Looking for scholarly books on a range of topics.

[Justin Moretti]

1) Are there any reliable and recent biographies of Henry Wilson and Launcelot Kiggell, probably two of the most contentious British soldiers apart from Haig himself? Kiggell is most famous for that comment about whether he really sent men to fight in that and for being removed, but there seems to be precious little else out there about what he actually spent the war doing, while Wilson held an actual field command only for the briefest of times and seemed to spend most of the war deep in political intrigue. 

2) What were the syllabi at Sandhurst and Camberley - i.e. what did the British officers who served in WW1 with psc after their names actually do and learn on a day-to-day basis, and what were they required to know by the time they were done? 

 

Been away for a while, but my grand tour of my bookshelves has come around to World War 1 again and my brain is asking new questions.

[MaureenE]

Not recent but available online 

Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson by Major-General Sir C E Callwell 1927. Volume I, Volume II.  Archive.org

Maureen

[Rich4722]

I recommend ‘Wilson’s War’ by John Spencer. An up to date and scholarly book.

[Justin Moretti]

On 23/12/2023 at 08:18, Rich4722 said:

I recommend ‘Wilson’s War’ by John Spencer. An up to date and scholarly book.

Added to cart, for when I get through the gazillion books which are still on the way to me in the mail. 

My impression of Wilson right now, for the record, is of a man who spent most of the war being wrong until being made CIGS when the chips were down made him realize how right his boss (Haig) had been the whole time, after which he stopped misbehaving and did his job right.

I make this statement here because I want it on record to compare against the opinion I have after I've read the book. 

[Justin Moretti]

Update: I found myself a copy of "The Victorian Army and the Staff College, 1854-1914" by Brian Bond, and it has quite a few interesting snippets about Wilson that paint him in a very different and more flattering light than the likes of John Terraine or (especially) Robin Niellands. It doesn't cover his entire war, but it does highlight his time at the head of the Staff College and his service in the opening part of World War 1; and while it takes him to task for his ongoing misapprehension of the strategic situation in the opening days, it indicates that he was by no means the scheming, useless half-wit Niellands makes him out to be, and at the least, he has to be given the credit for the smooth manner in which the BEF went to France and deployed into its pre-assigned positions. 

On the other hand, it has very little that's good to say about Launcelot Kiggell, either in Bond's analysis or in what attendees and contemporaries at the Staff College had to say about him. When an author goes out of the way to say that even John Terraine isn't prepared to try to exculpate your worst misdeeds, you have a problem. Reading between the lines, he's probably fortunate to have had his tenure cut short by the war.

Wilson's War dropped onto my desk this morning, and while it's not as long as I would have wanted it to be, a quick glance inside shows great promise.

Edited 13 February by Justin Moretti

[Justin Moretti]

On 23/12/2023 at 08:18, Rich4722 said:

I recommend ‘Wilson’s War’ by John Spencer. An up to date and scholarly book.

Where do I write to the man to thank him for a damn good read?

Back before I read the book, I said this:

On 08/01/2024 at 14:23, Justin Moretti said:

My impression of Wilson right now, for the record, is of a man who spent most of the war being wrong until being made CIGS when the chips were down made him realize how right his boss (Haig) had been the whole time, after which he stopped misbehaving and did his job right.

I make this statement here because I want it on record to compare against the opinion I have after I've read the book. 

My opinion of Wilson has certainly changed radically from before reading the book. I still think he's very much a political chateau general, though Spencer seems to have done a good job defending Wilson as being supremely talented and of vital importance when it came to the vital task of keeping the Anglo-French coalition together at the roughest times; however, except for a brief period he was not a field commander and did not distinguish himself when he was. It certainly mounts a strong challenge to any thought of Wilson being an unthinking Francophile, as it details many occasions on which he and Foch clashed, and his increasing distrust of long-term French strategic ambitions. In my opinion, his almost complete lack of field command experience makes his at times very harsh judgement of Haig* unreliable at best and invalid at worst, but he arguably did have a much broader grasp of the grand-strategic vision than most others. 

A very complex and idiosyncratic gentleman; at times terribly wrong and graspingly over-ambitious, but not actually stupid or disloyal. 

 

 

* My gut feeling about Haig is that he was somewhat autistic, which would account for his being so easily being flustered in face to face conversation but better on paper and with time to reflect on what he wished to say. 

Edited 26 February by Justin Moretti

[Justin Moretti]

I found this interview with John Spencer concerning Wilson's War, which many of you have no doubt heard, but I'm putting here for completeness: 

https://www.westernfrontassociation.com/the-latest-wwi-podcast/ep-211-field-marshal-sir-henry-wilson-dr-john-spencer/ 

[Rich4722]

2 hours ago, Justin Moretti said:

I found this interview with John Spencer concerning Wilson's War, which many of you have no doubt heard, but I'm putting here for completeness: 

https://www.westernfrontassociation.com/the-latest-wwi-podcast/ep-211-field-marshal-sir-henry-wilson-dr-john-spencer/ 

I hadn't spotted this one... good find!