Back to Anzac officers died at Gallipoli Home Page

Frequently Asked Questions
This page last updated: Thursday, 3 April, 2008 8:27
Questions not answered here?
Bryn Dolan - NO SPAM!

Please check the following list to see whether your question has been answered previously.
This list will be added to as I'm asked questions that may be of interest to others.
Please check it if you return to the site.

If I don't know, I'll try to find answers if questions are relevant to the site.

I've heard from some people that the word 'Anzac' should always be spelled with capital letters, but others say it shouldn't be. What do you think about this? [NOTE - Permission is granted to the Wikipedia editor 'Hayaman' to use any or all of this material, to edit it and to post it wherever Hayaman sees fit on the Wikipedia site, attributed or not - B Dolan, 2nd April 2008).

To say that 'Anzac' should always be spelled in capitals ignores both the rules of English grammar and the word's historical usage.

I use both forms, but for different purposes. I certainly do not believe that the word should always be capitalised, for any reason.
Insisting that the word should always be capitalised is implying that everybody in the past - including the Anzacs themselves - used the term incorrectly. This is insulting.

The full capitalisation is fine so long as it is actually the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps - that is, the army formation - being referred to. However, when 'Anzac' is used as a proper noun, as in 'Anzac Cove', 'Anzac Day', or 'the Anzacs', the word does not refer to the army formation but forms one of the other six uses of the term as identified by Dr. Charles Bean in the Official History of Australia in World War 1.

The following definitions of the word 'Anzac' are from Bean, C.E.W. The Official History of Australia In The War of 1914 - 1918 Vol 1. The Story Of Anzac p 609. [I have not changed any of the capitalisation from the original].

(1) Originally, code name for Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (see p. 124) ;
(2) Name given to the beach where the A. & N.Z. Army Corps landed on Gallipoli;
(3) Official name of the two A. & N.Z. Army Corps in France (1st Anzac Corps, 2nd Anzac Corps) ;
(4) Term universally applied by British troops in France to the Australians and New Zealanders of the two Anzac Corps (the Anzacs);
(5) In Palestine, often used to denote men of the Anzac Mounted Division as distinguished from those of the Australian Mounted Division;
(6) In Australia (and eventually in the A.I.F.), used to denote Australians and New Zealanders who served on Gallipoli.
The generally accepted uses of the term are (1), (2), (3), and (6).

Clearly Bean has indicated that while originally the term ANZAC was, as is well known, a short-hand way of referring to the actual army corps, a new word - 'Anzac' - sprang from this which almost immediately evolved to have different meanings and uses.

Most authors since 1915 have used the proper noun 'Anzacs' or 'Anzac' to refer to the troops, the sector of Gallipoli and the actual cove.
It's ludicrous for anybody now to suggest that each and every one of these writers used the term incorrectly because they did not entirely capitalise it, and insulting to imply that they didn't know any better - but that 'we' do.

Consider exactly who used or uses the noun 'Anzac' :
The official Australian historian, Dr. Charles Bean;
The official British and New Zealand historians;
The Australian Imperial Force and the New Zealand Expeditionary Force in their official documents;
Those who wrote articles for the RSL in Reveille and other returned servicemen's magazines;
Those who wrote the unit histories (Australian, New Zealand and English);
Those that have written for the Australian War Memorial's Journal; the Gallipolian magazine; the Army Journal; the Defence Force Journal; the New Zealand Defence Quarterly and others.
Other authors on the subject (including French, Americans, Canadians and Turks);
All the newspapers of the day;
The Macquarie, Oxford and Collins dictionaries;

The compilers of the Imperial War Graves Commission's cemetery registers.

ALL used 'Anzac' when referring to the place, the holiday, or the men. They did not fully capitalise the proper noun because not only would that be an incorrect use of the term, it would also be incorrect use of basic grammar.
Almost every writer since 1915 has accepted that the word has different facets representing different concepts, that it is a word - a proper noun (or in some cases an adjective) - and we all (should) know that neither a proper noun nor an adjective is ever entirely capitalised.

Fully-capitalised acronyms may be used as words in order to avoid confusion with a word of the same spelling and pronunciation if that word already exists (for example PIN or AIDS - both these words - 'pin' and 'aids' already existed, so retaining the capitalisation for the new acronym helps avoid confusion). Obviously this is not the case with 'Anzac'. The word was invented in 1915, so there was no chance of confusion with an already-existing word (other examples of acronyms which evolved into nouns in the same way are 'Qantas', 'Fiat', 'scuba', 'laser' and 'radar'). The fully-capitalised acronym ANZAC refers only to the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps.
It should not be used when referring to the sector at Gallipoli (the Anzac sector), the soldiers (the Anzacs), the name of the cove (Anzac Cove), the national holiday in Australia and New Zealand (Anzac Day), and it should not be used when writing of the Campaign Honours Landing at Anzac, Defence of Anzac and Withdrawal from Anzac.
To fully capitalise 'Anzac' in any of these cases is both historically and grammatically incorrect. The fully capitalised 'ANZAC' refers only to the army formation which came into existence in 1915 and which was disbanded in early 1916, and that's how I use it on this site. That's how almost every writer has used it since 1915.

From Hart's Rules, Oxford University Press 1983:
"As a general rule, abbreviations and contractions should be followed by a full point unless the shortened form consists [entirely] of upper-case initials or is a recognized acronym pronounced as a single word: thus print BBC, HMS, OUP, PAYE, PLC, SDP, SPCK, TUC, WEA; Anzac, Aslib, Fiat, Naafi (or NAAFI). Abbreviations and contractions consisting of a mixture of upper and lower case take full points, as in I.o.W. (Isle of Wight), Bt. (Baronet), Kt. (Knight), Ltd. (Limited), St. (Street), and university degrees (D.Litt., D.Phil., Ph.D., etc.); exceptions to be made for Dr (Doctor), Revd (Reverend; not Rev), Mr, Mrs, Mme, Mlle, St (Saint); here full points are not required."

I have increasingly often seen quotes taken from Bean and other authors where those doing the quoting - either in a magazine article, on a web site, or in a book - have capitalised the word 'Anzac' when it was NOT capitalised in the original document. I can only conclude that this is done to back the author's contention that the word should always be written in capitals. At worst, this is deliberate deception, and at best, sloppy research.
Most people will never read the original documents or official histories, and it's only reasonable for them to expect to be able to trust authors to have quoted truly and accurately from them.

Following are extracts from sources which have correctly used the word 'Anzac':

Sydney Morning Herald - Anzac

'Turkish prisoners at Anzac Cove. The name "Anzac" is made up of the initials in "Australian and New Zealand Army Corps. The cove is just north of Gaba Tepe, and the troops all land there.'
Sydney Morning Herald, 18 August 1915, p13.

Anzac Park, Nelson, NZ

One of the reasons sometimes given for fully-capitalising Anzac is that it is 'disrespectful' to New Zealand not to. Seems New Zealanders haven't had a problem with it though. The card above shows 'Anzac Park', in the South Island city of Nelson.

The poster below shows a 2nd World War NZEF Recruiting Poster. Note that 'The Spirit of Anzac' is calling.

2nd NZEF Anzac Spirit poster

From the Royal Australian Mint; the 1999 $1.00 Anzac coin.
Click on the red or yellow-bounded area for a closer view of that section.
Here 'Anzac' refers to the soldiers ('Anzacs'), and to the spirit - 'Anzac'

orifin of word 'Anzac'
No comment necessary - from 'Reveille', the RSL journal, 1936 (and written by a New Zealander).

From the Anzac Day Commemoration Committee of Queensland's
'Anzac Day 1921 - 1929'

Anzac Square sign, Brisbane

While some in Queensland are insisting 'Anzac Square' in Brisbane is, and always has been, called 'ANZAC Square', they've been caught out because someone forgot to change the sign. Photographed 2007.

Extract from Army Form B. 103 (Casualty Form - Active Service) for Lieutenant Wilfred Bert Granger, 8th Battalion, AIF.
Died of Wounds at 'Anzac', 22nd August 1915. Buried Beach cemetery, Anzac.

Anzac Day 1916 commemoration at Winton, Queensland.
Click on the sign in the middle or bottom left of the photo to see a close-up view of that section.
Note that in this photo 'Anzac' refers (in different signs) both to the sector at Gallipoli ('Quinn's Post, Anzac'),
AND to the holiday ('Anzac Day').
Were these men - who had been to Gallipoli - wrong, and the people who are pushing NOW, 92 years later,
to have 'Anzac' always fully-capitalised - right?

Anzac Day anthologyAnzac Gallipoli Landing

One for 'Anzac Day', one by 'a Returned Anzac'

Anzacs in snow

Anzac pier

Watson's Pier at, according to the card, 'Anzac Beach'

Bruce Topperwien was a Director in the Legal Services Group of the Australian Department of Veteran's Affairs (which administers the Protection of word "Anzac" Regulations), when he wrote an article on this subject.
The article argues for the use of the historically correct 'Anzac' over the baseless assertion that 'Anzac' should always be written fully capitalised.

Reference for the article is:
Topperwien, B. ' The word "Anzac" '; in the journal Sabretache, published by the Military Historical Society of Australia (MHSA), Melbourne. July / September 1997, p33 - 36.

The article may also be downloaded from Mr Topperwien's web site at:


See also the New Zealand Anzac Day site, maintained by the Heritage Group of the New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs.

This section, 'The Anzacs', examines the development of the word 'Anzac' from the original acronym for 'Australian and New Zealand Army Corps'.

Nobody, as far as I know, from any group pushing to have the word 'Anzac' always fully-capitalised,
has ever been able to give a convincing argument as to why they claim that this should be done.

How many soldiers died at Gallipoli?
The latest figures from our colleague Patrick Gariepy, who has been working on the British Commonwealth casualties for more than ten years and who, I believe, has a more accurate count than anybody, are as follows:

British (including Irish)
29, 134
8, 520
New Zealand
2, 806
1, 891

* Others comprise 14 men of the Zion Mule Corps, 11 of the Greek Labour Corps, 3 Guides & Interpreters and 1 man of the Maltese Labour Corps.
These figures include deaths at Gallipoli, or those who died of disease / wounds at sea, or on the Greek island of Lemnos, in Egypt, Malta, Gibraltar or Britain (including Ireland).

Please note that the French casualty figure is not included in the above table, but
is generally agreed to be approximately 10, 000.
The official Turkish figure of about 87, 000 is controversial, and the number of Ottoman dead may really be much higher.
The most consistently inaccurate figure for allied casualties, quoted in many sources, is that for the Indians. In some places (including in the Australian War Memorial), this is given as more than 7,000 - a figure far above the true number of Indian army deaths

Who were the last survivors of the Gallipoli campaign by nationality?
The last New Zealand soldier was Alfred Douglas Dibley, who served as a stretcher-bearer at Gallipoli. Born at Wellington, New Zealand, on 26 June 1896, he died at Rotorua on 18 December 1997, aged 101 years.
The last French soldier was Ernest Stocanne. He was born 6 January, 1894, and served on Gallipoli with the 17th Artillery Regiment, French Expediditionary Corps. He died in December 1999, aged 105.
The last British soldier was Percy Goring, who served on Gallipoli with the Royal Engineers, 54th (East Anglian) Division. He died in Bunbury, Western Australia,on 27 July 2001, aged 106.
The last Turkish soldier was
The last Australian soldier, and last survivor of all who served on Gallipoli, was Alec Campbell. Born in Tasmania on 26 February, 1899, he served at Gallipoli as a sixteen-year-old with the 15th Battalion. He died in Tasmania on 16 May 2002, aged 103.

Who invented the automatic-firing rifle, as used during the evacuation to make the Turks believe the positions at Anzac were still manned?
The soldier who invented the automatically-firing rifle was Lance-Corporal William Charles Scurry, of the 7th Battalion (Victoria) [later Captain, MC, DCM, MiD, 58th Battalion].
[ April 2002] After having examined documents last month, it seems that there were actually two inventors who worked on the rifle together, but that one of them did not seek credit for it. I will add the second, 'unknown' inventor's details soon.

Who invented the periscope rifle?
The soldier who invented the periscope rifle was No. 1066, Lance-Corporal William Charles B. Beech, of the 2nd Battalion (New South Wales). [later Sergeant, Divisional HQ, returned to Australia Nov 1915].

I heard a poem years ago, something about the years of the Great War being a broken song. Do you know this poem?
In his book, 'The Broken Years', about the experiences of Australian soldiers in the war, Bill Gammage writes near the end:
'So the Great War brought change to the outlook of Australians. In September 1917 an Australian soldier wrote in his diary the following memorable lines:'

Adieu, the years are a broken song,
And the right grows weak in the strife with wrong,
The lilies of love have a crimson stain,
And the old days will never come again.

What was the average age of the Australian soldiers at Gallipoli?
The average age of the soldiers at the start of the war was 28. So many men applied to join the AIF at first that standards of height, strength and fitness were raised almost impossibly high. Even in 1918, the survivors of these '1914 men' were said to be clearly distinguishable from those who enlisted in later years.

Is it true that soldiers who had served at Gallipoli could wear an 'A' to signify this?
Soldiers who had served at Gallipoli were later entitled to wear a brass 'A' (for 'Anzac') on their unit colour patch on the sleeves. This was more highly prized and regarded by many than a medal. They were also entitled to wear a red, white and blue rosette on the sleeve when on leave.

Who was the youngest Anzac soldier to die at Gallipoli?

The youngest (Australian) soldier to die at Gallipoli was Private No. 1553, 21st Battalion, James MARTIN. He was 14. He died of enteric fever contracted at Gallipoli, aboard a Hospital ship on 25th October 1915. A book has just been published in Australia on his life.
The oldest to die at Gallipoli appears to have been Major Frank Chapman, of the Auckland Mounted Rifles, NZEF. He was killed in action on Rhododendron Ridge, during the assault on Chunuk Bair, 8th August 1915, aged 57.

In the movie 'Gallipoli' why is 'Archie' seen at the end running without his rifle? Surely this would not really have happened.
In the movie 'Gallipoli', the doomed charge of the 8th and 10th Light Horse Regiments at dawn, 7th August 1915 at 'The Nek' is depicted.
The final scene, of the young soldier ('Archie') who has dropped his rifle and is running towards the Turkish trenches, is based on fact (as are most of the military scenes in the movie)
[8th LHR] 'In an instant the first line, all eagerness, leapt over the parapet. Facing them, not a stone's throw away, were hundreds of the enemy, lining two-deep their front trench and others behind it.'
[10th LHR] '...the instant the light horse appeared, there burst upon them a fusillade that rose within a few seconds from a fierce crackle into a continuous roar, in which it was impossible to distinguish the report of rifle or machine-gun. Watchers on Pope's Hill saw the Australian line start forward across the sky-line and then on a sudden go limp and sink to the earth 'as though,' said one eye-witness, 'the men's limbs had become string.' Men known and popular, the best loved leaders in sport and work in the West [the 10th LHR was from Western Australia], rushed straight to their death. Gresley Harper and Wilfred, his younger brother, the latter of whom was last seen running forward like a schoolboy in a foot-race, with all the speed he could compass; the gallant Lieutenant Piesse, who had struggled from the hospital ship; two others, who had just received their commissions, Roskams and Turnbull - the latter a Rhodes Scholar.'
'During the long hours of that day the summit of The Nek could be seen crowded with their bodies. At first here and there a man raised his arm to the sky, or tried to drink from his waterbottle. But as the sun of that burning day climbed higher, such movement ceased. Over the whole summit the figures lay still in the quivering heat.'
(Bean, The Story of Anzac Volume 2 p613, 614, 617, 618, 633).
Their bones still lay out on that narrow ridge in 1919 when the burial parties returned to Gallipoli after the war.

How many soldiers enlisted in the Australian army? (A.I.F.)
416,809 Australians, 13.43% of the white male population, and probably about half of those eligible, joined the AIF.
Approximately 330,000 served overseas. Of these, about 295,000 served in France (some also in Gallipoli before France).
63,163, or almost 20%, were killed.
156,218 were otherwise made casualties. Casualties were therefore 64.98% of those who enlisted.
27, 594 casualties (of all kinds) were suffered on Gallipoli.
About 2,000 returned soldiers were permanently hospitalised.
In 1926, 22,742 veterans were in hospital. In 1939, 20 years after the war ended, there were 49,157 hospitalised.
For many, the war didn't end in 1918.
(Figures from The Broken Years, by Bill Gammage).

Some of the dates of death you list are different to the official ones. Why is that?

Based on evidence now available, some of the official dates appear to be wrong. When you read enough of the primary documents you soon learn that mistakes in dates were made all the time, and it does not seem unusual that dates of death would be mistakenly recorded, particularly during the times of heaviest fighting in the first week (25th April - 2nd May), and during August 1915.
In such cases I have recorded the date on which I believe the death to have occurred as well as the official date.
See for example the record of Captain Richard Thomas Brown.
Captain Brown's official date of death is recorded as 2nd May 1915, but absolutely NO report of his being seen or heard of after 25th April exists. In fact all available reports state that he 'disappeared' on the first day. 2nd May was the date on which many of the units finally got organised enough to begin recording casualties, and it seems that in some cases where the actual date was unknown, 2nd May was then accepted as the date of death, when in fact it was only the date on which the death was reported and/or recorded. Where some units recorded a date 'spread' (e.g. died 25th April - 2nd May) if they were unsure of the actual date, others did not. Heavy fighting did occur on 2nd/3rd May at Anzac, but not all units were involved in this, and Captain Brown's unit was not one of those engaged.

What do people mean by 'The Spirit of Anzac'?

That's a tough one, but one which I get asked a lot. I don't usually answer it because I feel it's so subjective, and a person's interpretation of its meaning depends on a lot of factors. I can only answer with what I feel it is to me, personally, and by quoting a couple of authors. If you're interested in what I personally feel is meant by the elusive 'Anzac Spirit', follow the link: The Anzac Spirit.

I wasn't aware that there were British soldiers at Gallipoli. Who were they?
One of the saddest aspects of the history of the Gallipoli campaign is that, in Australia and New Zealand, there is almost never any acknowledgement made that other forces were present at Gallipoli other than the Anzacs, and that, in Britain, most people seem neither to know nor care about the part played by their own soldiers there. At the same time, though, it has also to be pointed out that the Anzac sector was separated from the British / French sector at Cape Helles (the southern tip of the peninsula), by some 13 miles, and that the two were never linked up, so in effect they can be treated as different battlefields completely.
That said, it must also be realised that some Anzac units served at Helles, and some British units served at Anzac. Later, in August, after the new landings at Suvla Bay, to the north of Anzac, the Anzac and Suvla (British) areas were linked, and there was a little more contact between the two.
Who were they? There were too many different units for me to answer that here. I'll work on putting up a list of all units present on a separate page (not possible yet because of memory restrictions on my site). Suffice to say that in total (including the Anzacs and Indians and French), approximately half a million men were sent to Gallipoli on the allied side, with total casualties (killed, wounded, sick and prisoners), of about 252,000 men.
Australians and New Zealanders pride themselves on giving everyone a 'fair go', but when it comes to Gallipoli, there has been so much misinformation taught that many people seem unwilling to even admit that other forces were present and become almost resentful when this is pointed out. The fact that others were there does not detract from what the Anzacs did, but it must be acknowledged that they also performed amazing acts of bravery, suffered and died, and some in greater numbers than even the Anzacs, and that therefore they also deserve a 'fair go'.

Why don't you set up a discussion forum on your site?
There are already a few sites with well-established discussion forums, and there doesn't seem to be much point in 'flooding the market' with more. Also, my interest is in the Anzacs killed at Gallipoli. It's a pretty narrow focus, but to be honest I find it to be a lifetime study in itself, without branching into any other areas (at least not in too much depth).

According to my family history, my great-uncle was killed at Lone Pine, Gallipoli, but you have him listed as being killed at 'Hill 971'. Is this the same place? If not, who is mistaken?

Many families have inherited a tradition that their relative was killed at Lone Pine because the main Australian memorial is located there, and that is where the relative's name is inscribed. If the soldier's body was never recovered, or if his grave was later unable to be identified when the Imperial War Graves units returned to Gallipoli in 1919, he was listed as having no known grave, and his name was added to the memorial at Lone Pine. In this specific case, we can be certain that the soldier did not die at Lone Pine, because his unit was involved that day in the assault on Hill 971, some miles to the north. Even had he been left behind during this attack, his unit was never posted in the Lone Pine trenches.

Can you help me find information on my relative who died in France, Belgium or the Middle East during World War 1?
No. Sorry, but my research and records cover only the Gallipoli campaign. I simply do not have that information. If your relative served in the Australian army, your best bet would be to contact the National Archives of Australia World War 1 section. The staff there are very professional, helpful and friendly. Also try the AWM (Australian War Memorial) site. They have an online database recording all members of the AIF who served overseas 1914-1920. (See my 'Links' page for both sites).

My relative served at Gallipoli, and returned home to Australia or New Zealand. Do you have any information on him?
No. If the soldier survived Gallipoli and went on to other theatres of war or returned to Australia or New Zealand, there is almost no chance I will have such information.

Why are there no nurses included?
I am currently getting information together on the nurses who died during the Gallipoli campaign. No nurse ever set foot on the peninsula, but they served aboard the Hospital ships, as well as on Lemnos and in Egypt, where some died of illness. A group of New Zealand nurses was also drowned when their transport, the Marquette, was torpedoed while on the way to Salonika. This occurred during the Gallipoli campaign, and in the same general area, and so I will include those names. Technically, at this stage of the war, nurses did not have officer rank, but as they did later, their names will be included in the officer section.

There is one officer included (and there will soon be another) who died before he reached Gallipoli. How can he be classed as a Gallipoli casualty?
It is not my intention to 'screen' soldiers as if for some kind of exclusive 'club' where this or that condition must have been stringently met before I will include names on the database, nor do I need to have incontrovertible proof that death was associated with the Gallipoli campaign before names will be added. A mention in a newspaper linking death with Gallipoli is enough, as in the case of Lieut. Colonel R. E. Courtney. As far as I'm concerned, if they went, and died, and there is an obvious connection with Gallipoli, they will be included. After all, I'm not applying for pensions or medals; I'm just trying to see that they are recognised for what they went through. One way or another, that place killed them.

Are Prisoners of War included?
They would be, if they died at any time after their capture and before repatriation. However no Anzac officers who were taken prisoner on Gallipoli died in captivity, even though a number of other ranks did. These soldiers do not appear on this web site because it covers only the officers.

Are men of the Navy included?
Yes, but again, no officers of the Royal Australian or New Zealand Navy died at Gallipoli. The navy, of course, was not part of the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps, but once again, I am not interested in splitting hairs. Men of the Royal Australian Naval Bridging Train, who served and died in the Suvla area, are included, as are crew members of the Australian submarine AE2 who were captured in the Dardanelles on 29th April 1915, and who subsequently died. However, as none of these were officers, none appear on the web site. It has recently come to my attention that a New Zealand naval officer possibly died during the campaign.
Note: There now seems to be no evidence for this claim.

What about Australians and New Zealanders who served in other forces at Gallipoli and died?
These have not yet been included, though we are aware of quite a number of cases where Australians and New Zealanders, who happened to be in England at the outbreak of war, went as officers to Gallipoli in British units and were killed, and of some cases where soldiers were promoted into the Imperial Army while in Egypt, and were later killed. This is certainly an area where some information may be added at a later date.

A couple of the officers included were British regular soldiers on loan to the Anzacs. Why are they included?
Because at the time of their death they were serving in the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps.

Why have you not included British and French officers?
Doing just the Anzacs has taken me 16 years. So far.

Why have you not put all the names - both officers and men - on the web site?
Time, server memory limitations, and the fact that the 'non officer' component is not yet fully complete. (For that matter, neither is the officer component).

Which rank is higher?
Lieutenant or 2nd Lieutenant? Lieutenant (sometimes referred to as 1st Lieutenant).
Captain or Major? Major
Lieutenant-Colonel or Colonel? Colonel.
Lieutenant-General or Major-General? Lieutenant-General.

What's the difference between 'Cavalry' and 'Light Horse' or 'Mounted Rifles'?
Cavalry consisted of mounted soldiers who fought from horseback. Mounted Rifles and Light Horse were essentially Mounted Infantry. They used horses for mobility and speed, but would generally dismount for action and advance to fight on foot, one man of each section of four being the designated horse holder for the particular action. At Gallipoli the New Zealand Mounted Rifles and Australian Light Horse served as infantry. Their horses were left in Egypt. Towards the end of the war, a couple of regiments opted to be issued with, and trained in the use of, cavalry swords. These units thus became cavalry in the true sense of the word, trained in shock tactics. Other units opted to remain as mounted infantry, though throughout the course of the war there were many instances when the Light Horse fought exactly as cavalry would do.

What was the Armistice between the Anzacs and Turks?
There were actually two armistices. After the disastrous Turkish attempt to drive the Anzacs into the sea on May 19th, there were literally thousands of Turkish dead lying in No Man's land. In some places their bodies were piled a metre high. On the 20th, an informal armistice was arranged on a local basis to allow the Turkish wounded to be recovered, but it was short-lived as misunderstandings occurred.

An armistice was then officially arranged for May 24th, and on that day, at 7:30 am, all firing ceased while the opposing armies' burial parties left their trenches to recover the dead. Many of the bodies of Anzac soldiers who were killed during the first few days of fighting were located and buried. (See, for example, the records of Major David Grant of the Canterbury Battalion, NZEF, Lieutenant Hinman of the 15th Battalion, AIF, and Lieutenant Roberts of the 9th Battalion, AIF). During the day the Anzacs and Turks mixed together, exchanged words, cigarettes and gifts, and for the first time saw each other not as propaganda figures, or monsters, but as ordinary men.

It had been assumed by the Anzacs, from the severity of wounds inflicted upon them by rifle and machine-gun fire, (and this belief appears time and again in their letters written before this date), that the Turks had been using 'dum-dum', or 'explosive' bullets. According to the rules of war these were illegal weapons. During the Armistice the Anzacs saw for the first time that their own bullets caused exactly the same kinds of wounds, and they realised then that this was what happened when modern bullets hit a human body at close range.

This, and the fact that the Turkish soldiers had at last, during the attack of May 19, shown themselves above their trenches, and proved to be brave soldiers, meant that from this day on the fierce hatred many of the Anzacs had felt for them vanished. The Turkish soldier became, for the rest of the campaign, and, indeed, for the rest of the war, 'Abdul', or 'Johnny Turk', and was usually considered a fair and brave opponent. (This, however, was certainly not the opinion of many Prisoners of War). At 4:30pm both sides returned to their own trenches, and at 4:45 a single shot was fired, and the fighting was renewed.

This project was begun in 1985, using the 'Appleworks' database on an Apple IIe computer (with 64k of RAM). It has evolved over time to become a computer database covering all Anzac soldiers who died through their service at Gallipoli.

The records in this website are a subset of that database - the officers only - and this is further reduced by displaying only a handful of the FULL individual records. Though they are included in the database, we are unable at this time to list all the Anzacs who died at Gallipoli, as we are constrained by server memory limitations.
(Currently only those officers whose photos appear on the site have their full records also included as separate pages).

Top of Page
Back to ANZAC Officers Died at Gallipoli Home Page