Londoners on the Western Front: The 58th (2/1st) London Division in the Great War

[Guest]

Has anyone reviewed this book? 

 

MG

[paulgranger]

I have seen a review, but cannot remember exactly where, though I'm fairly sure it was in the WFA's Stand To! I will have a rummage later

[Steven Broomfield]

Chris Baker on the LLT site?

 

Just checked - seems not.

Edited 26 January , 2018 by Steven Broomfield

[paulgranger]

No, I thought the same thing, and couldn't find a review of this book on LLT.

[Guest]

I bought this book some time ago and have just started to stress-test one chapter while doing some cross referencing on the March 1918 German Offensive. it's not pretty. ... 

The e-book has a chapter titled "Goodbye Old Man - Fortunino Matavia and the Battle for Chipilly" ... My underlining. 

 

It also describes the 3rd Bn London Regiment as the 3rd Bn Royal Fusiliers and the 2/10th Bn London Regt as the Hackney Rifles. ...all within a few pages.  One might reasonably expect an author focusing on a TF formation to get the unit titles right.....Edit. The 2/2th Bn London Regt (London Rangers) can be added to the list of small rather annoying errors. Edit 2. And the 2/7th Bn London Regt (London Rifles)..... so a third of the Battalions in the Division are incorrectly named. **sigh**

 

Also the end notes are out of kilter. The end-notes dont always match the text.  A reference to the fate of an Officer and his small band of men in the 2/2nd Bn London Regt cites the 7th Bn The Buffs (East Kent Regt) war diary... a different regiment in a different brigade in a different divsision...  The proofreading seems to be non-existent.  

 

One endnote quotes Wikipedia. Really. 

 

The introduction indicates the author believes the second line TF existed before the war... and suggests the Regular Divisions only numbered eight.... etc... 

MG

 

 

Edited 26 January , 2018 by Guest

[Guest]

I finished reading this book at the weekend, armed with the various Official Histories and Battalion histories to cross check some detail. The book has far too many small errors. Unit titles are used inconsistently e.g. 10th Londons v Hackney Rifles (sic) and are often simply wrong. The author occasionally confuses the City of London Battalions London Regiment (Royal Fusilier) (TF) with the Royal Fusiliers (City of London Regt); something so fundamental to any London Regt (TF) history it is painful to see. The unit titles vary between passages making it very difficult for the layperson to follow units. It also jumps from unit to unit and one begins to lose the thread of exactly which unit the author is describing. A very large proportion of the endnotes refer to secondary material with no analysis i.e. Other authors' works are taken at face value as 'fact' rather than 'interpretation'. For example it leans very heavily on the Official Histories in areas where the OH's simplified interpretation might have been challenged or at least interpreted in a different way. Despite the seemingly large number of endnotes, overall the research is poorly referenced and lacks the precision required for this to be a useful reference book. It largely reads as a composition of views held in other books and seemingly lacks any original thought.

 

The author has next to zero understanding of the pre war TF and seems to believe the second lines were pre war formations. Some of the statements are simply factually incorrect.

 

One particularly oddity is that while the book claims to be about the London Battalions in the 58th London Div on the Westernt front it devotes part to Gallipoli. Again the author seems to believe the units sent to Gallipoli were nominally still part of 58th  London Div when sent to the Dardanelles. It rather exposes a fundamental lack of understanding of the structure of the British Army and the fluid transfer of battalions from one formation to another. The book can't decide if it about Londoners or London Battalions that served in the 58th London Div or if it is about the 58th London Div. They are not exactly the same things. The supporting arms get very little attention. 

 

While better than nothing at all I would struggle to recommend this book. MG

Edited 29 January , 2018 by Guest

[pagius]

I agree with what's been said   -  a very hit and miss affair  and only recommended for those with a particular interest in the 58th Div.   My special interest is with the 3rd Londons with 4 g-uncles serving in the  1/3  2/3 and 4/3 at  various times , and I bought the book sometime ago to see what it had to say about Poelcapelle 26th Oct 1917 , the day that Capt Richard Agius was killed.  In that respect it's just a skimpy  2 paragraphs on page 89 and incorrect in saying the  '1st in support'.  The 2/1  2/2 and 2/3 were all lined up in the first wave and it was the 4ths  (2/4)  who came up in support.

 

And , yes, the battalions who went to Gallipoli weren't in the 58th at the time but had started out with the 58th before being sent to Gallipoli and then returning to the 58th , so fair enough that Gallipoli should get a brief mention.   Uncle Richard's story follows that path.  Started in the 2/3rds Sep 1914  then in Malta , Khartoum and Gallipoli in 1915. (Surviving the great flood at Suvla Bay).   Returned to the western front 1916  then with the 4/3rd reserves later 1916.   Back with the 2/3rd in 58th Div  May 1917 -  action at Bullecourt and finally kia at Poelcapelle.

 

The listing of all the components of 58th Div on pg 1 (repeated  pg 192)  says  the 2nd line Battalions were replaced and renamed by the 3rd line in 1915.   OK, the 2nd line left the division end of 1914 for Malta, Egypt/Sudan, Gallipoli in 1915 and so , in effect, replaced by the 3rd line in 1915 but it wasn't until June 1916 that the old 2nd lines were disbanded and the 3rd lines renamed as  2/1 2/2 2/3 2/3.     Just adds to the confusion.

 

On this day 100 years ago, the 1/3rd and 2/3rd have just amalgamated  and uncles Alfred and Edgar , now in the simply named 3rd London Regiment, are at Villers-Bretoneux, and so I picked up the book again last night to see what it had to say about the weeks before  Operation Michael. Chapter 9 does a reasonable job in that respect.

 

In conclusion it's an interesting addition to our WW1 library but by no means essential ... in the way that  Pro Patria Mori on 56th Div at Gommecourt 1916  IS an essential read.

 

 

[hazelclark]

Sounds like this book would add to my confusion about the QVRs in Spring 1918, so will give it a miss.

Thanks all.

Hazel C.

[pagius]

4 hours ago, hazelclark said:

Sounds like this book would add to my confusion about the QVRs in Spring 1918, so will give it a miss.

Thanks all.

Hazel C.

I guess you've got the Keeson's  History & Records of The Queen Victoria Rifles (1923) ?  Has a few chapters on QVR  Spring 1918. ( I have it because another of my g-uncles, Cpl E G Tozer , was in the QVRs and killed at Gommecourt 1st July 1916. )   Also just discovered   '5th Army In March 1918' by Sparrow (freely available as pdf on-line)  in which Gough makes a very good case for why he was made a scapegoat shortly after the start of Operation Michael.   Some good maps in there too showing the disposition of all the Divisions of 5th Army on 21st March 1918.

[hazelclark]

Thanks.  That is one of the books just recommended by another Forum member as I posted a request for reading suggestions.  Haven’t done much at all about my English relatives as have been concentrating on the Scottish ones.

 

 I did look again at the War Diary for April May and June 1918 when my uncle (Roland Foxley) was taken prisoner/died, but I think paper must have been rationed in that Regiment because the writing is microscopic and very little information.  Had hoped to maybe  find divisional diaries too, but didn’t unfortunately.  Maybe the history of the Regiment will help.  

 

I suspect that all the regiments in that part of the line would have been reeling at that point and record keeping may have been a low priority.

Thanks again,

Hazel 

 

p.s. I went to school in Fareham for a while. Wycome House.

H.C.

Edited 1 February , 2018 by hazelclark

[Guest]

Hi, Hazel - I am Tim Foxley, Roland Raymont Foxley was my great uncle who served in 9 QVR and was in France from Feb to May - injured at Hangard Wood and died of wounds in a German hospital.  Are we talking about the same person?!  I think we need to be in touch I have Roly's own personal diary and his dog tag, plus some personal correspondence.  Planning to go to Hangard Wood for the 100th anniversary of the battle.  Some confusion over the manner of his death and the date...

 

Cheers

 

Tim

[hazelclark]

I am in slight shock . Because you are a new member I am not sure if I can send you a private message and I don’t want to put my email on here.

Roland was my uncle, not great uncle. His brother was well into his forties when I was born. He died when I was 3.  

I need to figure out how we can communicate.

Thank you for getting in touch. I have been researching Roland for years.

 

Hazel C.

[Michelle Young]

I think that you can send a message after two posts have been made.

Michelle 

[hazelclark]

Thanks Michelle 

I think I may have sent one but maybe it won’t actually go until Tim has posted again. 

H