"What did WWI look like before the Trenches?" Topic

Infantry marching shoulder to shoulder? Cavalry charging with sabers drawn? I don't know. Enlighten me please.

Infantry would be in open skirmisher order theoretically a meter apart but in practice much closer. Cavalry would scout before the battle and fire from horseback or dismounted. They did carry sabers and lances so they would charge if a target presented itself. Most artillery fired over open sites.

Barbara Tuchman draws a good picture in The Guns of August.
One old Belgian most remembered the smell and incessant singing of the Hun.

Not quite shoulder to shoulder, but close enough. French infantry were often in extended line, two ranks deep. German infantry started the war in extended order company columns, 4 lines (each 2 ranks) deep. These formations were a hold-over from the Franco-Prussian War. Most other nations used some sort of attack column. Seen from the front they were almost as dense as close-order.

The BEF had learned not use such formations the hard way, from the Boers. The Old Contemptibles (British regulars) fought in extended order and used cover. They still died in job lots from machine gun and artillery fire.

Cavalry did make some charges with sabers and lances but this quickly proved suicidal.

Firepower quickly drove troops to seek cover once their attacks were stopped. First they scratched out rifle pits. In time these became trench systems.

By the way, Canadian cavalry made a successful (if extremely costly) charge on the Western Front in 1918.

The AHC program on WW1 on Monday (Jul28) had some good movies of early war that I had never seen before. German lancers moving around in a wooded area, and Brits in soft caps in action, Belgians too, French in red pants marching. Worth a look, if you can get past the liberal/communist philosophy that this was a capitalist war, but nationalism won out over class views. Also too much PETA aspect that the war was deadly to horses.

Oh, don't forget about the Australian light horse charge against the Turks. :-)

Matthew

I had a college professor say that Barbara Tuchman wasn't a "real" historian because she didn't have a PhD.

Neither did Herodotus or Thucydides.

…Barbara Tuchman wasn't a "real" historian because she didn't have a PhD.

That's probably what made her a good historian! The history profs' offices are across the hallway from mine. They really drive me nuts with their revisionism and warped views. Of course, they don't talk to me much. They know my position on life and history. My son, who loves reading history, will not read anything from modern historians. His thing is the Edwardian period and WWI.

Worth a look, if you can get past the liberal/communist philosophy that this was a capitalist war, but nationalism won out over class views. Also too much PETA aspect that the war was deadly to horses.

Sounds like the discussions in my office hallway at the college and pretty much anything on Smithsonian and-so-on channels.

Solzhenitsyn, any chance we could have the name of that professor's best selling books covering a period/event?

How come the war was deadly to horses, but no one talks about all the trees sacrificed for a capitalist war! :-)

The books by Zuber and Sheldon give great descriptions of the tactical doctrine of the armies prior to the war, and in those early weeks. Using the tactical doctrine of the nations and such data as regimental war diaries and casualty returns, Zuber suggests that the 'shoulder to shoulder mow 'em down in droves' view that we read in British regimental histories isn't accurate.

Zuber uses Bavarian war diaries from August for example to show that the doctrine of bounding, engaging in the firefight, winning the firefight before advancing etc was the norm. Of course even that approach is expensive in casualties cumulatively. He uses the war diary material to show that firefights might occupy a number of hours from point of contact before any further advance was undertaken.

I've also read critiques of Zuber's work (although I've not read anything yet that critique's Sheldon's writing).

I'll leave you to make up your own mind on the evidence.

Kind regards
Robin

My son, who loves reading history, will not read anything from modern historians. His thing is the Edwardian period and WWI.

Which is a shame, as historians today are gaining ready access to information previously unavailable to them. This is partly due to the Internet and digitization, but also to the fact that reams and reams of secret or confidential documents are being made available.

Case in point, and perhaps of interest to your son, is Jane Ridley's recent biography The Heir Apparent: A Life of Edward VII, the Playboy Prince . Ridley was given unparalleled access to the archives at Windsor, including very private and previously restricted material. While there, she even managed to find material that had been lost. She also gained access to previously unseen papers of some leading Edwardian politicians. She is able to correct much regarding the historical record, both trivial and significant. Relevant to the Great War, she shows the strenuous and significant efforts Edward made to keep the peace in Europe.

Apologies for the hijack.

enfant perdus

That's exactly the point.. well said,. and totally relevant to the discussion.
Kind regards
Robin

Another cheer for enfant perdus.

I had a college professor say that Barbara Tuchman wasn't a "real" historian because she didn't have a PhD.

I know a lot of "real" historians by that definition that aren't worth the paper the thing's printed on. I even had a couple in college. I'd rather read a book that was well researched and well written than limit myself to "real" historians – many of whom can't write a lick worth reading.

I don't what the context of these pics are:
" open skirmisher order ?"
link

I am an historian with a PhD and although I loved teaching, and research and writing, I got so disgusted with the current academic environment that I now help run a waterproofing company.

When you read a work of history by a "non-professional" you will often find that the research is as good or certainly more thorough, and the conclusions more balanced. It is as if the poor fools think that their purpose is to find information, present it fairly, and draw a conclusion.

Now, in the hallowed halls of academia, esp. in an era with so much information, the process becomes one of exclusion of information, and gives the academic historian vast amounts of wiggle room in order advance an agenda. WWI is RIPE for that, given the current situation in the Mideast and Eastern Europe.

When I was a grad student, I was hired by a school in the UK to complete a book by a well-known historian of Germany who committed suicide after being accused of Welsh Nationalist terrorism. (no---really). They shipped me his notes and I "reverse engineered" his research with his sources and found a left-wing bias so bad it would not pass muster in a freshman term paper.

A PhD means nothing and a PhD who stresses that is probably sensitive of being not particularly good.

Harrumph.

@Camcleod: the German infantry pic, is that backwards? I thought infantry held their rifles in their left hands….

The tactics used in the first weeks of the Great War were not like those of the Franco-Prussian War. All sides had trained their infantry in similar ways. There was a clear recognition that the firepower of the modern battlefield would quickly defeat attacks in close order. Such formations were used to approach the battlefield. Occasionally you will read of an enemy being caught in close order through being surprised in an approach march.

Once the enemy was identified and the advance came within artillery then musketry range, there would be a shaking out into skirmish formations. Where defilade cover was available then the units would use this wherever possible. As the advance closed on the enemy then shorter and shorter bounds would be used by smaller and smaller groups of men. Bloem gives a superb description of this process in his book 'The Advance from Mons'. Also Renn's book 'War'. The ideal was for the bounds to occur under cover of fire from colleagues, as well as machine guns and artillery. The bounds would be directed to a firing line, typically some geographical feature from which the attacker could direct fire at close range onto the enemy. As each section arrived by bound, the firing line would get thicker until the weight of fire would achieve fire superiority. At this point there would be signs of the enemy retreating, whereupon the close assault would be ordered. In Bloem's case the lack of return fire from the BEF on the Conde Canal bank was assumed to represent fire superiority having been achieved. The relative lack of fire was an example of the excellent fire discipline, as the BEF held fire until Bloem's unit was at close range. The unit then suffered heavy casualties when fire was opened.

Therefore the defender did not see men advancing shoulder to shoulder. If a larger group, say company size, was manoeuvring in this way then it would normally be at longer range. If such a unit was brought under fire at long range then it would seem to disappear as the men went to ground. Small groups of men would then be observed bounding forward short distances and dropping to the ground. These small groups would appear and disappear across the width of the enemy advance. In between times the battlefield would appear to be empty. As the advance got closer, the bounds would get shorter and the numbers of men in each bound would decrease until it might be one or two individuals bounding, at most 8-10.

It was expected that an advance would be quite slow if fire superiority could not be achieved quickly. In these circumstances, men were encouraged to use cover or to create cover with scrapes or their packs in order to provide covering fire for other colleagues to manoeuvre in their bounds.

There are some video clips from pre-war films that show the process described above. I will try and dig out the links.

Robert

Oh, don't forget about the Australian light horse charge against the Turks. :-)

Matthew

If you can, get hold of a copy of "The Desert Mounted Corps" by Sir Harry Chauvel. The Light Horse charge at Beersheba was just one of a large number of mounted charges made during the war in Palestine.

LT

"I don't what the context of these pics are"

Both pictures are taken during training and not actual battle. The Germans are advancing in open skirmish order but not at the bound. This implies that the men are not under fire but might be brought under fire at some point. The French are running forwards with bayonets fixed. This represents the final phase of an attack, an assault to close combat triggered if fire superiority had been achieved and the defenders were starting to disintegrate.

Robert

Trenches were used from the outset of the war. The BEF used trenches around parts of Mons and Le Cateau for example.

Robert

Check out the sequence at around 3 mins 30 seconds in this video clip:

link

It shows men bounding forward using cover.

Robert

And here is a quote from Colonel Gibbs of the Duke of Wellington's Regiment that fought at Mons in August 1914:

"I went to where "B" Company was in fairly good cover behind some banks just beyond the sheds and from which we could get a fairly good view with glasses. Occasional glimpses of Germans creeping along hedge rows at from 400 to possibly 700 yards, were now to be had, but Carter had warned his men not to fire till a really good target offered itself so as not to give their position away. When they did begin [firing], I think it fairly staggered the enemy who went to ground at once. Shrapnel was soon opened on the buildings along the canal, but luckily without any serious effects to our men."

Robert

"Catastrophe 1914:Europe Goes To War" by Max Hastings is a great read, and really lays out how fluid the first few months of the war were. It covers the first 5 months, in all theaters.

The book was a New York Times best seller in 2013.

Having gone through the mill in pursuit of a doctorate I can assure you that I heard many times that line about Tuchman. Rutgers also declined to bring John Keegan onto it's staff early in his career for the same thing. I can imagine the fame of the department if he wrote Mask of Command, and all his later works from there. The reason was simple, most of those academic wimps who said it were furious that all Keegan or Tuchman had to do was write something on the back of a beer napkin and people paid big bucks for it and no one bought their 1,200 page book "Race, Sex, and Gender among Pre-Colombian nose-pickers in the Bongo Congo: It's Bush's fault!"

I remember once at a seminar at the AHA (American Historical Association convention) how they were all standing around wringing their hands and wanting to know how they could get public support for history in the market. I laughed and said "Have any of you guys ever BEEN in a book store!?" I noted that I have (this was back when both Borders and Barnes and Noble were in business." I said, let me tell you about "the market" which you all talk about but know absolutely nothing about. No retailer devotes valuable shelf space to clunkers. If you measure the running feet you'll find that the history section has more feet of shelf than any other category. The public appetite for history is enormous, almost universal, and insatiable. But it's not the type of crap you guys write. It's what you dismiss airily as "drum and trumpet history." No one cares about handicapped lesbian school teachers in the ante-bellum south, from March of 1853 to June of 1853, but Shelby Foote is still in print and NEVER goes on sale. Try writing something people are interested in and they'll tear it out of your hands!

Damn! There goes my idea for a Marxist interpretation of the Psuedo-Isidorean Dectrals as utilized by handicapped lesbian school teachers in the ante-bellum South. Although I was going to run it out to November 1853.

Check out this video from 1912, particularly the segment at around 2 mins and 30 seconds. It shows BEF infantry creating a firing line. Note how the static and manoeuvre elements are small, not more than a section in size each:

link

Robert

Nice videos, monk2002uk. :-)

Mark

To be fair, most British references to Germans advancing shoulder to shoulder are referring to semi-trained reservists and virtually untrained volunteer units.

And to be even fairer, even these references are very doubtful. Much was made after the war of semi-trained reservists and untrained volunteers marching arm in arm and singing their way towards the enemy. As Jack Sheldon's book clearly shows (and other authors too), these representations are not accurate.

Robert

….. Terrific discussion, gentlemen (and any ladies perhaps present). I hold neither a doctorate, nor a masters, nor (if truth be told) even a baccalaureate degree. But I am an avid reader of military history and will say that quite often the best such work originates with the fanatic rather than the professional "publish or perish" academic. Perhaps that is because the independent fanatic is free of the "progressive" pressures and agendas which seem to loom over the academic community.

On the subject of early WW1 infantry tactics, I can recommend Balck's "Infantry Tactics" (translated from the German) and Bruce Gudmundsson's "Stormtroop Tactics" (which in part covers the early transition of German infantry tactics from the Franco-Prussian war period to 1914), and Timothy Lupfer's "The Dynamics of Doctrine: The Changes in German Tactical Doctrine During the First World War". What I took away from these volumes was that the German Army of August 1914 consisted of a real mixture of tactical doctrines. The regular army units tended to be largely up to date in their tactical approach, but many of the reserve units called up had been trained by officer veterans of 1870 and went to war under an older tactical regime. FWIW.

B

There is plenty of contemporary film of troops in 1914 in "The Great War", some of them action sequences, in the BBC documentary series from 1964, plenty of versions on Youtube.