Bilal Yasin GCSE history coursework
03 – 10 – 2003 Mr Pyke
11 Elgar
How useful are Sources A, B and C to an historian studying the attitudes of British soldiers to their commanders during the First World War? Use Sources A to C and knowledge from your studies in your answer.
The first source, source A, is titled ‘One view of soldiers’ attitudes toward their generals’ and comes from the British magazine ‘Punch’. The source is a cartoon image in which we can see a Major-General, a Regimental Sergeant-Major and a few troops.
The source shows us what the Major-General thinks about the Regimental Sergeant-Major but does not tell us what the ordinary soldiers think about their generals. It limits itself by only showing one opinion of the generals and not taking into consideration the feelings of the others. The source comes from the well know magazine ‘Punch’ which, was first published on July 17, 1841. The founders of the magazine acquired the idea from satirical French daily, Charivari. The magazine was set up to make fun of political leaders. I would say that the author of the caption was in a good position to have accurate information as the source is primary and comes from the time that the historian is studying. Weather he used that to his advantage to actually find out what was going on seems reasonable as he has the right titles for the generals. The purpose of the source was to humour the public as the caption is a mild joke but at the same time it could be informing the people that the generals were cowards for not fighting alongside the ordinary soldiers. The motive of the source is clear and it was to show the general public what cowards the generals actually were for not being on the frontline. The intended audience for the magazine was really anyone who could read as it was aimed to humour people. It would have probably also be aimed at the people who were not on the front like for example the general public. This would have been so that they were able to gain an understanding of what was actually happening. This makes a different to why I trust it because the publishers would not want to lie to the people not knowing what was happening to their loved ones. It makes quite a relevant difference because if it was aimed at the soldiers on the front line the publishers could have put anything in the magazine and the soldiers would have known it to be a joke. Only the base of the idea would heave been accurate. For e.g. in this particular source the caption and what was going on would not have to be accurate at all as it is fictional but the titles of the generals would need to be accurate. This source would not be reliable to an historian as the authors were biased against the British commanders. This source would also not be useful as it is fictional and does not show the soldiers view to his general.
