The Shakespearean element to British military history (1 Viewer)

[Currahee Chris]

This isnt a jab on the English military tradition so please dont take it that way.

As ive ventured out and read a few books and articles about British military exploits circa 1800 to present, I am beginning to see a certain pattern evole-it really comes to light when I watch interviews with English veterans.

That pattern seems to always focus on the deperation of the fight the English are facing- we were surrounded by thousands of blood thirsty Zulu savages, the Hun machine gun fire was relentless, my mates and I were suffering from dysentary, the flies were swarming by the thousands and then there were the dirty Japanese to contend with. I love watching the documentary's when there is a sweet elderly British veteran who discusses his experience and it just always seems like the poor chap and his mates were always up against the most armageddon-like situation on the planet.

So it begs the question- has the British military been able to pull off an operation according to plan?? Or is there some innate design flaw regarding the British planning that always leaves the poor chaps on the ground caught in a desperate hour and fighting for their lives??

 

[BLReed]

........ poor chaps on the ground caught in a desperate hour and fighting for their lives??

Hmm.....it all boils down to this regardless of anything else.

 

[Jack]

This isnt a jab on the English military tradition so please dont take it that way.

As ive ventured out and read a few books and articles about British military exploits circa 1800 to present, I am beginning to see a certain pattern evole-it really comes to light when I watch interviews with English veterans.

That pattern seems to always focus on the deperation of the fight the English are facing- we were surrounded by thousands of blood thirsty Zulu savages, the Hun machine gun fire was relentless, my mates and I were suffering from dysentary, the flies were swarming by the thousands and then there were the dirty Japanese to contend with. I love watching the documentary's when there is a sweet elderly British veteran who discusses his experience and it just always seems like the poor chap and his mates were always up against the most armageddon-like situation on the planet.

So it begs the question- has the British military been able to pull off an operation according to plan?? Or is there some innate design flaw regarding the British planning that always leaves the poor chaps on the ground caught in a desperate hour and fighting for their lives??

I think the traditional English understatement might have played a part, but it is also a matter of the art of storytelling being a tradition all of its own. The veterans describe their experiences in the same manner that the previous generation described it to them. This is why oral history is such a fluid representation of the 'truth'. It is the attempt on someone's part to describe a profound experience, not in a vacum, but as part of an historical tradition, and not just a military one, but a cultural one as well. This means that the tone is shaped by how both the teller and the listener expect it to be told. Once you establish the tradition of 'The Thin Red Line', eveything must then conform to that template. The Vietnam War is not my area of expertise, but I would like a dollar for every time an American veteran describes his experience of combat with a reference to a shattering of the images created by John Wayne and Hollywood. They read it in other interviews and absord it into their own narrative to help them make sense of it. The Brits - and this is not a criticism of them - great people - have welcomed the construct that their soldiers are lions led by donkeys and that they muddle through on the back of the finest infantry in the world in spite of all the odds. It is why the Battle of Britain is so important to them because the reality so closely matched their preconceived notions - a gallant band of pilots (rather than the PBI) against the Nazi war machine - very stirring stuff. If I had time to write a million words I could explain the 'myths' of national identity that pervade a discussion of Australian military history!

This helps explain the many military histories which have a blurb on the cover that it is the 'remarkable untold story' or that it is an 'overdue re-evaluation' and when you read it, there is no discernible difference to the hundred other books on the shelf. Everything is shaped by what comes before.

This is a great thread. I wish there were more of them that just flowed along as an abstract discussion without the heat.

 

[Rob]

I think the traditional English understatement might have played a part, but it is also a matter of the art of storytelling being a tradition all of its own. The veterans describe their experiences in the same manner that the previous generation described it to them. This is why oral history is such a fluid representation of the 'truth'. It is the attempt on someone's part to describe a profound experience, not in a vacum, but as part of an historical tradition, and not just a military one, but a cultural one as well. This means that the tone is shaped by how both the teller and the listener expect it to be told. Once you establish the tradition of 'The Thin Red Line', eveything must then conform to that template. The Vietnam War is not my area of expertise, but I would like a dollar for every time an American veteran describes his experience of combat with a reference to a shattering of the images created by John Wayne and Hollywood. They read it in other interviews and absord it into their own narrative to help them make sense of it. The Brits - and this is not a criticism of them - great people - have welcomed the construct that their soldiers are lions led by donkeys and that they muddle through on the back of the finest infantry in the world in spite of all the odds. It is why the Battle of Britain is so important to them because the reality so closely matched their preconceived notions - a gallant band of pilots (rather than the PBI) against the Nazi war machine - very stirring stuff. If I had time to write a million words I could explain the 'myths' of national identity that pervade a discussion of Australian military history!

This helps explain the many military histories which have a blurb on the cover that it is the 'remarkable untold story' or that it is an 'overdue re-evaluation' and when you read it, there is no discernible difference to the hundred other books on the shelf. Everything is shaped by what comes before.

This is a great thread. I wish there were more of them that just flowed along as an abstract discussion without the heat.

I second that, a very interesting thread. Who else but the Brits could turn a total disaster like Dunkirk into an almost legendary victory!{eek3} Everyone and his Cat knows of Rorke's Drift thanks to Michael Caine and the lads from Wales, but how many know of the total arse kicking we got just a few hours earlier? There is indeed almost a tradition in our military of either glory from cock up (Rorkes Drift/Charge of the light Brigade) or a cobbled together at the last min situation such as the German advance spring 1918 (backs to the wall etc). I think as Jack says this country happily embraced the ' Lions led by Donkey's' myth in WW1 even though its garbage really. The PBI have always had a hard time of it from Mons,Dunkirk and even their commander at Waterloo called them the scum of the earth and once again it was a ' **** close thing'.

Tough, humorous, reliable and good with a rifle (ask the Germans at Mons, they were laughing before the battle at the thought of the Red tunics, the laughter soon stopped with fifteen rounds a minute.) And who else but the Brits could take an insult such as ' Contemptible little army' and wear it as a badge of pride up until the last of them past away. As the old WW1 song went ' We're here because we're here because we're here'.

God bless all of them,past and present.

Rob

 

[Rob]

And here is a classic example of how the Tommy does the business when it matters


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ying-WW1-soldier-sold-staggering-276-000.html

 

[Harper (aka Spitfrnd)]

This isnt a jab on the English military tradition so please dont take it that way.

As ive ventured out and read a few books and articles about British military exploits circa 1800 to present, I am beginning to see a certain pattern evole-it really comes to light when I watch interviews with English veterans.

That pattern seems to always focusdesperationtion of the fight the English are facing- we were surrounded by thousands of blood thirsty Zulu savages, the Hun machine gun fire was relentless, my mates and I were suffering fdysenterytary, the flies were swarming by the thousands and then there were the dirty Japanese to contend with. I love watching the documentary's when there is a sweet elderly British veteran who discusses his experience and it just always seems like the poor chap and his mates were always up against the most armageddon-like situation on the planet.

So it begs the question- has the British military been able to pull off an operation according to plan?? Or is there some innate design flaw regarding the British planning that always leaves the poor chaps on the ground caught in a desperate hour and fighting for their lives??

If an operation goes totally to plan than most likely either the plan was very general or the operation wasn't that difficult. At least that was my US military experience. I think much of the perception you note relates to the much longer British military history and the much more optimistic goals of the British leaders than that of their American counterparts. If reduced to a fubar per operation basis, I suspect the two may appear more similar in terms of their quotient of dire situations.

 

[trooper]

I would venture to suggest that any veteran, irrespective of nationality, would describe their personal experiences in the same way. Very few of them would be considering the larger scene when bullets start whizzing round their ears and even a few near misses would appear to be "relentless fire". Being under fire limits a personal view to the immediate surroundings and concentrates the mind to an amazing degree.
Again irrespective of natonality, most military operations follow the same pattern. Politicians, very few of whom have served in the military or even worn uniform, decide on a course of action and instruct the army to achieve their ambitions. The army formulate a plan based on what assets are available. The PBI have to achieve this with the cheapest material available and almost inevitably the plan goes out the window as soon as first contact is made and the enemy reacts. And the politicians then run around screaming for someone to blame. Trooper

 

[Mitch]

I think, the reality is, its the fibre, and psyche that this country has been built upon. the stiff upper lip is not a myth or, shakespearean that is simply a reality that has been present in the military and civil history of this country. How historians dress it up to enhance their reputations and sell more books is what causes the obfuscation for some.

Its exactly the same in books on any country and their military exploits. I don't think I have come across any US histories of the far east or vietnam etc where they were not up against superior odds or, beseiged and held out. Its how it is and probably always will be. The only difference is that some are rather more ficticious than others.
Mitch

 

[larso]

There do seem to be a host of British 'back to the wall' victories (which is not so surprising when the realities of losing are factored in.) From the 100 Years War to the present, there are many army, navy and now of course airforce examples. Part of it is a national character issue I think. I believe the spirit/motivation/determination that spawned the British Empire was contageous and enough Brits 'owned' the belief that they couldn't be beaten to just sway the day. Good organisation and a generally honest approach to most things inspired confidence - they were less cynical days for the most part. There is also the fact that, though there were significant losses - the American Revolution - there were so many victories. Success breeds success - even after all logic tells you that the best is behind you. The West Indian cricket team in the early 1990s springs to mind.

As for Shakesperian - well the key image there is Henry V. Who isn't inspired by his 'We band of brothers' speech. I have read of several young British officers who drew on those words as they waited for their landing craft to hit the beach on D-day. Success, even popularised/fictionalised still breeds success. The British have been fortunate to also have the writers to tell their stories.

 

[Jack]

There do seem to be a host of British 'back to the wall' victories (which is not so surprising when the realities of losing are factored in.) From the 100 Years War to the present, there are many army, navy and now of course airforce examples. Part of it is a national character issue I think. I believe the spirit/motivation/determination that spawned the British Empire was contageous and enough Brits 'owned' the belief that they couldn't be beaten to just sway the day. Good organisation and a generally honest approach to most things inspired confidence - they were less cynical days for the most part. There is also the fact that, though there were significant losses - the American Revolution - there were so many victories. Success breeds success - even after all logic tells you that the best is behind you. The West Indian cricket team in the early 1990s springs to mind.

As for Shakesperian - well the key image there is Henry V. Who isn't inspired by his 'We band of brothers' speech. I have read of several young British officers who drew on those words as they waited for their landing craft to hit the beach on D-day. Success, even popularised/fictionalised still breeds success. The British have been fortunate to also have the writers to tell their stories.

Larso

Much of what you say is supported by events, but I suspect that the reference to the Shakespearean quality of British military history might be to the appeal of tragedy rather than the magnificent speech from Henry V. You are right, nevertheless, to draw attention to the impact of the written word.

Got to love a good historical discussion!

Jack

 

[Martin Tabony]

When something goes wrong it's a very short time until someone says "You shouldn't join up if you can't take a joke"!^&grin And don't forget a regiment always talks about "We" not "Them" so although I'm a bit young. We were at Waterloo and we took part in "The Moonlight Charge". I believe the foot guards during the battle of Alma were shouting "Remember Waterloo" No one wants to let their mates or their regiment down.

Martin

 

[larso]

"the Shakespearean quality of British military history might be to the appeal of tragedy rather than the magnificent speech from Henry V."

Maybe, Shakespeare is arguably equally acknowledged for his comedies and histories - the later being most pertinent here. Kipling also comes to mind (Churchill too in a way) as another who promulgated British greatness.

Certainly tragedy has a strong hand in British military history. The first day of The Somme, Galipolli, the first half of WW2 (highlighted by Norway, Greece and Singapore etc) the opening events of the Mutiny, the abortive business in Argentina and others. Yet most are put into perspective given that the wars concerned were almost always won.

Happy birthday (from me at least) by the way!

 

[UKReb]

"Backs to the wall" is an idiom much loved by the Brits and frequently found in British military history. As previously stated by other posters we are indeed an understated race of people and against all odds makes for better storytelling than a clear cut, well planned and executed victory. When fact becomes legend we have tended to print the legend.

Our medieval history lives on primarily through the works of the Bard as per The Hundred Years War where most people refer to Agincourt. But our two earlier victories at Crecy and Poitiers- where our English longbows signalled a new era of warfare- were at one time equally taught in our school history lessons as well as when Henry V resumed the war in 1415. However, what was not readily taught at the time was the fact that the English lost the Hundred Years War that abruptly halted our claims for any lands in Continental Europe and I may add thankfully stopped us from French being our primary language. But one had to dig that information out for oneself.

Mention has also been made of Waterloo which is automatically linked with a Wellington victory. Some young history students might imagine today that it was won by a bunch of Eton rugby boys led by old Hook Nose but then without Blucher and 120,000 Prussians history might have had a different outcome. But I and many others of my era were weaned on the story via the Wellesley version. We were taught the legend.

In conclusion- as a very small island and very often with our backs against the wall we ain't done bad in helping to write world history over the last thousand years.

Bob

 

[Louis Badolato]

"Backs to the wall" is an idiom much loved by the Brits and frequently found in British military history. As previously stated by other posters we are indeed an understated race of people and against all odds makes for better storytelling than a clear cut, well planned and executed victory. When fact becomes legend we have tended to print the legend.

Our medieval history lives on primarily through the works of the Bard as per The Hundred Years War where most people refer to Agincourt. But our two earlier victories at Crecy and Poitiers- where our English longbows signalled a new era of warfare- were at one time equally taught in our school history lessons as well as when Henry V resumed the war in 1415. However, what was not readily taught at the time was the fact that the English lost the Hundred Years War that abruptly halted our claims for any lands in Continental Europe and I may add thankfully stopped us from French being our primary language. But one had to dig that information out for oneself.

Mention has also been made of Waterloo which is automatically linked with a Wellington victory. Some young history students might imagine today that it was won by a bunch of Eton rugby boys led by old Hook Nose but then without Blucher and 120,000 Prussians history might have had a different outcome. But I and many others of my era were weaned on the story via the Wellesley version. We were taught the legend.

In conclusion- as a very small island and very often with our backs against the wall we ain't done bad in helping to write world history over the last thousand years.

Bob

Isn't that a line from the classic Western "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" (Henry Fonda, John Wayne)? - "When history becomes legend, print the legend." I think it was Napoleon who said "history is the lies agreed upon by the victors."

 

[larso]

"But our two earlier victories at Crecy and Poitiers- where our English longbows signalled a new era of warfare- were at one time equally taught in our school history lessons as well as when Henry V resumed the war in 1415."

Yes I recall reading that this war 'fused' the Normans and Anglo/Saxons into the 'English'. This said, I'd probably count the victories over the Scots a 100 years or so before as 'English' ones too. They were not exactly backs to the wall ones though.....

 

[Currahee Chris]

Im glad those of you out there are enjoying this thread.

I think several of you hit the nail on the head, there just seems to be this natural pride, self discipline or pride that is uniquely British and just missing in many other countries. It does make reading and understanding English military history all the more enjoyable.