advantages and sometimes disadvantages of military discipline.  He had been taught to obey orders, whether it meant death to him or not.  Besides, the soldier was backed up by thousands and tens of thousands of comrades on every side, while batteries of naval guns and Armstrongs were at his rear, under cover of which he could charge or retreat.  No beating of drums, or symphonies of martial music, or great numbers inspired and urged the Boer on to the performance of heroic deeds.  With rifle in hand and limited supply of cartridges he often had to face overwhelming odds.  And when these odds threatened to outflank him, he was called by some a coward for retreating and not allowing himself to be captured.  Instinctively he knew it was better to retreat—­

    “For he who fights and runs away
    May live to fight another day.”

Some maintain that the Boers are only brave when lying behind huge boulders, or entrenched in strong fortifications, from whence, concealed, they can pour a deadly fusillade on the approaching enemy.  There may be an element of truth in this charge, but as a generalization it is utterly false.  To stamp the Boers as cowards in general is to rob the British Army of much of its honour and so discredit their work in South Africa.  The best answer to and the most persuasive argument against this assertion is to be found in the construction of the multitudinous forts, trenches, sangars, blockhouses, etc., by the British in South Africa.  What is their significance?  The most inobservant traveller in South Africa must be struck by the network of fortifications erected almost throughout the length and breadth of the country.  Could the English have given the Boers a better testimonial of gallant behaviour than these?  Surely blockhouses and bulwarks are not required for cowards, for they would never approach them.

It is hardly necessary to say that all Boers were not brave; there were many timorous ones among them.  No army in the world is composed entirely of brave and fearless characters.  We often sustained losses and sometimes disasters because the burghers retreated when they should have stood or charged.  The victory would have often been theirs had they resisted a little longer.  But apart from this, have they not proved to the enemy in particular and to the world in general that they are the children of chivalrous nations, of men who knew no fear?  Have not the British forces sustained some of their greatest losses when these untrained peasants led the charge?  We need only refer to a few of the many battles fought during the war to show what these simple untrained farmers did accomplish—­battles which certainly merited for them the attribute of being brave.

(1) On the 30th of November, 1899, General De Wet, who was then only Assistant Commandant, led 200 men up Nicholson’s Nek, a hill which was then in the possession of the enemy.  After an engagement which lasted five hours, the British hoisted the white flag.  General De Wet personally counted 817 prisoners-of-war, while 203 were lying on the battlefield either dead or wounded.  Here the English were in possession of the hill, i.e., of the best positions, and vastly outnumbered the Boers.