This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)