October 2015 Ɩ Issue 61 Ɩ £4.50 www.military-history.org
HOBART’S FUNNIES
Extraordinary D-Day tanks
+
Ɩ The Last of the Tide: portraits of veterans Ɩ Tank Island: the Home Guard versus the Nazis ƖƖ7KH%DWWOHRI$UQKHPRQƭ 7KH%DWWOHRI$UQKHPRQƭOP
T
Outnumbered, h ngry, disease-ridden... g s win FOREIGN LEGION’S FINEST HOUR
The defence of Camerone
GAS ATTACK
British chemical weapons at Loos, 1915
MHM
MILITARY
October 2015 Ɩ Issue 61 Ɩ £4.50 www.military-history.org
kkk
HOBART’S FUNNIES
Extraordinary D-Day tanks
+
Ɩ Thee Last ast of the Tide: portraits of veterans Ɩ Tank an Island: Islan the h Home H e Guard u versus ers s the h Nazis N s Ɩ 7KH %DWWOH RI $UQKHP RQ ƭOP
EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD: Martin Brown Archaeological Advisor, Defence Estates, Ministry of Defence
Mark Corby Military historian, lecturer, and broadcaster
Paul Cornish Curator, Imperial War Museum
Gary Gibbs Assistant Curator, The Guards Museum
Angus Hay Former Army Officer, military historian, and lecturer
Nick Hewitt Historian, National Museum of the Royal Navy, Portsmouth
Nigel Jones Historian, biographer, and journalist
Alastair Massie Head of Archives, Photos, Film, and Sound, National Army Museum
Gabriel Moshenska Research Fellow, Institute of Archaeology, UCL
Colin Pomeroy Squadron Leader, Royal Air Force (Ret.), and historian
Michael Prestwich Emeritus Professor of History, University of Durham
Nick Saunders Senior Lecturer, University of Bristol
Guy Taylor Military archivist, and archaeologist
Julian Thompson
T
his has been a year of anniversaries: Gallipoli, Waterloo, Agincourt. This issue we mark Henry V’s great victory on 25 October 1415, when a heavily outnumbered English army formed mainly of archers smashed a traditional French feudal array. Military systems are embedded in the social orders they serve. The soldiers raised reflect the society from which they are recruited. The victors of Agincourt – the English longbowmen (recent research suggests they were predominantly English rather than Welsh) – were recruited from a social class that hardly existed in France: the yeomanry – prosperous, independent, enterprising free peasants. The English kings – unlike the French – were therefore able to raise first-class infantry: men with a stake in society and a will to train hard and fight well. And almost always – from Hastings to Waterloo – if infantry have the morale to stand firm, they will stop a mounted charge. So it was at Agincourt – one of a succession of 14thand 15th-century battles in which solid ‘middling sort’ infantry triumphed over their social superiors, and heralded the end of the medieval world and the beginning of the modern. Also in this issue, Robin Smith describes the French Foreign Legion’s epic defence of Camerone in 1863, Steve Roberts recalls the first British use of poison gas at Loos in 1915, and Mike Relph analyses the anti-invasion defences of Second World War England.
Major-General, Visiting Professor at London University
Dominic Tweddle
AGINCOURT Outnumbered, h ngry, disease-ridden... g s win FOREIGN LEGION’S O NS FINEST HOUR
The defence of Camerone f
GAS G ATTACK C
British chemical weapons at Loos, 1915
ON THE COVER: Henry V, with an artist’s representation of the Battle of Agincourt in the background. Image: Look and Learn
WHAT DO YOU THINK? Now you can have your opinions on everything MHM heard online as well as in print. Follow us on Twitter @MilHistMonthly, or take a look at our Facebook page for daily news, books, and article updates at www.facebook.com/ MilitaryHistoryMonthly. Think you have spotted an error? Disagree with a viewpoint? Enjoying the mag? Visit www.militaryhistory.org to post your comments on a wide range of different articles. Alternatively, send an email to
[email protected]
Director-General, National Museum of the Royal Navy
ADD US NOW and have your say
Greg Bayne President, American Civil War Table of the UK
CONTRIBUTORS THIS MONTH’S EXPERTS STEVE ROBERTS is a former history teacher and a historian, who has written several times for MHM in the past, including cover stories on Edward III and the Siege of Leningrad.
MIKE RELPH is a former army officer, who served in the UK, Germany, Northern Ireland, Belize, and Cyprus, and was awarded the MBE. He now works as a freelance conflict archaeologist.
ROBIN SMITH is an author and freelance journalist, specialising in military history, particularly the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the American Civil War.
PATRICK BONIFACE is a freelance journalist who specialises in naval history. He has published a number of books profiling Royal Navy destroyers and frigates.
SUBSCRIBE NOW Fill in the form on p.78 and SAVE UP TO 20% www.military-history.org
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
3
October 2015 | ISSUE 61
ON THE COVER
26 Welcome
3
Letters
7
Notes from the Frontline
8 10
MHM studies a photograph of the French Foreign Legion in the Central African Republic.
Conflict Scientists
12
Patrick Boniface assesses the career of Major-General Sir Percy Cleghorn Stanley Hobart.
War Culture MHM looks at portraits of D-Day veterans featured in ‘The Last of the Tide’ exhibition.
IN
To mark the 600th anniversary, our special feature this month focuses on the game-changing battle and victory of ‘the middling sort’ at Agincourt in 1415.
Ba T Th Bat
FEATURES
UPFRONT
Behind the Image
Agincourt
18 Gas!
Loos, 1915 Steve Roberts describes the arguments surrounding the first British chemical attack, a century ago this month.
46 Tank Island
Britain’s defence, 1940
14
Mike Relph explores the impact of the threat of Nazi invasion on the Wiltshire market town of Marlborough.
52 The defence of Camerone The French Foreign Legion’s finest hour
14 4
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
Robin Smith reports on the nine-hour last stand at a remote Mexican hamlet in 1863.
October 2015
www.military-history.org
EDITORIAL Editor: Neil Faulkner
[email protected] Acting Assistant Editor: Polly Heffer Editor-at-large: Andrew Selkirk
[email protected] Sub Editor: Simon Coppock Art Editor: Mark Edwards
[email protected] Designer: Lauren Gamp
[email protected] Managing Editor: Maria Earle
[email protected] Managing Director: Rob Selkirk Tel: 020 8819 5580
COMMERCIAL Advertising Sales Manager: Mike Traylen T: 020 8819 5360 E:
[email protected] Advertising Sales: Tiffany Heasman T: 020 8819 5362 E:
[email protected] Marketing Manager: Emma Watts-Plumpkin T: 020 8819 5575 E:
[email protected]
THE DEBRIEF
Business Manager: Erin Goodin T: 020 8819 5576 E:
[email protected] Commercial Director: Libby Selkirk
60
BACK AT BASE | MHM REVIEWS War on Film | 60 Taylor Downing reviews the documentarydrama, Theirs is the Glory.
Book of the Month | 64 MHM Editor Neil Faulkner reviews a new biography of Augustus by Jochen Bleicken.
Books | 67 Jules Stewart on The Blitzed City by Karen Farrington and Taking Command by David Richards, and Andre van Loon on Field Marshal by Daniel Allen Butler.
www.military-history.org
70
SUBSCRIPTIONS UK: £45.95 (12 issues) RoW: £55.95 (12 issues) Back issues: £5.50 each / £6.50 non-UK (inc p&p) Binders: (hold 12 copies) £15 / £20 Slip Cases: (hold 12 copies) £15 / £20
Military History Monthly Subscriptions Thames Works, Church Street, London, W4 2PD Tel: 020 8819 5580 Fax: 020 8819 5589
[email protected] www.military-history.org/subscribe
IN THE FIELD | MHM VISITS Museum | 70
NEWS DISTRIBUTION UK & Rest of World: COMAG, Tavistock Road, West Drayton, UB7 7QE Tel: 01895 444 055
Neil Faulkner visits ‘The Sinews of War: Arms and Armour from the Age of Agincourt’, an exhibition at the Wallace Collection.
Printed in England by William Gibbons Military History Monthly (ISSN 2048-4100) is published monthly by Current Publishing Ltd,
Listings | 72
© Current Publishing Ltd 2015
The best military history events coming up this October.
INTELLIGENCE | MHM OFF DUTY Competition | 80 Win a day out for two at the Science Museum.
Briefing Room | 82 All you need to know about the Gatling Gun.
Thames Works, Church Street, London, W4 2PD
72
All rights reserved. Text and pictures are copyright restricted and must not be reproduced without permission of the publishers. The publishers, editors and authors accept no responsibility in respect of any goods, promotions or services which may be advertised or referred to in this magazine. Every effort has been made to secure permission for copyright material. In the event of any material being used inadvertently or where it has been impossible to contact the copyright owner, acknowledgement will be made in a future issue. All liability for loss, disappointment, negligence or damage caused by reliance on the information contained within this publication is hereby excluded. The opinions expressed by contributors are not necessarily those of the publisher.
SUBSCRIPTIONS | MHM Subscribe | 78 Turn to our subscriptions page for MHM special offers.
MHM CONTENTS
Military History Monthly
TWITTER @MilHistMonthly @MilHistMonthly 6 August 2015 A rare photo collection capturing the aftermath of the #Hiroshima bombing is on display at Scotland’s Secret Bunker @Secretbunker.
@MilHistMonthly 18 August 2015 Today is the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Britain’s ‘Hardest Day’. #OnThisDay both sides recorded their greatest loss of life.
@MilHistMonthly 20 August 2015 75 years ago #OnThisDay, Churchi made his famous speech about ‘The Few’. Here’s what you should know about it: www.militaryhistory.org/articles/ the-few-churchillswartime-speech.htm
FACEBOOK www.facebook.com/ MilitaryHistoryMonthly 6 August 2015 On the morning of 6 August 1945, 70 years ago today, three US B-29s appeared over Hiroshima. Two carried cameras and scientific equipment. The third carried an atomic bomb.
13 August 2015 The Battle of Blenheim was fought #OnThisDay in 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession. Here is a blow-by-blow account of this decisive battle, along with battle maps, published in issue 9: www.military-history.org/ articles/blenheim.htm
15 August 2015 Today is the 70th anniversary of VJ Day. #OnThisDay in 1945, Japan surrendered, effectively bringing World War II to an end.
www.military-history.org
WHAT DO YOU THINK? Let us know! Your thoughts on issues raised in Military History Monthly
Military History Monthly, Thames Works, Church Street, London, W4 2PD
020 8819 5580
[email protected]
@MilHistMonthly
MilitaryHistoryMonthly
L E T T ER OF T HE MON T H ARMENIAN APPRECIATION I was lent a copy of your magazine by one of my neighbours, who knows I am a British-born Armenian. Although I have ead many accounts of what happened to my forebears, I was very impressed by the way you managed to convey in st seven pages such a full, unbiased, and accurate picture of what happened (MHM 60). I can understand the fear the Turkish government had that the Armenian community might join with their Christian Russian attackers from the East, bearing in mind how badly the Armenians had been treated under Abdulhamid. However, although there is some evidence of this, there is much greater evidence of many Armenian units serving the Turkish Army faithfully. An uncle of mine was serving in the Turkish cavalry when they were disarmed and killed. He had been sent somewhere else for training and was lucky to survive. Thank you for your article.
Antony Abadjian Hertfordshire
TREBUCHET REDESIGN An interesting back-page article on the trebuchet (‘Briefing Room’, MHM 60) was slightly spoiled by a major error in the description of its operation. To the best of my knowledge, there was no padded crossbeam. The arm swung freely. No drawing or reconstruction I have seen has such a thing. Indeed, neither of the two drawings you used have a crossbeam. These were used in torsion-powered weapons such as the Roman onager and its subsequent derivatives. Richard Foinette Bristol
ADVERTISING ERROR I am a regular reader of your magazine and generally enjoy the inclusion of articles that I do not agree with and the (few) factual errors that creep in. What did sadden me, though, was an advertisement for a book by David Irving in the September issue. David Irving should not be given any space! Bruce James Scotland In last month’s issue on page 60 there was an advert for signed copies of David Irving’s book Churchill’s War. Irving has been convicted of Holocaust denial and was banned from a number of countries. As a contributor, reader, and friend of MHM, I am amazed and shocked you should be advertising such a book. Chris Bambery London I wish to apologise wholeheartedly to readers and contributors for the advertisement that appeared in our last issue. It slipped through our, usually rigorous, system of checks. We will not retain the fee for the advertisement, but donate it to a relevant charity.
Neil Faulkner Editor
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
7
Our round-up of this month’s military history news
THE CATCH-22 LOOK A North American aircraft has been repainted to represent the plane once flown by Joseph Heller. The paintwork has transformed the B-25J Mitchell to exactly match 43-4064, a plane that served with the 488th Bomb Squadron of the 340th Bomb Group, 12th Air Force, United States Army Air Force, at the end of WWII. Heller relied heavily on his time spent serving as a bombardier in the 488th Bomb Squadron in Corsica for the inspiration for his famous satirical novel Catch-22 . The writer in fact flew several different planes assigned to the
340th Bomb Group, among them 43-4064. This historically accurate repainting was completed by a conservation team at IWM Duxford over a period of six weeks. Care was taken to make sure it is identical to the original 43-4064 – all the lines and colour changes were taken from original photographs of the aircraft during WWII. It will be exhibited in the newly renovated American Air Museum at IWM Duxford when it reopens to the public in the spring of next year. For more details, visit www.iwm.org.uk/duxford
Wilfred Owen’s training camp
Volunteers have been helping uncover a former military camp in Surrey where war poet Wilfred Owen trained for service in World War I. Owen arrived at the camp in June 1916 to train for combat in France. While he was there, he penned a sonnet that was later reworked into his famous poem ‘Anthem for Doomed Youth’. 8
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
Owen died a week before the end of the war, aged 25. The site, near Godalming in Surrey, was active during both world wars: it was known as Witley North Camp during WWI and Algonquin Camp during WWII. However, it was almost completely lost until Surrey County Council’s archaeological unit initiated the project to exca-
vate the area for the first time and document the findings. The project is backed by a £30,000 grant from the Government’s community covenant scheme. The scheme aims to strengthen ties and mutual understanding between members of the armed forces and civilians in the wider communities in which they live. So far the project has uncovered many contemporary artefacts, including mess tins, dummy bullets used for training, and a harmonica. These finds, along with documents from the archives, will be collected together to form an exhibition and booklet for the wider public to learn more about the history of this military site. Follow the team’s progress on their Facebook page at www. facebook.com/diggingsurreyspast October 2015
Defending Dover
Ascension Island bicentenary To commemorate its bicentenary year, the British Overseas Territory of Ascension Island is hosting celebrations all summer, culminating in a weekend of special events on 22-25 October. In 1815, a small British naval garrison named HMS Ascension was established on an uninhabited volcanic island in the South Atlantic Ocean, between the coasts of West Africa and Brazil. It was a precaution after Napoleon was imprisoned on Saint Helena to the south-east. In October of that year, the captains of HMS Zenobia and HMS Peruvian had landed to claim the island as British territory.
During WWII, the island was an important naval and air station, providing antisubmarine warfare bases during the Battle of the Atlantic. It was also used during the Falklands War. Today, Ascension Island has a temporary population of around 800 people, and an MoD and a USAF base. British Base Commander Mark Taylor said, ‘Those of us who live on Ascension today must pay tribute to all our military forebears, who worked in extreme conditions from 1815 onwards to establish a fresh water-supply, sanitation, military fortifications, housing, and healthcare in this isolated and remote environment. Ascension continues to have great strategic importance, and those of us who serve here today have a key role to play as a staging post for British interests – both military and diplomatic – in the South Atlantic.’
SCRAPBOOKS FROM THE HOME FRONT Scrapbooks made by a family during WWI are being made available for public viewing after staff at Edinburgh Council’s Capital Collections library tracked down the original owners’ son. The two books were made by the Thomson family, who lived at Glengyle Terrace in Edinburgh. Most of the letters are addressed to Thomas Davidson Thomson, who was just three years old when the war broke out. The researchers believe his parents were collecting the material on his behalf, to document the times he was living through when just a little boy. The first scrapbook contains newspaper articles relating the news of the ‘impending E ropean War’, illustrations Allied military in their fferent uniforms, and ewspaper cuttings of he British and Belgian oyal Families, as well as ropaganda cartoons and dvertisements. The second scrapbook less colourful, and has
fewer scraps, tokens, and illustrations, but shows the impact of war on the home front. There are items related to rationing and official notices to conserve resources. There are also letters of thanks for small donations given to charitable causes. Finally, there is news of peace and the surrender of the German fleet. On the last page, pressed like real flowers, are two handmade red-silk poppies. Library officer Clare Padgett and John Temple from the digital volunteer team conducted a thorough investigation through records, ship’s passenger lists, and online search engines, managing to find Thomson’s son, Dave Thomson, who now lives in the Netherlands. Thomson has allowed the scrapbooks to be included in the Capital Collections so that his family’s history is available to the public. The scrapbooks can be viewed at the website www.capitalcollections.org.uk
GOT A STORY?
Military History Monthly, Thames Works, Church Street, London, W4 2PD
Let us know!
020 8819 5580
www.military-history.org
[email protected]
The only working example of a British 3-inch anti-aircraft gun from WWI has been restored and installed at Dover Castle. This marks the centenary of the first successful hit on a Zeppelin by an identical anti-aircraft gun, controlled from Dover Castle’s Fire Command Post. On 21 December 1914, Dover was the target of the first bombing attack on Britain by a German aeroplane. The threat of this type of aerial warfare led to the development of anti-aircraft defences, such as the 3-inch gun. Now an anti-aircraft emplacement, including a Fire Command Post and Port War Signal Station, has been painstakingly recreated thanks to a Heritage Lottery Fund grant. By restoring some of these features, visitors will be better able to appreciate the crucial part the castle played in the defence of Britain during WWI.
MHM FRONTLINE
NEWS IN BRIEF
Stamp duty The Royal Mail is to create a Special Stamp honouring Sir Nicholas Winton, who rescued hundreds of children from Nazi-occupied Czechoslovakia, after an online petition calling for him to receive the accolade reached over 100,000 signatures. On the eve of WWII, Winton organised eight trains to take 669 unaccompanied children away to safety in Britain. He also helped find them foster families. He died earlier this year, aged 106. A spokeswoman for Royal Mail had said, ‘It is clear that Sir Nicholas Winton is a worthy candidate’. The campaign was launched by Justin Cohen and Richard Ferrer from Jewish News, in conjunction with the Holocaust Education Trust, and backed by Sir Mick Davis, who chaired the Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission. The stamp will be issued in 2016 as part of a commemorative set.
Mightier than the sword The pen used by US General Douglas MacArthur during the Japanese surrender ceremony that ended WWII has been displayed in Chester Town Hall to coincide with the 70th anniversary of the signing. The pen was used on 2 September 1945, on board the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay, and then was given by MacArthur to Lieutenant General Arthur Percival, a former forces commander, Japanese prisoner-of-war, and witness to the signing on board the ship. He, in turn, donated it to the Cheshire Regiment before his death in 1966. The pen will be shown as part of the year-long ‘Chester Unlocked’ programme that celebrates the city’s diverse heritage. After its loan to the Town Hall, the pen will return to the Cheshire Military Museum, where it will go back on display to the public. For more information about the museum, visit www.cheshiremilitarymuseum.co.uk
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
9
OPERATION SANGARIS
10
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
October 2015
.
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
Text: Keith Robinson
Image: Edouard Elias/Getty Images Reportage; courtesy of Visa pour l’Image Perpignan 2015. www.military-history.org
What immediately grabs one’s attention in this photograph is the different poses of the soldiers behind the sandbags. They are clearly protecting themselves from the dust, yet why is the figure at the right standing upright and not fully protected by the wall of sandbags? It is not merely the fact that these are people, which always attracts our attention, but also the fact that their different poses rise so neatly from left to right. This is the only movement in the photograph – through the rising diagonal line to the slightly off-vertical of the makeshift flagpole, proudly flying the French Tricolour. A visual link is created from the soldiers to the flag, which clearly declares their allegiance to France. The various gestures of the squatting soldiers almost make one think of the three wise monkeys: ‘Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil’. Perhaps all that is literally behind them as they face towards the flag. Or again, are they gradually rising from their crouched positions to stand tall beneath the French flag? The setting could almost be staged. The sandbags form a limited foreground space in which the figures are placed, and create a strong horizontal that gives the whole image a static feel, stressing the gentle rise of the soldiers. There is a rather muted feel about the picture, for behind the sandbags the view is limited by the dust (in fact, stirred up by a helicopter) that clouds both middle ground and the background. This haze washes out the colour in the shot, and it is difficult to make out features beyond the line of the sandbags – it could be almost anywhere. Or, at least, anywhere warm and sunny. The only slash of colour looks like the red cross of an ambulance, barely seen at the right of the photograph, reminding us that these men are soldiers, and that fighting is dangerous. The photograph’s set can thus be taken to symbolise the men’s readiness to serve anywhere under the French flag, as many men of the Foreign Legion have done. It might also touch on the Romantic idea of men who have left their pasts behind to grow tall again under the Tricolour. The photograph is one of an award-winning series taken by the French photographer Edouard Elias, whose photo-essay documented 30 men from the Second Foreign Infantry Regiment (from Nîmes, France) for a month during their involvement in Operation Sangaris, which sought to reduce ethnic tension between Muslim Seleka rebels and Christian anti-balaka militias. It is on show at Visa pour l’Image 2015 Perpignan.
MHM BEHIND THE IMAGE
CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC, AUGUST 2014
11
Patrick Boniface considers the influence of science on warfare
Confronting us is the problem of getting ashore on a defended coastline.
MAJORGENERAL SIR PERCY CLEGHORN STANLEY HOBART
“
Sir Percy Hobart
BIOGRAPHY
P
ercy Hobart was born on 14 June 1885 to parents Janetta and Robert Hobart in Naini Tal, India. His father worked for the Indian Civil Service. On the family’s return to Great Britain, young Percy was educated at a number of private schools, before graduating in 1904 from the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich. From an early age, he had shown an aptitude for engineering, and he was commissioned into the Corps of the Royal Engineers. His first posting took him back to India, but within the space of a decade he was fighting in France and Mesopotamia during the First World War. Between 1919 and 1920 he was once again in India, where he took part in the Waziristan campaign. During the closing stages of the First World War, Hobart had seen
12
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
ABOVE RIGHT The Duplex Drive (DD) ‘swimming’ Sherman was an amphibious tank used on all five beaches on D-Day. RIGHT The ‘Crocodile’, a Churchill tank rebuilt as a flame-thrower.
the difference mechanical warfare had made, and in 1923 he transferred to the Royal Tank Corps. In 1934 he was promoted to the rank of brigadier, and took command of the first permanent armoured brigade in the British Army. His task was a tough one, as he battled with cavalry staff officers who regularly denied his requests for resources and personnel. In 1938, Hobart had attained the rank of major-general. He was sent to Egypt to train Mobile Force (Egypt), the forerunner of the famed 7th Armoured Division, ‘The Desert October 2015
QUOTES FROM HOBART The success of [Overlord] depends on the element of surprise caused by new equipment. Suggestions from all ranks for improvements in equipment are to be encouraged.”
Rats’. Hobart’s ‘unconventional’ attitude and personality led to many run-ins with his superiors, and Sir Archibald Wavell dismissed Hobart into retirement in 1940. Back home in Chipping Campden, Hobart joined the Local Defence Volunteers as a lance corporal. Hearing of this, Winston Churchill convinced Hobart to re-enlist into the army in 1941 to train the 11th Armoured Division. Percy Hobart was no longer young –in fact, he was 57. Many senior officers wanted him removed
from command, but instead he was put in charge of the 79th Armoured Division. Following the disastrous Dieppe Raid of August 1942, the Army became focused on ways of overcoming strong coastal defences. That task fell to Hobart. The 79th Armoured Division was converted into a unit of specialised armour and renamed 79th (Experimental) Armoured Division, Royal Engineers. In 1943, Hobart was knighted. Hobart’s leadership led to the creation of some of the most innovative, unusual, and downright
IN CONTEXT: HOBART
Unpopular and brilliant Major-General Hobart was described by his direct superior, Lieutenant-General H M Wilson, as ‘self opinionated’ and ‘lacking in stability’, as a man who ‘showed little consideration for the feelings and wishes of others’. Such was the extent of some military top brass’s dislike of Hobart that Prime Minister Winston Churchill had to intervene to defend him: ‘The High Commands of the Army are not a club. It is my duty… to make sure that exceptionally able men, even those not popular with their military contemporaries, should not be prevented from giving their services to the Crown.’ Churchill felt it necessary to defend this particular man because of his uniquely creative mind in coming up with solutions to defeat German defences. Despite his unpopularity, Hobart would go on to lead a group of talented individuals at the 79th Armoured Division who created a multitude of innovative devices for landing on the D-Day beaches in June 1944 – the so-called ‘Hobart’s Funnies’.
www.military-history.org
strange mechanical devices ever created by the Royal Engineers. Among the most notable of these creations were the Duplex Drive (DD) ‘swimming’ Sherman tank, the Crab flail tank that drew much from the Matilda Scorpion used in the Battle of El Alamein in 1942, the Churchill Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers (AVRE), the Bobbin Carpet Layer, the Armoured Ramp Carrier (ARK), and the Crocodile flamethrower. The latter, when fitted to a converted Churchill tank, could deliver 100 one-second bursts to a range of around 110 metres. These would later become known as ‘Hobart’s Funnies’, although funny they were not. While some were spectacular failures, most proved to be very effective. The unit’s work was a decisive factor on D-Day, with the ‘Funnies’ dealing with German minefields, tank traps, and a multitude of other devices on the Normandy beaches. Percy Hobart retired (again) in 1946. In recognition of his huge contribution to the success of Operation Overlord, he was awarded the American Legion of Merit and also the Companion of the Order of the Bath to add to his Military Cross and his Distinguished Service Order. Major-General Sir Percy Cleghorn Stanley Hobart died aged 72 at Farnham in Surrey on 19 February 1957. æ
MHM CONFLICT SCIENTISTS
BELOW Sherman Crab Mk II flail tank, one of General Hobart’s ‘Funnies’ of 79th Armoured Division, during minesweeping tests in the UK, 27 April 1944.
The first need was to inspire all officers with the belief that wireless communication between tanks on the move was practicable; and the next, to convince them that they were capable of making use of it.” Confronting us is the problem of getting ashore on a defended coastline. The success of the operation depends of the element of surprise caused by new equipment.” There seems to be in some quarters a frigid attitude as regards mechanical matters.” The need is so acute that we cannot afford either to neglect or drop any possible method of dealing with minefields.” MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
13
1 Inspired by last year’s commemorations in Normandy, Prince Charles commissioned 12 portraits of surviving veterans to coincide with the 71st anniversary of the D-Day landings. The portraits show some of the survivors of the greatest amphibious and airborne invasion in history, involving some 7,700 ships and 12,000 aircraft. The men were painted wearing their medals for this first collection of D-Day veteran portraits, which pays tribute to all those who served in the Normandy campaign. The title of the exhibition originates from a message sent to all the troops on the eve of D-Day by General Eisenhower, in which he announced, ‘The tide has turned! The free men of the world are marching together to Victory!’.
2
1. GEOFFREY PATTINSON
A sergeant with 9th Parachute Battalion, Pattinson was to land at the Merville Battery, but, due to a faulty glider, he actually landed in Hampshire. By the evening, his platoon managed to land in Normandy where he rejoined his unit.
14
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
3
2. JAMES ‘JIM’ GLENNIE
Glennie was a private with the 5th/7th Gordon Highlanders, who advanced inland and took up defensive positions near Caen. During a German counterattack, Glennie was wounded and taken as a prisoner-of-war for four months.
3. ERIC JOHNSTON
Johnston was a trooper with the 4th/7th Royal Dragoon Guards and co-driver within the Reconnaissance Troop, which landed on Gold Beach at dawn. He took part in the Battle of Villiers-Bocage and the defence of Hill 103. October 2015
MHM WAR CULTURE
4 Painted by some of the UK’s leading artists, the portraits were recently exhibited in the Queen’s Gallery, London, in a collection put together by the Royal Drawing School in collaboration with the Royal Collection Trust. They will also be shown at the Palace of Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh early next year. Artist Jonathan Yeo, who painted the portrait of veteran Geoffrey Pattinson, said, ‘Painting someone who candidly describes the first time they set foot on foreign soil as the time they jumped out of a moving aircraft and parachuted down through flying bullets to land in Normandy for D-Day makes Geoffrey one of the more extraordinary sitters I’ve encountered in my time as a portrait artist.’ Here, MHM highlights nine of these historic portrayals.
5
4. BRIAN STEWART
Stewart was the Anti-Tank Platoon Commander with the Tyneside Scottish. He helped rescue comrades in the 8th Battalion of the Parachute Regiment who were cut off in their bid to destroy the bridges over the River Dives. www.military-history.org
6
5. TOM RENOUF
A private (later lieutenant) with the 5th Battalion Black Watch, Renouf took part in the battle for high ground around Breville. He was also part of the 51st Highland Division that rescued the 8th Battalion of the Parachute Regiment.
6. ROBERT ANTONY ‘TONY’ LEAKE
A corporal with the 8th Battalion of the Parachute Regiment, Leake took part in the mass parachute drop behind German lines, blew bridges over the River Dives, and set up defensive positions.
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
15
7
8
9
7. RAYMOND ‘TICH’ RAYNER
Rayner was a sergeant with the Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry, and flew as part of the operation on Pegasus Bridge. His glider had navigational issues, landing seven miles from the planned landing zone. He eventually fought his way back to his unit.
8. LAURENCE ‘LAURIE’ WEEDEN
Weeden was a pilot during the mass airborne operation on D-Day. He landed safely in Normandy, where his cargo of jeeps, explosives, and ammunition were used by the 8th Parachute Battalion to blow up bridges over the River Dives.
9. JACK GRIFFITHS
Griffiths flew a glider containing Parachute Regiment soldiers, successfully landing on the morning of D-Day. The soldiers went on to destroy bridges over the River Orne.
GO FURTHER The Last of the Tide: Portraits of D-Day Veterans Royal Collection Trust and Modern Art Press, £5.00. ISBN 978-1909741294 Available from the shop at the Queen’s Gallery, Buckingham Palace, and online at www.royalcollection.org.uk/shop 16
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
October 2015
Photo: IWM
BELOW This exceptional photograph apparently shows men of the 47th Division advancing through the cloud of gas and smoke in no-man’s-land on 25 September 1915, the first day of Loos.
THE FIRST BRITISH GAS ATTACK, LOOS, 1915 It was outlawed, but the Germans had used it at Ypres in April 1915. The British followed suit in September. Steve Roberts explores the arguments about, and the effects of, the first British chemical attack, a century ago this month.
M
en hold one another, hand on shoulder, bandages covering eyes, straggling towards the guy ropes of a field hospital. John Singer Sargent’s painting depicting a line of blinded soldiers was given the simple title Gassed. Wilfred Owen, in ‘Dulce et Decorum Est’, conjured a nightmare vision of ‘clumsy helmets’, ‘choking, drowning’, ‘white eyes writhing’, and ‘froth corrupted lungs’. The Battle of Loos, fought in northern France in September 1915, was the first British gas attack of WWI – despite the Hague Convention of 1899 having banned shells ‘diffusing asphyxiating or deleterious gases’. Who was first? Some claim the French, using ineffectual tear-gas grenades in August 1914. The Germans, benefiting from a highly developed chemical industry, first used gas on 27 October, when deployment was largely ineffective, the shells containing a chemical irritant that resulted in violent sneezing fits.
18
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
Gas was a worrying development for Entente troops, given that early anti-gas measures comprised holding urine-sodden handkerchiefs over mouth and nose. The first ‘major’ gas attack allegedly occurred at Bolimow on 31 January 1915, when the Germans rained 18,000 gas shells on the Russians. They used ‘xylyl bromide’, an early tear gas – but its effect was vitiated by the cold of the Eastern Front. The Germans were the first to give serious study to chemical weapons and to deploy them in quantity. During WWI, their tonnage of gas exceeded that of Britain and France combined. They tried an improved tear-gas concoction at Nieuport (in March 1915) against the French.
SECOND YPRES The first time the Germans tried ‘poison’ gas was at the Second Battle of Ypres on 22 April. This time, the effect was dramatic.
The Entente line was shattered when 171 tons of chlorine were released from cylinders on a four-mile front in a period of five minutes. The prevailing wind carried the gas towards French lines, resulting in 6,000 casualties and many agonising deaths. The gas attacked wet tissue (lungs and eyes) and destroyed the respiratory organs. Ominously for those inclined to imitate, the Germans lost men releasing the gas. The French troops fled, leaving Ypres exposed. The Germans gained ground – but, unsure of the gas’s effectiveness, failed to push on and break through. The British observed a low cloud of yellowgrey vapour (some say ‘ghostly green’). Almost immediately the French appeared, galloping horses spurred away from the cloud. A pungent, nauseating smell became evident, tickling throats and making eyes smart. In the worst cases, men were frothing at the mouth, their eyes bulging. October 2015
CHLORINE, PHOSGENE, AND VESICANTS At Second Ypres, the Germans had released chlorine, a characteristically green gas. Victims choked, gas reacting quickly with water in airways to form hydrochloric acid, swelling and blocking lung tissue, resulting in suffocation. Two days later, when gas was released a second time, Canadian troops used socks soaked in urine as protection. By 1917, chlorine was no longer the only chemical agent employed. A more dangerous irritant, phosgene, now became the main killer. Slow to act, with victims often not developing symptoms for hours, or even days, it is easy to see why panic spread. The standard-issue gas mask of 1917, the ‘small-box respirator’, provided good protection against both, provided it could be donned quickly – an ‘ecstasy of fumbling’, according to Owen. Worse was to come, as both sides resorted to ‘blistering agents’ (vesicants), which maimed even those wearing masks. The most widely used, mustard gas, blistered lungs and throat. Masked soldiers blistered all over as gas soaked into uniforms, which had to be stripped and washed quickly: never easy at the front.
DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING The British were in a game of catch-up. They needed to know what chemicals the Germans were using and how to counter them. After Second Ypres, Kitchener appointed Colonel Lois Jackson RE to conduct a feasibility study into British use of gas. The research team at the Imperial College of Science concluded that chlorine could be despatched from pressurised cylinders to form a ‘cloud’. Using a soda-siphon system, gas could escape under pressure controlled by stop-cocks. A ½-inch diameter iron-pipe, three metres long, would deliver liquid chlorine, which developed into yellowwhite gas on emerging. www.military-history.org
Photo: WIPL
The Germans had driven a French army corps out of the line. Sir John French, BEF (British Expeditionary Force) commander, called the enemy gas attack ‘cynical’, ‘barbarous’, and alien to the concept of ‘civilised war’. The Western Front was quiet over most of the following summer, the Allies preparing a ‘great offensive’ for the autumn. When it came, the centrepiece was French commander-in-chief Joseph Joffre’s Second Battle of Champagne (22 September6 November). This was supported by a secondary British offensive, the Third Battle of Artois (25 September-15 October). Loos (25 September-8 October) was an integral part of this British offensive; and, French’s moral reservations notwithstanding, it was to see the first British use of gas.
It was considered ‘dirty’ when compared with ‘honourable’ weapons like swords and guns. Experimental research was conducted at Porton, a name now synonymous with chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear warfare (CBRN). A laboratory was constructed at Helfaut, St Omer (the gaswarfare ‘Special Companies’ would have their depot here, and when assembled would be given the option of quitting once the mission had been explained). The Kestner-Kellner Alkali Company, the only one in Britain capable of manufacturing large quantities of chlorine, supervised trials at Runcorn, concluding on 4 June. They would not, however, be able to manufacture enough gas to attack the entire enemy front by the time of the planned offensive, so smoke candles were to be used as well, creating the illusion of a continuous chlorine cloud. The War Office called in Oxford academic John Scott Haldane to produce the first gas mask. The primitive veil respirator followed, pads of cotton waste, wrapped in gauze, soaked in sodium thiosulphate; this countered low concentrations. Haldane also developed the more effective box-respirator, introduced in April 1916 and used for the rest of the war.
ARGUMENTS AND SPECIALISTS Prior to Loos, General Haig might have been persuaded that battlefield and armament were unfavourable, but the availability of 150 tons of
ABOVE After the German gas attack at Second Ypres in April 1915, the British began experimenting with gas masks. These soldiers, photographed in May 1915, are shown wearing an early improvisation.
chlorine gas was persuasive. With a shortage of artillery, the ‘advantage’ of gas forced the battle. Not everyone was happy. Lieutenant Charles Ferguson, while conceding that Britain had not been the first to use gas, condemned it as a ‘cowardly form of warfare’. It had an image problem – it was considered ‘dirty’ when compared with ‘honourable’ weapons like swords and guns. Special gas units were raised, approximately 1,400 men in total, many of them science students, all given the rank of ‘chemist corporal’. They operated under the leadership of Lieutenant-Colonel Charles Foulkes RE. The new arm was ordered to prepare for a gas attack at Loos. Such was the stigma, the chemical-warfare specialists were forbidden even to utter the word ‘gas’. Gas canisters were called ‘accessories’. Anybody mouthing the G-word was punished.
THE COMMON AGENTS æTear gas – chemical irritant, resulting in violent sneezing fits. æChlorine – first ‘poison’ gas, potentially deadly, irritant to lungs and mucous membranes, causing victim to cough violently and choke. æPhosgene – caused less coughing, so more gas inhaled, therefore more potent. Delayed effect, with poisoning often apparent only after 48 hours. æPhosgene/chlorine – so-called ‘white star’ mixture, chlorine supplying the vapour necessary to carry phosgene. æMustard gas (Yperite) – first used in 1917, odourless chemical causing serious blistering internally and externally, brought on several hours after exposure. Hard to protect against.
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
19
Image: Alamy
GAS!
Cylinders, brought up from Maroc mine, were handled by Special Service Brigade REs wearing green, red, and white armlets, making them clearly distinguishable as they prepared their gas and smoke. On 23 September, French went to see Foulkes about the Gas Company, and declared himself happy. He thought all ‘in order’, and a favourable wind would deliver. A change in the weather that night augured well.
SET-UP AND RELEASE The diary of L G Mitchell of the SSB RE confirmed the secrecy. Equipment was brought by train from the coast to a siding at Gorre a week before, transferred to the RE dump in wagons with muffled wheels at night, then manhandled into trenches by 8,000 REs – a major undertaking, begging the question, how come the Germans did not realise something was afoot? Two men carried six pipes, the journey up the 3½-mile communications trench taking 7-8 hours. Foulkes later wrote to the Gas Company alluding to ‘alterations’ made in the equipment, suggesting the initial kit was difficult to operate or unsafe. One problem was only having two pipes for 12 cylinders, pipes being switched when a cylinder was empty. Apparatus leaked, so men worked in a gas cloud as they turned on the cylinders and attempted to direct the gas over the parapet via the pipes. Gas would be released from 5,250-5,500 metal cylinders, each weighed around 200lbs, contained 20
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
a total of 140-150 tons of chlorine, maybe half what was needed. Immediately on release, control was lost, as deployment depended on wind. Weather reports were mixed. Although conditions were not ideal (the wind was not blowing towards the German trenches), release was ordered anyway, as the use of gas was an essential part of Haig’s masterplan. The wind, doubtful all night, had finally turned at 5am, and Haig confirmed the attack after consulting with meteorologist Captain E Gold, who predicted favourable 20mph speeds. Haig wavered, as the predicted wind failed to materialise. He asked if there was time to cancel: negative. At 5.30am, the assault troops fitted their recently delivered gas masks: PH Helmets – flannel bags impregnated with a foul-smelling solution, supplied with mouth
Immediately on release, control was lost, as deployment depended on wind. Weather reports were mixed.
ABOVE A fanciful reconstruction of British infantry storming German trenches on the first day of the Battle of Loos. This engagement saw the first British use of poison gas.
tube, nose clip, and a pair of glass eyepieces. Air came through in suffocatingly small amounts; it was a feat to breathe at all, never mind fight. The gas was released at 5.50am. French claimed that heavy volumes floated forwards, over enemy lines.
TRAGICOMEDY Decision made, but it was then tragicomedy, as spanners and cylinder cocks proved misfits. Corporal G O Mitchell RE reckoned only eight cylinders discharged. On the British left, gas drifted back and many 2nd Division (I Corps) regiments were gassed, with men staggering about vomiting. Brigadier J D Selby MC, observing at 8,000 feet, saw the wind change and gas drift back over the British trenches. ‘Thank God we are in the Flying Corps, old boy,’ was the prescient comment from his pilot. Wearing sweaty flannel gas helmets made breathing almost impossible, and impaired vision as eye-pieces misted. Men had a choice between being semi-blinded and virtually asphyxiated, or chucking the helmets and being ‘mildly’ gassed. On the right, gas drifted over German lines and was moderately effective, the chlorine cloud causing temporary panic. October 2015
Image: Ian Bull
ABOVE Plan of the first day of the Battle of Loos, 25 September 1915, showing the effects of the British gas attack and the subsequent advance of the infantry.
www.military-history.org
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
21
GAS! enemy after 30 minutes. L G Mitchell said the Germans kept machine-guns firing throughout by lighting fires around them while gas was going over; the attackers emerging from the gas, silhouetted against a white cloud, made clear targets.
Photo: WIPL
CHAOS
Gas canisters were called ‘accessories’. Anybody mouthing the G-word was punished.
ABOVE British walking wounded at a dressing station near Loos during the battle. ABOVE RIGHT German gas casualty being treated with oxygen at Loos in September 1915.
Accounts suggest the greenish-yellow hue rose to form a cloud 40 feet high, drifting towards the enemy, but it also festered in no-man’s-land, whirling around uselessly. Rain the previous day and night considerably reduced its effectiveness. The secret weapon was a failure. Even where the gas drifted over enemy trenches, it was slow and thin. At the southern end of the attack front, no gas had reached the
German batteries opened up on the British lines – and had more success opening cylinders than their operators. The Gas Company scarpered. The gas was turned off at 6.28am, two minutes before the assault, which had been delayed by 90 minutes in the hope that the wind would become favourable. Then, without any real change in conditions, the men went over the top, many describing the wind as ‘in their faces’. Allegedly, the gas caused more British casualties than German. Chaos reigned in many sectors of the British front, yet in others the gas did carry to the German trenches and initial British attacks prospered. In many areas, however, attacking infantry were enveloped in their own gas as they caught up with the slow-motion chlorine cloud: a chemical ‘friendly-fire’. Feint-attacks, kicking off earlier, were hampered by small amounts of gas the wind barely shifted. It seems surprising gas was used in the feint, warning the Germans this would come in the main event. The fact word did not spread on the German side was due to the gas not reaching them. The offensive was a catastrophe. The bombardment was not strong enough to destroy German wire or machine-guns. Accounts often do not mention gas, although A F Francis of 5th Field Ambulance
TIMELINE
22 April 1915
24 August 1915
Germans use gas at Second Ypres
1899
4 June 1915
French meets Haig to discuss Loos and argues against waste of lives
Hague Convention Declaration (IV, 2) prohibits use of projectiles to spread asphyxiating poisonous gases
Final trial of British chlorine gas at Runcorn
4 September 1915
July 1915
August 1914
Nos 186/187 Special Companies formed
First two Special Companies assigned to First Army for operations
French use tear-gas grenades
27 October 1914 First attempted use of gas by Germans
31 January 1915 First major use of gas – against Russians in Poland 22
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
August 1915 Nos 188/189 Special Companies formed
21 August 1915 Kitchener advises French that Germans are short of men and urges an attack
22 September 1915 First Army bombardment begins
23 September 1915 French sees Foulkes about Gas Company, which starts for trenches at 4.45pm October 2015
did confirm effects on eyes and stomach. Flesh wounds were aggravated. The Germans rallied after initial panic, although in some areas morale was wholly unaffected. This confounded British expectations, which had been that German infantry and gunners would be neutralised to a depth of three miles. The difficulties in releasing gas at Loos led to the development of gas shells, fired by artillery, which increased the range and made the use of a variety of gases easier.
The effects of gas are several. As well as causing death or disabling injury through its direct effect, it can also cause panic and flight, and may neutralise resistance through the encumbrance of wearing gas masks. Panic was widespread. The mere threat of gas attack was terrifying, panic spreading like a virus, resulting in gas ‘casualties’ who had not been affected at all. Since the effects were invisible, soldiers feared ‘contamination’. Gas had other effects, too – chlorine gas caused rapid rusting of rifles and artillery breech blocks, rendering them useless. Despite the limited effect of gas on the battlefields of 1915, research and development continued, and gas remained a major weapon until the end of the First World War. A key innovation was mustard gas, which could inflict severe burns. A respirator could save a soldier, although the gas might still remove the power of speech for several days. Trench mortar batteries experimented with new bombs, the gas emitted on impact designed to penetrate gas helmets, resulting
24 September 1915 Some 400 chlorine gas emplacements established along British front
Morning, 25 September 1915 Haig orders gas to be released (5am), commencing Battle of Loos
Afternoon, 25 September 1915
www.military-history.org
Photo: WIPL
GAS PANIC
in intense nausea and vomiting, compelling the victim to wrench off his mask. The mortar team would then switch to standard chlorine and phosgene bombs. British and Empire deaths due to gas in WWI numbered 6,000. Of the 90,000 of all nations killed by gas, over 50% were Russian, many without masks. Some 185,000 British and Empire troops were ‘injured’, the vast majority during the last two years, when mustard gas was deployed. Most gas casualties made full recoveries, however, and by 1929 just 1% of British disability pensions were paid to gas victims.
GAS BAN After the war, humanity delivered its verdict: the Geneva Protocol of 1925 banned gas as a
Some, but not all, initial gains lost in German counter-attack
Attacking infantry were enveloped in their own gas as they caught up with the slow-motion chlorine cloud: a chemical ‘friendly-fire’. 8 October 1915 Battle of Loos ends
Evening, 25 September 1915
13 October 1915
Haig confirms at 11.30pm that attack will continue at 11am
Second British gas attack using new equipment
26 September 1915
September 1917
Reserve divisions committed. French visits wounded at dressing-station
Mustard gas is used by Germans against Russians at Riga using artillery shells
27 September 1915 Foch visits French, who is unaware how much German line at Hill 70 has been reinforced
30 November 1917
30 September 1915
1925
Gas Company moved to Annaquin, close to Cambrin, preparing for a second gas attack
Geneva Protocol bans use of gas – this ban is nominally still in force today
Mustard gas is used at Cambrai
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
23
GAS!
BELOW Australian soldiers recover at a casualty clearing station after being gassed – probably by mustard gas – in May 1918. Most such men made a full recovery, with relatively few fatalities. Artillery, machine-guns, rifles, and grenades killed far more than gas ever did, but its moral effect was great.
ABOVE Gas became an obsession after its first large-scale use on both the Eastern and Western Fronts early in 1915. Here, pictured in 1916, a British soldier in a gas mask poses with a gas alarm.
Photo: Alamy
Steve Roberts is an historian and former history teacher, who has written for MHM on many occasions, including cover stories on Edward III and the Siege of Leningrad. Steve has been published in more than 50 different magazines, and his first book, Lesser Known Christchurch, was launched on 6 August.
Photo: WIPL
battlefield weapon. No other weapon was condemned in this way. Cynics argue that it was because the weapon was ineffective: the Great Powers were willing to sign away something they did not need. This is almost certainly correct. Had gas not been available to the British at Loos, the attack may never have been launched, and a major defeat costing 60,000 casualties avoided. It was ineffective at Loos, and on most other occasions on which it was used. Its primary effect was always moral rather than physical – as the relative casualty figures show – but even this was hardly ever decisive in shaping a battle, let alone in determining its outcome. History knows no great victory for gas warfare. Gas played almost no part in the Second World War, except that residual gas panic remained, symbolised by the ubiquitous gas mask. The gas mask was one of the iconic artefacts of that conflict, and also, in the event, one of the most redundant. r
24
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
October 2015
Introduction
Battle court
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
27
Image: Bridgeman Images
T
hree great victories over French chivalry during the so-called ‘Hundred Years War’ have achieved iconic status in British popular history: Crécy (1346), Poitiers (1356), and Agincourt (1415). Viewed from a geopolitical perspective, their status is undeserved. England was too small and distant to have any hope of making good the claims of its kings to French territory, at least in the long term. Crécy, Poitiers, and Agincourt were tactical battlefield victories without the strategic weight behind them necessary to consolidate any temporary gains they yielded. Whatever France’s often timid Valois kings might concede in the immediate aftermath of defeat was invariably recovered in the years and decades following. The meteoric career of Joan of Arc (following the campaigns of Henry V) is only the most famous example of such a French resurgence. But these battles do, in fact, have great significance: they herald the decline of feudalism and a way of war based on armoured cavalry. During the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries, heavy horse had dominated European battlefields, and indeed battlefields beyond, like those of the Middle East during the Crusades. But the primacy of heavy horse was contingent on the absence of a strong infantry. Serfs make poor soldiers. For men to fight well, they must be stakeholders, or at least imagine themselves to be, in the social order of which they are part. The new infantry of the 14th and 15th centuries – Flemish club-men, Scots pikemen, English longbowmen, Swiss pikemen, German landsknechts, Hussite hand-gunners – were recruited from a distinct social layer of free men who were relatively prosperous, independent, and entrepreneurial. English sources refer to ‘the middling sort’, by which they mean the yeoman farmers of the countryside and the independent artisans and petty-traders of the towns. This layer of society was driving radical economic and social change across a large swathe of Europe. Feudalism had become brittle. New forms of wealth based on commercial farming and maritime trade were upsetting the traditional social order. Radical ideas – like those of the English Lollards, who anticipated the Protestant Reformation by a century – were undermining old certainties. Agincourt, the focus of our special this month, was not only a victory of a small English army over a larger French one. It was also a victory of strong infantry over heavy horse, of common men over feudal chivalry, of the rising ‘middling sort’ over what had by then become a dying social order.
1413: SUCCESSION OF HENRY V
Timeline
19 SEPTEMBER 1356 ENGLISH VICTORY AT BATTLE OF POITIERS
26 AUGUST 1346: ENGLISH VICTORY AT BATTLE OF CRÉCY This was the first great continental victory of the new English military system based on the ‘bill and bow’ combination. The clash between King Philip of France and King Edward III of England took place in Flanders. Heavily outnumbered, the English fought an essentially defensive battle, while the French staged a long succession of unauthorised, badly co-ordinated, and chaotically conducted mounted charges, most of which were destroyed by arrow-shot before the French chivalry could get to grips with their ENGLISH VICTORY enemies. The main lesson of the AT BATTLE OF battle was that that traditional heavy SLUYS horse could not prevail against massed English archery.
24 JUNE 1340
1337
England had passed through a period of urmoil with the Peasants’ Revolt (1381), he overthrow of Richard II and usurpation f Henry Bolingbroke/Henry IV (1399), and then wars with the Scots, the Welsh, and English ebels. The succession of Henry V was itself a minor achievement. As Shakespeare’s plays amously record, the young king had been a e’er-do-well at odds with his father. Though ars with France had become unpopular in e late 14th century, a new generation ad grown up in troubled times, and e prospect of foreign war under a young leader offered an opportunity to forge a stronger national unity. Henry V came to the throne gagging for war, and many of his countrymen ENGLISH responded GREAT COUNCIL enthusiastically. RECOMMENDS
SPRING 1414 FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS WITH FRENCH
: BEGINNING OF HUNDRED YEARS WAR The ‘war’ was really a succession of separate wars spread across more than a century (1337-1453) that pitted the English House of Plantagenet against the French House of Valois in a dynastic conflict over control of territory in France. In the long run, the French had the advantage: they were fighting ‘on home ground’, close to their bases; their population and resources were much greater; and their enemies were compelled to fight overseas and, if they penetrated far inland, at the end of perilously long supply-lines. A greatly superior military system often allowed the outnumbered English to win tactical successes on the battlefield; but any short-term gains were soon lost in the long periods of relative inactivity in-between.
MAY/OCTOBER 1360: TREATY OF BRÉTIGNY
13891415
Following a conference in May, a peace treaty was agreed between the English and the French at Calais in October. THE SECOND Edward III agreed to renounce PEACE his claims to Normandy, Touraine, Anjou, and Maine, in return for increased lands in Aquitaine. He also agreed to reduce King John’s ransom by a million crowns (the French king had been REIGN OF captured at Poitiers), and to abandon his CHARLES V: claim to the throne of France. FRENCH
1369-1389 RESURGENCE
Timeline
DECEMBER 1414 ENGLISH PARLIAMENT GRANTS ‘DOUBLE SUBSIDY’ TO FUND WAR
1420: TREATY OF TROYES
1428: SIEGE OF ORLEANS The English laid siege to Orleans with insufficient force, and it was relieved by a French army inspired by the young mystic Joan of Arc. The English ENGLISH army retreated GREAT COUNCIL and suffered SANCTIONS WAR heavy losses. WITH FRANCE The Dauphin was escorted to Reims, and y p g g, y crowned King Charles VII. Though Henry VI was of England married Catherine of Valois, daughter of crowned King of France at a ceremony at Notre Dame King Charles VI, and was recognised as heir to the in Paris in December 1431 (Joan of Arc having been French throne. But Henry died two years later, and captured and burnt as a heretic the previous May), it was his son, Henry VI, a minor who became one of England’s but a token gesture. The French resurgence continued most unsuitable monarchs, was never able to make and the English lacked the resources to drive it back. good his claim.
19 APRIL 1415
13 AUGUST 1415: ENGLISH ARMY LANDS IN NORTHERN FRANCE
13 AUGUST22 SEPTEMBER 1415 SIEGE OF HARFLEUR
8-24 OCTOBER 1415 17 JULY 1453: BATTLE OF CASTILLON MARCH FROM HARFLEUR TO THE SOMME
decision ight in the th – not in the southst, where the most ensive English territories – was critical. Edward III d campaigned in the rth – and won the Battle Crécy close to where e Battle of Agincourt ould be fought – but his n, the Black Prince, had ampaigned mainly in the outh-west, and it was ere that a slow war of ttrition had eventually round the English down. enry was aiming for a nockout blow close to he richest territories of he French Crown.
An English army under John Talbot was defeated. Two years later, the Wars of the Roses began in England. Thus the war was never renewed, and the Battle of Castillon has therefore come to be regarded as the effective end of the Hundred Years War. No treaty was ever signed, however, and in a sense the conflict had no formal closure. Indeed, English claims on French territory were to remain a diplomatic irritant BATTLE OF for many years to come. AGINCOURT
25 OCTOBER 1415
1453
The background
The Middling Sort and t he English Way of War
T
he French army at Agincourt was a traditional feudal host. Estimates of its size vary wildly, but claims of 60,000, or even 100,000, can be rejected out of hand as gross exaggerations by contemporary chroniclers. Most modern accounts regard a figure of about 25,000 as realistic, but Anne Curry, Professor of History at Southampton, has argued convincingly that the actual figure may have been less than half this total. She has also suggested that the English army may have been larger than generally assumed, perhaps 8,500 rather than the 6,000 usually given. The implication is that, while the English were almost certainly outnumbered, their disadvantage may have been of the order of three to two, rather than the four or five to one of traditional accounts. Nor is it the case that the whole mass of the French army was formed of chivalry. Curry believes that archers may have accounted for one in three of the French, and that they are likely to have included longbowmen as well as crossbowmen. There may also have been some French cannon on the battlefield. Since the chroniclers
The mounted, armoured, lancebearing knight had been transformed into a clanking anachronism. 30
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
say nothing of these elements in their accounts, it seems reasonable to assume that their role was marginal. The fighting was done by the French men-at-arms, and it is on these we must focus in seeking to make sense of the action. These men-at-arms were organised into three giant ‘battles’, each of between 3,000 and 8,000 men (depending on which figures one accepts). The battlefield seems to have been highly constricted. The traditional location has the armies facing each other across a field about 1,000 yards wide between two woods. Though this location is, in fact, uncertain, all the accounts of the battle seem to imply a relatively narrow front and secure flanks. The French army seems to have been compelled to deploy in three lines, one battle behind the other, the first two dismounted, the last mounted. The only major exception was that two contingents of cavalry, each about 500 strong, were placed on the flanks.
THE FEUDAL ARRAY Who were these men? They comprised the retinues of the lords who, honouring their feudal obligations (or commercial contracts), had answered the King’s call to arms. The retinues will have varied in size according to the wealth and power of their lord. Since the feudal system was a hierarchy of vassals and sub-vassals under the King, many of these individual retinues would have been grouped in larger agglomerations under a great lord. A sea of banners indicated the position of each lordly retinue in the array. Though military service was a feudal obligation – in return for holdings of land – it was also a moral obligation, its performance being the culmination of a chivalric code that stressed bravery, skill-at-arms, and the glory and honour to be had in an ordeal by battle with rivals of equivalent rank. Anne Curry’s research has collapsed the differences between the English and French armies in the Hundred Years War – she argues that war had become professionalised and subject to commercial contract on both sides of the
ABOVE Squires arm a knight for battle. Agincourt was a collision between an army formed mainly of heavily armoured men-at-arms recruited from the top level of society and one formed mainly of lightly equipped archers recruited from the middle ranks. The archers, though they were greatly outnumbered, were the victors.
Channel – but this need not alter the essentially ‘feudal’ moral code governing military action. Knights might now be paid for service, but they were still embedded in a feudal array preoccupied with individual combat and personal glory. This meant that French medieval armies were undisciplined and disorderly. Command and control was limited. On the battlefield, each lord October 2015
All images: WIPL
MHM analyses the ‘bill and bow’ military system used by Edward III, the Black Prince, and Henry V.
The background RIGHT A manuscript illustration depicting 15thcentury knights jousting. The joust – mock combat between warrior-nobles – was the supreme ‘sport’ of feudal chivalry.
did much as he pleased. Once the action began, a dense mass of several thousand men-at-arms was unlikely to be capable of anything more than a plodding advance to contact with the opposing line, the more headstrong lords pushing forwards eagerly to get to grips with their peers. This problem – lack of control, of manoeuvre, of tactical finesse – was compounded by two other characteristics of the French army at Agincourt. First, even with the battles stacked up in three lines, the constricted front would have meant that each was ranked in considerable depth. As they advanced, moreover, the French men-at-arms seem to have veered away from the English archers, directing themselves towards the waiting English men-at-arms, thereby contracting their front and increasing their depth even more. Only the men at the front and on the flanks would have had any clear view of the enemy; most would have been able to see very little except the press of their own comrades around them.
PROTECTION VERSUS MOBILITY The second factor making the French array more plodding lump than masse de manoeuvre was the weight of armour. By the early 15th century, armour was no longer a mix of plate and mail – lighter and more flexible – but almost wholly plate. Many changes had taken place in the preceding half century, largely in response to the power of the English longbow, and all in one direction, towards greater protection and safety. Neck and shoulders were now guarded not by mail, but by a steel gorget, which rose from the upper rim of the breastplate to meet the helmet. Beneath the waist, the groin was now covered by a skirt of overlapping steel bands (taces). Arms and hands, legs and feet were also protected by plates, some rigid, some articulated. Helmets now tended to be completely enclosed bascinets, with visors that covered the face except for eyeslits and sometimes breathing holes. Sir Charles Oman, the great historian of medieval warfare, considers these armours to have been wholly impractical: mobility, in his view, had been sacrificed to protection to the point of absurdity. ‘The later 14th century had seen many changes in armour – all in the direction of “safety first”, and all detrimental to mobility, and tending to secure the early exhaustion of the wearer. We have arrived at the time when middle-aged knights of a stout habit of body died of heart-failure in battle, without having received any wound, as did Edward of York at Agincourt, and when, at the end of a long fight on a sultry day, masters were seen supported by their pages, lest they should lose their footing and be unable to rise again…’. www.military-history.org
A CLANKING ANACHRONISM
THE ENGLISH PROFESSIONAL ARMY
Though recent research has raised questions about the weight, restriction, and impracticality of late medieval armours, there can be no question that there is always a trade-off between protection and mobility, and that the plate armour of the 15th century represented an all-time extreme in favour of the former at the expense of the latter. The French men-at-arms in the first two lines fought dismounted, because of the vulnerability of horses to the arrow-storm. They moved slowly forwards because of their armour, impeded by the mud of a ploughed field following heavy rain, and if they fell, they found it exceptionally difficult to rise again. With their visors down, moreover, as they would have been in battle, their hearing and vision would have been seriously impaired, and their ability to perceive and respond to threats gravely, sometimes fatally, compromised. The feudal array, now encased in plate, had become a lumbering leviathan. The former king of the battlefield – the mounted, armoured, lance-bearing knight of the 12th century – had been transformed into a clanking anachronism.
The English army – probably far more so than the French – was less a feudal array than a professional army under contract. Many feudal land-holders had commuted their militaryservice obligations into money payments. This suited both parties. The nobility acquired personal freedom – those who wished could still, after all, go on campaign if they chose – while the monarchy was strengthened by its ability to hire professional soldiers rather than rely on levies of unruly feudatories. Not only did the King acquire more skilled, disciplined, and effective soldiers, he acquired men willing to serve for long periods, at least as long as they continued to be paid; whereas feudal service was restricted to only 40 days a year. Equally limiting were the commissions of array by which militia were traditionally raised. The obligation on all free men to serve went back to Anglo-Saxon times, but it was restricted to home defence: the militia could not be forced to embark on a foreign expedition. Again, the King preferred a commercial arrangement, and the common pattern was for a lord or captain to be contracted with to supply a specified number of both men-at-arms and archers. The King’s brother, the Duke of Clarence, for example, agreed to provide 240 MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
31
LEFT The development of armour from the 12th to the 15th century, based on English tomb effigies. The increasing reliance on plate was a response to both the hazards of close-quarters combat and the rise of archery in medieval warfare. By the end, the weight of plate-armour had become a military absurdity – a fitting symbol, perhaps, of the dying feudal order.
THE MIDDLING SORT
men-at-arms and 720 mounted archers for the 1415 campaign. The Duke’s weekly wages bill was over £250. The King published a schedule of payments: 13s. 4d. per day for a duke; 6s. 8d. for an earl; 4s. for a baron; 2s. for a knight; 1s. for other men-at-arms; 6d. for an archer. There was also a schedule of bonuses due. All had to be paid for out of royal state revenues, which included income from the King’s private estates, various feudal dues, war taxation, and the booty and ransom money to be had on campaign. Victory almost certainly meant profit, mainly from the ransom money that could be charged for the return of high-ranking prisoners. Defeat, on the other hand, could bankrupt the royal state.
A MILITARY HYBRID Henry V’s army was a military hybrid. It was the product of a ‘bastard feudalism’ in which lords, knights, and retinues served under contract, performing military service not as a feudal obligation, but because they were paid, and because they hoped to enrich themselves on booty and ransoms. Equally, while royal edicts required all classes of Englishmen to be equipped for war – the poorest were expected to possess a bow and a quiverful of arrows – Henry V’s 32
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
archers represented a selection of English and Welsh yeomanry who had chosen the profession of arms, and offered themselves willingly for contractual service. Henry took 2,000 men-at-arms and 8,000 archers to France, and when he fought the Battle of Agincourt he is believed to have had at least 1,000 men-at-arms and 5,000 archers in his line (and probably more, judging by what we now know of his losses to combat and disease up to this point). The proportion of archers in English medieval armies had been steadily rising – from two or three to one under Edward III (1327-1377) to four or five to one under Henry V (1413-1422), and occasionally as many as ten to one in the later 15th century. Archers were usually recruited from the rich-peasant class, the yeomanry, so, in the highly class-conscious society of the time, they were ‘commoners’. That they did military service at all was testimony to a further element of hybridisation in the English way of war, for they represented a continuation of the Anglo-Saxon military system based on a militia – a fyrd – of free men. Norman-style feudalism had been laid across this system, but had not replaced it. Thus, when medieval English kings went to war, they traditionally both summoned the feudal host and issued commissions of array to raise militia.
The term ‘middling sort’ would later be applied to the class from which the longbowmen of Agincourt were recruited. Recent research has shown that the English yeomanry were already improving their farms and turning themselves into a class of commercial farmers, pioneering a sort of rural capitalism. The yeomanry/middling sort would later play a major role in supporting the (anti-feudal) Yorkists during the Wars of the Roses and the (yet more centralising) Tudor monarchy during the 16th century. They were usually keen supporters of the Protestant Reformation and the Dissolution; and Cromwell’s Ironsides – ‘plain russet-coated captains’ – were, to some degree, the heirs of Henry V’s longbowmen. Relative prosperity and personal freedom made the middling sort stakeholders in English and Welsh society from the late 14th to the late 17th century. Their enterprise and status imbued them with morale. They were first-rate military material. They had to be, for the longbow had one major drawback. It was a far better weapon than the crossbow or early handguns employed by contemporary foot on the Continent, but, as military historian Trevor Dupuy explains, ‘the strength, co-ordination, and skill necessary for its successful use could be acquired only by years of training and practice… Crossbowmen, on the other hand, could be trained to operate their machines rather quickly.’ The French army at Agincourt reflected a rigidly feudal society, in which the gap between the politico-military elite and the mass of the population was a chasm that precluded the development of a strong massed infantry. It was a feudal host supplemented by mercenary archers and gunners (who were viewed with contempt by their ‘social superiors’); it was not in any sense a ‘national’ army. The English army was quite different. It was a combined-arms force, in which missile firepower (archers), defensive staying-power (dismounted men-at-arms), and mobile shock-action(mounted men-at-arms) were all represented. What made this possible was the more balanced distribution of wealth and power in English society. The English leader may have been a warmongering young blood who deliberately October 2015
The background RIGHT English longbowmen as depicted on a 14th-century French manuscript.
Instead of a terrifying charge of armoured horse, the English faced a sluggish trudge of men on foot, like a film in slow-motion. provoked a pointless war in pursuit of personal glory: a classic feudal warlord. But he was also something else: a proto-national monarch who, in some sense, was King of the English, much as his Anglo-Saxon forebears had been. That Henry V is said to have been the first English king since 1066 to have spoken the language of the common people – as opposed to Norman French – seems appropriate.
THE LONGBOWMEN The English longbow was, of course, a devastating weapon. Made of elm, hazel, or yew, it was 6ft long and, when strung and handled by a skilled archer, could send a 3ft arrow with an BELOW This late 15th-century woodcut depicts a line of Burgundian soldiers. It is a classic image of the ‘bill and bow’ infantry warfare that was becoming generalised across Europe with the decline of feudalism and heavy horse.
armour-penetrating ‘bodkin’ point up to 300 yards every 10 seconds. On 25 October 1415, the French faced sheets of arrows from four wedges of English longbowmen, creating an arrow-storm of 30,000 or 40,000 missiles per minute. But full plate-armour, especially given its glancing surfaces, designed for the purpose, was usually effective in preventing penetration. It is likely that only the occasional lucky shot will have brought down a French man-at-arms during the advance to contact. By the early 15th century, the real effect of the longbow
was indirect: it had reduced the armoured man-at-arms to virtual impotence. Only at a huge sacrifice of mobility, vision, and shock-power could the French chivalry neutralise the effect of the arrow-storm. This meant they reached the English line exhausted, and they struck it without any real impetus. Instead of a terrifying charge of armoured horse, the English faced a sluggish trudge of men on foot, like a film in slow-motion. Their armour also made the French vulnerable to close-quarters attack by the archers themselves. The longbowmen were protected by hedges of sharpened stakes. From these, they could sally forth when opportunity offered, and, being more fleet-of-foot, could take out opposing men-at-arms – especially the fallen, the wounded, the disoriented, the straggling – with axes, swords, mallets, and daggers, retreating back within the stake-hedge when pressed. It is quite possible that the longbowmen killed more Frenchmen this way on 25 October than by arrow-shot. The commoner with a bow had forced feudalism to encase itself in metal. For the English man-at-arms, this was less of a problem, for he operated in combination with archers. For the French man-at-arms, on the other hand, stranded on the battlefield in a strait-jacket of steel without anyone to guard his flank, his armour casing became a tomb.
.
www.military-history.org
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
33
The Battle
Agincourt 25 OCTOBER 1415
Outnumbered, hungry, disease-ridden, far from home – how did the English win? Neil Faulkner reconstructs the battle, stage by stage, as it developed.
T
Image: Alamy
he young Henry V had much to prove. His father had been a usurper, and his reign had been one of continual strife. The House of Lancaster’s legitimacy remained in question – it would, of course, become the basis of the Wars of the Roses a generation later – and nothing was more likely to secure the new king’s crown than a military triumph over the traditional enemy. To guarantee French rejection of his demands, Henry demanded restitution not only of the lands (in Poitou and Aquitaine) won by Edward III at the Treaty of Bretigny in 1360 and since lost, but even of territory (the Duchy of Normandy) surrendered by King John as long ago as 1204. Henry was demanding a third of France – less for its own sake than to provoke a war. This became clear when he rejected French peace overtures despite massive territorial concessions.
HARFLEUR The war was a major strategic challenge. Campaigns in south-western France had www.military-history.org
worn out several English armies in the past, having placed them at the end of a long and hazardous maritime communications-line. Better to fight just across the Channel, where re-supply and reinforcement would be relatively straightforward. But this would require a strong base – a fortified port – on the French coast. Henry chose the port of Harfleur at the mouth of the Seine. His problem was that his army sailed relatively late in the season – on 11 August – and the town’s exceptionally strong fortifications then defied his efforts until 22 September. This left him with neither the time nor the forces – combat and especially disease had degraded his army – to attempt another major operation, such as a march down the Seine to Paris. The correct military decision would have been to accept the gain of Harfleur, post a strong garrison, and return to England for the winter with the intention of renewing the campaign the following year. But feudal politics demanded a different strategy: a military promenade through the French countryside
OPPOSITE PAGE This near-contemporary depiction of the Battle of Agincourt is not wholly inaccurate. It attributes primary significance to the English archers, it shows French cavalry on the flank and dismounted men-at-arms in the centre, and makes clear that one army was a combined-arms force and the other a feudal host. The arms and armour are of the period. Even the ploughed field and the woods on either side that defined the battlefield are shown.
Henry was demanding a third of France – less for its own sake than to provoke a war. MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
35
English scouts reported that the French had caught up, crossed the army’s path, and were deploying for battle ahead.
BELOW LEFT An early 13th-century depiction of a medieval siege. Although Henry V’s Siege of Harfleur occurred two centuries later, the technology of siege warfare seems to have changed very little, except for the introduction of cannon.
to demonstrate English power – in effect, the delivery of an invitation to battle. The matter was decided at a long council of war on 5 October, when Henry appears to have persuaded his leading lords that they might follow this course – appearing to offer battle – yet avoid it in practice by outpacing the French in a march to Calais (which was in English hands).
THE MARCH ALONG THE SOMME The distance from Harfleur to Calais is about 120 miles. The only major obstacle en route is the River Somme, but Henry planned to get across this well ahead of the French. In this he miscalculated badly. He was, in fact, a poor strategist and a routine tactician: not at all the military hero implied by popular legend. The French were on home ground, they had been mobilising for two months since the English landing, and there were no good grounds for assuming the French would be incapable of blocking the crossings of the Somme. Henry learnt from a French prisoner on 13 October the shocking news that the Somme was blocked at its northern ford, at Blanche-Taque, by 6,000 Frenchmen protected by a hedge of sharpened stakes. An emergency council of war debated the options: to attempt to force the ford; to retreat to Harfleur; to turn east and seek another crossing upriver. The English commanders decided on the latter, but this was an advance deeper into France, with a growing French army now shadowing the march along the river from the opposite bank.
36
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
October 2015
Image: WIPL
THE RUN FOR THE COAST For five days it continued, the French keeping abreast of the English and blocking each crossing in turn, the English growing more hungry, sick (with dysentery), and despondent. Then, taking advantage of a bend in the river, the King drove his army forwards fast, out-marched the French, and got it across the river by evening on 19 October, the English sleeping that night on the further bank. But their situation was still bad enough. They had marched over 200 miles in 12 days, their condition was deteriorating fast, they were almost 100 miles from safety, and they were still being shadowed by a growing
The Battle RIGHT King Henry V (1413-1422), the young blood turned warrior king who, unwittingly, presided over one of the greatest English victories of the Middle Ages.
French army that almost certainly outnumbered them heavily. After a day of rest on 20 October, the English forced-marched 18 miles on 21 October, and another 53 miles on the following three days. Then, late on 24 October, came shattering news: despite the burst of speed, English scouts reported that the French had caught up, crossed the army’s path, and were deploying for battle ahead. As darkness descended that day, the English, finding what shelter for the night they could in and around the village of Maisoncelles, knew that they would fight the battle of their lives on the morrow.
THE ENGLISH LINE If the battle was indeed fought between the villages of Agincourt and Tramecourt – as traditionally assumed – it took place on an arable field about 1,000 yards wide, between two woods. Henry at first deployed his outnumbered army towards the southern end of this defile, forming it in the conventional three battles, Lord Camoys commanding on the left, the King himself in the centre, the Duke of York on the right. Each battle was anchored on a bloc of men-at-arms, formed several ranks deep, but these were flanked by archers. The latter were therefore ranged in four blocs, two large ones on each flank, two smaller ones between the three blocs of men-at-arms. Most, if not all, the archers were formed in wedges projecting forwards from the main line. This had three main effects. It increased the period of time the enemy would be under arrow-shot before reaching the waiting English men-at-arms; it reduced the frontage of the archers and thus made it more likely that any attack would be funnelled towards those men-at-arms; and it meant that the archers would be on the enemy’s flank when this happened. The archers, nonetheless, were vulnerable. They had only light armour, and were equipped primarily for shooting, not hand-to-hand fighting. So they protected themselves with a hedge of sharpened stakes. Each archer had a single stake, which he would hammer into the ground at an angle, with the point – sharpened once set in place – at chest-height to a charging horse. www.military-history.org
Calculations have shown that the stakes, assuming one per archer, would have formed a more-or-less solid barrier had they been placed in a single line, so it is likely that they were placed in depth, forming a thicket of stakes, such that the archers could move through them. The archers were, in any case, ranked in great depth. Very few men could have had a clear view of the enemy, so there must have been a proper system of command and control that involved officers providing accurate information about distances and fall of shot to ensure effective overhead shooting.
THE FRENCH HOST A strong argument for accepting the traditional view regarding the size of the French army – that it was of the order of 25,000 – is that the chroniclers are unanimous about the fact that it deployed its three battles not in line, but one behind the other. Of these, the first two were dismounted, the third mounted. The position of archers and artillery, neither of which appears to have played a major role in the battle, is uncertain. We do, however, have good reason for believing that small mounted contingents, MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
37
Campaign map
38
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
BELOW Henry V was determined to parade his army across the French countryside in a display of feudal military power before returning to England. But he was outmanoeuvred by his enemies and brought to the brink of disaster. The map shows the march of the English army – up the Somme and away from Calais and safety – and the parallel march of the French. Though the English eventually succeeded in crossing the Somme, the French intercepted them and blocked their way in the vicinity of Agincourt.
October 2015
Maps
Maps: Ian Bull/Hans Braxmeier
Battle map
BELOW The Battle of Agincourt, 25 October 1415, showing the constricted battlefield, the deployment of the respective armies, and the English advance to within bow-shot that triggered a general action. Note the single English line and the banking up of the French army in three lines: the terrain imposed a frontal collision, and wholly negated the French advantage in numbers.
www.military-history.org
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
39
The archery was a violent challenge that invited a response from the proud feudal lords on the receiving end. perhaps 500 in each case, were deployed on each flank. This large French army was blocking the English army’s road to safety, and its substantial, perhaps massive, superiority in men-at-arms meant that it was effectively unassailable. It might have chosen simply to stay put, in which case it is difficult to conceive of any alternative outcome than the English being compelled to surrender. They were already short of supplies, and, deep inside hostile territory in the presence of a large enemy host, could hardly expect to procure any. The English had either to fight their way to victory and an opening of the road, or be starved into submission. Their King had led them to the brink of disaster. The French did nothing. For four hours on the morning of 25 October, both armies breakfasted, milled about, rested, made no move. In the long run, this was victory to the French, death to the English.
BELOW The English way of war involved a sophisticated combination of shooting and shock action. Both were equally important. The English and Welsh archers were recruited from the more prosperous among commoners, mainly yeomen farmers, who represented the top level of the peasantry. They wore little armour but were protected by a thicket of stakes on the battlefield. Most were professional soldiers: highly skilled, and highly motivated.
hands only an ignoble death was possible, the French chivalry was goaded into action. The cavalry on both wings of the French army now charged at the blocs of longbowmen at either end of the English line, and they were soon followed by the great mass of dismounted men-at-arms in the forward battle, who began lumbering towards their assailants. The English King had succeeded in triggering the allout battle on which his only hope of salvation had come to depend.
THE ATTACK OF THE FRENCH HORSE
of the initial charge of French heavy horse was moral rather than physical. This is almost always the case when cavalry confront formed infantry. The reason is simple. Infantry can bunch in a protective huddle, with perhaps half a dozen men opposing each horseman, and as long as they stand firm, constituting themselves as a solid obstacle, even the most determined rider will find it exceptionally difficult to drive his horse into them. As soon as matters come to close-quarters, the infantry will be able to use their weapons –
Like the opening English arrow-storm, the main effect
THE ENGLISH ADVANCE So the King finally ordered the entire English line to advance down the field to within extreme bowshot of the French – literally to ‘up sticks’, since it involved the archers removing their stakes and reconstructing the hedge in a new position. Having redeployed them at extreme range, about 300 yards from the enemy, Henry ordered his archers to begin shooting. These first flights of arrows can have had little physical effect against men in full plate-armour, especially given their loss of velocity over such a distance. But the moral effect was dramatic. The archery was a deliberate affront, a violent challenge that invited a response from the proud feudal lords on the receiving end. Forced to close their visors, assailed by the whistling approach of the storm and the weird crashing against their bowed heads and chests, indignant that their assailants were mere peasants, their social inferiors, men at whose 40
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
October 2015
The Battle LEFT Though archers outnumbered them five to one at Agincourt, the English men-at-arms were the essential complement to the bowmen. Their armour was excellent, though they probably wore less than their French counterparts – no mail coat under their plate, for example – as they did not have to face an arrow-storm. Nor did they need to advance across a muddy field.
the arrow-storm unscathed. And as they approached the English line, they seem to have bunched towards the waiting men-atarms, avoiding the archer wedges, partly in fear of close-range arrow-shot, partly because neither honour nor ransom were to be had engaging social inferiors. This shuffle away from the archers will have caused the front of the French formation to separate into three blocs, with consequent bunching, some disorder, and a stacking up of the ranks behind. Most Frenchmen, their vision and hearing restricted by their armour and the great press of their comrades all around them, will have known little of what was happening, and will simply have been carried forwards by the general momentum.
Images: akg-images/Osprey Publishing
THE COLLISION
against the horse if not the rider – whereas the cavalryman, on a swaying platform and held at a distance from his opponents by the body of his mount, may find it difficult to reciprocate. At Agincourt, there was an additional consideration: the thicket of stakes. This will have had two effects, since we can assume that, on the one hand, the archers may have given a little ground, retreating into the heart of the thicket, beyond the reach of their opponents, while the opposing chivalry must surely have found it impossible to force their mounts forwards against a barrier of projecting points. Having suffered casualties on the approach, and now suffering more as they stalled immediately in front of the stakes and the bolder of the English archers resumed shooting, the French chivalry were – it seems easily and quickly – driven off on both flanks. www.military-history.org
THE ATTACK OF THE FRENCH FOOT The great mass of the first line – up to 8,000 men – would have taken three or four minutes to trudge across the rain-soaked mud of the field to reach their enemies. In this time, they would have been the targets of perhaps as many as 100,000 arrows. But at the longer ranges, these would have been almost entirely harmless, and even at somewhat closer ranges, only a lucky shot that penetrated a slit or a joint in the armour would have brought a man down. As the range reduced, however, despite the thickness of the plate and the slanted, deflecting surfaces, the ‘bodkin-points’ of the longbowmen’s arrows, which were designed to be armour-piercing, will have begun to tell, especially against such a dense, slow-moving mass. Even so, the great majority of the French men-at-arms will have come through
Those at the front, meantime, tired by their weary trudge through the mud in full armour, would have confronted the English men-at-arms without gaining any advantage from the depth of the column behind. Indeed, it may well have been a positive disadvantage, the press from behind perhaps causing men to stumble forwards, either to lose their footing or to become impaled on their enemies’ weapons. The flowing inwards from the flanks combined with the pressing forwards of the rear is likely to have caused such excessive bunching that many French men-at-arms must have found it impossible to wield their weapons or dodge enemy blows, and many must have been pushed to the ground and crushed or suffocated. The English men-at-arms knew no such difficulties. They were relatively fresh, well spaced, and deployed in a stationary line; they could even have given a little ground if necessary. For sure, had the mêlée continued for any length of time, the French numerical advantage might have begun to tell. But the French formation – three blunt-headed wedges – was now under attack along the flanks.
THE ARCHERS COUNTER-ATTACK The wedges of French men-at-arms were, of course, presenting no fewer than six flanks to the sides of the opposing wedges of English archers. As the men-at-arms shied MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
41
LEFT A vivid medieval depiction of close-quarters combat between opposing lines of men-at-arms.
away from the archers and tried to get forwards to reach the English men-atarms, the archers were able to engage in both close-range shooting and, it seems, hit-and-run attacks. More lightly equipped and therefore more nimble, armed with axes, swords, daggers, and mallets (the latter used to hammer in their stakes), they would sally forth from the protection of their stakethicket to attack stragglers, men who had stumbled, and the ones and twos who strayed too close. It is easy to imagine. Two or three archers see a struggling Frenchman a few yards beyond the front stakes. They agree to attack, one waving a sword in front to distract him, another clubbing him from behind with a mallet, a third driving a dagger through his eye-slit once he is down. Then, if safe, the body is looted. Always there is the near proximity of comrades and the stakes. The counter-attack of the archers will have intensified the press towards the centre of the French wedges and the problem of bunching. Brought to a standstill, increasingly compressed, fighting at a disadvantage on three fronts and six flanks, the great mass of the French first line began to give way. Compounding the grief of the Frenchmen in the first line was the fact that the second line had begun its advance across the field. The men of both lines became embroiled. This must have had two effects. First, it would have added to the press and relative immobility of the French mass, exposing the men in the killing zone, which ran all along the jagged front edge of the formation, to extreme danger for a longer period as they struggled to make their escape. Second, it would have infected the second line with the increasing panic in the ranks of the first. The second line represented a reinforcement of failure, with the usual consequences. Unable to get to grips with the enemy, plunged into a fearful, chaotic, heaving mass of humanity, it was carried backwards by the momentum of the first line’s retreat.
THE FINAL ACT The battle was not yet over. The third line – formed of mounted chivalry – stood waiting 42
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
October 2015
The Battle
www.military-history.org
was the large number of French prisoners in English hands. A man with a machine-gun can easily control hundreds of disarmed prisoners. But what of men armed only with medieval weapons? The King was no more brutal than other feudal potentates of his age. He was, moreover, bound by the chivalric rule which placed a noble prisoner under the protection of the man to whom he had surrendered. In any case, the haul of French prisoners represented a fortune in ransoms. In short, his order to kill the prisoners that afternoon must be regarded as an act of desperation. An esquire and 200 longbowmen were ordered to carry out the executions. It is not known how many they had managed to kill before the order was rescinded. The news arrived that the party of French who had attacked the camp had been driven off, and then it was seen that the third line was withdrawing from the field. The Battle of Agincourt – as it was soon agreed it should be called – was over.
The great mass of the first line would have taken three or four minutes to trudge across the rain-soaked mud of the field. BELOW An equally dramatic 19th-century representation of a medieval mêlée, here showing Henry V engaging the Duke of Alençon on the battlefield. A romanticised personal combat amid a swirling Hollywood-style swashbuckle, it is probably far less close to the reality than the medieval manuscript illustration.
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
Images: WIPL
to charge. Henry therefore kept his own men in hand – no general advance, no looting, no seeking prisoners for ransom yet permitted. Then two minor incidents punctuated the pause in the main fighting. First, the Duke of Brabant, who was late for the battle, led an impromptu charge of a small body of horsemen. This appears to have been wholly ineffective, though it no doubt contributed to continuing English anxiety about the intentions and potential of those Frenchmen who had not yet participated in the fighting. It may, indeed, have contributed to the King’s notorious decision to kill prisoners. Some time later, a body of armed peasants led by three French knights attacked and plundered the English camp before being driven off. When news first reached Henry, he had no idea of the size of the force or the seriousness of the attack: merely that the French were in his rear. Had the third line chosen this moment to attack – or so he seems to have figured – his army might easily have been destroyed. An additional hazard
43
ABOVE The legend of Agincourt: Laurence Olivier as Shakespeare’s Henry V.
WHY DID THE ENGLISH WIN?
One waved a sword in front, another clubbed from behind, a third drove a dagger through the eye-slit. 44
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
Agincourt was an overwhelming victory against the odds. The total French dead may have been more than 6,000, whereas English casualties, dead and wounded, were no more than 500, and may have been as few as 100. In addition, between 1,500 and 1,600 prisoners fell into English hands. Many of the most distinguished members of the French aristocracy were killed or captured. Little credit belongs to the English high command. King Henry V was a young feudalist out to prove himself by provoking an unnecessary war, and then leading his army on a strategically pointless march through enemy territory. His conduct of the battle was routine: he formed his line in conformity with established English practice, and his tactics were those of a simple defensive. Still less credit, of course, belongs to the French high command, and herein lies part of the explanation for the outcome of the battle. But the failure of the French to exercise effective command and control probably owed more to the feudal character of their
army than to the incompetence of individuals. It was, in essence, an agglomeration of lordly retinues, each eager for glory, renown, plunder, and noble prisoners. Feudal egotism and indiscipline would probably have brought on the battle, and the bungled assault, whatever the most senior Frenchmen had done. The English men-at-arms, on the other hand, were a small minority of their army, and they had a long tradition of combined-arms ‘bow and bill’ tactics. The missile-shooting of the longbowmen, the defensive staying-power of dismounted men-at-arms, and, when necessary, the offensive shock action of mounted men-at-arms made the English army of 1415 an altogether more sophisticated military machine than that of its opponents. That such an army was possible was testimony to the feudalism-lite of early 15th-century England; more specifically, to the rise of the yeomanry, the rich peasant class, ‘the middling sort’ who would soon be at the forefront of a succession of radical upheavals that would give birth to the modern world.
.
October 2015
Tank Island On the 75th anniversary of the threat of a Nazi invasion, conflict archaeologist Mike Relph explores the plans for Britain’s defence in late 1940, and their impact on the Wiltshire market town of Marlborough. 46
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
I
t is 1 July 1940. Recovering from the British Expeditionary Force’s defeat in Belgium and France, the army evacuated from the beaches of Dunkirk in late May and early June is in the process of being reconstituted and rearmed. Reinforced by the recently formed Local Defence Volunteers (renamed later that month the Home Guard), the military remains on alert, ready to repel an anticipated German invasion. Standing alone against Nazi-occupied Europe, Britain’s future is uncertain. Some 75 years later, the nation’s popular memory of its anti-invasion defences is dominated by lines of static concrete pillboxes and anti-tank barriers (many still visible in October 2015
LEFT Clacton makes ready to receive the invader. But the British high command knew they were unlikely to stop the Germans on the beaches. RIGHT General Alan Brooke, who became Commander-in-Chief, Home Forces, in July 1940.
the landscape); absent road, village, and town signposts; and mined beaches, access to which was blocked by anti-tank defences and swathes of barbed-wire entanglement – all designed to defend England, London, and the country’s industrial heartland from enemy invasion. Less well known is Britain’s revised defence plan, adopted once General Sir Edmund Ironside, criticised for his policy of static defence, had been replaced by General Alan Brooke as Commander-in-Chief, Home Forces, in July 1940. Brooke favoured more mobile and aggressive defensive tactics, based on ‘a light defence along the beaches, to hamper and delay landings to the maximum, and in the rear highly mobile forces trained to immediate aggressive action intended to concentrate and attack any landings before they had become firmly established’. From 1941, the emphasis inland switched from Ironside’s stop-lines to a network of defended towns and villages, and locally constituted, mobile, offensively minded, and energetically led ‘strike forces’, each tasked with observing, harassing, and destroying the German invader. In the area commanded by Headquarters Salisbury Plain, the north Wiltshire town of Marlborough found itself on a potential enemy main axis of advance, and was given a key role in the county’s defence and designated an anti-tank island – a term quickly abridged to ‘tank island’.
OPERATION SEALION Unternehmen Seelöwe (Operation Sealion) was the name given to the German plan for the cross-Channel invasion of the United Kingdom in 1940. Prepared initially by the German Naval Staff in late 1939, the plan was revised following Hitler’s Supreme Command Directive Number 16, dated 16 July 1940, which requested the German Army, Navy, and Air Force CinCs to work together to prepare more detailed plans for the invasion of England. The proposed landings stretched from Lyme Bay in the west to the Isle of Wight and Ramsgate in the east. Updated to reflect the evolving military situation, on 27 August 1940 the Führer accepted the German Supreme Command’s proposals for an invasion on a narrower front, between Beachy Head and Deal, with a feint attack by the Kriegsmarine to the north to lure the Royal Navy away from the actual landing sites. Hitler and the German Supreme Command agreed, however, that a successful invasion was dependent on gaining air-supremacy and, in www.military-history.org
an effort to destroy the Royal Air Force, the Luftwaffe launched Unternehmen Alderangriff (Operation Eagle Attack) on 10 August 1940. Judging that two army groups (totalling some 40 infantry, motorised, and panzer divisions) were required, the Germans planned a three-phase assault across the Straits of Dover, with preliminary airborne and special-forces attacks, the use of U-boats and maritime minefields on the flanks of the crossing area, and the support of 155 transport steamers, 1,722 barges, 471 seagoing tugs, and 1,161 motor-boats. Alert to the risk posed by British sea power, the German Naval Staff planned to execute simultaneously a diversionary landing in Scotland, and, through use of the cruiser Hipper and the pocket battleship Sheer, draw the Royal Navy away from the proposed landing areas to the Iceland–Faroes gap and the North Atlantic.
BREAKOUT Once sufficient forces had been landed, the Germans intended to break out from
the beachhead and advance north, with two panzer corps tasked with destroying the British Army’s main reserve and crossing the River Medway in Kent. The first operational objective was to be a line running from Portsmouth to the Thames Estuary. Following a period of heavy fighting and consolidation, the Germans’ armoured formations were to push on to encircle London, while the enemy’s mechanised divisions were to advance rapidly on a subsidiary axis through Wiltshire and Berkshire to secure crossing-points over the River Thames north of Marlborough between Swindon and Oxford. Success against the British Army in the south of England would be marked by German occupation of London and the capture of all land south of their second operational objective, a general line running from Gloucester in the west to Maldon in the east.
BLITZKRIEG By 1940, the Germans had harnessed modern technology to wage a revolutionary new form of ‘lightning warfare’: blitzkrieg. The use of MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
47
TANK ISLAND radio allowed Wehrmacht corps and divisional commanders to move freely around the battlefield, enabling them to take personal control of the tactical situation from the front-line. Superior means of command and control; improved tank firepower, speed, and protection; motorisation and the integrated use of groundattack aircraft instead of artillery, also permitted inspirational panzer leaders, such as General Heinz Guderian, to exploit technology to the full, and so operate at a higher tempo and inside the ‘decision-cycle’ of their adversaries. In May 1940, Guderian’s concentrated use of mobile armoured formations in Belgium and France had shattered the Allied front, leading to a general collapse in the French defences; the same tactics would have been used by the Germans had they invaded Britain. BELOW The Marlborough defence concept in 1941 involved three main Home Guard lines of defence (outer stop-line, inner stop-line, and two ‘citadels’) to fix the attackers and set them up for counterattack by mobile Regular Army formations.
48
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
BELOW Some high-ranking visitors cast critical eyes over Britain’s anti-invasion defences.
Advancing on a wide front, bypassing areas of major resistance, the German’s coordinated use of armoured and mechanised formations allowed them to concentrate their ground forces at a time and place of their choosing, typically where there was least resistance, to break
through the enemy’s front-line and defeat the opposition. Momentum and local air-superiority were vital to success. Attacking columns, advancing in parallel, normally kept to the roads until forced to move across country to converge against enemy defenders. Vulnerable when committed
October 2015
to street-fighting, wherever possible German tanks avoided towns and built-up areas for fear of losing the momentum of the attack.
MARLBOROUGH AND ITS DEFENDERS The market town of Marlborough, which possesses the second widest high street in England, lies in north Wiltshire’s upper Kennet Valley astride the Old Bath Road (the A4), which connects London to Bath, and its junction with the lesser south–north route, which runs from Salisbury to Swindon (the A345). Situated on the southern edge of the Marlborough Downs, the town also lies astride the River Kennet where it joins the River Og, and is adjacent to Savernake Forest (a 4,500acre area of woodland used to store ammunition during the Second World War). Had the invasion come, Marlborough’s defenders would have been faced by Army BELOW The Marlborough defences – strongpoints, pillboxes, road blocks, AT mines, and barrel traps – in 1941.
www.military-history.org
Group A’s motorised infantry divisions, each equipped with a mixture panzer tanks and motorised infantry, together with supporting Luftwaffe ground-attack aircraft and organic artillery, engineer, and logistic units, advancing north through Wiltshire to secure crossings over the River Thames. Identified initially as a ‘defended locality’, Marlborough was upgraded to a ‘tank island’ in July 1940 as part of the Army’s plans for the defence of Wiltshire. Lying midway between Stop Line Blue (which covered crossings over the Kennet and Avon Canal, some 4 to 5 miles to the south) and Stop Line Red (guarding crossings over the River Thames, 20 miles to the north), the town’s defenders were tasked with two consecutive missions: to deny the German invader transit routes through the town; and, in the latter stages of the defence, to form a tank island to hold the town for up to ten days.
MARLBOROUGH’S COMMANDERS With its headquarters based in the Royal Oak public house in Marlborough’s High Street, the
local Home Guard – the 6th (Marlborough) Battalion, the Wiltshire Home Guard – was commanded by General Sir Francis GathorneHardy, a 66-year-old retired regular soldier who had served with distinction during the Second Boer War, and on the Western Front and in Italy during the Great War. Given the size of his area of responsibility, Gathorne-Hardy chose to divide his command into two half-battalions: one dedicated to the defence of the Marlborough Tank Island, the other responsible for north Wiltshire’s network of rural villages. Personal responsibility for the defence of Marlborough was given to Lieutenant-Colonel Arthur Fuller, who had served with the 6th Dragoon Guards during the First World War, and had the battalion’s A Company and three rifle platoons from Marlborough College’s Officer Training Corps – a contingent of around 150 masters and boys aged over 17 – under command. Plans were also put in place to reinforce the town Home Guard defenders with 200 regular troops, and four obsolete First World War
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
49
TANK ISLAND
ABOVE The Kingsbury Hill road block c.1943. Note the concrete pimples either side of the road; the two rows of sockets in the road surface, and the bent rails against the left side of the road, ready to be inserted in the sockets at short notice; and the mini pillbox camouflaged by a small picket fence. The building to the rear (behind the two figures) has been converted into a strongpoint, and is a potential 2-pounder anti-tank gun position. ABOVE RIGHT The Kingsbury Hill road block, photographed in 2015. The mini pillbox can still be seen in the landscape – a visible reminder of Marlborough’s Second World War heritage.
18-pdr artillery pieces and their detachments: to be dispatched by road from Tidworth and Larkhill once the code word ‘Resolute’, which was to trigger the nation’s anti-invasion defences, had been given.
HOME GUARD The Home Guard’s plans for the defence of Marlborough – based on the defenders holding a network of road and rail blocks, fortified strongpoints and pillboxes, and
50
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
defended localities – were regularly tested, with an annual major field-training exercise. The last such drill, Exercise ‘Royal Oak’, which took place on 31 January 1943, was the largest exercise of its kind, with two troops of tanks from 20th Armoured Brigade, two squadrons from the RAF Regiment, and a Home Guard company playing the part of the enemy tasked with entering the town following a German invasion. While the national shortage of anti-tank weapons proved to be a problem, particularly in 1940, when there were only 170 2-pdr anti-tank guns available for the whole of the UK, the Home Guard used its initiative and developed a series of impromptu weapons and tactics. These included Molotov cocktails made from bottles, filled with a mixture of tar or sugar, petrol, and paraffin; and the No.76 self-igniting phosphorous grenade and the No.74 nitro-glycerine filled ‘sticky grenade’ for use against tanks.
The lack of weapons also led to the invention and introduction of a number of innovative devices, such as the Northover Projector (a sophisticated grenade-launcher), the Smith Gun (a 3-inch gun which fired a hollow-charge 8lb anti-tank bomb), and the Spigot Mortar. Available in larger numbers from 1942 (when the regular army received the new 6-pdr anti-tank gun), the 2-pdr eventually became the Home Guard’s principal antitank capability.
THE DEFENCES The construction of Marlborough’s defences – with road and rail blocks, and brick and reinforced-concrete pillboxes, strongpoints, and other defensive works – continued throughout BELOW LEFT Figgins Shop strongpoint, which covered the Kingsbury Hill road block, c.1943. Two firing-ports, camouflaged by painted window-frames, can clearly be seen in the reinforced concrete wall. BELOW Figgins Shop, photographed in 2015. The outline of the strongpoint’s firing-ports can still be seen.
October 2015
BELOW A general view of Marlborough High Street, looking north-west, 1943. A large 10,000 gallon water butt, for use in the event of an air-raid, can be seen in the foreground. BELOW LEFT Marlborough High Street, looking north-west, 2015.
www.military-history.org
known as fougasses and barrel-flame traps, designed to disable enemy tanks and personnel. Typically sited close to an artificial or natural obstacle where it was impossible to move tanks away from the road (such as a defile or marshy ground), and well camouflaged, these devices were designed to take the enemy by surprise, causing the maximum amount of damage and destruction. The town’s defences were subsequently improved by the construction of a number of pillboxes of various designs. These ranged from the relatively common hexagonal Type 22 Bren Gun emplacement, for six men; to the hexagonal Type 24 concrete Bren and rifle pillbox, built to house eight men equipped with small arms; to the round Type 25 pillbox, which held three or four men; to purposebuilt strongpoints and pillboxes conceived to meet a specific threat.
A MULTILAYERED PLAN An examination of the town’s topography, its setting within a militarised landscape, the surviving archaeology, aerial photographs and other images of the period, contemporary accounts, and archived military documents reveals a detailed picture of the Home Guard’s plans for the defence of Marlborough had the Germans invaded between 1940 and 1942, and of the viability of the anti-tank island concept.
ABOVE LEFT The Green, Marlborough, 1943. Two of the three pillboxes guarding the Green can be seen. The British Restaurant, opened in 1940, is also visible under the trees. ABOVE The Green, Marlborough, photographed in 2015.
What emerges is a multilayered defensive plan, with two outer defensive lines along the railway line and the River Kennet, and two inner ‘citadels’, one at either end of the High Street, where the narrow Victorian streets – reinforced by the use of pillboxes and strongpoints – offered the best protection from ground attack, and which Marlborough’s defenders planned to withdraw to once the town’s outer defences had been breached. While the town’s defenders lacked the combat power necessary to deny Marlborough to the enemy had the Germans decided to take the town, it is clear that, under the right conditions, the Home Guard and regular defenders might have put up sufficient resistance to nudge the Germans into looking for alternate routes north, and so fulfilled their mission as a tank island – and, in the process, set the enemy up for a potential counter-attack by a regular strike force. r Mike Relph is a retired army officer and a modern conflict archaeologist based at the University of Bristol.
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
Modern Images: Author’s own. Archive Images: Merchant's House, Marlborough
the summer and autumn of 1940 and into the first half of 1941. By April 1942, the Home Guard was responsible for the maintenance of some 22 road and two rail blocks, which formed the basis of the Tank Island’s defences. Road blocks were generally built to a standard design utilising a mixture of bent rails inserted in prefabricated concrete sockets embedded in the road’s surface, and two-foothigh concrete pimples placed on the pavement on either side of the road. Enhanced by the use anti-tank mines on the approaches (for example, 225 mines were allocated to the Cow Bridge road block), the defenders hoped that the incline provided by the bent rail would raise the front of any tank attempting to break through, exposing its vulnerable underside to anti-tank fire. Marlborough’s two rail blocks were based on a similar design, with hairpin rails at hand to be slotted into a number of prefabricated concrete blocks laid between the railway tracks. Five of Marlborough’s road blocks were reinforced by the use of improvised mines,
51
The defence of Camerone
THE FRENCH FOREIGN LEGION’S FINEST HOUR Robin Smith reports on the epic nine-hour defence of a remote Mexican hamlet by a handful of legionnaires in April 1863.
A
battered, wooden prosthetic hand is the most sacred relic of the French Foreign Legion. Honoured annually in a special ceremony, it was worn by Captain Jean Danjou, who on 30 April 1863, at the Mexican hamlet of Camerone, commanded the remnants of an understrength Legion company. Less than 60 men held off a 2,000-strong enemy force for nine hours, saving a vital supply convoy: an extraordinary feat of arms. 52
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
ABOVE The Battle of Camerone, as depicted in a painting by Jean Adolphe Beaucé.
In the popular imagination, the French Foreign Legion conjures up images of tough men trudging across blazing deserts, or manning lonely outposts commanded by brutal officers; of a force formed of men drawn to serve France after fleeing prison, disgrace, or doomed love affairs back home. This popular image is encapsulated in films like Under Two Flags and Beau Geste – not to mention the classic ‘Carry On’ movie Follow That Camel. But the most famous day in Legion history was played out south-west of Veracruz, in a colourful but tragic chapter of France’s ill-fated ‘Mexican Adventure’. October 2015
and rather than become embroiled in the volatile Mexican situation, Britain and Spain withdrew. France, however, remained. Napoleon III was scheming to extend France’s empire. Living under the long shadow cast by his uncle, Napoleon Bonaparte, Napoleon III saw exotic, far-flung Mexico as a challenging new territory, ripe for French control. He also saw himself as a crusader for the Catholic Church. He would re-establish Mexico as a devout Catholic country, a bulwark against Protestant influence.
Refugees from the ousted conservative government were anxious to court Napoleon’s favour. This suited the French Emperor. Napoleon even had a job opportunity lined up for the currently unemployed Austrian Archduke Maximilian, brother of the Austrian Emperor. He and his wife Charlotte-Amélie, a Belgianborn princess, would be installed as the
BELOW Soldiers of the French Foreign Legion in 1852.
Image: Richard Lucas
EXILES AND PUPPETS
One French regiment lost more than 600 men to sickness in less than a month.
THE WAR OF REFORM
www.military-history.org
Image: AKG Images
In strife-torn Mexico, the civil war known as the War of Reform had broken out after the liberal government of President Benito Juárez brought in sweeping reforms that provoked a hostile reaction from Mexican conservatives and Catholics. His government adopted a new constitution, selling off many of the Catholic Church’s holdings and guaranteeing freedom of worship. The War of Reform eventually saw the conservatives ousted from their stronghold in Mexico City, but the conflict left the country in economic crisis, and Juárez’s government suspended payment on foreign debt. There were no international mediating organisations in those days. Sabre-rattling and gunboat diplomacy were the only options for Mexico’s creditors. Spain, Britain, and France sent forces to seize the port of Veracruz at the end of 1861. But the expedition proved fruitless, MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
53
CAMERONE
RIGHT In this fanciful contemporary illustration, French infantry – including a posse of Zouaves – storm the rebel stronghold of Puebla. The city fell after a lengthy siege in May 1863. The conflict left the French unable to secure a grip on Mexico, and Napoleon III’s dreams of extending France’s empire into exotic new lands became a nightmare.
puppet Emperor and Empress of Mexico, with France pulling their strings. For the time being, Mexico’s nearneighbour, the United States, could do no more than cast anxious glances at what France was doing in Mexico. America was fighting a bloody civil war of its own, and was therefore unable to respond to European interlopers in its ‘backyard’. France’s intervention was seen as a threat, but for now little could be done. Veracruz was the coastal staging-post for routes into Mexico. The Legion was not included in the original French troop contingent. Considering that such colonial action was exactly what the Legion was designed for, this seems a glaring omission. Outraged at not being included on the muster roll for Mexico, Legion officers signed a petition, which was sent to Napoleon III. It did the trick: the Legion was belatedly shipped out.
VERACRUZ With its Spanish grandeur rapidly crumbling, Veracruz had become little more than a sprawling shanty town. The surrounding area harboured deadly yellow fever. In European armies campaigning abroad, deaths from disease often surpassed battlefield casualties: at Veracruz, one French regiment lost more than 600 men to sickness in less than a month, before it had even fired a shot. Soldiers smoked profusely, hoping the fumes 54
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
from their pipes and cigars would ward off disease-carrying insects. Any legionnaire expecting easy glory was disappointed. While the main French army was assigned to ousting enemy forces at their stronghold, Puebla, the Legion was parcelled out in detachments and given the necessary but thankless task of keeping transport routes free from marauding Juarist forces. Truth to be told, there was little military glory to be had anywhere in Mexico, as French troops and their Mexican Imperial Army allies fought President Juárez’s fast-moving Republican Army in a series of indecisive bloody skirmishes and short pitched battles. There was great savagery on both sides: dressed in distinctive light-blue jackets, the 1st regiment, Chasseurs d’Afrique, were nicknamed ‘Blue Butchers’ by the Mexicans.
THE LEGION By the time of the Mexican adventure, the French Foreign Legion was already more than 30 years old. It had been born amid the
‘These are not men, but demons.’ &RORQHO0LODQ0H[LFDQRƯ FHU
turbulent revolutionary fervour sweeping across Europe in the 1830s, when monarchs trembled on their thrones, fearing the people might come crashing through the palace doors at any moment. France had a long history of raising foreign regiments to serve among its forces. The Irish Brigade is a famous example. But worried that disruptive foreign elements were infiltrating his army, King Louis-Philippe had disbanded the Swiss and German regiments then in French service. France was, however, engaged in various colonial wars abroad, and the suggestion arose that the unemployed foreign soldiers, and perhaps other foreigners resident in the country, might be enrolled in a new force dedicated to service overseas. The idea of using foreigners as cannon fodder, serving French interests abroad, is traditionally said to have come from French Minister of War Marshal Soult. A man who had built a formidable reputation as one of Napoleon’s commanders, Soult had by now morphed into a committed Royalist. On 9 March 1831, a law to set up the Legion was passed, and the following day LouisPhilippe signed a royal ordinance approving its creation. The new force’s Romantic image was established right from the start. A hard core of Swiss and German soldiers signed up, alongside embittered young adventurers and broken-down drifters of all descriptions. October 2015
RECRUITMENT
CAPTAIN DANJOU
Recruits were to be aged between 18 and 40, and, although they officially had to be of good character, legionnaires were not obliged to give their correct names when they enlisted. The battalions making up the Legion were organised like those of the regular French line infantry. Ideally, each battalion had eight companies, each of 112 men. Resented by the regular army, the fledgling Legion was issued second-rate uniforms and equipment, and shipped out to Algeria. A tough Swiss colonel and his team of French officers knocked the motley recruits into shape, and the Legion cut its teeth in skirmishes and pitched battles, trying to defeat local warlords and impose French colonial control. In those early days, the fledgling Legion’s fourth battalion was composed mainly of Spaniards, many of whom were veterans of the Peninsular War. They were particularly adept at dealing with enemy cavalry, ingeniously slipping under the bellies of horses, tipping the riders out of their saddles, and stabbing them to death. Unorthodox, but effective. Pulled out of Algeria, the Legion was ‘loaned out’ to the French-backed Queen Isabella of Spain, locked in a bitter dispute for the Spanish throne with her uncle Don Carlos – the so-called Carlist Wars. At Tirapegui in April 1836, two Legion battalions held off Carlist forces five times their strength for several hours, establishing a Legion tradition of facing down unequal odds.
Captain Danjou, who was destined to become the Legion’s most famous son, was born on 15 April 1828 in Chalabre, southern France. He attended Saint-Cyr, the officers’ training school, joining the Foreign Legion in September 1852. Several sources claim that fighting in the Crimea cost Danjou his left hand. But he had in fact lost the hand in less auspicious circumstances, as a result of an accident several years before, on a mapping expedition in North Africa. Danjou was loading a signalling pistol when the cartridge exploded prematurely. His crippled hand was skilfully amputated, and the wound healed well. Nobody knows who made Danjou’s wooden replacement, which had articulated fingers and fitted over his forearm with an attached leather cup. In pictures, Danjou seems to be wearing a long white glove over his false hand. The Legion had all manner of men in its ranks, including many craftsmen, so the hand’s anonymous creator is likely to have been a skilled carpenter. The artificial hand did not affect Danjou’s soldiering abilities. He could still mount a horse, and was decorated for gallantry in the Crimea. The Legion’s eclectic mix of manpower has included the philosopher and author Arthur Koestler, American poet Alan Seeger, songwriter Cole Porter, and Ozzy Osbourne – almost! In 1986, the author of this feature witnessed Ozzy’s attempts to join the Legion in the south of France, after Ozzy had a row with his wife, Sharon, during a promotional tour. Sharon drove up to stop him, outside Legion headquarters, in the nick of time. The Legion’s loss has indeed been rock music’s gain. On 29 April 1863, news arrived at Legion headquarters in Chiquihuite that a convoy carrying three million francs in gold, as well as rations and equipment for embattled French forces at Puebla, would
NORTH AFRICA, THE CRIMEA, AND ITALY Worn down by its Spanish service to a skeleton of less than 600 men, the Legion was rebuilt, seeing further gruelling service in North Africa. The Legion had won its spurs, and earned grudging respect from its peers. During the Crimean War, the Legion was praised for its part in storming the Heights of the Alma in September 1854. At the Siege of Sebastopol, a forlorn hope of 100 Legion volunteers led the assault column that stormed the Malakoff. In 1859, the Legion played a major role in France’s Italian campaign, which aimed to free Italy from Austrian domination – another of Napoleon III’s many foreign adventures. During the Battle of Magenta, when French forces wavered before an Austrian onslaught, the Legion held its nerve, advancing steadily forward and driving the Austrians back at bayonet-point. When the French army marched into newly liberated Milan, the Legion was in the position of honour at its head. In Mexico, on the other hand, it might have seemed that there was little opportunity for the Legion to win fresh laurels. But fate was about to decide otherwise. www.military-history.org
Maudet ordered his men to fire their final rounds and rush the encircling enemy in a suicidal bayonet-charge.
ABOVE Captain Jean Danjou (1828-1863), the one-handed officer who was killed at the head of his men at Camerone and became the French Foreign Legion’s most celebrated hero.
be grinding its way up from the coast. Colonel Jeanningros, the Legion’s commander in Mexico, decided it would be prudent to send a company of legionnaires out as an escort. The understrength 62-strong 3rd Company of the Legion’s 1st Battalion was assigned the arduous task. But all its officers were ill. Danjou, then serving as Battalion Adjutant on the Legion’s headquarters staff, and two other staff officers, colour-bearer Sous-lieutenant Maudet and paymaster Sous-lieutenant Vilain, stepped in. They were ordered to scout the countryside for marauding Juaristas and meet up with the lumbering procession of 60 carts.
DANJOU’S ESCORT In the early hours of 30 April, the company set out on what should have been a routine assignment. Danjou was offered reinforcements for his small band by the commander of a legionnaire detachment they passed on the road, but he did not wish to weaken the detachment’s strength. The convoy’s journey to Puebla should have been a secret, but the Mexicans had heard about it. Danjou’s company was being MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
55
CAMERONE LAST STAND
ABOVE A dramatic reconstruction, by French military artist Édouard Detaille, of the last five legionnaires standing in defence of the hacienda at Camerone.
trailed at a distance by forces around 2,000 strong, led by Colonel Francisco de Paula Milan. Milan thought it would be an easy task to annihilate the pitifully small company and prevent any of them summoning help. He could then turn his attention to ambushing the convoy. Danjou’s men had paused for breakfast when Juarist cavalrymen were spotted in the distance. Forming a hollow square, the classic way of dealing with a cavalry attack, Danjou’s men made a fighting retreat to the ruined Hacienda de la Trinidad Inn, at the derelict hamlet of Camerone. In thick scrub, amid the confusion of battle, 16 men became separated from the company, and pack-mules carrying invaluable supplies bolted. Hearing sounds of battle, the convoy began turning back to safety. The legionnaires barricaded the hacienda and courtyard as best they could. Under a flag of truce, the besieging Juarist forces said the legionnaires would be well treated if they surrendered, but Danjou calmly rejected the offer.
THE DEFENCE OF THE HACIENDA DE LA TRINIDAD INN Dismounted Mexican cavalry made the first attack, and Danjou was mortally wounded, felled by a bullet in his back. Shortly before he died, he made his men vow that they would fight to the death. The determined little group of legionnaires poured out a withering fire as the enemy rushed forward again. By 11am, the legionnaires had defended their position for three hours. They were short on ammunition and almost out of 56
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
water. Their memories of a last bottle of wine they had shared with Danjou shortly before the battle must have been bittersweet. The legionnaires sucked every last drop of water from their empty canteens. Their tongues swelled up and they suffered hallucinations, as the derelict hacienda became an oven under the relentless broiling sun. When they heard drums in the distance, the embattled legionnaires thought relief was on its way. But they heralded the arrival of fresh enemy troops. The Mexicans offered them another chance to surrender. ‘Merde!’ was the emphatic reply. Some of the Mexicans managed to clamber up onto the top floor of the hacienda and poured fire down on the legionnaires below. Sous-lieutenant Vilain was killed. The savage little battle continued until the evening, when just 12 legionnaires were left standing out of 49. Bitter hand-to-hand fighting reduced this number further, to just five, but even now the remaining handful did not give up. Eyes burning with defiance, soaked in sweat, and begrimed with gunpowder, the five were determined to sell their lives as dearly as possible.
Three legionnaires still stood in the blood-soaked courtyard of the hacienda.
Sous-lieutenant Maudet ordered his men to fire their final rounds and rush the encircling enemy in a suicidal bayonet-charge. They were met with a barrage of fire from the Juarists. Maudet was killed, and one legionnaire riddled with 19 bullets as he threw himself in front of him as a human shield. Remarkably, three legionnaires still stood in the blood-soaked courtyard of the hacienda. It must have been a moment as surreal as a scene from a spaghetti western. A strange silence fell on the surviving legionnaires and their adversaries, peering at each other through the gunpowder smoke, unsure of what the next move would be. Then the remaining legionnaires poised to charge again, and the enemy prepared to deliver the coup de grâce. But a Mexican colonel yelled out for both sides to stop fighting, knocking his men’s bayonets away with the flat of his sword. He offered the legionnaires another chance to surrender, and they agreed, but only on their own terms. A corporal in the little group stated that they would stop fighting only if they could keep their weapons and the Mexicans promised to take care of the wounded and to attest that the Legion had done its full measure of duty that day. ‘One can refuse nothing to men like you,’ replied the awestruck Juarist officer who had halted the fighting. More praise followed when the beleaguered legionnaires were presented to Colonel Milan, who had commanded the attack on Camerone. He shook their hands enthusiastically, shouting, ‘These are not men, but demons.’
HOLLOW HEROICS It was a strange moment of triumph for the Legion, in an increasingly squalid conflict that eventually saw Napoleon III’s dreams of building an empire in the Americas crumble. His army eventually wore itself out dealing with insurgents, and the Emperor faced mounting criticism at home because of the war’s increasing cost in lives and money. Napoleon also faced mounting hostility from the Americans. The Civil War was over, and the Federal Government was now free to see off the French interlopers in Mexico. President Juárez had widespread support in America. He was even called the ‘Lincoln of Mexico’ because of his liberal views – an ideological sympathy that reinforced an underlying US interest in keeping the French out. US forces were despatched to Texas, and American arms were supplied to eager Juarists. Napoleon informed Maximilian in January 1866 that he planned to withdraw French support. But Maximilian chose to stay and try to cling onto his increasingly fragile throne. October 2015
He was eventually put on trial by the republican Juarist government and executed by firing squad with two of his generals on 18 June 1867. Eye-witnesses said they stood up straight, clasped hands, and died bravely. Their demise was immortalised in a painting by Manet. Maximilian’s wife was so badly traumatised, she went insane. Charlotte-Amélie died in 1927, at an asylum back in her native Belgium.
The events at Camerone have understandably given rise to myths about the legionnaires’ last stand. One of the most common is the claim that Captain Danjou’s wooden hand was found lying in the debris at Camerone by a relief column in the aftermath of the battle. But this notion is Romantic fallacy. Somehow, the hand ended up in the possession of a French-born Mexican ranch-owner. In 1865, two years after the furious fight, a French Foreign Legion officer bought it from him for a handful of coins. The tip of the hand’s middle finger was missing, presumably as a result of battle damage. Despite dominating Legion lore, ‘Camerone Day’ or the ‘Feast of Camerone’ did not become a regular part of the Legion calendar until the 20th century. In 1906, a young officer at the Legion base in Tonkin organised a parade in honour of the brave Camerone defenders. The idea caught on. On 30 April, every year, Captain Danjou’s hand is taken from its resting place in the crypt of the museum in Foreign Legion headquarters at Aubagne, in the south of France. The hand, in its ornate glass case, is paraded in front of admiring legionnaires, their families, and assorted guests and dignitaries. A stirring account of the battle is read out as part of the ceremony.
Image: Alamy
THE LEGEND OF CAMERONE
In its long journey, changing from being a shabby crew of adventurers to a fighting force envied worldwide, the French Foreign Legion has built up an extensive collection of flags and assorted military paraphernalia. But none of its relics reflect the drama of the Legion quite so well as Captain Danjou’s battered wooden hand. Lost and then returned to the Legion for a handful of coins, the story of courage it represents is priceless. r Robin Smith is a freelance journalist and author, specialising in the American Revolution, the American Civil War, and the French Second Empire. He is also a music writer of some renown.
ABOVE The Execution of the Emperor Maximilian by Édouard Manet,1867.
BELOW Captain Danjou’s prosthetic hand, in its glass case, the French Foreign Legion’s most treasured relic.
CAMERONE DAY
www.military-history.org
Photo: Richard Lucas
It is a solemn event, but also a Legion holiday, with plenty of eating and drinking wherever and in whatever condition Legion units are serving. At Dien Bien Phu in 1954, at the tailend of France’s colonial ambitions in Vietnam, embattled legionnaires, under heavy fire, toasted their forebears by swigging Vinogle – canned wine with the consistency of thin jelly. Camerone Day celebrations even extend to Britain. British-born Foreign Legion veterans place a wreath remembering the sacrifices made at Camerone at the foot of the statue to France’s redoubtable Marshal Foch, in Grosvenor Gardens, near Victoria Station in London. Although the French Foreign Legion has played a notable part in derring-do British fiction over the years, no legionnaires of British origin are known to have taken part in the tumultuous affair at Camerone. The ranks of the 1st Battalion’s 3rd Company were liberally sprinkled with Belgians, Prussians, Swiss, Italians, Spaniards, and Poles, but no Britons. MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
57
H
I 10/15 TA R
Y
TORY MON H IS TH LY
M H M re n ds
MILI
OCTOBER Each month, the Debrief brings you the very best in film and book reviews, along with suggested historical events and must-see museums. Whether you plan to be at home or out in the field, our team of expert reviewers deliver the best recommendations to keep military-history enthusiasts entertained.
com me
MHM REVIEWS The Blitzed City: The Destruction of Coventry, 1940 by Karen Farrington, Taking Command by David Richards, and Field Marshal: The Life and Death of Erwin Rommel RECOMMENDED by Daniel Allen Butler. Augustus: a Taylor Downing revisits the biography film reconstruction of the by Jochen Battle of Arnhem, Theirs Bleicken is the Glory.
BOOKS
WAR ON FILM
MHM VISITS MUSEUM
WHAT’S ON HIGHLIGHT
Battle of Prestonpans re-enactment
The Wallace Collection, London, where Neil Faulkner examines the extensive collection of arms and armour. We also recommend a twilight visit to Apsley House, and a weekend of living history at Battle.
MHM OFF DUTY Test your problem-solving skills and win great prizes! This month, there is a day out for two at the Science Museum to be won, with free entry to exhibitions and lunch.
LISTINGS
WIN
Science Museum treats CAPTION COMPETITION
BRIEFING ROOM
O TAYLOR DOWNING REVIEWS A CLASSIC WAR MOVIE troops, and as a ‘tribute to every man who fought at Arnhem and an everlasting Memorial to those who gave their lives’. The film had its premiere simultaneously in London and in Arnhem on the second anniversary of the start of the battle, 17 September 1946. Thirty years later, an epic British war film A Bridge Too Far (1977), directed by Richard Attenborough, brought an all-star cast together to tell the Arnhem story. But the first film of the battle remains fascinating for its feel and authenticity, having been made so close in time to the events depicted.
THE PARAS
FILM | CLASSIC
THEIRS IS THE GLORY Strawberry Media Limited via Spirit Entertainment £12.99
T
he first film about the airborne drop and battle at Arnhem in September 1944, Theirs is the Glory was made two years after the battle. The film was produced without the use of any studio sets or actors. It was shot where the battle had actually taken place, and featured some of the paratroopers who had taken part in the operation, a few of whom had only just returned from PoW camps. It also included much
60
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
dramatic official film shot by Army Film and Photographic Unit (AFPU) cameramen during the battle. The film was produced by Leonard Castleton Knight, one of the great newsreel producers of the time, and directed by Brian Desmond Hurst, an immensely successful film director from Northern Ireland. Today, Theirs is the Glory would be classed as a drama-documentary, but in 1946 it was promoted simply as a record of the ‘gallant action’ by the airborne
Britain had gone to war in 1939 without any airborne troops, even though military observers had noted the developments taking place in the Russian Red Army and the emergence of the elite Fallschirmjäger, the German paratrooper force. The outstanding success of the German paratroops in the opening phases of Hitler’s blitzkrieg assault on Belgium and France in May 1940 convinced Prime Minister Churchill that Britain needed to train up an airborne force. In a famous memo of 22 June 1940, he called for the creation of a force of 5,000 men. The Army dragged its heels, reluctant to create a new force while facing a potential German invasion. In any case, the RAF did not have any suitable transport planes to carry paratroopers into action. Churchill continued to press the case, however, and the training of airborne forces duly began at RAF Ringway (today’s Manchester Airport). In October 1941, the Chiefs of Staff finally created an Airborne Division, and the RAF agreed to supply ten squadrons of transport aircraft, although at first they adapted the obsolete two-engined Whitley bomber for carrying paratroopers, who were forced to jump out of a hole cut in the base of the fuselage. So difficult
DIRECTOR AND PRODUCER The film’s director, Brian Desmond Hurst, grew up in Belfast and fought in the First World War with the Royal Irish Rifles at Gallipoli. In the 1920s, he went to Hollywood, where he came under the wing of the great Irish-American director, John Ford. In the 1930s, Hurst returned to Britain and filmed various Irish plays, including Synge’s Riders to the Sea (1935). Hurst worked closely with Alexander Korda, for whom he wrote a script for a film about Lawrence of Arabia that was never made. For Korda, he directed The Lion Has Wings in 1939, one of the first propaganda films of the war. He went on to make several films for the Ministry of Information, including Miss Grant Goes to the Door (1940; see MHM 60). Hurst regarded Theirs is the Glory as one of his best movies. Hurst later directed Scrooge with Alastair Sim (1951), Malta Story with Alec Guinness (1953), and The Playboy of the Western World (1962). He has often been described as the most prolific Irish director of the last century. The producer, Leonard Castleton Knight, was head of Gaumont British News, one of the companies that supplied twice-weekly newsreels to the 4,500 cinemas around Britain during the war. He later produced several documentaries, including the official film of the 1948 London Olympics, made in lavish Technicolor and called The Glory of Sport, and a colour documentary about the coronation of Queen Elizabeth in 1953.
October 2015
MARKET GARDEN
HIDDEN HISTORY
y the autumn of 1944, British and merican airborne troops had estabshed their fighting value in North frica and Tunisia, Sicily and Italy, nd had performed magnificently n the night before D-Day when ropped to secure the flanks f the invasion beaches. The ermans called the British airborne roops Die Röte Teufeln, ‘the red evils’, after their crimson berets. In September, Field-Marshal Montgomery came up with a new nd daring plan that, if successful, would help to advance the end of he war and bring an invasion of ermany before Christmas. Known as Operation Market arden, the plan was for 20,000 men from three airborne divisions o be dropped behind enemy lines o capture and hold a set of vital ridges across the Rhine and its ributaries. The British 1st Airborne were assigned the toughest task, o seize the furthest bridge over he Lower Rhine at Arnhem. Armoured troops of XXX Corps n Second Army were then to drive orward from the Belgian border to
In reality, there had been considerable concern among the airborne commanders that the DZs were in the wrong place and were too far from their objectives. Additionally, at the eleventh hour, aerial photography had revealed that German panzer units were resting and refitting in the woods around Arnhem. But this key piece of information was ignored and the aerial intelligence officer was told to go home on leave. None of this is touched on in Theirs is the Glory. The film concentrates entirely on the fighting in Arnhem itself. It is Sunday 17 September. Thousands of gliders take off packed with men and matériel. Paratroopers load up into hundreds of American C-47 transport planes. Archive film of the real event is intercut with specially shot footage of the men inside the gliders and the transport aircraft. As they approach their drop zone, the parachutists line up and check the lines from their parachutes are attached to a steel cord running along the inside of the aircraft. As the green light comes on, they jump. The assault is under way. MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
All images: Carlton Film Distributors 1946. Under release from Strawberry Media – https://strawberrymediauk.wordpress.com
link up with the airborne forces along a 60-mile corridor – and then thrust into Germany. To succeed, every aspect of the operation had to go like clockwork. For everyone involved, it would be a race against time. The film begins with pictures of the Dutch village of Arnhem mixed with shots of a large model of the town made by model-makers at RAF Medmenham from the evidence of aerial photos. Authentic archive film of loading ammunition and checking weapons is intercut with footage of briefings taking place. A nice touch of authenticity is when one young para dozes off in his briefing. The paras gather in their barracks for the last night before the assault, and the commentary tells us ‘paratroopers are not supermen’. As the camera tracks down a line of dormitory beds, the commentary gives us the name and background of each man. Before the war they had been farmers, drivers, engineers, a fish-and-chip shop owner; ‘just ordinary men’, we are told.
MHM REVIEWS
was this that, when they jumped, they ften hit their faces on the metal casng around the hole – an experience nown as ‘the Whitley kiss’. Major-General Frederick ‘Boy’ rowning took charge of the division, nd created an airborne force that would see itself, and be seen by thers, as an elite within the British rmy, wearing a different uniform, sing different weapons, and trained o an exceptional level of fitness o as to be able to endure the arachute drop and survive behind nemy lines. The first successful British aratrooper raid was on the night f 27 February 1942, when a force f 120 parachutists led by Major hn Frost pulled off a daring mission capture, dismantle, and bring ack to Britain new German radar pparatus from the top of the cliffs t Bruneval, near Le Havre. The ewspapers and newsreels were ull of the success of the night raid, nd British airborne forces had their rst ‘battle honour’. The spirit of the irborne brotherhood was born.
61
MUTE FOOTAGE
ABOVE Brian Desmond Hurst, director of Theirs is the Glory.
Original film shows the sky full of paratroopers. Gliders come in to land, and some crash horribly. One bursts into flames. All this authentic footage is cut with new film of the men deploying on the ground. Some of this looks a little too prim and organised, as though it is an exercise. Although the commentary tells us ‘opposition was light at first’, the fighting soon begins. Jeep patrols come under fire. The paras enter the town of Arnhem. Dutch resistance fighters come out to assist. There are some tremendous scenes with a clever blurring of authentic record film and later reconstruction.
THE STRUGGLE FOR ARNHEM The film soon begins to focus on the struggle of the 2nd Parachute Battalion to capture the main road bridge at Arnhem. For Market Garden to succeed, they had to capture and hold the bridge for two days until XXX Corps arrived. The commander of the 2nd Battalion was Lieutenant-Colonel John Frost, who had led the Bruneval Raid two and half years before. Several veterans from the fighting appear in the film, but Frost did not. Instead, Major Freddie Gough of the Reconnaissance Squadron is seen setting up a headquarters overlooking the north end of the bridge. The men at the bridge have difficulty with radio communications and cannot get through to the other battalions that are supposed to support them. The 2nd Battalion assault the bridge, and suffer heavy 62
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
casualties: they begin to realise that they have come up against some tough German resistance. It is true that there was a battlehardened SS Panzer Corps resting in the area, although this is not made clear in the film. As the German forces rallied to defend the bridge, the film uses authentic footage to show some of the Germans who were captured early on in the fighting. By the end of the second day, when the airborne troops were due to be relieved by XXX Corps, the paras were fighting for their lives. Private ‘Butch’ Dixon in 2nd Battalion proved especially effective with a PIAT anti-tank gun. Although Dixon plays himself in the film, this sequence is particularly unconvincing. He goes out and finds a tank that conveniently remains static as he fires at it, then comes in to announce to his officer, ‘Got it, sir.’ The officer looks up briefly to say, ‘Jolly good show, Dixon.’ By the end of the fourth day, the situation has become desperate. The officers at divisional headquarters tell the men struggling to hold the bridge against determined counterattacks that they cannot fight their way through to them. By this point, Frost had been seriously wounded, and Major Gough finds him at the end of a corridor packed with injured men. On being told there was no hope of relief arriving, Frost orders the wounded to be handed over to the Germans. This took place during a truce that afternoon, although it is not shown in the film. Frost and the other wounded spent the rest of the war in a miserable PoW camp in Poland.
All of the footage shot by the three cameramen from the AFPU who accompanied the paras was mute. The film cameras were small and portable. However, sound recording equipment was large and cumbersome. So the film-makers added sound to their authentic footage, including background gunfire and also orders, and sometimes even words that were clearly being said or shouted in vision. This again helps create an authentic feel to the original film, as sound would have been recorded had portable technology been available. Major-General Urquhart, commander of 1st Airborne Division, made as his headquarters the Hartenstein Hotel just outside Arnhem at Oosterbeek. The footage shot here at the remains of the actual hotel is very convincing. Urquhart himself does not feature, but the senior officers around him report back on daily briefings as they try to take control of the situation and prepare a set of perimeter defences. Major Dickie Lonsdale, of the 3rd Parachute Battalion, wounded and with his head bandaged, gives an inspiring speech to his men, encouraging them to fight on. This was what fighting in a citizen’s army was supposed to be all about – being told precisely what the situation was, what you were fighting for, and what to do. It is an uplifting piece of film-making. Another interesting element in the film is the reconstruction of the Canadian reporter, Stanley Maxted, making his reports from Arnhem for the BBC on a miniature discrecording system. Maxted is another who plays himself in the film, having often recorded under fire, in a dugout or trench. The BBC had dramatically increased the number of radio reporters who were effectively embedded with military units by 1944. Their reports had a real immediacy, which is familiar to us today when war reporters are frequently on the front-line; but in 1944, the reports from Maxted, in which the sound of gunfire could be clearly heard in the background, had a real impact on listeners in Britain. They were also translated into the 45 different languages in which the BBC was
THE AFPU CAMERAMEN Three cameramen jumped with the 1st Airborne into Arnhem in September 1944, recording the images that today provide the authentic visual record of the battle. Sergeant Denis Smith was a stills photographer; he was wounded in the shoulder. Sergeants Gordon Walker and Mike Lewis were film cameramen recording on 35mm film without sound. Mike Lewis had trained as a paratrooper in 1942, and fought with the 2nd Battalion in North Africa, where he was wounded. In 1943, he trained as a film cameraman for the AFPU at Pinewood Studios. He flew with the main force, and remembers C-47s ‘above us, below us, to the left and the right of us’. He was one of the first to jump at Arnhem, and he filmed the dramatic scenes of the sky full of the para force dropping into their DZs. His mission was to film the capture of the bridge, but he never made it that far, getting holed up in Oosterbeek. Lewis could only carry about four minutes’ worth of film with him. He never received a further supply. In an era when shooting hours of video material is standard, it is difficult to believe that Lewis had only four minutes to record what he saw of the Arnhem battle over nine days. All AFPU cameramen had to learn the discipline of shooting only what was necessary. Lewis was evacuated across the river at the end of the operation. In April 1945, he was one of the first film cameramen to arrive at Bergen-Belsen concentration camp. The footage he shot there is some of the most shocking but most important material filmed during the war, recording for posterity the horror of the Nazis’ treatment of their many victims.
October 2015
AUTHENTIC FACES The film is very strong on showing the faces of the paras on the ground. These were not actors but real paratroopers, who, with relatively little hamming-up, get across the look of men under immense strain, exhausted and hungry, not knowing how long they will be able to hold out. These montages of faces are an authentic touch from director Brian Desmond Hurst, and one of the strongest features of Theirs is the Glory. The defenders at the bridge are finally overcome, and General Urquhart orders the survivors in Oosterbeek to fight on around an ever-diminishing perimeter. But when a German tannoy van arrives to tell the paras they face annihilation and, if they wish to see their families again, they must surrender, it is met with derision. One paratrooper throws a grenade towards the van, which sends a suitable message to the Germans. Finally, on the ninth day (they were supposed to hold out only for two), the message goes out that the survivors are pulling out that night. The Dutch support for the British paras never wavered. We see a Dutch doctor and several nurses working flat out to treat the wounded in the Elizabeth Hospital and at the Hartenstein Hotel, which had also become a dressing station. Dutch families sheltering in the basements of their homes offer food and water to the men who have brought devastation to their town.
A Dutch woman named Kate Ter Horst plays herself, and she reads a psalm in English to revive the spirits of the wounded men. Once more, there is a montage of faces showing that hope is not yet lost. On the night of Monday 25 September, the wounded and many of the doctors were left behind as those fit enough filed away through the darkness to the river. Canadian engineers brought in flat-bottomed boats and, still under incessant fire, about 2,000 men were successfully evacuated during the night. A total of 8,000 airborne troops were lost at Arnhem – killed, wounded, or taken prisoner. The commentary says ‘They had fought a good fight and had kept faith with you at home.’ The last scene shows the same barrack dormitory that had opened the film, after the survivors had got back to Britain. But this time most of the beds are empty. In rather high-flown terms, the commentary tells us ‘They have written in letters of fire an immortal page of history… Their story will be told wherever men cherish deeds of good report, the story of those filthy, grimy, wonderful gentlemen who drop from the clouds and fight where they stand. Just ordinary men.’ It has to be said that Theirs is the Glory is rather slow in places. Without much dialogue and relying on the use of commentary or Stanley Maxted’s reports to provide the key narrative information, the film lacks the impact of a scripted drama. But it stands up extraordinarily well to A Bridge Too Far, made 30 years later with immense resources and millions spent on sets and stars. Theirs is the Glory has tremendous authenticity. In its grainy black and white, it looks and feels like the real thing. That is its unique quality, and the reason why it should still be seen and admired today.
.
Taylor Downing’s book on the first successful para raid at Bruneval, Night Raid, is now out in paperback.
THEIRS IS THE GLORY (1946) J Arthur Rank Organisation and the Army Film and Photographic Unit. Director: Brian Desmond Hurst. Producer: Leonard Castleton Knight. Screenplay: Louis Golding and Terence Young. Starring: The men of the 1st Airborne Division.
www.military-history.org
MHM REVIEWS
broadcasting by this point of the war, and were consequently heard throughout the world. By Friday 22 September, the men of the 1st Airborne, who had been on the ground for six days, were fighting for their survival. Stirling heavy bombers are seen dropping supplies of food and ammunition; but, to the despair of those on the ground, many of the canisters were in fact dropped into enemy positions.
FILM | NEW RELEASE
PORTRAIT OF A SOLDIER Journeyman Documentaries, 8 September 2015 Rated 15 ‘What would you like to know first?’, the matter-of-fact voice of 70-yearold Wanda Traczyk-Stawska asks director Marianna Bukowski, who was about to embark on a seven-year research project. The fruit of that project was to be this new, hard-hitting documentary, Portrait of a Soldier. The film delivers a history of the Warsaw Uprising, one of the most brutal and bloody battles of WWII. The Uprising was a massive operation by the Polish resistance Home Army (Armia Krajowa) to liberate the city from the Nazis between 1 August and 2 October 1944. It was the largest single military effort undertaken by any European resistance movement during the Second World War. Yet, while it is a huge part of Polish history – crucial to the understanding of Polish identity and culture – outside Poland the battle is little known. In an attempt to remedy this, Bukowski decided to explore the event through the eyes of a single protagonist, Wanda Traczyk-Stawska, who fought during the 1944 battle. This is an unconventional device to use in documentary film-making, which usually encourages broader, more general research. But it gives the film a personal edge, an individual with whom to identify, which instantly draws the audience in. Wanda – Pa¸czek (‘doughnut’) to her friends – fought in the northern and southern parts of downtown Warsaw during the Uprising. Insurgent newsreels show her under fire, surrounded by fellow soldiers and wielding a Błyskawica machine-gun. Wanda believed – like many young women at the time, some of them only in their mid-teens at that point – that inaction during the Nazi Occupation was unforgivable. She wanted to be able to defend herself. In one particularly moving scene, images of very young soldiers flash up on screen, grinning from ear to ear. Wanda’s voice can be heard during the montage, saying, ‘A soldier is brave when he is not alone, when he has friends, when he knows that there are people who will rescue him. We were the closest of friends. Even in the most difficult of times, after tough fighting, we were able to roll over in laughter. This was unique to the Warsaw Uprising.’ When the Soviet Army, on whose support the Polish resistance relied heavily, halted their advance to the city, the Uprising collapsed. Ten thousand soldiers of the Polish resistance were killed, and between 180,000 and 200,000 civilians died during the two-month battle. This hour-long documentary manages to deliver a complete history of this important chapter of WWII, through the experiences and intimate accounts of a resistance fighter. In her own words, Bukowski’s aim in making the film was ‘to look at women during the Uprising, but also to offer a snapshot of the human condition, of what it is like to be young and caught in the midst of a brutal war.’
.
GEORGE CLODE
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
63
O
T
O T
WITH NEIL FAULKNER
A
ugustus, the first Roman emperor, the ruler who created an imperial system destined to last for half a millennium in the West, and, in some form, for a millennium and a half in the East, is a difficult subject for the biographer. In part, it is the problem of all ancient biography. The source material simply does not exist to enable us to perform well the central task of historical biography, which is, presumably, to shed light on a slice of history by analysing the character and motives of a leading actor. There are no letters, memoirs, diaries, or personal papers; nothing that gives direct access to the mind of Augustus. The closest we come is the Res Gestae, a dull litany of ‘achievements’ and honours, punctuated by leaden sound-bites, that must have been concocted by the Augustan equivalent of a Blairite spin-doctor. In truth, despite the subtitle – ‘a biography’ – this is not really biography at all, but a particular way of reanalysing that crucial chunk of Roman history from the assassination of Julius Caesar in 44 BC to the death of his successor, his greatnephew and adoptive son Octavian, later known as Augustus, in AD 14.
TA R
M H M re n ds
MILI
Jochen Bleicken Allen Lane, 2015 £30 ISBN 978-0713994773
TORY MON H IS TH
LY
AUGUSTUS: A BIOGRAPHY
Y
com me
But there is another problem for the biographer: the utterly repellent character of the subject. No honest biographer could possibly empathise with either Octavian, the murderous civil-war faction leader, or Augustus, the ruler of an empire based on violence, dispossession, and slavery in the interests of a tiny class of global super-rich.
AN OPPORTUNIST THUG He was an 18-year-old university student when he got the news that his adoptive father had been assassinated and he had been named his heir. From that moment, naked ambition consumed him, and in his pursuit of it he plumbed the depths of militarised brutality and political corruption in an age replete with both. The Roman civil wars between 44 and 30 BC were devoid of principle, policy, or higher purpose; they were simply personalised faction-fights between ambitious political opportunists in which victory went to the one who offered the professional mercenaries of the legions the biggest bribes. In this volume, Jochen Bleicken,
Augustus embodied the rise of the ‘new men’, army officers who grew rich and powerful in the service of Rome. 64
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
an eminent German academic historian who died in 2005, puts it bluntly, speaking of ‘the militarisation of politics’ and describing Octavian as ‘a man who killed out of cold calculation without a trace of humanity, in short a run-of-the-mill terrorist’, one who became ‘the most hated man in Italy’. Central to Bleicken’s argument is his observation that the senatorial nobility – the ancient patrician nobilitas that had ruled the Roman Republic for 500 years – had effectively ceased to exist by 44 BC, consumed in a century-long round of purges and civil wars that had left the Senate benches populated either by time-servers and trimmers,
or by newly appointed political spivs. The Senate had become a craven, fawning, leaderless assembly of non-entities; real power had transferred to the warlords and their retinues. The assassination of the dictator had left a handful of such men competing for power. Some were ostensibly ‘Republicans’, most obviously the assassins themselves, notably Decimus Brutus, Marcus Brutus, and Gaius Cassius, but also Sextus Pompeius, son of Pompey the Great. Others were ‘Caesarians’, the leading of them forming a ‘Second Triumvirate’ of Marcus Antonius, Marcus Lepidus, and Octavian. October 2015
THE GREATEST WAR IN ROMAN HISTORY A yet greater war was to come – between the rival Caesarians for control of the Empire. It was delayed only by the necessity to defeat mutual enemies: the Parthians in the east, Sextus Pompeius in Sicily. Then, the historical decks cleared of clutter, the two most powerful men
in the world, Antony and Octavian, fought their climactic final battle. The scale of the military operations was awesome. The Roman Empire extended from the Atlantic to the Euphrates, from the German forests to the Sahara Desert, and the triumvirs drained it of treasure to fund their vast war-machines. Armies and fleets of a size unprecedented in history were mobilised – of a size that dwarfed the past efforts of Egyptian Pharaohs and Persian Kings. After his victory over Sextus Pompeius in 36 BC, Octavian alone commanded 45 legions – twice as many as the entire Roman Republic had mobilised in the peak year of the Second Punic War, and almost twice as many as would man the entire Roman Imperial frontier during the 1st and 2nd centuries AD.
BELOW A traditionalist view of Augustan Rome as the epicentre of global civilisation. Bleicken’s study reveals a reality that was altogether more brutal and corrupt.
He was a man who killed out of cold calculation without a trace of humanity... a run-of-the-mill terrorist. Bleicken provides a vivid cameo, too, of the sophisticated technology of war, telling us that Agrippa’s ships (he was Octavian’s admiral) in the battle against Sextus Pompeius,
used an improved grappling-iron known as a ‘gripper’. It has a wooden arm about 2.25m long, with a barbed iron hook fixed to the end. This hook was fired from ballistas to land on the enemy ship and fasten on, and was then winched in on cables attached to the end of the wooden arm… Since the ballistas could be installed only on quite large ships, Agrippa’s grappling-irons gave him a special advantage, not to mention the fact that the higher sides of his ships made boarding very much easier, and the enemy could be harassed with spears and arrows from the tower-like superstructures much more efficiently than from the Pompeians’ smaller ships. The consequences of the war for society at large were devastating – taxation, forced requisitions, land seizures to settle veterans, a homeland in which hundreds of thousands of displaced people were cast adrift in search of food and shelter. Bleicken’s book is refreshingly different from much traditional ancient history, in which militarists like Caesar, Antony, and Octavian – presumably because they were ‘civilised’ Romans and not ‘barbarian’ Huns or Mongols – are portrayed as paragons of historic virtue. This, then, is a more honest appraisal of Octavian-Augustus and his rivals than many. But it is not quite the seminal study it might have been. It is not simply that there are some notable deficiencies with the book as a book. Though there are some maps and illustrations, there is no list of them for easy
www.military-history.org
MHM REVIEWS
In truth, by 44 BC, despite the Republicans’ advocacy of something they called libertas (by which they meant the rule of a senatorial aristocracy of millionaires), the old political order for which they claimed to fight was already dead. Little wonder that they succumbed to defeat so quickly, their cause extinguished at Philippi in 42 BC.
access, and there is a total absence of general maps of the Empire. Given that we are dealing with 15 years of civil war, followed by 45 years of foreign conquest and imperial administration, it is difficult to conceive of a subject that needs them more. A second problem is a curious change of style around page 200. The first third of the text is exceptionally lucid – well written and well translated. Then the prose becomes somewhat clunky, and remains so for the rest of the text. I can only assume that the first third was thoroughly edited and polished, and the rest was not. Why did the publisher not address this? A more important reservation is that Bleicken is stronger in some areas than in others: excellent on the politics of the civil war and the post-war Augustan reform programme; less assured in the detail of military events, where he tends to rely too heavily on dodgy ancient sources, and sometimes seems flummoxed by the realities of the battlefield. And while the narrative is exceptionally strong – often reading with the pace and vigour of a novel – I would have liked more analysis, more of a sense of the underlying meaning of these titanic events. Octavian-Augustus was a central player in what Ronald Syme called ‘the Roman Revolution’. Irrespective of his own motivation – unprincipled personal ambition – he was the unwitting agent of powerful social forces created by the expansion of the Empire over the preceding two centuries: the embodiment of the rise of the ‘new men’, the ‘aristocrats of office’, the army officers and imperial officials who had grown rich and powerful in the service of Rome. The general reader, I fear, will be left with only the most hazy sense of why these events might actually matter.
.
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
65
MHM REVIEWS
OO S THE BEST NEW MILITARY HISTORY TITLES THIS MONTH
THE BLITZED CITY: THE DESTRUCTION OF COVENTRY, 1940 Karen Farrington Aurum Press, £18.99 ISBN 978-1781313251
T
he story of wartime Coventry is condemned to an undeserved fate, in that the city takes a rear seat to London, similar to the way the name Hiroshima looms larger in the public memory than that of Nagasaki. Yet in absolute as well as relative terms, Coventry suffered more widespread devastation on 14 November than did the British capital in eight months of aerial bombardment. In mid-November 1940, Coventry was subjected to German air-raids of intense destructiveness. Homes, business premises, factories, hospitals, churches, and public utilities were demolished. More than 1,400 people were killed and injured, and thousands more were rendered homeless. The 14th-century Cathedral of St Michael was reduced to rubble, with the remarkable exception of its spire, which stood in defiance of the Luftwaffe’s bombs in the way St Paul’s survived amid a curtain of fire and smoke, as seen in the celebrated photo of the London cathedral during the Blitz. Karen Farrington has mobilised her journalistic skills to give us a highly readable account of the destruction of Coventry, in this 75th anniversary
year of the raid. The story is told by the people who as youths lived through the horrors of those two nights and their aftermath. The author has also drawn on a wide range of archival material, as well as local and national publications. The Luftwaffe’s targeting and destruction of Coventry was the biggest and most destructive air-raid on Britain during the Second World War. Seen as a centre of British armaments production, the German high command wished to inflict terror and panic on the British public, a plan that had paid dividends during their relentless conquest of France that same year. There was every reason to anticipate an aerial attack on Coventry. The city was a prime target due to the extent of its wartime industries, which produced traditional munitions, VHF radio sets for fighter-defence aircraft, parachutes, and industrial jewels and gauges, while behind these factories lay numerous other small workshops and engineering outlets supplying the needs of industrial firms like the General Electric Company, aircraft-parts maker BTH, and Dunlop tyre and wheels manufacturer. The book explores the particularly fascinating controversy over Winston
Coventry suffered more devastation on 14 November 1940 than did London in eight months of aerial bombardment. www.military-history.org
Churchill and the Coventry raids, ‘If Churchill wanted to keep the extent stemming from a reported discussion of the code-breaking a secret, that by German prisoners-of-war about a would have been understandable. But colossal raid on British cities planned the evidence that flagged up the raid for that month. The information was seems to have come from a prisoner, corroborated by the code-breakers whose information was merely backed at Bletchley Park. ‘This was the backup by Bletchley Park.’ ground to a scandal that enveloped The story comes alive with Churchill 40 years after the raid on personal tales of heroism and the Coventry,’ the author says. will to prevail in the face of adversity. When the veil of secrecy at Bletchley More than a dozen survivors recount Park was finally lifted in the early 1970s, their experiences during that some historians blamed Churchill terrifying night. Dennis Adler was a for sacrificing Coventry rather than stretcher-bearer who, at the age of 15, revealing that he knew the intended worked through the night in hospital target of a big raid before it took place. amid scenes of crushed limbs and Be that as it may, the Air Ministry was corpses. Adler watched two casualties convinced the target was London, and brought in, a mother with a baby in this information was sent to Churchill her arms, and assumed they were on the day of the attack on Coventry. sleep. To the teenager’s horror, he In the unlikely event Churchill had realised they were dead. The personal been warned of an impending raid accounts of people like Adler and on Coventry, there was no precedent others bring to life a painful episode for evacuating a city perceived to be of Britain at war, when the home front under threat from aerial bombers, and became the front-line. RAF aeroplanes were already on alert. JULES STEWART MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
67
ON THE HORIZON A Street in Arnhem Robert Kershaw Ian Allan Publishing, £10.99
TAKING COMMAND David Richards Headline Publishing, £9.99 ISBN 978-1472220875
ISBN 978-0711038288
Kershaw focuses on the experiences of the Dutch civilians and British and German soldiers on a single street, fighting to survive one of the most intense battles of World War II. Fighters in the Shadows: A New History of the French Resistance Robert Gildea Faber & Faber, £20.00 ISBN 978-0571280346
Award-winning historian Gildea’s gripping account of ‘La Resistance française’ looks at the myths surrounding the resistance, and examines the personal stories through the voices of the resisters themselves. Elegy Andrew Roberts Head of Zeus, £20.00 ISBN 978-1784080013
The shattering story of the blackest day in the history of the British Army, the first day of the Somme Offensive, through the words of casualties, survivors, and the bereaved.
four-star British general, one who has risen to become Chief of the Defence Staff, is not always the most approachable of people. One can think of a former CDS or two whose very presence might put one ill-at-ease. David Richards defies this stereotype of aloofness. I recall a dinner in which no sooner had we sat down than Richards struck up a conversation with a family of American tourists at the next table. Most un-British! It is this easy-going manner, whether recounting his dance with Joan Collins while serving as her bodyguard, or telling an off-colour joke to a banquet hall of harrumphing peers, that has endeared Richards to the services’ rank and file. Richards has more than once raised hackles in Downing Street by publicly expressing controversial views. He has also run the risk of being misquoted, as was the case when the Guardian had him saying in an interview that Afghanistan was in a state of ‘near anarchy’ – a remark that he was, in fact, applying to international private-security firms and NGOs. Richards’ most audacious operation exemplifies an unshakeable confidence in his strategic thinking. This was in 2000, when he was sent to evacuate UK citizens from civil war-torn Sierra Leone. Driven by ‘pure instinct’, Richards successfully sent his team of paratroopers and special forces to push the RUF guerrillas out of Freetown and back into the bush. ‘Sierra Leone could well have ended my career, but in many ways it was the making of it,’ he says. ‘I’d taken a big risk and got away with it.’ The author offers a particularly fascinating insight into the elaborate security measures deployed by the military to protect against any terrorist attack during the 2012 Olympic Games. The second half of the book includes a diary – a valuable historical document – of the years he served as ISAF Commander in Afghanistan. His ability to look beyond the battlefield, at the need for reconstruction and development, met with a disappointing reception on his return to London. It was obvious, he notes, that British politicians no longer had an appetite for Afghanistan, despite the threat of a Taliban takeover after the hasty departure of NATO combat troops. JULES STEWART
A
FIELD MARSHAL: THE LIFE AND DEATH OF ERWIN ROMMEL
Hubris: The Tragedy of War in the Twentieth Century Alistair Horne Weidenfeld & Nicolson, £25.00
Daniel Allen Butler Casemate Books, £20.99 ISBN 978-1612002972
ISBN 978-0297867623
Alistair Horne revisits six battles that changed the course of the 20th century, and how excessive human pride on one side or the other led to winning or losing. Speer: Hitler’s Architect Martin Kitchen Yale University Press, £20.00 ISBN 978-0300190441
Speer maintained his innocence of Nazi crime; here, the author challenges previous accounts of a cultured man who was uninvolved in the horror of the regime. The Lie at the Heart of Waterloo: The Battle’s Hidden Last Half Hour Nigel Sale The History Press, £20 ISBN 978-0750959629
Revealing the horrifying reality of the battle using quotations from eye-witnesses to add texture to the analysis. 68
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
ould you cut out all the newspaper articles about me, please? I’ve no time to read at the moment, but it will be fun to look at them later.’ Thus wrote Erwin Rommel, commander of the German 7th Panzer Division, to his wife in June 1940. Leading from the front during the Blitzkrieg in Belgium and France, Rommel was in his element. Soon Rommel would defeat a succession of British generals in North Africa. His power is illustrated in C-in-C Middle East Claude Auchinleck’s order to the Eighth Army at the start of the First Battle of El Alamein (July 1942): There exists a real danger that our friend Rommel is becoming a kind of… bogey-man… He is by no means a superman, although he is undoubtedly very energetic and able. Even if he were a superman, it would still be highly undesirable that our men should credit him with superhuman powers. We must… not always keep harping on Rommel. Churchill put it more bluntly during a War Cabinet: ‘Rommel! Rommel! Rommel! Rommel! What else matters but beating him?’ Beat him, of course, they did, starting with Montgomery’s onslaught in the Second Battle of El Alamein (Oct/Nov 1942). In Field Marshal, the highly readable Daniel Allen Butler gives us a traditional look at Rommel’s life, from service in WWI, interwar duties, the 1940 Blitzkrieg, the Afrika Korps, North African defeat, and improvements to the Atlantic Wall in France, to his enforced suicide in 1944. Butler is particularly good writing about small-scale events. In his author photograph, he is reminiscent of the later Ernest Hemingway. It is interesting to speculate that he may be a Hemingway aficionado: he shares the latter’s gift for observation and tendency to celebrate ‘the man of action’. Unforgivably, Butler denigrates staff officers of all kinds, singling out Chief of the Imperial General Staff Sir Alan Brooke, whom he calls plodding, unimaginative, and defensive. Yet Brooke could be acerbic and ruthless while ensuring the big picture made sense, often standing up to Churchill and the Americans to do so. Butler much prefers battlefield commanders, especially those receiving a good press. Keen on action and heroism, weak on strategy and politics, Field Marshal is always interesting, but sometimes wilful and myopic. Rather like its subject, in fact. ANDRE VAN LOON
‘W
October 2015
SU
02
REVIEWING THE BEST MILITARY HISTORY EXHIBITIONS WITH NEIL FAULKNER 01
03
FREE
VISIT
THE WALLACE COLLECTION
ENTRY
Hertford House, Manchester Square, London W1U 3BN www.wallacecollection.org Open 10am to 5pm daily
I
t has the finest collection of decorated armour in the country, but it is known primarily as an art collection rather than a military museum. Sir Richard Wallace (1818-1890), the last in a line of Wallace family collectors, had a special interest in late medieval and Renaissance armour as an art form. Because of this, according to curator Toby Capwell, the Wallace collection of arms and armour, which is second only to that of the Royal Armouries in Britain and among the top ten in the world, is of special significance. The Royal Armouries has a fuller range of more workaday pieces, but the Wallace material is exceptional for its artistic quality. It is, says Capwell, ‘a little jewel-box of arms and armour’. Military museum buffs are likely to miss it. The arms and armour are displayed in several groundfloor rooms of the old Wallace family home, Hertford House, a white-walled neoclassical edifice in Manchester Square in London’s 70
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
fashionable Marylebone, surrounded by other rooms filled with paintings, furniture, and porcelain. If the latter are not your thing, do not be deterred. You could spend a couple of hours with the arms and armour, which includes both European and Oriental material, the former mainly of 15th- and 16thcentury date, the latter including objects as late as the 19th century. The most spectacular sight is the mounted man-at-arms in full platearmour, shown on a model horse about to rear its legs, the rider bent back with raised sword. The horsearmour (probably assembled and partly restored in the 19th century) is believed to be the most complete in the world; it is of south German manufacture, and of late 15thcentury date. To stand in front of it and imagine several hundred such thundering towards one is to get a visceral sense of the moral power of chivalry on the medieval battlefield. Because this is an art collection, highly decorated pieces predominate.
Any part of a warrior panoply might be decorated, so we see daggers and swords, crossbows and muskets, shields and saddles, helmets, gorgets, breastplates, gauntlets, and indeed any and every separate piece of body armour turned into art objects. An archer’s simple iron skullcap helmet might be hammered out in mass production; a great lord’s armour might be months in the
making, and the polish and gilding of the finish might increase its value tenfold. This did not make it ‘parade armour’. Though much of the collection comprises armours made specifically for the joust, there is no ‘parade armour’ as such. The most expensive and ornate battle armours were exactly that: they were to be worn on the battlefield to indicate the rank and status of the wearer. October 2015
04
06
MHM VISITS
L ONDON, ENGL A ND
PICTURED ON BOTH PAGES: 1. Hertford House –home of the Wallace Collection – as it appears today. 2. Pair of gauntlets, Italian, dating to c.1390. 3. Barbuta-style helmet (that is, one without a visor), Italian, dating to the late 14th century. 4. Part of the Wallace Collection, showing the unique horse-armour in the foreground.
05
5. Visored bascinet (in the case in rench, r early nch or late 14th d armour uckhurst, o the late entury.
The Wallace Collection provides rich insight into the anthropology of medieval battle. The great lords competed in wealth and power. They sought each other out on the battlefield for the honour of fighting social equivalents. They needed to be recognised as leaders by their own followers in the thick of the fighting – and by enemies, who would hesitate to kill a richly caparisoned opponent for the sake of the ransom money that he represented. Gilding, in its curious way, could be as much a protective metal as the solid steel beneath. Another treasure of the collection is the battle armour of Lord Buckhurst, which was manufactured at the Almain Armourers’ workshop at Greenwich around the time of the Spanish Armada. The stunning craftsmanship and artistry is a riposte to the mistaken traditional view that English work was inferior to that of Italian and German masters. www.military-history.org
THE SINEWS OF WAR: ARMS AND ARMOUR FROM THE AGE OF AGINCOURT From 1 September, the Wallace Collection is presenting a special display of arms and armour from the time of the Battle of Agincourt. This exhibition will include its own small but high-quality collection of late 14th-century/early 15th-century material, along with a selection of loaned items, including some reconstructions. The display is designed in part to dispel some misconceptions. What might be called ‘the myth of Agincourt’ is bound up with modern notions of national identity and Anglo-French rivalry, and involves a popular view of the battle as a struggle between low-born English archers and haughty French aristocrats – an idea promoted in plays, poems, and songs since at least the time of Shakespeare.
One of the display items – a reconstructed breastplate that has been dented and punctured by arrow-shot – tells different story. Thi to prove that only closest of ranges English arrows ha penetrated French sufficiently to hav inflicted serious i This being so, the archers would su have been slaughtered had they fought alone. The English men-at-arms were equally important. Agincourt was a combined-arms victory of ‘bill and bow’, not a simple triumph of the common man. The display will also demonstrate that many depictions of Agincourt are unrealistic in showing men
cased e heavier urs of ars of ses; to deas obility of the arms e. ill h the oby thur of the English Knight, 1400-1450, which will reveal for the first time the highly advanced and beautifully designed armour that was worn by English men-at-arms during the later phases of the Hundred Years War. Military History Monthly will shortly be publishing Toby’s full-length feature article based on the book.
.
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
71
ISTI S
EXHIBITION
£10 ENTRY
THE BEST MILITARY HISTORY EVENTS, LECTURES, AND EXHIBITIONS
FREE ENTRY
LEE MILLER: A WOMAN’S WAR 15 October 201524 April 2016 IWM London, Lambeth Road, London, SE1 6HZ www.iwm.org.uk 020 7416 5000
RE-ENACTMENT
BATTLE OF PRESTONPANS 270TH ANNIVERSARY 18-20 September Edinburgh Road, Prestonpans EH32
www.prestonpansreenactment.org 07906 349407
B
onnie Prince Charlie’s famous victory in 1745 will be commemorated with an exciting weekend of activities at Prestonpans, East Lothian. The anniversary events begin with a parade, followed by two days of living history encampments and displays. Visitors will have the chance to admire the red-coated ranks of General Cope’s forces, with cannon, foot, and horse, before witnessing the terrifying Highland charge that led to their shocking defeat. There will even be a chance to meet the Bonnie Prince himself, as he steels his Jacobite warriors for battle.
American Lee Miller was one of the most important war reporters and photographers of the 20th century. Moving to Europe in 1929, she became a correspondent accredited to the US Army in 1944, covering events such as the London Blitz, the Liberation of Paris, and the concentration camps at Buchenwald and Dachau. This exhibition is the first to explore Miller’s vision of gender and the impact of the Second World War on women’s lives through her photography. It features many photographs, objects, works of art, and personal items never before displayed.
LECTURE
AGINCOURT OR AZINCOURT? VICTORY, DEFEAT, AND THE WAR OF 1415 names in the roll-call of English military 22 October 2015
Museum of London, 150 London Wall, London, EC2Y 5HN www.gresham.ac.uk 020 7831 0575 In the year of the battle’s 600th anniversary, Agincourt remains one of the most resonant
72
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
history. Dr Helen Castor sets the battle in its 15th-century context – when the outcome of military conflict was understood as the result of God’s will – and unravels the implications of two contrasting narratives: English victory at Agincourt, and French defeat on the field they knew as Azincourt. No reservation required.
FREE ENTRY October 2015
HOLOCAUST MEMORY AND MEMORIALS
FREE
26 October 2015
ENTRY
Quay West, Trafford Wharf Road, Manchester, M17 1TZ www.iwm.org.uk 0161 836 4000
Memories of the Holocaust are explored in this one-day conference organised by the Centre for Jewish Studies, the Department of History, University of Manchester, and IWM North. The conference will show a new film about Haviva Reick, the British-trained resister who was parachuted into Slovakia and murdered by the Nazis in 1944. It will also examine how the destruction of the Jews has been memorialised at different sites in Europe. Booking is essential. See website for more details.
EVENT
TOUR
£12 ENTRY
DATES TO REMEMBER
MHM VISITS
CONFERENCE
4 OCTOBER 2015
Shuttleworth Uncovered Airshow Old Warden Aerodrome, nr Biggleswade, Bedfordshire, SG18 9EP www.shuttleworth.org
Get up close and personal with the Shuttleworth Collection aircraft, with opportunities to talk to the engineers about their unique history, and what it means to keep them flying.
24 OCTOBER1 NOVEMBER 2015
Dazzle Camouflage HMS Belfast, The Queen’s Walk, London, SE1 2JH www.iwm.org.uk
BATTLE OF HASTINGS 10-11 October 2015
£4.25 ENTRY
High Street, Battle, East Sussex, TN33 0AD www.english-heritage.org.uk 0370 333 1183
Immerse yourself in medieval life during this weekend of historical re-enactments and living history events at Battle. See knights and their horses in the cavalry encampment, and watch a specially commissioned play that details the events leading up to the Battle of Hastings. There will be numerous activities, talks, and demonstrations suitable for every member of the family, including archery, falconry, and weaponmaking, all of which will help you to imagine what life would have been like almost 1,000 years ago.
TWILIGHT EVENING AT APSLEY HOUSE Wednesday evenings throughout October 149 Piccadilly, Hyde Park Corner, London, WIJ 7NT www.english-heritage.org.uk 0370 333 1183
The grand Georgian building of Apsley House, an address once known as ‘Number 1, London’, has changed very little since its owner, the first Duke of Wellington, claimed victory against Napoleon at Waterloo in 1815. Open for four evenings this month, you can be guided by torchlight around its beautiful interiors to see the fine collection of art, silver, and porcelain. Booking for this event is essential, as places are limited.
See how dazzle camouflage was used to keep HMS Belfast from being discovered by other ships in this family-friendly animation workshop. Create your own camouflage, which will be turned into a short film, available to view after half-term.
31 OCTOBER 2015
An Evening with Andy McNab The Tank Museum, Bovington, Dorset, BH20 6JG www.tankmuseum.org
Former SAS soldier and bestselling author Andy McNab will be sharing his experiences of commanding Bravo Two Zero during the Gulf War, as well as talking about his latest Nick Stone book, Detonator.
CONFERENCE
BEYOND AGINCOURT: THE FUNERARY ACHIEVEMENTS OF HENRY V
£65 ENTRY
28 October 2015 Westminster Abbey, London, SW1P 3PA www.westminster-abbey.org
As the burial place of Henry V, Westminster Abbey is holding a conference, 600 years after his most famous battle, to talk about the significance of his funeral. This conference brings together a range of experts in the fields of armour, architecture, and conservation, and will have lectures on the king’s shield, saddle, sword, and helm, which were carried during his funeral procession at the Abbey.
www.military-history.org
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
73
B BOOKS
MHM LISTS THE TOP MILITARY HISTORY TITLES AVAILABLE TO BUY OVER THE COMING MONTHS. LETTING GO
WORLD WAR 1990: OPERATION ARCTIC STORM
Jeff Sands A gripping memoir about life before, during, and after 9/11. Marine Corps Officer Jeff Sands retells his story with brutal honesty, describing why he joined the Marine Corps, what he experienced in Iraq, and the struggles he endured afterwards.
William Stroock An alternate history that imagines war between the West and the Soviet Union with important characters in the British Army, the Royal Navy, the SAS and Downing Street. Action on the Continent, in the Pacific, and a major USN/RN campaign in the Norwegian Sea.
PUBLISHER: Create Space PRICE: £8.93 Paperback, £1.99 e-book WHERE TO BUY: Amazon
PUBLISHER: Create Space PRICE: £7.99 Paperback, £2.49 Kindle edition WHERE TO BUY: Amazon, Amazon Kindle, B&N Nook
THE RED EFFECT (BOOK 1 IN THE BESTSELLING COLD WAR TRILOGY)
THE BATTLE OF THE ATLANTIC Jonathan Dimbleby A book that promises to do for the titular Battle of the Atlantic what Antony Beevor did for Stalingrad, weaving stories of grand strategy from Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt with anecdotes from the sailors and soldiers who fought the conflict on the high seas. Jonathan’s thrilling narrative uniquely places the campaign in the context of WWII, detailing the decisions that led to victory, and the horror and humanity of life on the perilous seas.
Harvey Black 1983: the height of the Cold War. With tensions running high and Soviet forces gaining strength, NATO prepares for the worst. Catapulted towards all-out war, the world holds its breath… Harvey Black’s gripping alternative history draws from ten years experience in Army Intelligence, putting readers at the heart of the action. PUBLISHER: SilverWood Books PRICE: £8.99 Paperback, £3.99 e-book WHERE TO BUY: Amazon.co.uk, The Book Depository, most online retailers and directly from www.silverwoodbooks.co.uk/harvey-black
PUBLISHER: Viking/Penguin Books PRICE: £25.00 WHERE TO BUY: All good retailers
TALES FROM THE FORGOTTEN FRONT, BRITISH WEST AFRICA DURING WWII John Wade This book reveals, through the eyes of a conscripted soldier, the day-to-day lives of British soldiers in British West Africa during WWII. It looks at the strange cultures, the landscape and wildlife, and the unusual situations that were encountered in an
alien and often frightening location known as The White Man’s Grave. PUBLISHER: Whittles Publishing PRICE: £16.99 WHERE TO BUY: from all good bookshops, online retailers or directly from Whittles Publishing
W W H AT ’ S O N
JOUST AT AVONCROFT MUSEUM Thundering hooves, shattering lances and all the excitement of a traditional jousting tournament. Marvel at courageous riders on their highly-trained horses as they take part in dramatic one-to-one tilting contests. Watch squires and ladies hone their skills on horseback with demonstrations of skill-at-arms training. Meet horses, knights, ladies (and a
WEB: www.avoncroft.org.uk DATES: 19-20 September 2015 EMAIL: officemanager@avoncroft. org.uk
few miscreants) and explore the living history camps to find out more about life in the 15th century. Drills and activities for younger visitors. Avoncroft Museum of Historic Buildings is just off the A38 south of Bromsgrove, between Birmingham and Worcester, a few minutes’ drive from the M5, M6, M40 and M42.
WHERE: Avoncroft Museum of Historic Buildings, Redditch Road, Stoke Heath, Bromsgrove, Worcestershire, B60 4JR PHONE: 01527 831363
HOW MUCH: Adults £8.80 (including voluntary Gift Aid contribution) Children £4.50
THE BATTLE OF AGINCOURT 25 October 2015 marks the 600th anniversary of the battle of Agincourt, one of the pivotal events in the tumultuous relationship between England and France during the Hundre Years War (1337 -1453). To commemorate this ev Royal Armouries will present a special exhibition in the White Tower at the Tower of London this winter. The exhibition brings together, for the first time, rare and iconic objects including medieval arms and armour, art, music, sculpture and manuscripts from the Royal Armouries’ own collection and leading European institutions. The battle of Agincourt will unfold the moving story of the road to battle, the events of 25 October 1415 and the aftermath, in turn exploring the popular myths, reality and legacy of this extraordinary battle. A lively programme of events will accompany the exhibition from 24 October to 1 November, including talks, skill-at-arms demonstrations and activities for all the family.
WEB: www.royalarmouries.org DATES: 23 October 2015-31 January 2016 WHERE: The White Tower Tower of London, London, EC3N 4AB
HOW MUCH: Exhibition admission is included with ticket to Tower of London http://www.hrp.org.uk/TowerOfLondon/ Image: North Italian, late 14th century (Royal armouries IV.470)
FELLOWS’ AUCTION OF ANTIQUES & FINE ART Following the closure of the Birmingham Nautical Club earlier this month, Fellows Auctioneers are helping the members raise funds for charity, by auctioning club memorabilia. A range of memorabilia will go under the hammer on 6 October, such as a ship’s anchor, 14 pound gun, and plaques which were hung in the club; along with various other novelty items and naval medals. Notable lots for auction include distinguished service medals for African and Italian campaigns, a collection of medals awarded to a recipient who took part in the Zebrugge raids in April 1918 (£800£1,000), and Naval General Service medal complete with ‘Yangtze 1949’ clasp (£300- £500). Visit www.fellows.co.uk/register to sign up for alerts regarding this auction and view the full catalogue online. WEB: www.fellows.co.uk DATES: 6 October 2015; visit the website for confirmed dates for auctions of Antiques & Fine Art and Coins & Medals. EMAIL:
[email protected]
WHERE: Fellows Auctioneers Augusta House, 19 Augusta Street Jewellery Quarter, Birmingham, B18 6JA PHONE: 0121 212 2131 HOW MUCH: View the catalogue for lot estimates and condition reports on individual items.
‘DEAR HARRY...’ - HENRY MOSELEY, A SCIENTIST LOST TO WAR Henry ‘Harry’ Moseley was an exceptionally promising English physicist in the years immediately before World War I. His work on the X-ray spectra of the elements provided a new foundation for the Periodic Table and contributed to the development of the nuclear model of the atom. Yet Harry’s life and career were cut short when he was killed in 1915, aged 27, in action at Gallipoli, Turkey. With support from the Heritage Lottery Fund WEB: www.mhs.ox.ac.uk DATES: 15 May 2015–31 January 2016
(HLF), the Museum of the History of Science is staging a centenary exhibition, ‘Dear Harry... Henry Moseley, A Scientist Lost to War’. This marks Moseley’s great contribution to science and reveals the impact of his death on the international scientific community and its relationship with government and the armed forces. ‘Dear Harry…’ tells the moving and personal story of the life and legacy of Henry ‘Harry’ Moseley – son, scientist, and soldier.
EMAIL:
[email protected] WHERE: Museum of the History of Science, Broad Street,
Oxford, OX1 3AZ HOW MUCH: Free entry to museum and free entry to exhibition.
AN MHM SELECTION OF SOME OF THE BEST EVENTS COMING UP OVER THE NEXT FEW MONTHS
HENRY V This Autumn in the Royal Shakespeare Theatre, Stratford-upon-Avon, the RSC continue their journey through Shakespeare’s History Plays with Henry V. Henry IV is dead and Hal is King. With England in a state of unrest, he must leave his rebellious youth behind, striving to gain the respect of his nobility and people. Laying claim to parts of France and following an insult from the French Dauphin, Henry
gathers his troops and prepares for a war that he hopes will reunite his country. RSC Artistic Director Gregory Doran continues his exploration of Shakespeare’s History Plays with Henry V, performed in Stratford-upon-Avon in the 600th anniversary year of the Battle of Agincourt. Following his performance as Hal in Henry IV Parts I & II, Alex Hassell returns as Henry V.
WEB: www.rsc.org.uk DATES: 12 September-25 October 2015
WHERE: Royal Shakespeare Theatre, Waterside, Stratford-upon-Avon, CV37 6BB
AGINCOURT 600 AT CALDICOT CASTLE This Medieval tournament to celebrate the Battle of Agincourt, will be a thrilling tournament of fully-armoured knights in battle, precision archery displays, graceful dances, and accomplished musicians. Join Plantagenet Medieval Society to celebrate the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Agincourt. Caldicot Castle, Monmouthshire, is a large 13th and 14th Century castle with significant Victorian and modern additions. It was of strategic importance as a Marcher border castle between England and Wales, protecting one of the two crossing points of the Severn Estuary. On the Saturday (24 October) a medieval banquet is being held to commemorate the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Agincourt. Included will be a four course meal with live entertainment in the evening. £60 per ticket (free admission to day time event).
WEB: www.caldicotcastle.co.uk DATES: 24-25 October 2015, 11am-4pm EMAIL: caldicotcastle@monmouthshire. gov.uk
WHERE: Caldicot Castle & Country Park, Church Road, Caldicot, Gwent, NP26 4HU PHONE: 01291 420241 HOW MUCH: £6 Adults, £3 Children (under 16)
PHONE: 01789 403493 HOW MUCH: Tickets from £16
THE SINEWS OF WAR: ARMS AND ARMOUR FROM THE AGE OF AGINCOURT In the autumn of 2015, the Wallace Collection will present a display of weapons and armour dating from the early 15th century to commemorate the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Agincourt. These exhibits will also include rare books from the Wallace Collection archive, exploring the ways in which this historic event has been remembered over the centuries.
WEB: www.wallacecollection.org/collections/exhibition/116 DATES: 1 September-1 December 2015 EMAIL:
[email protected]
WHERE: Wallace Collection Hertford House, Manchester Square London , W1U 3BN PHONE: 020 7563 9527 HOW MUCH: Free
AGINCOURT 600 WALES EVENTS Welsh community groups continue to commemorate Agincourt 600 with a series of events during the year. &WFOUTJODMVEFr)BZ)JTUPSZ8FFLFOEUBMLT by Prof Anne Curry, workshops, performances, NFEJFWBMBDUJWJUJFT 4FQU r"SDIFSZDPN petition and medieval activities Trecastle Show, OS#SFDPO 4FQU r3FNFNCFSJOH"HJODPVSU stage performance at Christ College Brecon (22 0DU r.FEJFWBMUPVSOBNFOUBU$BMEJDPU$BTUMF
WEB: www.agincourt600wales.com DATES: August 2015-February 2016 EMAIL:
[email protected]
0DU r$PNNFNPSBUJWFDFSFNPOJFTBU Brecon Cathedral, St Mary’s Priory Church "CFSHBWFOOZ 0DU r'JMNTDSFFOJOHTPG Henry V and new RSC film of stage production at Brecon, Monmouth & Abergavenny cinemas (Oct/Nov). The Agincourt 600 Wales exhibition tours in the coming months Kidwelly (19 Sept-10 Oct), Brecon Cathedral (14-26 Oct), Monmouth Museum (28 Oct 2015-28 Feb 2016) WHERE: Brecknock and Monmouthshire, Mid and South Wales PHONE: 07951268310
HOW MUCH: Free and ticketed events more details www. agincourt600wales.com/events/
IN THE NEXT ISSUE ON SALE 8 OCTOBER
THE FIRST PUNIC WAR AT SEA
ALSO NEXT ISSUE:
It was the Romans’ first overseas adventure, and it pitted them against the greatest naval power in the Mediterranean. To beat the Carthaginians in the mid 3rd century BC – and begin the building of a global empire – the Romans had to create a navy. Marc DeSantis tells the story.
æ æ æ
The Italian Resistance, 1943-1945 Prestonpans, 1745: the forgotten Jacobite victory The Irish at Messines, 1917
SUBSCRIBE TO MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY MAGAZINE TODAY YOUR DETAILS
over £10 SAVE UP TO Save Never miss
Name
f
Extraordinary
kkk
5
URT
G W W
F F C
Delivered free to your door
d
Tel. no.
ES HOBART’S FUNNI D-Day tanks
61 Ɩ £4.50
Ɩ The Last of the Tide: portraits of veterans Guard Ɩ Tank Island: the Home versus the Nazis RI$UQKHPRQƭOP 7KH%DWWOHRI$UQKHP ƖƖ7KH%DWWOH
B
Email
October 2015 Ɩ Issue
g www.military-his ory.o
+
9 5
Postcode
an issue
G
20%
Address
MILITARY
ngry, disease-ridd Outnumbered, h g is win ’ N LEGION’S O FOREIG O S HOUR FINEST m o Camerone n of The T defence
en...
K A GAS ATTACK
e ia it chemical British 1 po at Loos, 1915 weapons
C i dd 1
HOW TO PAY
SAVE UP TO 20% RRP
POST Fill out and return form to address below
.
Special Direct Debit rate, ONLY £43.95 Direct Debit (UK Only) Please complete the form
9 7 1 7 4 3 Bank/Building Society Account Number
Banks and Building Societies may not accept Direct Debit instructions for some types of account Please pay Current Publishing Direct Debits from the account detailed in this instruction subject to the safeguards assured by The Direct Debit Guarantee. I understand that this instruction may remain with Current Publishing and if so, details will be passed electronically to my Bank/Building Society.
SAVE UP TO 15% RRP
.
Cheque/Credit Card rate ONLY £45.95 Overseas rate £55.95
Cheque I enclose a cheque for
PHONE 020 8819 5580 and quote MHM61
Originator’s identification number
Account in the name(s) of Branch Sort Code
ONLINE www.military-history.org/sub/MHM61
payable to Military History Monthly
DOWNLOAD THE MHM DIGITAL EDITION VISIT www.military-history.org/digital Military History Monthly is now available as a digital edition that can be downloaded to your PC, Mac, or iPad.
Credit Card Please debit my Mastercard/Visa the sum of
S AV E U P TO
Card No. Expiry Date Signature
Date
Complete and send form to Current Publishing, Thames Works, Church Street, London W4 2PD Please quote: MHM61
4 4% ON AN NU AL DI SU BS CR IP GI TA L TI ON S
26/08/2015 12:05
TITIO PUT YOUR MILITARY HISTORY KNOWLEDGE TO THE TEST WITH THE MHM QUIZ, CROSSWORD, AND CAPTION COMPETITION
MHM QUIZ CHURCHILL’S SCIENTISTS ‘Might a bomb no bigger than an orange be found to possess a secret power to… blast a township at a stroke?’, Winston Churchill wrote in a 1924 article for Nash’s Pall Mall Magazine. The Science Museum’s current exhibition ‘Churchill’s
This month we have a day out for two at the Science Museum to be won (the prize includes free exhibition entry, lunch, and a Churchill goodie bag). Scientists’ tells the little-known story of how Churchill’s fascination with science led to the scientific achievements that helped Britain win the Second World War. The power of science was harnessed during the war, from the recent invention of radar and the production of penicillin
and antibiotics to Britain’s top-secret research behind the first atomic bomb. The exhibition brings these events to life through a rich array of significant historical objects, original film footage, letters, and archive images. The exhibition features a number of personal objects belonging to
Churchill, such as the cigar he was smoking in 1951 on the day he learned he’d been re-elected as Prime Minister, and his green velvet ‘siren suit’ – a one-piece outfit devised by him that was designed to be put on in a hurry during air raids.
MHM
CROSSWORD NO 61
ACROSS 7 River crossed by Robert E Lee’s forces in September 1862 shortly before the Battle of Antietam (7) 8 Many of these took place during the London Blitz (3,4) 10 ___ sergeant, NCO who instructs troops in parade manoeuvres (5) 11 US state in which the Civil War battles of Cane Hill and Chalk Bluff took place (8) 12 Name later given to the B-29 bomber used to take photographs in the attack on Hiroshima (9,4) 14 Name of the B-29 bomber carrying blast measurement instruments in the attack on Hiroshima (3,5,7) 17 ___ War, also known as the American War of Independence (13) 21 Jet bomber built by English Electric, which entered service with the RAF in 1951 (8)
80
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
October 2015
CAPTION COMPETITION
MHM OFF DUTY
MHM
Answer online at
To be in with a chance of winning, simply answer the following question:
www. military-history.
org
? Which scientist is most associated with the development of radar in Britain?
We continue our caption competition with an image from this month’s ‘War on Film’. Pit your wits against other readers at www.military-history.org/competitions
LAST MONTH’S WINNER ANSWERS
SEPTEMBER ISSUE | MHM 60 ACROSS: 8 Brooke, 9 Achilles, 10 Michael de la Pole, 11 Gable, 12 Breton, 14 Laurence Olivier, 17 Albret, 19 Innis, 21 Charles of Artois, 23 Farewell, 24 Urartu. DOWN: 1 Erpingham, 2 Lochaber, 3 Légère, 4 Land, 5 Chilwell, 6 Aleppo, 7 SEALs, 12 Brest, 13 Red Shirts, 15 Norsemen, 16 Venetian, 18 Larsen, 19 Icarus, 20 Ahead, 22 Oslo.
22 Edmond ___ (1917-2014), Native American Code Talker of the US Army who served in Normandy and Iwo Jima (5) 23 Sellers of provisions to soldiers (7) 24 Medieval kingdom whose king, Petar Svacˇic´, was defeated at the Battle of Gvozd Mountain in 1097 (7)
DOWN 1 Dutch city captured by German forces in May 1940 (9) 2 Town in West Florida (now Alabama) taken from the British by Spanish forces in March 1780 (6) 3 English castle besieged unsuccessfully by Robert the Bruce in 1315 (8) 4 ___ Cleugh, battle fought on the banks of the River Esk in 1547 (6) 5 Port in southern Italy entered by British forces in September 1943 during Operation Slapstick (8)
www.military-history.org
6 Desert where the Battle of Abu-Ageila was fought in June 1967 (5) 9 US president who had served as an artillery officer in France during World War I (5,6) 13 Soviet ground-attack aircraft of World War II and later (9) 15 Leading Nazi who committed suicide in Berlin in May 1945 (8) 16 First name of the senior SS officer killed in Prague in 1942 during Operation Anthropoid (8) 18 Roger Boyle, Earl of ___, soldier and dramatist whose works include A Treatise of the Art of War (1677) (6) 19 Country that was unified following the Battle of Hafrsfjord in the late 9th century (6) 20 Italian city near which, at Villa Giusti, Italy signed an armistice with AustriaHungary in 1918 (5)
WINNE You missed the small print, mister. That warranty only covers chariot body-parts and labour. It says nothing about horse replacements. Joe Agius
RUNNERS-UP The sale in the fabric department at Liberty was too good to miss. I got a whole new wardrobe. Monty Urquhart ‘You dancing?’ ‘You asking?’ Mick Lestrange
Think you can do better? Go head-to-head with other MHM readers for the chance to see your caption printed in the next issue. Enter now at www.military-history.org/competitions MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
81
g ro in f ie r B + m o o r g in f om + Brie o r g in f ie r B + m o o r briefing
ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT…
The Gatling Gun
Looks impressive… What was it?
The Gatling Gun was the first easily usable machine-gun, with reliable hand-driven loading, and the ability to fire sustained multiple bursts – so yes, pretty impressive.
Well, that’s got to be an American invention, yes?
It sure is. The American Robert J Gatling designed the machine in 1861, and it first saw combat during the American Civil War (1861-1865), although it was not an official government weapon. Twelve guns were purchased personally by Union commanders, one of whom, General Benjamin F Butler, became the first to use the weapon in action at the Siege of Petersburg, Virginia ( June 1864-April 1865). Another eight guns were fitted on to Union gunboats. An adaptation of the gun was bought in 1867 by the US Army, and various versions became popular with the expanding empires of Europe. Imperial Russia bought 400 for use against the nomadic horsemen of Central Asia, while the British Army first used them in 1879, during the Second Afghan War.
What’s with all the barrels?
To be capable of firing at a rapid rate, the gun had multiple barrels that revolved around a central axis. It was first developed with six rotating gun-barrels, but later updated to have ten – each of which had their own firing mechanism. The barrels were turned by a hand crank, and as cartridges were fed into the gun, each barrel automatically loaded, fired, and ejected its cartridge in succession. Since the barrels fired one at a time, each barrel had time to cool before it fired again. This overcame a major failing of machine-gun designs up to that time, as most guns had tended to overheat and expand due to continuous firing. The Gatling Gun’s hopper-feed system of loading ammunition is considered to be one of the weapon’s other main advantages – it simplified and sped-up the process of loading. The 1862 version of the Gatling Gun had reloadable steel chambers and used percussion caps, but was prone to occasional jamming. In 1867, Gatling redesigned the gun to use metallic cartridges. It was this version that was bought and used by the United States Army.
Seems pretty revolutionary…
So what were the pros and cons?
Soldiers could load them with standard small-arms ammunition, and they were relatively simple to use. They were also very effective against exposed lines of attackers. However, they were not effective against infantry in protected defensive positions, like trenches. They could also be difficult to transport in mountainous terrain, and Gatling Guns were famously refused by General Custer before the Battle of the Little Big Horn. During the American-Indian Wars, a Lieutenant McClernand recalled ‘descending a long and precipitous hill, where it was necessary to fasten many lariats together, tie them to the Gatling Gun carriages, and then lower the latter by hand’.
The Gatling Gun fact fi le Mobility: comparable to contemporary artillery – reasonable on flat ground, difficult in mountainous country Crew: usually four Range: 1,200 yards Rate of fire: 200 rounds a minute (later models surpassed 400 rounds a minute) Complement: deployed as needed or available, though a platoon of three Gatlings has been recorded Date: 1862-1867 (though improved versions were not declared obsolete until 1911)
It was not the first machine-gun, but it was certainly the first to be commercially successful, and yes, with the Gatling Gun we are well on the way to what was later dubbed ‘concentrated essence of infantry’ – basically, a single machine able to kill as many as a whole company of riflemen.
82
MILITARY HISTORY MONTHLY
October 2015
