One of the biggest myths of the Boer War – and a falsehood which is still inexplicably peddled by certain South African History Professors – is that the wicked British were ‘massing on the borders’ of the poor innocent Boer republics. This is complete make-belief, and self-serving nonsense, as I explored in depth in this article:
https://www.chrisash.co.za/2024/04/15/massing-on-the-other-side-of-the-border/
To further illustrate just how utterly wrong this oft-spouted claim is, I have recently drawn a couple more maps which should put this myth to bed once-and-for-all… at least for intelligent and open-minded people.
Here was the situation on the border of Natal:
And here was the situation on the Western Front / Cape Colony:
As anyone with a brain can see, there was only one side ‘massing on the border’, and that was the Boers. The funny thing will be watching the more deluded True Believers attempt to deny reality, and the aforementioned History Professors trying to squirm their way out of their blatant falsehoods.
The source material for both maps is Maurice, History of the War in South Africa, Vol.1. The details of the size and positions of the republican forces are from pages: 49-50. Details of the deployment of the British garrison are from pages: 455-456.
12 Comments
I am afraid quoting from ONE source does .. not a history make !
Rather than just trusting to the use of capital letters to try and make your point, do please provide your explanation for dismissing the official History of the conflict, and – more importantly – provide your sources / references which dispute it.
Your version of events would also have to dispute the details listed in Amery’s Times History of the War, Vol.2, p.130-137 – which tally with the deployments detailed in Maurice’s official History.
I shall be fascinated to see your (fully referenced) version of where British troops were really deployed at that time.
If you cannot do this, what exactly was your point?
So Chris, so I guess your source is some unimpeachable source like Breytenbach, or Prof Pretorius. Or was it perhaps Trompie?
Or that nice history teacher who’s great grandfather was at Blood River?
They would all give chapter and verse on where the Boers thought the enemy were.
And then that turned out to be a flock of sheep.
For heavens sake man, get a grip. Maurice and Amery are THE authority of British troop placements and movements. If you’re going to contradict somebody, do choose your moment better.
Let me guess: a bloke at a braai told you there was a full infantry Corps massed at Laings Nek, ready to invade? Maybe a cavalry Division at Aliwal North too? Amazing that the Boers got passed all these huge masses of Tommies!
In reply
It is STANDARD historical practise when looking at any historical event to consult as many sources as possible
Maurice and the Times were written by ONE of the parties to the conflict.
The written history of the other party to the conflict may well be bogus .. it is however necessary ( in line with proper historical research ) to consult these – and to reference them !
I sometimes think that people that post in the comments here are the flip side of the “true-believer-coin”
OK – so what reference(s) are you offering to contradict the ones I have put forward, and what do you claim to have been the real situation in terms of troop deployments?
Because if you are not doing this, I am struggling to see what point you think you are making.
As a very reputed historian – Dr. Damian P. O’Connor, also pointed out recently, the problem with removing or brushing over sources, especially written accounts such as this one from the period, on the basis of ‘jingoism’ or just ‘not conveniently fitting’ into a Afrikaner nationalist political narrative or even an Afrikaner author’s bias brought about by years of nationalist identity politics and socialisation … is that once we’ve dismissed a first hand written account we are left with nothing, just pure hearsay and verbal tradition .. empty space in effect, and into that ‘empty space’ anyone can write anything they like, we can just make it up. It becomes revisionist history – pure ‘gone with the wind’ romantic drivel.
From Peter Dickens
Chris, I referenced Dr. Damian P. O’Connor, to give context to a Jopie Fourie article I wrote – O’Connor made this statement in reference to using ‘Primary’ source data and his example was the history of South Africa started at Jan Van Riebeeck – simply because that before van Riebeeck there is precious little on the ‘primary’ record – the ‘black’ history lies in oral tradition and a little on a very sparse archaeological record – so it gets “filled in” by revolutionist historians just making it up. The written ‘primary source’ is the key.
This has nothing to do with Chris Ash, as he is using a very strong written primary record – the only available written accounts in fact, and he’s using two of them, he’s not “filling it in”. As to the ‘Boer records’ on numbers and troop deployments, the ‘Order of Battle’ (ORBAT) etc – there are none to speak of. Even their ‘invasion plan’ as presented by Smuts to the ‘Raad’ secret session is only referenced in broad strokes, a detailed ‘plan’ does not exist.
The only real document that exists is a frantic bit of correspondence between Kruger and Steyn urging the OFS press the “Go” on the declaration of war because – according to Kruger – the British are building up an invasion force on the border and they need to strike before its too late. It’s pure sensationalism, panic, political manipulation, soap boxing and political pressure – and it has nothing to do with what’s actually happening on the ground.
I suggest you take the challenge from Chris Ash, and let us know what the Republican forces have by way of ‘ORBATS’ because none of us know of any, it would be a first all round and you seem to think that Chris Ash can somehow materialise one.
As I am not a Boer War historian / Expert I am not offering anything in “contradiction”
Merely pointing out that you are only referencing ONE source
You are the expert I am sure you are able to locate other – perhaps contradictory sources ?
They may be bogus ?
Why not discuss them ?
Right.
So you are offering absolutely nothing which challenges the references I used, and appear only to want to be contradictory for the sake of it.
When you have a reference which refutes the ones I have provides, please share it.
Chris, when the subject is troop deployments, the best source for this is the official history.
Where are “the other side” going to get their numbers and locations from if not from the records of the army they’re studying.
So, “the other side” will essentially use the official history as their reference. There is nothing else.
So get specific.
The British army was a huge lumbering beast with more administrators generating paperwork than you could poke a stick at. Every man would’ve had a file and paper records would exist at staff level that would allow the command to know the strength of every unit and where they were.
This is the type of detail the official history would hold.
Now what exactly, specifically, is your gripe? Where do you expect the Boer historians to get their data from?
What source contradicts the official history? Or are you arguing a principle for the sake of it?
If Chris could provide a reputable source which contradicted those I have used, then he would have something to add to the debate, and I’d be the first to take it on board… but he hasn’t and now admits he doesn’t have one. So I am really not sure what the point of any of his posts was.
Add Comment