Jump to content

Talk:Corps expéditionnaire d'Orient

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Breakdown of infantry battalions

[edit]

As is to be expected, there is more detail about this on the french language wiki

1st Division

  • 175 RI – Metropolitan
    • 3 battalions
  • 1er régiment de marche d’Afrique
    • C Battalion, 3e Regiment des Zouaves – Armée D'Afrique
    • unidentified battalion, 4e Regiment des Zouaves – Armée D'Afrique
    • Battalion of Foreign Legion – Troupes Coloniales
  • 4e régiment mixte colonial
    • 1e BTS – Armée D'Afrique
    • 2e BTS – Armée D'Afrique
    • depot battalion, 4e RIC – Troupes Coloniales

Source: 4e Régiment Mixte Colonial - Forum PAGES 14-18

  • 6e régiment mixte colonial
    • 3e BTS – Armée D'Afrique
    • 4e BTS – Armée D'Afrique
    • depot battalion, 6e RIC – Troupes Coloniales

2nd Division

  • 176 RI – Metropolitan
    • 3 battalions
  • 2e régiment de marche d’Afrique
    • 3x Zouave battalions – Armée D'Afrique
  • 7e Régiment Mixte Colonial
    • 8e BTS – Armée D'Afrique
    • 12e BTS – Armée D'Afrique
    • depot battalion, 7e RIC – Troupes Coloniales
  • 8e Régiment Mixte Colonial
    • 7e BTS – Armée D'Afrique
    • depot battalion, 5e RIC – Troupes Coloniales
    • depot battalion, 8e RIC – Troupes Coloniales

Overall

Keith H99 (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further info courtesy of the Gallipoli Association:
https://www.gallipoli-association.org/campaign/order-of-battle-mef/regiments-french/
Keith H99 (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An error on my part. Foreign Legion is classified as Armée D'Afrique and the various BTS are classified as Troupes Coloniales Keith H99 (talk) 10:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The appearance and uniforms of men of the corps

[edit]

An eyewitness account was reproduced twelve years after the event.

GALLIPOLI
Story of an Eye-witness
War Correspondent's Account
Peeps Behind the Scenes
(BY Ellis_Ashmead-Bartlett)

On this memorable morning of May 6th [1915].. This three days' struggle will probably be known as the battle of Achi Baba or Helles, but it might well be called the battle of the nations..

On the other side of the Krithia road, in the French ranks, were drawn up Frenchmen, Algerians, Zouaves, Goumiers, Senegalese, and the heterogeneous elements which make up the Foreign Legion [battalion]. Neither was the picturesque element of colour absent from the scene, as in most modern battles, for amidst the green and yellow of the fields and gardens the dark blue uniforms of the Senegalese, the red trousers of the Zouaves, and the new light blue uniform of the Infantry showed up in pleasant contrast amidst the dull-hued masses of the British brigades.

Republished:
The Mercury (Hobart) Sat 14 May 1927 Page 9
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/29673031?searchTerm=ashmead-bartlett%208%20may%201915

Keith H99 (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, Keith, a short sentence or two in this regard might fit into the Formation section, potentially, highlighting that the individual units of the corps were equipped with quite different uniforms or something similar. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 04:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rupert, hope you are well. It makes for an interesting eyewitness account, given the lack of English language source material on this formation. It would be but one of several sources, but getting the other sources would be challenging.
The manner in which the article has been written, clumsily referring to "regiments" rather than the actual composite regiment de marche would imply to the casual reader that all men in a regiment would be identically dressed, but that is not the case, and there certainly wasn't an entire Zouave regiment that deployed, either. There's certainly room for improvement, but it is a case of finding the time to do it.
From what I have seen of the war dead, the Arab element of the force seems to have been limited to the artillery. Those men who were born in Algeria, but served in either the Zouaves or the Infanterie Coloniale would have been of caucasian ethnicity. Keith H99 (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a similar account in an article on page 7 of The Times on 19 May 1915

'ORDER OF BATTLE

On the right the French stood, with the blue-coated Senegalese in their front line, and with the light blue French infantry, the red Zouaves, and the Foreign Legion in reserve.' Keith H99 (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, Keith, I've added something now about the above with this edit: [1]. Thoughts on this addition? Any tweaks necessary? Also, you state above that there is an issue with how the article refers to regiments; I'd be keen for you to specifically elaborate what you'd like changed. I believe that it used to specifically mention a marching regiment designated as the 6th regiment de march colonial d'infanterie. However, it was changed with this edit: [2], which actually removed mention of the marching regiment. Was the citation wrong in this designation? What exact wording would you like to see it changed to? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rupert. When we talk about "Regiments" in the English-speaking world, we usually think of formations with a permanent establishment. We don't usually come across "provisional regiments". In an English regiment, the style of dress is "uniform" and all men are attired similarly. The French made a lot of use of "provisional regiments" containing a hotch-potch of battalions. In a British brigade, there are several battalions, and there is no need to subgroup said battalions into two "provisional regiments". The men in the various régiments mixtes colonials would not have a "regimental uniform" but would wear the uniform of their parent regiment. It's potentially confusing.
What you have written is good insofar as it highlights the heterogenous appearance of the metropolitan infantry, zouaves, infanterie coloniale, Foreign Legion battalion (attired similarly to the IC I believe) and the Tirailleurs Senegalais that made up the CEO formation. Thanks! Keith H99 (talk) 10:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A further primary source account, via Jim Grundy
'An official correspondent says : “Whenever I could tear my eyes away from the khaki lines…I watched the French. A Confused memory remains of solid lines of Senegalese and light blue infantry charging forward, then recoiling …only to renew the attack a few minutes later.”'
Illustrated London News - Saturday 19 June 1915 Keith H99 (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strength of French in April 1915

[edit]

If the first division landed in April, with a second division that arrived in May, for a cumulative total of 24 battalions, it is not possible that there were 24 battalions present in April. The secondary source of Hughes is mistaken. Keith H99 (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, unfortunately I don't have access to Hughes at the moment as I am away from home with work but my recollection is that he cites Erickson for the 24 battalions on 28 April. I will see if my wife can take a photo of the source and email it to me to check. Do you have a source that provides a different number of battalions (I presume it would be 12)? If so, the discrepancy is probably easily fixed by simply contrasting it in the article. For instance, "According to Matthew Hughes, there were 24 French battalions at Gallipoli at this time,[REF] while X provides only Y.[REF]". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rupert, here are two quotes from Hughes:
'France's division of 16,762 men was one of five divisions that landed on 25 April (2)... France later added a second division (the second) and her force strength peaked at around 42,000.(3)'
'Thus, on 28 April, the British commander Sir Ian Hamilton had 164 British/Imperial and twenty-four French battalions. At the end of August, roughly 12 per cent of his force was French.(4)'
Hughes is mistaken in the second instance. (Everything in the first instance looks good.) Haythornwaite, quoting from the Official History, has the 1st Division at a strength of 12 battalions, and the 2nd Division that is likewise at 12 battalions. A third source, the Corps war diary, confirms the order of battle. I would like to know what his source number 4 was for the battalions, so it can be investigated further. If HM Forces were initially five divisions, then I would not think that 30+ battalions per division sounds right, either. Keith H99 (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, Keith, my wife has managed to track down the Erickson source for me via her ProQuest login, and has emailed it to me. Hughes cites Erickson p. 1008 for his citation number 4. Checking that page, I can see where the error has crept in. Hughes says "24 battalions" and cites Erickson, but Erickson in fact says it was 24 companies. I have adjusted the article now to match Erickson as that seems more likely. Hughes cites Jauffret; Aspinall-Oglander and J. Chabnier as his citation number 3 for peak strength of 42,000. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rupert, thanks for the assistance. I am surprised that it did not get picked up prior to the article being published. Thanks for having been able to consult the sources, and work out how the confusion arose. Twenty four companies would tie in with the initial troop figures. Glad this was easily concluded. Keith H99 (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall strength of the corps

[edit]

There are inconsistencies. The same page from Hughes, that gives 24 battalions present in April 1915 is telling the reader that the Corps was around 42,000 at its height. Elsewhere, it says that 47,000 were casualties, and that the strength was 80,000. Keith H99 (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I think there is a slight nuance here. The peak strength of 42,000 is a one off number (the "rifle" or "ration strength"), whereas the 80,000 number appears to be the total number of men who served throughout the entire campaign. I don't have access to Erickson to check, though, unfortunately (I will see if potentially my wife can get it via ProQuest). If you have a source that contradicts this, then please simply add it to the article and contrast the sources. That said, I've attempted to reword it to make it clearer. Does that help? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rupert, thanks for this. The figure of 42,000 for "effectives", when both Divisions had disembarked, would appear to be in a paper by a French historian, which was published in a compendium edited by Martin Gilbert in 2000.
Erickson seems to have sourced his figures from page 484 of Aspinall-Oglander's official history volume II (1932)
'In March 1915, when Sir Ian Hamilton was despatched...the strength of his army was 75,000..Yet by the end of the campaign, the total numbers that had been sent to the peninsula in a vain attempt to retrieve the initial error amounted to nearly half a million (Note: 410,000 British and 79,000 French).The total British casualties, including those evacuated sick, had amounted to 205,000;† those of the French to 47,000.
†(Note 3: 115,000 killed missing and wounded: 90,000 evacuated sick. It must be noticed that, owing to the lack of hospital accommodation on the peninsula, large numbers were evacuated who were only suffering from light wounds or minor ailment.)'
There seems to be a similar proportional breakout of combat casualties to evacuated based on the French official history. The above source gives 47,000 casualties, of which the French official history has 27,169 combat casualties, therefore the balance of 20,000 must have been evacuated sick. Given the data from Aspinall-Oglander's official history volume II (1932), this can be used to augment the article. Keith H99 (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have regrouped all the info in a concluding paragraph, to mention effective strength, number of actual veterans, and it makes reference to the Gallipoli campaign medal, of which there has been no mention so far. I think the numbers and the phrasing around it gives context and clarity. Seeing the similar "British" casualty stats does account for so many "sick" casualties.Keith H99 (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Keith H99: G'day, Keith, thanks for this, adding mention of the campaign medal is nice touch. Regarding the casualties figure, I have checked Erickson and I think there might still be some discrepancies, unfortunately. On page 1009 he provides: "The British and ANZACs lost 36,000 men killed or missing and the French lost about 11,000 killed or missing, for a total of roughly 47,000 killed or missing". As such, I think there was an error originally when the 47,000 number was added to this article way back whenever that happened. To fix this, there are probably two possible approaches. Firstly, we could remove the 47,000 number and just go with the 27,169 you have cited to Lepetit. I'd suggest we remove the implied 20,000 sick at this point, as it seems to be based on the 47,000 number which is most likely incorrect. Or, secondly, we could contrast Erickson with Lepetit. For instance, "Casualties during the campaign are reported as 11,000 killed or missing,[ERICKSON p 1009] with a total of up to 27,169 including killed, wounded and missing.[LEPETIT et al p. 549]". I would also suggest removing the 20,000 implied sick here, though. What are your thoughts on either of these approaches? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rupert. The figure of all French casualties at 47,000 seems okay to me, coming as it does from Aspinall-Oglander's official history volume II (1932). (I was able to download some PDF files from a site that some extracts of the official history: https://digitallib.stou.ac.th/handle/6625047444/1848) It is a happy coincidence that overall casualties at that early stage were also at around 47,000, as quoted by Erickson. Given that three of the four casualty types are broken out by Lepetit, and that the remaining proportion of CASEVAC is in line with the UK & Commonwealth proportion too, I think that it is okay as it currently stands. My limited experience to date has been with set-piece battles, not campaigns. They are more straightforward when it comes to facts and figures, whereas the effectives on a given day are one thing, the amount of people who participated are another, and trying to divide into subcategories can be problematic.
I have done a lot of research on the individuals of a British battalion at Gallipoli, and have also undertaken some research on some men of the RANBT. A lot of the British wanted to forget Gallipoli. It was different for the Aussies, given its part in the birth of a new nation, and a lot of the personnel files showed them receiving Gallipoli medals from 1967 onwards. Whilst the French participation at Gallipoli is not deeply embedded in the national psyche, I was surprised to see one separate medal for the Dardanelles, as separate from the subsequent deployment in Salonika.Keith H99 (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, Keith, sorry for the delayed response, work has been hectic this week -- no worries, let's leave the casualty figures as is. Thanks for your work on this article. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to conclude. As well as there being the French official history, abbreviated as AFGG (Les armées françaises dans la Grande guerre), there are some accompanying books that have the transcriptions of some of the primary sources. Tome 8 Volume 1, covering the Dardanelles and Salonika operations from February 1915 to August 1916) has three accompanying annexes. I am pleased to have come across a primary source in AFGG 8,1,1 which makes reference to around 42,000 men at the peak, thereafter reducing to 22,000 when the 156th Division d'Infanterie (and the 10th (Irish) Division) were dispatched to Salonika via Mudros.

I think I have seen something similar to AFGG, whereby the US Navy published their official history of the War of 1812 in 2002, and also published the accompanying primary source material. These have an attributed editor (Michael J Crawford) whereas the AFGG annexes do not. Keith H99 (talk) 10:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious source

[edit]

′As part of these preparations, the Corps Expeditionnaire d'Orient was raised on 22 February 1915′ ′The corps remained in existence until 6 January 1916 when, following the evacuation of French forces from the peninsula, it was subsumed into the larger Army of the Orient serving in Salonika.′

The source attributed is a book by Moore & Drecki that the publisher describes as 'contains a selection of papers describing current state-of-the-art research in cartography and geovisualisation' This cannot be right?

The content sounds plausible, the source does not. I presume it was a mistake, rather than vandalism. Keith H99 (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, the source seems ok to me. It is published by Springer and the editors appear to be academics in surveying and the environment at the Universities of Otago and Auckland in New Zealand and the individual chapters list their sources. You can view some of it here: [3]. Can you please clarify what your concern is? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Rupert. My concern as to why the source did not seem plausible: I was not expecting a book describing current state-of-the-art research in cartography and geovisualisation in 2013 to contain historic source data. It would be akin to having a book about contemporary data visualisation. Whilst the title would imply technical concepts such as OLAP cubes, LAT LON determination, polynomial plots, internet of things etc it would not seem likely that historic data would be contained therein.
Your input above explains that Gallipoli is used as a case study in relation the subject of current state-of-the-art research in cartography and geovisualisation.
Page 34 indicates that the French archives have documentation for the Gallipoli campaign which falls under one heading, which has two subgroupings, one for the period 22 February 1915 to 4 October 1915 and 5 October 1915 to 6 January 1916.
Thanks for editing the citation, so that it makes specific reference to the Gallipoli case study. Keith H99 (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reduction in strength of the corps

[edit]

In Aspinall-Oglander's Official History (Volume 2), on the final page of chapter 26 (p.376), there is an interesting, albeit misleading, mention of a telegram

'On the 25th September Lord Kitchener tele-graphed to Sir Ian Hamilton that two British divisions and probably one French division must be withdrawn from the Dardanelles for service at Salonika.'

Whilst the French certainly took this suggestion on board, and acted upon it, they actually withdrew a division-strength body of the two metropolitan brigades, leaving troops of the two colonial infantry brigades, from what I am seeing in French sources. I'll add more in due course, once I have full details. There's a gap in my sources for when one battalion left Gallipoli that I want to plug first of all, before I progress further with this. Keith H99 (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding Kitchener's request, it was one British Division and one French Division that Hamilton agreed to send to Salonika. Having foreseen this development, the French high command made the request that the two metropolitan brigades were contained within the division that was dispatched to Salonika, and this is now reflected in the article.Keith H99 (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious provenance of article on wikipedia.fr

[edit]

In some cases, there are copy-translate-paste exercises that result in pages being built. The resultant article is as good or as bad as the donor.

The equivalent article on wikipedia.fr about the C.E.O. contains an unsourced list that is supposed to be the composition of the C.E.O. upon its establishment on 22 February 1915. The element that pertains to artillery is word-for-word identical to the war diary that lists those units shipped to Salonika in October 1915.

For information, I thought it wise to document this shortcoming, in the event that any wikipedians were considering copy-pasting from this article. The information from english language sources, either the British official history by Aspall-Oglander or secondary sources derived from it, have transparency and can be tracked back. Keith H99 (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Name of this article as Corps expéditionnaire d'Orient

[edit]

This is a phrase in the French language, and the second word is is lower case in French. Whilst this differs from how the english language would record all words in capitals, it should be true to the version originale.Keith H99 (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do note that the online unit war diary, used as a reference in the article, is documented thus CeO. This has source reference "J.M.O. 22 février-5 mai 1915: 26 N 75/1" Keith H99 (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Corps_expéditionnaire_d%27Orient&oldid=1229555139"