23 replies to this topic

[brucehubbard]

The history of Conservative MPs, who are not historians, writing about history is not a happy one. RRJ wrote his book in the 1960s. Since then, not only has interest increased in the study of the Gallipoli campaign, but also much new information has come to light. Walking the area in the company of Pete Hart, Roger Chapman, Bulent and a wonderful group of other information-seekers, the inadequcy of RRJ's book comes to light. His conclusions may have been accurate at the time of his writing, but walking the area now, in the company of historians in possession of greater knowledge, leaves the book in the realms of historical artefact.
It is still a good read, but should be seen in the light of greater knowledge and insight since the book was written.

I will now step back and await the inevitable explosion!

Bruce

[Crunchy]

Bruce,

I think you are right. We have a lot more information now, and some of it from the Turkish perspective which throws a different light on some issues. So much was written from the British and Anzac perspective, and some of that based on hearsay and what people "thought" at the time.

It was a good book, but now sadly dated.

I guess Pete was his normal exuberant self - not too many late nights over a beer or twenty?

Regards
Chris

[RobL]

Bruce, I hope Peter sees this!

Glad you got back alright, still haven't sorted the photographs yet apart from several of the more amusing ones - have a great one of you climbing along the sea wall near the Beach cemetery

Best regards, accident prone/cabin boy Rob

[PMHart]

I am glad you have come to your senses Bruce. My work here is done....

Liar Pete

[brucehubbard]

RobL, on 12 June 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

Bruce, I hope Peter sees this!

Glad you got back alright, still haven't sorted the photographs yet apart from several of the more amusing ones - have a great one of you climbing along the sea wall near the Beach cemetery

Best regards, accident prone/cabin boy Rob

I wasn't going to say anything like this whilst we were away. Had i done so, then Pete's ire would have only turned elsewhere, and who knows who would then have borne its brunt?

Since he has now read this, can we both hear his purring?

Bruce

[PMHart]

Purrfect!

Liar Pete

[Steven Broomfield]

Presumably MPs of other persuasions are good historians?

[michaeldr]

The book was commissioned “just after the principle research on Rosebery had been complete in 1961” and his first visit to the peninsula was made during the next year: 1962.
At that time RRJ was employed as Clerk of the House of Commons; a position he held until 1964. The book was published in 1965 and he was not elected as a MP until 1976.

[PMHart]

Hi  Steven,

Some are - some aren't - to be fair to lovely Bruce he does say Conservative MPs who are not historians. I hate being fair to Bruce!

The point about Robert Rhodes James is that he has a minimal grasp on the realities of the Gallipoli campaign, which means that his book repeats the same kind of flabby thinking that was endemic during the campaign itself. He is an unashamed apologist for Winston Churchill and as such he gets most major judgements on the events of the campaign just plain wrong.

The slack-jawed amongst us pay homage to his Gallipoli book simply because it has become de rigueur to praise it in old-fashioned Gallipoli circles as best exemplified by the dinosaur element of the Gallipoli Association. Ever since I spilt gravy on my blazer and lost my tie I have been a persona non grata with this grouping I fear. For an old-fashioned book, based largely on the official history and a few personal experience accounts, Robert Rhodes James is just about OK . Moorehead's book is far better written and no worse as far as his value-judgements go.

Liar Pete

P.S. My next door neighbour once knew a man whose sister saw Robert Rhodes James on holiday somewhere on the south coast about 40 years ago and she said he seemed quite nice from a distance. I entirely realise - and fully accept - that this completely undermines any mature consideration of the book's merits, but my simple open honesty compels me to admit it.

[michaeldr]

It is interesting to note that RRJ also thought Moorehead's book “beautifully written.”


He makes this observation in his Preface (I have the 1989 edition, whose Preface is dated the year before), having already stated however, that
“my initial enthusiasm was tempered not only by the inaccuracies it contained but by many of the judgements, and by the realisation that it was thinly researched...............the more I went into it the more I became convinced that it was, as a work of history, seriously flawed.”


RRJ is also at pains to explain how he “had been swamped with old diaries, letters, and reminiscences. Also, at that time, many Gallipoli veterans were alive, including Slim and Lord Atlee, and were generous in their time and papers. Long before I got to the British archives I had more material, all of it original, than I had ever bargained for: it became an exercise in describing the campaign from the vantage-point of the participants on both sides.”


Move forward twenty-two years and Edward J Erickson begs to differ, particularly on that last point. His 'Introduction' (to Gallipoli – the Ottoman Campaign) gives examples from what he calls the 'body of Eurocentric received wisdom' in which he includes Aspinall-Oglander, Bean, Moorehead, RRJ, Steel & Hart, Haythornthwaite and Hickey. All of these he finds wanting, and he states that they have “led to a number of generalized beliefs about the Gallipoli campaign that are incorrect.”


In the end, I think that the reasoning is in fact quite similar in both cases and boils down to –
the latest book contains the latest research and benefits from newly released/revealed material which was unavailable to preceding writers.

Always have space left on your shelf for a new book

[Martin G]

Given the dates it seems unlikely that he would have had access to the War Diaries at the (then) Public Records Office. At the time they were still locked up under the 100 year rule. The 100 year rule on the War Diaries changed to a 50 year rule (Edit: in 1967) very soon after he published. It would seem that he was one of the very last authors to write about Gallipoli who did not have access. (Edit. Despite his position in Govt I doubt very much that he had access to the material that was locked up).

1967 marked a fault-line in the historiography of WWI as it marks the point in time that the War Diaries and related papers for 1914-1917 were released to the public. From this point on, authors had access to a primarily source of material that was previously denied. Despite the existence of some copies of the War Diaries in the possession of regimental archivists, the vast bulk of material was handed over for the compilation of the Official Histories during the War and immediately after.

The advent of the Internet age has clearly increased availability of some of the original material in recent years . Since 1967 until fairly recently any author would have to make the journey to the Public Records Office and it's successor the National Archives to study the material. Despite free access it was limited to those with the time and money to travel to Kew. I would argue that technology (PCs, digital storage, digital mapping, audio recordings and the ability to copy masses of information) allows us even greater ability to analyse the information once we have access to it.

[Simon_Fielding]

Present company excepted, where should the interested mainstream reader go for a one volume Anglo-friendly (but not necessarily centric) account of the campaign? Hickey? Carylon?

[brucehubbard]

Much as I hate to admit this, but if you want a one-volume history of the campaign, you could do a lot worse than Pete Hart's book.

Gosh......biting knuckles can be painful!

Bruce

[RobL]

Yes, Peter's book gives a balanced view between British, French and ANZAC. Oh, and Turkish of course

[michaeldr]

Simon_Fielding, on 18 June 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:

Present company excepted, where should the interested mainstream reader go for a one volume Anglo-friendly (but not necessarily centric) account of the campaign? Hickey? Carylon?

Both of those are OK, though as a journalist Carlyon's style makes for an easy read

[Martin G]

Simon_Fielding, on 18 June 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:

Present company excepted, where should the interested mainstream reader go for a one volume Anglo-friendly (but not necessarily centric) account of the campaign? Hickey? Carylon?

Hart by a very long shot.

[brucehubbard]

Oh, good grief!

Now he will be even more insufferable!



Bruce

[PMHart]

What we need are less single-volume histories and more specialist detailed examinations of the various parts of the Gallipoli campaign. I know Rhys Crawley has a very hard hitting work on the August Offensive coming up. I've read the manuscript and it is brilliant - very, very hard-hitting, brilliantly argued and no comforting balm here for the flaccid fans of RRJ! We also need a good look at the French campaign. Wish I could get the contract to do that - but I can't!

Insufferable Pete

[Terry_Reeves]

Pete can't get the contract because he admitted recently he owned a blazer and a tie. He will be telling us next he has a suit as well. I suspect that he is a closet man about town - well East Finchley at least.

TR

[Simon_Fielding]

Good job I have 'em all...

[Steven Broomfield]

michaeldr, on 18 June 2012 - 05:49 PM, said:

Both of those are OK, though as a journalist Carlyon's style makes for an easy read

I've not read Carlyon's book, but as a general comment I frequently find history books by journalists somewhat annoying. For example, Christie Campbell's book on the first tanks/crews I gave up on as it annoyed me so much, and Feargal keane's book on Kohima was spoiled by its chatty style and lack of rigour on military organisation.

It's a personal opinion, I appreciate, but I prefer history written by historians.

[michaeldr]

Steven Broomfield, on 20 June 2012 - 12:03 PM, said:

I've not read Carlyon's book, but as a general comment I frequently find history books by journalists somewhat annoying. ... .It's a personal opinion, I appreciate, but I prefer history written by historians.

A personal weakness perhaps, but I have found that the good newspaper correspondent, who writes well (a dying breed perhaps) is nevertheless, difficult to put down. Alongside Mr. Carlyon's book on Gallipoli, I also have four volumes devoted to the History of the English Speaking Peoples, written by a former correspondent of the Morning Post. It is also my understanding that this work was one of those for which the writer received the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1953.

[Steven Broomfield]

Each to his own, I suppose, but I stick to what I say.  Anyway (off topic) I have strong views about what I will and won't read and I'm unlikely to change.

[Crunchy]

michaeldr, on 21 June 2012 - 04:25 PM, said:

A personal weakness perhaps, but I have found that the good newspaper correspondent, who writes well (a dying breed perhaps) is nevertheless, difficult to put down.

They are good reads, but are they sound history? I guess one reads what interests them - but that is hardly a weakness.

Personally I have found books written by journalists to be well written and engaging reads, but generally they serve up all the old myths and are rather shallow in their judgements.  Reasons for failure are somewhat more complex than they suggest.   What's the catch cry - never let the truth get in the way of good story?

Nonetheless, Carlyon is an excellent read, beautifully written and one of the good books on Gallipoli - certainly better than Moorehead. I heartily recommend it. His presentation of the the Gallipoli campaign is sensitive and unique in that he blends the current Gallipoli with the history, but it still serves up old myths. I think even Broomers would enjoy it.

On the other hand not all military historians produce good stuff. Some are difficult reads and others display a shallow knowledge of military operations and how armies work, and make judgements that demonstrate this ignorance. One recent " learned" judgement (PhD qualified) made on British command was based on a complete misunderstanding of the terminology being commented on. I had to review an mss recently (not yours Pete !!!) where the writer showed a complete lack of understanding of military operations ( as opposed to the battle being written about) and made highly critical judgements that were way off the mark. We persevered and the author rewrote the book before it went off to the publisher.

As an aside it is ironic that many authors who have never served in the military, have never been in action, have never had the responsibility of high command, and have never faced the difficulties of planning and running a battle feel they are competent to pass judgements on those who have.

Having said all that, the best analytical military history book I have read on a campaign was written by a lawyer, the best narrative on the same campaign was written by a journalist. So one reads what one likes, and takes from them what one wants.

Regards
Chris