Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

The British at Verdun?

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by heterodox (U14291406) on Saturday, 11th June 2011

  I've just finished reading John Boyne's book 'The Absolutist' and in that mention is made of a British soldier being killed at Verdun in the Great War. I have always thought of this being an entirely French campaign and I'm surprised that anyone else, except the Germans, were involved. Am I wrong?
  Also, in the narrative set in the trenches, sergeants and corporals are not only addressed as' Sir' but are wont to insist on it. Sergeant Clayton is the sergeant most involved and his precise rank is never made known but is there a regiment in the British army where addressing NCOs as sir is the practice? Household Cavalry regiments use the rank Corporal of Horse but those holding that rank are referred to as just that and never sir.
  The book itself is informative and I have never come across the terms 'absolutist and 'feathermen' used for conscientious objectors before. Some of his dialogue jars terribly when he uses phrases like 'an item' (for an engaged couple) and 'going to the bathroom' when the conversations are set in 1919. 'Foxhole' is much used and I always associate this with WWII.

  Link to this forum: The British at Verdun?

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by FulwellLib (U14560427) on Wednesday, 15th June 2011

  Hi
  To the best of my knowledge no British units fought at Verdun as it was well outside the British sector and besides the Somme offensive demanded all British resorces. I have not read the book so I can not say which regiment (real or fictional) the characters come from, but NCO's are not addressed as 'sir' at any time and would soon put down anyone who tried. Only Warrant Officers might be addressed as 'sir' if they were taking a parade. The reviews of the book are very good but it seems that his military research is a bit flawed, though I'am more than willing to be put right by any other info.
  

  Link to this forum: The British at Verdun?

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 20th June 2011

  Ditto
  
  The defence of Verdun at all costs was a French obsession- and they played into the hands of the Germans who saw the fortress as the anvil on which they would ultimately be able to destroy the French army, as each unit destroyed was replaced by a new intake.
  
  There could perhaps have been a British man serving in the French army: shades of the recent IRA dead thread and the question of whether the island of Ireland is part of the "British Isles".
  
  Were the Irish who served in the Irish Regiments in the French armies over a couple of centuries "British" or not? One of Feargus O'Connor's uncles (?) rose to be one of Napoleon's Generals.
  
  On another tack a teaching colleague of a few years back showed me a piece that she had written for an MA based on the Vichy regime including the experience of living in a French village under German occupation with an English father, who all the locals were careful to tell the Gernans all about.
  
  Cass

  Link to this forum: The British at Verdun?

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by rhmnney (U14528380) on Monday, 20th June 2011

  cass, the Scots, Irish and Welsh were mercenaries and fought for many nations in Europe for kings or rulers. I read in a book titled, "Kings No More', of a battle where there were 3,500 (granted figures probably not the accurate number) English Bowmen of which 3,300 were Welsh. Not to forget the British Army fighting in Burma consisted of British, Indian, (the largest number) and African, but dubbed British Army. A Longbow man was listed as an English Bowmen in all English battles.
  
  I have a friend a Vietnam vet by the name of Cheadle, he said he was of Scots ancestry, when he visited Scotland when stationed in Germany in the US Army and wearing his name on his uniform, the Scots said he was of English ancestry owing to his name, he then explained his ancestors took an English name of protection from some problem years ago as they did not want to be known as Scots. The Scots, Irish and Welsh also have their history.

  Link to this forum: The British at Verdun?

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 20th June 2011

  rhmny
  
  Yes. And the English too I believe. I seem to recall that the playwright Ben Johnson, having gained some military experience as part of the London militia signed up for service probably in the Netherlands, where the Dutch created the first really modern army often recruiting from parts of the UK, including one regiment that was pemanently manned by one of the Protestant Scottish Highland clans.
  
  But while fighting under oath to the British Crown, including the British Crown Imperial, these were British forces of Britain and the British Empire or Commonwealth, whatever their personal origins.(Gurkhas being Nepalese)
  
  So really we come down to whether this author was using "British" in that sense of belonging to a British military unit, or whether he meant someone whose roots were within the British Isles, who might have been fighting as part of a non-British unit like the French Foreign Legion or the "International Brigade" in the Spanish Civil War. Another possibility, I suppose, might have been a messenger. It is so easy to forget these days that pigeon post was the only common alternative to the human messenger for a great deal of communication. Was Hitler not a "messenger"?
  
  Cass

  Link to this forum: The British at Verdun?

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by rhmnney (U14528380) on Monday, 20th June 2011

  cass, quote, And the English too I believe,
  
  Yes we sure know that, don't we?

  Link to this forum: The British at Verdun?

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by heterodox (U14291406) on Wednesday, 22nd June 2011

  'To the best of my knowledge no British units fought at Verdun...'
  
  No, and in the novel, the comment on the death is very much a throw-away line and no explanation is given. You could accurately state that a British soldier had been killed in Russia after the Armistice and after Russia's withdrawal from the war but you would add a word or two in explanation because British involvement there and at that time would come as a surprise to most people.
  I think this 'sir' business just shows a lack of knowledge about the etiquette applying within the British army. I'm convinced that NCOs are never referred to in this way and I'm surprised that anyone would write a historical novel without this basic grasp of the facts.

  Link to this forum: The British at Verdun?

  Report message7

Back to top