201 people are currently reading
197 people want to read
About the author
Henry Freeman
52 books89 followersHenry Freeman is an author and archaeologist. He has a passion for history and loves to travel the world exploring various historical sites.
Henry graduated from the University of Cambridge with a double major in History and Archaeology and shortly after that started his career as an archaeologist.
After traveling the world getting first-hand experience with history, Henry was determined to take up his dream of becoming a best-selling author.
He decided to partner up with the newly formed publishing company Hourly History writing short, concise and straightforward history books that never takes more than one hour to read.
Henry graduated from the University of Cambridge with a double major in History and Archaeology and shortly after that started his career as an archaeologist.
After traveling the world getting first-hand experience with history, Henry was determined to take up his dream of becoming a best-selling author.
He decided to partner up with the newly formed publishing company Hourly History writing short, concise and straightforward history books that never takes more than one hour to read.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews
November 4, 2020
This is a condensed version of the most significant wars that made the Boers famous for their tenacity, marksmanship and love for the earth. It also tells of the birth of this race that I am very proud to be part off. Their willingness to stand still a beacon of hope that brings fear in others.
It is true to say: 'Never underestimate the boer's spirit.' Even today, this remains true.
A quick read that flows with ease as the author tells of the bravery shown on the battlefield and also of the hardship these people lived.
It is true to say: 'Never underestimate the boer's spirit.' Even today, this remains true.
A quick read that flows with ease as the author tells of the bravery shown on the battlefield and also of the hardship these people lived.
November 1, 2021
The book opens with a great point:
(Henry Freeman, "The Boer Wars," Kindle Ed., 2020, p. 3)
...we’ve called the altercation in South Africa quite simply “The Boer War” for generations – a British designation. But ask someone else and the answer might be different. To the Boers themselves, it was “The Wars of Independence”, yet to the politically correct they were the “Anglo-Boer Wars”, meant to designate the participants without taking sides. But even each specific conflict has its own name. The First Boer War is also referred to as “The Transvaal War.” The Jameson Raid is even questioned whether it’s rightly part of the war at all, and the Second Boer War is also called the “Second Anglo-Boer War” as well as the “South African War.” How we name something defines how we look at it. Our goal is to look at all of these events collectively, in an unbiased presentation of facts...
Here’s a sæm’/ sim’ilar case:
...Not that many people realize the simple fact we live in the world that our “words” define. We know the very first UN Peace Keeping Forces fought hard to protect innocent people’s lives from North Korean invasion during the Korean War. However, there have been many other wars in Korea; it’s just we haven’t named them the Korean Wars. It doesn’t mean the two World Wars were the only global warfare just because we named them the World Wars. We don’t really even think about the words we learn and use every day, but live within them as if they are the ultimate truth... (Young Kim, “Admiral Lee, the Mentor of Human Race,” 2018 Ed., p. 1)
Looks like the book really starts great with a simple yet clear Entr'/ Intr'o-duct'ion:
(Kindle Ed. p. 3)
...Let’s start, then, with the founding of South Africa by the Dutch, and work from there.
However, the readers will have to face many irritating errors in the following pages.
(Ibid., p. 4)
...This was probably just as well, as the natives of the region – the Xhosa and Zulu – weren’t necessarily welcoming to outsiders.
It's a typo: ...welcoming the outsiders.
(Ibid., pp. 5-6)
Going back to the 1660’s, it’s important to understand that a concurrent tension that was building at this time...This was one of five fortifications created solely by the Dutch to protect from what was felt to be an imminent war with England.
...to protect "what" from? These are simple mistakes that the author could have easily found and fixed if he edited the book just one last time.
The book's incomplete!
You will see some chapters that run too short. One example is the "Battle of Bronkhorstspruit" on pp. 16-17. Only those readers who already knew about the British Army Major General W. Bellairs would understand what really happened at the end of the lines. What, is the book written for experts?
Clearly not.
There are quite many weird or rough lines found throughout the pages, and they need to be refined with a proper editing work.
Plus, the explanation about the historical background for the war isn't enough to meet the expectation the author planted in the readers' mind with the opening lines.
(Ibid., p. 23)
...the Battle of Majuba Hill had come after truce negotiations were already underway, having been initiated on February 14th, 1881...
It's basic grammar: Why does the past perfect go "after" the past?
(Ibid., p. 10)
Let’s take a minute and go back over some of what we just discussed id in a little finer detail.
Seriously, what is this, a first draft?
Again, the book isn't complete!
(Ibid., p. 24)
While some questions can never be answered, the results certainly stand for themselves. When the peace treaty was signed on March 23rd, the British had for the first time since the Revolutionary War found themselves on the losing end of a conflict.
Wrong: FYI, the British lost another war in Afghanistan in the 1840s.
If the Anglo-Afghan War in the 1840s was the British moment of Vietnam War for the Americans in the following century, Boer War in the early-20th century must have been the British version of America's recent Afghanistan War.
And the Conclusion reveals the author's inadequate quality for the job:
(Ibid., p. 42)
Dressing in red coats and standing in long lines was perhaps a rather striking and even somewhat civilized way to fight previously, but in places like the Transvaal, such a move was more suicidal than anything else. The British were forced to not only learn how to fight against guerrilla tactics, but had to come to learn to use those very ways to their own advantage. Learning from the Boer, they would become better fit to enter into the World Wars that were just around the corner, though this would come at a heavy cost.
The British and other modern ground forces ended that "old" tactics more than half a century before the Boer War as industrialization went on and the deployment of "then-Weapons of Mass Destruction" such as breach-loading rifles, machine guns and shell-artillery replaced the conventional firearms by the mid-19th century.
The issue of "civilized" British musket lines facing new guerilla warfare traces back to the American Independence War, while it is about the WMDs when it comes to WWI.
Sadly, as it appears in the conclusion, the author doesn’t really seem to be qualified to work on the subject as he clearly lacks some important basic knowledge in military tactics and history.
I just wonder why the same author gets to write all different subjects, dear Hourly History? It wouldn't matter if it were about different angles and perspectives, but it is about simple fact-checking the author neglects here!
As a military officer myself, I gotta say that the conclusion is wrong, and the book would have been boasting way better quality if the "editor" had simply taken out the "Conclusion" before the final publication.
As a matter of fact, Chapter 10 was already good enough as a fine con-clos'/ -clus'ion. In some cultures this unnecessarily added conclusion that ends up harming the over-all quality of a master work is called the "legs of a snake" from an ancient story that a skillful painter painted an awesome snake in a drawing contest, but he put some legs at the end as he had too much extra time to kill, thus ending up ruining the fine painting of his after all.
There are some good points in the Conclusion, so, I believe, if the author integrates the lines with Chapter 10 and changes its title a bit to fit in the book's final conclusion, it will be almost a complete and fine writing work.
The book does possess great information and easy storytelling lines.
Despite the errors found here and there, the reading itself is fun as the book goes like a storytelling.
Besides, there are very informative and insightful lines throughout pages like the followings:
(Ibid., p. 7)
...By the mid 1700’s many were raising sheep and cattle, allowing a semi-nomadic ability. They became known as the Trekboers, or “wandering farmers” in Dutch; this would later shortened to just “Boers”. These rugged individuals lived in the saddle and faced a rough and sometimes violent existence, where groups called “commandos” were sent out to raid cattle from nearby tribes.
(Ibid., p. 10)
As their weapons advanced from muskets to rifles to machine guns, the Boers began to develop into a unique breed of battle-tested horsemen. Their semi-nomadic lifestyle created men who were as comfortable in the saddle as walking. These were not the simple farmers that they were supposed to be. Perhaps if the British had realized that from the start the conflict would have all gone very differently.
(Ibid., p. 31)
The forces at Mafeking consisted of about 500 soldiers, 300 men from the local town, a local police force, and a cadet corps of boys from the ages of 12 to 15, all under the command of Colonel Robert Baden-Powell. Interestingly enough, it would be his experiences working with these young people during the battle and all that came afterwards that would later inspire Powell to found the Boy Scouts.
Sounds a lot like a war between two countries to me just like the author points out in his Introduction:
(Ibid., p. 30)
...On October 9th, 1899, the President of the South African Republic issued an ultimatum giving the British 48 hours to vacate. By this point the British had planted approximately 20,000 soldiers on South African soil with more on the way. The English government refused the ultimatum. The South African Republic declared war on England.
Stupid politicians from representative governments...sigh:
(Ibid., p. 33)
A subsequent appeal met with some measure of success, and the town was placed under the command of Colonel Robert Kekewich. Kekewich had four companies, 120 police, some 2,000 irregular troops, two machine guns, and some 7-pound guns. Cecil John Rhodes entered Kimberley as the siege began, narrowly missing capture. Rhodes’ involvement in the Jameson raids had made him a liability; the townspeople feared he would antagonize the Boers, and both civilians and military did not want him there. But as founder of DeBeers, he was instrumental in organizing that company’s resources. However, Rhodes was notably uncooperative with military authorities. After several skirmishes, the Boers laid siege to Kimberley on November 7th, 1899. The strategy of the attackers was to wear the town down with shelling and to starve them out. The siege lasted for 124 days. Rhodes viciously condemned the military handling of the siege every step of the way, occasionally leaking military positions and secrets to the press.
Read the Art of War. Politicians out and leave the commanders alone in the field unless you are gonna help them!
(Ibid., pp. 33-34)
This initial phase of the Second Anglo-Boer War is the only stage where the Boer were clearly on the offensive. Subsequently, they would fight a defensive battle against the British. The problems they would encounter would stem from two distinctive factors, the first being a true lack of real organized objective or goal...
Great lesson for any Human society: Unity and teamwork with common direction.
The lines tell a lot:
(Ibid., p. 34)
The second problem came from their guns. The Mausers used by the Boers had been purchased from Germany. A mistake in ammunition choice made them difficult to fire with accuracy. This was an error that could not be rectified, as the British very quickly took control of the waters around South Africa, and successfully maintained this blockade throughout the conflict. While many battles were a clear success for the Boers, they would eventually be out-gunned. This does raise several “what if” questions though regarding how this might have turned out if Germany had been able to take a more active part in the conflict...
1. Its difference from America's war in Afghanistan...Taliban was already armed with tons of American weapons since the Russo-Afghan War back in the 1980s.
2. The British control of the global waters.
3. Rising German Empire's weapons in fighting against the British interest in the "resource-rich" African Con-taen'/ -tin'ent just like the PRC weapons found everywhere in Africa today.
Sounds a lot like it was a sort of Cold War, which led to the hot "all-out" confrontation in 1914.
(Ibid., pp. 38-40)
The burgeoning population of these camps had created deplorable conditions. The British could not, and did not, supply adequate medical, sanitary, or nutritional requirements for the people held there. These concentration camps became terrible places of death as the inhabitants succumbed to death in droves from basic illness and starvation. The numbers were horrifying. It was bad enough that 177 women and 1,676 men had died in such places, but it was the sheer number of child casualties that were the most heartbreaking. 22,074 children under the age of 16 died in these camps. To many who looked back on this afterwards, this was a crime, not just of humanitarian proportions, but of genocide. The impact was staggering upon future generations of Boers. A note must be made here. The camps weren’t only for Boers – they were also used for the other natives of South Africa that have yet to be discussed. There has been little mention up until now of the native inhabitants of the area other than in passing. Bare mention of Zulu tribes or even of slaves. The truth was that neither Boer nor Britain had felt comfortable with the idea of arming the natives. The thought of the day was that putting a gun in the hands of a black man would eventually bring out disaster, so both sides for a long time strove to keep these individuals out of the fight completely. As things started to fall apart, more and more blacks joined the fight, mostly on the side of the British. These had joined in hopes of gaining equal rights under British rule. On the other hand, there were many more blacks who had been servants or slaves of the Boers. These were rounded up, even as the families of the Boers were, but were put in distinctly different camps; even in torturous conditions, there was still segregation. The death toll of these individuals was equally horrifying. While there is no way to figure the numbers accurately, estimates range from 13,000 – 20,000 black Africans who died in concentration camps. These atrocities did not go unnoticed. A British humanitarian named Emily Hobhouse visited the concentration camps at Bloemfontein in December of 1900 and was horrified at what she’d seen. On her return to England, she made the conditions of the camps very public. The tide of popular opinion now turned against the war. Outside these camps, the Boers fought doggedly on. Kitchener’s scorched earth tactics were taking their toll. In 1902 the Boers were finally forced to surrender, despite the protestations of many who wanted to fight on to the bitter end...The bearer, has been released from prison of war camp on signing that he acknowledge terms of surrender and becomes a British subject.
How ironic, as, for the native "Africaans," it was just like the fate of the natives in the early U.S. history.
(Ibid., p. 40)
Popular opinion wasn’t exactly siding very strongly with the British either, not in their own country, and certainly not on the world stage. The conditions of the concentration camps had met with condemnation from the world; as a result, relations with other countries were somewhat strained, with many giving England a rather wary eye. This would be one of the contributing factors that would lead to World War I.
The decline of British global leadership: See? The British moment of Americans' Afghanistan War in 2021!
Over-all the book satisfies its purpose of publication by making readers think and learn. It appears incomplete now, but with an'other re-vis'ion and editing work it will be a complete work and a fine book.
(Henry Freeman, "The Boer Wars," Kindle Ed., 2020, p. 3)
...we’ve called the altercation in South Africa quite simply “The Boer War” for generations – a British designation. But ask someone else and the answer might be different. To the Boers themselves, it was “The Wars of Independence”, yet to the politically correct they were the “Anglo-Boer Wars”, meant to designate the participants without taking sides. But even each specific conflict has its own name. The First Boer War is also referred to as “The Transvaal War.” The Jameson Raid is even questioned whether it’s rightly part of the war at all, and the Second Boer War is also called the “Second Anglo-Boer War” as well as the “South African War.” How we name something defines how we look at it. Our goal is to look at all of these events collectively, in an unbiased presentation of facts...
Here’s a sæm’/ sim’ilar case:
...Not that many people realize the simple fact we live in the world that our “words” define. We know the very first UN Peace Keeping Forces fought hard to protect innocent people’s lives from North Korean invasion during the Korean War. However, there have been many other wars in Korea; it’s just we haven’t named them the Korean Wars. It doesn’t mean the two World Wars were the only global warfare just because we named them the World Wars. We don’t really even think about the words we learn and use every day, but live within them as if they are the ultimate truth... (Young Kim, “Admiral Lee, the Mentor of Human Race,” 2018 Ed., p. 1)
Looks like the book really starts great with a simple yet clear Entr'/ Intr'o-duct'ion:
(Kindle Ed. p. 3)
...Let’s start, then, with the founding of South Africa by the Dutch, and work from there.
However, the readers will have to face many irritating errors in the following pages.
(Ibid., p. 4)
...This was probably just as well, as the natives of the region – the Xhosa and Zulu – weren’t necessarily welcoming to outsiders.
It's a typo: ...welcoming the outsiders.
(Ibid., pp. 5-6)
Going back to the 1660’s, it’s important to understand that a concurrent tension that was building at this time...This was one of five fortifications created solely by the Dutch to protect from what was felt to be an imminent war with England.
...to protect "what" from? These are simple mistakes that the author could have easily found and fixed if he edited the book just one last time.
The book's incomplete!
You will see some chapters that run too short. One example is the "Battle of Bronkhorstspruit" on pp. 16-17. Only those readers who already knew about the British Army Major General W. Bellairs would understand what really happened at the end of the lines. What, is the book written for experts?
Clearly not.
There are quite many weird or rough lines found throughout the pages, and they need to be refined with a proper editing work.
Plus, the explanation about the historical background for the war isn't enough to meet the expectation the author planted in the readers' mind with the opening lines.
(Ibid., p. 23)
...the Battle of Majuba Hill had come after truce negotiations were already underway, having been initiated on February 14th, 1881...
It's basic grammar: Why does the past perfect go "after" the past?
(Ibid., p. 10)
Let’s take a minute and go back over some of what we just discussed id in a little finer detail.
Seriously, what is this, a first draft?
Again, the book isn't complete!
(Ibid., p. 24)
While some questions can never be answered, the results certainly stand for themselves. When the peace treaty was signed on March 23rd, the British had for the first time since the Revolutionary War found themselves on the losing end of a conflict.
Wrong: FYI, the British lost another war in Afghanistan in the 1840s.
If the Anglo-Afghan War in the 1840s was the British moment of Vietnam War for the Americans in the following century, Boer War in the early-20th century must have been the British version of America's recent Afghanistan War.
And the Conclusion reveals the author's inadequate quality for the job:
(Ibid., p. 42)
Dressing in red coats and standing in long lines was perhaps a rather striking and even somewhat civilized way to fight previously, but in places like the Transvaal, such a move was more suicidal than anything else. The British were forced to not only learn how to fight against guerrilla tactics, but had to come to learn to use those very ways to their own advantage. Learning from the Boer, they would become better fit to enter into the World Wars that were just around the corner, though this would come at a heavy cost.
The British and other modern ground forces ended that "old" tactics more than half a century before the Boer War as industrialization went on and the deployment of "then-Weapons of Mass Destruction" such as breach-loading rifles, machine guns and shell-artillery replaced the conventional firearms by the mid-19th century.
The issue of "civilized" British musket lines facing new guerilla warfare traces back to the American Independence War, while it is about the WMDs when it comes to WWI.
Sadly, as it appears in the conclusion, the author doesn’t really seem to be qualified to work on the subject as he clearly lacks some important basic knowledge in military tactics and history.
I just wonder why the same author gets to write all different subjects, dear Hourly History? It wouldn't matter if it were about different angles and perspectives, but it is about simple fact-checking the author neglects here!
As a military officer myself, I gotta say that the conclusion is wrong, and the book would have been boasting way better quality if the "editor" had simply taken out the "Conclusion" before the final publication.
As a matter of fact, Chapter 10 was already good enough as a fine con-clos'/ -clus'ion. In some cultures this unnecessarily added conclusion that ends up harming the over-all quality of a master work is called the "legs of a snake" from an ancient story that a skillful painter painted an awesome snake in a drawing contest, but he put some legs at the end as he had too much extra time to kill, thus ending up ruining the fine painting of his after all.
There are some good points in the Conclusion, so, I believe, if the author integrates the lines with Chapter 10 and changes its title a bit to fit in the book's final conclusion, it will be almost a complete and fine writing work.
The book does possess great information and easy storytelling lines.
Despite the errors found here and there, the reading itself is fun as the book goes like a storytelling.
Besides, there are very informative and insightful lines throughout pages like the followings:
(Ibid., p. 7)
...By the mid 1700’s many were raising sheep and cattle, allowing a semi-nomadic ability. They became known as the Trekboers, or “wandering farmers” in Dutch; this would later shortened to just “Boers”. These rugged individuals lived in the saddle and faced a rough and sometimes violent existence, where groups called “commandos” were sent out to raid cattle from nearby tribes.
(Ibid., p. 10)
As their weapons advanced from muskets to rifles to machine guns, the Boers began to develop into a unique breed of battle-tested horsemen. Their semi-nomadic lifestyle created men who were as comfortable in the saddle as walking. These were not the simple farmers that they were supposed to be. Perhaps if the British had realized that from the start the conflict would have all gone very differently.
(Ibid., p. 31)
The forces at Mafeking consisted of about 500 soldiers, 300 men from the local town, a local police force, and a cadet corps of boys from the ages of 12 to 15, all under the command of Colonel Robert Baden-Powell. Interestingly enough, it would be his experiences working with these young people during the battle and all that came afterwards that would later inspire Powell to found the Boy Scouts.
Sounds a lot like a war between two countries to me just like the author points out in his Introduction:
(Ibid., p. 30)
...On October 9th, 1899, the President of the South African Republic issued an ultimatum giving the British 48 hours to vacate. By this point the British had planted approximately 20,000 soldiers on South African soil with more on the way. The English government refused the ultimatum. The South African Republic declared war on England.
Stupid politicians from representative governments...sigh:
(Ibid., p. 33)
A subsequent appeal met with some measure of success, and the town was placed under the command of Colonel Robert Kekewich. Kekewich had four companies, 120 police, some 2,000 irregular troops, two machine guns, and some 7-pound guns. Cecil John Rhodes entered Kimberley as the siege began, narrowly missing capture. Rhodes’ involvement in the Jameson raids had made him a liability; the townspeople feared he would antagonize the Boers, and both civilians and military did not want him there. But as founder of DeBeers, he was instrumental in organizing that company’s resources. However, Rhodes was notably uncooperative with military authorities. After several skirmishes, the Boers laid siege to Kimberley on November 7th, 1899. The strategy of the attackers was to wear the town down with shelling and to starve them out. The siege lasted for 124 days. Rhodes viciously condemned the military handling of the siege every step of the way, occasionally leaking military positions and secrets to the press.
Read the Art of War. Politicians out and leave the commanders alone in the field unless you are gonna help them!
(Ibid., pp. 33-34)
This initial phase of the Second Anglo-Boer War is the only stage where the Boer were clearly on the offensive. Subsequently, they would fight a defensive battle against the British. The problems they would encounter would stem from two distinctive factors, the first being a true lack of real organized objective or goal...
Great lesson for any Human society: Unity and teamwork with common direction.
The lines tell a lot:
(Ibid., p. 34)
The second problem came from their guns. The Mausers used by the Boers had been purchased from Germany. A mistake in ammunition choice made them difficult to fire with accuracy. This was an error that could not be rectified, as the British very quickly took control of the waters around South Africa, and successfully maintained this blockade throughout the conflict. While many battles were a clear success for the Boers, they would eventually be out-gunned. This does raise several “what if” questions though regarding how this might have turned out if Germany had been able to take a more active part in the conflict...
1. Its difference from America's war in Afghanistan...Taliban was already armed with tons of American weapons since the Russo-Afghan War back in the 1980s.
2. The British control of the global waters.
3. Rising German Empire's weapons in fighting against the British interest in the "resource-rich" African Con-taen'/ -tin'ent just like the PRC weapons found everywhere in Africa today.
Sounds a lot like it was a sort of Cold War, which led to the hot "all-out" confrontation in 1914.
(Ibid., pp. 38-40)
The burgeoning population of these camps had created deplorable conditions. The British could not, and did not, supply adequate medical, sanitary, or nutritional requirements for the people held there. These concentration camps became terrible places of death as the inhabitants succumbed to death in droves from basic illness and starvation. The numbers were horrifying. It was bad enough that 177 women and 1,676 men had died in such places, but it was the sheer number of child casualties that were the most heartbreaking. 22,074 children under the age of 16 died in these camps. To many who looked back on this afterwards, this was a crime, not just of humanitarian proportions, but of genocide. The impact was staggering upon future generations of Boers. A note must be made here. The camps weren’t only for Boers – they were also used for the other natives of South Africa that have yet to be discussed. There has been little mention up until now of the native inhabitants of the area other than in passing. Bare mention of Zulu tribes or even of slaves. The truth was that neither Boer nor Britain had felt comfortable with the idea of arming the natives. The thought of the day was that putting a gun in the hands of a black man would eventually bring out disaster, so both sides for a long time strove to keep these individuals out of the fight completely. As things started to fall apart, more and more blacks joined the fight, mostly on the side of the British. These had joined in hopes of gaining equal rights under British rule. On the other hand, there were many more blacks who had been servants or slaves of the Boers. These were rounded up, even as the families of the Boers were, but were put in distinctly different camps; even in torturous conditions, there was still segregation. The death toll of these individuals was equally horrifying. While there is no way to figure the numbers accurately, estimates range from 13,000 – 20,000 black Africans who died in concentration camps. These atrocities did not go unnoticed. A British humanitarian named Emily Hobhouse visited the concentration camps at Bloemfontein in December of 1900 and was horrified at what she’d seen. On her return to England, she made the conditions of the camps very public. The tide of popular opinion now turned against the war. Outside these camps, the Boers fought doggedly on. Kitchener’s scorched earth tactics were taking their toll. In 1902 the Boers were finally forced to surrender, despite the protestations of many who wanted to fight on to the bitter end...The bearer, has been released from prison of war camp on signing that he acknowledge terms of surrender and becomes a British subject.
How ironic, as, for the native "Africaans," it was just like the fate of the natives in the early U.S. history.
(Ibid., p. 40)
Popular opinion wasn’t exactly siding very strongly with the British either, not in their own country, and certainly not on the world stage. The conditions of the concentration camps had met with condemnation from the world; as a result, relations with other countries were somewhat strained, with many giving England a rather wary eye. This would be one of the contributing factors that would lead to World War I.
The decline of British global leadership: See? The British moment of Americans' Afghanistan War in 2021!
Over-all the book satisfies its purpose of publication by making readers think and learn. It appears incomplete now, but with an'other re-vis'ion and editing work it will be a complete work and a fine book.
March 26, 2017
Very short, superficial, but serviceable. Some 80,000 died in the Boer Wars, including many women, children, and natives (in concentration camps).
December 30, 2024
This series is good for the reader who is not familiar with his subject. If he is, things become different. As I am familiar with this subject, I was a little disappointed. The origins and causes of the war are very well documented and I formed a good idea of how it started. The First Ango-Boer War is also very well documented. However, the Second (and most important) war, is left incomplete and a little scrappy. It describes the three sieges of the British towns, but leaves out the main battles that cost dearly to the British. This is understandable since, in the small space of only 44 pages, it is impossible to include every event, but I still believe that it would be worth adding a few more pages to give us a full view of the war. On the other hand it was an "easy" read and the "Conclusion" at the end of the book was very interesting. 3,5 stars.
May 10, 2018
I came in only knowing the phrase "the Boer Wars"
Given when I started reading this quick introduction to the Boer Wars the most I could ha e told anyone who asked me was that I thought the Boer Wars took place in Southern Africa, I feel my understanding increased exponentially in reading this. For some reason I had always assumed the Boers were a native tribe, I had no idea colonization played the role it did in this story / event in history.
The fall of the Dutch East India company is explained in passing in here in a simple and easy to understand manner that serves as a reminder of what business practices were like in previous centuries.
Given when I started reading this quick introduction to the Boer Wars the most I could ha e told anyone who asked me was that I thought the Boer Wars took place in Southern Africa, I feel my understanding increased exponentially in reading this. For some reason I had always assumed the Boers were a native tribe, I had no idea colonization played the role it did in this story / event in history.
The fall of the Dutch East India company is explained in passing in here in a simple and easy to understand manner that serves as a reminder of what business practices were like in previous centuries.
April 3, 2018
A concise history of a subject which was glossed over in history lessons when I was a boy (the 1960's). I now understand why - not Britain's greatest moment. As always with this series I find myself wanting to know more details and seek to read more detailed works.
January 28, 2019
Concise and easy to read
Very informative, high-altitude examination of the Anglo-Boer conflicts. I can strongly recommend this ebook to all who have an interest in South African history.
Very informative, high-altitude examination of the Anglo-Boer conflicts. I can strongly recommend this ebook to all who have an interest in South African history.
February 19, 2019
Good read for a non historian
I felt that this is a good book for the folks that don't know much about the Boer War, and just want a easy understanding of the history of what it was about.
I felt that this is a good book for the folks that don't know much about the Boer War, and just want a easy understanding of the history of what it was about.
May 26, 2020
Good Read
I didn't know much about the Boer wars. But I thoroughly enjoyed this book. Very informative, and realising that my grandad was 8 when the conflict ended. Made it more realistic for me.
I didn't know much about the Boer wars. But I thoroughly enjoyed this book. Very informative, and realising that my grandad was 8 when the conflict ended. Made it more realistic for me.
November 19, 2021
I've read a few of this author's works, and have thoroughly enjoyed each. The author's series of brief, yet thorough, accounts of histories major events and its players are enjoyable to read, and are informative without being dull and tiresome.
Until now: Boer Wars didn't strike my interest like others in the series. While I blame myself for a majority of the book's lack of 'entertainment' value, the author certainly has to bear a portion of the load - after all, it is his work.
Why blame myself? Boer is not American history. Boer isn't populated with popular American heroes or infamous world villains. Boer doesn't occupy romantic world geography. Boer is, from an American perspective, a bore. That being stated, that is why I picked up this work; I wanted to learn more about this aspect of world history. To a large degree, my expectations have not been met - but not to utter failure - I have indeed gleaned a rudimentary understanding and formulated a sympathetic respect for the Boer Wars, or whatever you choose to call them.
Until now: Boer Wars didn't strike my interest like others in the series. While I blame myself for a majority of the book's lack of 'entertainment' value, the author certainly has to bear a portion of the load - after all, it is his work.
Why blame myself? Boer is not American history. Boer isn't populated with popular American heroes or infamous world villains. Boer doesn't occupy romantic world geography. Boer is, from an American perspective, a bore. That being stated, that is why I picked up this work; I wanted to learn more about this aspect of world history. To a large degree, my expectations have not been met - but not to utter failure - I have indeed gleaned a rudimentary understanding and formulated a sympathetic respect for the Boer Wars, or whatever you choose to call them.
January 30, 2021
If you'd like to read a clear, concise history of the genesis and out come of the Boer Wars then this is an excellent introduction. I'd almost describe it as an extended essay, 48 pages long but that was perfect for my purposes.
The Boer wars were shocking in many senses; the British behaviour towards natives and Boer women and children. The appalling leadership by the British generals, leading to so many soldiers lost Kitcheners brutal actions. I could go on but maybe better to read yourself. Maybe he could have mentioned more about the international brigades fighting the British.
The book has the added bonus of being free at present.
The Boer wars were shocking in many senses; the British behaviour towards natives and Boer women and children. The appalling leadership by the British generals, leading to so many soldiers lost Kitcheners brutal actions. I could go on but maybe better to read yourself. Maybe he could have mentioned more about the international brigades fighting the British.
The book has the added bonus of being free at present.
May 10, 2023
My knowledge of the Boer Wars prior to reading this was only that I knew they existed. I know a little more now, but even though this book is marketed as a short read, good editing (any editing?) would have cut excessive verbiage leaving more time and space for important details that seem to have been omitted. People involved in the period are introduced as though the reader already knows who they are.
The best point the book makes is that history, especially regarding wars or conflicts, is usually written by the winners. If nothing else, it has piqued my interest in learning more.
The best point the book makes is that history, especially regarding wars or conflicts, is usually written by the winners. If nothing else, it has piqued my interest in learning more.
December 17, 2020
Another horror story
The number of innocents killed is horrific. In hindsight, it is thought that if people listened and followed orders history would be different. Regardless, more concentration camps, more arrogant people taking land through murder and destroying the land.
This is not anything I would recommend. I do enjoy most of the Hourly History books I've read. I recommend the site.
The number of innocents killed is horrific. In hindsight, it is thought that if people listened and followed orders history would be different. Regardless, more concentration camps, more arrogant people taking land through murder and destroying the land.
This is not anything I would recommend. I do enjoy most of the Hourly History books I've read. I recommend the site.
February 13, 2020
The facts are there - at least as far as I know - but I found this a little irritating because the grammar and style are a bit clunky. It would also be nice if it had been properly proof-read. However, don't let that put you off trying it. The style is personally, the proof-reading is surmountable.
Trouble is, if the proofs aren't checked, what about the facts? Oh well, never mind.
Trouble is, if the proofs aren't checked, what about the facts? Oh well, never mind.
October 1, 2020
Real history
I enjoyed the book and the new perspective it gave me. As a descendant of the Boers that had family in concentration camps, I feel so much respect for them for what they achieved after the war. Bet no Englishman will give a good review, though. The facts in this book duffer from our histiry kessons at school, where we were taught what heroes the Englush are
I enjoyed the book and the new perspective it gave me. As a descendant of the Boers that had family in concentration camps, I feel so much respect for them for what they achieved after the war. Bet no Englishman will give a good review, though. The facts in this book duffer from our histiry kessons at school, where we were taught what heroes the Englush are
September 5, 2025
Boer Wars
Whilst I am used to these Hourly History books being very brief and simplistic, this one is unbelievably so. Also, it makes so many assumptions, such as Boers were inspired by the American War of Independence and that the Anglo Boer influenced the outbreak of the First World War. Where on earth did the author obtain that information from I wonder?
Whilst I am used to these Hourly History books being very brief and simplistic, this one is unbelievably so. Also, it makes so many assumptions, such as Boers were inspired by the American War of Independence and that the Anglo Boer influenced the outbreak of the First World War. Where on earth did the author obtain that information from I wonder?
November 19, 2019
Informative and well written
An interesting read, I read this as extra for my history class and I learned a lot. The conclusion was particularly good due to the war being seen from both sides.
An interesting read, I read this as extra for my history class and I learned a lot. The conclusion was particularly good due to the war being seen from both sides.
April 10, 2023
Interesting
I knew only the name of these wars but, am planning a trip to Africa so I read this as background. It reads well for history, not too much military detail. I do suspect the author's opinions are just one side of the story.
I knew only the name of these wars but, am planning a trip to Africa so I read this as background. It reads well for history, not too much military detail. I do suspect the author's opinions are just one side of the story.
April 22, 2019
Whet my appetite for more
February 1, 2020
A good overview of the Boer Wars. Touches all the important parts. Makes you want to read more.
July 28, 2020
Not very informative...
July 29, 2020
A great short history of the Boer Wars.
August 7, 2020
A fireman uprising
Base in reading other books the one ended too fast.Left a lot of the battles and details out. A good time line.
Base in reading other books the one ended too fast.Left a lot of the battles and details out. A good time line.
September 4, 2020
Good history of you look past the typos and repetitive parts.
January 4, 2021
Interesting reading
Glad to have read this. Quite some information I did not know. It makes the while story.a bit more understandable.
Glad to have read this. Quite some information I did not know. It makes the while story.a bit more understandable.
January 26, 2021
Good introductory overview of these wars. Could have used a proofreading editor.
February 13, 2021
Very enjoyable to read , gives the reader a good general knowledge of that war without the boring details .
March 13, 2021
Boer war
Short history book but very informative give you an insight into how events evolved,mentions the first concentration camps as well
Short history book but very informative give you an insight into how events evolved,mentions the first concentration camps as well
January 29, 2022
Kindle book
December 19, 2022
excellent read
No country is perfect. But books like this tells us we must never be complacent. Hold our governments to account.
No country is perfect. But books like this tells us we must never be complacent. Hold our governments to account.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews