Conall

Likewise away from my books, hence the question but I'm reasonably sure they were using Centurions rather than M60s - at least with respect to the critical opening few days. I dimly (and quite possibly erroneously) recall a comment by an Israeli tanker to the effect that they preferred Centurions not least because the behind armour effects of any penetration were generally less devastating than in the M48s & M60s. I'll try to track it down when I'm back home. all the best Tom

So that's a no then, apparently neither can you provide any material to support your argument nor are you willing to instead preferring to shift the argument to a thoroughly irrelevant and banal analogy. Based on your Kursk argument you do, however, appear to have quite a talent for going from the specific (Nipe & Fedorwicz publishing nazi hagiographies) to the general in one easy move. Best of luck with your quest for common sense... Terraine's work did, at least, try to make use of a wide range of sources and where possible use contemporary accounts rather than the generalisations and inaccuracies of Clark. As for the other historians you quote - Montgomery, Liddell Hart and A J P Taylor - their most notable feature was their egotism and propensity to ignore the primary sources when it did not suit their arguments. I would echo the comments of others and suggest that you read a little more widely perhaps.

On the basis of your reply it's hard to argue with you... I meant the standard of your argument, in that generally while you may be argumentative you usually make an effort to support your case rather than immediately resort to ad hominem attacks. I've read your posts for a number of years and it would appear, in my humble judgement at least, that the signal to noise ratio is deteriorating. Actually I think the use of the quotation from Walter Scott is quite reasonable in the context; first Holmes is giving a lecture in Scotland and is tailoring his material to the audience and secondly he is alluding through poetry to a national (in the sense of Scotland rather than the UK) disaster which neatly leads him into the comment regarding qualitative rather than quantative loss (Scott's line is referring to the heavy casualties suffered by the Scottish aristocracy). As an additional bonus it also subtely concentrates the audience's mind on how poetry depicts war - dramatically and with an excess of pathos, something which is more than a little germane to the subject he is addressing. If I was being generous I would suppose that you missed that that rather than deliberately chose to ignore it... Misreading was a play on Hilary's recent episode of misspeaking; I thought you, as an educated American, might appreciate that. As to not subscribing to my interpretation I wouldn't expect anything less of you, Tony. And let's not get all post-modern about this with respect to the relative validity of the recipient as opposed to the author's interpretation, it will only get messy and end in tears. I would define balance in a historiographical sense as returning to a point where all sources are considered objectively and weighted according to their merits rather than by starting with an inherently anti-war, class driven bias and is a historiography which accepts a range of views rather than demanding acceptance of a rigid orthodoxy. I suspect that from your perspective, not having been exposed to a British education or the British media, that it is difficult to comprehend just how all-pervasive the "Lions led by donkeys" historical school had become in the UK. Undeniable may be a little absolute, I agree but it's a good starting point for an internet based polemical argument. Let me ask you, who do you think was primarily responsible for the defeat of the German Army in France in 1918 and why? I will be interested to see your answer (try to avoid the trite answer of assigning responsibility to Ludendorff). Feel free to indulge in any jingoism necessary...

Perhaps you could provide some quotes rating Haig as a "Great Captain" equivalent to Marlborough & Wellington. I think beyond the pages of Terraine & Corrigan you are going to struggle. It seems to me that either you haven't read Sheffield, Holmes, Wilson, Strachan, Simpkins, Griffith, Bourne etc or you are somewhat dishonestly setting up something of a strawman. How well does that notion go over with you?

Tony, Even by your standards this is pretty feeble and puerile. Your comments about the pathos in Holmes' piece don't appear to have noted that most of the pathos in the lecture was in direct quotes from the participants rather than from Holmes. Hard though it is for us to understand the generation of 1914-18 were genuinely patriotic and in many cases retained their idealism. As a personal anecdote my maternal great-grandfather joined up as a private in 1914 aged 40 espousing exactly those views articulated in the lecture and died a subaltern in France in July 1916. His letters are full of such idealism, and with the benefit of hindsight, heart-rending pathos. Even the experience of two years on the western front in an infantry battalion (Royal Berkshires) didn't disabuse him of these views. Equally my paternal grandfather held not dissimilar views despite being a regular army officer (joined 1910) and being in active service throughout the war in the RFC in France. His diaries and general writings, both contemporary and post-war (and even in the 1950s) espouse exactly such idealism despite being a professional soldier and no stranger to the reality of war (he started WWII as an infantry battlion commander and fought in N.Africa). I think you've either misread the lecture or are being deliberately contrarian. Furthermore I would support the point that Bill makes in that the British historiography is such that the combination of Lloyd-George's disingenuous politicking (to hide his own flaws), the influence of the wartime poets and the revisionist anti-war historians (such that they were) of the 1960s & 70s have dominated the historical record in the UK. As such the work of more contemporary historians, as listed above, merely addresses the balance rather veering towards a jingoistic and excessively chauvinist British reinterpretation of WW1. Finally I would note that it is undeniable that it was the Commonwealth armies which were primarily responsible for defeating the German Army in 1918 and explaining that requires a careful refutation of the commonly held received wisdoms of the 1960s & 70s. Tom

Sorry to nitpick but weren't both the 7th Armoured Brigade and the Barak Brigade equipped with Centurions (modified Shots presumably)? Later reinforcements may have had M48s but the troops originally in place had Centurions. Also worth noting that despite a marginally lower height than the M48 the Centurion had a greater angle of gun depression +20/-10 as opposed to +19/-9. Picky, picky, picky. Interesting thread. Tom

double post

Correct - the distinction is simply between the pictorial carvings and the text, the RGDS refers only to the text, which as I understand it (& I would be very happy to be corrected as it's not an area of my specialism) is but part of a large corpus of carvings. This is a very good point and I think is borne out by the later diplomatic relations between the Sasanians and eastern Rome in the sixth century. To degrade a ruler of equivalent status would be to degrade yourself as a monarch and therby emperil your rule/political existence. However, I would note that the carvings only depict the point of capture and much later Islamic illustrationsin Firdawasi's late tenth century work, Sahnama, only show Valerian being led from the battlefield. The tradition recorded by Lactantius suggests that Shapur only became enraged with Valerian when the latter attempted to bribe him to secure his release. The two traditions are not, therefore, necessarily mutually inconsistent. True and I certainly wouldn't deny the veracity of Roman prisoners being set to work in southerne and eastern Persia. The Sasanians also used the Romans as instructors in establishing their bureaucracy and modes of government. This is, however, a much later Islamic tradition from the time of the Caliphate, who in turn had adapted Sasanian forms of government and wanted not only to stress that they were the legitimate heirs of the Sasanian tradition but also the civilised and enlightened nature of their predecessors. It is not, therefore, a contemporary source and has its own political agenda; I wouldn't include it as a primary source in that respect. It is, however, a fascinating source for understanding how the late tenth century Caliphate viewed their Sasanian predecessors. This is a thoroughly silly argument on several levels. First the idea that a 60 year old man couldn't bear the weight is ridiculous (I note that you have lifted this argument almost verbatim from Tim Donovan - I have very harsh words to say about his joke of a book; I really hope you're not Tim Donovan ), you might as well argue that it ought to have been impossible for the Chris Bonnington to climb Everest aged 51, or later as 'old guy'of 60 to make the first ascent of Rangrik Rang without oxygen (6553m - a much more technical and remote peak than Everest, albeit with lesser altitude related problems). Valerian was an active man and had been a soldier for most of his life; so I would imagine his level of personal fitness was high. Certainly accounts of his reign note his energy and his punishing imperial itinerary. Furthermore, if you intention as Shapur was to degrade, insult, injure and ultimately kill Valerian then it wouldn't have mattered whether using him as a mounting block injured him. In fact any injury would have been a positive. I hope you realise that a mounting block would have only needed to be about 2 feet high (horses of the period were typically 13-14 hands high), something easily achieved by a man being forced to crouch on his hands and knees. Try it if you don't believe me... Agreed and I certainly concede that Lactantius (born c.AD 240 - therefore an adult during the 260s) is a highly problematic source (absolutely agree re his polemical Christian agenda - something I explicitly noted before). He was, however, a primary source writing from the Roman perspective unlike Firdawsa, who, as I have pointed out above, was writing in the late tenth century for an Islamic audience relating ancient Sasanian traditions about events which took place seven hundred years previously. Lactantius, by contrast, was writing within living memory of Valerian's capture and death in captivity. Firdawsa is a secondary source relating events at best second or third hand and cannot be compared as a source to Lactantius. I'm afraid you will still have to do better. The point I'm really making, is that if we are honest we have to say that we don't know what was Valerian's eventual fate and that, at best, we can only suggest a number of hypotheses. At present none are conclusive. As it happens I would also lean towards your interpretation but I don't think the other version can be dismissed out of hand as merely being an old saw. Have a great New Year and we can carry on the argument in 2008 when I intend to being very rude about Tim Donovan's excreable excuse for a book. All the best, Tom

I think the points you make are very valid and I don't disagree with any of them per se. I think, as is generally the case, that Shapur's decision making process was based on a number of factors rather then any convenient single explanation. In this instance I would posit that our suggestions are mutually supportive. By removing the remaining Arcasids (the remnants of the previous Parthian royal family) in Armenia as an effective political/military force Shapur put himself in position to take advantage on an opportunistic basis of any Roman weakness. As it happened this opening presented itself relatively swiftly after Shapur had removed the Arcasids, which were the last obstacle to the establishment of Sasanian legitamacy. In this political context Shapur's offensive against Rome's eastern provinces can be seen as not only raiding but political expediency designed to entrench himself and his family even further as the new ruling dynasty in Persia. This did, of course, require success in battle... edited for fat fingers and dyslexic inability to spell Sasanian

You do realise that the interpretation of the rock reliefs at Naqs-i Rustam & the Res gestae divi Saporis re Valerian's more benign captivity is only one school of thought and has yet to become the historical orthodoxy? Not least because both of the above only mention him being taken prisoner by Shapur & not his ultimate fate. The concept of his continued existence as an honoured guest of the Sasanians is only mentioned in the much later Islamic texts: Chronicle of Se'ert and Tabari, Ta'rih. Please could you explain why you are so willing to dismiss a contemporary Roman source - Lactantius. who was alive during the events under discussion? While I completely agree that his writings had a polemical religious bent and portray pagan emperors in the worst possible light it is still a major leap to ignore his version of events as merely an 'old tale'. You will have to do better, otherwise what you suggest is simply one possible hypothesis among many and should be represented as such rather than being the historical orthodoxy.

Agreed; Aurelian abandoned Dacia because of pressure from the confederation between the Sarmatians & Marcomanni/Qadi. The Huns were still not even a distant whisper in the Goths nightmares (the witches had yet to couple with demons...). They only became a problem after their defear of Earmenric & the Greuthungi c.AD 370 (We have heard too of the wolvish temper Ermanaric had, who mastered the lands of the Gothic kingdom; he was a cruel lord...).

While I would agree that Decius' defeat at Abrittus had profound and highly negative consequences for the Romans I would suggest that Shapur's final removal of the Arcasid dynasty in Armenia was what prompted his campaign against the Romans in AD 252. It's also worth noting that his campaign was simply a resumption of hostilities which had begun in AD 240. If you haven't read it already then I would strongly recommend that you take a look at Beate Dignas & Englebert Winter, Rome & Persia in Late Antiquity: Neighbours & Rivals 2001, English Translation 2007

What scale are you looking at re your essay? If it's the operational level (army/corps) then I would probably compare and contrast Manstein's winter counter-offensive in February-March 1943 with Operation Rumyantsev - the Soviet offensive recapturing Kharkov & the drive to the Dnieper in August - Sept 1943. Alternatively look at the August 1945 Soviet campaign in Manchuria. At the divisional level I would consider looking at Balck's handling of the 11th Panzer Division in the autumn of 1942 fighting in the Don & Chir (sp?) river bend - very well covered in Mellethin's Panzer Battles. At a lower level either Brigade or Battalion then I would consider looking at the Sinai/Golan on a compare & contrast basis in 1973 - notably the Israeli counter-attack in the Sinai (see Adan On the banks of the Suez). Alternatively you might consider the difference between 'H' Jones & Chris Keeble's handling of the battle of Goose Green in the Falklands (in particular see Spencer Fitz-Gibbons Not mentioned in Despatches: The history & mythology of the battle of Goose Green). Lorraine while interesting is highly arguable - see John Rickard's Patton at Bay: The Lorraine Campaign for a perhaps less hagiographic view than usual. Hope that helps & in the meantime enjoy the New Year celebrations. All the best, Tom

In a cornucopia of stupidity with which you've sullied this 'Grate Sight'[TM] this is the most arrant nonsense you've spouted yet. Let me try to explain this to you (again) very slowly, using words with as few syllables as possible so as not to over-tax your manifestly limited intellect. Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin. History is about studying documentation contemporary to the events being analysed. Any good historian will strive to access records deriving from the period they are studying. For example Rich & Bill spend long hours going through archives containing material written at the time of the period they study. They place far greater weight on operational orders, logistic reports, training schedules, letters and diaries written during the events they are researching than on secondary literature. Secondary literature is normally only used to indicate the historiography (sorry, that's a long word; you'll just have to look it up in your 'big boy's first dictionary for simpletons') or where there are areas of conflicting opinion. Where diaries and later memoirs are used any half-way decent historian will attempt to highlight the biases of the author and the temporal distance of the writing from events described. Taking an earlier example this is why Ammianus Marcellinus is a more useful source for late fourth century Roman history than Zosimus writing in the early sixth century as the former was a participant in many of the events he described. Likewise both Asser's Life of Alfred and Einhard's Life of Charlemagne are invaluable as they are contemporary accounts by participants who personally knew their subject matters. Likewise our knowledge of fifteenth century England has been made much richer by the Paston letters, giving invaluable insights into the lives of a landed gentry family. Your point about archaeology suggests to me that you've never either read an archaeological report or participated in an excavation. Archaeologists are just as prone to make mistakes, misinterpret data and draw general assumptions from specific evidence as historians. I can give you two examples: Collingwood & Myers interpretation of the distribution of quoit brooches in fifth century burials in south east Britain as an indication of rapid Anglo-Saxon domination and the annihilation &/or displacement of the Romano-British population. Another example would be Leslie Alcock's excavation of South Cadbury from which he drew the highly contentious conclusion that this was the basis for Camelot and definitive proof for the existence of Arthur. In both cases subsequent work by both archaeologists and historians have demonstrated these histories based on 'scientific archaeological forensic examinations' to be erroneous and highly misleading. Furthermore on the basis of exactly the same archaeological data it is quite possible for two archaeologists to come to almost diametrically (oops, sorry I've done it again - off you trot to your dictionary once more) opposed views of the development of fifth and sixth century Britain/Anglo-Saxon England - see Ken Dark & Nick Higham's works. Speaking from personal experience I've learnt more about seventh century Scottish history from the study of Adomnan's Vitae Columba, early Irish penitentials and law codes and the Annals of Ulster & the Annals of Tigernach than I ever did from the digs I participated in at Dunadd and Iona. Finally you might want to consider that film is just as easy a medium to manipulate and distort for propaganda purposes as the written word and is, therefore, intrinsically no more reliable than written evidence. Please don't bother reply to this diatribe (sorry, I keep forgetting) as you'll only add to the dunghill of stupidity that you've cruelly deposited onto this site.

No, sadly you are proving his point by demonstrating poor comprehension and a notable degree of intellectual dishonesty. If you're going to quote someone you shouldn't just pick a single sentence (which you appear to have misunderstood anyway) but their whole piece in context. This is why professional historians quote their sources and submit their work for peer review. Please reread the following paragraph (slowly perhaps) and you will see that the point Bill is making is about the need to not only do the requisite research but to acknowledge your sources and to hold them up for peer review. Not only is this a more intellectually honest approach but it also makes for a more interesting and well informed debate - sadly something of which on the basis of the Mark Clark thread you appear incapable of achieving.