Gallipoli: The Turkish Defence. Harvey Broadbent

[Crunchy]

Gallipoli:The Turkish Defence. The story from the Turkish documents. Harvey Broadbent. The Miegunyah Press, Melbourne, 2015. 534pp

For almost a century our knowledge of the Gallipoli campaign has largely been seen through English, Australian and New Zealand eyes. Mention of the Turkish defence of the peninsula has been limited to overviews of their initial defensive posture, responses to major allied actions, or their disastrous counter attacks at Helles on the night 1/2 May, and at Anzac on 19 May, but the detail is scarce. Ed Erickson’s Gallipoli: The Ottoman Campaign (2010) gave us the first real insight into the Turkish side of the campaign, providing considerably more detail than previously known. Now we have a second, in even deeper detail, to add to our knowledge of this ill-fated and bloody campaign.

Over the past decade or more Harvey Broadbent has been sifting the Turkish archives and accounts, and Gallipoli: The Turkish Defence is the result of his endeavours. In 500 pages he delivers a wealth of detail in the areas he covers, for despite the title Broadbent does not cover the entire campaign. His primary focus is the Anzac sector, and the Turkish defence during the August Offensive at Anzac and Suvla. Thus while two chapters (84 pages) are devoted to the 25th April at Anzac, one of 34 pages relates the severe fighting at Cape Helles on the same day. The rest of the campaign at Helles, where the main fighting occurred in May, June and early July is not addressed.

The sub - title The story from the Turkish documents provides the clue to the approach Broadbent has taken. Interwoven throughout a rich narrative he provides a trove of documents, photographs, maps, and accounts from the Turkish defenders at all levels of command, giving us the most detailed account yet written in English of the Turkish defence on the peninsula. To this is added appendices of almost 80 pages of primary source documents and short biographies of many of the Ottoman and German commanders. A host of good maps provide readers with a clear snapshot of the main actions, from which they can readily follow the narrative that, at times, is disrupted by extracts from the Turkish documents, and charts and lists of Ottoman units, orders of battle and dispositions. The book is a feast of information on the Ottomans at Gallipoli not previously seen in the English language.

In all this, Broadbent delivers a landmark contribution to our understanding of the campaign at Anzac and Suvla allowing readers and researchers alike to compare the British, Australian and New Zealand accounts with those their Turkish opponents. Thus we gain a more balanced view of what actually occurred, and Broadbent lays several myths to rest. He reinforces much of my own account of the first three days at Anzac (The Landing at Anzac, 1915) including the light Turkish opposition encountered, and that no Turkish machine guns greeted the Australians as they came ashore. Nor, from Broadbent’s research, were there any machine guns covering V and W beaches at Cape Helles, rather two greatly outnumbered Turkish rifle companies wrecked the havoc they did. In the concluding chapter we are presented with the Turkish view of the evacuation; a view which indicates that while the Turks suspected a limited withdrawal, they did not conclude a complete withdrawal was contemplated.

Above all, this book is a fine tribute to the gallant Ottoman soldiers who defended their homeland. Time and again their sheer sacrifice in attempting to drive the Anzacs back into the sea, and later against the British, Australians, New Zealanders and Indians in the bitter fighting of the August Offensive is something to be admired and remembered as much as we do the Allied sacrifice. Broadbent places a human face on the Ottoman foe, and reminds us that gallantry and sacrifice was not a one-sided event. In relating these actions, he reveals the strengths and weaknesses of the Ottoman command, and that the Turks were not averse to being critical of their own actions and mistakes.

There are, however, several minor errors throughout the book. Examples include: Turkish mountain guns were not 15cm, a heavy artillery calibre, but 7.5cm; Nordenfelt guns were not automatic machine-guns but hand levered volley guns; the map of the Anzac landing shows the 11th Battalion coming ashore either side of Anzac Cove, when they landed to the north; while the glossary of Turkish names gives takim as both a platoon and a squad, two quite different sized units - takim is a platoon, while the Turkish for squad is manga. To a soldier it is evident that Broadbent’s knowledge of military affairs and weapons is limited, and this is reflected in some of his observations and narrative.

Nonetheless, Gallipoli: The Turkish Defence is a worthy and valuable contribution to the historiography of the Gallipoli campaign, which brings a much needed Ottoman perspective that has not been seen before. Through this Turkish prism, it provides a more balanced picture of what has been up until now, an Anglo - Anzac view of Gallipoli. Broadbent should be congratulated for doing so, and anyone wishing to understand the campaign from the ‘other side of the wire’ should read this book.

[gilly100]

I look forward to getting this book even though I know I am going to be disappointed on the mg issue naturally enough. Harvey Broadbent appears to be in a class on his own with his long association with Turkish history.

Of course I will stick to my guns on the mg issue and hope that it is one day resolved but I won't labour the point here!

As far as Harvey's blue with the calibre of artillery pieces and the Nordenfeldt firing system goes, surely we can forgive that. After all, even a soldier who writes nowdays can get that sort of thing wrong.

Well done Harvey.

Ian

[michaeldr]

The term 'volley gun' is very useful and indeed it does accurately describes the form of fire produced by the Nordenfelt,

however it should not be forgotten that the additional words 'machine-gun' were also commonly applied to these weapons both before and after the Great War.

Perhaps Harvey Broadbent may be forgiven the use of the older form since it puts him in good company:

apparently Fisher used the expression 'machine-guns' for his Nordenfelts when reporting on his action at Alexandria in the Anglo-Egyptian War,

and in 1932 Vice Admiral Usborne also uses the phrase 'Nordenfeldt machine-guns' (see his Smoke on the Horizon)

regards

Michael

[Crunchy]

Thank you for you comments Michael. Absolutely agree they were called machine-guns at the time - also referred to as ‘pom-poms’. The point of my comment was they were not automatic machine guns. (BTW Harvey knew this, as we had discussed the difference). This review was actually written for the Australian Army Journal, hence it was directed at professional soldiers, who expect an honest appraisal and accuracy on the nature of the weaponry mentioned. A 15cm mountain gun, for example, conjures up a vision of a very heavy gun, when in fact they were light guns.

I would hope, however, people take note of the rest of the review, rather than focussing on the second last paragraph. I think I made it clear that this is a landmark piece of work, and a worthy and valuable contribution to the historiography of the Gallipoli campaign, which people should read. The story brings a much needed Ottoman perspective on the campaign, the amount of information it provides is excellent, and Harvey should be congratulated for producing it. While one member bridled that I raised examples of the errors, and there are several, I am sure most would accept the review as a strong endorsement of Harvey’s work.

By way of background, the research for this book was funded by very substantial grants from the Australian Research Council, the Australian War Memorial and Macquarie University. The writing was undertaken at Macquarie University, published by an arm of Melbourne University Press, and is intended as an academic work. In this day and age one would not expect obvious errors in a book with such a strong academic pedigree. Hence, I think it is reasonable to indicate not only the great strengths of this book, but also it weaknesses.

kind regards

Chris

[gilly100]

Not sure about 'bridled', merely pointing out that if an ex professional soldier can get a machine gun wrong that no one seemed overly willing to critique, then an esteemed historian of Turkish history can make a blue as well. Am sure that can be conceded. The review of Harvey's book only adds to my desire to read it, despite believing the mg issue is still yet solved. Still happy to dwell in the minority. History is fluid.

Cheers

Ian

[michaeldr]

Chris

I would hope, however, people take note of the rest of the review

I support that 100%.

In the face of a veritable famine of information in English describing the Ottoman side of the line, then certainly this work is very much to be welcomed and I hope, as widely read as possible.

Without wishing to detract further from this review thread, I nevertheless feel I must clarify one point: they were called machine-guns at the time - also referred to as ‘pom-poms’

If indeed they were also referred to as Pom-poms, then that was definitely in error, for they are two quite different beasts.

For examples of the Nordenfelt machine-gun see http://www.victorianshipmodels.com/antitorpedoboatguns/Nordenfelt/index.html

for an example of the Pom-pom see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QF_1-pounder_pom-pom#mediaviewer/File:AustralianTroopsWithQF1pounderBoerWar.jpg

The latter was belt-fed and has been described as a Maxim on steroids.

I find it hard to believe that there was any confusion between the two types during the period of the Great War. Some recent writers may have been thrown off course however and confused by the renaming of the business which happened when Maxim took over Nordenfelt in 1887/8. This resulted in a company called the Maxim-Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Company, which did indeed manufacture Pom-poms (but of Maxim's design). Nine years after the take over Nordenfelt's name was dropped altogether.

Regards

Michael

[Jeff Pickerd]

Chris,

I must congratulate you on an excellent review of Dr Broadbent's book, and I would fully agree with your appraisal.

It had not been my intention to make any further comment on Harvey Broadbent's work until such time as I had fully read the entire book, but time restraints are making that goal extremely difficult.

Since I have opted to make some comment based upon what little I have read, and that being in particular to what the Turkish records could add to my work on the 3rd Light Horse Brigade's charge at the Nek, the 18th Turkish Regiment charge on Russell's Top 29th/30th June, plus the landing 25th April, there has proved to be some new revelations, indications to Osmanlica documents yet to be translated that would seem to hold vital information, and largely confirmation of what has been known from Turkish sources for well on ten years now.

In reference to the error of the calibre for 75mm Mountain gun, it was noted, but from my point of view a minor distraction. Of more importance was the further confirmation to the ranging of Captain Sadik's 3rd/9th Regiment four gun battery covering the shore line of either side of Gaba Tepe, not back towards Ariburnu, but it would still be better if a map showing those guns could be found from an original Ottoman map annotated with the Osmanlica script.

Harvey Broadbent with the publication of this splendid work has given us a great insight as to just what the Turkish archives have to reveal of the Gallipoli campaign.

Jeff

[Crunchy]

Ian,

Thank you for your comments. A post on my book on this forum pointed out the Turks used the MG (09) rather than the MG ((08) in the sidebar discussing the maxim, essentially the same gun with a tripod and a 7.65mm calibre, and that I had noted that error, which I was more than happy to do so. In fact the matter was discussed with the AHU prior to publication, and as we had no photos of the MG (09), and a sidebar on the Maxim was required the decision was taken to present the details of the MG (08) as they were essentially the same gun, with exactly the same effect. We now have a colour photo of the MG(09) on a tripod, courtesy of Mesut Uyar, and this is in the 2nd Edition due out next month. I am sure you will enjoy Harvey's book.

Michael,

Thank you for that information. You are absolutely correct, I stand corrected. I understood the pom-pom was the 1 inch Nordenfelt - Maxim. Perhaps Ian can berate me on that as well

Jeff,

Thank you. There is a wealth of information in the book, which I am sure you you will find useful.

kind regards

Chris