military history - october 2015

www.military-history.orgHOBARTS FUNNIES

Extraordinary D-Day tanksOctober 2015 Issue 61 4.50

TGAS ATTACKBritish chemical weapons at Loos, 1915

GAS ATTACKBritish chemical weapons at Loos, 1915

FOREIGN LEGIONS FINEST HOURThe defence of Camerone

FOREIGN LEGIONS FINEST HOURThe defence of Camerone

++ The Last of the Tide: portraits of veterans Tank Island: the Home Guard versus the Nazis

The Last of the Tide: portraits of veterans Tank Island: the Home Guard versus the Nazis

Outnumbered, h ngry, disease-ridden... g s win

MHM

T his has been a year of anniversaries: Gallipoli, Waterloo,Agincourt. This issue we mark Henry Vs great victoryon 25 October 1415, when a heavily outnumberedEnglish army formed mainly of archers smashed a traditionalFrench feudal array.

Military systems are embedded in the social orders theyserve. The soldiers raised reflect the society from whichthey are recruited.

The victors of Agincourt the English longbowmen(recent research suggests they were predominantlyEnglish rather than Welsh) were recruited from a socialclass that hardly existed in France: the yeomanry pros-perous, independent, enterprising free peasants.

The English kings unlike the French were thereforeable to raise first-class infantry: men with a stake insociety and a will to train hard and fight well. And almostalways from Hastings to Waterloo if infantry have themorale to stand firm, they will stop a mounted charge.

So it was at Agincourt one of a succession of 14th-and 15th-century battles in which solid middling sortinfantry triumphed over their social superiors, andheralded the end of the medieval world and the beginningof the modern.

Also in this issue, Robin Smith describes the FrenchForeign Legions epic defence of Camerone in 1863,Steve Roberts recalls the first British use of poison gas atLoos in 1915, and Mike Relph analyses the anti-invasiondefences of Second World War England.

CONTRIBUTORS THIS MONTHS EXPERTS

SUBSCRIBE NOW

STEVE ROBERTSis a formerhistory teacherand a historian,who has writtenseveral times forMHM in the past,

including cover stories on Edward IIIand the Siege of Leningrad.

MIKE RELPHis a former armyofficer, whoserved in the UK,Germany, North-ern Ireland, Belize,and Cyprus, and

was awarded the MBE. He now worksas a freelance conflict archaeologist.

ROBIN SMITHis an author andfreelance journalist,specialising inmilitary history,particularly theAmerican Revolution,

the War of 1812, and the AmericanCivil War.

PATRICK BONIFACE is a freelance journalist who specialises in naval history. He has published

a number of books profiling Royal Navy destroyers and frigates.

MILITARY www.military-history.org HOBARTS FUNNIESExtraordinary D-Day tanksOctober 2015 Issue 61 4.50

AGINCOURTG CBritish chemicalweapons at Loos, 1915

GAS ATTACKBritish chemicalweapons at Loos, 1915

O N SFINEST HOUR

f

FOREIGN LEGIONSFINEST HOURThe defence of Camerone

++e ast of the Tide:portraits of veteransan Islan h H e uers s h N s

The Last of the Tide:portraits of veteransTank Island: the Home Guardversus the Nazis

Outnumbered, h ngry, disease-ridden...g s win

ON THE COVER: Henry V, with an artists representation of the Battle of Agincourt in the background.Image: Look and Learn

Now you can have your opinionson everything MHM heard online as well as in print. Follow us on Twitter @MilHistMonthly, or take a look at our Facebook page for daily news, books, and article updates at www.facebook.com/MilitaryHistoryMonthly.

Think you have spotted an error? Disagree with a viewpoint? Enjoying the mag? Visit www.military-history.org to post your comments on a wide range of different articles. Alternatively, send an email to [email protected]

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

ADD US NOW and have your say

Fill in the form on p.78 and SAVE UP TO 20%

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD:Martin Brown Archaeological Advisor, Defence Estates, Ministry of Defence

Mark Corby Military historian, lecturer, and broadcaster

Paul Cornish Curator, Imperial War Museum

Gary Gibbs Assistant Curator, The Guards Museum

Angus Hay Former Army Offi cer, military historian, and lecturer

Nick Hewitt Historian, National Museum of the Royal Navy, Portsmouth

Nigel Jones Historian, biographer, and journalist

Alastair MassieHead of Archives, Photos, Film, and Sound, National Army Museum

Gabriel Moshenska Research Fellow, Institute of Archaeology, UCL

Colin Pomeroy Squadron Leader, Royal Air Force (Ret.), and historian

Michael Prestwich Emeritus Professor of History, University of Durham

Nick Saunders Senior Lecturer, University of Bristol

Guy Taylor Military archivist, and archaeologist

Julian Thompson Major-General, Visiting Professor at London University

Dominic Tweddle Director-General, National Museum of the Royal Navy

Greg BaynePresident, American Civil War Table of the UK

MILITARYHISTORYMONTHLYwww.military-history.org 3

FEATURESGas!Loos, 1915Steve Roberts describes the argumentssurrounding the first British chemicalattack, a century ago this month.

18

46

52

Welcome 3

Letters 7

Notes from the Frontline 8

Behind the Image 10MHM studies a photograph ofthe French Foreign Legion in theCentral African Republic.

Conflict Scientists 12Patrick Boniface assesses thecareer of Major-General Sir PercyCleghorn Stanley Hobart.

War Culture 14MHM looks at portraits of D-Dayveterans featured in The Last ofthe Tide exhibition.

Agincourt INBa

TTh

Bat

14

The defence of CameroneThe French Foreign Legionsfinest hourRobin Smith reports on the nine-hourlast stand at a remote Mexican hamletin 1863.

UPFRONT

Tank IslandBritains defence, 1940Mike Relph explores the impactof the threat of Nazi invasionon the Wiltshire market townof Marlborough.

ON THE COVER

October 2015 | ISSUE 61

MILITARYHISTORYMONTHLY4 October 2015

26

To mark the 600th anniversary, our special feature this month focuses on the game-changing battle and victory of the middling sort at Agincourt in 1415.

MHM CONTENTS

THE DEBRIEF

IN THE FIELD | MHM VISITSMuseum | 70Neil Faulkner visits The Sinews of War: Arms and Armour from theAge of Agincourt, an exhibition atthe Wallace Collection.

Listings | 72The best military history events coming up this October.

Competition | 80Win a day out for two at theScience Museum.Briefing Room | 82All you need to know aboutthe Gatling Gun.

72

INTELLIGENCE | MHM OFF DUTY

www.military-history.org

Military History Monthly www.military-history.org

EDITORIALEditor: Neil [email protected]

Acting Assistant Editor: Polly Heff er

Editor-at-large: Andrew [email protected]

Sub Editor: Simon Coppock

Art Editor: Mark [email protected]: Lauren [email protected]

Managing Editor: Maria [email protected]

Managing Director: Rob SelkirkTel: 020 8819 5580

COMMERCIALAdvertising Sales Manager: Mike TraylenT: 020 8819 5360 E: [email protected]

Advertising Sales: Tiff any HeasmanT: 020 8819 5362 E: tiff [email protected]

Marketing Manager: Emma Watts-PlumpkinT: 020 8819 5575 E: [email protected]

Business Manager: Erin GoodinT: 020 8819 5576 E: [email protected]

Commercial Director: Libby Selkirk

SUBSCRIPTIONSUK: 45.95 (12 issues) RoW: 55.95 (12 issues)Back issues: 5.50 each / 6.50 non-UK (inc p&p)Binders: (hold 12 copies) 15 / 20Slip Cases: (hold 12 copies) 15 / 20

Military History Monthly SubscriptionsThames Works, Church Street, London, W4 2PDTel: 020 8819 5580 Fax: 020 8819 [email protected]/subscribe

NEWS DISTRIBUTIONUK & Rest of World: COMAG, Tavistock Road, West Drayton, UB7 7QE Tel: 01895 444 055

Printed in England by William GibbonsMilitary History Monthly (ISSN 2048-4100) is published monthly by Current Publishing Ltd,Thames Works, Church Street, London, W4 2PD

Current Publishing Ltd 2015All rights reserved. Text and pictures are copyright restricted and must not be reproduced without permission of the publishers. The publishers, editors and authors accept no responsibility in respect of any goods, promotions or services which may be advertised or referred to in this magazine. Every effort has been made to secure permission for copyright material. In the event of any material being used inadvertently or where it has been impossible to contact the copyright owner, acknowledge-ment will be made in a future issue. All liability for loss, disappointment, negligence or damage caused by reliance on the information contained within this publication is hereby excluded. The opinions expressed by contributors are not necessarily those of the publisher.

SUBSCRIPTIONS | MHMSubscribe | 78Turn to our subscriptions page for MHM special off ers.

7060

BACK AT BASE | MHM REVIEWSWar on Film | 60Taylor Downing reviews the documentary-drama, Theirs is the Glory.

Book of the Month | 64MHM Editor Neil Faulkner reviews

a new biography of Augustus by Jochen Bleicken.

Books | 67Jules Stewart on The Blitzed City by Karen Farrington and Taking Command by David Richards, and Andre van Loon on Field Marshal by Daniel Allen Butler.

TREBUCHET REDESIGNAn interesting back-page article on the trebuchet (Briefing Room, MHM 60) was slightly spoiled by a major error in the description of its operation. To the best of my knowledge, there was no padded cross-beam. The arm swung freely.No drawing or reconstruction I have seen has such a thing. Indeed, neither of the two drawings you used have a crossbeam.These were used in torsion-powered weapons such as the Roman onager and its subsequent derivatives.

Richard FoinetteBristol

ADVERTISING ERRORI am a regular reader of your magazine and generally enjoy the inclusion of articles that I do not agree with and the (few) factual errors that creep in. What did sadden me, though, was an advertisement for a book by David Irving in the September issue.

David Irving should not be given any space!Bruce James

Scotland

In last months issue on page 60 there was an advert for signed copies of David Irvings book Churchills War.

Irving has been convicted of Holocaust denial and was banned from a number of countries. As a contributor, reader, and friend of MHM, I am amazed and shocked you should be advertising such a book.

Chris Bambery London

Your thoughts on issues raised in Military History Monthly

ARMENIAN APPRECIATIONI was lent a copy of your magazine by one of my neighbours, who knows I am a British-born Armenian. Although I have ead many accounts of what happened to my forebears, I

was very impressed by the way you managed to convey in st seven pages such a full, unbiased,and accurate picture

of what happened (MHM 60).I can understand the fear the Turkish government

had that the Armenian community might join with their Christian Russian attackers from the East, bearing in mind how badly the Armenians had been treatedunder Abdulhamid. However,although there is someevidence of this, there is much greater evidence ofmanyArmenian units servingthe Turkish Army faithfully.

An uncle of mine was serving in the Turkish cavalry when they were disarmed and killed. He had been sent somewhere else for training and was lucky to survive.

Thank you for your article.Antony AbadjianHertfordshire

L E T T ER OF THE MONTH

TWITTER@MilHistMonthly

FACEBOOKwww.facebook.com/MilitaryHistoryMonthly

6 August 2015On the morning of 6 August 1945, 70 years ago today, three US B-29s appeared over Hiroshima. Two carried cameras and scientifi c equipment. The third carried an atomic bomb.

13 August 2015The Battle of Blenheim was fought #OnThisDayin 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession. Here is a blow-by-blow account of this decisive battle, along with battle maps, published in issue 9: www.military-history.org/articles/blenheim.htm

15 August 2015Today is the 70th anniversary of VJ Day. #OnThisDayin 1945, Japan surrendered, effectively bringing World War II to an end.

020 8819 5580

@MilHistMonthly MilitaryHistoryMonthly

[email protected]

WHAT DO YOU THINK?Let us know! Military History Monthly, Thames Works, Church Street, London, W4 2PD

@MilHistMonthly6 August 2015A rare photo collection capturing the aftermath of the #Hiroshima bombing is on display at Scotlands Secret Bunker @Secretbunker.

@MilHistMonthly18 August 2015 Today is the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Britains Hardest Day. #OnThisDay both sides recorded their greatest loss of life.

@MilHistMonthly20 August 201575 years ago #OnThisDay, Churchimade his famous speech about The Few. Heres what you should know about it: www.military-history.org/articles/the-few-churchills-wartime-speech.htm


I wish to apologise wholeheartedly to readers and contributors for the advertisement that appeared in our last issue. It slipped through our, usually rigorous, system of checks. We will not retain the fee for the advertisement, but donate it to a relevant charity.

Neil Faulkner Editor

Volunteers have been helpinguncover a former military campin Surrey where war poet WilfredOwen trained for service inWorld War I.

Owen arrived at the camp inJune 1916 to train for combat inFrance. While he was there, hepenned a sonnet that was laterreworked into his famous poem

Anthem for Doomed Youth.

Owen died a week before theend of the war, aged 25.

The site, near Godalming inSurrey, was active during bothworld wars: it was known asWitley North Camp during WWIand Algonquin Camp duringWWII. However, it was almostcompletely lost until SurreyCounty Councils archaeologicalunit initiated the project to exca-

vate the area for the first timeand document the findings.

The project is backed bya 30,000 grant from theGovernments communitycovenant scheme. Thescheme aims to strengthenties and mutual understandingbetween members of thearmed forces and civiliansin the wider communitiesin which they live.

So far the project hasuncovered many contemporaryartefacts, including messtins, dummy bullets used fortraining, and a harmonica.These finds, along with docu-ments from the archives, willbe collected together to forman exhibition and bookletfor the wider public to learnmore about the history of thismilitary site.

Follow the teams progresson their Facebook page at www.facebook.com/diggingsurreyspast

Our round-up of this months military history news

THE CATCH-22 LOOK340th Bomb Group, among them 43-4064.

This historically accurate repainting was completed by a conservation team at IWM Duxford over a period of six weeks. Care was taken to make sure it is identical to the original 43-4064 all the lines and colour changes were taken from original photographs of the aircraft during WWII. It will be exhibited in the newly renovated American Air Museum at IWM Duxford when it reopens to the public in the spring of next year. For more details, visit www.iwm.org.uk/duxford


A North American aircraft has been repainted to represent the plane once fl own by Joseph Heller.

The paintwork has transformed the B-25J Mitchell to exactly match 43-4064, a plane that served with the 488th Bomb Squadron of the 340th Bomb Group, 12th Air Force, United States Army Air Force, at the end of WWII.

Heller relied heavily on his time spent serving as a bombardier in the 488th Bomb Squadron in Corsica for the inspiration for his famous satirical novel Catch-22. The writer in fact flew several different planes assigned to the

Wilfred Owens training camp

To commemorate its bicentenary year, the British Overseas Territory of Ascension Island is hosting celebrations all summer, culminating in a weekend of special events on 22-25 October.

In 1815, a small British naval garrison named HMS Ascension was established on an uninhabited volcanic island in the South Atlantic Ocean, between the coasts of West Africa and Brazil. It was a precaution after Napoleon was imprisoned on Saint Helena to the south-east. In October of that year, the captains of HMS Zenobia and HMS Peruvian had landed to claim the island as British territory.

During WWII, the island was an importantnaval and air station, providing anti-submarine warfare bases during theBattle of the Atlantic.It was also used during the Falklands War. Today, Ascension Island has a temporary population of around 800 people, and an MoD and a USAF base.

British Base Commander Mark Taylor said, Those of us who live on Ascension today must pay tribute to all our military forebears, who worked in extreme condi-tions from 1815 onwards to establish a fresh water-supply, sanitation, military fortifications, housing, and healthcare in this isolated and remote environment. Ascension continues to have great strategic importance, and those of us who serve here today have a key role to play as a staging post for British interests both military and diplomatic in the South Atlantic.

Scrapbooks made by a family during WWI arebeing made available for public viewing afterstaff at Edinburgh Councils Capital Collections library tracked down the original owners son.

The two books were made by the Thomson family, who lived at Glengyle Terrace in Edinburgh. Most of the letters are addressed to Thomas Davidson Thomson, who was just three years old when the war broke out. The researchers believe his parents were collecting the material on his behalf, to document the times he was living through when just a little boy.

The fi rst scrapbook contains newspaper articles relating the news of the impending

E ropean War, illustrations Allied military in their ff erent uniforms, and

ewspaper cuttings of he British and Belgian oyal Families, as well as ropaganda cartoons and dvertisements. The second scrapbook less colourful, and has

fewer scraps,tokens, and illustrations, but shows the impact of war on the home front. There are items related to rationing andoffi cial notices to conserve resources. There are also letters of thanks for small donations given to charitable causes. Finally, there is news of peace and the surrender of the German fl eet. On the last page, pressed like real fl owers, are two handmade red-silk poppies.

Library offi cer Clare Padgett and John Temple from the digital volunteer team conducted a thorough investigation through records, ships passenger lists, and online search engines, managing to fi nd Thomsons son, Dave Thomson, who now lives in the Netherlands. Thomson has allowed the scrapbooks to be included in the Capital Collections so that his familys history is available to the public.

The scrapbooks can be viewed at the website www.capitalcollections.org.uk

MHMFRONTLINENEWS IN BRIEFDefending DoverThe only working example of a British 3-inchanti-aircraft gun from WWI has been restored and installed at Dover Castle. This marks the centenary of the fi rst successful hit on a Zeppelin by an identical anti-aircraft gun, controlled from Dover Castles Fire Command Post.

On 21 December 1914, Dover was the target of the fi rst bombing attack on Britain by a German aeroplane. The threat of this type of aerial warfare led to the development of anti-aircraft defences, such as the 3-inch gun.

Now an anti-aircraft emplacement, including a Fire Command Post and Port War Signal Station, has been painstakingly recreated thanks to a Heritage Lottery Fund grant. By restoring some of these features, visitors will be better able to appreciate the crucial part the castle played in the defence of Britain during WWI.

Stamp dutyThe Royal Mail is to create a Special Stamp honouring Sir Nicholas Winton, who rescued hundreds of childrenfrom Nazi-occupied Czechoslovakia, aft er an online petition calling for him to receive the accolade reached over 100,000 signatures. On the eve of WWII, Winton organised eight trains to take 669 unaccompanied children away to safety in Britain. He also helped fi nd them foster families. He died earlier this year, aged 106.

A spokeswoman for Royal Mail had said, It is clear that Sir Nicholas Winton is a worthy candidate. The campaign was launched by Justin Cohen and Richard Ferrer from Jewish News, in conjunction with the Holocaust Education Trust, and backed by Sir Mick Davis, who chaired the Prime Ministers Holocaust Commission. The stamp will be issued in 2016 as part of a commemorative set.

Mightier than the swordThe pen used by US General Douglas MacArthur during the Japanese surrender ceremony that ended WWII has been displayed in Chester Town Hall to coincide with the 70th anniversary of the signing.

The pen was used on 2 September 1945,on board the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay, and then was given by MacArthur to Lieutenant General Arthur Percival, a former forces commander, Japanese prisoner-of-war, and witness to the signing on board the ship. He, in turn, donated it to the Cheshire Regiment before his death in 1966.

The pen will be shown as part of the year-long Chester Unlocked programme that celebrates the citys diverse heritage. After its loan to the TownHall, the pen will return to the Cheshire MilitaryMuseum, where it will go back on display to thepublic. For more information about the museum,visit www.cheshiremilitarymuseum.co.uk

GOT A STORY?Let us know! [email protected]

Military History Monthly, Thames Works, Church Street, London, W4 2PD

020 8819 5580


SCRAPBOOKS FROM THE HOME FRONT

Ascension Island bicentenary

OPERATION SANGARIS

10 October 2015MILITARYHISTORYMONTHLY

MHMBEHINDTHEIMAGE

CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC, AUGUST 2014 What immediately grabs ones attention in this photograph is the different poses of the soldiers behind the sandbags. They are clearly protecting themselves from the dust, yet why is the figure at the right standing upright and not fully pro-tected by the wall of sandbags?

It is not merely the fact that these are people, which always attracts our attention, but also the fact that their different poses rise so neatly from left to right. This is the only movement in the photograph through the rising diagonal line to the slightly off-vertical of the makeshift flagpole, proudly flying the French Tricolour. A visual link is created from the soldiers to the flag, which clearly declares their allegiance to France.

The various gestures of the squatting soldiers almost make one think of the three wise monkeys: Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Perhaps all that is literally behind them as they face towards the flag. Or again, are they gradually rising from their crouched positions to stand tall beneath the French flag?

The setting could almost be staged. The sand-bags form a limited foreground space in which the figures are placed, and create a strong horizontal that gives the whole image a static feel, stressing the gentle rise of the soldiers.

There is a rather muted feel about the picture, for behind the sandbags the view is limited by the dust (in fact, stirred up by a helicopter) that clouds both middle ground and the background.

This haze washes out the colour in the shot, and it is difficult to make out features beyond the line of the sandbags it could be almostanywhere. Or, at least, anywhere warm andsunny. The only slash of colour looks like the redcross of an ambulance, barely seen at the right ofthe photograph, reminding us that these men aresoldiers, and that fighting is dangerous.

The photographs set can thus be taken to sym-bolise the mens readiness to serve anywhereunder the French flag, as many men of the ForeignLegion have done. It might also touch on theRomantic idea of men who have left their pastsbehind to grow tall again under the Tricolour.

The photograph is one of an award-winningseries taken by the French photographer EdouardElias, whose photo-essay documented 30 menfrom the Second Foreign Infantry Regiment(from Nmes, France) for a month during theirinvolvement in Operation Sangaris, which soughtto reduce ethnic tension between Muslim Selekarebels and Christian anti-balaka militias. It is onshow at Visa pour lImage 2015 Perpignan. . Text:

Kei

th R

obin

son

Imag

e: E

doua

rd E

lias/

Getty

Imag

es R

epor

tage

; cou

rtes

y of

Vis

a po

ur l

Imag

e Pe

rpig

nan

2015

.

www.military-history.org 11MILITARYHISTORYMONTHLY

Percy Hobart was born on14 June 1885 to parentsJanetta and Robert Hobartin Naini Tal, India. His fatherworked for the Indian Civil Service.On the familys return to Great Brit-ain, young Percy was educated at anumber of private schools, beforegraduating in 1904 from the RoyalMilitary Academy at Woolwich.

From an early age, he had shownan aptitude for engineering, and hewas commissioned into the Corpsof the Royal Engineers. His firstposting took him back to India, butwithin the space of a decade he wasfighting in France and Mesopotamiaduring the First World War. Between1919 and 1920 he was once againin India, where he took part in theWaziristan campaign.

During the closing stages of theFirst World War, Hobart had seen

Confronting us is the problem of

getting ashore on adefended coastline.

Sir Percy Hobart

the diff erence mechanical warfare had made, and in 1923 he trans-ferred to the Royal Tank Corps. In 1934 he was promoted to the rank of brigadier, and took command of the fi rst permanent armoured brigade in the British Army. His task was a tough one, as he battled with cavalry staff offi cers who regularly denied his requests for resources and personnel.

In 1938, Hobart had attained the rank of major-general. He was sent to Egypt to train Mobile Force (Egypt), the forerunner of the famed 7th Armoured Division, The Desert

Patrick Boniface considers the influence of science on warfare


MAJOR-GENERAL

SIR PERCY CLEGHORN

STANLEY HOBART

ABOVE RIGHT The Duplex Drive (DD)swimming Sherman was an amphibious tank used on all five beaches on D-Day. RIGHT The Crocodile, a Churchill tank rebuilt as a flame-thrower.

BIOGRAPHY

Rats. Hobarts unconventionalattitude and personality led tomany run-ins with his superiors,and Sir Archibald Wavell dismissedHobart into retirement in 1940.

Back home in Chipping Campden,Hobart joined the Local DefenceVolunteers as a lance corporal.Hearing of this, Winston Churchillconvinced Hobart to re-enlist intothe army in 1941 to train the 11thArmoured Division.

Percy Hobart was no longeryoung in fact, he was 57. Manysenior officers wanted him removed

MHMCONFLICTSCIENTISTSThe success of [Overlord] depends on the element of surprise caused by new equipment. Suggestions from all ranks for improve-ments in equipment are to be encouraged.

The first need was to inspire all officers with thebelief that wire-less communicationbetween tanks onthe move was prac-ticable; and the next,to convince them thatthey were capable ofmaking use of it.

Confronting usis the problem ofgetting ashore on adefended coastline.The success of theoperation dependsof the element ofsurprise caused bynew equipment.

There seemsto be in somequarters a frigidattitude as regardsmechanical matters.

The need is soacute that we cannotafford either to neglector drop any possiblemethod of dealingwith minefields.

QUOTES FROM

HOBART

IN CONTEXT: HOBART

Unpopular and brilliantMajor-General Hobart was described by his direct superior, Lieutenant-General H M Wilson, as self opinionated and lacking in stability, as a man who showed little consideration for the feelings and wishes of others.

Such was the extent of some military top brasss dislike of Hobart that Prime Minister Winston Churchill had to intervene to defend him: The High Commands of the Army are not a club. It is my duty to make sure that exceptionally able men, even those not popular with their military contempo-raries, should not be prevented from giving their services to the Crown.

Churchill felt it necessary to defend this particular man because of his uniquely creative mind in coming up with solu-tions to defeat German defences. Despite his unpopularity, Hobart would go on to lead a group of talented individuals at the 79th Armoured Division who created a multitude of innovative devices for landing on the D-Day beaches in June 1944 the so-called Hobarts Funnies.

from command, but instead he was put in charge of the 79th Armoured Division. Following the disastrous Dieppe Raid of August 1942, the Army became focused on ways of overcoming strong coastal defences. That task fell to Hobart. The 79th Armoured Division was converted into a unit of specialised armour and renamed 79th (Experimental) Armoured Division, Royal Engineers.In 1943, Hobart was knighted.

Hobarts leadership led to the creation of some of the most in-novative, unusual, and downright


strange mechanical devices ever created by the Royal Engineers.

Among the most notable of these creations were the Duplex Drive (DD) swimming Sherman tank, the Crab flail tank that drew much from the Matilda Scorpion used in the Battle of El Alamein in 1942, the Churchill Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers (AVRE), the Bobbin Carpet Layer, the Armoured Ramp Carrier (ARK), and the Crocodile flamethrower. The latter, when fitted to a con-verted Churchill tank, could deliver 100 one-second bursts to a range of around 110 metres.

These would later become known as Hobarts Funnies, although funny they were not. While some were spectacular failures, most proved to be very effective. The units work was a decisive factor on D-Day, with the Funnies dealing with German minefields, tank traps, and a multitude of other devices on the Normandy beaches.

Percy Hobart retired (again) in 1946. In recognition of his huge contribution to the success of Opera-tion Overlord, he was awarded the American Legion of Merit and also the Companion of the Order of the Bath to add to his Military Cross and his Distinguished Service Order.

Major-General Sir Percy Cleghorn Stanley Hobart died aged 72 at Farn-ham in Surrey on 19 February 1957.

BELOW Sherman Crab Mk II flail tank, one of General Hobarts Funnies of 79th Armoured Division, during minesweeping tests in the UK, 27 April 1944.


Inspired by last years commemorations in Normandy,Prince Charles commissioned 12 portraits of surviving veteransto coincide with the 71st anniversary of the D-Day landings. The portraits show some of the survivors of the greatest amphibious and airborne invasion in history, involving some 7,700 ships and 12,000 aircraft.

The men were painted wearing their medals for this first collection of D-Day veteran portraits, which pays tribute to all those who served in the Normandy campaign.

The title of the exhibition originates from a message sent to all the troops on the eve of D-Day by General Eisenhower, in which he announced, The tide has turned! The free men of the world are marching together to Victory!.

1

23

1. GEOFFREY PATTINSONA sergeant with 9th Parachute Battalion, Pattinson was to land at the Merville Battery, but, due to a faulty glider, he actually landed in Hampshire. By the evening, his platoon managed to land in Normandy where he rejoined his unit.

2. JAMES JIM GLENNIEGlennie was a private with the 5th/7th Gordon Highlanders, who advanced inland and took up defensive positions near Caen. During a German counter-attack, Glennie was wounded and taken as a prisoner-of-war for four months.

3. ERIC JOHNSTONJohnston was a trooper with the 4th/7th Royal Dragoon Guards and co-driver within the Reconnaissance Troop, which landed on Gold Beach at dawn. He took part in the Battle of Villiers-Bocage and the defence of Hill 103.

MHMWARCULTURE


Painted by some of the UKs leading artists, the portraits were

recently exhibited in the Queens Gallery, London, in a collection put together by the Royal Drawing School in collaboration with the Royal Collection Trust. They will also be shown at the Palace of Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh early next year.

Artist Jonathan Yeo, who painted the portrait of veteran Geoffrey Pattinson, said, Painting someone who candidly describes the first time they set foot on foreign soil as the time they jumped out of a moving aircraft and parachuted down through flying bullets to land in Normandy for D-Day makes Geoffrey one of the more extraordinary sitters Ive encountered in my time as a portrait artist.

Here, MHM highlights nine of these historic portrayals.

5

4

6

4. BRIAN STEWARTStewart was the Anti-Tank Platoon Commander with the Tyneside Scottish. He helped rescue comrades in the 8th Battalion of the Parachute Regiment who were cut off in their bid to destroy the bridges over the River Dives.

5. TOM RENOUFA private (later lieutenant) with the 5th Battalion Black Watch, Renouf took part in the battle for high ground around Breville. He was also part of the 51st Highland Division that rescued the 8th Battalion of the Parachute Regiment.

6. ROBERT ANTONY TONY LEAKEA corporal with the 8th Battalion of the Parachute Regiment, Leake took part in the mass parachute drop behind German lines, blew bridges over the River Dives, and set up defensive positions.

The Last of the Tide:Portraits of D-Day VeteransRoyal Collection Trust and Modern Art Press,5.00. ISBN 978-1909741294Available from the shop at the QueensGallery, Buckingham Palace, and onlineat www.royalcollection.org.uk/shop

GO FURTHER


7. RAYMOND TICH RAYNERRayner was a sergeant with the Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry, and flew as part of the operation on Pegasus Bridge. His glider had navigational issues, landing seven miles from the planned landing zone. He eventually fought his way back to his unit.

8. LAURENCE LAURIE WEEDENWeeden was a pilot during the mass airborne operation on D-Day. He landed safely in Normandy, where his cargo of jeeps, explosives, and ammunition were used by the 8th Parachute Battalion to blow up bridges over the River Dives.

9. JACK GRIFFITHSGriffiths flew a glider containing Parachute Regiment soldiers, successfully landing on the morning of D-Day. The soldiers went on to destroy bridges over the River Orne.

7

8

9

THE FIRST BRITISH GAS ATTACK, LOOS, 1915It was outlawed, but the Germans had used it at Ypres in April 1915. The British followed suitin September. Steve Roberts explores the arguments about, and the effects of, the first Britishchemical attack, a century ago this month.

BELOW This exceptional photograph apparently shows men of the 47th Division advancing through the cloud of gas and smoke in no-mans-land on 25 September 1915, the first day of Loos.


M en hold one another, hand on shoulder, bandages cover-ing eyes, straggling towards the guy ropes of a field hos-pital. John Singer Sargents painting depicting a line of blinded soldiers was given the simple title Gassed. Wilfred Owen, in Dulce et Decorum Est, conjured a nightmare vision of clumsy helmets, choking, drowning, white eyes writhing, and froth corrupted lungs.

The Battle of Loos, fought in northern France in September 1915, was the first British gas attack of WWI despite the Hague Convention of 1899 having banned shells diffusing asphyxiating or deleterious gases.

Who was first? Some claim the French, using ineffectual tear-gas grenades in August 1914. The Germans, benefiting from a highly developed chemical industry, first used gas on 27 October, when deployment was largely ineffective, the shells containing a chemical irritant that resulted in violent sneezing fits.

Gas was a worrying development for Entente troops, given that early anti-gas measures comprised holding urine-sodden handkerchiefs over mouth and nose.

The first major gas attack allegedly occurred at Bolimow on 31 January 1915, when the Germans rained 18,000 gas shells on the Russians. They used xylyl bromide, an early tear gas but its effect was vitiated by the cold of the Eastern Front.

The Germans were the first to give serious study to chemical weapons and to deploy them in quantity. During WWI, their tonnage of gas exceeded that of Britain and France combined. They tried an improved tear-gas concoction at Nieuport (in March 1915) against the French.

SECOND YPRESThe first time the Germans tried poison gas was at the Second Battle of Ypres on 22 April. This time, the effect was dramatic.

The Entente line was shattered when 171 tons of chlorine were released from cylinders on a four-mile front in a period of five minutes.

The prevailing wind carried the gas towards French lines, resulting in 6,000 casualties and many agonising deaths. The gas attacked wet tissue (lungs and eyes) and destroyed the respiratory organs. Ominously for those inclined to imitate, the Germans lost men releasing the gas.

The French troops fled, leaving Ypres exposed. The Germans gained ground but, unsure of the gass effectiveness, failed to push on and break through.

The British observed a low cloud of yellow-grey vapour (some say ghostly green). Almost immediately the French appeared, galloping horses spurred away from the cloud. A pungent, nauseating smell became evident, tickling throats and making eyes smart. In the worst cases, men were frothing at the mouth, their eyes bulging.

Phot

o:IW

M


The Germans had driven a French army corps out of the line. Sir John French, BEF (British Expeditionary Force) commander, called the enemy gas attack cynical, barba-rous, and alien to the concept of civilised war.

The Western Front was quiet over most of the following summer, the Allies preparing a great offensive for the autumn. When it came, the centrepiece was French commander-in-chief Joseph Joffres Second Battle of Champagne (22 September- 6 November). This was supported by a secondary British offensive, the Third Battle of Artois (25 September-15 October). Loos (25 September-8 October) was an integral part of this British offensive; and, Frenchs moral reservations notwithstanding, it was to see the first British use of gas.

CHLORINE, PHOSGENE, AND VESICANTSAt Second Ypres, the Germans had released chlorine, a characteristically green gas. Victimschoked, gas reacting quickly with water in air-ways to form hydrochloric acid, swelling and blocking lung tissue, resulting in suffocation. Two days later, when gas was released a second time, Canadian troops used socks soaked in urine as protection.

By 1917, chlorine was no longer the only chemical agent employed. A more dangerous irritant, phosgene, now became the main killer. Slow to act, with victims often not developing symptoms for hours, or even days, it is easy to see why panic spread.

The standard-issue gas mask of 1917, the small-box respirator, provided good protection against both, provided it could be donned quickly an ecstasy of fumbling, according to Owen.

Worse was to come, as both sides resorted to blistering agents (vesicants), which maimed even those wearing masks. The most widely used, mustard gas, blistered lungs and throat. Masked soldiers blistered all over as gas soaked into uniforms, which had to be stripped and washed quickly: never easy at the front.

DEVELOPMENT AND TESTINGThe British were in a game of catch-up. They needed to know what chemicals the Germans were using and how to counter them. After Second Ypres, Kitchener appointed Colonel Lois Jackson RE to conduct a feasibility study into British use of gas.

The research team at the Imperial College of Science concluded that chlorine could be despatched from pressurised cylinders to form a cloud. Using a soda-siphon system, gas could escape under pressure controlled by stop-cocks. A -inch diameter iron-pipe, three metres long, would deliver liquid chlorine, which developed into yellow- white gas on emerging.

Experimental research was conducted at Porton, a name now synonymous with chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear warfare (CBRN). A laboratory was constructed at Helfaut, St Omer (the gas-warfare Special Companies would have their depot here, and when assembled would be given the option of quitting once the mission had been explained).

The Kestner-Kellner Alkali Company, the only one in Britain capable of manufacturing large quantities of chlorine, supervised trials at Runcorn, concluding on 4 June. They would not, however, be able to manufacture enough gas to attack the entire enemy front by the time of the planned offensive, so smoke candles were to be used as well, creating the illusion of a continuous chlorine cloud.

The War Office called in Oxford academic John Scott Haldane to produce the first gas mask. The primitive veil respirator followed, pads of cotton waste, wrapped in gauze, soaked in sodium thiosulphate; this countered low concentrations. Haldane also developed the more effective box-respirator, introduced in April 1916 and used for the rest of the war.

ARGUMENTS AND SPECIALISTSPrior to Loos, General Haig might have been persuaded that battlefield and armament were unfavourable, but the availability of 150 tons of

Tear gas chemical irritant, resulting in violent sneezing fits.

Chlorine first poison gas, potentially deadly, irritant to lungs and mucous membranes, causing victim to cough violently and choke.

Phosgene caused less coughing, so more gas inhaled, therefore more potent. Delayed effect, with poisoning often apparent only after 48 hours.

Phosgene/chlorine so-called white star mixture, chlorine supplying the vapour necessary to carry phosgene.

Mustard gas (Yperite) first used in 1917, odourless chemical causing serious blistering internally and externally, brought on several hours after exposure. Hard to protect against.

THE COMMON AGENTS

ABOVE After the German gas attack at Second Ypres in April 1915, the British began experimenting with gas masks. These soldiers, photographed in May 1915, are shown wearing an early improvisation.

chlorine gas was persuasive. With a shortage of artillery, the advantage of gas forced the battle.

Not everyone was happy. Lieutenant Charles Ferguson, while conceding that Britain had not been the first to use gas, condemned it as a cow-ardly form of warfare. It had an image problem it was considered dirty when compared with honourable weapons like swords and guns.

Special gas units were raised, approximately 1,400 men in total, many of them science students, all given the rank of chemist corporal. They operated under the leadership of Lieutenant-Colonel Charles Foulkes RE. The new arm was ordered to prepare for a gas attack at Loos.

Such was the stigma, the chemical-warfare specialists were forbidden even to utter the word gas. Gas canisters were called accessories. Anybody mouthing the G-word was punished.

It was considered dirty when compared with honourable weapons like swords and guns.

Phot

o: W

IPL

GAS!

20 October 2015

ABOVE A fanciful reconstruction of British infantry storming German trenches on the first day of the Battle of Loos. This engagement saw the first British use of poison gas.

MILITARYHISTORYMONTHLY

tube, nose clip, and a pair of glass eyepieces. Air came through in suffocatingly small amounts; it was a feat to breathe at all, never mind fight.

The gas was released at 5.50am. French claimed that heavy volumes floated forwards, over enemy lines.

TRAGICOMEDYDecision made, but it was then tragicomedy, as spanners and cylinder cocks proved misfits. Corporal G O Mitchell RE reckoned only eight cylinders discharged. On the British left, gas drifted back and many 2nd Division (I Corps) regiments were gassed, with men staggering about vomiting.

Brigadier J D Selby MC, observing at 8,000 feet, saw the wind change and gas drift back over the British trenches. Thank God we are in the Flying Corps, old boy, was the prescient comment from his pilot.

Wearing sweaty flannel gas helmets made breathing almost impossible, and impaired vision as eye-pieces misted. Men had a choice between being semi-blinded and virtually asphyxiated, or chucking the helmets and being mildly gassed.

On the right, gas drifted over German lines and was moderately effective, the chlorine cloud causing temporary panic.

a total of 140-150 tons of chlorine, maybe half what was needed. Immediately on release, con-trol was lost, as deployment depended on wind. Weather reports were mixed.

Although conditions were not ideal (the wind was not blowing towards the German trenches), release was ordered anyway, as the use of gas was an essential part of Haigs masterplan.

The wind, doubtful all night, had finally turned at 5am, and Haig confirmed the attack after consulting with meteorologist Captain E Gold, who predicted favourable 20mph speeds.

Haig wavered, as the predicted wind failed to materialise. He asked if there was time to cancel: negative. At 5.30am, the assault troops fitted their recently delivered gas masks: PH Helmets flannel bags impregnated with a foul-smelling solution, supplied with mouth

Cylinders, brought up from Maroc mine, were handled by Special Service Brigade REs wearing green, red, and white armlets, making them clearly distinguishable as they prepared their gas and smoke.

On 23 September, French went to see Foulkes about the Gas Company, and declared himself happy. He thought all in order, and a favourable wind would deliver. A change in the weather that night augured well.

SET-UP AND RELEASEThe diary of L G Mitchell of the SSB RE confirmed the secrecy. Equipment was brought by train from the coast to a siding at Gorre a week before, transferred to the RE dump in wagons with muffled wheels at night, then manhandled into trenches by 8,000 REs a major undertaking, begging the question, how come the Germans did not realise something was afoot?

Two men carried six pipes, the journey up the 3-mile communications trench taking 7-8 hours. Foulkes later wrote to the Gas Company alluding to alterations made in the equipment, suggesting the initial kit was difficult to operate or unsafe. One problem was only having two pipes for 12 cylinders, pipes being switched when a cylinder was empty. Apparatus leaked, so men worked in a gas cloud as they turned on the cylinders and attempted to direct the gas over the parapet via the pipes.

Gas would be released from 5,250-5,500 metal cylinders, each weighed around 200lbs, contained

Imag

e: A

lam

y

Immediately on release, control was lost, as deployment depended on wind. Weather reports were mixed.


Imag

e: Ia

n Bu

ll

ABOVE Plan of the first day of the Battle of Loos, 25 September 1915, showing the effects of the British gas attack and the subsequent advance of the infantry.

GAS!

22

Accounts suggest the greenish-yellow huerose to form a cloud 40 feet high, driftingtowards the enemy, but it also festered inno-mans-land, whirling around uselessly.Rain the previous day and night considerablyreduced its effectiveness.

The secret weapon was a failure. Evenwhere the gas drifted over enemy trenches,it was slow and thin. At the southern endof the attack front, no gas had reached the

October 2015MILITARYHISTORYMONTHLY

1899Hague Convention Declaration(IV, 2) prohibits use of projectilesto spread asphyxiatingpoisonous gases

August 1914French use tear-gas grenades

27 October 1914First attempted use of gasby Germans

31 January 1915First major use of gas againstRussians in Poland

TIMELINE

Gas canisterswere calledaccessories.Anybody mouthingthe G-word waspunished.

ABOVE British walking wounded at a dressing station near Loos during the battle. ABOVE RIGHT German gas casualty being treated with oxygen at Loos in September 1915.

Phot

o: W

IPL

enemy after 30 minutes. L G Mitchell said the Germans kept machine-guns firing through-out by lighting fires around them while gas was going over; the attackers emerging from the gas, silhouetted against a white cloud, made clear targets.

CHAOSGerman batteries opened up on the British lines and had more success opening cylin-ders than their operators. The Gas Company scarpered. The gas was turned off at 6.28am, two minutes before the assault, which had been delayed by 90 minutes in the hope that the wind would become favourable. Then, with-out any real change in conditions, the men went over the top, many describing the wind as in their faces. Allegedly, the gas caused more British casualties than German.

Chaos reigned in many sectors of the British front, yet in others the gas did carry to the German trenches and initial British attacks prospered. In many areas, however, attacking infantry were enveloped in their own gas as they caught up with the slow-motion chlorine cloud: a chemical friendly-fire.

Feint-attacks, kicking off earlier, were hampered by small amounts of gas the wind barely shifted. It seems surprising gas was used in the feint, warning the Germans this would come in the main event. The fact word did not spread on the German side was due to the gas not reaching them.

The offensive was a catastrophe. The bombardment was not strong enough to destroy German wire or machine-guns. Accounts often do not mention gas, although A F Francis of 5th Field Ambulance

22 April 1915Germans use gas at Second Ypres

4 June 1915Final trial of British chlorine gas at Runcorn

July 1915Nos 186/187 Special Companies formed

August 1915Nos 188/189 Special Companies formed

21 August 1915Kitchener advises French that Germans are short of men and urges an attack

24 August 1915French meets Haig to discuss Loos and argues against waste of lives

4 September 1915First two Special Companies assigned to First Army for operations

22 September 1915First Army bombardment begins

23 September 1915French sees Foulkes about Gas Company, which starts for trenches at 4.45pm

did confirm effects on eyes and stomach. Flesh wounds were aggravated.

The Germans rallied after initial panic, although in some areas morale was wholly unaffected. This confounded British expecta-tions, which had been that German infantry and gunners would be neutralised to a depth of three miles.

The difficulties in releasing gas at Loos led to the development of gas shells, fired by artillery, which increased the range and made the use of a variety of gases easier.

GAS PANICThe effects of gas are several. As well as causing death or disabling injury through its direct effect, it can also cause panic and flight, and may neutralise resistance through the encum-brance of wearing gas masks.

Panic was widespread. The mere threat of gas attack was terrifying, panic spreading like a virus, resulting in gas casualties who had not been affected at all. Since the effects were invisible, soldiers feared contamination.

Gas had other effects, too chlorine gas caused rapid rusting of rifles and artillery breech blocks, rendering them useless.

Despite the limited effect of gas on the battlefields of 1915, research and develop-ment continued, and gas remained a major weapon until the end of the First World War. A key innovation was mustard gas, which could inflict severe burns. A respirator could save a soldier, although the gas might still remove the power of speech for several days.

Trench mortar batteries experimented with new bombs, the gas emitted on impact designed to penetrate gas helmets, resulting

in intense nausea and vomiting, compelling the victim to wrench off his mask. The mortar team would then switch to standard chlorine and phosgene bombs.

British and Empire deaths due to gas in WWI numbered 6,000. Of the 90,000 of all nations killed by gas, over 50% were Russian, many without masks. Some 185,000 British and Empire troops were injured, the vast majority during the last two years, when mustard gas was deployed. Most gas casualties made full recover-ies, however, and by 1929 just 1% of British disability pensions were paid to gas victims.

GAS BANAfter the war, humanity delivered its verdict: the Geneva Protocol of 1925 banned gas as a


Attacking infantry were enveloped in their own gas as they caught up with the slow-motion chlorine cloud: a chemical friendly-fire.

Phot

o: W

IPL

24 September 1915Some 400 chlorine gas emplacements established along British front

Morning, 25 September 1915Haig orders gas to be released (5am), commencing Battle of Loos

Afternoon, 25 September 1915

Some, but not all, initial gains lost in German counter-attack

Evening, 25 September 1915Haig confirms at 11.30pm that attack will continue at 11am

26 September 1915Reserve divisions committed. French visits wounded at dressing-station

27 September 1915Foch visits French, who is unaware how much German line at Hill 70 has been reinforced

30 September 1915Gas Company moved to Annaquin, close to Cambrin, preparing for a second gas attack

8 October 1915Battle of Loos ends

13 October 1915Second British gas attack using new equipment

September 1917Mustard gas is used by Germans against Russians at Riga using artillery shells

30 November 1917Mustard gas is used at Cambrai

1925Geneva Protocol bans use of gas this ban is nominally still in force today

GAS!

24 October 2015

BELOW Australian soldiers recover at a casualty clearing station after being gassed probably by mustard gas in May 1918. Most such men made a full recovery, with relatively few fatalities. Artillery, machine-guns, rifles, and grenades killed far more than gas ever did, but its moral effect was great.

MILITARYHISTORYMONTHLY

battlefield weapon. No other weapon was condemned in this way. Cynics argue that it was because the weapon was ineffective: the Great Powers were willing to sign away something they did not need. This is almost certainly correct.

Had gas not been available to the British at Loos, the attack may never have been launched, and a major defeat costing 60,000 casualties avoided. It was ineffective at Loos, and on most other occasions on which it was used. Its primary effect was always moral rather than physical as the relative casualty figures show but even this was hardly ever decisive in shaping a battle, let alone in determining its outcome. History knows no great victory for gas warfare.

Gas played almost no part in the Second World War, except that residual gas panic remained, symbolised by the ubiquitous gas mask. The gas mask was one of the iconic artefacts of that conflict, and also, in the event, one of the most redundant.

Steve Roberts is an historian and former history teacher, who has written for MHM on many occasions,

including cover stories on Edward III and the Siege of Leningrad. Steve has been published in more than 50

different magazines, and his first book, Lesser Known Christchurch, was launched on 6 August.

ABOVE Gas became an obsession after its first large-scale use on both the Eastern and Western Fronts early in 1915. Here, pictured in 1916, a British soldier in a gas mask poses with a gas alarm.

Phot

o: W

IPL

Phot

o: A

lam

y

Imag

e: B

ridge

man

Imag

es

MILITARYHISTORYMONTHLY 27

T hree great victories over French chivalry duringthe so-called Hundred Years War have achievediconic status in British popular history: Crcy(1346), Poitiers (1356), and Agincourt (1415).Viewed from a geopolitical perspective, theirstatus is undeserved. England was too small and distant to haveany hope of making good the claims of its kings to Frenchterritory, at least in the long term.

Crcy, Poitiers, and Agincourt were tactical battlefieldvictories without the strategic weight behind them necessary to consolidate any temporary gains they yielded. Whatever Frances often timid Valois kings might concede in the imme-diate aftermath of defeat was invariably recovered in the years and decades following. The meteoric career of Joan of Arc (following the campaigns of Henry V) is only the most famous example of such a French resurgence.

But these battles do, in fact, have great significance: they herald the decline of feudalism and a way of war based on armoured cavalry.

During the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries, heavy horse had dominated European battlefields, and indeed battlefields beyond, like those of the Middle East during the Crusades. But the primacy of heavy horse was contingent on the absence of a strong infantry.

Serfs make poor soldiers. For men to fight well, they must be stakeholders, or at least imagine themselves to be, in the social order of which they are part. The new infantry of the 14th and 15th centuries Flemish club-men, Scots pikemen, English longbowmen, Swiss pikemen, German landsknechts, Hussite hand-gunners were recruited from a distinct social layer of free men who were relatively prosperous, indepen-dent, and entrepreneurial.

English sources refer to the middling sort, by which they mean the yeoman farmers of the countryside and the indepen-dent artisans and petty-traders of the towns. This layer of society was driving radical economic and social change across a large swathe of Europe. Feudalism had become brittle. New forms of wealth based on commercial farming and maritime trade were upsetting the traditional social order. Radical ideas like those of the English Lollards, who anticipated the Protestant Reformation by a century were undermining old certainties.

Agincourt, the focus of our special this month, was not only a victory of a small English army over a larger French one. It was also a victory of strong infantry over heavy horse, of common men over feudal chivalry, of the rising middling sort over what had by then become a dying social order.

Introduction

Battle court

: BEGINNING OF HUNDRED YEARS WARThe war was really a succession of separate wars spread across more than a century (1337-1453) that pitted the English House of Plantagenet against the French House of Valois in a dynastic conflict over control of territory in France. In the long run, the French had the advantage: they were fighting on home ground, close to their bases; their population and resources were much greater; and their enemies were compelled to fight overseas and, if they penetrated far inland, at the end of perilously long supply-lines. A greatly superior military system often allowed the outnumbered English to win tactical successes on the battlefield; but any short-term gains were soon lost in the long periods of relative inactivity in-between.

1413: SUCCESSION OF HENRY VEngland had passed through a period of

urmoil with the Peasants Revolt (1381), he overthrow of Richard II and usurpation f Henry Bolingbroke/Henry IV (1399), and then

wars with the Scots, the Welsh, and English ebels. The succession of Henry V was itself a

minor achievement. As Shakespeares plays amously record, the young king had been a eer-do-well at odds with his father. Though ars with France had become unpopular in e late 14th century, a new generation

ad grown up in troubled times, and e prospect of foreign war under a

young leader offered an opportunity to forge a stronger national unity.

Henry V came to the throne gagging for

war, and many of his countrymen responded enthusiastically.

MAY/OCTOBER 1360: TREATY OF BRTIGNY

Following a conference in May, a peace treaty was agreed between the English and the French at Calais in October. Edward III agreed to renounce

his claims to Normandy, Touraine, Anjou, and Maine, in return for

increased lands in Aquitaine. He also agreed to reduce King Johns ransom by a million crowns (the French king had been captured at Poitiers), and to abandon his claim to the throne of France.

26 AUGUST 1346: ENGLISH VICTORY AT BATTLE OF CRCYThis was the first great continental victory of the new English military system based on the bill and bow combination. The clash between King Philip of France and King Edward III of England took place in Flanders. Heavily outnumbered, the English fought an essentially defensive battle,

while the French staged a long succession of unauthorised, badly co-ordinated, and

chaotically conducted mounted charges, most of which were destroyed by arrow-shot before the French chivalry could get to grips with their enemies. The main lesson of the battle was that that traditional heavy

horse could not prevail against massed English archery.

1369-1389REIGN OF

CHARLES V: FRENCH

RESURGENCE

1389-1415

THE SECOND PEACE

19 SEPTEMBER 1356

ENGLISH VICTORY AT BATTLE OF POITIERS

1337

24 JUNE 1340ENGLISH VICTORY

AT BATTLE OF SLUYS

SPRING 1414ENGLISH

GREAT COUNCIL RECOMMENDS

FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS WITH FRENCH

Timeline

17 JULY 1453: BATTLE OF CASTILLONAn English armyunder John Talbotwas defeated. Twoyears later, the Wars of the Roses began in England. Thus the war was never renewed, and the Battle of Castillon has therefore come to be regarded as theeffective end of the Hundred Years War. No treaty was ever signed, however, and

in a sense the conflict

had no formal closure. Indeed, Englishclaims on French territory were to remain a diplomatic irritant

for many years to come.

1420: TREATY OF TROYES

y p g g, yof England married Catherine of Valois, daughter ofKing Charles VI, and was recognised as heir to theFrench throne. But Henry died two years later, andhis son, Henry VI, a minor who became one of Englandsmost unsuitable monarchs, was never able to makegood his claim.

13 AUGUST 1415: ENGLISH ARMYLANDS IN NORTHERN FRANCE

decisionight in the th not in the south-st, where the most ensive English territories was critical. Edward III

d campaigned in the rth and won the Battle Crcy close to where e Battle of Agincourt ould be fought but his n, the Black Prince, had

ampaigned mainly in the outh-west, and it was ere that a slow war of ttrition had eventually round the English down. enry was aiming for a nockout blow close to he richest territories of he French Crown.

1428: SIEGE OF ORLEANSThe English laid siege toOrleans with insufficient

force, and it wasrelieved by a French

army inspiredby the youngmystic Joan ofArc. The Englisharmy retreated

and sufferedheavy losses.

The Dauphin was escorted to Reims, andcrowned King Charles VII. Though Henry VI was

crowned King of France at a ceremony at Notre Damein Paris in December 1431 (Joan of Arc having beencaptured and burnt as a heretic the previous May), it wasbut a token gesture. The French resurgence continuedand the English lacked the resources to drive it back.

1453

DECEMBER 1414ENGLISH

PARLIAMENTGRANTS DOUBLE

SUBSIDY TOFUND WAR

13 AUGUST-22 SEPTEMBER

1415SIEGE OF

HARFLEUR

19 APRIL1415

ENGLISHGREAT COUNCIL

SANCTIONS WARWITH FRANCE

8-24 OCTOBER 1415

MARCH FROM HARFLEUR TO THE SOMME

Timeline

25 OCTOBER 1415

BATTLE OF AGINCOURT

Alli

mag

es:W

IPL

The Middling SortEnglish Way of War


ABOVE Squires arm a knight for battle. Agincourtwas a collision between an army formed mainly ofheavily armoured men-at-arms recruited from thetop level of society and one formed mainly of lightlyequipped archers recruited from the middle ranks.The archers, though they were greatly outnumbered,were the victors.

The background

The mounted,armoured, lance-bearing knight hadbeen transformedinto a clankinganachronism.

T he French army at Agincourt wasa traditional feudal host. Estimatesof its size vary wildly, but claimsof 60,000, or even 100,000, canbe rejected out of hand as grossexaggerations by contemporary chroniclers.Most modern accounts regard a figure of about25,000 as realistic, but Anne Curry, Professor ofHistory at Southampton, has argued convinc-ingly that the actual figure may have been lessthan half this total. She has also suggested thatthe English army may have been larger thangenerally assumed, perhaps 8,500 rather thanthe 6,000 usually given. The implication is that,while the English were almost certainly outnum-bered, their disadvantage may have been of theorder of three to two, rather than the four orfive to one of traditional accounts.

Nor is it the case that the whole mass ofthe French army was formed of chivalry. Currybelieves that archers may have accounted for onein three of the French, and that they are likely tohave included longbowmen as well as crossbow-men. There may also have been some Frenchcannon on the battlefield. Since the chroniclers

and t hesay nothing of these elements in their accounts, it seems reasonable to assume that their role was marginal. The fighting was done by the French men-at-arms, and it is on these we must focus in seeking to make sense of the action.

These men-at-arms were organised into three giant battles, each of between 3,000 and 8,000 men (depending on which figures one accepts). The battlefield seems to have been highly constricted. The traditional location has the armies facing each other across a field about 1,000 yards wide between two woods. Though this location is, in fact, uncertain, all the accounts of the battle seem to imply a relatively narrow front and secure flanks. The French army seems to have been compelled to deploy in three lines, one battle behind the other, the first two dismounted, the last mounted. The only major exception was that two contingents of cavalry, each about 500 strong, were placed on the flanks.

THE FEUDAL ARRAYWho were these men? They comprised the retinues of the lords who, honouring their feudal obligations (or commercial contracts), had answered the Kings call to arms. The retinues will have varied in size according to the wealth and power of their lord. Since the feudal system was a hierarchy of vassals and sub-vassals under the King, many of these individual retinues would have been grouped in larger agglomerations under a great lord. A sea of banners indicated the position of each lordly retinue in the array.

Though military service was a feudal obliga-tion in return for holdings of land it was also a moral obligation, its performance being the culmination of a chivalric code that stressed bravery, skill-at-arms, and the glory and honour to be had in an ordeal by battle with rivals of equivalent rank.

Anne Currys research has collapsed the differences between the English and French armies in the Hundred Years War she argues that war had become professionalised and sub-ject to commercial contract on both sides of the

Channel but this need not alter the essentially feudal moral code governing military action. Knights might now be paid for service, but they were still embedded in a feudal array preoccu-pied with individual combat and personal glory.

This meant that French medieval armies were undisciplined and disorderly. Command and control was limited. On the battlefield, each lord

MHM analyses the bill and bow military system used by Edward III, the Black Prince, and Henry V.


did much as he pleased. Once the action began, a dense mass of several thousand men-at-arms was unlikely to be capable of anything more than a plodding advance to contact with the opposing line, the more headstrong lords pushing forwards eagerly to get to grips with their peers.

This problem lack of control, of manoeuvre, of tactical finesse was compounded by two other characteristics of the French army at Agincourt. First, even with the battles stacked up in three lines, the constricted front would have meant that each was ranked in consider-able depth. As they advanced, moreover, the French men-at-arms seem to have veered away from the English archers, directing themselves towards the waiting English men-at-arms, thereby contracting their front and increasing their depth even more. Only the men at the front and on the flanks would have had any clear view of the enemy; most would have been able to see very little except the press of their own comrades around them.

PROTECTION VERSUS MOBILITYThe second factor making the French array more plodding lump than masse de manoeuvre was the weight of armour. By the early 15th century, armour was no longer a mix of plate and mail lighter and more flexible but almost wholly plate. Many changes had taken place in the preceding half century, largely in response to the power of the English longbow, and all in one direction, towards greater protection and safety.

Neck and shoulders were now guarded not by mail, but by a steel gorget, which rose from the upper rim of the breastplate to meet the helmet. Beneath the waist, the groin was now covered by a skirt of overlapping steel bands (taces). Arms and hands, legs and feet were also protected by plates, some rigid, some articulated. Helmets now tended to be completely enclosed bascinets, with visors that covered the face except for eye-slits and sometimes breathing holes.

Sir Charles Oman, the great historian of medieval warfare, considers these armours to have been wholly impractical: mobility, in his view, had been sacrificed to protection to the point of absurdity. The later 14th century had seen many changes in armour all in the direction of safety first, and all detrimental to mobility, and tending to secure the early exhaustion of the wearer. We have arrived at the time when middle-aged knights of a stout habit of body died of heart-failure in battle, without having received any wound, as did Edward of York at Agincourt, and when, at the end of a long fight on a sultry day, masters were seen supported by their pages, lest they should lose their footing and be unable to rise again.

A CLANKING ANACHRONISMThough recent research has raised questions about the weight, restriction, and impracticality of late medieval armours, there can be no question that there is always a trade-off between protection and mobility, and that the plate armour of the 15th century represented an all-time extreme in favour of the former at the expense of the latter.

The French men-at-arms in the first two lines fought dismounted, because of the vulnerability of horses to the arrow-storm. They moved slowly forwards because of their armour, impeded by the mud of a ploughed field following heavy rain, and if they fell, they found it exceptionally difficult to rise again. With their visors down, moreover, as they would have been in battle, their hearing and vision would have been seriously impaired, and their ability to perceive and respond to threats gravely, sometimes fatally, compromised.

The feudal array, now encased in plate, had become a lumbering leviathan. The former king of the battlefield the mounted, armoured, lance-bearing knight of the 12th century had been transformed into a clanking anachronism.

RIGHT A manuscript illustration depicting 15th-century knights jousting. The joust mock combat between warrior-nobles was the supreme sport of feudal chivalry.

The background

THE ENGLISH PROFESSIONAL ARMYThe English army probably far more so than the French was less a feudal array than a professional army under contract. Many feudal land-holders had commuted their military-service obligations into money payments. This suited both parties. The nobility acquired personal freedom those who wished could still, after all, go on campaign if they chose while the monarchy was strengthened by its ability to hire professional soldiers rather than rely on levies of unruly feudatories.

Not only did the King acquire more skilled, disciplined, and effective soldiers, he acquired men willing to serve for long periods, at least as long as they continued to be paid; whereas feu-dal service was restricted to only 40 days a year.

Equally limiting were the commissions of array by which militia were traditionally raised. The obligation on all free men to serve went back to Anglo-Saxon times, but it was restricted to home defence: the militia could not be forced to embark on a foreign expedition.

Again, the King preferred a commercial arrangement, and the common pattern was for a lord or captain to be contracted with to supply a specified number of both men-at-arms and archers. The Kings brother, the Duke of Clarence, for example, agreed to provide 240


men-at-arms and 720 mounted archers for the 1415 campaign.

The Dukes weekly wages bill was over 250. The King published a schedule of payments: 13s. 4d. per day for a duke; 6s. 8d. for an earl; 4s. for a baron; 2s. for a knight; 1s. for other men-at-arms; 6d. for an archer. There was also a schedule of bonuses due. All had to be paid for out of royal state revenues, which included income from the Kings private estates, various feudal dues, war taxation, and the booty and ransom money to be had on campaign. Victory almost certainly meant profit, mainly from the ransom money that could be charged for the return of high-ranking prisoners. Defeat, on the other hand, could bankrupt the royal state.

A MILITARY HYBRIDHenry Vs army was a military hybrid. It was the product of a bastard feudalism in which lords, knights, and retinues served under contract, performing military service not as a feudal obligation, but because they were paid, and because they hoped to enrich themselves on booty and ransoms.

Equally, while royal edicts required all classes of Englishmen to be equipped for war the poorest were expected to possess a bow and a quiverful of arrows Henry Vs

archers represented a selection of English and Welsh yeomanry who had chosen the profession of arms, and offered themselves willingly for contractual service.

Henry took 2,000 men-at-arms and 8,000 archers to France, and when he fought the Battle of Agincourt he is believed to have had at least 1,000 men-at-arms and 5,000 archers in his line (and probably more, judging by what we now know of his losses to combat and disease up to this point). The proportion of archers in English medieval armies had been steadily rising from two or three to one under Edward III (1327-1377) to four or five to one under Henry V (1413-1422), and occasionally as many as ten to one in the later 15th century.

Archers were usually recruited from the rich-peasant class, the yeomanry, so, in the highly class-conscious society of the time, they were commoners. That they did military service at all was testimony to a further element of hybridisa-tion in the English way of war, for they repre-sented a continuation of the Anglo-Saxon military system based on a militia a fyrd of free men.

Norman-style feudalism had been laid across this system, but had not replaced it. Thus, when medieval English kings went to war, they tradi-tionally both summoned the feudal host and issued commissions of array to raise militia.

THE MIDDLING SORTThe term middling sort would later be applied to the class from which the longbowmen of Agincourt were recruited. Recent research has shown that the English yeomanry were already improving their farms and turning themselves into a class of commercial farmers, pioneering a sort of rural capitalism.

The yeomanry/middling sort would later play a major role in

supporting the (anti-feudal) Yorkists during the Wars of the Roses and the (yet

more centralising) Tudor monarchy during the 16th century. They were usually keen supporters of the Protestant Reformation and the Dissolution; and Cromwells Ironsides plain russet-coated captains were, to some degree, the heirs of Henry Vs longbowmen.

Relative prosperity and personal freedom made the middling sort stakeholders in English and Welsh society from the late 14th to the late 17th century. Their enterprise and status imbued them with morale. They were first-rate military material.

They had to be, for the longbow had one major drawback. It was a far better weapon than the crossbow or early handguns employed by contemporary foot on the Continent, but, as military historian Trevor Dupuy explains, the strength, co-ordination, and skill necessary for its successful use could be acquired only by years of training and practice Crossbowmen, on the other hand, could be trained to operate their machines rather quickly.

The French army at Agincourt reflected a rigidly feudal society, in which the gap between the politico-military elite and the mass of the population was a chasm that precluded the development of a strong massed infantry. It was a feudal host supplemented by mercenary archers and gunners (who were viewed with contempt by their social superiors); it was not in any sense a national army.

The English army was quite different. It was a combined-arms force, in which missile firepower (archers), defensive staying-power (dismounted men-at-arms), and mobile shock-action(mounted men-at-arms) were all represented. What made this possible was the more balanced distribution of wealth and power in English society.

The English leader may have been a war-mongering young blood who deliberately

LEFT The development of armour from the 12th to the 15th century, based on English tomb effigies. The increasing reliance on plate was a response to both the hazards of close-quarters combat and the rise of archery in medieval warfare. By the end, the weight of plate-armour had become a military absurdity a fitting symbol, perhaps, of the dying feudal order.


provoked a pointless war in pursuit of personal glory: a classic feudal warlord. But he was also something else: a proto-national monarch who, in some sense, was King of the English, much as his Anglo-Saxon forebears had been. That Henry V is said to have been the first English king since 1066 to have spoken the language of the common people as opposed to Norman French seems appropriate.

THE LONGBOWMENThe English longbow was, of course, a devastat-ing weapon. Made of elm, hazel, or yew, it was 6ft long and, when strung and handled by a skilled archer, could send a 3ft arrow with an

armour-penetrating bodkin point up to 300 yards every 10 seconds. On 25 October 1415, the French faced sheets of arrows from four wedges of English longbowmen, creating an arrow-storm of 30,000 or 40,000 missiles per minute.

But full plate-armour, especially given its glancing surfaces, designed for the purpose, was usually effective in preventing penetration. It is likely that only the occasional lucky shot will have brought down a French man-at-arms during the advance to contact. By the early 15th century, the real effect of the longbow

The background

was indirect: it had reduced the armoured man-at-arms to virtual impotence.

Only at a huge sacrifice of mobility, vision, and shock-power could the French chivalry neutralise the effect of the arrow-storm. This meant they reached the English line exhausted, and they struck it without any real impetus. Instead of a terrifying charge of armoured horse, the English faced a sluggish trudge of men on foot, like a film in slow-motion.

Their armour also made the French vulnerable to close-quarters attack by the archers themselves. The longbowmen were protected by hedges of sharpened stakes. From these, they could sally forth when opportunity offered, and, being more fleet-of-foot, could take out opposing men-at-arms especially the fallen, the wounded, the disoriented, the straggling with axes, swords, mallets, and daggers, retreating back within the stake-hedge when pressed. It is quite possible that the longbow-men killed more Frenchmen this way on 25 October than by arrow-shot.

The commoner with a bow had forced feudalism to encase itself in metal. For the English man-at-arms, this was less of a problem, for he operated in combination with archers. For the French man-at-arms, on the other hand, stranded on the battlefield in a strait-jacket of steel without anyone to guard his flank, his armour casing became a tomb. .

RIGHT English longbowmen as depicted on a 14th-century French manuscript.

BELOW This late 15th-century woodcut depicts a line of Burgundian soldiers. It is a classic image of the bill and bow infantry warfare that was becoming generalised across Europe with the decline of feudalism and heavy horse.

Instead of a terrifying charge of armoured horse, the English faced a sluggish trudge of men on foot, like a film in slow-motion.

Imag

e:Al

amy


25 OCTOBER 1415

Outnumbered, hungry, disease-ridden, far from home how did the English win? Neil Faulkner reconstructs the battle, stage by stage, as it developed.

Agincourt

Henry was demanding a third of France less for its own sake than to provoke a war.

OPPOSITE PAGE This near-contemporary depiction of the Battle of Agincourt is not wholly inaccurate. It attributes primary significance to the English archers, it shows French cavalry on the flank and dismounted men-at-arms in the centre, and makes clear that one army was a combined-arms force and the other a feudal host. The arms and armour are of the period. Even the ploughed field and the woods on either side that defined the battlefield are shown.

The Battle

T he young Henry V had much to prove. His father had been a usurper, and his reign had been one of continual strife. The House of Lancasters legitimacy remained in question it would, of course, become the basis of the Wars of the Roses a generation later and nothing was more likely to secure the new kings crown than a military triumph over the traditional enemy.

To guarantee French rejection of his demands, Henry demanded restitution not only of the lands (in Poitou and Aquitaine) won by Edward III at the Treaty of Bretigny in 1360 and since lost, but even of territory (the Duchy of Normandy) surrendered by King John as long ago as 1204. Henry was demanding a third of France less for its own sake than to provoke a war. This became clear when he rejected French peace overtures despite massive territorial concessions.

HARFLEURThe war was a major strategic challenge. Campaigns in south-western France had

worn out several English armies in the past, having placed them at the end of a long and hazardous maritime communications-line. Better to fight just across the Channel, where re-supply and reinforcement would be relatively straightforward. But this would require a strong base a fortified port on the French coast.

Henry chose the port of Harfleur at the mouth of the Seine. His problem was that his army sailed relatively late in the season on 11 August and the towns exceptionally strong fortifications then defied his efforts until 22 September. This left him with neither the time nor the forces combat and especially disease had degraded his army to attempt another major operation, such as a march down the Seine to Paris.

The correct military decision would have been to accept the gain of Harfleur, post a strong garrison, and return to England for the winter with the intention of renewing the campaign the following year. But feudal politics demanded a different strategy: a military promenade through the French countryside

36 October 2015MILITARYHISTORYMONTHLY

to demonstrate English power in effect,the delivery of an invitation to battle.

The matter was decided at a long councilof war on 5 October, when Henry appearsto have persuaded his leading lords that theymight follow this course appearing to offerbattle yet avoid it in practice by outpacingthe French in a march to Calais (which wasin English hands).

THE MARCH ALONG THE SOMMEThe distance from Harfleur to Calais is about120 miles. The only major obstacle en routeis the River Somme, but Henry planned toget across this well ahead of the French. Inthis he miscalculated badly. He was, in fact,a poor strategist and a routine tactician: notat all the military hero implied by popularlegend. The French were on home ground,they had been mobilising for two monthssince the English landing, and there wereno good grounds for assuming the Frenchwould be incapable of blocking the crossingsof the Somme.

Henry learnt from a French prisoneron 13 October the shocking news that theSomme was blocked at its northern ford,at Blanche-Taque, by 6,000 Frenchmenprotected by a hedge of sharpened stakes.

An emergency council of war debatedthe options: to attempt to force the ford;to retreat to Harfleur; to turn east and seekanother crossing upriver. The English com-manders decided on the latter, but this wasan advance deeper into France, with a growingFrench army now shadowing the march alongthe river from the opposite bank.

THE RUN FOR THE COASTFor five days it continued, the Frenchkeeping abreast of the English and blockingeach crossing in turn, the English growingmore hungry, sick (with dysentery), anddespondent. Then, taking advantage of abend in the river, the King drove his armyforwards fast, out-marched the French,and got it across the river by evening on19 October, the English sleeping that nighton the further bank.

But their situation was still bad enough.They had marched over 200 miles in 12 days,their condition was deteriorating fast, theywere almost 100 miles from safety, and theywere still being shadowed by a growing

English scouts reported that the French had caught up, crossed the armys path, and were deploying for battle ahead.

BELOW LEFT An early 13th-century depiction of a medieval siege. Although Henry Vs Siege of Harfleur occurred two centuries later, the technology of siege warfare seems to have changed very little, except for the introduction of cannon.

Imag

e: W

IPL

French army that almost certainlyoutnumbered them heavily.

After a day of rest on 20 October,the English forced-marched 18 mileson 21 October, and another 53 miles on thefollowing three days. Then, late on 24 October,came shattering news: despite the burstof speed, English scouts reported that theFrench had caught up, crossed the armyspath, and were deploying for battle ahead.

As darkness descended that day, theEnglish, finding what shelter for the nightthey could in and around the village ofMaisoncelles, knew that they would fightthe battle of their lives on the morrow.

THE ENGLISH LINEIf the battle was indeed fought between thevillages of Agincourt and Tramecourt astraditionally assumed it took place on anarable field about 1,000 yards wide, betweentwo woods. Henry at first deployed his out-numbered army towards the southern end ofthis defile, forming it in the conventional threebattles, Lord Camoys commanding on the left,the King himself in the centre, the Duke ofYork on the right.

Each

military history - october 2015

Documents