MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982963324 · doi:10.1353/jmh.0.0213

Gallipoli: Attack from the Sea (review)

2009· article· en· W1982963324 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nicholas A. Lambert

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Military History · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Maritime and Colonial Histories
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNavyHistoryAdversaryNarrativeSubject (documents)PoliticsIndex (typography)Quarter (Canadian coin)Operations researchLawClassicsPolitical scienceEngineeringLibrary scienceArchaeologyComputer scienceLiteratureArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Gallipoli: Attack from the Sea Nicholas A. Lambert Gallipoli: Attack from the Sea. By Victor Ruddeno. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2008. Maps. Tables. Illustrations. Appendixes. Notes. Bibliography. Index. Pp. x, 338. $45.00. Since 1915, "Gallipoli" has become a by-word for military incompetence. The failed British attempt to capture the Dardanelles Straits has been held up as a textbook case of how combined-service operations should not be conducted. Victor Ruddeno, however, believes that previous historians have 'largely overlooked' the Royal Navy's many accomplishments during the campaign. Accordingly his book seeks to provide a 'fresh outlook on the defined historical sequence of events' as well as a 'thorough and penetrating analysis of the strategies and actions of all land, sea and air forces'. The author's particular objective is to highlight the contribution to the campaign made by the crews of the British (and Australian) submarines that ran the gauntlet up the Straits to operate against enemy supply lines across the Sea of Marmora. This book is divided into thirteen chapters. The first serves as an introduction to the subject, offering a summary of some events and circumstances that led to the decision by the British political/strategic executive to mount an attack; the last offers some conclusions. The remainder, chapters two through twelve, provides a straightforward narrative of naval and military operations. Approximately one quarter of the text is devoted to blow-by-blow accounts of submarine operations, which are derived almost entirely from after-action patrol reports and repackaged by the author to create a daily diary of events. The rest is nothing more than a selective scissors and paste of events described many times in previous books. While footnotes are provided, these exist mainly to supply details that could not conveniently be inserted into the narrative rather than for identifying sources. Those that do designate a source show that, except for reading a couple of diaries (all cited before by previous authors), Ruddeno has done no archival research. The bibliography is equally revealing. A cryptic one-page list of primary sources he used is supplied - but no locations or descriptions are given. To give a typical example, what is a reader supposed to divine from the following: "Hall, P., c.1915-16. Letters"? [End Page 297] The real problems with this book stem from the author's failure to read widely or carefully enough to be able to contextualize properly the material he presents. The result is a plethora of serious factual and interpretative errors. As is transparent from the first chapter, the author made no attempt to come to grips with the complex political and strategic dynamics that led to the initiation of the Dardanelles campaign. Discussion of inter-allied relations and British perceptions of their role within the alliance is particularly lacking. As a consequence, Ruddeno's rendition of the strategic rationale is grossly oversimplified and compromised by omissions and inaccuracies. For instance, he conflates (p. 15) the meeting of Winston Churchill's Admiralty "war circle" of 5th January with Prime Minister HH Asquith's so-called "war council" of 7th January 1915. The key "war council" of 28th January, at which the decision was taken to go ahead with the proposed attack, is not mentioned at all; nor are the events immediately preceding which are crucial to understanding why objections were overruled and the order given. In creating his 'new historical sequence of events' the author is overly dependent upon Churchill's post-war memoirs (The World Crisis); he is oblivious to scholarship demonstrating how the former First Lord of the Admiralty misled his audience – as he did when testifying in late 1916 before the commission of enquiry set up to investigate the Dardanelles fiasco. The author did not even bother to avail himself of numerous published volumes of documents. Utterly inexcusable is the failure to consult the relevant companion volumes to the biography of Winston Churchill edited by Martin Gilbert (The Challenge of War, 1914-1916 [Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1971]). In the conclusion, the author informs his readers of the 'noteworthy fact' (pp. 271-2) that after the termination of the campaign (February 1916) not one member...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.193
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Military HistorySame topicGlobal Maritime and Colonial HistoriesFrench-language works237,207