20 Questions for the True Believers

Ever since Kruger, Kommandos, and Kak was published back in 2014, I have always been amused by the hysterical rage it produced in certain quarters… mainly those quarters inhabited by people who resolutely refused to read it. This swivel-eyed panic continued with the release of Kruger’s War in 2016, with various entertaining characters dedicating hours of their time to rubbishing it online – a tradition which seems set to continue with the recent publication of Eating Bananas in Durban.

It has always confused me what exactly it is about my books that so upsets a certain type of person, as no one has ever really given a semi-coherent answer. Instead, I get vague, throwaway remarks like: ‘it has so many mistakes, I can’t point them all out!’,[1] and ‘I will never read it!’, and ‘he only uses Jingo sources!’^[2] and (my personal favourite) ‘I was offended!’. One really must be a very delicate little flower to be ‘offended’ by a book… especially one they’ve never read.

Those who have bothered to read them will know that the aim of my books is to explore and debunk the haze of myths which cloud the way the Boer War is commonly perceived. The extreme reaction of those who are so critical of my work leads me to wonder if these people genuinely believe that there are absolutely no misconceptions about the conflict – which would surely make it the only such war in history? It is often said that admitting there’s an issue is the first step to recovery, so I encourage the True Believers to be honest with themselves, and concede that there is indeed a great deal of misunderstanding and mythology about the Boer War.

The Defenders of the Myth have yet to summon the courage to respond to my earlier challenges,[3] but I would still like to get to the bottom of their entertaining panic-stricken horror, and rather laughable attempts to ‘cancel’ me.[4] And so, to help these deluded souls finally admit the obvious, and acknowledge that there are indeed many widely (and passionately) believed fables and falsehoods about the Boer War, I have drawn up twenty simple questions. I can only hope that, this time, at least a couple of True Believers will be man enough to answer them.

All of these questions pertain to the Boer War of 1899-1902, and all are straightforward, yes / no questions:

1. Would you agree there is a commonly-held belief that the Boer War was fought between the British Empire and South Africa?[5]

2. Would you agree it is not commonly-known / acknowledged that more than 52,000 ‘South African’ loyalists fought for the Empire against the Boers?^[6]

3. Would you agree there is a commonly-held belief that, before the conflict started, a vast British army was ‘massed on the borders’, ready to invade the Boer republics?[7]

4. Would you agree there is a commonly-held belief that the Boer War started with a British invasion of the two Boer republics?[8]

5. Would you agree there is a commonly-held belief that Britain ‘started the war to steal the gold and diamonds’?[9]

6. Would you agree there is a commonly-held belief that the men of the British army wore red in the Boer War?[10]

7. Would you agree there is a commonly-held belief that the British army typically fought in close-order formations, using ‘Napoleonic’ / ‘Crimea War’ style infantry tactics?[11]

8. Would you agree there is a commonly-held belief that the British army only became interested in marksmanship after being ‘taught this by the Boers’?[12]

9. Would you agree there is a commonly-held belief that – until ‘swamped by sheer weight of numbers’ – the Boers won all the early battles of the war?[13]

10. Would you agree it is not commonly-known that all the early battles of the Boer War were fought in British territory, rather than in that of the Boer republics?[14]

11. Would you agree there is a commonly-held belief that the Boers invented guerrilla warfare?[15]

12. Would you agree there is a commonly-held belief that Britain needed to ‘field an army half-a-million strong’ to defeat the Boers?[16]

13. Would you agree it is not commonly-known that, far from the bitter-einders ‘running rings around them’, Imperial forces were actually inflicting total casualties of around 1,750 a month (including taking an average of about 1,400 prisoners per month) during the guerrilla war?[17]

14. Would you agree there is a commonly-held belief that Britain ‘invented the concentration camp’ in the Boer War?[18]

15. Would you agree there is a commonly-held belief that the concentration camps of the Boer War are synonymous with the Death Camps of the Second World War?[19]

16. Would you agree there is a commonly-held belief that – compared to other such conflicts – the guerrilla phase of the Boer War was an exceptionally lengthy, drawn-out, and epic struggle?[20]

17. Would you agree there is a commonly-held belief that – compared to other such conflicts – the British army had to deploy an exceptionally, outrageously enormous force to win the guerrilla war?[21]

18. Would you agree there is a commonly-held belief that General Christiaan de Wet was an unbeatable military genius?[22]

19. Would you agree there is a commonly-held belief that the cost of fighting the Boer War almost bankrupted Great Britain?[23]

20. Would you agree it is not commonly-known that, far from grabbing them to ‘steal the gold and diamonds’, Great Britain granted self-rule to both defeated republics within a few years – and that this was part of the surrender terms?[24]

If he could somehow bring himself to be honest for a moment, not even my most passionate critic could answer ‘no’ to many (any?) of these questions. Indeed, if anyone seriously denies that these are widely-held beliefs about the war, they have clearly never seen any of the rubbish that gets spewed out online, attended a braai in South Africa, or read some of the so-called ‘histories’ of the conflict. And nor could my entertaining gaggle of detractors demonstrate that any of these commonly-held opinions are historically accurate – as comforting and bizarrely appealing as they clearly are to some.

So why was it so wrong or, indeed, even ‘offensive’ that someone finally popped up, and dared to point out that the Emperor is not wearing any clothes? As my books prove that all these commonly-held misconceptions are patently untrue, the need for my work would appear to be self-evident. Surely the correction of falsehoods and fables should be what the study of history is all about – and certainly not something for bitter, dusty old academics, pseudo-historians, or their Greek chorus of sycophantic minions, to get all pouty and tearful over.

So there we have it. Do please spread the word, and let’s see if we can flush out any True Believers blessed with the balls to respond, and the integrity to do so honestly.

NOTES:

[1] Which is, of course, another way of saying, “I can’t find any mistakes in this book, but am too invested in the myths to admit it”

[2] When it comes to the Boer War, a ‘Jingo Source’ seems to be any source which challenges National Party myth:
https://www.chrisash.co.za/2018/03/13/getting-to-the-source/
https://www.chrisash.co.za/2024/02/17/confirmation-bias/

[3] https://www.chrisash.co.za/2025/10/02/c-s-lewis-and-the-cowardice-of-the-true-believers/
https://www.chrisash.co.za/2025/10/14/another-challenge-for-the-true-believers/

[4] https://www.chrisash.co.za/2026/02/18/the-cowardice-of-cancellation/
https://www.chrisash.co.za/2020/09/03/ive-been-cancelled/

[5] Despite the various Boer War themed memes which do the rounds before every England vs South Africa rugby match, South Africa was obviously not a country in 1899. Indeed, the Boer republics comprised significantly less than half of the territory of what would unite to become South Africa in 1910, and tens of thousands of ‘South Africans’ fought against the Boers: thus it is nonsensical to in any way equate modern-day South Africa to the Boer republics of some 125 years ago

[6] Carver, The National Army Museum book of the Boer War, p.252

[7] https://www.chrisash.co.za/2024/09/11/massing-on-the-border-more-maps/
https://www.chrisash.co.za/2024/04/15/massing-on-the-other-side-of-the-border/

[8] In reality, the Boers declared war on Great Britain, and invaded the British South African territories on 11 October 1899

[9] It is generally (and very conveniently) ignored that the gold mines were owned by (mainly) British investors, while the diamond mines were in British territory (in the Kimberley area of the Cape Colony):
https://www.chrisash.co.za/2021/11/20/diamonds-n-gold/

[10] The last confirmed occasion of the British infantry wearing red in a significant action was the Battle of Ginnis, fought in the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan in 1885 – ie. some 14 years prior to the start of the Boer War. Alas, it is not just Klippies-fueled idiots who claim the British wore red in the Boer War: I have even been assured this by several so-called battlefield guides

[11] The only example of this happening was when the 5th (Irish) Brigade advanced in close-order at Colenso – something none of the other brigades did that day. It was a stupid mistake made by one Major-General on one occasion, not British army doctrine. To extrapolate this event and pretend it was standard practice is dishonest and disingenuous. Though the Highland Brigade had been caught in close-order at Magersfontein, this was because they had been too slow to shake out into open order as dawn broke after their approach march through the darkness – the plan had not been to execute the actual assault in close order, and it was more a matter of poor timing / bad luck. A modern-day equivalent would be an infantry battalion being caught by artillery fire while still packed in their trucks and before they could deploy

[12] As early as 1853 – ie. prior to the Crimean War, let alone either of the Boer Wars – the British army created an ‘establishment for the instruction of the army in rifle and target practice’. Based in Hythe in the south east of England, the School of Musketry was staffed by a corps of expert marksmen who trained regimental instructors to pass these skills on to the men of their regiments—each battalion was obliged to send two officers and two sergeants to Hythe each year

[13] If one considers the battles fought in the two months between the start of the war and ‘Black Week’, Talana Hill, Elandslaagte, Belmont, Graspan, and Modder River were all British victories. Attempted assaults on Ladysmith, Mafeking and Kuruman by the Boers were also driven off. Willow Grange and Rietfontein could probably be considered ‘score draws’, though both were strategic victories for the British. Despite all the advantages they enjoyed, the only significant battle won by the Boers in this opening two-month period was Nicholson’s Nek

[14] It was not until February 1900 – some four months after the Boer invasions which started the war – that a significant action was fought in either republic. Talana Hill, Elandslaagte, Rietfontein, Belmont, Willow Grange, Graspan, Modder River, Stormberg, Magersfontein, Colenso, Wagon Hill, Spion Kop, Vaal Krantz – plus many other un-named actions – were all fought in British territory prior to this

[15] The very term ‘guerrilla’ is Spanish in origin (‘little war’), and was coined during the asymmetric struggle in Spain after it was invaded in the Napoleonic Wars. Furthermore, the strategy of guerrilla war is thousands of years old, and was discussed by Sun Tzu

[16] 448,435 Imperial personnel served in the Boer War, but it is utterly untrue to suggest that the British ever had anything like that number in South Africa at any one time: there was a constant coming and going of units and personnel. Squealing that the British Army fielded an army ‘nearly half a million strong’ in South Africa is as inaccurate (and deliberately misleading) as claiming that Britain fielded ‘an army 150,000 strong’ in Afghanistan in the early part of the 21st Century — sure, about that number ended up serving there over the course of the conflict, but even at the peak, the number that were in theatre at any one time was only around 10,000 men. Similarly, though some 60,000 Australians served in the Vietnam War, their peak commitment was just 7,672: no one would with a functioning brain would ever claim that Australia ‘fielded a 60,000 strong army’ in Vietnam

[17] Between January 1901 and the end of the war, Imperial forces inflicted total casualties of 29,592 on the Boer guerrillas – or an average of about 1,750 a month. This included 23,961 taken as prisoners, or an average of about 1,400 a month. See Maurice, Vol.4, p.705

[18] The very term ‘concentration camp’ derives from the Spanish reconcentration camps as such establishments were named during the Spanish-Cuban War fought a couple of years earlier. Introduced by the governor of Cuba, General Valeriano Weyler in 1897, the Spanish camps were also much deadlier than those established by the British in South Africa, and it is estimated that hundreds of thousands of Cubans perished in them. Though their introduction earned him the nickname ‘Butcher’, even General Weyler was by no means the inventor of such camps. It is thought that Weyler was given the idea by General Sherman while assigned to the post of military attaché in the Spanish embassy in Washington. Sherman had widely employed such camps during the American Civil War, and the US had a long history of such things, with concentration camps—known as ‘emigration depots’—established during the Plains Wars, where large numbers of Native Americans were interned (and large numbers died). The French also established concentration camps in Algeria in the 1830s and would do so again in the 1950s. It has been estimated that between 1830 and 1900, between 15 and 25 per cent of the Algerian population died in such camps. But even these were not the first: the Paraguayan military attempted to establish concentration camps as early as 1813

[19] Not even the National Party propaganda machine managed to conjure-up evidence of gas chambers being used in the Boer War era camps – indeed, the residents were not even ‘imprisoned’ in the camps, and were free to come and go as they pleased

[20] https://www.chrisash.co.za/2022/07/13/the-longest-hardest-war-ever/
https://www.chrisash.co.za/2019/08/05/fiasco/

[21] The theoretical ratio of counter-insurgency forces to guerrillas needed to win a such a campaign is ten to one. Indeed, this is the figure still used by military planners today; as recently as 2007, the US Department of Defence produced a document entitled the Handbook on Counter Insurgency which quotes this as the rule-of-thumb ratio for such operations. Kitchener had nothing like this ratio when the guerrilla phase of the Boer War began, nor did he have the sort of technological advantage that modern-day counter-insurgency forces typically enjoy over the guerrillas
https://www.chrisash.co.za/2021/07/07/i-need-500000-men/

[22] Though later reinvented as some sort of clairvoyant and invincible commander, De Wet was defeated at Wepener and Frederikstad, fled in panic from his thrashing at Bothaville, and was defeated again at Tiger Kloof Spruit in December 1901. Back in July 1900, he had also brainlessly led the remaining forces of the Orange Free State into the Brandwater Basin, but fled before the net closed, leaving thousands of his men to their fate – though De Wet made good his escape, it ended up being the biggest defeat by either side in the war. All these beatings pale into insignificance, however, when compared to his truly farcical attempt to invade the Cape Colony in early 1901 – an invasion which was comically inept from start to finish, and ended in utter disaster, defined mainly by De Wet’s desperation to save his own skin:
https://www.chrisash.co.za/2024/01/11/general-de-wet-a-study-in-incompetence/

[23] https://www.chrisash.co.za/2020/08/08/financial-ruin/
https://www.chrisash.co.za/2020/08/15/financial-ruin-part-2/
https://www.chrisash.co.za/2024/10/25/it-almost-bankrupted-the-empire/

[24] Article 7 of the Treaty of Vereeniging declared: ‘Military administration in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony will at the earliest possible date be succeeded by Civil Government, and, as soon as circumstances permit, Representative Institutions, leading up to self-Government, will be introduced’. Despite what some desperately like to pretend, this was thus not a change implemented by the Liberal Government when they won the British General Election in 1906 – it was quite simply one of the terms of surrender, as had been agreed back in 1902