Talk:Henry Rawlinson, 1st Baron Rawlinson

Categories

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)

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

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)

Birthplace

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)

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)

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

Inaccuracies

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

Poor article

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)

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)