The Cavalry Went Through

This novel, published in 1930, is an intensely personal account of military life on the Western Front and at Gallipoli. In the introduction, the author explains that it is “neither an autobiography nor a biography” but ”a series of personal reminiscences centred on the greatest military figure of the ages”. That individual is the fictional Henry Berrington Duncan. The story proper begins in October 1915 when Duncan's force was transferred from East Africa to the Western Front.

The author, Bernard Newman (born 8 May 1897), was a great-nephew of the celebrated novelist George Eliot. He lied about his age in order to enlist when aged 17. Arriving in France in September 1915, he served on the Western Front with the Army Service Corps and was entrusted with the role of liaison officer for his regiment on account of having reasonably fluent French. He could be said to have died of wounds received during the war: a shrapnel injury to the roof of his mouth developed into a tumour and he died in 1968 of heart failure during an operation to remove it.

In this novel of virtual history, Newman imagines what a difference it would have made to the progress of the war if there had been a wiser military commander with a more effective strategy than that of the actual generals who directed the war. The hero Duncan asks insightful questions about army appointments policy:
“Do we pick the right commanders for the jobs? Have you noticed that, of the six British generals holding Army or equivalent independent commands, four are old Etonians? I don't run down Eton but isn't there a certain significance in this fact? Is the bogey of seniority really laid? Another point. You mentioned the other day that most of the brains of the nation were now in the Army! Quite right. But what have you done with them? Made them second- lieutenants to be shot down by the hundred. Do you realise that of all these 'brains' only two have so far attained the very moderate rank of brigadier-general?  I am the only one who has passed it.” This is an important point as one of the pillars of Duncan's successful military campaigns is intelligent strategy.

Key to the effectiveness of Duncan's battle plans was the use of highly-trained, well-informed troops. He cites the example of Gideon:
“How he reduced his army from 32,000 to a mere 300 men and how he won by tactics skilfully executed, where mere numbers of second-class troops would not have prevailed... I worked somewhat along the same lines. I weeded out men here and there. No man with a blemish of any kind remained. In the end there remained but a little more than a complete battalion. But what men! Every one in a magnificent state of physical vigour; every one mentally alert; above all, every one determined to see the job through, no matter what it meant for him.”

As Duncan is allowed to introduce new shock tactics to change the direction of the war, he observes:
“But the war is now more than ever a question of the quality of men. A year ago —two years ago— our men were definitely inferior to the Germans as soldiers, in spite of patriotic journalistic ravings. It is not only a matter of courage but of training. But now the positions are utterly reversed.”
So convincing is the author’s account of Duncan’s successes on the Western Front and in Turkey that it is easy for the reader to believe that the war would have taken a different course if a wise leader such as Duncan had taken charge of the stalemate.