War Horse

[seaJane]

Does saying "It is a children's book" carry the implication that it's less necessary to get the facts right for a child audience.... ???

[Guest brickie]

Grandad and his 2 lead wagon team horses, 170 and 244. I would imagine they did have names. My dad told me that one of grandads jobs was to train horses out of their natural instinct to jump over or avoid men lying down which threw the gun carriages off track.

This picture reminds me of the stories told to me by my uncle William Day in the1960s, in War 1 he had two horses named Boxer and Punch when l asked him what is was like

he said bomb holes dead men and dead horses.

[seaJane]

Back to the film: newspaper reviewers seem to be divided in their opinions: something for everyone.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16466956

[auchonvillerssomme]

We rarely go to the pics these days so will wait for it out on DVD along with 'The Iron Lady'.

[bob7bob]

On my local BBC news it was reported that the Tank Museum Bovington has purchased the replica Tank from the film and rightly delighted they are too. The Tank looks superb and actually works so will be an asset to this excellent museum

Norman

A friend of a friend actually made that tank. He is a superbly tallented model maker and has been involved in some big films, The English Patient, Clash of the Titans.

[Beau Geste]

In the early 20th century horses were generally tools to be used no more. Farmers treated them the same way they treated other animals then and now, as an expendable means of making money. Workmen treated horses with the same care they treat their white vans now. Horses were ubiquitous and were treated as just another piece of equipment, they were not pets or friends. Officers or cavalrymen who had the same mount for years may have felt differently but to most of the Army in wartime a horse was a horse and would be replaced. Let's not romanticise this, yes soldiers wrote of their fondness for the horses but they showed no hesitation in putting them in harm's way.

Another questionable generalisation! I'm sure you're right in the sense that some farmers and workmen treated their animals no better than you describe. But to suggest that this was and is as widespread as you say seems to me to be just plain silly. I recommend two books to you which highlight the relationship between soldiers and their horses during The Great War. Both of them highlight the high levels of empathy that existed and still exists in many quarters between horse and man. The first is R.A. Lloyd's "A Trooper in the Tins" and the second is Morgan Crofton's "Ypres Diary".

This tradition of "horses first and soldiers second" is carried on today in regiments like The Life Guards, The Blues and Royals (formerly The Royal Horse Guards - "The Blues") and the Royal Horse Artillery and having spent six years as a member of The Sovereign's Escort I can assure you that the bond that develops between soldiers and their horses is very strong indeed.

Of course soldiers during wartime "showed no hesitation in putting their animals in harm's way" but don't forget that in doing so they were obeying orders and putting themselves in the same horrendous predicament. Soldiers didn't just sit back and let the animals do the work, they were there sharing the horrors and the dangers with them.

Harry

[Steven Broomfield]

I am currently reading Lloyd's book (reprinted as Troop Horse and Trench for some reason); well worth a read.

Interestngly, the treatment of horses seems to have improved hugely between the South African Warr (1899 - 1902) and the Great War. Volume 5 of Anglesey's History of the British cavalry, which deals with the former conflict, would reinforce Heid the Ba's comments: the treatment meted out to horses then was utterly appalling and the wastage was unbelievable. By 1914 there had been a lot of improvements in the British cavalry, of which horsemanship and horsemastership were by no means the least.

[auchonvillerssomme]

Somewhere in the distant past of this forum there was reference to a service record of a man punished for 'ill treatment of a horse'.

[Roger H]

Somewhere in the distant past of this forum there was reference to a service record of a man punished for 'ill treatment of a horse'.

Yes, one of mine here: http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=170711&st=0&p=1659556&fromsearch=1entry1659556

Roger

[Beau Geste]

I am currently reading Lloyd's book (reprinted as Troop Horse and Trench for some reason); well worth a read.

Interestngly, the treatment of horses seems to have improved hugely between the South African Warr (1899 - 1902) and the Great War. Volume 5 of Anglesey's History of the British cavalry, which deals with the former conflict, would reinforce Heid the Ba's comments: the treatment meted out to horses then was utterly appalling and the wastage was unbelievable. By 1914 there had been a lot of improvements in the British cavalry, of which horsemanship and horsemastership were by no means the least.

Thank you for that Steven. I regret to say that my knowledge of the South African War is, at best, non existent.

Harry

[Beau Geste]

Somewhere in the distant past of this forum there was reference to a service record of a man punished for 'ill treatment of a horse'.

Sad to say Mick, that sort of thing wasn't/isn't something that only happened in the "distant past". My experience and everything I've read on the subject suggests that ill treating a horse has happened and continues to happen today. My point though is that prior to but especially during The Great War and in the years since then there has been what can only be described as a remarkable empathy/affinity between man and horse. IMHO these abberations are exceptions to the rule.

Harry

[Steven Broomfield]

Thank you for that Steven. I regret to say that my knowledge of the South African War is, at best, non existent.

Harry

So was mine, apart from Thomas Pakenham's book, many years ago. Angelsey's is a first-class book; well worth reading - very easily got through, too.

[Beau Geste]

So was mine, apart from Thomas Pakenham's book, many years ago. Angelsey's is a first-class book; well worth reading - very easily got through, too.

Thank you for that Steven. I'll most certainly take your advice.

Harry

[Seadog]

Does saying "It is a children's book" carry the implication that it's less necessary to get the facts right for a child audience.... ???

Quite right I think you will find many factual errors even in those excellent books featuring Noddy!. For instance many people are confused as to the correct colour of his little hat, is it red or blue? I believe that it is imperative that we at least get this right let alone all the other howlers.

Norman

[seaJane]

Mine was a serious question, as it happens. There are other places on the forum to frivol.

[Beau Geste]

Mine was a serious question, as it happens. There are other places on the forum to frivol.

Hello Jane

I've already said that I enjoy Norman's sense of humour but on this occasion he might also have prevented the thread from being thrown off course.

Harry

[George Armstrong Custer]

Hello Jane

I've already said that I enjoy Norman's sense of humour but on this occasion he might also have prevented the thread from being thrown off course.

Harry

Rubbish. Norman has demonstrated on Alex Falbo's thread on the tank from 'War Horse' that he has little patience with those commenting on historical veracity on this, a specialist Great War forum. Jane's eminently sensible question remains unanswered. If I want to know how Spielberg's movie rates as a piece of film making or entertainment I'll look at a forum where those with a special interest in the subject will be posting, not a military history forum, where I'd expect those with the requisite knowledge in that field to be critiquing it on that basis. Similarly, if I want to know how well the film adaptation of a piece of literature works I'll look on a site where those with a specialist interest in literature will be commenting.

My own view in answer to Jane's question is that a childrens book with an averred historical setting ought to be as concerned with getting its facts right as a book for an adult audience. Putting a fictional story into an accurately portrayed historical setting is something which has the potential to both entertain and educate children. Setting fiction in a bowdlerised portrayal of the past gives children a misleading perception which may not be easily changed if the fiction is powerfully presented.

George

[seaJane]

I would hold that it was the sudden departure to Enid Blyton that pushed the thread off course!

War Horse, is, yes, originally a children's book, but the earlier implication appeared to me to be that as a children's book it (and the film) were less deserving of proper research, which is ridiculous.

Going back to opinions of the film, I rather appreciated the Telegraph reviewer, who described it as "Saving Private Seabiscuit".

George, apologies for simultaneous posting. I think too slowly!

[truthergw]

I am led to believe that I will be accompanying a friend to see the film. It appears that, ' it will be right up my street, it's about the war". I will go, watch it, keep quiet about mistakes and enjoy the popcorn and perhaps the movie as well. We both enjoyed the Harry Potter movies although I know for a fact that Quidditch is not played like that. I have ordered a copy of The Real War Horse as a pressie to act as an antidote.

[squirrel]

Four of us are booked to see this epic tomorrow afternoon at the local Kinema. Two have seen the stage version and admitted to needing to use their handkerchiefs during the performance. Two less likely chaps to have a lachrymatory episode I have not come across before. Perhaps its hard men with soft centres they don't show too often although one of them is reduced to speaking gibberish in the presence of his 18 month old grandaughter and his newly acquired Spaniel puppy.....

[NigelS]

Going back to opinions of the film, I rather appreciated the Telegraph reviewer, who described it as "Saving Private Seabiscuit".

I chuckled at that as well. If anybody's not completely bored to the back teeth with the media coverage, here's that review Click

NigelS

[Steven Broomfield]

Grauniad review Not over-effusive

The Grey 'un also un-effusive

Daily Mail same film, different opinion

The Times was also less than overwhelmed, but hide their review behind a pay wall.

Me - I can't wait.

[Steven Broomfield]

Incidentally, there was an interesting piece on BBC News 24 at about 1150 today. Not sure if it's available on iPlayer though. Well, I enjoyed it.

[BIFFO]

I have just watched warhorse, it is far fetched, in places farcical , sentimental claptrap,

As to uniforms equipment being accurate and correct in every detail, couldn’t care less one way or the other.

BUT what I do care about ,I can take my wife .daughter and grandson to see a film with out fear of some Herbert taking his clothes off showing his bits, humping anything in sight male or female, using words you wouldn’t let your mum hear.

In my honest opinion leave your brodie at the door go enjoy two and a half hours escapism and family entertainment.

Biff

[Beau Geste]

Rubbish. Norman has demonstrated on Alex Falbo's thread on the tank from 'War Horse' that he has little patience with those commenting on historical veracity on this, a specialist Great War forum. Jane's eminently sensible question remains unanswered.

George

Oops !

Thanks George for putting me right. It isn't the first time I've been accused of spouting rubbish and I'm pretty sure it wont be the last.

My posting was based on the fact that "War Horse" seems to have been dismissed by some simply on the grounds that it's a Spielberg film. I'm not entirely sure what it is they have against the man but it would appear that, for them, nothing he does is of any real value.

I agree that from a historical perspective "War Horse" can be criticised for exaggerating some of the things that happened during the Great War, but he didn't set out to educate his audiences per se but to entertain them. I feel, having seen the film, that he did a hell of a good job. I really enjoyed it despite the "exaggerations" some have already drawn attention to. For example, the attack by cavalry on a wooded area (High Wood ?) where the German machine guns were shoulder to shoulder. Mind you, I wouldn't mind betting that that's the way it would have seemed to those attacking with lances poised and swords drawn.

As a retired teacher trainer, I'm not sure though that I can accept, without question, your argument that "children's books with an averred historical setting, ought to be as concerned with getting it's facts right as a book for an adult audience." I'm not even sure that your basic premise is sound for different ability groups within the same age bracket. Educators have to "know" their audience and pitch their learning sessions appropriately. What will suit one age group may well not (I'm almost tempted to say "will not") suit another. In the same way, what works with one group might not work with another despite the fact that they are of the same age. In other words, a teacher, immaterial of the level he / she is operating at must assess the "entering behaviour" of the learning group and pitch his / her teaching appropriately.

The first and most difficult task a teacher has to overcome is the need to gain the interest of those he / she teaches. If that involves the exaggeration of events so be it. The drama and horror of that cavalry charge shown in the film will stick in the minds of children, raise their levels of interest and perhaps even make them eager to continue the learning process in the future.

Learning groups George have one characteristic you can bet on : they are all different. That's what makes teaching a demanding and rewarding occupation. One can and needs to generalise at times but one thing is certain : children need to be treated differently to adults. What will work with adults will probably (almost certainly) not work with children. If that means using the "Spielberg approach".......so be it.

Harry