Johnny: the legend and tragedy of General Sir Ian Hamilton

[Chris_Baker]

Johnny: the legend and tragedy of General Sir Ian Hamilton

by John Philip Jones

published by Pen & Sword Military, 2012 according to the book but I suspect 2013 in reality

ISBN 978 1 84884 788 0

cover price – £25.00

Hardback, 251pp including notes. Index. Illustrated.

Whenever I review a book I usually first turn to the notes and bibliography to begin gathering an understanding of the research work that has been carried out by the author. Has he done the hard yards and really got inside the story? I was intrigued to find that John Philip Jones barely quotes any instance of primary source material. There are next to no War Office files; no war diaries or official reports; no letters; no private or unpublished memoirs; certainly nothing from Hamilton's family. In the crucial chapter about Gallipoli, just one note of 56 points to a primary document (and that is a copy of a telegram held in a file of the General Officer Commanding, Cairo). All other quotes and notes are from published work: official histories, memoirs and autobiographies in the main. Not a convincing start to indicate deep mining and potential revelations.

The "legend and tragedy" is about nothing if it is not about Gallipoli. Let's take a look at the chapter about it. This is 36 pages long of which the last three are a list of notes. The first 12 pages describe the genesis of the campaign and decisions taken, before Hamilton is mentioned. In other words, the crux of the matter comes down to those remaining 21 pages. The author concludes that Gallipoli failed partly as the size of the force initially deployed was too small (and that Hamilton did not do enough to argue the case); that they were landed before the force was ready and in the most obvious place; that Hamilton's tactical skill did not compensate for his lack of strategic feel; that he was essentially of low energy and did not move quickly enough to change his subordinates when they failed. Surprisingly the author also believes that the firepower lessons of the Russo-Japanese war had passed Hamilton by. Historians and others knowledgeable and interested in the Gallipoli campaign may, I am sure, take issue with much of this.

As a biography the book adequately covers the basics of Hamilton's life (it is certainly good to see his post-Gallipoli work discussed) but we gain little insight into the man as a human being. A man's actions are defined by much more than his professional experience. His likes, fears, emotions, family background, politics and human relationships are all important parts. Of these, we learn little from "Johnny".

I would recommend readers seek of a copy of John Lee's work "A soldier's life: General Sir Ian Hamilton 1853-1947" for a well-researched biography of Hamilton that does bring out the human side of the man and how it affected his profession life. For the strategic and operational background to Gallipoli there are a number of excellent modern works, of which Chris Roberts "The landing at Anzac" stands out as a model of how the use of primary sources, reviewed objectively, can greatly develop our understanding of the campaign.

[David Filsell]

Whenever I review a book I usually first turn to the notes and bibliography to begin gathering an understanding of the research work that has been carried out by the author. Has he done the hard yards and really got inside the story? I was intrigued to find that John Philip Jones barely quotes any instance of primary source material. There are next to no War Office files; no war diaries or official reports; no letters; no private or unpublished memoirs; certainly nothing from Hamilton's family. In the crucial chapter about Gallipoli, just one note of 56 points to a primary document (and that is a copy of a telegram held in a file of the General Officer Commanding, Cairo). All other quotes and notes are from published work: official histories, memoirs and autobiographies in the main. Not a convincing start to indicate deep mining and potential revelations.

Bang on Chris. Your paragraph should be graven on the heart of anyone attempting serious historical writing. Its amazing how much of this kind of stuff is still published.

David

[bodie31]

I agree, a well-articulated critique of what sounds like the main problem with this book.

[Guest]

Whenever I review a book I usually first turn to the notes and bibliography to begin gathering an understanding of the research work that has been carried out by the author. Has he done the hard yards and really got inside the story? I was intrigued to find that John Philip Jones barely quotes any instance of primary source material. There are next to no War Office files; no war diaries or official reports; no letters; no private or unpublished memoirs; certainly nothing from Hamilton's family. In the crucial chapter about Gallipoli, just one note of 56 points to a primary document (and that is a copy of a telegram held in a file of the General Officer Commanding, Cairo). All other quotes and notes are from published work: official histories, memoirs and autobiographies in the main. Not a convincing start to indicate deep mining and potential revelations.

Bang on Chris. Your paragraph should be graven on the heart of anyone attempting serious historical writing. Its amazing how much of this kind of stuff is still published.

David

I couldn't agree more.

Chris, many thanks for this insightful review. MG.