Monash and Chauvel: Australia’s two greatest generals
Monash and Chauvel: How Australia’s two greatest generals changed the course of world history by Roland Perry is a big, comprehensive biography of two generals who, even if their exploits do not quite live up to the subtitle’s hyperbole, certainly had a big impact on the course of the First World War.
The book keeps close to chronological order through interweaving narratives of the two Australian generals, one who served on the Western Front (Monash) and one in the Middle East (Chauvel). In command of forces key to some of the most significant battles, such as Amiens and the breaking of the Hindenberg Line in the west and Romani and Beersheba in the Middle East, both carved out deserved reputations that even so are often overlooked for being Australians in a British-led military.
For all its length, however, it left me feeling not that knowledgeable about either. In part that’s because of questions about whether the book over-eggs its case, such as by making out that Monash was more important in the attack on Messines Ridge than he really was.
In part also that’s because of the question of what made them both successful. Both Monash and Chauvel were much better than many, if not nearly all, of their peers. But what was it that made them better? Why did Monash, for example, get stuck into understanding how infantry, tanks and artillery could work closely together in a way that others didn’t? He did this far better than others, but the book leaves the reader without any real explanations as to why he did what sounds so obvious – or, perhaps more precisely, why others didn’t do what sounds so obvious.
Likewise, with Chauvel’s service in the Middle East there are frequent references to the Arabs in a fairly generalised way. We rarely get to hear more about the individuals or the differences between the many groups that make up “the Arabs” – and those details are often uncomplimentary when given. There is, I strongly suspect, rather more to the Arab perspectives on Chauvel than the book’s take which in this, and other respects, often reminds me of a secondary school textbook. Broad, comprehensive but also a little simplistic in its characterisations and explanations at times. Wider forces at play, such as the importance of the Balfour Declaration, get very little attention.
When Perry goes beyond this – such as in some harrowing descriptions of what trench warfare with chemical weapons was like, or the morbid task of collecting scattered bones of dead soldiers after a battle is over – he excels. These moments make the book, and if it is ever revised it would be powerful to have more of them.
If you like this, you might also be interested in 1918: A Very British Victory.
Mark – I did not know you were into military history. If you’re interested in World War One in the Middle East and want to put the ANZAC (and Indian) contributions into perspective as part of the British war effort, could I recommend John Grainger’s excellent “The Battle for Syria 1918-20”.
Military history is inevitably an important (and all-too neglected) part of the essential background to political and social history. Grainger shows, for instance, how the British generals were well aware how the Anglo-French partition into mandates of the former Ottoman predominantly Arabic-speaking territories was bitterly resented. Seeds for later conflicts were sown.
Thanks for the tip John.