Douglas Haig - Architect of victory

[George Armstrong Custer]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Feb 25 2008, 12:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It was Terraine`s quote that suggested that "educated" in his sense didn`t mean formal academic education. And indeed, Haig was not academically educated. Merely attending a school and university without gaining qualifications doesn`t constitute academic education. Not enough to qualify for Staff College? I consider myself reasonably WW1 read, and I understood Terraine to mean educated in the normal sense when I first looked at the title. And being more educated, either formally or militarily, than the average officer in those days doesn`t seem to merit excessive recognition.

I don`t wish to get embroiled in one of those H debates. Haig`s lack of formal qualifications says little or nothing about his capacity as a commander. I`m simply suggesting that Terraine`s title may have been misleading. You weren`t misled? Fine.

I don't think any of us want to 'get embroiled in one of those H debates,' Phil. Nor do I think the discussion which has arisen here over the meaning of Terraine's title and the extent to which Haig was an educated soldier in both the academic and military senses of the word lends itself to such a description. I do think though that your last post merits a response on two counts - regarding both your personal interpretation of Terraine's title and your statement that "...indeed Haig was not academically educated."

To take Terraine's 'The Educated Soldier' subtitle first. You say "I understood Terraine to mean educated in the normal sense when I first looked at the title." You then reference Crunchy's quote from Terraine's book which clarifies what Terraine actually meant by his subtitle, suggesting that you haven't actually read the book yourself - as otherwise, of course, you couldn't fail to have understood Terraine's point. For in addition to Crunchy's quoted extract, Terraine also states:

"Above all, thoughtful; Douglas Haig was, during his period of high command, the Army's most 'educated soldier.' source: Terraine, Douglas Haig :The Educated Soldier p. xviii of the first edition.

And again:

"But Henderson was not a bad judge of military intellect, and he had observed the quality in Haig which is best summed up in the words of Charteris: 'From the Staff College he carried away with him a belief in the 'educated soldier', which never afterwards faltered.' source: Ibid. p. 12.

So I cannot see that anyone who actually picked up Terraine's book and read it could possibly be misled by the meaning of his title. In fact I'd argue that evidence for this attitude on Haig's part goes back even further than the Staff College, to the days when he was cramming for the entrance exam for Sandhurst:

"One of his fellow pupils at Litchfield's recalled Haig as a serious student: 'We were the usual careless lot of youngsters but Haig did not join freely in our frivolities. He plodded on steadily with his own work. That he had made up his mind to a serious career in the Army is proven by the following incident. We were playing Roulette [sic] in my bedroom when Haig came in. We at once tried to make him play too. He refused, saying abruptly, "It's all very well for you fellows, you are going into the Army to play at soldiering. I am going into it as a profession. source: Quoted in Meade, The Good Soldier, pp. 48-9.

This sense of vocation before he had even entered Sandhurst leads us neatly back to Haig's academic record. He failed to take his BA degree purely on a residential technicality - he had been absent due to illness. The option was entirely open to him to have returned to Oxford for a final term in order to fulfil this continuous residential requirement and collect his degree. However, by that point Haig had decided on the course he wanted to follow - that of a professional army officer. Had he returned to Oxford to fulfil the residence qualification for his degree he would have been too old to sit the entrance exam for Sandhurst the following year. Haig chose the army over formal recognition of his academic achievement. The corroborative evidence that Haig did not collect his BA purely on a residential technicality is as follows:

"On Haig's death, the Brasenose College Principal gave an address in the college chapel, in which he said: " He [Haig] missed the Summer Term of 1881 owing to an illness which (as he told me) we should now call influenza [....] He passed all the examinations for the BA degree, but was never fully qualified by residence." source: Meade, op. cit. p. 416, n. 42.

However:

"Although he left Oxford without a degree, his name was reinstated on the College books in 1908, when BNC revived for him and two others the status of Gentleman Commoner, an eighteenth-century category, and he was elected an Honourary Fellow by BNC in 1915." source: Ibid. n. 43.

It is therefore untenable, Phil, to state that 'Haig was not academically educated.' As to your suggestion that he was not qualified for Staff College, the record again speaks for itself - and also reveals the anomalous origins of the myth that he was not up to Staff College entry. The Staff College entry exams for 1893 took place over the week of 29 May to 7 June, during the course of which the candidates were required to write two three-hour papers each day:

"Haig did well in most of the compulsory papers: military topography 86.6 per cent; tactics 80 per cent; fortification 72 per cent; French 70.4 per cent. But in maths he scored just 45.5 per cent, 18 marks below a pass. He also passed his optional papers - military law 60.5 per cent, German 57 per cent, military history and geography 52.25 per cent. His aggregate total was 2,642 marks, against a minimum pass requirement of 1,600 marks, placing him twenty-seventh out of sixty-seven candidates. He thus found himself in an anomalous position; there were positions for twenty-eight new entrants to the College, and on that basis he should immediately have been invited to join. But his maths result meant that, according to the rules, he had failed." source: Meade, op. cit. pp. 66-67.

However, there was more to Haig's failure in the maths element of the entrance exam than met the eye:

"This apparent disaster with the maths paper has been put into context by John Hussey, who has pointed out that Haig was one of twenty-one of the 1893 candidates who failed, an astonishingly high failure rate of 31 per cent, a rate so abnormally high - the previous years' maths failure averaged 10 per cent annually - that the Director General of Military Education gave special consideration to it in his published report on the examination results; the matter was even raised in the House of Commons. What seems to have happened is that the 1893 maths papers were set and examined by a new examiner, the previous having died - and the students of 1893, who had been encouraged to cram according to one type of maths paper, were wrong-footed. Hussey invited a Cambridge maths don to compare the 1893 maths exam with previous years; it was discovered that the 1893 paper was 'much harder' than previous years and that 'even strong candidates would be unable to do much of this paper if presented with it without warning. The weaker candidates might well not be able to do anything at all.' " source: Ibid. pp. 67-68.

In 1895, having overcome the disappointment of 1893 and worked to establish a reputation for professionalism, Haig's Staff College tests were reconsidered. He was nominated, along with nine others, to report to Camberley in the Staff College intake of January 1896 - and as Gary Meade says, 'ultimately in this instance justice was done.' source: Ibid. p. 74.

I think the above sets the record straight as far as calumnies regarding Haig being "academically uneducated" or militarily a 'self-educated' soldier. Wouldn't want anyone to be misled!

ciao,

GAC

[PhilB]

To take Terraine's 'The Educated Soldier' subtitle first. You say "I understood Terraine to mean educated in the normal sense when I first looked at the title." You then reference Crunchy's quote from Terraine's book which clarifies what Terraine actuallymeant by his subtitle, suggesting that you haven't actually read the book yourself - as otherwise, of course, you couldn't fail to have understood Terraine's point.

I have indeed read the book but, I have to admit, I hadn`t read it when I first saw the title. Most people haven`t!

And I don`t think it`s a subtitle - the title is "Douglas Haig, the Educated Soldier" I believe. There`s little point in us arguing as to whether he was educated in the academic sense or not. It`s obviously a matter of opinion. And not a major factor in the making of a CinC. It`s interesting that French, in contrast to his cavalry contemporaries, was also a great military reader and student and this may have been a factor in facilitating the fruitful relationship between him and Haig.

[George Armstrong Custer]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Feb 25 2008, 04:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have indeed read the book but, I have to admit, I hadn`t read it when I first saw the title. Most people haven`t!

Exactly - only those interested enough in the subject would pick it up or - more germane to your own point - give a toss one way or the other what Terraine meant by 'educated.'

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Feb 25 2008, 04:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There`s little point in us arguing as to whether he was educated in the academic sense or not. It`s obviously a matter of opinion. And not a major factor in the making of a CinC.

Well, given that the Principal of BNC confirmed that Haig had passed all his exams for the degree of BA, I can't see how you could argue that he wasn't academically educated! I mean, what supporting evidence would you put forward to support such a contrary opinion? As to whether having or not having an academic education is 'not a major factor in the making of a C-in-C' as you assert, I'd reiterate Tom's earlier point about a university education being more than a degree certificate: such an education teaches the methodology of a rational ordered approach to problem solving. This, not the gung-ho lead-from-the-front intuition of a Murat, is what was required of the C-in-C of the BEF from 1915-18. The requirements of Haig's position as C-in-C had more in common with the steady management skills of a modern, university trained, CEO of a multinational industrial conglomerate.

ciao,

GAC

[PhilB]

I don`t know enough about his university attainments to comment. I am under the impression, though, that to qualify for a basic degree at Oxbridge in those days was not difficult. It still wasn`t many years after! However, I think this particular point has been chewed enough!

[George Armstrong Custer]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Feb 25 2008, 05:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don`t know enough about his university attainments to comment.

So why state that he was 'academically uneducated?' You apparently reject the evidence of the Principal of Haig's College as to his having passed his BA exams, at the same time as you admit you don't know enough about his university attainments to comment. There's far too much unsubstantiated opinion regurgitated regarding Haig. Opposing points of view are fine - but to merit any credibility they need to be referenced to something of substance rather than being simple hearsay or personal prejudice (not that I'm suggesting that you are personally prejudiced against Haig, of course! ).

ciao,

GAC

[salesie]

Seeing as finishing University is almost certainly the start of any graduate's "real" education, I should imagine anyone other than an academic would find a debate about what is meant by "Educated Soldier" highly amusing. And, seeing as Haig himself was not an academic but a doer, I would like to believe that he would laugh loudest of all at such carryings on.

Cheers-salesie.

[PhilB]

So why state that he was 'academically uneducated?' You apparently reject the evidence of the Principal of Haig's College as to his having passed his BA exams, at the same time as you admit you don't know enough about his university attainments to comment.

I didn`t say he was academically uneducated - just that there`s not sufficient evidence of academic attainment to merit the appelation of "educated", which suggests high academic merit. I don`t reject the Principal`s evidence at all. I merely point out that the standards for an ordinary BA in those days were not high. It was generally believed, in fact, that it was more difficult not to get a degree than to get one! Haig may have been wonderfully gifted - there`s just no real evidence that he was. The Haigists take this as evidence that he was. I`m not so sure. Do you know what exams he took at Oxford and what grades he got? Further discussion is pointless if you don`t. I`m happy to leave it there. Unproven. Shall we agree to differ?

[George Armstrong Custer]

Seeing as finishing University is almost certainly the start of any graduate's "real" education, I should imagine anyone other than an academic would find a debate about what is meant by "Educated Soldier" highly amusing. And, seeing as Haig himself was not an academic but a doer, I would like to believe that he would laugh loudest of all at such carryings on.

Cheers-salesie.

It hardly requires your pointing out that Haig was not an academic per se, of course; but he was certainly not 'academically uneducated' as was asserted here. Your point about finishing university being the start of a graduate's 'real' education requires clarification. Are you referring to those who go on to post-graduate academia, or are you referring to those for whom the end of university marks the start of learning the lessons of everyday life? If the former, it has no application to Haig's case. In the latter case, yes, of course going through Sandhurst to commissioning marked a new learning experience for Haig - the very learning curve which Terraine identified in his title 'the educated soldier.' And it was surely his applying of the techniques of reasoning for himself learned during the academic phase of his education to the military phase that led Terraine - and contemporaries such as Charteris - to regard Haig in that light. As biographers of Haig's military achievement and personal life such Terraine, Meade, Reid and others emphasise, Haig was a military thinker and administrator - a role he was was specifically trained for as a Staff college graduate. I don't think his contemporaries, such as Charteris - quoted in my earlier post - would join your hypothetical laughter at Haig being described as an educated soldier.

ciao,

GAC

[George Armstrong Custer]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Feb 25 2008, 06:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I didn`t say he was academically uneducated - just that there`s not sufficient evidence of academic attainment to merit the appelation of "educated", which suggests high academic merit. I don`t reject the Principal`s evidence at all. I merely point out that the standards for an ordinary BA in those days were not high. It was generally believed, in fact, that it was more difficult not to get a degree than to get one! Haig may have been wonderfully gifted - there`s just no real evidence that he was. The Haigists take this as evidence that he was. I`m not so sure. Shall we agree to differ?

Er, yes you did - in post #50:

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Feb 25 2008, 12:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And indeed, Haig was not academically educated. Merely attending a school and university without gaining qualifications doesn`t constitute academic education.

If passing the exams for a BA - which you now say you don't dispute - doesn't constitute an 'academic education' I don't know what does. Your suggestion that attaining a degree in 1881 was easier than the equivalent today is surely irrelevant - he was as academically educated by the standards of the day as he could be for a man set on a military career.

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Feb 25 2008, 06:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you know what exams he took at Oxford and what grades he got? Further discussion is pointless if you don`t. I`m happy to leave it there. Unproven.

As to finding out Haig's subjects and exam results at Oxford - to what end? He passed - QED. In any case, if you want to make something out of that data, then you check it out. I've referenced sources sufficient to underpin my case that your statement that he was academically uneducated is nonsense - whilst you've come up with nothing but unsubstantiated opinion and conjecture so far. Further discussion is pointless if you don't reciprocate with some substantive material. And if, as I suspect you'll say, you can't be bothered to do even the most cursory secondary research to back them up, then why make such statements? (No hard feelings Phil, but given the current bibliography there really is no excuse for such unsubstantiated drivel about Haig any more).

ciao,

GAC

[salesie]

GAC, finishing university means just that - a degree, or a master's, or a PhD, may or may not assist anyone in their chosen career. A graduate’s level of achievement post-university would depend on himself or herself (just as the level they achieved at university would) - any academic qualification does not guarantee success in any shape or form in any field (even staying in the "ivory towers" still needs at least a smattering of application).

Also, perhaps a re-reading of my post is in order. You see, I'm not laughing at Haig being described as the "Educated Soldier", he obviously was well-educated in his chosen profession, I'm laughing at those who debate what this phrase actually means. On one hand, there are those who bust-a-gut to show he did in practice obtain a degree and only failed to receive a scroll because of illness, and on the other "side" of the debate there are those who see the lack of actually being awarded a degree as a detriment.

That's the funny bit; in my opinion both sides are as bad as each other i.e. both "sides" place the attainment of a degree as being paramount to what Haig did a few decades later. Whether academically stupid or clever he did what he did because he was Haig, because he was a doer not an academic, because by the time 1914-18 came around he'd almost certainly learnt more than he ever did at university, and if he hadn't then he truly was a donkey.

Cheers-salesie.

[George Armstrong Custer]

GAC, finishing university means just that - a degree, or a master's, or a PhD, may or may not assist anyone in their chosen career. A graduate’s level of achievement post-university would depend on himself or herself (just as the level they achieved at university would) - any academic qualification does not guarantee success in any shape or form in any field (even staying in the "ivory towers" still needs at least a smattering of application).

Also, perhaps a re-reading of my post is in order. You see, I'm not laughing at Haig being described as the "Educated Soldier", he obviously was well-educated in his chosen profession, I'm laughing at those who debate what this phrase actually means. On one hand, there are those who bust-a-gut to show he did in practice obtain a degree and only failed to receive a scroll because of illness, and on the other "side" of the debate there are those who see the lack of actually being awarded a degree as a detriment.

That's the funny bit; in my opinion both sides are as bad as each other i.e. both "sides" place the attainment of a degree as being paramount to what Haig did a few decades later. Whether academically stupid or clever he did what he did because he was Haig, because he was a doer not an academic, because by the time 1914-18 came around he'd almost certainly learnt more than he ever did at university, and if he hadn't then he truly was a donkey.

Cheers-salesie.

Whilst I can certainly agree that the acquisition of a degree - (something which, along with cliched references to academics in ivory towers, I get the impression you have a downer on) - may not directly enhance a chosen career, I do feel you're missing the point of what practical benefits do accrue from undertaking a university degree. These include the honing of analytical skills - the sifting of the essential from the non-essential - and an organised methodological approach to practical problems. Such skills are self evidently of practical application to the soldier's trade. Haig's pre-war monographs on military theory have been mentioned before on this thread - in that sense Haig was a thinker as much as a doer - you seem to be suggesting that he cannot be both. In fact his talent was to organise and administer his ideas to fruition. I suggest you might like to re-read the previous posts - no-one 'busts a gut' to prove that Haig passed the exams for his BA - that information is readily accessible. I used that information to refute the untenable suggestion that Haig was 'academically uneducated' - and you seem to have entirely missed my point that the academic education was a foundational part of what Haig trained for and achieved via Staff College when he reached the highest echelons of command. I have certainly not implied that the achievement of a degree was 'paramount' to what Haig did later - his academic education was, of course, an integral part of the whole man and how he evolved.

Anyone who thinks Haig took away from Oxford nothing of application to his future career is mistaken. Robert Dunlop has already on this thread justifiably cited Haig's 'Cavalry Studies' as "an extremely interesting and erudite book." That erudition didn't come from nowhere. In a speech to his old college in 1927, Haig recalled how, like many an undergraduate - then and now - he often had other things on his mind apart from his course work. Haig went on to recount how he would attend tutorials given by Walter Pater - a leading figure in the Aesthetic Movement - at which Haig would be wearing his riding breeches and boots concealed under a pair of trousers in anticipation of getting quickly away to sport after the tutorial. As Haig recalled in 1927: "I used simply to long for the hour to pass." Yet he also recalled what Pater imparted to him of life-long value at these tutorials: "But as I had not much to do for my first two years, before Mods, he told me what to read, Thackery, Dickens &c., and now I know that I have to thank him for showing me what good English prose is."* Thus the erudite Cavalry manual written by the educated soldier Haig would not have been so erudite if not for the academic education which preceded it and which you so readily dismiss.

Saying that you find it 'highly amusing' to read my making the points that Haig was not 'academically uneducated' and that his academic education was one of the building blocks of the man he became does not alter these facts. Like Phil you've yet to come up with any substantive evidence to support your views, which frankly seem in your case more rooted in your apparent low opinion of the value of a university education than any applicability to Haig.

*source: Haig's speech at Brasenose College, 16 December 1927, quoted in Meade, op. cit. p.37.

ciao,

GAC

[salesie]

I won't get into a pedantic debate with you, GAC, nor will I play semantics - that would be as pointless as debating whether a degree makes Haig an "Educated Soldier" or not. But I will clear up some of your misconceptions.

I do not have a "downer" on academics, nor do I have a low opinion of the value of a university education - but I do have a low opinion of those who over-blow the importance of academic achievement when young. Especially ones who believe that being given encouragement to read certain authors, and thus acquire an understanding of good English prose, is "evidence" of a significant influence of a university education on an ex-student in successfully fighting a war several decades later (despite the student's admitted preference for sport over academia at the time). Though, I can well see how this influence would assist Haig in writing his cavalry manual, diaries and despatches.

Also, I should imagine the German and French High Commands had the "benefit" of a higher education too - but, in my opinion, Haig was a better commander than them all (except perhaps for Foch?). Is this because Haig was better educated academically than the others at university - and/or because he found pleasure in reading Thackery and Dickens? I think not, for that would be a ludicrous suggestion.

I repeat: Whether academically stupid or clever he did what he did because he was Haig, because he was a doer not an academic, because by the time 1914-18 came around he'd almost certainly learnt more than he ever did at university, and if he hadn't then he truly was a donkey. (By the way, I do realise that you have to be a thinker, GAC, or you can't do - but do you realise that not all thinkers are doers?)

Cheers-salesie.

[PhilB]

Er, yes you did - in post #50:

As to finding out Haig's subjects and exam results at Oxford - to what end? He passed - QED.

No, I didn`t. I haven`t used the word "uneducated". Uneducated means not having any education. Educated, in this context, means particularly well educated. Which he wasn`t.

The exam results are crucial. At that time one could qualify for a pass degree at Oxford with very low marks. So to say "He passed. QED" is forming a conclusion that, to my mind, the facts don`t support. Unless you have his exam grades? Or unless you`re easily convinced! But please, let`s leave it there, eh? It`s getting nowhere.

[SiegeGunner]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Feb 26 2008, 09:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The exam results are crucial. At that time one could qualify for a pass degree at Oxford with very low marks.

I fail to understand why the exam results are crucial, when the point at issue is that the vast majority of military men at that time did not go to university at all. I am also sensing a perception that seems to equate university education with vocational training.

[George Armstrong Custer]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Feb 26 2008, 09:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, I didn`t. I haven`t used the word "uneducated". Uneducated means not having any education. Educated, in this context, means particularly well educated. Which he wasn`t.

The exam results are crucial. At that time one could qualify for a pass degree at Oxford with very low marks. So to say "He passed. QED" is forming a conclusion that, to my mind, the facts don`t support. Unless you have his exam grades? Or unless you`re easily convinced! But please, let`s leave it there, eh? It`s getting nowhere.

OK Phil - you're taking the usual route of those who can't or won't find supporting evidence for their assertions: hair-splitting over semantics rather than providing supporting evidence. You said Haig was 'not academically educated' rather than 'academically uneducated' - care to spell out the difference? The point I have demonstrated - with supporting evidence - is that Haig did a three year BA at Oxford for which he passed the exams. In the face of that evidence you continue to hold to your view that Haig can realistically be called 'not academically educated'. As I've already said, if you think there's an issue you can make of Haig's actual grades which will make your assertion that Haig was 'not academically educated' credible, then you do the research and come back and make your case. It's difficult to see, though, what difference Haig's grades make to the fact that he completed a three year degree course and passed the exams - whatever the grades, the fact remains that he was academically educated - particularly so for an army entrant of the day. It's also been pointed out several times here that what a student takes away from university is much more than the exam marks and a degree - it's a whole set of skills which can be applied to life after university. You seem to be interested enough in Haig to make opinionated comments on numerous threads pertaining to him - but you never seem to feel the need to back these opinions with any references - but whilst that technique may allow you to duck and dive when confronted with evidence to the contrary, it doesn't lend your arguments any credibility. So maybe now's a good time for you to start by coming back to us with Haig's "crucial" exam grades and arguing your case from there.

As to your suggestion of 'leaving it there......it's getting nowhere', I can see why that might appeal to you at this point. You've come out with an absolutely unsustainable position asserting that three years at Oxford and passing the BA exams of the day makes Haig 'not academically educated.' Rather than stopping digging when you're in a hole, you now state that "Educated, in this context, means particularly well educated. Which he wasn't." Care to elaborate on that - and more importantly, supply us with the sources upon which you base that statement of 'fact'? You may wish to drop it rather than come up with the goods, but personally I'm tired of people coming on with opinionated hearsay based on their undertanding of a long discredited 'donkeys' school of Haig historiography, and thinking they don't need to underpin their 'assertions' with any evidence. As I've already said, having a different take on Haig is not a problem - but to be credible it needs to be based upon verifiable sources. Everything you've said so far flies in the face of the evidence I've presented - and, frankly, in the face of common sense, though you won't admit it.

ciao,

GAC

[Max]

You may wish to drop it rather than come up with the goods, but personally I'm tired of people coming on with opinionated hearsay based on their undertanding of a long discredited 'donkeys' school of Haig historiography, and thinking they don't need to underpin their 'assertions' with any evidence.

Yet another bullying, badgering, polemic....you're tired of it, so am I.

[truthergw]

Perhaps you would like to make a contribution to the discussion , Max? What are your views on whether Haig was educated or uneducated?

[George Armstrong Custer]

I won't get into a pedantic debate with you, GAC, nor will I play semantics - that would be as pointless as debating whether a degree makes Haig an "Educated Soldier" or not. But I will clear up some of your misconceptions.

I do not have a "downer" on academics, nor do I have a low opinion of the value of a university education - but I do have a low opinion of those who over-blow the importance of academic achievement when young. Especially ones who believe that being given encouragement to read certain authors, and thus acquire an understanding of good English prose, is "evidence" of a significant influence of a university education on an ex-student in successfully fighting a war several decades later (despite the student's admitted preference for sport over academia at the time). Though, I can well see how this influence would assist Haig in writing his cavalry manual, diaries and despatches.

Also, I should imagine the German and French High Commands had the "benefit" of a higher education too - but, in my opinion, Haig was a better commander than them all (except perhaps for Foch?). Is this because Haig was better educated academically than the others at university - and/or because he found pleasure in reading Thackery and Dickens? I think not, for that would be a ludicrous suggestion.

I repeat: Whether academically stupid or clever he did what he did because he was Haig, because he was a doer not an academic, because by the time 1914-18 came around he'd almost certainly learnt more than he ever did at university, and if he hadn't then he truly was a donkey. (By the way, I do realise that you have to be a thinker, GAC, or you can't do - but do you realise that not all thinkers are doers?)

Cheers-salesie.

Right, Salesie, lets go through this jumble of distortions and half-truths bit by bit:

My last few posts have made the position, with supporting evidence, that Phil calling Haig "not academically educated" is a nonsense. I've gone on to set out my opinion, with supporting evidence, that the phase of Haig's academic education was one part of the man he was when he became C-in-C in 1915. There is no 'playing semantics' or splitting of hairs there - it's a straight forward case I've made with supporting references.

You say you don't have a downer on academics, nor a low opinion of a university education. Yet you sneer at academics who continue in academia as a profession as needing 'a smattering of application' in their 'ivory towers.' You'd earlier posted that "I should imagine anyone other than an academic would find a debate about what is meant by "Educated Soldier" highly amusing." Doesn't sound to ,me like you have a high opinion of academics, Salesie. Nor, from what you've said, of a university education. These are irrelevant to the subject at hand, but as they've come through so strongly in your posts, I cannot help but see your prejudices on these matters informing what you say in regard to Haig's academic education.

I earlier wrote that Haig himself attributed a command of good English prose to Oxford, and I concluded that this is reflected in his 'Cavalry Studies' and other military monographs which he penned. That is all I extraplolated from that. You agree with the point I made when you write: "I can well see how this influence would assist Haig in writing his cavalry manual, diaries and despatches." However your whole farrago of facetious nonsense about anyone believing "that being given encouragement to read certain authors, and thus acquire an understanding of good English prose, is "evidence" of a significant influence of a university education on an ex-student in successfully fighting a war several decades later" comes soley from your own imagination. In lieu of providing any references to support an opinion you hold, you continue the facetiousness with: "Is this because Haig was better educated academically than the others at university - and/or because he found pleasure in reading Thackery and Dickens? I think not, for that would be a ludicrous suggestion." Again, you are the only one to have mentioned such a ludicrous connection.

The only statement you can come up with is 'Haig did what he did because he was Haig." Well that's very enlightening, isn't it? All previous and future biographers could have saved themselves the trouble of researching the elements that formed Haig and come up with that simple statement which tells us nothing at all. I'm labouring this point because it's entirely symptomatic about a lot of what passes for debate about Haig on this forum - unresearched opinion regurgitated as fact by a vociferous minority from memories of the long discredited 'donkeys' school of Haig historiography. No references or supporting evidence is deemed necessary, unsubstantiated opinion on Haig is sufficent.

You repeat that Haig was not an academic but a 'doer'. But no-one's claimed Haig was an academic, simply that he was not "not academically educated", and that his academic education was a part of the whole man. Haig wasn't your simplistic 'doer'. All the evidence from those who knew him suggests that he was a thoughtful soldier who got things done - as Terraine put it, an 'Educated Soldier.' Haig recognised these traits in himself, and spelled it out in a conversation with his wartime chaplain, in which he once again traced one such trait back to his tutor Pater at Oxford:

"[T]here was one thing I did learn from Pater, and I have never forgotten it. He used to impress on us that, if we were to express our ideas fully and clearly in writing, we would need first of all to think out clearly what it was we wanted to say; then we would need to be equally careful to find the right words in which to say it, for it might well be that there was only one word, or one form of words, that would be quite right for the matter in hand. And he told us too that we would never acquire that except by long discipline and practice.....What a pity some of my army friends hadn't learned that lesson better! They issue an order one day; but it is so badly worded that they have to issue another next day to explain or correct it." source: Rev. G. S. Duncan Douglas Haig As I Knew Him, pp. 102-3.

Your insistence, Salesie, that Haig's academic education played no part in the kind of C-inC he became remains unsubstantiated personal opinion, which flies in the face of available evidence. SG has made the point a couple of posts ago that a university education seems to be being confused by some here with vocational training. That point is well made. Both myself and Tom have earlier noted that a university education is not all - nor even primarily in many cases - about the subjects studied, but rather the skills which the student acquires during the course of his university education. By his own account, some of the skills Haig learned stood him in good stead in his career through Staff College to his role as C-inC of the BEF. What he studied at Oxford, or what grades he got are irrelevant to the fact that he was academically educated - and that was the foundation upon which he developed himself through practical military service and Staff College as an Educated Soldier.

ciao,

GAC

[Max]

Perhaps you would like to make a contribution to the discussion , Max? What are your views on whether Haig was educated or uneducated?

Tom

I must admit to having very little knowledge of Haig as a man or as a commander and follow threads such as this in the hope of being educated. Generally I am not disappointed, but occasionally threads descend into pedantry and point scoring that lowers the standard. Sometimes debaters fall into the habit of thinking that if an idea is repeated often enough it becomes fact , saying "long discredited 'donkeys' school of Haig historiography", time after time does not necessarily make it true. I haven't seen a completely compelling argument from either side to prove this statement one way or the other (on this or other threads).

In my case I think that what will colour my judgement of the man is not what he did as CiC BEF or whether he had a degree from Brasenose or Leeds Poly, but what he did or did not do as commander of I Corps.

I am still none the wiser, definitively, did Haig leave Brasenose in 1883 with a degree tucked under his arm, yes or no?

Andy

[salesie]

Well, Gac, you do a lot of explaining for someone so sure of their own position.

You are well aware of my position on this - that whether he had a degree or not is virtually irrelevant to what Haig achieved, and in my opinion, such an intense debate about nothing of real substance could only be carried out by academics, and as such is highly amusing. And I'll point out that much of your so-called "evidence" is selective, and largely based on what others say about Haig or what they say he said to them (apart from the priceless Thackery/Dickens bit, which seems to be from the horse's mouth so to speak) - do you have any original thoughts of your own, GAC, any notions at all without reaching for your bookshelf?

But I would ask you to stop being naughty with what I say i.e. you select "Haig did what he did because he was Haig" as being my only statement on the man - but we both know that's not true, don't we you naughty boy? Fit that bit in with the rest of the sentence and we get, "Whether academically stupid or clever he did what he did because he was Haig, because he was a doer not an academic, because by the time 1914-18 came around he'd almost certainly learnt more than he ever did at university, and if he hadn't then he truly was a donkey." Now, an academic like yourself, with your highly developed analytical skills, should be able to see that the full sentence is relatively complex and has much more meaning than your crafty little bit of chopping would have us believe - oh you naughty boy.

However, I'm sure you'll come up with another overly long post to explain yourself still further - who am I to argue?

Cheers-salesie.

[George Armstrong Custer]

Well, Gac, you do a lot of explaining for someone so sure of their own position.

You are well aware of my position on this - that whether he had a degree or not is virtually irrelevant to what Haig achieved, and in my opinion, such an intense debate about nothing of real substance could only be carried out by academics, and as such is highly amusing. And I'll point out that much of your so-called "evidence" is selective, and largely based on what others say about Haig or what they say he said to them (apart from the priceless Thackery/Dickens bit, which seems to be from the horse's mouth so to speak) - do you have any original thoughts of your own, GAC, any notions at all without reaching for your bookshelf?

But I would ask you to stop being naughty with what I say i.e. you select "Haig did what he did because he was Haig" as being my only statement on the man - but we both know that's not true, don't we you naughty boy? Fit that bit in with the rest of the sentence and we get, "Whether academically stupid or clever he did what he did because he was Haig, because he was a doer not an academic, because by the time 1914-18 came around he'd almost certainly learnt more than he ever did at university, and if he hadn't then he truly was a donkey." Now, an academic like yourself, with your highly developed analytical skills, should be able to see that the full sentence is relatively complex and has much more meaning than your crafty little bit of chopping would have us believe - oh you naughty boy.

However, I'm sure you'll come up with another overly long post to explain yourself still further - who am I to argue?

Cheers-salesie.

What do you base your opinions on Haig on, Salesie? Opinions, for instance, like the one you highlight in bold, that it's irrelevant whether Haig was academically stupid or clever when we are trying to assess his actions? Irrelevant whether he was academically stupid? Well I'll have a laugh with you on that one at least! You now criticise my evidence used in support of my case, but you've provided zilch in the way of evidential references in support of your own assertions.

ciao,

GAC

[truthergw]

Tom

..............

I am still none the wiser, definitively, did Haig leave Brasenose in 1883 with a degree tucked under his arm, yes or no?

Andy

Haig was not awarded a degree as he fell short of the residential requirements. He would have had to spend the best part of a term in residence to reach the required number of days. He had passed the exams. He was already older than the average age of a new entrant to Royal Military College and decided that to lose yet another year before joining was not justifiable. From there, he graduated first in order of merit. All that from " Haig. The Evolution of a Commander", A.A. Wiest.

[George Armstrong Custer]

That confirms, from another source, the information already quoted in post #51, Tom. Hopefully that will now lay that one to rest.

Regards,

George

[Matt Dixon]

Pals,

Sort it out, and stop using this thread as a cheap exercise in scoring points off eachother. Anymore personal remarks and what has been an excellent thread will be binned.

[Max]

Haig was not awarded a degree as he fell short of the residential requirements.

Thank you Tom