Boy Soldiers of the Great War

[BeppoSapone]

There is a review of Richard Van Emden's book "Boy Soldiers of the Great War" in the 'Culture' section of todays 'Sunday Times.

This book has a rrp of £20, but you can obtain a copy from 'Sunday Times Books' for £16 plus £2.25 p & p - ring 0870 165 8585.

I have no connection with the 'Sunday Times'. Neither am I connected with "Waterstones".

However, I can say that "Waterstones" 'Offer of the Week' - starting tomorrow 19th April - is Max Hasting's "Armageddon". This is for sale for £4.99 instead of £9.99 and is about Jehovah's Witesses.

[BeppoSapone]

Only joking!

"Armageddon" is Max Hasting's book about the "Battle for Germany, 1944 - 45"

[Muerrisch]

I thought it was 'armageddon older every day'.

As for "Boy Soldiers" I bought it and had a look at the first few pages and it has gone to bottom of the "to read" heap . Too many very obvious errors for my taste.

[Max Poilu]

The documentary of the book was on the History channel last night.

[davedixon]

Boy Soldiers is £16 in WH Smith too.

Dave.

[Anthony Bagshaw]

Bought my copy off amazon, 12 quid i think!!

[birkettm]

any chance of a review from those who have read it?

[swizz]

This book got a good review in the Sunday Times yesterday although I have only got as far as looking at it in a shop. Hardback books are really beyond my student budget!!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2102-1567284,00.html

[Rosemary Clarke]

I thought it was 'armageddon older every day'.

As for "Boy Soldiers" I bought it and had a look at the first few pages and it has gone to bottom of the "to read" heap .  Too many very obvious errors for my taste.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Never mind. Perhaps you should refer the errors to the author who is, I believe, a member of this Forum?

[CROONAERT]

"Waterstones" 'Offer of the Week' - starting tomorrow 19th April - is Max Hasting's "Armageddon". This is for sale for £4.99 instead of £9.99

Thanks for that Tony.

Guess where I'm going and what I'm going to buy tomorrow? (Read a bit of it shortly before it's publication in HB. Looks damn good!!!)

Dave.

[squirrel]

Got my copy in The Sussex Stationers a bit cheaper than the prices quoted.

An absorbing worthwhile read and very interesting indeed - leaves you to make your own conclusions on the facts presented. Don't know about the errors but there are a few misprints and mis spellings.

Squirrel

[J Banning]

Having read the above threads I thought I would wait until I finished ‘Boy Soldiers of the Great War’ before making my contribution. Finished it last night and thoroughly enjoyed it. I thought the research was top-notch and agree with Squirrel that the author leaves you to make your own conclusions on the facts presented. I am amazed that what with the enormous debate on the identity and age of ‘the youngest soldier’ that books like this have not been written before. Also, had no idea that a 15 year old won the DCM or that a 16 year old 2nd Lt Reginald Battersby was commanding a platoon of the Accrington Pals when they made their attack at Serre. Fascinating stuff.

I thought the author dealt well with the parliamentary debates on the subject and highlighted the work of Sir Arthur Markham in campaigning for the discharge of under age soldiers. Again, not something I would have ever thought to wade through Hansard transcripts for!

Personally, I would thoroughly recommend the book. Regarding the threads above I must admit to being somewhat frustrated by langleybaston’s comments. It would be of greater help if he were to list what he regarded as the ‘many very obvious errors’ and then we could engage in debate on these. As for them being in the first few pages – these pages are the Introduction which is really the author’s explanation of how and why he wrote this book and oral testimony from veterans. I may well be wrong but I couldn’t see errors in this section. Would love to know what they are!

The only thing in the book that I regard as open to questions is the number of underage soldiers the author claims served in the Great War. However, he explains fully the methodology used in Chapter 15 and it makes sense to me. Unless someone can show a better methodology than the author I will take his figures to be a good estimation. As for the misprints and mis-spellings which Squirrel noted, those with knowledge of publishing will know that it is often the publishers who make this kind of error when they receive final drafts from authors. Obviously, this then reflects poorly on the author. I guess that if any errors or spelling mistakes were pointed out to Headline (the publishers), they would correct them for further editions. Just a thought….

I would be interested to read reviews from others who have read the book.

Cheers

[squirrel]

Ralph B

wish I could write a book review like that and I agree that if someone has found "errors", then would they please point them out and enlighten the rest of us.

Point taken on the spelling mistakes; seems common for most books to have their share these days.

Squirrel

[DirtyDick]

The spelling errors are often found since very few publishers employ proper copy-editors or proof readers. At best it is up to the author and the publisher's spellchecker: this goes for big names and big publishers as well as provincial publishers.

I even found a very few errors and incomplete sentences in Richard Holmes's "Redcoat", and this can be considered to receive more attention as it is in the "upper echelon" of military history publishing and have been proof read.

Richard

[Muerrisch]

sorry to keep you: errors in first few pages:

"paid a shilling a week until aged eighteen". In fact 8d per day. The author does not seem to address the basic question: why would someone under 18 lie about his age? Never mind active service: the pay for man service was half as much again.

"men undertook a minimum of three years full time service followed by nine on reserve". In fact seven and five. The 3 and 9 was Guards only.

"no requirement to show birth certificate". For boys enlisting as boys, there was.

"TF minimum age for enlistment seventeen years". In fact fourteen.

All these in first 25 pp.

Need I go on?

I could.

[squirrel]

Thanks for this. It is a great help for those of us attempting to improve our knowledge to have what to some are obvious errors pointed out.

Any other major "howlers" that we should be aware of ?

I would have thought that anybody attempting to enlist under age wanted to "do their bit" before it was over, see some adventure, help the Empire etc. but I stand to be corrected. Schoolboy enthusiasm perhaps ?

Am I right in thinking that "Band Rats" could enlist at 12 ?

Squirrel

[J Banning]

sorry to keep you:  errors in first few pages:

"paid a shilling a week until aged eighteen".  In fact 8d per day.  The author does not seem to address the basic question: why would someone under 18 lie about his age?  Never mind active service: the pay for man service was half as much again.

"men undertook a minimum of three years full time service followed by nine on reserve".  In fact seven and five.  The 3 and 9 was Guards only.

"no requirement to show birth certificate".  For boys enlisting as boys, there was.

"TF minimum age for enlistment seventeen years".  In fact fourteen.

All these in first 25 pp.

Need I go on?

I could.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To continue the debate!

During the war, if you were to read further, he talks about why these lads enlisted in considerable detail, Horace Calvert scared of the factory he worked in, Frank Lindley to avenge his brother, Don Price angry at news of atrocities.

"Men undertook a minimum of three years full time service followed by nine on reserve". Doesn't the word 'minimum' cover that point and perhaps indicate awareness of the Guards? In my opinion it can hardly be taken as a whopping mistake (or "howler" as Squirrel would put it).

'No birth certificate required at all' - van Emden is clearly addressing the issue of regular soldiering at that point and not the specifics of Boy Soldiering. The words come hard on the heels of army desertions and men re-enlisting. The comments you have made do indicate your being highly selective.

I freely admit that I don't know about the technicalities of pay rates so I cannot comment of such things. However, I would suggest that the book is read in its entirety before glib comments are made. As per my previous review the book is the first attempt to address the whole story of boy soldiering and as such is a tour de force. I can’t see how skim and selective reading combined with miss-interpretation of the author's writing serves anyone any good at all.

I always enjoy personal testimony and salute an author who has bothered to interview hundreds of veterans. Yes, I know the debate about empiricist history versus straight-laced facts and figures. I know which kind of writing is more entertaining and assure all forum members that these fascinating testimonies, mixed with primary and secondary source material make this book a great read.

Anyone else read it yet and care to comment?

[squirrel]

Havn't got the book to hand but this debate is absorbing.

Are we looking at "howlers" , misinterpretations or items taken out of context?

Still think it's a very good "read" on a subject that has not been covered in depth as far as I am aware.

Squirrel

[Muerrisch]

Seems I can do no right. I am not looking for an argument. I was asked to point out errors found, and I have only read to page 25 before deciding to put book on back burner. This was clear from the outset.

"Glib" is not a word that those who know me would use; the books and articles I have written and had published usually attract praise and attract phrases like "well researched".

I belong unashamedly to the school of "straight laced facts and figures", being by training a scientist. Within my field I do know what I am talking about and try to help others. This does not usually attract references to "skim", "selective reading" and "misinterpretation" which I take to be offensive, even if only accidentally.

And this is my last word on the subject, life is too short and the next book is waiting. Due out at Christmas.

[Doug Lewis]

Just finished reading the book, I found it interesting reading and would recommend it. I have a hardback copy and received it as a birthday present from my mother in law

Regards Doug

[Ferret_uk]

Just finished reading the book, I found it interesting reading and would recommend it.

Regards Doug

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes i agree with Doug, i found it a very good read .

Mick.

[Dave T]

As with early comments I found the book fascinating and a throughly good read.

Dave

[Dave T]

As with early comments I found the book fascinating and a throughly good read.

Dave

[DirtyDick]

I take it the book was so good you read it twice (the second time in under a minute)?

[FredJCarss]

Errors or not I enjoyed reading it and certainly will never regret buying it

Fred