Artillery generally

[Kathie]

I am trying to write an introductory paragraph to a chapter on an RGA soldier and want to say something like - The British military authorities had assumed that the cavalry would lead the way but it was the artillery whcih exemplified the industrailisation of this War. I do have a fancier four lines but have left them elsewhere. I then spent my entire weekend trawling through all my books becuase I have a feeling that this point has been made before and so much better than me.

Please help - is what I am wanting to say correct? Has it been said and by whom and where?

This raises antoher issue. I am writing up my soldiers. I am giving each a small introductory chapter on his battle. At the end of each chapter I am saying that I have no original knowledge of the battle etc etc and so have relied completely on ..... and then I detail the books. Is that enough? Essentially I have two or three pages describing a battle which is taken entirely from two or three books. I cant put it all in quotes. so I havent put quotes unless it is an individuals description of how he felt. For the rest when an author has described who did what and what happened I do not put that in quotes. What would other authors or readers suggest?

Thanks

Kathie

[zooloo]

White Heat by John Terraine covers the industrialisation of war.

A good read.

zoo

[Bernard_Lewis]

There is a book called 'Firepower' which deals with the artillery during the First World War and beyond. I think what you are saying is broadly correct - forget machine guns, bayonets and rifles the most deadly force (by casualty numbers) was the artillery.

On quoting from other books it depends how 'precise' you want to be. If you quote directly (word for word) from another book you should really add a footnote number and then list the source (e.g. History of the Blah, blah' by whoever, page 34). Academic books have a set format for this but it depends on your audience and any credit is better than none!

For the most part you could just put a 'Select Bibliography' at the back of the book and list the books you have consulted and authors there. If you look at any academic book you'll soon get the idea...

Hope this helps.

Bernard

[AndyHollinger]

Footnotes are fine ... explain what you've done in the preface, etc. You're okay in that.

I think the concept you're trying to say is that at the Beginning of the war, nobody expected what actually came to be. The continuing importance, as some would say, dominence of the battlefield and the war itself, by Artillery is, perhaps, the best symbol of the increasing industrialization of WWI and warfare in general.

Does this help? ... You can quote me

[armourersergeant]

Kathie,

If i understand you correctly you seem to be saying that you have a three page chapter with all the chunks made up word for word of three other writers. Is that correct? (or am i being stupid) If that is the case then I would say you would be in breech of copyright.

I think you are allowed to quote froma book, a few sentences at a time is usually acceptable. If you have done this may I suggest that using this chapter you have done just write it out in your own words. That would amke it yours alone.

If I have the wrong end of the stick sorry!

regards

Arm

[Old Tom]

Hello,

A recently published book* speaks of 'Industrial War'. Some authors have laid stress of the many equipment developments that occured during WW1; aeroplanes, sound ranging, aerial photography, wireless etc etc. The dominance of artillery is of course true, but artillery depended on manyother equipments.

* The Utility of Force by General Sir Rupert Smith

Old Tom

[johnreed]

Try " In World War 1 the Artillery claimed the battlefield as its own"

John

[Hoplophile]

Many popular accounts of World War I place far too much stress on the role of cavalry and 'cavalry generals' in the pre-war armies. (A documentary aired on the BBC last autumn, for example, made the mistake of describing the French general Joffre - who had spent most of his career as an engineer officer - as a 'cavalry general'.)

While cavalry played an important part in the armies of 1914, its relative importance within those armies had been slipping for years. In the two decades prior to the outbreak of the war, the armies of Europe raised a large number of new units. Very many of these units were artillery units but very few were cavalry units. (The junior cavalry regiment of the British Army of 1914 was the 21st Lancers, which had been raised in 1857!) Thus, while the growth of artillery during the pre-war period was not as spectacular as the growth of artillery during the war itself, both the slow peacetime expansion and the explosive wartime expansion of the Royal Artillery can be seen as part of a larger trend.

[Kathie]

Thank you all for help on both issues.

JohnReed got it just right. That is what I want to say - who had ever thought that the endless shellfire etc over so many years would be so dominant. And injuries. And etc.....

any more on this topic - anyone.

What about the military brass who though the cavalry regiments would lead the way and had to wait and wait an dwait and it never happened. Was it a surprise that the artillery became so much more vital to the war effort on all sides.

As far as quoting is concerned. I am writing about 20 men. The campaign chapters are just inbetweeens and I have no new insights. I am not simply taking paragraphs. I am using words and phrases and idas and obviosuly information from two main sources on South African troops, any number of other on genersal issies and then quoting from local town newspaper and local letters. But I dont want to do a whole footnote thing - since I dont want to look too ponderous. I had through of a series of endnotes on each chapters - apart from thanks to the greatnieces and etc t then say here are the sources I used and where people can find them. and not specifically say which sentence may have come from where.

Kathie

[Chris_Baker]

The British military authorities had assumed that the cavalry would lead the way but it was the artillery whcih exemplified the industrailisation of this War.

I would say partly correct.

British military doctrine was in a terrible state of flux in 1914. The military hierarchy themselves were completely at odds about the nature of the coming war and how to fight it. And don't forget, they were still having to be ready for war in India and in Ireland, even planning in case of German invasion of UK, quite apart from commitment to Europe where very different conditions would exist. In other words, there was tremendous uncertainty about what would be needed. The lessons of South Africa and the Russo-Japanese war were still being assessed and applied in terms of new armaments, the new Field Service Regulations, etc. On the whole, the discussion was more about manpower than firepower - and there was certainly no unanimous view about cavalry other than it was the only mobile arm of exploitation that anyone had.

The artillery certainly exemplified industrialisation - but perhaps even more so did the railways. They determined the ability of the armies to move and supply themselves, and without them no amount of artillery would have been of use.