What do you think?
Rate this book
The Boer War: A History
The Boer War of 1899-1902 was an epic of heroism and bungling, cunning and barbarism with an extraordinary cast of characters - including Churchill, Rhodes, Conan Doyle, Smuts, Kipling, Gandhi, Kruger and Kitchener. The war revealed the ineptitude of the British military and unexpectedly exposed the corrupt underside of imperialism - in the establishment of the first concentration camps, the shooting of Boer prisoners-of-war and the embezzlement of military supplies by British officers. This acclaimed book provides a complete history of the Boer War - from the first signs of unrest to the eventual peace. In the process, it debunks several of the myths which have grown up around the conflict and explores the deadly legacy it left for southern Africa.
384 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2002
16 people are currently reading
93 people want to read
About the author
Denis Judd
61 books17 followersDenis Judd was born in Northamptonshire in 1938 and educated in a village primary school before passing the 'Eleven Plus' and entering the local grammar school. He won a State Scholarship to Oxford, where he took his first degree in Modern History at Magdalen College, going on to study for a PhD at London University, on: 'A. J. Balfour and the evolution and problems of the British Empire 1874-1906.' He is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society.
He has been Head of History, and is now Professor Emeritus of Imperial and Commonwealth History, at the London Metropolitan University. In his research, writing and broadcasting he has specialised in the British Empire and Commonwealth, especially South Africa and India. He has also written extensively on British history, on aspects of the monarchy, and among his biographies is the authorised life of the children’s author Alison Uttley.
He has been Head of History, and is now Professor Emeritus of Imperial and Commonwealth History, at the London Metropolitan University. In his research, writing and broadcasting he has specialised in the British Empire and Commonwealth, especially South Africa and India. He has also written extensively on British history, on aspects of the monarchy, and among his biographies is the authorised life of the children’s author Alison Uttley.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
November 30, 2015
A competent, but unspectacular history of the Boer War (1899-1902). Mr. Judd is a professional historian whose books are capably researched and possess all the necessary academic accouterments (bibliography,research notes and so on). Being a modern historian he tries to look at both sides of an issue (though inevitably there are going to be readers who feel that he was biased,but then that's true of everything at this time and ,perhaps, always has been) and gives space to background and an epilogue so that we (the readers) will know how all the primary players ended up. All in all exactly the type of book that one would expect to find in the museum gift-shop or in a lower level college history course. A professional, competent and academically correct book......which is the biggest problem I have with it. The whole thing feels like Mr. Judd was commissioned by the BBC to write a book to accompany a four part series about the war.
There is no passion. No sense that Mr. Judd spent years of his life researching and writing this book. It feels more like he spent a couple months in a few libraries (possibly all within the United Kingdom) and at the Imperial War Museum then put together this book, cashed his check, and went onto his next assignment. Contrast this work with The Boer War by Thomas Pakenham. Mr. Pakenham spent years researching his book. He traveled to the various locations, walked the battlefields and interviewed the handful of surviving veterans (late sixties and early seventies). There is a real feeling of passion in his book. A feeling that he was truly interested and dedicated a substantial portion of his life to writing about the war. Pakenham wrote a book that both examined the war and challenged popular held belief such as that General Buller was a roaring incompetent - nothing more than a Colonel Blimp. That's great history in my opinion. Mr. Judd feels like he wrote an extended piece for a periodical. Incidentally Judd adheres to the popular opinion that Buller was inept and makes no attempt to really look at the troubles that he had to deal with.
If you're simply interested in learning more about a war that many know absolutely nothing about, but don't have the time or interest to sink yourself into a very dense piece of work such as what Mr. Pakenham wrote then you could do far worse then Denis Judd's book. There is nothing wrong with it. It's professional and informative, but it doesn't have any lighting. If you like a little kick with your history you will find this one to be a bit of a yawn.
There is no passion. No sense that Mr. Judd spent years of his life researching and writing this book. It feels more like he spent a couple months in a few libraries (possibly all within the United Kingdom) and at the Imperial War Museum then put together this book, cashed his check, and went onto his next assignment. Contrast this work with The Boer War by Thomas Pakenham. Mr. Pakenham spent years researching his book. He traveled to the various locations, walked the battlefields and interviewed the handful of surviving veterans (late sixties and early seventies). There is a real feeling of passion in his book. A feeling that he was truly interested and dedicated a substantial portion of his life to writing about the war. Pakenham wrote a book that both examined the war and challenged popular held belief such as that General Buller was a roaring incompetent - nothing more than a Colonel Blimp. That's great history in my opinion. Mr. Judd feels like he wrote an extended piece for a periodical. Incidentally Judd adheres to the popular opinion that Buller was inept and makes no attempt to really look at the troubles that he had to deal with.
If you're simply interested in learning more about a war that many know absolutely nothing about, but don't have the time or interest to sink yourself into a very dense piece of work such as what Mr. Pakenham wrote then you could do far worse then Denis Judd's book. There is nothing wrong with it. It's professional and informative, but it doesn't have any lighting. If you like a little kick with your history you will find this one to be a bit of a yawn.
March 14, 2015
This is a shorter review than I normally write, but I've had a hard time writing it. After reading Byron Farwell’s The Anglo-Boer War, I really wanted to enjoy The Boer War by Dennis Judd and Keith Surridge but instead, I came away somewhat disappointed. The Boer War is well researched, informative, and argues some great points but it does so in a very dry way. The authors don’t develop the important personalities, so you don’t get as much insight into their interactions. The book is light on details and heavy on analysis and that isn't necessarily a problem, but there just doesn't seem to be quite enough detail on the military action. Additionally, it had no maps and maps are important when you’re dealing with military history. Finally, I frequently felt like I was reading a text book much of the time.
I never really felt engaged with this book. It didn't draw me in and make me want to keep reading, or make me wonder what was coming on the next page. That’s a trap that a book on history can easily fall into and this one unfortunately did. I can only give this book three stars, but at the same time I don’t want to discourage anyone from reading it. It’s definitely worth reading, but only after reading another book on the war that will familiarize you with the war and provide more detail on the fighting and the personalities than this one does.
I never really felt engaged with this book. It didn't draw me in and make me want to keep reading, or make me wonder what was coming on the next page. That’s a trap that a book on history can easily fall into and this one unfortunately did. I can only give this book three stars, but at the same time I don’t want to discourage anyone from reading it. It’s definitely worth reading, but only after reading another book on the war that will familiarize you with the war and provide more detail on the fighting and the personalities than this one does.
March 17, 2015
This book is not a history of the Boer War so much as a detailed account of English triumphs and tragedies during the Boer War, with a much thinner treatment of the Boers. History is written by the victors, I guess. Nothing about the Netherlands' role, and very little about the role of religion on the Boer side. Though the authors talk about the rough racist treatment of the African population, they hardly scratch the surface of what was really their war, too, in horrific ways. A good basic primer on the main battles.
November 9, 2025
I was hoping for a book on the Anglo-Boer War (as it should be called) that would spend more time on the war’s causes, the antiwar opposition, the concentration camps, and so on, but while it doesn’t ignore these questions, it doesn’t give them the time they deserve. So, it’s largely a book about the battles, and it misses the main point about them. The Boer forces were heavily outnumbered, but they functioned as a real citizens’ army. The imperialist British army was still organized around the idea that class position and little else made good officers. This was disproven quite dramatically!
Middle class leftists today see the war as benevolent Britain against racist Dutch, German, and French farmers. Britain was totally racist, and it was defending an empire against farmers. The communists and Irish nationalists correctly saw this as a war against the British Empire.
In the chapter “Big Business, Capitalism and the War” the authors present J.A. Hobson’s theory of imperialism (written soon after he was an eyewitness to this war), which was to a great extent adopted by Lenin, as a “conspiracy theory.” This is either ignorant or downright dishonest. I’ve only browsed Hobson, but I don’t see it there, except as some anti-Semitic remarks totally absent in Lenin. Lenin didn’t even see imperialism as a policy, much less a conspiracy!
Lenin saw it as Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, a final stage of capitalism, that the merging of banks and industrial cartels had produced finance capitalism—the export and investment of large amounts of capital from the advanced capitalist countries to the underdeveloped countries. The end (for the most part) of colonialism has not changed this relationship; the imperialist powers are still fighting over the division of the world. Imperialism exists largely independent of the consciousness of the individuals in imperialist governments, a minority of governments in the world. This was one of several imperialist wars leading into the first inter-imperialist world slaughter, and the left-wing of the socialist movement, in particular Lenin with the assistance of Zinoviev, had to reorient the movement internationally. But one must read Lenin to see for themselves (I suggest Essential Works of V. I. Lenin, which contains other of his important works as well).
Gregory Zinoviev’s “Wars: Defensive and Aggressive,” found in 3 Study Guides on Lenin's Writings spends quite a bit of time on the Anglo-Boer War. Here’s a brief excerpt:
“For decades the English imperialists had oppressed the Boers, exploiting them politically and economically. In 1896 the English representative in South Africa, Jameson, launched a cavalry attack upon the Boers, during which many innocent citizens lost their lives. He declared later that he was forced to act in 'self-defense'. In reality, however, the English rifles had gone off a little sooner than was suitable for the plans of the English government. It was compelled to act as if it was dissatisfied with its representative. He was turned over to a court, given thirteen months in prison, but was then pardoned because of 'poor health'. This was just as hypocritical a comedy on the part of the English imperialists as the famous telegram of sympathy which Wilhelm II sent the Boers on the occasion of the event. The English and the German imperialists played with the Boers like a cat with a mouse.
“Hence the war of the Boers against the English was outwardly a war of aggression—in reality, a just war of defense.”
The best book on Lenin’s efforts to build a new international amidst the first mass inter-imperialist slaughter is Lenin's Struggle for a Revolutionary International: Documents, 1907-1916, the Preparatory Years.
Judd and Surridge describe critics of the war as “attacking the economic reasons for going to war (which combined with a scurrilous anti-Semitism) …”). After slandering the various opponents of the war as anti-Semites (there were plenty of anti-Semites by the way among the British upper classes who mostly supported the war), they admit that the opponents of the war were not a homogeneous group. Irish nationalists sent a contingent to fight alongside the Boers, quite a reasonable thing for them to have done. Other anti-imperialists and socialists had an elementary duty to oppose it. As usually happens in war, freedom of speech and press took a hit. They admit that most of the labor press in Britain was anti-war.
They do slightly better on the campaign against the British concentration camps led by Emily Hobhouse.
Judd and Surridge imply in their conclusion that the United States played a big part in the boycott campaign against apartheid. This is very far from the truth: the US was, in fact, closely aligned with South Africa, Rhodesia, and Portuguese colonialism, until revolution in Portugal put an end to that. The US was forced kicking and screaming into partially boycotting by the anti-apartheid forces in the streets and campuses of the US. While the boycott played a role, the main things that brought apartheid to an end were the mass strikes and demonstrations called by the ANC and its allies, and the Cuban defeat of the South African army in Angola.
For those interested in the end of apartheid, let me recommend especially the relevant articles in Nelson Mandela Speaks: Forging a Democratic, Nonracial South Africa, and Cuba and Angola: Fighting for Africa’s Freedom and Our Own.
For the important fight against anti-Semitism, read 'The Jewish Question: A Marxist Interpretation' by Abram Leon in the 4th edition (2020) with improved translation from the French and many other things that make it easier to read. And also, The Fight Against Jew-Hatred and Pogroms in the Imperialist Epoch.
Middle class leftists today see the war as benevolent Britain against racist Dutch, German, and French farmers. Britain was totally racist, and it was defending an empire against farmers. The communists and Irish nationalists correctly saw this as a war against the British Empire.
In the chapter “Big Business, Capitalism and the War” the authors present J.A. Hobson’s theory of imperialism (written soon after he was an eyewitness to this war), which was to a great extent adopted by Lenin, as a “conspiracy theory.” This is either ignorant or downright dishonest. I’ve only browsed Hobson, but I don’t see it there, except as some anti-Semitic remarks totally absent in Lenin. Lenin didn’t even see imperialism as a policy, much less a conspiracy!
Lenin saw it as Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, a final stage of capitalism, that the merging of banks and industrial cartels had produced finance capitalism—the export and investment of large amounts of capital from the advanced capitalist countries to the underdeveloped countries. The end (for the most part) of colonialism has not changed this relationship; the imperialist powers are still fighting over the division of the world. Imperialism exists largely independent of the consciousness of the individuals in imperialist governments, a minority of governments in the world. This was one of several imperialist wars leading into the first inter-imperialist world slaughter, and the left-wing of the socialist movement, in particular Lenin with the assistance of Zinoviev, had to reorient the movement internationally. But one must read Lenin to see for themselves (I suggest Essential Works of V. I. Lenin, which contains other of his important works as well).
Gregory Zinoviev’s “Wars: Defensive and Aggressive,” found in 3 Study Guides on Lenin's Writings spends quite a bit of time on the Anglo-Boer War. Here’s a brief excerpt:
“For decades the English imperialists had oppressed the Boers, exploiting them politically and economically. In 1896 the English representative in South Africa, Jameson, launched a cavalry attack upon the Boers, during which many innocent citizens lost their lives. He declared later that he was forced to act in 'self-defense'. In reality, however, the English rifles had gone off a little sooner than was suitable for the plans of the English government. It was compelled to act as if it was dissatisfied with its representative. He was turned over to a court, given thirteen months in prison, but was then pardoned because of 'poor health'. This was just as hypocritical a comedy on the part of the English imperialists as the famous telegram of sympathy which Wilhelm II sent the Boers on the occasion of the event. The English and the German imperialists played with the Boers like a cat with a mouse.
“Hence the war of the Boers against the English was outwardly a war of aggression—in reality, a just war of defense.”
The best book on Lenin’s efforts to build a new international amidst the first mass inter-imperialist slaughter is Lenin's Struggle for a Revolutionary International: Documents, 1907-1916, the Preparatory Years.
Judd and Surridge describe critics of the war as “attacking the economic reasons for going to war (which combined with a scurrilous anti-Semitism) …”). After slandering the various opponents of the war as anti-Semites (there were plenty of anti-Semites by the way among the British upper classes who mostly supported the war), they admit that the opponents of the war were not a homogeneous group. Irish nationalists sent a contingent to fight alongside the Boers, quite a reasonable thing for them to have done. Other anti-imperialists and socialists had an elementary duty to oppose it. As usually happens in war, freedom of speech and press took a hit. They admit that most of the labor press in Britain was anti-war.
They do slightly better on the campaign against the British concentration camps led by Emily Hobhouse.
Judd and Surridge imply in their conclusion that the United States played a big part in the boycott campaign against apartheid. This is very far from the truth: the US was, in fact, closely aligned with South Africa, Rhodesia, and Portuguese colonialism, until revolution in Portugal put an end to that. The US was forced kicking and screaming into partially boycotting by the anti-apartheid forces in the streets and campuses of the US. While the boycott played a role, the main things that brought apartheid to an end were the mass strikes and demonstrations called by the ANC and its allies, and the Cuban defeat of the South African army in Angola.
For those interested in the end of apartheid, let me recommend especially the relevant articles in Nelson Mandela Speaks: Forging a Democratic, Nonracial South Africa, and Cuba and Angola: Fighting for Africa’s Freedom and Our Own.
For the important fight against anti-Semitism, read 'The Jewish Question: A Marxist Interpretation' by Abram Leon in the 4th edition (2020) with improved translation from the French and many other things that make it easier to read. And also, The Fight Against Jew-Hatred and Pogroms in the Imperialist Epoch.
March 2, 2017
A good book to capture the complexity of what was a confusing war - who was on the side of whom, and for what reasons, and for how long? One of Judd's main points is that overriding goal of both Brits and Dutch Boers was to maintain white rule, even as they battled each other.
The Brits used a common explanation to explain the war to the British public - that Brit citizens there were being abused. This was an important war for the British as the doubts about the longevity of the empire were starting. Even in "victory," the Brits ended up diminished, and the Boers, or Afrikanners, ended up in power until Mandela.
The Brits used a common explanation to explain the war to the British public - that Brit citizens there were being abused. This was an important war for the British as the doubts about the longevity of the empire were starting. Even in "victory," the Brits ended up diminished, and the Boers, or Afrikanners, ended up in power until Mandela.
April 11, 2026
The Boer War
The book was not boering. I like history book that include experiences from both sides during the war. Many well known people were quoted. Rudyard Kipling, Winston Churchill, Arthur Conan Doyle and Lord Baden Powell. It even explained how Baden Powell started the boy scouts during the war. The authors treated each side equally. If British officers made mistakes, it was discussed. It the Boer leaders did something wrong it was discussed. I enjoyed the book.
The book was not boering. I like history book that include experiences from both sides during the war. Many well known people were quoted. Rudyard Kipling, Winston Churchill, Arthur Conan Doyle and Lord Baden Powell. It even explained how Baden Powell started the boy scouts during the war. The authors treated each side equally. If British officers made mistakes, it was discussed. It the Boer leaders did something wrong it was discussed. I enjoyed the book.
July 26, 2025
A decent read. Does away with much of the speculation that the boer war was pursued solely for gold and other natural resources. That being said the authors moralising about South Africa in later 20th century was a bit repetitive and outdated, considering the failure of that country today. Regardless worth reading.
August 30, 2012
Having read the Courtney series by Wilbur Smith and The Covenant by James Michener, it was time to get a better overview of this piece of the history of southern Africa.
August 30, 2014
Wrong, on so many levels.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews