Gallipoli Campaign

How useful are the views of Anzac soldiers at Gallipoli suggested in Sources A, B and C? These sources give us a view of how the Anzacs were represented in the Gallipoli campaign. To answer the question I have to take into consideration that all sources are either useful or limited and for different reasons. They can be useful for giving information on specific questions if reliable for facts, or propaganda for opinion. They will be limited in usefulness if they lack information or are unreliable.

Source A contains two cartoons depicting Australian soldiers. An Australian artist published these in The Anzac book in 1916.

One of these is headed " The Hopeless Dawn" and is of a soldier, supposedly, standing to. But this is an ironic comment, as the soldier appears tired as he is yawning and is represented poorly. The facing cartoon shows a battered and bruised soldier, looking carefree. Both pictures give the impression that the Anzac troops were laid-back and low quality soldiers.

Get quality help now

KarrieWrites

Verified writer

Proficient in: Australia

5 (339)

“ KarrieWrites did such a phenomenal job on this assignment! He completed it prior to its deadline and was thorough and informative. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

It is not really a reliable representation of the typical Anzac troop, although the pictures were produced at the time by someone who was there. I can back this up because I know that the Anzac troops were very enthusiastic and dedicated.

It is useful so far as it's a good representation of how the Anzacs saw themselves, as an Anzac probably drew the pictures, but it's not useful for factual information. This is because it gives no facts about the campaign and is a cartoon, and cartoons are generally exaggerated and have extreme caricatures.

These two certainly seem exaggerated and are probably used to convey an opinion that was widely felt among the Anzacs. Source B is very different from A as it is a secondary source, written by an historian. It is also a complimentary source and comments that the Anzacs were "trained from early school age upwards for military service".

The Australians were also said to have "an intense spirit of comradeship" and the New Zealanders had "a reputation as the best soldiers in the world". This source is useful for telling us that the Anzacs were good soldiers as I know myself that they were well known for being brave and loyal. The author of the passage is reliable, as he's an historian and so it's not really useful for its opinions. But the historian does quote a soldier who was there at the time and his sentence is useful for its reason it gives to why the Anzacs were so eager to fight.

Source C was written by Charles Bean, a reporter at the time of the campaign. He wrote that the Australians had a great determination and were "absolutely unaffected by bullets". I know that the Anzacs were brave soldiers and Bean was there at the time and so his opinions have to be taken as quite reliable, but in his exaggerations I have come to the conclusion that he was somewhat biased towards the Anzacs. But whilst the exaggerations make the source less reliable and so less useful for its factual information, it's useful as it shows the general view that the people back in Australia were being shown.

In conclusion I believe that all three sources are useful in one way or another. All three give extreme views of the Anzac soldiers and how they were displayed. But I believe that the most useful source is B. It is useful as it reliably informs the reader that the Anzacs were brave and loyal soldiers. It also quotes a first hand account from a soldier at the time and so the source is both useful for its opinion from the soldier and its information about the behaviour of the Anzacs from the reliable historian.