It’s hard to imagine it nowadays, but there was a time not really so very long ago when Great Britain moved through the world with supreme self-confidence, convinced of its suitability to rule over a quarter of the globe.
Chris Ash is a throwback to that age, an age that perhaps hit its apogee right around when the Second Anglo-Boer War broke out in 1899.
Art by David Oerder
Ash, a Scot and a military veteran who emigrated to Africa, has written a number of books about southern Africa in this era — a biography of Cecil Rhodes’ right-hand man, Leander Starr Jameson, a treatise on the Matabele Wars of 1893 and 1896, an atlas of the Boer Wars, and a provocative revisionist history of the Boer War itself. He is no neutral historian — he is, in effect, an advocate for the British Empire, arguing his corner as though he is defending his client in the Court of History.
As long as you take this into account, his books have real value and are highly enjoyable, despite a sometimes tedious tendency to indulge in snarky swipes at current “liberals” and “political correctness.”
His fundamental argument is that the Boer Republics were the aggressor in the Anglo-Boer War, and that leftist history has falsely put the blame for it on British capitalists greedy for Boer gold. He argues that the gold mines were already under British ownership, and they didn’t need to take the territory to control them.
Well… Ash has a high mountain of evidence to get around, starting with the 1895-96 Jameson Raid designed to overthrow the South African Republic and seize control of Johannesburg. And then there’s the confession that Governor of the Cape Colony and High Commissioner for southern Africa, Alfred Milner, made in a letter to eventual British commander in South Africa, Lord Roberts:
“I precipitated the crisis, which was inevitable, before it was too late. It is not very agreeable, and in many eyes, not a very creditable piece of business to have been largely instrumental in bringing about a big war.”
While Ash overstates a dubious case for British innocence in the onset of war, he is right to dismantle the equally dubious case for Boer innocence. The republics had their own ambitions and agenda, and it is indisputable that they invaded Natal to kick off the war — and it wasn’t a “defensive” invasion.
Anyways…
This comes up now because Christian Parkinson had Ash on as a guest on his excellent Redcoat History Podcast. Ash is on good behavior here — the self-indulgent snark is at a minimum, and his analysis of the early campaigns provides valuable insight that debunks a variety of myths of British incompetence and Boer prowess that started accreting around the opening of the war virtually in real time.
This is well worth a half-hour of your time.
The Black Tyrone says
Have read his work on the Metabele/Rhodesians and was in point of fact purchased years ago on your recommendation. I also have “IF” which would probably disapoint many if they actually knew Kipling’s story behind the poem.
ps White Rhodesians perhaps might have hung on and been a bit more flexible… but give an inch give a mile, as is said.
The Grand Panjandrum says
I have read and enjoyed all Ash’s books. He does not say that the British were entirely ‘innocent’, only that the Boer War was the result of a power struggle in the region – basically, the Boers wanted to replace the British as the dominant power.
The Milner quote gets thrown about a lot, but is generally misunderstood. Milner did not have the power or authority to start a war, and he didn’t start the war. Kruger had been planning for an attack on British territory since at least 1887. The word ‘precipitated’ is the one that most people misunderstand in the Milner quote: this word doesn’t mean ’caused’ or ‘was responsible for’, but rather, ‘brought matters to a head’.
JimC says
Fair enough. There is a semantic issue here: Milner did not have command authority to initiate military conflict, but “bringing matters to a head” diplomatically was absolutely a means of advancing a war policy. He could as readily have placated Kruger and brought the tensions down — he did not want to. I think you could fairly argue that he provoked Kruger into doing something Kruger wanted to do.
Jerry N. says
Tacit collusion. How many wars have started that way?
JimC says
We’ve seen a bit of that in our lifetimes, haven’t we?
Jerry N says
Ain’t it so…
The Grand Panjandrum says
All you could really say about Milner is that he took a firm line with Kruger over the issue of the Uitlanders, and getting them a fair franchise.
What did he do that was actually warlike or aggressive?
Strange how people always want to talk about Milner… while ignoring the nations that declared war, and invaded their neighbors!