Till The Trumpet Sounds Again

[Muerrisch]

I have a bit of a problem with Vol I., handsome as it is.

 

The narrative becomes unduly burdened with the most minute personal details, partly harvested, I suppose from the Kew records or regimental records. After a while my mind goes numb when reading about tattoos, siblings, spouses, addresses, previous history etc. The "in their own words" aspect is fine. Reading has become a chore, and I have not even reached the 1st Ypres crisis.

 

This is rather strange because I am extremely interested in people and the sociology of conflict.

 

The book has been compared favourably above to Dunn's history of 2nd RWF. Dunn, however, goes very easy on such detail.

 

On the other hand, I have no problem with the illustrations, which are as good as one is likely to see in a month of Sundays. I did regret there not being any formal photographs of "The Officers" and "The WOs and Sergeants" taken in the piping days of peace just before the war.

 

I realise that this is a dissenting voice, but wonder if any others have detected my problem outlined above. Perhaps it is the Editor / Proof Reader in me trying to assert himself.

[David Filsell]

It's an interesting dissenting voice. I have though long on the point you raise in writing my review for Stand Too! It does interrupt the flow to degree, but it also honours many of those killed, wounded and sick despite the fact that the entries are somewhat formulaic. However they can be skipped if they become tedious. On the positive side, I know no other regimental history in which such detail is listed. Normally other ranks - unless awarded medals - were virtually ignored in such works and on balance I rather applaud the writer's efforts to commemorate those who fought with the Scots Guards.

[Steven Broomfield]

On 8/21/2016 at 22:52, TwoEssGee said:

 

 

One thing that really struck me and something which I had never really considered before, was the number of times men were wounded, evacuated, treated and returned. By the end of the war there were men being wounded for their fourth and fifth time and still returning to the Battalions, many having had serious wounds.

 

An interesting point. I recall reading, some years ago, something in the Journal of the Oxfordshire & Buckinghamshire Light Infantry to the effect that the 52nd (officially 2 O&BLI) in the second world war received hardly any returned wounded, all of them being scattered to the four winds, whereas in the GW pretty well every man wounded and recovered returned to the 52nd.

[Muerrisch]

1 hour ago, David Filsell said:

It's an interesting dissenting voice. I have though long on the point you raise in writing my review for Stand Too! It does interrupt the flow to degree, but it also honours many of those killed, wounded and sick despite the fact that the entries are somewhat formulaic. However they can be skipped if they become tedious. On the positive side, I know no other regimental history in which such detail is listed. Normally other ranks - unless awarded medals - were virtually ignored in such works and on balance I rather applaud the writer's efforts to commemorate those who fought with the Scots Guards.

 

I don't disagree at all.

 

One of my few accomplishments is speed-reading. After 30 minutes of reading the sections of the D Tel in which I have an interest:

 

Cricket, rugger, obits, finance, editorial, letters, anything about Nigella Lawson ...............

 

I am confident that I could answer almost any question on content.

 

Perhaps hitting the buffers of the book every few lines and having to resume "the war" so interupts my speed reading that I get, shall we say, a little Grumpy?

 

Certainly anyone with a specific interest in the SG needs to buy the 2 volumes.

[Staffsyeoman]

I'm working through these for a review for the National Army Museum.   Overall, this is a publication to rank aside Kipling's of the Irish Guards but yes; the depth of infinitessimadoes interrupt the flow at times.  But who knows? This could be a key which unlocks something for future researchers; the book is initially meant for the regimental family to whom these things matter greatly. It is a danger for the researcher to hit a vein and be unable to resist the temptation to cram in the jewels one has uncovered in the rough, only that other readers may think these paste rather than precious stones.  I once reviewed the "official" biography of Neil Armstrong, "First Man". It was written by a former NASA Chief Historian while the subject was still alive, with his co-operation.  It was leaden - "no fact left unturned"; if I remember he spent over a hundred pages - my mind tricks me to think nearly two hundred - just getting Armstrong to his teenage years..  

[Guest]

One might consider comparing it to the original history.

 

Separately, some of the detail could easily have been put in footnotes or endnotes or appendices. It is a matter of preference. Personally I like the detail as it makes the history more human. If it was relegated to the notes, I would still have read it, so it's inclusion in the narrative works for me. Having said that, I would imagine anyone who was already familiar with its history would be at a slight advantage of not losing the thread. 

 

Structural Layout. Separate volumes per battalion would have been useful reminders that despite serving for most of the war in the same division, their experiences were quite different. Some historians of multi battalion regiments have tried to tell their histories as chronological threads woven together. This does not always work. Their separate treatment would have been an advantage. The Histories of the regular battalions of the Sherwood Foresters, the Irish Guards, the Essex Regiment, the Connaught Rangers, the Black Watch (and probably a few others that escape me) take a this approach and may provide more benchmarks. Also contrasting with the Grenadier Guards and Coldstream Guards that interweave battalion histories might be useful. The latter format tends to read as "Meanwhile, back with the 2nd Battalion....." leaving the reader hopping from one story to another. 

 

So many of the contemporary histories were written by Officers, about Officers, for Officers with scant regard for the Other Ranks.  There are of course exceptions but the Guards Histories are littered with regular nominal rolls of the Officers throughout. The ORs barely get mentioned other than in casualty stats or as an appendix. Modern historians have attempted to redress the balance and breathe life into the stories of the ORs, however finding the raw material after all these years is often extremely difficult. This is where these volumes on the Scots Guards stand out in my mind. The author has managed to amass a considerable amount of material on Other Ranks. Given the time lag from events, it is an extraordinary accomplishment. 

 

The Scots Guards had the misfortune to suffer the highest ratio of fatalities as a per cent of numbers served than any Regiment in the British Army. This bare fact, while perhaps one dimensional, might indicate that this regiment had an extraordinary War even by the standards of 1914-19. 

 

MG

Edited 26 August , 2016 by Guest

[Steven Broomfield]

2 minutes ago, QGE said:

One might consider comparing it to the original history.

 

 

 

Which, as mentioned several times, is not very good.

[Muerrisch]

I have nearly finished reading Volume I. I have changed my mind now that I have soldiered on.

 

This is the only book that brings home to me the appalling attrition, the amazing nobility of the leaders and the led, and the grotesque waste of young lives lost and shattered.

 

My mother had a word for such an experience as reading this book: "harrowing". The weight of suffering is heartbreaking.

 

If the author wanted to make me pause, put the book down and blink away a tear, he has achieved his purpose.

 

The author Colonel Peter Walton once said to me of the Great War "I don't know how they stood it, the modern [1980] army could never do it".

 

Thank God for that, say I.

[Guest]

The pages on Nonne Bosschen provide more detail than anything I have seen before. The Author also ekes out personal accounts from other neighbouring units which provides more depth and breadth to the narrative. By referencing accounts from bystanders one gets a rather balanced view. 

 

I could definitely do without the mini-biographies that end most paragraphs. These should be footnotes as they do tend to disrupt the narrative. It is a very small criticism. It is a monumental work and one that will probably stand the test of time. MG

[Steven Broomfield]

Out of interest, I have just received notification from Naval & Military Press that they have both volumes on offer at £30 the pair (plus P+P). Pretty good deal if you don't have them (which I have).

[teabreak]

Just a personal view on whether the weight of personal detail (whether a man had tattoos, what personal effects were returned to his relatives if kia etc) interrupts the flow of the narrative.

I think Randal Nichol has made the right choice. The personal detail can be very affecting - it helps to get give a vivid a picture of the men who are being described. In battalion/regimental histories of the immediate post-WW1 period, it is surprising how 'invisible' ORs can be. They rarely get mentioned by name. It now seems fitting to record whatever we now know about them.

Of course, this could have been done in footnotes, but then I think the book would have been a quite different thing. It would have just become a standard war history, without the  "depth of field" that Nichol's book provides.

It would also have involved Nichol in making far more editorial decisions, whereas his approach is simply to make visible whatever he has found - including e.g. long verbatim quotations from previously unpublished letters. If he had tried to produce a "smoother narrative" with more editorial cuts to the extraordinary variety of material he has assembled, then I think something crucial would have been lost - there is a certain luxury to the book, in the sense of having multiple accounts and perspectives and snippets of information sometimes about the same incident or period of time, that build up a far richer picture than standard histories offer.           

[Guest]

On 8/10/2016 at 09:37, David Filsell said:

Working on my review - but these volumes are each over 500 words. Now halfway through vol. 1 now.

 

Initially, as As Bob Wyatt, review Editor of Stand To! has pointed out to me. " The preparation of the history of the Scots Guards in the Great War has an unfortunate history. Wilfred Ewart, who served with the regiment in France from February 1915, was accidentally and shot in Mexico City during Year’s Day 1923 celebrations having completed the copy for the first two months of the war."

 

(Fortunately, he had already written his memoirs, Scots Guard, which had been published in 1934 and is still available from Amazon and a great war novel Way of Revelation which was highly regarded by Henry Williamson)

 

"Authors suitable, and available, to write a regimental history were rare in the post war rush to publish regimental volumes and the regimental committee managed to appoint the 77 year old prolific military writer F. Loraine Petre. Sadly, he died in July 1925 and the volume was completed by Major General  H. Cecil Lowther an officer who had seen action in France, who put together a fairly short history. It has been judged poorest of the Guards Regiments histories - lacking in detail."

 

As an initial view these are mighty impressive and deeply researched volumes and the tale most comprehensively told . They employ Scots guards' archives - and many others - as well as correspondence (mainly those written by officers as well as some - semi literate in a number of cases - men. They also include POWs experiences . The approach is truly day by day, and the story of the 1st and 2nd battalions Is told well and highly readably ( with reference to other bns) on tedious days as well and in action with superb detail. Whilst not a 'sociological' work, it places the men offices and men in context, tells of the background of many officers and men killed wounded and captured. Not least the account of actions at Ypres in 1914 are comprehensive - not easy task as I know.  The account of the Christmas Truce is fascinating, fresh  and detailed: many anecdotes recorded too. A well as a bibliog. notes and refs, separate indices are provided for names, places and military terminology.

 

This is not a top down work detailing staff objectives -  although they are mentioned, - it is the story of events seen and recorded at the time and their effects on the battalion. It is therefore not a traditional regimental history which breaks different ground to those. Ils. are many and maps (coloured) adequate - although I would have preferred more of them and more detail.

I hope to read all before reviewing fully - but time may preclude. However I see no reason why the standard will fall throughout the book. Thus far, it appears to me best and most exhaustive work of its type I have read - and reasonably priced, well produced (Helion of cours are the publishers). This is a valuable work - both to read and for future reference

 

 

David

 

Did you ever write a full review? It would be interesting to see. 

 

MG

[paulgranger]

David's review is in the latest Stand To!

[Guest]

1 hour ago, paulgranger said:

David's review is in the latest Stand To!

 Thanks

 

I am no longer a WFA member or subscriber to Stand To!...

[David Filsell]

It is as reported here in ST. I cannot for some reason find my copy of it on computer. I can post a copy if you send address. The short point however is that it is an outstanding boo. It took two weeks of reading - obviously not constant - to provide an adequate overview. I could have written another 1,000 words, but space is tight in the magazine.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, David Filsell said:

It is as reported here in ST. I cannot for some reason find my copy of it on computer. I can post a copy if you send address. The short point however is that it is an outstanding boo. It took two weeks of reading - obviously not constant - to provide an adequate overview. I could have written another 1,000 words, but space is tight in the magazine.

 

No need, but thank you. I really wondered what you thought and it seems to be very positive. 

[David Filsell]

Very positive.

[Sapper D.]

I am just coming to the end of part 2 and I am very impressed with this book and the way it has been set up. To begin with, I found the references to parents, belongings and jobs back in the UK annoying. Too much deatil and it took me too long to return (i.e. my 'mind set') to the story. Gradually this feeling lessened and I am now wholly happy with this book.

I love the way the author darts from person to person, the story behind the person involved (e.g. I now know what a boot boy did for a living..), what the troops and minor units got up to in and out of the line, dishes out the dirt in the correct ammount but keeps the narritive moving along slowly and surely.

One page in part 2 (364- hardback version) I have re-read several times. It is pvt. Graham's truly horrific discription of the front line and the soldier's attitude towards the dead of both sides. I've just read it again...makes me fall silent.

So, in short: I'm a fan of "Till the trumpet sounds again"!