British doing better against the Boers

Having started studying the British Empire at university, I just thought of this question. What would it have taken for the British to fight better against the Boers? Because, looking at their record, the redcoats really, really didn't cover themselves with glory in their South African adventures. An unfortunate exception, in my view.
 
Underestimating one's opponent does that to a country. Unfortunately, they really had no precedent of an African opponent giving them a real fight - without such a precedent they were always going to fall for believing that an African army could never challenge them.
 
Well I'm sure they recognised the Boers as white settler republics rather than 'just another' African nation - personally I'm impressed the First Boer War wasn't studied in detail for the possible (and likely) rematch.

Still against a well-armed, guerilla focused force I don't think the Empire could have really played its long-term goals any other way - I think a better card would have been to avoid a real war all together, merely fund the Utlander influx until a demographics force the Boers to act, either the British colonists fight back and win or the British Army intervene in a far more PR saavy way.
 
Well I'm sure they recognised the Boers as white settler republics rather than 'just another' African nation - personally I'm impressed the First Boer War wasn't studied in detail for the possible (and likely) rematch.

True, I answered in a hurry and had the Zulus in my mind. Entirely my fault. In fact it kind of wrecks my whole point as I had the Isandwala Ridge or whatever it was called in my mind the entire time I posted. My memory of the Boer War specifics is far more patchy. Uhh...yeah. Stupid me.

Still, I'm sure underestimation of a far lesser opponent with no trained European-style military and no European resources surely factored in there.
 
Top