Talk:Herbert Plumer, 1st Viscount Plumer

Nunquam Dormio 19:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)The reading list added by Nighthawk seems a rather general WW1 list. Anyone know whether these books add any real insight into Plumer?

Untitled

Those books listed that were removed provide limited but valid information regarding Plumer.

Of particular interest are Haigs Command, Deaths Men and Meine Kriegserinnerungen. If you have not read these books how can you feel qualified to delete this input?--Nighthawkx15 23:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Nighthawk

front lines?

"Few of the serving troops would have seen any of the five army commanders (Henry Horne, 1st Baron Horne, Plumer, Julian Byng, Hubert Gough, Henry Rawlinson, 1st Baron Rawlinson) in person, let alone the commander in Chief (John French, 1st Earl of Ypres then Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig). "

does this mean that Plumer was seen by the troops and that he was at the front lines? or is the sentence just a statement

It's general waffle. Now removed.

The "Gee" in Gap

Got rid of the statement that many of the British commanders in WW1 were from the Cavalry. This is a widely believed myth - apart from Haig and one engineer all corps commanders and above were (for fairly obvious reasons) infantrymen.

This is a good example of why I no longer contribute to Wikipedia I'm tired of ignorant people editing my efforts. You will of course be able to cite the background - cavalry or infantry- of the following army commanders

Allenby Gough Plumer Horne Birdwood Rawlinson Byng I can't be bothered --84.57.40.184 (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Nighthawkx15

4 (Allenby, Gough, Birdwood and Byng) of those 7 were cavalrymen. See Chapter 17 of John Terraine, “the Smoke & the Fire”. Terraine insists that the disproportionate influence of cavalry generals was a myth, started by Edmonds and then exaggerated by Lloyd George, but then presents a table which demonstrates that it isn’t!

Of the top 27 British generals of WW1, 1 was an engineer (Kitchener), 4 were artillery (including Milne and Horne), 14 were infantry (just under half) and 8 were cavalry (just under 30%). The BEF was 6.6% cavalry in August 1914, and the proportion dropped to 1% by November 1918 (there was a lot more cavalry in the Middle East theatre, for obvious reasons), so clearly there were a disproportionate number of cavalry generals in high places. Of the Army commanders Monro (soon packed off to India), Rawlinson (who had a few tactical ideas but never quite seems to have had the courage of his convictions), Plumer (who never really got on with Haig and was nearly degummed before Haig came to respect him) and Smith-Dorrien (sacked as a result of long-standing antipathy with French – they had clashed pre-war over French’s insistence that cavalry still be trained to fight with the lance) were infantrymen. The two commanders-in-chief (French and Haig) were cavalrymen, as was Robertson (CIGS for much of the war), as were 5 of the 10 Army Commanders (Haig, Allenby, Byng, Birdwood and Gough), as was Herbert Lawrence, CGS BEF in 1918.

How much Haig’s infamous bullishness and overestimation of his own chances at the Somme and Third Ypres was due to his being a cavalryman is anybody’s guess (Robertson, who was more cautious, had been a staff officer since the 1890s, so I doubt it made any difference in his case), but everybody, even Terraine, agrees that Haig’s appointment of Gough at Third Ypres, with a remit to make rapid progress, was a major error. It is of course true that “cavalry” were the main arm of exploitation at the time, were trained to fight as mounted infantry, and by 1918 were increasingly equipped with light machine guns, armoured cars, lorry-borne infantry and liaison with aircraft – the idea that Haig was a moron who wanted cavalry to charge enemy machine guns is popular myth. But it isn’t a myth that there were a disproportionate number of cavalry officers in the top jobs.Paulturtle (talk) 10:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Simon Robbins "British Generalship on the Western Front" (2005) states that

BEF Corps Commanders were 40% infantry (he gives this as 50% which cannot be right as the figures would then add up to over 100%), 21% cavalry, 15% artillery, 12% Guardsmen, 4% sappers

Division Commanders were 47% infantry, 14% cavalry, 11% artillery, 8% Guardsmen, 4.5% sappers.

Guardsmen could of course be counted as infantry if one were so minded.

So as one descends further down the ladder infantrymen make up nearer half the commanders - but still not a majority - with there still being a disproportionately high number of cavalry officers promoted to high ranks, if not quite to the massive extent as in the top jobs.Paulturtle (talk) 11:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Appearance

The tone of this article seems to be that Plumer was a good general, but it isnt the business of wikipedia to pass this kind of judgement. The sentence on his appearance in particular strikes me as PoV. --Shimbo 22:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you find anywhere a 'PoV' that Plumer was a bad general? Assessment is a necessary part of any encyclopaedia: the Encyclopaedia Brittanica does it all the time. An encyclopaedia that couldn't say Plumer was a competent general (and that Aylmer Hunter-Weston was an incompetent one) would be castrated and rather useless. Nunquam Dormio 06:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Plumer's Colonel Blimp-like appearance, and the contrast with his careful generalship (in part owing to his able Chief of Staff Tim Harington), has been much remarked on over the years, and will need to go back into the article with a suitable cite at some stage.Paulturtle (talk) 10:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

One source for the Blimp appearance - Keegan, John & Wheatcroft, Andrew. Who's Who in Military History. New York, NY: Routledge. 2002. p. 241. "...though his white moustache, red face, and dumpy figure provided the model for David Low's famous Colonel Blimp." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maclilus (talk • contribs) 01:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Just read the Geoffrey Powell biog of Plumer, which has been on my "ought to get round to reading" list for 30 years. In the section on his Governorship of Palestine he quotes somebody (?Ronald Storrs) warning somebody about to meet Plumer that "he looks silly, but he isn't".Paulturtle (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Herbert Plumer, 1st Viscount Plumer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150705211343/http://www.gulabin.com/armynavy/pdf/Army%20Commands%201900-2011.pdf to http://www.gulabin.com/armynavy/pdf/Army%20Commands%201900-2011.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation

How is he pronounced? Is it "ploomer" or "plumber"? Bagunceiro (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Possible source

[1]

Although this appears to be a blog, the linked page is reportedly a "paper written and submitted to American Military University on November 29, 2015". It does, at the very least, have a decent bibliography which could be used by somebody who has access to some of those books to verify if the information can be used for this page - which currently seems to be based on mostly contemporary newspapers. 135.23.202.24 (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)