69 replies to this topic

[Cockney Sparrow]

Looking forward to this one due to be released in November by "the writing implement greater than the weapon".  Does anyone know what the focus of the book will be though? Can't find any useful blurb on the web.

[Jerrymurland]

The official publishers blurb is as follows: The British action at Mons on 23 August 1914 was the catalyst for what became a full blown retreat over 200 blood drenched miles. This book examines eighteen of the desperate rearguard actions that occurred during the twelve days of this near rout. While those at Le Cateau and Nery are well chronicled, others such as cavalry actions at Morsain and Taillefontaine, the Connaught Rangers’ at Le Grand Fayt and 13 Brigade’s fight at Crepy-en-Valois are virtually unknown even to expert historians. We learn how in the chaos and confusion that inevitably reigned units of Gunners and other supporting arms found themselves in the front line.
The work of the Royal Engineers responsible for blowing bridges over rivers and canals behind the retreating troops comes in for particular attention and praise. Likewise that of the RAMC.  
No less than 16 VCs were won during this historic Retreat, showing that even in the darkest hours individuals and units performed with gallantry, resourcefulness and great forbearance.
The book comes alive with first hand accounts, letters, diaries, official unit records, much of which has never been published before.

Which is about right! I have examined the rearguard actions of August and September 1914 and attempted to dispel some of the myths.

Jerry Murland

[David Filsell]

Near route??? Evidence please.

I was so cross I wrote route instead of rout. Thankfully matron has given me another tablet

[Chris_Baker]

Jerrymurland, on 25 August 2011 - 03:52 PM, said:

The British action at Mons on 23 August 1914 was the catalyst for what became a full blown retreat

Didn't the French Fifth Army have something to do with it?  

[George Armstrong Custer]

Chris_Baker, on 25 August 2011 - 07:04 PM, said:

Didn't the French Fifth Army have something to do with it?  

You're right (or Lanzerac's left.....and he had!)

[Jim Smithson]

If he was ever really there in the first place.  Oh, except for the 2 poor reserve divisions that he forgot about (he thought they were trash anyway) and who found themselves further forward than almost anybody!   Spears paints a superb picture of the deterioration of a man for whom actual contact with the enemy (even at long distance) was simply too much.  Spears' description of a Lanzerac sat on a bed simply staring down at the floor when given news of set backs is one that always stays with me.

Jim

[Jerrymurland]

Quote

I was so cross I wrote route instead of rout. Thankfully matron has given me another tablet

Cross about rout - sorry - route - or cross about the fact that it is suggested by the publisher that the retreat was a near rout? Good to see that Mons and the retreat continues to pull the nation's strings!
By the way Chris did I suggest that the French Fifth Army was not present? Book is not available yet unless you have an advance copy!!

Jerry

[Siege Gunner]

George Armstrong Custer, on 25 August 2011 - 07:18 PM, said:

You're right (or Lanzerac's left.....and he had!)

Jim Smithson, on 25 August 2011 - 07:56 PM, said:

Spears' description of a Lanzerac sat on a bed simply staring down at the floor when given news of set backs is one that always stays with me.

Not Lanzerac but Lanrezac.

[Jerrymurland]

Siege Gunner, on 26 August 2011 - 12:47 AM, said:

Not Lanzerac but Lanrezac.

Indeed! Charles Lanrezac (July 31, 1852 - January 18, 1925) Its easy to dish the man on account of his performance at Mons and during the retreat, however he did show his general like qualities at the Battle of Guise and for a moment we saw the flair and spirit that Joffre had hoped to see during the Battle of Charleroi. Guise of course opened Sir John French to criticism from Spears. Haig wanted to assist the French Fith Army but Sir John took the opposite view. Lanrezac's eventual sacking - justifiable as it was - was a sad end to a career.
Jerry

[George Armstrong Custer]

Siege Gunner, on 26 August 2011 - 12:47 AM, said:

Not Lanzerac but Lanrezac.

There may be a rather apt Freudian slip in elements of Lanrezac's name not being where you'd expect them to be........

[squirrel]

I see that the book is available for pre order on the Amazon site through the GWF link.

[salesie]

George Armstrong Custer, on 26 August 2011 - 09:59 AM, said:

There may be a rather apt Freudian slip in elements of Lanrezac's name not being where you'd expect them to be........

Cheers-salesie.

[truthergw]

I'll look forward to reading this one soon. I welcome a more modern treatment to supplement John Terraine and Walter Bloem. I have long been sympathetic to General Lanrezac. He saw the threat from the German 1st and 2nd Armies long before the French general staff. If he had not had to fight so hard against his own commander perhaps he would have had more heart for the fight against the enemy. As Jerry says, he fought well at Guise. I have wondered whether Sir John was not too ready to blame the French for his readiness to skedaddle.

[Jerrymurland]

Absolutely right! He did see the threat well before Mons and in effect it could be argued that his unwillingness to advance was a contributing factor in saving the BEF from destruction. Sir John's decision to retire was certainly compounded by Lanrezac's retirement but we should not forget by late afternoom on 23 August 1914 German forces had successfully crossed the canal, the Nimy salient was being over-run and Mons was practically in German hands. Lanrezac or no Lanrezac, the BEF had no choice but to retire.

[SteveMarsdin]

Good afternoon,

As I understand the situation, from reading Spears and other French accounts, Lanrezac had only a small "window of opportunity" to attack. It is a great "what if ?"; IIRC his was the largest of the French Armies, he had perhaps the best subordinate commander in Franchet D'esperey but once he missed his intial opportunity the defeat of French 4th and 3rd Armies echelonned to his right left him in a similar position to that in which he left the BEF.

With the benefit of 21st century hindsight, I have always wondered why the important job of liaison only warranted the rank of lieutenant.Spears did an incredible job but perhaps if the position's rank had carried more weight some of the earlier problems of communication/interpretation of communication may have been avoided.

[George Armstrong Custer]

Jerrymurland, on 26 August 2011 - 11:30 AM, said:

Sir John's decision to retire was certainly compounded by Lanrezac's retirement but we should not forget by late afternoom on 23 August 1914 German forces had successfully crossed the canal, the Nimy salient was being over-run and Mons was practically in German hands. Lanrezac or no Lanrezac, the BEF had no choice but to retire.

It was certainly his realisation of German strength which induced Sir John French to abandon the idea of the BEF advancing. As to Lanrezac, the issue is not so much that he withdrew but that he decided to retire without, as Richard Holmes put it, "a by-your-leave." The consequences of Lanrezac's actions were far reaching from the point of view of planting the idea in the early stages of the war that the French could be untrustworthy Allies.

George

[David Filsell]

It was the suggestion that the retreat was a rout that brought on the spasm

[Jerrymurland]

David, I think the phrase was 'near rout'. A phrase which suggests that the retreat was never conducted smoothly but was on occasions quite close to disorder and 'rout'. Fortunately it never came to that but there were occasions when it came close. The BEF 'got away with it' by the skin of their teeth and the poor intelligence of the German First Army went some way to helping them in that.

[truthergw]

SteveMarsdin, on 26 August 2011 - 12:25 PM, said:

Good afternoon,

As I understand the situation, from reading Spears and other French accounts, Lanrezac had only a small "window of opportunity" to attack. It is a great "what if ?"; IIRC his was the largest of the French Armies, he had perhaps the best subordinate commander in Franchet D'esperey but once he missed his intial opportunity the defeat of French 4th and 3rd Armies echelonned to his right left him in a similar position to that in which he left the BEF.

With the benefit of 21st century hindsight, I have always wondered why the important job of liaison only warranted the rank of lieutenant.Spears did an incredible job but perhaps if the position's rank had carried more weight some of the earlier problems of communication/interpretation of communication may have been avoided.

Spears and his fellow liasion officers were simply messengers and interpreters. They had no executive duties and so did not require rank. In fact, military courtesy may well have spared a lowly lieutenant the reception that a major or higher rank may have received when delivering bad news.

[Cockney Sparrow]

Jerrymurland, on 25 August 2011 - 03:52 PM, said:

The official publishers blurb is as follows: The British action at Mons on 23 August 1914 was the catalyst for what became a full blown retreat over 200 blood drenched miles. This book examines eighteen of the desperate rearguard actions that occurred during the twelve days of this near rout. While those at Le Cateau and Nery are well chronicled, others such as cavalry actions at Morsain and Taillefontaine, the Connaught Rangers' at Le Grand Fayt and 13 Brigade's fight at Crepy-en-Valois are virtually unknown even to expert historians. We learn how in the chaos and confusion that inevitably reigned units of Gunners and other supporting arms found themselves in the front line.
The work of the Royal Engineers responsible for blowing bridges over rivers and canals behind the retreating troops comes in for particular attention and praise. Likewise that of the RAMC.  
No less than 16 VCs were won during this historic Retreat, showing that even in the darkest hours individuals and units performed with gallantry, resourcefulness and great forbearance.
The book comes alive with first hand accounts, letters, diaries, official unit records, much of which has never been published before.

Which is about right! I have examined the rearguard actions of August and September 1914 and attempted to dispel some of the myths.

Jerry Murland

Thanks for this update - is already pre-ordered!

[squirrel]

Me as well - if it is anything like as well researched and presented as "Aristocrats Go To War", which it certainly appears to be, then it will be an interesting and informative addition to the bookshelf.

[lostinspace]

Jerry,
I recently read "Aristocrats Go To War" and second the comment above, hopefully your new book will show up over here next year?

Regards,
Dave

[Chris_Baker]

Quote

Lanrezac or no Lanrezac, the BEF had no choice but to retire.

I think you are right, Jerry. My point was to do with the statement that the British action at Mons was the catalyst to withdrawal. Can't see that myself. The beginning of, the precursor to, but not a cause of.

[Jerrymurland]

You know what publisher's blurb is like Chris - they have to sell books, as you demonstrated in your book, its the content that matters.

Jerry

[Steven Broomfield]

Jerrymurland, on 25 August 2011 - 03:52 PM, said:

No less than 16 VCs were won

Fewer, surely?

(Publishers, eh. What are they like?)