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

Remembered Today:

BEF Senior Command August 1914: Article in January 2021 Stand To


rolt968

Recommended Posts

I have been a little surprise that there has not been discussion of Ross Beadle's article in January 2021 Stand To. Perhaps it was all known to everyone except me?

I am less interested the in discussion of Robertson and Wilson than in a number other points:

  • Sir Horace Smith-Dorrien was (at least in 1912) expected to command 2 Corps;
  • Sir James Grierson was given command of 2 Corps because Sir John French had fallen out with him;
  • There was at least a tacit recognition that there were "administrator" generals;
  • No-one understood the damaging pressure which would be put on the "adminstrators", cf. the fate of Dougls and Murray.

It provoked two thoughts of my own:

  • Too many of the War Office senior staff went to France in 1914. (I believe that Haig also thought so?);
  • There were existing questions about Sir James Grierson's health.
  • 2 Corps seemed to be on something of loser as far as Sir John French's view of its activities was concerned since he had fallen out with both its 1914 GOCs.

RM

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn’t the catalyst for all this to do with the pre-war 1912 and 1913 Manoeuvres when Grierson first bested Haig in a humiliating way, and then as CGS to his field commander French demurred at the latter’s impractical orders to his subordinate formation under Haig?  It seems to me that the protracted fallout from those two manoeuvres completely blighted the higher command arrangements of the BEF to a fateful degree.

Edited by FROGSMILE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 09/07/2021 at 11:24, FROGSMILE said:

Wasn’t the catalyst for all this to do with the pre-war 1912 and 1913 Manoeuvres when Grierson first bested Haig in a humiliating way, and then as CGS to his field commander French demurred at the latter’s impractical orders to his subordinate formation under Haig?  It seems to me that the protracted fallout from those two manoeuvres completely blighted the higher command arrangements of the BEF to a fateful degree.

A good point. I hadn't previously known about French's subsequent dislike of Grierson.

It is interesting. Without that information you tend to get the impression that Smith-Dorrien was appointed out of the blue to command 2 Corps whereas but for the displacement of Grierson he was expected to command 2 Corps.

I have always found it odd that French was happy with Haig from whom he had much to fear.

RM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/07/2021 at 09:59, rolt968 said:

A good point. I hadn't previously known about French's subsequent dislike of Grierson.

It is interesting. Without that information you tend to get the impression that Smith-Dorrien was appointed out of the blue to command 2 Corps whereas but for the displacement of Grierson he was expected to command 2 Corps.

I have always found it odd that French was happy with Haig from whom he had much to fear.

RM

It’s worth researching about the fallout from the two manoeuvres, they were something of a cause  celebre at the time and the print media were not tardy when it came to extracting maximum column inches out of it.  Reading the diaries and accounts of those staff officers on the periphery of events also paints a revealing picture and throws light on how the command relationships were affected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you.

I had known that there were "problems" at those ,manoeuveres but not that they had had such ramifications. It is interesting that while well known at the time the effects of the manoeuvres are now less well known than the effects of French's dislike of Smith Dorrien.

Wasn't there a feeling that French had marked Smith Dorrien down unjustly in another set of manouevres?

RM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, rolt968 said:

Thank you.

I had known that there were "problems" at those ,manoeuveres but not that they had had such ramifications. It is interesting that while well known at the time the effects of the manoeuvres are now less well known than the effects of French's dislike of Smith Dorrien.

Wasn't there a feeling that French had marked Smith Dorrien down unjustly in another set of manouevres?

RM

That latter aspect might well be true but in truth I can’t comment as I have no knowledge of that incident.  I think that they were very different characters and there’s a hint of snobbery with French who came from a rather grand family.  He started in the Royal Navy to train as a Midshipman with a view to following his father.  But he was not an academic and had to complete extra training to reach the requisite standard.  He then resigned and entered the Army after a brief stint with the Militia.  Although he initially failed his entrance exam for regular commission he eventually got through and joined a prestigious Hussar regiment, but then swapped to another.  He became an outspoken advocate of the cavalry and played a leading part in the cavalry versus mounted infantry controversy that straddled the second Boer War.  
By contrast Smith Dorrien came from a more modest background and joined the less fashionable line infantry.  Despite hopes of joining one of the elite rifle regiments he had to settle for the 95th Derbyshire Regiment, as he too struggled with academic requirements.  Nevertheless, he rose steadily, partly I think through judicious selection of postings and volunteering for less popular roles.  He was famously attached to Chelmsford’s column in the Anglo/Zulu war as a junior logistics staff officer, and had he not been mounted would have lost his life at Isandhlwana, where so many of his infantry compatriots lost their lives.  Thus when French and Smith Dorrien came together they were about as different as chalk and cheese and ostensibly less likely to get on in the first place.

Edited by FROGSMILE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In their essay on Smith-Dorrien in Stemming the Tide, Spencer Jones and Steven Corvi suggest that the origins of the French/Smith-Dorrien feud were in Smith-Dorrien's re-organisation of cavalry training in the Aldershot Command when he took over command there from French.  French saw this as implicit criticism of his own methods and responded with undue criticism of Smith-Dorrien's performance in the 1909 manoeuvres. Jones and Corvi suggest that the flames of the feud were fanned when Smith-Dorrien succeeded in having Beauvoir de Lisle, a former commander of mounted infantry, appointed to command a cavalry brigade despite opposition from French.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Bordercollie said:

In their essay on Smith-Dorrien in Stemming the Tide, Spencer Jones and Steven Corvi suggest that the origins of the French/Smith-Dorrien feud were in Smith-Dorrien's re-organisation of cavalry training in the Aldershot Command when he took over command there from French.  French saw this as implicit criticism of his own methods and responded with undue criticism of Smith-Dorrien's performance in the 1909 manoeuvres. Jones and Corvi suggest that the flames of the feud were fanned when Smith-Dorrien succeeded in having Beauvoir de Lisle, a former commander of mounted infantry, appointed to command a cavalry brigade despite opposition from French.

Brilliant, that seems to explain things perfectly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bordercollie said:

In their essay on Smith-Dorrien in Stemming the Tide, Spencer Jones and Steven Corvi suggest that the origins of the French/Smith-Dorrien feud were in Smith-Dorrien's re-organisation of cavalry training in the Aldershot Command when he took over command there from French.  French saw this as implicit criticism of his own methods and responded with undue criticism of Smith-Dorrien's performance in the 1909 manoeuvres. Jones and Corvi suggest that the flames of the feud were fanned when Smith-Dorrien succeeded in having Beauvoir de Lisle, a former commander of mounted infantry, appointed to command a cavalry brigade despite opposition from French.

Thank you. I didn't know about that. De Lisle's own version of events can be found about half way down the first page of this thread:

https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/109557-smith-dorrien-french-controversy/

RM

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the link to De Lisle's version of events which I had not seen before. Jones and Corvi refer to De Lisle's view that he was the cause of the feud between Smith-Dorrien and French.  Smith-Dorrien had taken over command at Aldershot in 1907 and French had been critical of his performance in the 1909 manoeuvres, while the dispute over De Lisle's appointment occurred sometime after 1910.  So on the basis of the timeline it appears more likely that the appointment inflamed the existing feud rather than been the cause of it. 

The Aldershot Command seems to have been linked to senior command in the BEF. Successive commanders at Aldershot were French (1902-1907), Smith-Dorrien (1907-1912) and Haig (1912-1914).  In his biography of French Richard Holmes says that once he was appointed to Aldershot it was clear that French would hold an important command in the event of a future war. So French was penciled in as C-in-C of the BEF with his successors at Aldershot as the two corps commanders.  Grierson had hoped for the Aldershot Command but instead was given Eastern Command in 1912 and without the experience of commanding at Aldershot was penciled in as French's chief of staff.  However after the 1913 manoeuvres French decided that Grierson would not suit in that role possibly because he wanted somebody more pliable, like Murray.  French then had the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone by pencilling in Grierson in place of his old enemy Smith-Dorrien. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Bordercollie said:

Thank you for the link to De Lisle's version of events which I had not seen before. Jones and Corvi refer to De Lisle's view that he was the cause of the feud between Smith-Dorrien and French.  Smith-Dorrien had taken over command at Aldershot in 1907 and French had been critical of his performance in the 1909 manoeuvres, while the dispute over De Lisle's appointment occurred sometime after 1910.  So on the basis of the timeline it appears more likely that the appointment inflamed the existing feud rather than been the cause of it. 

The Aldershot Command seems to have been linked to senior command in the BEF. Successive commanders at Aldershot were French (1902-1907), Smith-Dorrien (1907-1912) and Haig (1912-1914).  In his biography of French Richard Holmes says that once he was appointed to Aldershot it was clear that French would hold an important command in the event of a future war. So French was penciled in as C-in-C of the BEF with his successors at Aldershot as the two corps commanders.  Grierson had hoped for the Aldershot Command but instead was given Eastern Command in 1912 and without the experience of commanding at Aldershot was penciled in as French's chief of staff.  However after the 1913 manoeuvres French decided that Grierson would not suit in that role possibly because he wanted somebody more pliable, like Murray.  French then had the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone by pencilling in Grierson in place of his old enemy Smith-Dorrien. 

Thank you, I totally agree with your rationale and conclusion, it ties in entirely with everything I’ve ever read on the matter.

Edited by FROGSMILE
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...