The Châteaux Generals: Myth or Reality?

Brigadier F.W. Lumsen, VC, CB, DSO
Killed in Action Near Arras, 4 June 1918

By James Patton

Two long-standing criticisms leveled against British generals in the First World War are the "lions led by donkeys" and the "châteaux generals." The former charge, probably started by the Germans, holds that the senior commanders were wanting in strategic ability, even incompetent, and the latter that said leaders stayed far from the battlefront and were aloof from their soldiers.

These theories are distinctly different. Leaving aside the "lions led by donkeys", does the evidence show that the British generals were too far removed from the action?

Perhaps the first to assert the châteaux generals theory was no less than the wartime (1916 to end) prime minister David Lloyd George (1863–1945) in his 1933 War Memoirs. As a result, the British generals have been seen as isolated from their men, issuing their orders from their comfy digs far in the rear, with little concern for the reality of the trenches, which has devolved into a popular axiom. In particular, out-of-touch examples abound. In a work published in 1961, the Anglo-Indian author Lt. Col. John Masters DSO, OBE (1914–1983) cited an anecdote about a rare visit to the front: Haig asked a scared soldier “Now then, young man, just where and when did you begin this war?” The response: “Beggin’ your lordship's pardon, but I din’t do it. It wuz the bleedin’ Kaiser." Moving up to 1989, Rowan Atkinson’s character Capt. Edmund Blackadder said that the "Big Push" was merely "another gargantuan effort to move his [Haig’s] drinks cabinet six inches closer to Berlin."

The British did begin the war with some lionhearted generals. In a period of nine days in late September and early October 1914, eight of them were killed, wounded, or captured, an alarming loss of command experience in a force of just seven divisions and one brigade. 

Major General Sir Thompson Capper

Died from Wounds at Loos, 27 September 1915

 

At the Battle of Loos in 1915 (the first British "Big Push"), five generals (three of whom were division commanders) were killed in a few days. As a result, on 3 October, the Chief of the Imperial General Staff (CIGS) Lieut. Gen. Sir William Robertson (1860–1933) ordered that henceforth all corps and division commanders shouldn’t expose themselves to danger. Thus, if there were châteaux generals, they were created by the CIGS, not by their preference, incompetence, or cowardice.  

What evidence might there be to either support or refute the assertion that the generals really spent their time in safety and comfort? A likely possibility is to examine the statistics on general officer deaths.  In 1995, historians Frank Davis and Graham Maddocks published their book Bloody Red Tabs (still available at Amazon). They found 125 British general officers who died from all causes and in all locations during the war period. Seventy-eight of these died as a result of putting themselves in harm’s way. In addition to Lord Kitchener, on this list are three corps commanders and ten division commanders. Also included are three Australians, three New Zealanders, two Canadians, and three from the Indian Army. At Gallipoli (where there were no châteaux available), eight generals were lost.

Although they couldn’t find a cause of death in every instance, Davis and Maddocks attributed 34 deaths to artillery fire, 22 to small arms fire, three to drowning, four to accidents, and one from contagious disease. None were killed in their headquarters (although two were wounded by artillery while there). It is important to note that a further 146 generals were non-fatally wounded or taken prisoner.  All of those killed or wounded either by artillery or by small arms fire were likely in the thick of the battle. 

What was the experience regarding generals killed in other combatant forces? A modern listing by Gerard Gehin has found that 81 French generals died during the war. Historian Laurent Guillemot has also found that two Belgian, two Italian, and two Romanian generals died. On the Central Powers side there are similar numbers: Germans 70, Austro-Hungarians 40, and Ottomans one. 

Lt General Samuel Holt Lomax
Wounded at First Ypres, 31 October 1914, Died 10 April 1915

Whether or not the châteaux generals accusation was justified, was there a lesson learned here? Probably not by the British; in the Second World War they lost only 29 generals—six of whom died in airplane crashes. Or by the U.S., either, who lost just 23 generals—four of them in airplane crashes.  Clearly, their generals weren’t up at the battlefront, although with greatly improved communications, they were able to be in closer touch than the previous generation. 

It seems that the losers can be more thorough than the winners in their after-action critiques. The German army of 1939–45 definitely emphasized leadership at the forefront. According to historian Josef Foltmann, there were at least 258 German generals killed, died of wounds, or missing in action, plus 128 who died as POWs. U.S. Army historian French MacLean has written: ”German general officer casualties in World War II were staggering and adversely affected unit proficiencies. Due to these losses, divisions were often commanded by colonels [and] regiments by majors...” 

In conclusion, here’s a relevant factoid to ponder over—in World War II the victorious Soviet army lost at least 416 generals.