Talk:Sir William Robertson, 1st Baronet

Untitled
Finally thought to look up the ODNB article, though this is a subscription source, most British library users will find that they have access online via their library service's subscription - check your concil webpages for details. This reference does not support the claim that he served in every rank on his way from private to field marshal, only that he was the first British soldier to do so (he doesn't ever seem to have been RSM for example, only Troop Sergeant-Major). I've also made a start on using the London Gazette to reference commissions, decorations, senior appointments etc, by finding the ref for his DSO. More here http://www.gazette-online.co.uk/searchresults.aspx?GeoType=London&st=adv&sb=date&exact=William%20Robert%20Robertson&pg=1 - searching on initials only, rather than full forenames will probably find others. David Underdown (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * NCO promotions now added.Paulturtle (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Clarification required ...
In an early paragraph it states

He rose to sergeant major in 1885, his career being helped by a developing expertise in signalling and quartermasters' duties. Encouraged by his officers (and the clergyman of his old parish) he passed an examination for officer status and obtained a commission as a lieutenant in the 3rd Dragoon Guards. This was very unusual at the time. Those who had exceptional skills in supporting services were sometimes promoted to officer rank in the engineers or similar corps, but Robertson was commissioned as a cavalry officer. It would have been impossible for this to happen in Britain, as officers were expected to have a private income that would enable them to 'keep up appearances' and pay extravagant mess bills. In India, it was different. Active service officers with experience were needed, there was less accent upon social status and appearance, and the cost of living was very cheap.

Is this trying to indicate that the promotion and training to officer rank occurred in India? If yes, then the mention of India needs to occur earlier. Can I also say that more seems to be commentary rather than encyclopaedic in its form and there probably should be some structure review to the sentences. — billinghurst  sDrewth  15:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I have deleted the commentary and added some more facts. Dormskirk (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have his autobiography if you want anything looking up Kernel Saunters (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for that. Dormskirk (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree the original was a bit rambly, but it's worth explaining the determination the man must have had as a penniless thirtysomething lieutenant, probably ten years older than a lot of his peers. Sooner or later the time will come to flesh out the coverage of the main period of his career - the Nivelle Affair and the events of that autumn when Wully felt he had to swallow his own deep concerns about Third Ypres and side with Haig against Lloyd George, eventually paying the price with his own job. If I can dig out my copy of the 1916-18 volume of Grigg's Lloyd George biog (boxed up in a house move nearly a decade ago ...), I seem to recall Grigg making some citeable comment that Wully was the sort of man who, in another life, might have been a union boss but the iron had got into his soul and made him fiercely loyal to "the generals' trade union". Otherwise the reader must draw his own conclusions.Paulturtle (talk) 10:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be good to have this citeable comment if you can find it. Dormskirk (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like a quote from Churchill on Robertson. The quote is in a book published by Brig-Gen Philip Howell's wife, when she witnessed a discussion between Churchill and Howell at a dinner held by F.E. Smith.

The quote runs:

"Robertson has no imagination" asserted Churchill. "Indeed he has quite as much as you have" retorted Philip (Howell). "It is of a more practical kind." It was the real imagination necessary to a great soldier, the visualising of a situation with all its component parts and the reaction of these on each other.

Howell, Rosalind Upcher. "Philip Howell - A Memoir by his Wife." (1942) George Allen and Unwin Ltd, London

This conversation, which largely focused on the Dardenelles, was shortly before Churchill's resignation. Both Churchill and Howell had served with 4th Hussars, although they did not serve together. This was the first time they had met. They met the next day by chance inn Picadilly. They did not meet again. JCFHowell (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi - Do you have a page number for this? Dormskirk (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Better image
Hi, I uploaded a scan of the original negative of the image used in the infobox. The quality/resolution is better but I didn't upload over it because I wasn't sure how it should be cropped (if at all). Also the infobox image has more of his sword strangely. Opencooper (talk) 10:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sir William Robertson, 1st Baronet. 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/20061210191546/http://oll.libertyfund.org/Home3/Author.php?recordID=0505 to http://oll.libertyfund.org/Home3/Author.php?recordID=0505

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Fall From Power
There seems to be a discrepancy in material on William Robertson's, "Fall From Power" section. In his autobiography, "From Private to Field-Marshal" (1921) Houghton Mifflin Company, pgs. 332 to 342, he talks at length, the way only he can do, about his fate. On page 335, he wrote this:

''In the conversations that took place during the next two days Lord Derby stated that he was most desirous and always had been that I should remain C.I.G.S., and he suggested a procedure that would allow me to remain, and at the same time would satisfactorily adjust the relation between myself and our representative on the Executive Committee. This procedure I was able to accept as it stood, but when he referred it to the War Cabinet for approval the only result was that whilst my continuance as the C.I.G.S. was not disapproved, the original arrangement as to the status of our Representative at Versailles remained unaltered. This being the only point in dispute, the proposed 'modus operandi' came to nothing.''

The War Council was established the previous November to bring all the allies together under one roof, as the top command for the war, to make plans and issue orders to the field. Robertson, the general in charge of the English army, was asked to accept a position on the Council (which would have been a promotion), and then move his office from London to Versailles. In the paragraph, as it stood, it was recognized that this was a mistake. I made the correction.

I hope you can provide me some information about Alfred Milner, a member of the War Cabinet, who heard Robertson out between February 11th and 14th. The conversations that went back and forth were very interesting. The War Cabinet definitely thought they were hearing bad talk from a general, and would have responded in kind. Thank you for your help.

[comments above were added by editor Musicman 214 in January 2018] Paulturtle (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * My apologies. I was going to write a reply to this but it slipped through the net.


 * Robertson's memoirs need to be read with caution, the same as those of any public figure: Mandy Rice-Davies rules apply. The really authoritative account here is David Woodward "Lloyd George and the Generals" (1983). Victor Bonham-Carter's 1960s biography is still serviceable as well. The article, which was largely written by me about 4 years ago, draws heavily on Woodward's biography of Robertson but in that biography Woodward skates over Wully's removal a bit, because he'd gone into it in such detail in his 1983 book. At some stage this will need to be beefed up (and the article will probably need splitting) but I'm not making any immediate promises.


 * The answer to all of this is "it's complicated". The Supreme War Council was a political body. The generals - Permanent Military Representatives - were advisers, not substantive decision-makers. There was all manner of political bickering in Parliament and the press in autumn 1917, with Robertson consorting with the opposition and Lloyd George having repeatedly to insist that the SWC would just be a coordinating body, not one that would issue orders to British troops (the generals took all this kind of thing very seriously - Haig, unlike Wully, accepted the government's right to make military appointments, but at one point during the crisis over Wully's removal Haig pointedly told the Prime Minister that only a member of the Army Council or a Field Marshal senior to him had any right to give him orders). There was then further bickering over the turn of the year about the setting up of an Allied reserve controlled by the SWC, which was eventually agreed in principle but Haig and Pétain were very reluctant to release divisions to it, not least out of worry that Lloyd George might then send them to Italy or Palestine. And various permutations of possible powers for the CIGS and the British PMR were mooted during Wully's removal in February. The comment by Lord Derby which you quote above was just one of these.


 * I dare say that had he accepted the Versailles Post it might have been announced as a promotion or a step up to important new responsibilities to save his face, in the same way that Sir John French was permitted to "resign" as CinC BEF at the end of 1915 and given a job of notionally equivalent seniority (and had to be threatened with the sack unless he agreed to do so!). But nobody would have been fooled, least of all Wully. He was being removed from a very powerful position (CIGS with special powers) to what would soon have become a backwater. Whether Robertson stayed in London with reduced powers or went to Versailles, Lloyd George would have dealt through Wilson in future. And once Wilson became CIGS and Foch became generalissimo in the spring, the PMRs were largely ignored anyway.


 * As for Milner, he had already grown disillusioned with the generals over Third Ypres the previous autumn and IIRC was already interested in becoming War Secretary once Derby was, sooner or later, removed. I don't think there's anything particularly "interesting" in his position in February 1918, unlike Curzon. Milner was on Lloyd George's side on this one.Paulturtle (talk) 03:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Article
This is an extremely well written and thoroughly researched piece of work. Congratulations to the editors who have worked on it. Buistr (talk) 05:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Too long?
An editor has tagged the page as "too long to read and navigate comfortable". I am removing the tag as I think, in this case, the length is not unreasonable and fragmenting the flow of the article would be unhelpful. I happy to consider proposals from a willing editor as to how they propose to spilt it. Dormskirk (talk) 09:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately at over 18k words of readable prose, the length is entirely unreasonable - see WP:SIZE and WP:SUMMARY. The article would benefit from significant summarization to make it more accessible to the general readership. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * As already indicated above, I disagree. Are you prepared to do the work to condense it? If not this seems to be a case of WP:DRIVEBY and the tag should not be readded. Dormskirk (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * By the way, your edit is in extremely strong contrast to the congratulatory section immediately above. Clearly, at least one other editor likes the way it is currently written. Dormskirk (talk) 15:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am absolutely willing to work on it. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Great. In which case that's fine. Please go-ahead. Many thanks, Dormskirk (talk) 15:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)