Talk:Edmund Allenby, 1st Viscount Allenby

Allenby and "Allah Beh"

Allenby decided to overfly Jerusalem, dropping leaflets which demanded their surrender. What he did not know was that the Turks believed in an old prophesy that they would never lose the Holy City until "a man of Allah came to deliver it. Allenby's signature on the leaflet was mistaken for "Allah Beh (man of Allah). The Turks surrendered without firing a shot...an incredible fulfillment of Biblical prophesy which put Israel under British mandate. This mandate, called the Balfour Declaration, called for a Jewish homeland and set the foundation for modern Israel. Jerusalem had been under Muslim control during centuries, with both Christians, Jews and Muslims living together as one community under Muslim ruling and majority.

[1]

"In 1917, the British general, Edmund Allenby, led his troops to surround the city of Jerusalem. It is reported that the night before his impending invasion, Allenby prayed that he might take the city without destroying the holy places. He had wired London for instructions and had received a simple reply---a scripture verse! As birds flying, so will the LORD of hosts defend Jerusalem; defending also he will deliver it; and passing over he will preserve it" (Isaiah 31:5). "The exciting prospects of such a thing led him to have the verse read aloud before all his troups positioned in the foothills of Jerusalem. Allenby commandeered every available aircraft for a fly-over. On the morning of December 10, what seemed like hundreds of planes skirted low from just over the 'Hill of Evil Council' which lies to the south of the Temple site. The sky was covered from wing tip to wing tip and from nose to tail with airplanes---British biplanes---captured German aircraft---everything that would fly!"

"As they flew low over Jerusalem and the Eastern Gate, one of the pilots dropped a note demanding surrender---signed by General Allenby. The Turks were frightened by the multitude of planes. According to reports, the name of Allenby further frightened them, for the word 'Allah' in Arabic means 'God' and 'beh' is Arabic for 'son'. The Turks were looking at a demand for surrender signed by Allah-beh, the son of God! In response, they hoisted a white flag and surrendered the city without firing a single shot..."

[2]

Does anybody have any primary evidence to support these above claims? --Goldendroplets 21:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No. See Battle of Jerusalem (1917), for a detailed description of the fighting which took place for the city, as its described in published accounts. --Rskp (talk) 05:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Furiously kicking Saladdin's tomb

"Whilst making his way into Jerusalem, he insisted upon visiting visiting the grave of the great muslim leader Salah Ud-Din. Upon reaching his destination, he began to furiously kick the headstone of Salah Ud-Din. Finally out breath and covered in sweat, he proclaimed 'today, the crusades have ended'"

Someone paints quite a fanciful picture here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.180.98.220 (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Saladin is buried in Damascus. Bit sceptical of this one, as the British Empire was the greatest Muslim power on earth at the time and was heavily dependent on Muslim Indian troops - whom Allenby posted to guard the Holy Places of their religion in Jerusalem. That said, there was a "Punch" cartoon of Richard the Lionheart looking on in approval when Allenbu marched in.

I've heard a similar story about the French General Gouraud though - that he banged his sword on Saladin's tomb and shouted "Saladin, we have returned!" or something similar.Paulturtle (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds ridiculous, and ahistorical too. Saladin was known and appreciated, even among the crusaders of the 12th/13th centuries (including Richard), as an honest man and an excellent, valourous knight; to them, he was *not* some crude, uncouth barbarian. 188.150.68.13 (talk) 10:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Battle section in inf box

This has grown to a ridiculous length. In the Middle East he was the army commander and as such he was not directly involved all the smaller battles. Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed and culled right back. Dormskirk (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Where the infobox calls for battles you have added wars. This does not follow the guidelines for the infobox. Please reinstate the list of battles. --Rskp (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not really want to get involved in this debate. I note that you have attempted to re-insert the battles but your changes have been reverted by another editor. Dormskirk (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Although the infobox calls for battles they have been cut back to campaigns. So under the heading battles/wars are listed wars and campaigns. I attempted to add the subheading 'campaign' to explain the addition of the Western Front and the Sinai and Palestine Campaigns, but it was reverted by

Anotherclown (talk | contribs) saying, (Undid revision 579396218 by RoslynSKP (talk) - not req'd, pls discuss per WP:BRD). So when the general reader who comes to this site, at a glance they will know Allenby took part in two campaigns and that's it. That's not very helpful, is it? --Rskp (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The section your talking about is the Battles/wars section. The inf box is only meant to be a summery of the subject or there would be no need for the rest of the article. As you can see from the above consensus is for the present presentation. Jim Sweeney (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Then why is the subsection called battles/wars? Jim Sweeney you misunderstand, Anotherclown cut the 'campaign' subheading which I added in order to signify that the two campaings weren't battles or wars. --Rskp (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

One of the links is to the "Sinai and Palestine campaign" - as such it seems fairly obvious to me (and probably the "general reader") that the list only includes campaigns so adding the header "campaigns" is clearly redundant. Anotherclown (talk) 09:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, I really don't want to argue for the sake of arguing, but surely the most important battles should be included - Arras on the Western Front, then Third Gaza, the Fall of Jerusalem (not strictly a battle I know), Megiddo. Battles that the well-informed general reader should be expected to have heard of, but not every last skirmish known only to those with an expert knowledge of the campaign. And there's no reason not to link the campaign itself. Just my two-cents worth.Paulturtle (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not looking for an argument either. I just don't understand - the infobox prompt says "battles/wars" so why are the battles not allowed? The Template:infobox military person says battles are optional "any notable battles or wars in which the person participated." --Rskp (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

By way of comparison, I'm sure there are as many versions of this as there are articles (Frederick the Great has an infobox listing not his battles but his brothers and sisters!), but the Duke of Wellington lists his only campaigns, whereas the Duke of Marlborough lists his campaigns as subheadings, with the more notable battles (including two of which I had not heard) listed under them. Perhaps a productive discussion could be had about which battles are notable enough to be included.Paulturtle (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Yes that would be great. How about -

• Western Front (1914–1917)

Battle of Mons

Retreat from Mons

First Battle of Ypres

Second Battle of Ypres

Battle of the Somme

Battle of Arras (1917)

Apart from the retreat which I would definitely include, I don't know enough about his involvement in the rest to say.

I think a bare bones for the EEF would be -

• Sinai and Palestine Campaign (1917–1918)

Battle of Beersheba

Battle of Jerusalem

Battle of Megiddo

but I would like to add

Battle of Hareira and Sheria

Battle of Mughar Ridge

between Beersheba and Jerusalem. The first was a solid two day battle which finally won the old Gaza to Beersheba line. The second was fought during the pursuit over four days, and was crucial in enabling Allenby to advance to the Judean Hills thence on to Jerusalem

I would also like to include

First Transjordan attack on Amman

Second Transjordan attack on Shunet Nimrin and Es Salt

Although they were not successful, they were built on during the Megiddo battles, which were so successful territorially as well as PR wise lifting the morale of the home front. So I would like to see

Battle of Sharon

Battle of Nablus (1918)

Third Transjordan attack

which were all part of the Megiddo battles and show the scale and complexity of this fighting, while

Capture of Damascus (1918)

Pursuit to Haritan

show the extent of the victory eventually won by Allenby in the last days of the war. I'd be glad to hear your thoughts. --Rskp (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that's probably a few too many to be honest - if we want to cut down the weight we could lose First or Second Ypres, where he wasn't really a major decision-maker, and the Somme where he conducted a failed diversionary attack at Gommecourt on the first day. So I'd leave it at Mons & the Retreat and Arras. And in the Palestine section we are probably including a few which are well-known only to specialists. The Capture of Damascus is probably worth including (not least as it's in the classic film in which Allenby features), but not the three battles which you say yourself were part of the Megiddo fighting. But you've probably heard enough from me for the time being.Paulturtle (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I will add the battles you suggest and leave the additional Megiddo ones out. --Rskp (talk) 03:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Scandalous Cavalry brigade

Somebody has added some details, cited to a 2005 Mark Urban book which I don't have to hand, about a cavalry brigade miles away from where it should be and the brigade commander being in "scandalous" open rebellion against Allenby. This is referring to Hubert Gough in August 1914, right?Paulturtle (talk) 06:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

High Commisioner

I would like to reinstate the following

His appointment in 1919 as High Commisioner of Egypt came as the country was beginning to reject British rule. It had been under Martial Law since 1914 and several of their leaders, including Saad Zaghlul, had been exiled to Malta.

These deportations had led to demonstrations across the country, with Cairo isolated. Allenby’s first response was conciliatory. He persuaded the Colonial Office to allow Zaghlul and his delegation, wafd, to travel to France. Their intention was to present the Egyptian case to the Paris Peace Conference but they received no official recognition and returned to Egypt in failure.

The reference is the same as the following paragraph. Padres Hana (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, fine. The point is that all paragraphs should be sourced. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Boer War Unnecessary Information

In the Boer War section, there is an entire paragraph devoted to Allenby telling people to go to bed one night. As a commanding officer, that doesn't seem like an event worth including in his article. Any concerns if that paragraph is removed? --NuqneH10 (talk) 11:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the point is that he took a firm grip on his new command, not that that doesn't make him any different from many new bosses in any walk of life. Have trimmed the paragraph accordingly.Paulturtle (talk) 04:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Why does it say "Palestine"

It was called Israel first. The name was changed to "Palastina" much later by the Roman empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:188:6EA1:61D1:3F78:E004:5B62 (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Creation as Viscount

The citation for the date he was created Viscount in the first sentence of Section 5 Governor of Egypt. 7 October 1919 is Heathcote, Tony (1999). The British Field Marshals 1736–1997 p. 23. The relevant passage starts on page 22 and doesn't mention the specific date https://archive.org/details/britishfieldmars0000heat/page/22/mode/2up. However https://archive.org/details/burkespeeragebar0001unse/page/60/mode/2up (1999 edition; earlier editions don't appear to be online) does have the date of creation as 7 October.

I'd be grateful if someone could explain why the announcement that "The KING has been pleased ... to confer the dignity of a Viscount" on Allenby is dated October 18: https://www.thegazette.co.uk/Edinburgh/issue/13519/page/3474. Mcljlm (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)