The American civil war and the 2nd boer war are my two favourite wars to learn about. Especially on the Boer side. Too bad people only focus on the British side.
I would imagine that the Kommando's being called up from each district had a lot of unit cohesion as basically everyone was a relative or neighbour. You could quite possibly have a unit with a child/father/grandfather and possibly even a great grandfather.
Your professor downplays the Boer's abilities and toughness and prowess with a rifle. Ask any English speaker who did his national service in the 70's and 80's and he will tell you very few Afrikaans speakers could not handle a rifle before he was called up to the army. To this day most Afrikaners hunt. Even the urban ones. Regarding their toughness and abilities to survive almost everything. Most Afrikaners found army life to be easier than life at home.
Great to know about the tactics and how flexible the boers operated. Just looking at the last part of troops charging up the hill and no cover. Nothing carried over to Battle of Somme 1916.
My initial response to the question was 'Because the British infantry were trained to advance and attack in line. Only skirmishers such as Light Companies and the Rifles trained to fight independently. The Boers on the other hand made the best of the terrain available to them and fought more akin to the Spanish guilleros of the Peninsular War than the French in the same war'. Also the Boer uniforms were much harder to spot than the primary colour red of the British - you can't hit what you can't see. Now let's watch the video and see if my thoughts make any sense :) [Addendum: Yes and no.... John mentioned that by the time of the Boer Wars the British were used to skirmish lines [so no] etc, but isn't part of that thinking independently and knowing to shoot officers first, as the Boers did? Therefore shooting the officers /shouldn't/ have had the effect it did. Did the British have to be /told/ 'deploy in skirmish order' [seems that way] whilst the Boers did by default? In summary it seems the British knew /what/ to do but not /when/ to do it, and relied on officers for the /when/. The Boers knew what /and/ when.
The brits hadn't learned from the American Revolution a 100 years in the past. Redcoats chewed up by American riflemen who hunted, fought Natives, employed Native hit and run tactics, and conducted long hunts. Not a city boy from London. Guerilla warfare was foreign to the British even up to the Boer wars. My ancestors fought in that war.
@@redcoathistory has anyone ever done an assessment (of any conflict) of the issue of uniform colour? For example Portuguese cazadores were effectively the Light Companies. Did they suffer less than British Light Companies, as they wore green/brown and the British wore red. Also newer uniforms among the British were brighter and not patched Did they suffer less?
@@pavlothekozak827 Guerilla warfare in the revolutionary war was very limited. Most losses on both sides were from massed battles following traditional doctrine.
The Boers was excelent marksmen. They were almost all legitimate snipers and every British soldier were a deadman walking who didnt have any form of proper cover. What I find "amused" is the fact that the Boer snipers first took out the officers who were shouting instructions/orders to the regiment soldiers. Can you imagine the the chaos in that command structure when that happened😂
Zulu smart people and 2nd Boer War concentration camp experts deserve some screen time too. Snook lied in his book (one of many) saying as the 1879 war went towards Ulundi the Brits had to kill so many Zulus to end the war it left a bad aftertaste but I read Zulus brought peace offerings but Brits were out for blood
Primary farmers, proficient horsemen. They had to protect themselves hostile natives. Every Sunday post church, many had an informal rifle match. They know the terrain, they know the weather. Everything I mentioned first off are valued martial skills. 1901, the British promote small bore marksmanship nationally. All too late for SA war.
Nicely presented. Let's not forget what happened next, when the boer's farms were burnt to the ground and their woman and children were herded into camps, for "their protection" later referred to as consentration camps. Many woman and children were starved in these camps. Proud to be a descendant of a boer family.
Hi there Parkinson, I really appreciated this insight, you and Professor Laband did great. I've watched a few other videos you've put out on South Africa. I'm working on a story set during the Anglo Boer War. It's a real help to hear the truth behind the Boers civilian lives, and their use of horses and guns. It'll help me portray them in a fleshed out light (from what we see of them). I'd love to know what you think of this
You would think that the British military commanders would have learned with being more diligent and having weapons in the shoulder where they should be at all times. Also the tactics of the day was shocking to today's standards. Even in WW1 where soldiers advanced to contact whilst under machine gun fire was ludicrous and proved suicidal. Not much changed through the war. Looking forward to the next one. Thanks mate that was excellent.
Hi Christian Another fascinating video...🇬🇧 The writer Rudyard Kipling remarked of the war, 'WE HAVE HAD AN IMPERIAL LESSON .' The British Army learned from its mistakes and defeats during its conflicts against the Boers. Post South Africa a serious reform in tactics, was introduced during the run up to the First World War. An increase in range practice and improving marksman ship being key along with skirmishing tactics along with front line support from a more mobile artillery meant that when the British Expeditionary Force were shipped over to France and Belgium in 1914, it was the best equipped and trained force ever to leave Blighty.
I think part of Pomeroy-Colley's problem was that he vastly underestimated the seriousness of the rebellion. This may have been due to the initial lack of response when Britain annexed the ZAR in 1877. In any case, even for a small rebellion, P-C was crazy to think that he could march over Laing's Nek and relieve 5 garrisons with only 1500 men. In fact, he was rash even to advance as far as the Nek, leaving his supply line dangerously exposed. There were even OVS subjects sympathetic to Transvaal crossing the passes and entering Natal to his rear. A further advance would be completely untenable.
Great stuff. Not sure how many wars or battles the Brits lost but it could not have been many, as they owned the biggest empire the world has ever seen and you don't do that by losing wars.
Great discussion. Tough watching Boer propagandas someone whose family was British military Fighting on your own territory can always be a huge advantage
As a descendent of the Brits in SA, how do you explain the concentration camps? 30k Africans and 30k Boers died because of British pluck or cowardice, depending on your perspective.
@@patrickcooper7629 it was not okay Patrick. Totally wrong . I was kinda joking because the war films shown were Dutch Never an excuse for concentration camps ...German or British or American
Only through proto-nazi and Sherman inspired scorched earth campaigns and concentration camps. This guy is only out for a buck, take him with a grain of salt..
I had a friend who apart from his huge armoury and even sewing bullets into seams of upholstery 😂😅😂 He showed me articles from the 2nd Boer war about the weapons the Boers used . Many of their hunting rifles far outranged the British weaponry . Even some larger military rifles ( even with front bipods ) that they would use to snipe the British lines from a kilometre or more . I am sure the Boers had rifles suited to their hunting that far out ranged the British even in the first Boer war . This really enhanced their mainly hit and run tactics . Many times relocating before the British could come within range . Or enhance even uphill covering fire for their skirmish lines .
You are right about having better rifles. In the First Boer war they had .450 Westley Richards, a falling-block, single-action, breech-loading model rifle, with accuracy up to 600 yards. And in the Second Boer they came from Germany, most commonly used they had Mausers Model 1895 with a range of 2000 yards and at the time was a much superior weapon. They received 37,000 rifles and some 40+ million rounds. There were a few other rifles used as well as captured from the Brits.
It wasnt so much the quality of the Boer rifles as much as that the Boers were much better shots and much better at using cover and concealment, not presenting a good target to be shot at. While the British soldiers often were caught marching in columns in the open, presenting huge convenient targets, the Boers were generally barely visible to their opponents in most battles. The results was quite easy to predict. The Boer Mausers had a little bit of an advantage over the British Lee Enfield in terms of velocity (2,300 fps vs 2,050 fps) and being able to reload with stripper clips rather than one round at a time (although the Lee Enfield had a 10 round magazine instead of the Mauser's 5), but the difference wasnt huge. Many of the British Lee Enfields was however improperly sighted at the factory, which further compounded the issue of lower markmanship standards among the British soldiery.
Marching in column through open country in bright red coats was not very smart. It is a lesson they should have learned in the American Revolution and the previous French and Indian War.
Red was used because the folks in charge of money back home bought the cheapest cloth they could get...and red dye at the time was cheapest...as the decades turned to centuries...it was just traditional...and armies hate ditching tradition
@@lonniecombs7431 At least they wised up on uniforms by WWI if not a lot else. The tactics of the Somme were insane. The military was also cheap with ammo. Most soldiers couldn't hit a wagon at 50 yards. Just fire volleys in the general direction against concealed marksmen- dumb!
The American civil war and the 2nd boer war are my two favourite wars to learn about. Especially on the Boer side. Too bad people only focus on the British side.
Living in south africa now. The irony is I have a boer mother and a father from British origin. How times change😅
Eks die selfde
Sorry to hear that we lost a war. But, the Boers knew what they were doing so credit due where credit due. Regards from Canada 🇨🇦
Never mess with an Afrikaner. !!
Because the boers could shoot and the British couldnt
I would imagine that the Kommando's being called up from each district had a lot of unit cohesion as basically everyone was a relative or neighbour.
You could quite possibly have a unit with a child/father/grandfather and possibly even a great grandfather.
Chris, one of this days you might consider doing a video about Koos de la Rey I think he was a very worthy enemy of the British Army.
Hi - yes will defintely be lookign at Boer leaders once I reach 2nd Anglo-Boer War (not sure when that will be yet but will keep you posted for sure).
My brave Boer ancestors died for nothing.
Another interesting video-thank you. The Professor's voice resembles that of Sir John Gielgud.
Thanks. He certainly has a great voice - I could listen all day!
Where has this channel been hiding, excellent content told in a wonderful way
Your professor downplays the Boer's abilities and toughness and prowess with a rifle.
Ask any English speaker who did his national service in the 70's and 80's and he will tell you very few Afrikaans speakers could not handle a rifle before he was called up to the army. To this day most Afrikaners hunt. Even the urban ones.
Regarding their toughness and abilities to survive almost everything. Most Afrikaners found army life to be easier than life at home.
Best videos from the best channel on YT.
That's lovely to hear, thankyou
Great to know about the tactics and how flexible the boers operated. Just looking at the last part of troops charging up the hill and no cover. Nothing carried over to Battle of Somme 1916.
My initial response to the question was 'Because the British infantry were trained to advance and attack in line. Only skirmishers such as Light Companies and the Rifles trained to fight independently. The Boers on the other hand made the best of the terrain available to them and fought more akin to the Spanish guilleros of the Peninsular War than the French in the same war'. Also the Boer uniforms were much harder to spot than the primary colour red of the British - you can't hit what you can't see. Now let's watch the video and see if my thoughts make any sense :)
[Addendum: Yes and no....
John mentioned that by the time of the Boer Wars the British were used to skirmish lines [so no] etc, but isn't part of that thinking independently and knowing to shoot officers first, as the Boers did? Therefore shooting the officers /shouldn't/ have had the effect it did. Did the British have to be /told/ 'deploy in skirmish order' [seems that way] whilst the Boers did by default?
In summary it seems the British knew /what/ to do but not /when/ to do it, and relied on officers for the /when/. The Boers knew what /and/ when.
Seems to be a good assesment. Thanks for sharing.
The brits hadn't learned from the American Revolution a 100 years in the past. Redcoats chewed up by American riflemen who hunted, fought Natives, employed Native hit and run tactics, and conducted long hunts. Not a city boy from London. Guerilla warfare was foreign to the British even up to the Boer wars. My ancestors fought in that war.
@@redcoathistory has anyone ever done an assessment (of any conflict) of the issue of uniform colour? For example Portuguese cazadores were effectively the Light Companies. Did they suffer less than British Light Companies, as they wore green/brown and the British wore red. Also newer uniforms among the British were brighter and not patched Did they suffer less?
@@pavlothekozak827 that is one salty comment, grats on not being apart of that war though
@@pavlothekozak827 Guerilla warfare in the revolutionary war was very limited. Most losses on both sides were from massed battles following traditional doctrine.
The Boers was excelent marksmen. They were almost all legitimate snipers and every British soldier were a deadman walking who didnt have any form of proper cover. What I find "amused" is the fact that the Boer snipers first took out the officers who were shouting instructions/orders to the regiment soldiers. Can you imagine the the chaos in that command structure when that happened😂
Zulu smart people and 2nd Boer War concentration camp experts deserve some screen time too. Snook lied in his book (one of many) saying as the 1879 war went towards Ulundi the Brits had to kill so many Zulus to end the war it left a bad aftertaste but I read Zulus brought peace offerings but Brits were out for blood
Boers have a way cooler accent.
Primary farmers, proficient horsemen. They had to protect themselves hostile natives. Every Sunday post church, many had an informal rifle match. They know the terrain, they know the weather. Everything I mentioned first off are valued martial skills. 1901, the British promote small bore marksmanship nationally. All too late for SA war.
Vertrou in God en die Mauser
I'll be looking forward to the battle of Majuba hill video!
Not too long to go...
Nicely presented. Let's not forget what happened next, when the boer's farms were burnt to the ground and their woman and children were herded into camps, for "their protection" later referred to as consentration camps. Many woman and children were starved in these camps.
Proud to be a descendant of a boer family.
A different war my friend.
Yess ..no forget..😢
NEVER!!!
I enjoy your videos. Looking forward to you video at Majuba. I visited in 1998, well worth a visit.
Thanks, John.
Generic coment for the algorithm
Perfect and appreciated!
Hi there Parkinson,
I really appreciated this insight, you and Professor Laband did great. I've watched a few other videos you've put out on South Africa. I'm working on a story set during the Anglo Boer War. It's a real help to hear the truth behind the Boers civilian lives, and their use of horses and guns. It'll help me portray them in a fleshed out light (from what we see of them). I'd love to know what you think of this
Excellent video as always.
Referring to the war and fight by my people as a "rebellion" is a condescending colonial insult.
Agreed! We were our own country, recognised by the Pom's.
I would like to know who why a banner charge was ordered after skirmishing failed, what as that person’s theory?
You would think that the British military commanders would have learned with being more diligent and having weapons in the shoulder where they should be at all times. Also the tactics of the day was shocking to today's standards. Even in WW1 where soldiers advanced to contact whilst under machine gun fire was ludicrous and proved suicidal. Not much changed through the war. Looking forward to the next one. Thanks mate that was excellent.
The Vietnamese perfected guerilla warfare, but the Boer invented it.
All good examples but I think the concept goes back millennia. It was perhaps just lacking a catchy name until the peninsular war.
I heard the Boers invented beer too
Hi Christian
Another fascinating video...🇬🇧 The writer Rudyard Kipling remarked of the war, 'WE HAVE HAD AN IMPERIAL LESSON .' The British Army learned from its mistakes and defeats during its conflicts against the Boers.
Post South Africa a serious reform in tactics, was introduced during the run up to the First World War. An increase in range practice and improving marksman ship being key along with skirmishing tactics along with front line support from a more mobile artillery meant that when the British Expeditionary Force were shipped over to France and Belgium in 1914, it was the best equipped and trained force ever to leave Blighty.
Shame that they would repeat the mistakes this time it would be 800 thousand dead.
I think part of Pomeroy-Colley's problem was that he vastly underestimated the seriousness of the rebellion. This may have been due to the initial lack of response when Britain annexed the ZAR in 1877. In any case, even for a small rebellion, P-C was crazy to think that he could march over Laing's Nek and relieve 5 garrisons with only 1500 men. In fact, he was rash even to advance as far as the Nek, leaving his supply line dangerously exposed. There were even OVS subjects sympathetic to Transvaal crossing the passes and entering Natal to his rear. A further advance would be completely untenable.
What a wonderful presentation.
Great stuff. Not sure how many wars or battles the Brits lost but it could not have been many, as they owned the biggest empire the world has ever seen and you don't do that by losing wars.
Great discussion. Tough watching Boer propagandas someone whose family was British military
Fighting on your own territory can always be a huge advantage
As a descendent of the Brits in SA, how do you explain the concentration camps? 30k Africans and 30k Boers died because of British pluck or cowardice, depending on your perspective.
women and children first and foremost died in the camps. not being british as they said in The Titanic
@@patrickcooper7629 it was not okay Patrick. Totally wrong . I was kinda joking because the war films shown were Dutch
Never an excuse for concentration camps ...German or British or American
@@patrickcooper7629 disgusting
@@reynardthefox And the sad thing is guys like this guy (host) downplay that history and glorify cowards like Kitchener for a couple bucks
Very good.
Thanks a lot!
Did the British win the 2nd boer war?
Only through proto-nazi and Sherman inspired scorched earth campaigns and concentration camps. This guy is only out for a buck, take him with a grain of salt..
Yes
@@redcoathistory Yes I am only out for a buck? Sporting lad
YES
after kitchener put all the boer women and children into concentration camps in which more than 20 thousand died. It's one way to win a war I suppose
What a great channel you have. You deserve more subscribers. I just subbed!
Thanks and welcome
I had a friend who apart from his huge armoury and even sewing bullets into seams of upholstery 😂😅😂
He showed me articles from the 2nd Boer war about the weapons the Boers used . Many of their hunting rifles far outranged the British weaponry . Even some larger military rifles ( even with front bipods ) that they would use to snipe the British lines from a kilometre or more .
I am sure the Boers had rifles suited to their hunting that far out ranged the British even in the first Boer war . This really enhanced their mainly hit and run tactics .
Many times relocating before the British could come within range .
Or enhance even uphill covering fire for their skirmish lines .
You are right about having better rifles.
In the First Boer war they had .450 Westley Richards, a falling-block, single-action, breech-loading model rifle, with accuracy up to 600 yards.
And in the Second Boer they came from Germany, most commonly used they had Mausers Model 1895 with a range of 2000 yards and at the time was a much superior weapon.
They received 37,000 rifles and some 40+ million rounds.
There were a few other rifles used as well as captured from the Brits.
It wasnt so much the quality of the Boer rifles as much as that the Boers were much better shots and much better at using cover and concealment, not presenting a good target to be shot at. While the British soldiers often were caught marching in columns in the open, presenting huge convenient targets, the Boers were generally barely visible to their opponents in most battles. The results was quite easy to predict.
The Boer Mausers had a little bit of an advantage over the British Lee Enfield in terms of velocity (2,300 fps vs 2,050 fps) and being able to reload with stripper clips rather than one round at a time (although the Lee Enfield had a 10 round magazine instead of the Mauser's 5), but the difference wasnt huge. Many of the British Lee Enfields was however improperly sighted at the factory, which further compounded the issue of lower markmanship standards among the British soldiery.
Marching in column through open country in bright red coats was not very smart. It is a lesson they should have learned in the American Revolution and the previous French and Indian War.
Red was used because the folks in charge of money back home bought the cheapest cloth they could get...and red dye at the time was cheapest...as the decades turned to centuries...it was just traditional...and armies hate ditching tradition
@@lonniecombs7431 At least they wised up on uniforms by WWI if not a lot else. The tactics of the Somme were insane. The military was also cheap with ammo. Most soldiers couldn't hit a wagon at 50 yards. Just fire volleys in the general direction against concealed marksmen- dumb!
There were good that’s for sure they did not win every battle.
They did literally win every battle David.
@@redcoathistory I’ll check. 😆
Blaauberg?
@@davidedbrooke9324 About 90 years earlier and against the Dutch wasn't it?
@@davidedbrooke9324 Just to confirm, you do know we are talking about the 1st Anglo-Boer war of 1880-81 right?
"Losing a war was a very rare occurrence" erm..... Great Britain has most plenty of wars, and it certainly wasn't a rare occurrence either.