Dunn's, 'The War the Infantry Knew'

[Andrew Hesketh]

I am engrossed in this book. Absolutely brilliant. The sense of humour and little stories are fantastic. I'm only in the 1915 bit at the moment and I'm particularly enjoying the occasional reappearance of Murphy and his continual quest to impress the men with hand grenades that prove to be embarassingly lame. Anyway.....

There is constant reference to 'The Quail'. I can't quite figure out who he was and his role in the 2nd RWF. Could anyone enlighten me?

[John_Hartley]

You need Grumpy!

[Andrew Hesketh]

I do indeed, but it would not be fitting to summon the great man by name! However I think I've put enough ammo in the thread title to lure him like a moth to a candle......

[Muerrisch]

Yes. From my Duty Done.

An officer of the battalion had the nickname ‘Quail’. Why, one may never know. The index to TWTIK is unequivocal: ‘Quail See Thomas. Capt’ and there the matter might rest were it not for a marginal note in Dunn’s personal copy of Goodbye to all that. Dunn wrote against the reference to C Company Commander, Captain AL Samson these words: ‘The Quail’. So here is Dunn, for his own consumption, refuting the index of his own book, TWTIK. Authors do not always provide their own index; this is an arduous task and one can well imagine it being delegated to a specialist after the massive labour of writing and compiling TWTIK. Be that as it may, there exists this contradiction. Quail is either Thomas or he is Samson. Regulars both, they were in the unit from mobilisation until their deaths one day apart [25/26 September 1915] and they lie side by side in death, together with Childe-Freeman, in Cambrin Churchyard. There is more evidence for Samson as Quail than Thomas.

[Muerrisch]

and:

The case for Samson as Quail:

· shaving and cleanliness. Samson began the war as second Captain to Geiger, A Company and the latter complained gently of Samson being over clean. Stockwell, who succeeded to A Company, complained twice about Quail being an obsessive shaver and in context Quail is an officer in Stockwell’s company.

· indexation. There are seventeen index references to Samson. Nine, on examination, contain only the nickname Quail. There are four references to Thomas, none mention Quail.

· build. A reference to Quail describes him as ‘so fat’ after return from leave. A 1914 photograph of Thomas shows a thin-faced and slender officer.

· succession of Companies. By 6 March 1915 Quail is clearly OC C Company and in TWTIK page 121 Quail and Samson are used seemingly interchangeably. On the days of their deaths, Samson was OC C Company and Thomas was OC A.

· Dunn’s manuscript annotation in GTAT.

The case for Thomas as Quail:

· the index to TWTIK

· Thomas as expert horseman. We know he was a horseman and indeed was Transport Officer on mobilisation. Quail was appointed Riding Master to teach young officers, an obvious job for Thomas. However, the TWTIK page 111 where Quail carries out that function is indexed to Samson, not Thomas, thus weakening this argument. The argument is weakened further as Samson was a respected rider to hounds, subject of a Robert Graves poem to that effect.

· Thomas in C Company. Several later references place Quail in C Company, which was indeed Thomas’s original appointment. But all these references are under Samson in the index and in any case Thomas may well have moved to A Company by then.

Conclusion

One can never be certain, but the balance of evidence points to Samson as Quail. If this is so, Thomas outlived Quail by one day.

more I cannot say .......... I admire both men enormously .... Samson was so gallant in his death that Frank Richards commented on it.

[Andrew Hesketh]

Gotcha!

So there isn't a definite answer then? The index does say 'see Thomas, Capt.' but it didn't seem quite right. I'm glad I wasn't being too thick!

Thanks Grumpers for the very detailed answer, which will help my reading of the book. (However I didn't know 'The Quail' died )

[Muerrisch]

Samson died most gallantry, riddled with MG bullets and in such agony that he bit through his thumb to avoid calling out: the assumption is that he knew he was doomed and did not want any would-be rescuers to die attempting to bring him in.

You need to read OSND in tandem with TWITK and, although it is racy and inaccurate, Goodbye to All That by Graves, all of which cover the same ground re. Thomas and Samson.

[AndyHollinger]

I am SERIOUSLY impressed!

[Muerrisch]

By Samson? You should be!

[Andrew Hesketh]

You need to read OSND in tandem with TWITK and, although it is racy and inaccurate, Goodbye to All That by Graves, all of which cover the same ground re. Thomas and Samson.

Yes, I think that's a good idea. I've read Graves but not OSND. Mind you, based on your posts above, I think the best way to read the book is to have a constant commentary from you! Fancy that?

I've got past the Battle of Loos now and read the brief reference to Samson's death. Thanks for adding additional details. A very, very brave man.

I have noted a distinct change in tone after Loos. The book has suddenly become darker and blatantly critical of senior command - even effectively accusing GHQ of misleading the public over what happened.

I shall read on with great enthusiasm.

Thanks again Richard.

[Muerrisch]

The tone changes from the moment Dunn arrives, Nov 1915 .......... all the material before then is from contributions by others, with Dunn more or less diffidently bringing it together.

I hesitate to plug OSND, but, if you buy it, do not buy the paperback, which, although cheap, is bereft of illustrations, maps, appendices by me and an important index of individuals. Both Tom Morgan and I stock the de luxe edition, which received excellent reviews. OSND is a treat, once read, never forgotten.

[Andrew Hesketh]

Thank you once again for the enlightenment.

Clearly OSND is the next book I should read. I don't regard your comments as a plug, merely a helpful suggestion.

Cheers.