Harry Bostock

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Mates

Harry Bostock, in is book The Great Ride says:

“The night was extremely dark. I was in one patrol when about half way to our objective we ran into a Turk patrol. We almost touched each other in the darkness, then both sides realised what was happening. Shots were fired, the Turks retreated and we had one Scout shot. He died before we got him back to the front line. At the same time I was slightly wounded in the right shoulder, forearm and hand by a bullet which struck the brass buckle of his belt and broke up, hence the three slight wounds. My troubles were slight, so I remained on duty. No further action occurred during the night and our horses were brought out early next morning.

The Scout killed was Ridgeway (9th Light Horse Regiment) a very fine man indeed, one of the very best.”

[bostock, Henry P., The great ride: the diary of a Light Horse Brigade scout, 1985, pp 81-82.]

However, in a sworn statement made before Major Myles Cave, a doctor with the 3rd Light Horse Field Ambulance on 20 June 1917, Bostock said the following:

"Yesterday evening at 1930, I was on hill 280 in company with Sgt Richardson, and Tpr E Ridgway & H Ridgway, G Graves, J Kennedy and BM Craig and Tpr Baird. We had just numbered off for our shifts on sentry duty. I was on the wrong end according to the number off, all the rest of the men were sitting in a row except Jack Kennedy who was facing us. I walked behind the row to take up my right position as the shifts were to go on duty. As I got behind Eric Ridgway Jack Kennedy's rifle went off shooting Ridgway in the stomach and I received a wound in the right hand. Before Ridgway was wounded the bullet seemed to have hit the ground and ricochet. I then discovered that Tpr E Ridgway was hit in the abdomen. We dressed his wound and carried him to where the led horses were behind the hill. Cpl Martin W went to the nearest infantry outpost and brought a stretcher and the wounded man was carried to the infantry lines where he received further medical attention."

We also have a version of this story from Olden in WESTRALIAN CAVALRY IN THE WAR, p 148:

"One day, towards the end of June, however, they came out in greater numbers than usual, and seemed inclined to try conclusions with two of our squadrons. "C" Squadron and a troop of Brigade Scouts immediately dashed out mounted from Goz-el-Basal at one enemy party and killed two of their number before the remainder galloped off, whilst "B" Squadron had a similar experience a few miles further north. Lieut. Alan Herbert and Trooper Bostock were wounded at this time. "

Was this a case of conflating a number of stories into one - not unusual as memory fades - or was this a case of spinning a yarn?

Cheers

Bill

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Mates

Here is the extract from Bostock:

Cheers

Bill

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Mates

Here is Bostock's statement on 20 June 1917

Cheers

Bill

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Mates

Here is Sgt Richardson's evidence of the occasion.

Cheers

Bill

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Mates

Here is Kenneday's version.

Cheers

Bill

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Mates

This is the evidence of Hewie Ridgway, the brother.

Cheers

Bill

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Mates

Finally, the evidence of Beard.

Cheers

Bill

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Mates

Just looking at Olden's comments, I checked Herbert's file on the NAA site and it shows that he was wounded on 19 June 1917. Bostock's file will soon become available within the next half year.

The last sentence in the Olden quote is ambiguous as it does not state when Bostock was wounded or if he was wounded at the same time as Herbert or if they were wounded in the same action.

Basically, the Olden comment does not add much to understanding the event.

Cheers

Bill

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Mates

I have placed all the documentary evidence that I know of in front of you. If this stirs a memory about other evidence, perhaps you could post it. It is important that any material relating to this event is carefully analysed so that we can ascertain the events that actually happened that evening.

Above we have two stories by Bostock on how he became wounded. One is a stirring story of derring do and adventure, the other arises from a careless accident. The injuries and death are not lessened by the different accounts, just the method in which they occurred.

Cheers

Bill

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Mates

I have received some commentary in the general suggesting that this is one person's memory of his part in the war and should be left as such without question.

This might be true if this work was not cited as positive evidence and thus a primary source document by other folks writing history.

Let me give you an example as to how the use of Bostock was employed in the creation of a myth which was published as fact. I speak here of Bostock's description about the formation of the Brigade Scouts. On the Australian Lighthorse Association historical section, they published detail straight from Bostock and with hand on heart, declared it as good history. I will quote from the page:

"THE 3RD LIGHT HORSE BRIGADE SCOUT GROUP WW1 FORMED JULY 1917"

"The 3rd Brigade Troop of Scouts was formed in July of 1917 and originally consisted of 10 men from each of the three regiments of the 3rd Brigade, the 8th, 9th and 10th Light Horse Regiments. ... The original Troop Commander was Lt Tom Rickeby of the 9th Light Horse."

This information came straight from Bostock - a copy of his book entry regarding the formation of the scouts is also held by the AWM. The AWM reference is at:

ID Number: 3DRL/7915

Title: Third Bde Scout Troop (8th, 9th and: 10th Regts, 3rd Bde)

Object type: Manuscript

Measurements: 1 ITEM

Summary: BRIEF HISTORY OF THE THIRD BRIGADE SCOUT TROOP FORMED ON THE PALESTINE MOUNTED CAMPAIGN FROM SINAI TO DAMASCUS

The question to be asked: Is this correct?

One question comes immediatly to mind is how could Bostock have been a Brigade Scout and wounded as per the testimony above, on 19 June 1917 when the Brigade Scouts, according to this information, was formed in July 1917. You see the problem?

We go back to the 9th Light Horse Regiment Routine Order No. 246 dated 18th January 1916 and find this entry:

"TRAINING OF SCOUTS

"Lieutenant Dunckley, 10th Light Horse Regiment. Training to be carried out on Thursday and Friday of each week. 10 Scouts of each Regiment will parade in front of the Grandstand on these days at 0930."

It totally contradicts the story.

I informed the authors of their article that there were some fundamental errors with the story to which they agreed after seeing the facts and altered their story. It can be seen at this URL:

http://www.lighthorse.org.au/military/3rdlight.htm

This is the impact of having inaccurate sources that are not questioned. If we accept these accounts at face value then they have the potential to lead us astray if we rely upon them as history. This one was one that almost got away.

There are many other accounts of the war by individual soldiers that are sometimes filled with the fantasy of things that they would have liked to witness and family legend says they did witness, but sadly, in truth, never witnessed but said so anyway for whatever motive may have been relevant to them.

So if you are wondering why I go through so much trouble to establish source authenticity it is because we owe an obligation to those who follow us to provide the most accurate story possible so that our story is not a fabrication but the real deal and that is something to be proud of in any person's book.

Cheers

Bill

[stevenbecker]

Mate,

You will get no argument from me about this or the other bloke.

A point we have made many times on the other site.

I have used the line from the John Wayne movie "The Man who shot Liberty Valence" before about two reporters talking;

"When the legand becomes the story print the story not the truth"

Cheers

S.B

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Steve

G'day mate

Your metaphor hits the right note.

"When the legand becomes the story print the story not the truth"

If a source is tainted for whatever reason, it should be known and thus not taken as accurate or historical and thus not blur the reality. We can only do this by questioning the veracity of the source and understanding why it was tainted. We know that Gullett and Bean altered their histories and suppressed information to be PC for their time. That doesn't mean they are poor reading, it just means that we need to be aware of the tainting and not take the story as gospel. The same is true for Bostock who did not have the bridal bit of academic rigor holding him in check as he wrote his yarn. His story contains interesting insights, he lists names of men who were his mates in the Scouts which is useful but he makes no claim to historical accuracy. Yet despite all of this, folks writing history have taken his work as gospel and cited it as such.

It's a bit like people taking that other book ... can't quite remember the name ... as gospel and refusing to see that it is just a sexed up document to sell copies. Old soldiers could not be that venal is the cry. Well they were venal just like the rest of us and they did things for their own motives which rarely included the idea of leaving something to posterity which was a fortunate by product.

At least the Dawn Service today put all that in perspective.

Cheers

Bill

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Mates

Now we come to the final bit of this particular story.

Here we have a copy in Bostock's own hand as to the events of that evening - recorded in his personal diary.

It requires no commentary as it speaks for itself. Within Bostock's book, he states that he refers to his diary. There are ticks on every page of the diary indicating that he was examining the diary afterwards.

Draw your own conclusions from the data presented as to whether Bostock embellished his story or not.

Cheers

Bill

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Mates

Just one thing that needs to be said - the diaries and papers of Harry Bostock provide a valuable insight into the operations of the Light Horse during the Sinai and Palestine Campaign. As such they are treated with the respect they deserve. Harry Bostock left an invaluable record for posterity. However, before using any of his information, I do try to cross reference it with another witness. Without that independent substantiation I am quite loath to cite Bostock as a source. It is the invaluable pointers that gives Bostock his greatest value along with his personal comments.

So do not think I am critical of Bostock per se, just that I have found his book a tad bit unreliable in places.

But I could also the say the same for Idriess.

Cheers

Bill

[Geoff S]

I agree with you here Bill. The value of these types of books is that they add valuable insight. You cannot always take information in these books as gospel. TO do so would be foolish. But they provide details of the smaller minor stories or antidotes that add colour, if not always 100 accuracy to the stories they portray. Personally, I find these minor details of immense interest. (For example – The ‘probables’ vs. the ‘possibles’ used to describe a game between two opposing L.H units.) These facts are generally excluded from unit histories or official accounts, but are fantastic in their ability for the reader to relate to the people of the time...

The other factors I might take into account are that both authors wrote many years after the events they witnessed. Both these men were relatively junior in the military hierarchy. But, Bostock & Idriess are valuable for they add colour & subjectivity or perhaps the correct word is sentiment to the dry reports that are favoured by today’s history purists…

Thanks for sharing all the info on this subject with us…(interesting none the less)

Cheers

Geoff S

[stevenbecker]

Mates,

What I also found interesting is the safe keeping of these original sourses has allowed us to cross ref them to see that these books written so long ago had been updated by the authors during writing and are not the original documents/sourses we ask for.

The Original diary entry is gold, its a pity that the book can not be rewritten to show what the diaries show not what is written in the book.

Maybe thats an idea for a book or two which could be the original diaries of either Idriess and Bostock.

Then we can cross Ref them to see the way they were written. Its not the first time this has been done.

Cheers

S.B

[Geoff S]

Hi Steve,

I know what you mean, but I think we must allow the author the courtesy of telling his story the way he wanted it portrayed.

I read quite a lot of these ‘type’ books and I don’t bother stopping to critique every error- even if I am sure it is plain wrong… I don’t even bother to note them in the text. The reason I cannot be bothered cross- referencing every piece of individual fact is because I accept that the author wrote HIS story- and it may contain factual errors.. Many comments and diary entries of both authors would contain bias or prejudice, of people or events.

I acknowledge the authors may have lied or distorted the truth.

But these ‘type’ of books were never written as official or unit histories. And I bet the authors never expected to have them laboriously checked for each and every fact. Perhaps they could never imagined that the military of records would one day be so accessible. They are telling a story- based around facts they wanted told.

I am currently reading ‘Duntroon to the Dardanelles’ at the moment. It is the story of W.H Dawkins a Duntroon man killed at Anzac. I acknowledge that it is based on his diaries, but I cannot be bothered noting every incorrect detail…as I am interested in the smaller pieces of the puzzle. It is with this combined information from all the books I have read that provides me with the greatest insight into the events these men witnessed.

Cheers

Geoff S

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Geoff

As a rule, I agree with your comments.

As an exception to the rule, however, I examine the claim when it is cited as "real" history. My Idriess thoughts came when on another web site in America dealt with all things cavalry and cited the Idriess account of Beersheba as fact. Before then I had never given it a second thought. Since I was dealing with the subject of Beersheba - something I am in the middle of doing as we speak - then it became relevant. If the description was accurate, I would have liked to use a portion of it. That is the romantic in me. The historian in me said: "Where was this guy meant to be - the 5th were north of the action with a hill in the way - how could he have seen it?" Then after finding the entry in his hand written diary, the truth became glaring - it was not fact but fiction.

So we get to Bostock. I had just commencd work on putting together a chapter on the 9th which included June. On the death of every man in the unit, I like to check up on it to see if there is a story to tell. When I opened up Ridgway's [strangely enough, the great uncle of a squeeze many years ago - history is filled with irony] file and there was the result of the Court of Enquiry. then I remembered Steve had made mention of this over at the ALHA Forum, traced the quote and then Jeff was kind enough to email me a scan of the relevant story. When I mentioned my findings to Jeff, he challenged me to find the original diary entry which I was finally able to do and promptly posted it. The reason for making the fuss has been spelt out above - the ALHA took Bostock as gospel in writing its historical pages.

I might add that outside of the diary Bostocks field note books contain a wealth of information which is pure gold for my work. One item is a list of mileages from point to point in this region. For him it was a time meter - 4 miles to the hour - so he could work out the time it would take from one point to another while he was on operations. For me it is a goldmine in terms of understanding proximity and the timing of a column march from point to point. This gives me a good idea as to the speed of a column and then also the ability to question the pace of a deployment. This usually reveals another story sitting somewhere in a Routine Order or a War Diary entry of another unit.

Cheers

Bill

[Geoff S]

Bill,

Don’t get me wrong- I don’t have a problem with what you are trying to do with these kind of books. I have enjoyed reading the evidence you shared with us on this site.

Anyone using these ‘type’ of books should take care, as they provide insights, but are accounts as witnessed by single participants. To analyse “real” history as you call it I would advise sticking closing with a number of official texts and unit histories.

If these later books support those event- well OK, but they are more useful in providing colour in the canvas, rather than the revealing the true picture itself.

The adaptations or distortions provide an interesting insight into thinking of the men of that generation.

For me – they also tell a story about those brave men that is worth recording.

Cheers

G

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Geoff

That's how I took your comments mate.

My use of the term "real" in history celebrates the fact that there is no such thing as "real" history, just different layers of accepted evidence. The layer that tends to be accepted is that which allows us to see that a multitude of disparate sources corroberate each other. In the end, we make a judgment call on the quality of evidence presented and then subjectively draft up our own take on it. An Idealist [speaking philosophically here] such as Descartes might suggest that this is the best we can do to have any grasp up reality. The main thing is not to have a whole bunch of people snapping at your ankles for simple cross referencing errors.

So these accounds, subjective as you correctly point out, add colour to the canvass of history which is missing from the official texts.

Cheers

Bill

[Geoff S]

Hi Bill,

And some people prefer the colours, rather than the picture itself. But you should not confuse the two…

I find these ‘subjective’ accounts particularly informative- but that’s just me. And I have developed an amazing thirst for them over the last few years. They provide tiny snippets of information that add so much to my understanding of events. Sometimes in a book you might find just a few new ones. And I cherish the fact that the author went to the trouble of recording the information.

The evidence contained in official texts is not without error as well mate - so I understand what you mean by the concept of layering of evidence- to find something likely to be the truth. I have read (not always cover to cover) these official texts as well, but they can be quite laborious for anyone other than the history purist.

Cheers

G

[Guest Bill Woerlee]

Geoff

I agree with you there. While it is nice to get the point to point plot as provided by the official histories the men they portray are mere carboard cutouts. They are there, they fill the space but they do not breath - it is only books like Bostock and Idriess that give life to these accounts.

Cheers

Bill