Battlefields. Michael Rayner
href="#u453bcaef-63b4-491f-8d67-2ca6741add80">El Alamein October – November 1942
Battle of the Bulge December 1944 – January 1945
Acknowledgements & Photographic Credits
Waterloo (oil on canvas) by George Jones, shows a typically over- dramatized version of the landscape, with Wellington in a blue cape on his chestnut, Copenhagen.
Gettysburg National Military Park – view looking west across the northern face of Cemetery Hill, with the equestrian statue of Major General Winfield Scott Hancock, who helped to secure this hill on the evening of Day 1. Cemet ery Hill was a potential hinge in the Union lines, and was grimly clung to by Meade’s army throughout the fighting.
INTRODUCTION
By Michael Rayner
Battlefields have long held a fascination for those who survived the conflicts and for those of later generations. Motives for visiting these sites, rather than merely reading about them, are many and varied, which remains the case for the modern battlefield tourist. For many in the past and present the main reason is for commemoration and remembrance, which helps to account for the large number of memorials and other monuments on battlefields. These can range from ancient trophies dedicated to the gods to a modern plaque put up by a regimental association. For many, the overriding reason to visit is the desire to improve understanding of the events which took place on the ‘haunted acres’ of the battlefield. Generals and military theorists have always understood the importance of the ground upon which a battle is fought, with the Roman writer Vegetius informing his audience that ‘a large part of a victory depends on the actual place in which the battle is fought’. A visit to this ground is therefore essential for the military historian, so much so that many would hesitate if not always refrain from writing about a battle without visiting its site. This is because the battlefield is a historical source demanding attention, interpretation and understanding like any written or other account. To understand a battle, one has to understand the battlefield. To do this, the nature of the historic landscape first needs comprehension, by stripping away the post-battle layers of development and land-use to return to the battlefield as it was at the time of the action. Naturally, much of this work must be carried out through consulting historic maps and other records as well as through landscape archaeology and geology. However, a site visit will help to support or refute ideas from the written and pictorial record.
Misconceptions about a battlefield, and therefore the battle, often occur, with a good example being the nature of ‘Wellington’s’ ridge at Waterloo. This is depicted in numerous paintings of the battle and described in many accounts, but when these are compared with one’s own observations it soon becomes clear whether the writer or artist has actually visited the site. The ridge is often shown as too high or too steep, whereas it is a relatively gentle incline of no great height, which in many ways makes it such an outstanding choice as the main feature of Wellington’s position. A visit will make this clear, but much more must be factored in: understanding how the construction of the Lion Mound has altered the ground; knowing which buildings were there at the time; how the field boundaries have changed; and how the roads and tracks have changed in their course and nature. The visit will also help with improving knowledge of the soil type and conditions, which had such an impact on 18 June 1815, as well as seeing where hedges, trees and woods had stood, which in turn help with understanding lines of sight and dead ground. Such features can influence any visit of any battlefield and, when coupled with other natural factors such as the time of year at which the battle was fought and the weather conditions that prevailed at the time, can add further to one’s appreciation of the battle and the commanders’ and armies’ actions.
This book focuses on a number of battles dating from the last two centuries that are worth a visit today. Although mainly featuring fighting on land, Pearl Harbor is included, while Arnhem also has an airborne dimension. Visits and tours can be of a personal nature, but all the battlefields featured here are also serviced by commercial tour operators. Therefore, all are safe to visit and have some facilities in terms of interpretation, presentation and comfort for the modern visitor. Battlefield tourism is a growth industry, which has encouraged the development of facilities and better on-site interpretation at many of these and other battlefields. Comparative visits to the Somme battlefield in 1980 and in 2005 would have revealed substantial progress in improving the experience for those visiting. At the earlier date even basic visitor facilities were hard to find, while in 2005 sensitively planned, modern facilities and interpretation have been provided at Newfoundland Memorial Park and Thiepval, while others such as at Delville Wood have been upgraded. The increase in visitor numbers has helped lead to these improvements, but there is a cost in terms of pressure on the often narrow roads and the sites themselves. For example, at Newfoundland Memorial Park, visitors may no longer roam across ‘no-man’s-land’ at will, since the resulting erosion would destroy the very site the visitors wish to see. However, it is surely through the increasing popularity of battlefield sites as tourist and school party destinations that will help to ensure their preservation. In an ideal world these sites would be preserved for their historic significance, but sadly economic pressures frequently gain the upper hand, with the result that many battlefields have been lost or damaged. However, by proving the commercial value of battlefields, local and national authorities are more likely to uphold the preservation of the battlefield, instead allowing it to disappear under tarmac or housing. It is to be hoped that governments will acknowledge the historic importance of these sites, and do more to preserve battlefields and their archaeology.
The impressively massive Thiepval Memorial to the missing of the Somme, designed by Lutyens and listing over 73,000 British and South African soldiers who have no known grave. The adjacent cemetery has 300 French and 300 British graves.
The reader will be pleased to know that the authors assembled to write each chapter are experts in and on their fields. All have indepth personal knowledge of the sites, gained through research and personal visits to the sites. Many of the writers have also conducted tours of the battlefields they cover, with the result that the entries contain helpful visitor hints and insights of the terrain. With the good quality and range of mapping and illustrations the volume has much that can be enjoyed at home, with the book being a likely companion through the gloomier winter months, perhaps inspiring the reader to sally forth in the spring or summer to visit at least some of these fascinating and significant sites of what Winston Churchill termed the ‘punctuation marks of history’.
Colour lithograph by Sullivan. The symbolic fall of Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo, as the