Tim Birch Posted 28 July , 2003 Share Posted 28 July , 2003 Interesting review of Gordon Corrigan's new book in the Sunday Times yesterday. More revisionist onslaught on the traditionalists. Amongst other things it seems that the war Poets, particularly Wilfred Owen take a battering for their part in starting some of the "myths". Much of the book seems to be based on Corrigan's interpretation of statistics. He shows that contrary to popular belief 86% of men of military age survived the war, and the belief that the war destroyed the country's future ruling elit does not stand up to scrutiny - 80% of the public school/varsity men came home. It should make interesting reading. Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armourersergeant Posted 28 July , 2003 Share Posted 28 July , 2003 I have picked this book up about five times in the last week and for some reason i dont fancy it. I realise this seems strange but some times i know when i am going to like a book and when i am going to find it a hard slog. That said i have not read anything by Corrigan but i understand he comes recommended. I am at the moment reading a book by Robin Neillands about generalship on the western front and this is a good read if perhaps too over balanced in favour of the generals. But i am old enough to pick through the text. this poppycock book seems to be a similar thing and perhaps thats why i dont fancy it? Perhaps i will get it from the library and see how i go. trouble is it will have to join my growing pile of next to read!!! Arm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul guthrie Posted 28 July , 2003 Share Posted 28 July , 2003 Well Arm his Sepoys in the Trenches book is quite good. It does not matter but a good speaker too, was at NAM on Indians in April 03. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin B Posted 28 July , 2003 Share Posted 28 July , 2003 I've read and been impressed by this book. Corrigan writes on army matters from a position of authority, having commanded Gurkhas. His book puts an interesting new slant on a number of 'hot potatoes'. Amongst the many interesting asides is a paragraph on the amount of 'waste' produced by an infantry company or battalion and the problems associated with its disposal ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jock Bruce Posted 6 August , 2003 Share Posted 6 August , 2003 I agree with Martin - good to have something written by somebody who understands the practicalities of soldiering. Even if you disagree with his views - and he is very up front about them - there is lots of good stuff in it. And I would love to have seen (from upwind) the blowing up of a deep trench latrine after 6 years use .. .. .. Jock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armourersergeant Posted 6 August , 2003 Share Posted 6 August , 2003 I watched Corrigan tonight on C5 going on about the machine gun and was impressed with his enthusiasm and the glint in his eye. Any man who can command Gurkhas is ok by me i will give his book a go when i get a chance. Arm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmac Posted 6 August , 2003 Share Posted 6 August , 2003 A less flattering review in the Daily Telegraph though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armourersergeant Posted 6 August , 2003 Share Posted 6 August , 2003 dont leave me hanging what did it say? Arm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jock Bruce Posted 6 August , 2003 Share Posted 6 August , 2003 Who was the review in the Torygraph by ?? If it was by John Keegan or an acolyte, it is worth noting that Corrigan dares to disagree (very respectfully) with Keegan's contention that the writings of revisionists are 'pointless'. Jock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul guthrie Posted 7 August , 2003 Share Posted 7 August , 2003 This is still unavailable in the USA though they are taking orders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw Posted 8 August , 2003 Share Posted 8 August , 2003 I am plodding through this book and not enjoying it too much. It seems to have been rather over-hyped and expectations exceed what in can deliver. Some interesting points made but generally I don't think it hangs together as a cohesive work . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armourersergeant Posted 8 August , 2003 Share Posted 8 August , 2003 Ian when you have finished it would you post on book reviews of the salient points and your overall pointers because i posted earlier that i had a feeling about this book and was not gonna buy it but have changed my mind. But know i am beggining to wonder again. If ya dont mind. Arm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Filsell Posted 9 August , 2003 Share Posted 9 August , 2003 Although Hew Strachan's review in the Telegraph was rightly critical of some aspects of the book - reasons for the Somme and II Ypres - and the hyped title, his review was not altogether negative. Equally there was a fairer review in the Spectator on Friday. Having condemned myself by what I read I would add that Corrigan is a master of un(or little) recorded detail, has a soldier's-eye view (unlike most leading revisionists) and a fast moving style. It is a very good read with much food for thought. If you add it to Brian Bond's latest work and Gary Sheffield's they add staw to the bricks of the revisionist view of the Great War. I have reviewed the book for Stand To! and believe that it is well worth reading. New to me was Corrigan's claim that Alan Clarke freely admitted inventing the quote "Lions led by Donkeys", but equally, having little time for the man, it is possible that he lied about making up the lie!. Equally Corrigan makes the point that revisionists have no less emotion about the carnage than those who remain unconvinced by the revisionists' views. I know personally just how splenetic some of these individuals are against those who feel that the newer oponions are worthy of serious consideration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Simon Bull Posted 9 August , 2003 Share Posted 9 August , 2003 David I am sure that I recently saw the phrase "Lions Led by Donkeys" in the title of a book written much ealirer than Clark's book - probably between the wars. I meant to take a note of the book and did not and now I cannot find the reference. If my memory is not playing tricks on me it seems unlilkely that Clark did in fact make the phrase up. Whilst I am not myself inclined to the revisionist view, I am sad that some anti-revisionists are being at all vituperative. However, I am not entirely surprised. As a student I had the very strong impression that the world of the academic was pretty "catty" and one of the dons at my college once told me that C P Snow's novel "The Masters" was a good reflection of the sort of machinations and intrigue that go on in the academic world. Simon Bull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenwoodman Posted 9 August , 2003 Share Posted 9 August , 2003 You did see it Simon. ""Lions Led by Donkeys": Showing how victory in the great war was achieved by those who made the fewest mistakes" by Capt P A Thompson. London: T Werner Laurie, 1927. The Apologia states: "The words that form the Title on the cover of this book were used early in the War, at the German Great Headquarters, to denote the English. But if you, who read this, were then one of the Lions, do not forget that throughout those four years you were unable to find any others more capable of leading you. Nor do I intend to confine the meaning to ourselves alone, for while we made some bad mistakes we never equalled the grand miscalculations of the German High Command. So for my sub-title I have adapted Napoleon's definition of the best General." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Simon Bull Posted 9 August , 2003 Share Posted 9 August , 2003 Thanks Richard. I had in fact also been sufficiently concerend that my memory might be playing tricks on me that I had found the reference on the Birtish Library catalogue which states: Lions Led by Donkeys: showing how victory in the Great War was achieved by those who made the fewest mistakes. THOMPSON. Peter Anthony pp. xiv. 317. T. Werner Laurie: London, 1927. 8o. Simon Bull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Hone Posted 10 August , 2003 Share Posted 10 August , 2003 At the risk of going round the 'lions led by donkeys' merry-go-round again, according to a letter quoted in Terraine's 'Smoke and The Fire' the phrase was actually coined by the Times reporting French humiliation in the Franco-Prussian War and then repeated in a book by Francisque Sarcey 'Le Siege De Paris' published in 1871. All a bit second hand I'm afraid but I'm afraid we are into 'Mr Hone's First Law of Inventions, Quotations and Anecdotes', as inflicted on generations of my pupils: "You can always find an earlier example if you look hard enough". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinWills Posted 16 August , 2003 Share Posted 16 August , 2003 I picked up a copy yesterday and started to browse through. It certainly is thought provoking but I have already picked up a couple of points which concern me a little. In discussing the weapons of war Corrigan talks of the Stoke's mortar and its introduction into the British Army in March 1916. This would seem to be at odds with the official history accounts of its introduction and use at Loos in September 1915. It was interesting also to look at his stats on local men and their deaths in local regiments. He admits this is based on SDGW but then adds that since many places of residence are not given he has used place of enlistment as place of residence. As many of us will have found this is a very broad assumption. It is not uncommon for men to enlist far from home (eg to try and join a regiment which which the family may have had past links), or across the border in another county. Enlistment being focused on large centres of population the place of enlistment does not give an accurate picture of place of residence. There is no doubt that the author draws his own conclusion and spells it out as the answer. I would have preferred in some case to be left with a little more scope to make up my own mind. None the less it is a stimulating and thought provoking read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw Posted 17 August , 2003 Share Posted 17 August , 2003 Don't wish to sound pompous but this author really does himself no favours when he writes "Repington ... had been forced to resign for failing to keep his willy in his trousers." (Page 191) Call me picky but this sort of informal use of language doesn't help him to be treated as a serious historian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Reed Posted 19 August , 2003 Share Posted 19 August , 2003 This may have been raised before, but I managed to get a copy of this today in Sussex Stationers bookshop (a chain in the SE) for only £9.99. I look forward to reading it, given all the comments above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hussar Posted 20 August , 2003 Share Posted 20 August , 2003 As I mentioned, in an earlier thread on quotes by/about Haig, The quote 'Lions led by Donkeys' is purported to be about Haig but was, in fact, aimed at Lloyd George "Gwynne is also critical of Lloyd George, who is called 'the politician', and caustic about the political direction of the war, 'Indeed I think we are nation of lions led by something less than asses.'" ( Letter from H. A. Gwynne to Lord Esher. Imperial War Museum. CON SHELF HAG/8 No.16.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 11 September , 2003 Share Posted 11 September , 2003 Having at last got my hands on a copy [living in the sticks has its minor downsides] and having only read the first one-third, here is one-third of a review. Glad I bought it, easy reading, makes some points new to me, makes lots of factual errors in areas where I am [unblushingly] fairly knowledgeable, so I wonder about believing his statements in areas where I am ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Reed Posted 11 September , 2003 Share Posted 11 September , 2003 Must confess I felt the same. There is quite a damning review of it in the BBC History magazine for this month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw Posted 11 September , 2003 Share Posted 11 September , 2003 Having now dragged myself to the end of it , I wonder why it was written in the first place. It has no central thesis and I found it generally disjointed , poorly written and profoundly unsatisfying. I resent the £10 I spent on it. If anyone wants it for a fiver , please get in contact ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David_Blanchard Posted 18 September , 2003 Share Posted 18 September , 2003 There is a chapter titled 'Even more needless slaughter', which I assume is about the western front in 1917. However, there is one sentence here on the Canadians at Vimy. It took Jonathan Nicholls over 200 pages to discuss the Battle of Arras in 'Cheerful Sacrifice' a battle i believe- and I accept the jacket blurb without reservation-: 'on the basis of daily casuality rate it was the most lethal and costly British offensive battle of the First World War.' What happened to this "ironic" 'even more needless slaughter' ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now