One of the most successful cavalry commanders of the First World War, Sir Henry Macandrew would probably be more widely known if he hadn't accidentally killed himself in a petrol/pyjama-related explosion a year after the war ended. A career officer of the Indian Army, he saw service in several campaigns and the Boer War prior to the FWW. A follower of Haig, he saw quick advancement once the war began, initially on the Western Front and then in the Middle East where he made his largest impact in command of a cavalry division of the Desert Mounted Corps. This is one of my first largescale dabbles into FWW content and I would appreciate any and all comments. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had heard of Macandrew, as commander of a division in Chauvel's Desert Mounted Corps, but knew nothing more about him. His death reminds me of Brigadier General John Royston, who was invalided out of the service after deliberately inhaling poison gas. Another chapter in the great deeds of the British cavalry. Looks good; some comments to prove I read it:
I don't think so. Going by the the school's website it has been called the Inverness Royal Academy since 1793.
"Macandrew's position as a brigadier-general was a temporary rank, and he was still a substantive lieutenant-colonel" Well yes, but for some weird reason, all brigadier-general appointees were temporary.
Possibly a left-over from the older appointment of brigadier-general, from which the holder would revert when no longer commanding a brigade? Am aware this was how it worked in the Napoleonic Wars, at least
Still the case today, with the practice inherited by the post-Great War rank of brigadier. Hawkeye7(discuss) 22:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commas annoyed me, so I made some changes. Also corrected two typos. ([1]) Revert anything you disagree with.
All good, thank you for the edits
"Macandrew's commander, Lieutenant-General Harry Chauvel" should be Sir Harry Chauvel
@Hawkeye7: Thanks for correcting those spelling errors that slipped through the cracks. I've responded above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"before in 1916 he assumed command of the 2nd Indian Cavalry Division" seems a little clumsy. Maybe 'before he assumed command of the 2nd Indian Cavalry Division in 1916'?
Done.
"Battle of the Somme and Battle of Cambrai." Is there a consensus among RSs to have those upper-case B's?
Sources vary but I think the majority are with the upper case here.
Infobox, rank: Why the upper case G?
Changed.
"Macandrew was educated at The Inverness College". See MOS:INSTITUTIONS: "The word the at the start of a name is uncapitalized in running text, regardless of the institution's own usage".
Changed.
"he was assigned as the Deputy Assistant Adjutant-General Intelligence (DAAGI)" and "as DAAGI Army Headquarters Staff in May." Why the upper-case initial letters?
Likewise: "was appointed a Station Staff Officer, 1st Class"; "becoming a Deputy Assistant Quartermaster-General"; "as a General Staff Officer Grade 1"; "as his Brigadier-General General Staff (BGGS). I shall stop, but a trawl through the rest of the article seems in order.
My sketchy understanding of MOS:OFFICE led me to this. I'd be happy to be directed otherwise if I've understood it wrongly?
MOS:OFFICE is what you want. If discussing an office (or rank or title) in general terms it is given in lower case, as you do with "He was instead appointed brigade major" or "Macandrew was subsequently promoted to lieutenant-colonel". And as you should with "becoming a Deputy Assistant Quartermaster-General" or "He brought Macandrew with him as his Brigadier-General General Staff". If an office is, to quote the MoS, "followed by a person's name to form a title" it takes an upper-case initial(s); eg "replacing Major-General William Walker". Does that work for you? I could just about grit my teeth and let this go at ACR - "does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant". But if this is aimed at FAC it may be as well to make it MoS compliant now.
Always happy to receive constructive criticism! Have changed all those I could identify.
"Macandrew was promoted to substantive major-general on 1 January 1917". Just checking, this was directly from brevet colonel?
If we ignore the various temporary ranks, yes.
"with Haig singling out an action of Macandrew's division". Singling it out for what?
Reworded.
"In many cases the infantry had not pushed back the German defenders as expected and the cavalry were too cumbersome to react to new weaknesses in the enemy lines." Optional for ACR, but this could be phrased more felicitously.
Reworded.
"impacted by the failure at Cambrai". Impacted seems an odd word, perhaps 'influenced'?
Done.
"As such, in the same month, Macandrew travelled to Palestine with the Indian portion of his division and the 1st Indian Cavalry Division, which had since been renamed 4th Cavalry Division ... In an attempt to continue the legacy of the Indian cavalry from the Western Front, on 23 July the two divisions were respectively renamed the 4th and 5th Cavalry Divisions." I assume that the 4th cavalry wasn't renamed twice.
The renaming referred to here is from "1st Mounted Division".
No, I am still confused - this happens regularly. You have "renamed 4th Cavalry Division ... renamed the 4th and 5th Cavalry Divisions." Either two separate divisions were renamed 4th Cavalry Division, or you are repeating the same information, or the prose has befuddled me.
I'm not too sure how this could be reworded. 1st Indian Cavalry Division becomes 4th Cavalry Division. 4th and 5th Cavalry Divisions are moved to Palestine, where their troops are used to create the 1st and 2nd Mounted Divisions. These two divisions are then renamed the 4th and 5th Cavalry Divisions. The earlier 4th/5th do not have the same unit composition as the later 4th/5th.
Should the last two paragraphs of Divisional reforms not be in Palestine campaign?
Moved.
"The three Indian regiments killed around ninety Turkish soldiers and took a further ninety-one prisoner." Are the Indian casualties known?
Added, although the source doesn't differentiate wounded and killed.
I'm not sure why Amman would be relevant? Added Megiddo, although the Sharon article covers most of it. Our articles for this campaign are very intertwined!
"the rate of the attack was increased". What does this mean?
Changed to "rate of the advance"
It may just be me, but I find the repeated references to "Macandrew's division" jarring. Other formations are referred to by their names.
Removed a clump of these.
Any chance of giving a reader an idea of the strength and make up of a cavalry brigade and division?
Added a detail for the number of regiments in a brigade, I think the number of brigades in a division is covered.
I meant tell a reader the number of men in a cavalry brigade and division. Eg, in 1914 a British cavalry division had an establishment of 9,269 men, 24 guns, and 24 machine guns. Is similar information available for the formations Macandrew commanded?
I think I could provide some general statistics for the size of cavalry units, but I'm not sure these would be very useful, as the actual numbers fluctuated drastically. See for example the size of the 15th (Imperial Service) Cavalry Brigade, which fought at Haritan with a total of 500 men despite our (GA) article stating the nominal size was 1,700.
'Twas ever thus in war. I think it would be helpful to give the establishments. If necessary note when formations were greatly under strength (as you do at one point), or give their actual numbers for particular engagements. I think it would be very useful to give a reader some sense of scale. Otherwise they will have little idea of the level of Macandrew's responsibility. Even a knowledgeable reader may be aware that in WWI full-strength infantry divisions varied from <8,000 to >28,000; or that in 1914 British, French and German cavalry divisions had 9,300, 4,500 and 5,200 men.
@Gog the Mild: I have totally failed to find sources that provide accurate establishments for Macandrew's commands. There are plenty of orders of battle available for the Somme, etc, but none seem to provide numbers to go with the formations. I don't know if you had any particularly sources/direction in mind?
"He sent his armoured cars forward first, leaving Homs the same day. I am unclear about this. Do you mean that the armoured cars left on 20 October, the same day Chauvel told them to halt?
Correct
"a force of Ottoman soldiers that outnumbered them, with around 3,400 men". How many men did the 15th Brigade have?
Added. They were very outnumbered!
Cite 46: what does "p. supp." mean?
Awkward I know. Basically there's a supplement stuck on the end of the Army List in which the page numbers start afresh.
Then I think it needs listing separately, as you would if there were separate chapters, each contributed by a different author. What do you think of how I have tweaked it?
That's much better, thank you.
A splendid article. Get it to FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Just to note that I haven't forgotten about this, I'm just struggling to find the right sources to do unit numbers justice. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will review this soon. Hog FarmTalk 03:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Two years later he transferred to the Lincolnshire Regiment on 10 November 1886" - "Two years later" is a bit of a duplicate statement, since you're already giving the exact 1884 and 1886 dates
Removed.
Is it known how he ended up with the army in Bengal? Was the Lincolnshire Regiment stationed there, or was this a transfer of some sort?
The 1888 Army List has Macandrew serving in the 1st Battalion, which was in Dublin, while the 2nd Battalion was in India. The 1889 Army List removes his battalion designation and has him on "probation" instead. He may have done a quick transfer to the 2nd Battalion and then to the Indian Army, or it may have been a straight transfer from Dublin. Unfortunately sources don't clearly say.
"Macandrew was still well thought of by Haig, and the latter quickly appointed to a new command. - is this missing a word? "the latter quick appointed to a new command" while the context suggests this is something involving Macandrew, the grammar suggests this was a new appointment for Haig
Yep, missing word!
The infobox lists him as being part of the main British Army until 1899 and joining the British Indian Army that year, but would his 1898 probationary assignment in the British Indian Army count as when his service switched over to that unit?
It's made slightly confusing in that when his probationary period ended his Indian Army seniority was set to when he was promoted lieutenant in 1886. For the sake of keeping the infobox sensible I think it's probably best to keep the dates as official as possible, so 1889 is when he ceased to be a member of the British Army.
HiPickersgill-Cunliffe, some comments on the sources, will comment on the main text later.
Refs #105, 106 and 110 need links, future reviewers would require them for spot checks. You will be able to find them on the British Newspaper Archive or Newspapers.com.
Have added links but am awaiting the response of another editor who helped out before I can add the exact newspaper reports (they don't appear on either of those websites). The link for #111 would need to be provided by someone with a BNA subscription, which I do not have and has lapsed for the editor who added it
The Cavalry Journal 1923, Pitman 1923, Rowcroft 1923, Robbins 2001 need links, if you received these via resource request then you should add a hidden note to that effect.
Links for Indian Army Lists are available here, since you haven't specified the publication month I couldn't provide the exact links.
Here's a link for The Risings on the North-West Frontier 1897–1898: [2].
This link has all the issues of the Gazette of India, consider adding?
That's all for now, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 10:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, some more comments:
"promoted to become": remove the "become", instead use "the rank of"?
The "become" refers to the role of BGGS rather than the rank of BG, so I think it works as is
"Brigadier-General General Staff": you will have to somehow rephrase this occurrence of WP:SEAOFBLUE, but I can't think of how.
SEAOFBLUE does say "When possible" and I'm not sure what else to do in this circumstance. I don't think I can logically introduce the links for either BG or GS any earlier in the lede to avoid the need for one or other of the links there
The lead is great but a little short, consider expanding to 3 to 4 paragraphs?
Link to Inverness College?
We don't have an article, or really any content, on the college. I've linked to the building it was once housed in
Link to Delagoa?
Linked the full Delagoa line
"appointed to a": "appointed him to a"?
Yep, HF also caught this error
Link to Ghorniye (Ghoraniye)?
Done
For FAC reviews, I've been asked to remove the Dates of Rank section. I think these are OK at A class but you might be asked to remove them at an FAC review.
I'm aware these aren't a fan favourite and haven't used one before. This is by way of an experiment to see what people think. If I get pushback that's fine
That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Pickersgill-Cunliffe, congratulations on becoming an admin! If you have some free time, could you check out these comments? Matarisvan (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just come back from a very busy work period and have responses for this on my to-do list. I promise they'll be actioned soon! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No issues. If it is OK with you, I will do the source and image reviews too. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do! I'm not one to look a gift horse in the mouth. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
