Gallipoli A Level Study

[David_Blanchard]

I am not very well versed in the nature of the Gallopoli campaign. I wonder if anyone could help me with any ideas relating to controversial aspects of the battle that I could help frame an A Level personal study investigation with.

This has to be a question starting with:

'To what extent...' or 'How far....'

Regards

David

[HERITAGE PLUS]

How about/

To what extent were lessons learned from the outcome of the campaign?

Dave

[Orion]

Try this,

To what extent did the lack of a sufficient supply of high explosive artillery shells and an insufficient number of howitzers to accurately fire them hinder the allied attacks in the Helles sector?

Cheers,

Brian

[DirtyDick]

"To what extent is the 'myth' of Gallipoli grounded in fact?"

Gallipoli has been seen as a seminal point in the history of modern day Australia and New Zealand, in the forging of their nations' identities as distinct from that of the UK. It has also been seen as an abysmal failure in which British political indecision - scope of operation - and poor generalship signed the death warrants of many thousands of (most commonly referred to) young Australians and New Zealanders.

To some extent this has ever since been used as stick to beat the 'Mother Country' and deserves closer examination. One could incorporate diverse means - that would be good for A Level - such as asking people for their initial perceptions of Gallipoli; ascertaining as to whether the Anzacs were killed in greater numbers/treate equally to the British and French troops who were also at Gallipoli; did it provoke any profound cultural change; is the sentiment regarding this action the same in Australia and New Zealand etc. etc.,

Richard

[mcderms]

If you really want a sticky topic I would avoid the well trodden path of how it was all the fault of the generals, Brits, politics etc.

Far more interesting would be a piece on how the inexperience of both officers and men in the AIF saw a lack of cohesion during the initial landings, how officer and NCO casualties affected the raw recruits and how enthusiasm saw the achievement of some but the loss of many achievable objectives.

This is raised in both Carlyon and Hickey's book's but no one has tackled it head-on yet.

It could also be worth investigating why/how the non-AIF casualties far exceeded the AIF ones. Both in numbers and % terms.

[DirtyDick]

That is precisely why it would make an ideal focus, because the sheer volume of books, films and articles tends to create a received wisdom. This can be deconstructed and examined in order.

For example, received wisdom appears to be a squandering of Colonial lives by callous British generals (vide the film "Gallipoli" as a case in point, and in "Anzacs" as a general theme - where the few British soldiers shown are either ghastly aristocratic/supercillious officers and MPs or downtrodden Cockney squaddies).

By extension, as mcderms writes, one could question another received wisdom: that the Anzacs were, man-for-man, superior to those British, French and Turkish troops encountered at G in 1915. Almost all had been in the Army for less than 12 months, it did not have the cadre of long-serving regulars to bolster their ranks, and this was their first proper engagement.

They might have been the pick of the bunch physically and mentally (for the AIF, as with many British Service Battalions raised during 1914, had very stringent medicals), but they were inexperienced and their basic training did not replicate the conditions found in this static warfare.

From my standpoint - I may be wrong - Gallipoli appears to be less bound up with NZ's WW1 experience, so this would be an interesting avenue to explore: would this be related to Australian culture and its maturing into a nation state in the early 20th C?

None of this would necessarily entail arguing that the received wisdom is incorrect, but perhaps is only a partial reflection of the truth.

[mcderms]

The AIF were physically superior to the UK troops in 1915 but the Brits made up in experience what they lacked in stature. At the risk of stirring up the pedants out there, the vast majority of AIF troops landing at Gallipoli had zero pre-war military experience from senior officers down and most had been in uniform < 1 year. By contrast, the UK troops landing first at Gallipoli were almost exclusively regulars and terriers. The 2? new army brigades came later and yes a number of RND units as well but these were good troops (wasted IMHO). The French similary sent the Foriegn Legion (elite troops) and experienced (but poorly disciplined) colonials.

It would be fascinating to surmise what could have been achieved if a few more regulars had been on hand to organise the AIF troops on the beaches on the first day. No disrespect to the Aussies but could the face of the battle been changed for the better if the enthusiasts had taken this hill rather than that hill?

etc. etc. etc. We could go on like this for ages. Just don't get me started on the Little Big Horn as well!

[DirtyDick]

How! Me have heap big interest in Little Big Horn and Long Hair.

[Mark Hone]

From what I recall you do the AQA Specification. With AQA it is wise to avoid a purely military study (OCR is a different kettle of fish). I would therefore widen it into a strategic discussion of the campaign's effect on the war, notably the fall of the Liberal Government and its replacement by the Coalition. You could look at the impact of the Gallipoli Campaign on that vis a vis other factors- munitions crisis, internal party intrigue, personalities of e.g. Asquith, Churchill, LLoyd George, Kitchener, Bonar Law, sacrifice of Liberal shibboleths in name of war effort etc

The legacy of Gallipoli on Anglo-Australian relations, cultural mythology etc is a very interesting one but perhaps a bit abstract and woolly for a 3,000 word A-Level personal study.

[robbie]

If you really want a sticky topic I would avoid the well trodden path of how it was all the fault of the generals, Brits, politics etc.

Far more interesting would be a piece on how the inexperience of both officers and men in the AIF saw a lack of cohesion during the initial landings, how officer and NCO casualties affected the raw recruits and how enthusiasm saw the achievement of some but the loss of many achievable objectives.

This is raised in both Carlyon and Hickey's book's but no one has tackled it head-on yet.

It could also be worth investigating why/how the non-AIF casualties far exceeded the AIF ones. Both in numbers and % terms.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The concept of "mateship" - to what extent was mateship born out of the Gallipoli experience?

http://www.australianbeers.com/culture/mateship.htm

Bean talks about this on the above website..

and..

Despite this historical exclusion of women from mateship, including during the wars, which were fought only by men at the front lines (with over 100,000 dead as terrible proof), some newspapers have no qualms about rewriting history in order to be politically correct (on this and other topics).

Robbie

[David_Blanchard]

Hello,

Thanks for all your suggestions. Will have to get the AQA specification out and check, although in the past couple of years boys at our school have tackled subjects on the Somme, Stalingrad and Passchendaele from a military perspective.

Regards

David

[Mark Hone]

The AQA Teachers' Guide does specifically warn against purely military studies, as they can lead to simple 'battle narratives'. I agree with this up to a point although, as a military historian of sorts myself, I would argue that very good analytical studies on military themes can be written, particularly those which are the subject of a clear debate with a well-developed historiography (Operation Market Garden in the Second World War being a prime example). Unfortunately I have found that a lot of military studies do end up as simple narrative accounts cobbled together from a couple of sources, usually popular histories. Analytical World War One studies tend to focus on the Somme/Douglas Haig, but I haven't actually encountered many very good ones. Most candidates I've found don't really understand the development of the historical debate, and are unacquainted with modern scholarship. Some get the views of the authors rather confused, as with the candidate a few years ago who was under the impression that 'Haig's Command' by Denis Winter was pro-Haig! Gary Sheffield is starting to be mentioned, but mostly in connection with his contributions to the BBC History website rather than his books.

[Ozzie]

You could ask the question, what would have happened if the Anzacs had been landed on the right beach?

Aussies have disparaged their own leaders that made mistakes, (Anthill and Hughes copped it, big time), throughout our short history, not only other leaders. Australians tend to look critically at leaders and feel quite comfortable in debating their qualities or lack of them, that was going on well before Gallipoli.

You can not understand Australia’s emotional connection to Gallipoli without first understanding events such as The Eureka Stockade, the Shearer’s strike and the Boer War. To think that Australia only just started to form a national identity at Gallipoli is a tad wrong. It had already been born, it matured at Gallipoli. It was the Anzac soldiers themselves, who started the Anzac Day services in 1916. The AIF participation continued onto the Western Front and into Palestine, an often forgotten and overlooked contribution, although not overlooked by certain French people. Due to our short military history, some would say non existent, before Gallipoli, the soldiers looked at Gallipoli as the blooding for what they went through later.

Australians were not the only ones to question and blame. You can look at the diaries, letters and poetry of soldiers from all the countries, who fought in WW1, and find anger and frustration at the leaders. The soldiers at Gallipoli set a standard for the Australian Military that has echoed down the years, through all of the conflicts that Australia has participated in. Personally, and this whole reply is, of course, my personal view, in the most basic terms, I believe those standards to be, do the best you can with what you’ve got, stand by your mates, take the shyte you’re dealt but throw it back twice as hard and learn quickly from your mistakes.

The word ANZAC is made up of Australia AND New Zealand, everyone knows that, we don’t forget our cousins across the straight that easily.

New Zealanders may seem to be late in coming into the awareness of Gallipoli but they are doing so now in droves. After all, they lost more men per capita than anyone.

Also, don’t forget, more than 30% of the AIF were immigrants or visitors from England, that joined the military in Australia, when the Australian Government called for volunteers to help the mother country.

We may be accused of pom bashing, but, after all we are laughing at ourselves, considering our heritage. At least we can argue both sides of the story rationally, giving credit where credit is due, not write off or ignore another country’s contribution because they were not regulars, or that they were drunks, larrikins, or whatever other term can be found, to disparage men who went to war willingly, and gave their lives for not only their own country, but also, their mother country, England.

Kim

[robbie]

Kim

You've hit the nail right on the head. Very well argued.

Robbie

[per ardua per mare per terram]

Don’t forget the naval side, it’s often neglected – especially in respect of the RNAS and long-range gunnery – although, the embryonic aspects of combined operations usually gets a mention. There’s always the fun argument: Churchill was a great politician, but a poor military thinker. Attempting to force the straits by naval force and thus sending a clear ‘we are coming to get you’ message does not auger well for a brilliant campaign

[Bryn]

Remember that this is a high school kid asking for ideas.

"The legacy of Gallipoli on Anglo-Australian relations, cultural mythology etc is a very interesting one but perhaps a bit abstract and woolly for a 3,000 word A-Level personal study."

I'd agree completely, however it's obviously as good an opportunity as any to get in some anti-Anzac propaganda. I'll get my university students here in Japan to write an essay on the importance of soccer (sorry, it's not football in Japan) to the average British lager-lout. My students have never set foot in, and have pretty much no knowledge whatsoever of, Britain, none of hooliganism, and very little of soccer, so it should be roughly equivalent to getting a British high school student to write on the significance of Anzac Day to Australians and New Zealanders.

As far as the presence of British regulars at Anzac to help out the 'enthusiast' colonial troops, the Corps was commanded by General Birdwood (England), the 1st Division by General Bridges (Scotland). the NZ & A Diviision by General Godley (Ireland), and the 3rd Brigade - the first to land - by Colonel Sinclair-Maclagan (Scotland), who, according to at least one author, is pretty much single-handedly responsible for most of the confusion (beyond being dropped at the wrong beach) on the first day. As for taking this or that hill - the hills that were taken, as well as the ones that were lost - were on the orders of such experienced officers.

"At the risk of stirring up the pedants out there, the vast majority of AIF troops landing at Gallipoli had zero pre-war military experience from senior officers down and most had been in uniform < 1 year."

I assume that the labelling, in advance, of anyone who might disagree with a statement as 'pedants', is meant to deter people with a better grasp of facts from answering. But I will anyway.

Of approximately 600 Anzac officers I've researched in depth, about 50 of them had no pre-war military experience. That's not 'a vast majority'; it's just over eight percent. Many of this 50 had probably also served in the ranks in the pre-war militia, and some in the Boer War, and most were promoted through the ranks during their service at Gallipoli, so by the time they were commissioned, they certainly had the experience. Maybe I'm wrong, though, so if anyone could name, say, one hundred Anzac officers who had 'zero pre-war military experience', I'd be very grateful. If it really was the 'vast majority', that should be no problem. Or just name the 'senior officers' who had no pre-war military experience. That should be even easier.

[DirtyDick]

I'd agree completely, however it's obviously as good an opportunity as any to get in some anti-Anzac propaganda. I'll get my university students here in Japan to write an essay on the importance of soccer (sorry, it's not football in Japan) to the average British lager-lout. My students have never set foot in, and have pretty much no knowledge whatsoever of, Britain, none of hooliganism, and very little of soccer, so it should be roughly equivalent to getting a British high school student to write on the significance of Anzac Day to Australians and New Zealanders.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can you not see, this prickly reaction denotes precisely why such a study would be of interest (albiet perhaps not for A Level)?

And, strangely, perhaps not having been brought up in Australia/New Zealand would allow for a more objective (less inhibited?) approach to the subject and, in any case, one could tailor the question to look only at official/media/historical sources.

And here is the anticipated "anti-Anzac propaganda: the incidental music to the series sounded as if it had been written by Ronnie Hazelhurst (BBC - Last of the Summer Wine).

[robbie]

Can you not see, this prickly reaction denotes precisely why such a study would be of interest (albiet perhaps not for A Level)?

And, strangely, perhaps not having been brought up in Australia/New Zealand would allow for a more objective (less inhibited?) approach to the subject and, in any case, one could tailor the question to look only at official/media/historical sources. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly, Richard. I am certain that the markers of these disertations would welcome with open arms such a debate. I know which I'd prefer and it's not the same old topics. If these students are hoping to go on to uni then this is exactly what is required. It is rather tiresome to read script after script which is merely descriptive. Indeed, such essays would barely get a pass from me.

Robbie

[DirtyDick]

A better one, although a little contentious:

"To what extent did actors in Gallipoli, Anzacs and The Lighthorsemen appear in Australian soap operas of the 1970s and 80s? Special reference is to be made to Kylie Minogue and The Sullivans."

[robbie]

A better one, although a little contentious:

"To what extent did actors in Gallipoli, Anzacs and The Lighthorsemen appear in Australian soap operas of the 1970s and 80s? Special reference is to be made to Kylie Minogue and The Sullivans."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I predict the correlation would be around .99.

Robbie

[Ozzie]

And, strangely, perhaps not having been brought up in Australia/New Zealand would allow for a more objective (less inhibited?) approach to the subject and, in any case, one could tailor the question to look only at official/media/historical sources. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And yet when, those who have not been brought up in Britian, do an objective study on say, Churchill, using official/media/historical sources, would they not be derided as not knowing what they are talking about? I suppose that would depend on if it was kind to Churchill or not.

Please...... !!!!

If any one has a problem with Australians being proud of their history, well here is another one for you. Australians are proud to have a convict ancestor, who came from ....guess where.

We haven't done too badly since the convict days. Maybe if more people studied Australian history, as we have had to study Britians, then you may have a greater understanding of the country, that has always come to the aid of Britian.

Kim

[Bryn]

Well thought-out replies, regarding being 'prickly' and all, and how writing about something you have no knowledge of might give (who?) a 'fresh' perspective, and 'albeit not for A level' - even thouigh that's what the entire thread is about - but I'm still wondering whether anyone can name any of 'the vast majority' of Anzac officers who had no pre-war military experience.

[DirtyDick]

I think writing about something of which you have no knowledge would be pretty pointless. I cannot see the point you are trying to make with that, though.

I fail to see how being non-Australian would hinder someone's knowledge of her military history, especially given the fact that the two nations' (UK and Aust) militaries have been so closely related on operations. Equally, I cannot see how being brought up as British in the 1980s and 90s (or earlier) could make one better acquainted with Churchill than a contemporary Australian equivalent.

One could, of course, argue that it puts a person at a disadvantage when attempting to trace the origins of nation-specific contemporary popular culture with regard to the subject. However, one could also argue that it frees the researcher from the emotional baggage/perceived certainties/possible half truths that come with growing up in such surroundings, possibly allowing them to adopt a 'fresh' approach.

Reliance upon easily accessible media and published works would be a practical measure for a non-Australian researcher tackling this subject: this would have to be made evident in the question and, after all, from where else do Australians learn their own history? How would one otherwise determine tangibly what (if any) myths abound about the Campaign?

[DirtyDick]

It might well be suitable for A Level; then again, it might not. It would depend on the marking criteria and the depth to which it is studied (it might cross-over into sociology or other facets, and at A Level it might be deemed as overly complex or else unwanted).

If, for example, no one studied Haig et al subsequent to the 1960s, he might still be seen as nothing more than an incompetent butcher. Equally, in the future people might come back to this belief, based on new evidence or perspectives.

I cannot see how an examination such as the one proposed should be seen as denigrating the Australian war effort, nor why - as it seems to have done - any challenge or study of prevailing orthodoxies (whatever they might be) is threatening or unappreciative of their efforts. It might even serve to bolster these preconceptions.

[Ozzie]

If you really want a sticky topic I would avoid the well trodden path of how it was all the fault of the generals, Brits, politics etc.

Far more interesting would be a piece on how the inexperience of both officers and men in the AIF saw a lack of cohesion during the initial landings, how officer and NCO casualties affected the raw recruits and how enthusiasm saw the achievement of some but the loss of many achievable objectives.

This is raised in both Carlyon and Hickey's book's but no one has tackled it head-on yet.

It could also be worth investigating why/how the non-AIF casualties far exceeded the AIF ones. Both in numbers and % terms.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Quote Bryn: As far as the presence of British regulars at Anzac to help out the 'enthusiast' colonial troops, the Corps was commanded by General Birdwood (England), the 1st Division by General Bridges (Scotland). the NZ & A Diviision by General Godley (Ireland), and the 3rd Brigade - the first to land - by Colonel Sinclair-Maclagan (Scotland), who, according to at least one author, is pretty much single-handedly responsible for most of the confusion (beyond being dropped at the wrong beach) on the first day. As for taking this or that hill - the hills that were taken, as well as the ones that were lost - were on the orders of such experienced officers.

As Bryn pointed out, the Brits were in charge.

You are suggesting that there is a lot of material out there, how is an A level student to sift fact from myth in this media if he does not have a good grounding in the afore mentioned history of the country involved?

Would you recommend the reading of Butchers and Bunglers to a student. I don't think so.

As you say there is a lot of material out there to be studied. To get the true picture you would have to read a hell of a lot, go to the IWM, the AWM and after a few years you may be able to sift the fact from the fiction.

It is a very emotive subject, one that can not be looked at rationally, by any one with either preconcieved ideas or patriotic ties. Maybe a mathamatican or scientist could analyse the subject in a clinical matter, but, anyone else will have certain biases that would distort the views.

Kim