Talk:Henry Rawlinson, 1st Baron Rawlinson

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage.

Military history: Biography / British / European / World War I

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War I task force

Best Known For[edit]

In the introduction it says " he is best known for the Battle of Amien ", i would argue he is best known for being the commander of the Fourth Army in 1918 and all its battles before and after Amien.Bullseye30 (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

Tryde removed Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom, claiming that since Rawlinson was elevated to the peerage "he should only be categorized under his higher title". I see no reason for this. I don't see anything at the category page or any of its supercategories to indicate that it's reserved for those who hold no higher title than Baronet. Rawlinson was a baronet, and remained one to his death, even if nobody would call him "Sir Henry" once he'd been baroned. So why shouldn't he be in that category as well as that of the Baronage? -- Zsero (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New file File:Henry Seymour Rawlinson, 1st Baron Rawlinson of Trent by John Singer Sargent.jpg[edit]

Recently the file File:Henry Seymour Rawlinson, 1st Baron Rawlinson of Trent by John Singer Sargent.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 23:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Birthplace[edit]

Article has Henry Rawlinson's place of birth in both Trent Manor, Dorset and Westminster, London, England. I am unable to find any reference to his place of birth at all. Any help would be appreciated. Submissivesquat (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the index of Births, Marriages and Deaths Henry Seymour Rawlinson's birth in the second quarter of 1864 was registered in "St George Hanover Square" registration district which is in the City of Westminster. Search for Rawlinson in 1864 at http://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/search.pl MilborneOne (talk) 12:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trent Manor removed, Westminster added with citation. Thanks MilborneOne. Submissivesquat (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracies[edit]

There seem to be various inaccuracies in this article. For example, Rawlinson did not serve in Gallipoli, and the dating of his taking command of Fourth Army is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.55.76 (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also says he was a "lieutenant-general" (?aged 39) in 1903. Surely wrong as he commanded a division in 1914, 11 years later.Paulturtle (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is somebody confused him with Monro.Paulturtle (talk) 11:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Profile as the man who won the Battle for the Western Front?[edit]

I have just watched Peter and Dan Snow's 20th Century Battlefields, Episode "1918 Western Front". Towards the end of this documentary, Rawlinson is credited as being the general who was willing to embrace new technology and to break out from the stalemate of trench warfare. It was this innovation which led to "the blackest day" (Ludendorff) for the German army when entire units began to surrender and he had his nervous breakdown and advised the Kaiser to sue for peace.

I feel that the profile of this remarkable man could be raised in this regard.89.240.165.230 (talk) 09:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people developed the "new tactics". There is a good early 1990s study of Rawlinson by Prior & Wilson called "Command on the Western Front" comparing the failed tactics of 1 July 1916 with the successes of 1918.Paulturtle (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poor article[edit]

This is a very poor article. There is no description of his leadership role on the Somme, which is what most readers will come to the article wanting to learn about. Instead there is a lot of stuff about various Army intrigues, with people being referred to by their surnames with no explanation as to who they are. Could someone who actually knows the military history of WWI have a go at this article? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 09:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's not great. I've removed a few serious inaccuracies, and I'll expand it when time allows (I've been working on Robertson, Wilson and French lately - and they were higher up the food chain than Rawlinson or Gough). The Somme is an enormous topic. For those who want to get down the library, the easiest places to look are the essay in Corvi "Haig's Generals" (essay is by Sheffield iirc), Prior & Wilson's 1992 "Command on the Western Front" (a study of Rawlinson), Prior's 2005 book on the Somme, and Philpott's 2009 "Bloody Victory" probably has stuff on Rawlinson as well.

"Intrigue" - bickering between politicians, generals and journalists as to what kind of war Britain should be fighting - made up an enormous part of the history of WW1, and shaped the way the history of the war came to be written (for example, all the arguments about how Haig shelled too wide and too deep into the German defences at the Somme because he was privately hankering after a breakthrough, and about how it was much less of an attritional success than it could have been if he'd been more methodical about inflicting pain on the Germans, can be found in Churchill's World Crisis, written in the 1920s, vetted for factual accuracy by DH himself, and forty years before the archives were opened). WW1 wasn't just a tale of the BEF's march to victory, as new enthusiasts sometimes fall into the trap of thinking. The events of Nov-1917 to Mar-1918 (the Supreme War Council, the Inter-Allied Reserve, the ousting of Robertson) are actually very important, even if Rawlinson himself was only a bit player in that crisis. I believe all the individuals mentioned are linked so you can click to find out who they are.Paulturtle (talk) 11:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That may be all be true, but this isn't an article about the military politics of the Western Front, it's an article about Rawlinson. The place most people will come across his name is in connection with the disaster on the Somme, and they will want to read a description of his role in that. At present they don't find it. Yes, all the names are linked, but it's very bad style to refer to people by their surnames with no explanation of who they are. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 12:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've dug out the essay I mentioned above and I'll post something when I get a sec. But honestly, the military politics of the Western Front (a mixture of personal animosities and as discussed above, genuine disagreements about what sort of war the UK should be fighting) make up a far larger part of Rawly's life story than his decisions in the Somme planning. This is true of most of the generals at this level. Anyway, it's on its way.Paulturtle (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, I've written a section on the Somme based on Middlebrook, the only book on the subject I have. I've cut out stuff I consider irrelevant to this article. If you want to write more on military politics, it will need to be tied closely to Rawlinson's biography, not just a free-floating digression. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 05:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some good comments here and not all have been acted on. Intelligent Mr Toad in using Martin Middlebrook (undoubtedly a wonderful book) has focused on only the first day of the Somme and failed to take note of the recent writings of Prior and Wilson in their book on the Somme, which amplified 'Command on the Western Front' and William Philpott's 'Bloody Victory'. The German Army suffered immense damage including the destruction or capture of over 1500 artillery pieces and the British and French taking 73,000 prisoners. As another commentator states, the battle lasted 141 days and the article should reflect success on 14 July and late September. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paardeberg (talk • contribs) 10:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rawlinson’s achievements at the Somme[edit]

While this article goes in detail plenty of criticism of Rawlinson for his conduct on the first day of the somme(1st July). It fails to establish that the Somme actually lasted far longer and during the entire campaign Rawlison led many successful operations and pushed innnovation. For example he organised the first large scale night attack in the history of modern warfare, he also organised a successful attack on an position which the French had deemed ‘impregnable’. Some more balance is needed in the portrayal this commander, who was easily one of the best on the Allied side.Ben200 (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]