Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Quinn's Post


swatt9r

Recommended Posts

Rereading the 'Story of Anzac' recently I came across a reference to the early defence at Quinn's Post on 27th April 1915. In chapter 4 page 90 Bean says,' The 14th (Victorian)Bn was hampered by a certain feebleness of some of its senior officers and about this time there occured some alleged default which caused bad blood between it and the 15th (Queensland) Bn. Can anyone familiar with C E W Bean's lexicon explain the meaning of the phrase "a certain feebleness". Also what was the 'alleged default' that caused the bad blood.

Stewart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately I can't check at the moment as I've loaned my 13th Battalion history but I seem to recall it mentioned in there that there was a feeling in the early days of the campaign that the 13, 15th & 16th Battalions were bearing the brunt of the fight at Quinn's Post & Popes Hill while the 14th wasn't seen to be pulling it's weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew

I don't think your explanation can be the full story of the incident on April 27th as half of the 4th Brigade did not land until the day before the incident and the last ashore was 14th Bn. The 13th, 15th and 16th Battalions may have formed over time a jaundiced view of the 14th's contribution at Anzac but surely not after less than 24 hours ashore and while all the battalions were hopelessly intermingled. The specific ruck seems to have been between members of the 14th and 15th Battalions and points to an incident. Are the Bn records for 14th and 15th on the net? Who were the "feeble" senior officers of the 14th?

Stewart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Andrew's relying on memory of the 13th Bn History without having it in front of him, so he's done well to pinpoint this source. It does say there was strain between the 14th and the other battalions of the 4th Brigade, reaching back to training days in Broadmeadows. It goes on to state that things between them improved, but probably any incident would bring feelings to the forefront again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[bryn

Thank you for that information but I may have found the answer in Peter Stanley's 'Quinn's Post', page 24, 'As the Victorians dug in [at Quinn's] Turkish machine-gunners set up in the scrub between Quinn's and what would become Courtney's Post. Without warning they fired, catching the reserve platoon on the open hillside. Within seconds some 30 men were dead and others writihing in pain. It was the 14th's first experience of the power of the machine-gun......Mistaken rumours spread that the deadly machine-gun fire had come from the neighbouringing 15th Battalion, damaging working relations within the brigade.' When Bean refers to the senior officers of the 14th being 'feeble' what does he mean? Did they encourage the rumours or fail to do enough to quosh them? Was it their incompetent handling of the reserve platoon leading to its near destructionthat ticked off Bean?

regards

Stewart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm keen to look into it a bit more. The 14th Battalion's history mentions the machine-gun incident, but says nothing about mistakenly blaming the 15th Battalion. Still that's what you might expect of something written long after the facts were known.

That's strong language for Bean. For him to label some 14th officers as 'feeble' (and the 14th History slightly alludes to this as well), his true feelings must have been very much stronger. As an example of how controlled his language was (and had to be), although he is contemptuous of the CO of the 9th Battalion (Colonel Lee), he shows this by not mentioning him by name once in the Official History. All he says of him regarding the fighting on 25th April is: 'The colonel was not on the plateau.' (Bean Vol 1 p263), the implication being that he had remained in safety in the beach area while junior officers commanded the battalion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Stewart

It may not be the full story but it seems to have been one of the things that pushed the relationship between the Battalions to a low ebb during the early days of the campaign. It would be interesting to see if Bean expands on any bad blood in the 4th Brigade in his original diaries.

The war diaries of the 4th Brigade Battalions are on line at the AWM if you want to take a look to see if they have any further info.

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew

Thanks for the info. Peter Stanley in 'Quinn's Post' puts another slant on the antipathy some battalions had to others. He states that the recruitment of 4th Brigade's 4 battalions came from specific areas e.g. 13th Bn from N S Wales, 14th Bn from Victoria, 15th Bn from Queensland and Tasmania and 16th Bn from Western and southern Australia and Tasmania and this geographical grouping of men helped build identity and comradship. But it discouraged mixing and even companies within a battalion found it difficult to work together. He says,"..in the 16th Battalion, not until 1916 did the men from different places feel like a unit." If you had these sort of problems between companies within a battalion perhaps it should come as no surprise that relationships battalion to battalion were very poor.

The 'feeble' accusation by Bean to the senior officers of 14th Battalion seems unusual. The Battalion was commanded by Lt Col Richard Courtney and it seems unlikely that his post would have been named after him (and presumably approved by Monash, Godley and Bridges) if he had been a dud which I take the word feeble to mean. So the 'feebleness' of some of its senior officers must refer to company commanders. Any clues?

regards

Stewart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

As a fanatical follower of the 15th Battalion, having spent 15 years following in their footsteps, and new to this forum, I find it interesting that anybody could call Jacka's mob "feeble"!!

I had thought that after the abortive August offensive at Gallipoli, where the 16th Batt's machine gunners (Mad Harry Murray and Percy Black prominent) had laid down the fire which had saved most of the Brigade during their retreat, that the cohesion between the 4th Brigade's units was reputedly better than most.

At least, that's what it says in Sampson's 15th Batt war diary. I suspect that after Jacka's Lone Pine stunt, there wasn't much more talk of "feeble".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 'feebleness' comment wasn't directed at the 14th Battalion generally. Following is the list of 14th officers and a part of the commentary on them from the battalion's unit history:

REGIMENTAL STAFF.

Lieut.-Col. R. E. Courtney, V.D. (commanding):

Major J. Adams (second in command);

Capt. C. M. M. Dare (adjutant);

Capt. G. H. Loughran (medical officer)

Major H. M. Young, V.D. (quarter-master);

Capt. A. Gillison* (chaplain).

COMPANIES. .

A Company

Major R. Rankine, Lieut. J. G. T. Hanby, 2nd Lieut. K. G. W. Crabbe*.

B Company

Capt. W. R. Hoggart*, Lieut. H. N. Boyle, 2nd Lieut. H. R. Harris*.

C Company

Capt. T. H. Steel, 2nd Lieut. W. E. Groom*, 2nd Lieut. V. C. Cumberland.

D Company

Capt. C. E.. Connelly*, Lieut. W. H. Hamilton*, 2nd Lieut. D. L. K. Richardson.

E Company

Capt. F. H. Wright, 2nd Lieut. C. L. Giles, 2nd Lieut. A. R. Cox.

F Company

Capt. W.C. N. Baldock, Lieut. B. Combes, 2nd Lieut. L. E. Ball.

G Company

Lieut. C. R. Hutton, Lieut. A. H. Curwen-Walker*, 2nd Lieut. R. Warren*.

H Company

Lieut. A. Henry, 2nd Lieut. R. W. Graham, 2nd Lieut. O. C. W. Fuhrmann.

Machine Gun Section

Lieut. J. B. Rutland*.

Transport Officer

Lieut. C. R. M. Cox.

Signalling Officer

Lieut. G. H. Clark.

Lieuts. Boyle, Hamilton, Combes and Curwen-Walker had been trained at the Royal Military College, Duntroon.

Lieut. A. R. Cox was the only original officer who served practically right through the war with the battalion. Major Rankine subsequently became C.O. of the 39th Battalion, and Lieuts. Giles and Hutton joined the same unit. Capt. Dare ultimately became for a time C.O., and Lieut. Fuhrmann second in command of the 14tb Battalion. Capts. Hoggart, Connelly and Gillison and Lieuts. Crabbe, Harris, Groom, Hamilton, Curwen- Walker, Warren and Rutland were killed or died of wounds during operations on the Peninsula, which took a heavy toll of the battalion's manhood. The original battalion officer ranged from excellent to indifferent, for in every battalion, both among officers and other ranks, there is a handful which is temperamentally unsuited for soldiering and is quickly found out by the dangers and hardships of such a war. The battalion at this time was formed on the old eight company basis. Subsequently, in Egypt, all battalions in the A.I.F. were organised on a four company basis. The N.C.O.'s and privates of the battalion were almost all natives or residents of Victoria, the latter comprising a sprinkling of settlers from other States and immigrants from Great Britain who had settled in Australia before the war. [Wanliss p 7-8].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bryn,

I understand Courtney was an able administrator but the rigours of the campaign were too much for him; he collapsed after five weeks and then returned to Austrlia. I am not suggesting he was necessarily a "feeble' CO as I don't know any more about him. The "tone" of a battalion is pretty much set by the CO and generally this is reflected in the way the unit operates. Strong and active CO's really make a mark on a battalion and it operates very well. Average CO's seem to have a dilatory effect and the battalion can be patchy depending on the quality of the company commanders.

Do you have anymore on him?

Cheers

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris,

Interesting to note the unit historian's comment about Courtney's choice of subordinates.

Lieutenant Colonel Richard Edmond COURTNEY, 14th Battalion, Died of brain haemorrhage at Melbourne, Australia, on 21 October 1919, aged 49.

Born Castlemaine, Victoria, 8 September 1870.

Educated Melbourne CEGS; Trinity College, Melbourne University.

Solicitor, of 127 Queen Street, Melbourne, Victoria.

Father; Thomas Wilson Courtney. Mother; Mary Jane Courtney (nee Fleming).

Partner in firm of Courtney and Dunn, barristers and solicitors. Served in the military for 30 years, commissioned Lieutenant, Senior Cadets, 1899. Appointed major, Victorian Mounted Regiment, 1906. CO 51st A.I.R. Was from January 1916 until early 1919 the Commandant for Western Australia, then chief clerk, war services homes section of the Repatriation Department. Aged 49 years, single. 'Funeral to leave his residence at 3.30 p.m. this afternoon for Coburg cemetery.' Two brothers were colonels, and one a major. (Melbourne Age 23 Oct 1919 p7).

'Courtney's Post', Anzac, named after this officer.

Commanding Officer successively of Senior Cadets, Victorian Rifles and 57th (Albert Park) Infantry. Embarked 22 Dec 1914. CO, Lt. Colonel, 14th Battalion. Mentioned, Sir Ian Hamilton's Despatch of 5 Nov 1915. C.B. 8 Nov 1915. Invalided to England and placed in charge of Weymouth B.D. Returned to Australia, Appointment Terminated 22 May 1916. A/Commandant for Western Australia (Temp Colonel) 10 Jun 1916 to 15 Feb 1919. Afterwards Chief Clerk, Victorian branch of the Repatriation Department.

'Lieutenant-Colonel R.E. Courtney, C.B., had been connected with the Victorian military forces for thirty years when he left Australia in command of the 14th Victorian Infantry Battalion which was engaged in the desperate actions at Hill 971 and Hill 60 in Gallipoli, for which he was mentioned in despatches. Some time ago he was reported to have been wounded. He is 45 years of age, and prior to his departure for the front was Lieutenant-Colonel of the 51st Infantry.' (Melbourne Herald 9 Nov 1915 p1 and photo).

'Among military officers and the legal profession yesterday general regret was expressed at the death of Lieutenant-Colonel R.E. Courtney, C.P.[sic], V.D., which occurred suddenly at his residence, 15 Glencairn-avenue, Moreland, on Tuesday evening after a short attack of hemmorrhage [sic] of the brain.' (Melbourne Age 23 Oct 1919 p7).

'On May 30 Lieut.-Col. Courtney was evacuated sick, and never rejoined the battalion. He was its first commanding officer, and saw it develop from an inexperienced body of untrained men into the splendid battalion he commanded on Courtney's Post. He was an excellent organiser, and his work in that direction was valuable, but delicate health made him incapable of standing the strain of the Peninsula campaign. His optimistic temperament, too, sometimes misled him in the choice of subordinates. He died at Melbourne shortly after the conclusion of the war, and his death was doubtless accelerated by the worries and strain he experienced on Gallipoli.' (Wanliss p48-49).

post-854-1215090436.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

So, it seems likely that Lt Col Courtney was included in Bean's unnamed and unquantified group of 'feeble senior officers' of the 14th Battalion. If Courtney was included then the Military did not share Bean's disdain as they awarded him the Commander of the Order of Bath (CB) and a Mention in Despatches, long after he'd left Gallipoli. Of course these may have been the Establishment's nod to Courtney's 30 year military career that was nearing its end.

It is difficult to see what Bean gets out of highlighting this episode. He badmouths a nonspecific group in a specific battalion, provides no evidence and moves on. It is very unusual behaviour for the creator of the ANZAC Legend. I also think that Major Rankine who later commanded his own battalion might have had something to say to Bean post-war for lumping him with the 'feeble' group for posterity.

Stewart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bean is not necessarily just 'badmouthing' someone, as the implication of that is that the criticism was undeserved. What it usually means when Bean refers obliquely to matters that are likely to be personally controversial is that he had a lot more to say on the matter but restrained himself from being too specific in his criticism. In other words, there was probably a good basis for the accusation, but Bean is not interested in going into detail; only in explaining why some bad feeling existed between the battalions. Whatever the 'default' on the part of the 14th may have been, he doesn't state, but the implication is that, because some senior officer/s of the 14th (and I don't see that he's necessarily referring to Courtney), didn't 'pull their weight', the 15th Battalion suffered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bryn

We may have to agree to disagree on this. Where I come from badmouthing is criticism without evidence. The most extreme form is libel and the most trivial is gossip. Only the evidence can tell us whether a criticism was deserved or not. In this case Bean decides to keep the evidence to himself because as you say he was 'not interested in going into detail.' I would have thought Bean forfeited his right to this sort of mealy-mouthed self-indulgence the day he became the Official Historian. Of course on the day he wrote page 90 he may still have been thinking like a journalist.

Courtney had an ignominious exit from Gallipoli. After 30 days under fire he is relieved of his command although neither wounded nor physically ill. If Courtney was not a member of the 'feeble' group what better place than page 90 to tell us. A meticulously sensitive Bean could not have failed to see the need to emphatically exclude Courtney from the 'feeble' group given his tragic circumstances. The fact that Bean 'restrained' himself yet again says it all.

Stewart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I put forward a theory as to why Bean did not elaborate, but I don't presume to speak for him or judge why he wrote what he did. That doesn't mean my theory should be seized upon as proof of anything and used in turn to badmouth Bean.

You're right in that we'll have to agree to disagree. Meanwhile evidence could probably be found in other sources, such as Bean's diaries, letters from soldiers involved, reminiscences, etc. I personally can't just pretend it didn't happen and / or it wasn't true because Bean didn't include the evidence in the Official History. When you ask to read Bean's diaries you have to sign an agreement that anything you might want to make public is cleared first. That gives some idea how sensitive some of the information in them is judged to be even now. At the time of the writing of the Official Histories it would have been much more so.

Courtney eventually died of causes stated to be the result of his service at Gallipoli, so I don't go along with the idea that he was okay when he left. But if Bean was including him after all, maybe he had good reason to. Maybe not. "The original battalion officer ranged from excellent to indifferent, for in every battalion, both among officers and other ranks, there is a handful which is temperamentally unsuited for soldiering and is quickly found out by the dangers and hardships of such a war." "His optimistic temperament, too, sometimes misled him in the choice of subordinates."

By the 'yet again' phrase included your sentence, "The fact that Bean 'restrained' himself yet again says it all", can I assume you feel Bean has 'badmouthed' others?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bryn

My criticism of Bean the historian was based on the evidence he supplied on page 90 of his first volume, not on your theory. When he took his swipe at the feeble senior officers two things were certain. Either he had no good evidence, in which case he should have struck the criticism at the drafting stage. Or he had good evidence but decided for whatever reason, to sit on it. This makes Bean, as a historian, mealy-mouthed (ie reluctant to speak frankly-Concise Oxford Dict) and self-indulgent, with regard to this episode.

After all he wasn't just writing an open letter to the Melbourne Womens' Institute, whose matronly sensibilities had to be protected, at all costs. He was THE Official Australian Historian for this conflict! His swipe at the feeble group of officers and reference to an 'alleged default' did nothing to explain to us the antipathy among battalions of the 4th Brigade. He merely announced it which is of little interest unless we know why.

I was quite surprised to hear that the use of Bean's notes is still subject to vetting which has about it the whiff of totalitarianism. What sort of Australian national interest is still at risk from 93 year old notes made by Bean at Gallipoli? I have often thought that Bean had two objectives when he wrote his ANZAC story. The first was to write a meticulously chronicled history of events on Gallipoli and the second was to create a hommage to Australian Manhood. If an unpalatable fact ran counter to the second objective it could be muted or discarded. His work rapidly became politicised and zoomed out of his hands to acquire the force of a religion. Criticism became impossible and was viewed as heresy. It still is or this thread would not have lasted.

I think the Courtney demise fell foul of Bean's second objective. I have nothing but sympathy for Courtney and have no doubt that he was suffering from traumatic stress when he left Gallipoli. But Bean and his ilk did not have a word to describe his condition. The compassionate adjective box was still unopened. There was a whole lexicon of superlatives to support Bean's hommage, from brave, audacious, gallant, intrepid, daring, unflinching, dauntless to gutsy and fearless but poor Courtney did not fit any of these terms and so could not be exonerated by Bean. I think Bean thought Courtney the founder member of the feeble officers group.

The 'yet again' was a reference to this episode only. Bean raised the feeble officers jibe

without justifying it. He then made the 'alleged default' statement without amplification and when he could have helped the memory of Courtney he restrained himself yet again. However, I have come across a few areas where Bean has been less than charitable or evenhanded but so far can't elevate these to instances of badmouthing. When I know more about his evidence I'll come back to it.

regards

Stewart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...