What do you think?
Rate this book
The Eighth Army
Documents the outstanding accomplishments of the British Eighth Army, under the command of General Sir Bernard Montgomery, which successfully battled the forces of the Axis powers in battles at Sidi Rezegh, Alamein, Sicily, and Cassino, on the path to ultimate victory in World War II. 20,000 first printing.
480 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2004
3 people are currently reading
66 people want to read
About the author
Robin Neillands
44 books18 followersRobin Hunter Neillands was a British writer known for his works on travel and military history. A former Royal Marine who served in Cyprus and the Middle East, he later became a prolific author, publishing under multiple pen names. His military histories, often featuring firsthand accounts from veterans, challenged revisionist narratives, particularly regarding Bernard Montgomery, the Dieppe Raid, and the Allied bombing campaign in World War II. Neillands also authored numerous travel books inspired by his extensive journeys across Europe. His works, both popular and scholarly, earned him a nomination for the Royal United Services Institute’s Military Literature Award.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
January 13, 2025
Eighth Army is not bad, rather it has dated badly. This is a breezy general history covering multiple complicated campaigns in variable terrain with variable unit compositions.
As a warning, most of my recent reading has been on the Italian campaign (Ten Armies in Hell, The Day of Battle, Cassino ‘44) so my points here tend to focus on that. There’s some interesting if not novel points on the African campaign, such as failure of British forces to concentrate and misuse of combined arms.
The temptation when reviewing a book from 2002 is to write “well that was incorrect because [x] now writes …” or “this lacks the proper detail to the decision-making as now set out in [y]”. As I lack the sources or time to weigh up the evidence, I have to be careful in my judgement.
…However, that does lead me to the inherent problem with Eighth Army, it is a very much a summary of more detailed sources without much interrogation of them. This is ironically most noticeable when Neillands does get a bugbear over something, such as whether American troops were in possession of Point 593 above Cassino before handing it over to an Indian Unit. It’s an example of where, despite this being a 5ish year campaign history, Neillands will dive at least somewhat into the leaves.
Otherwise it’s very much received wisdom. The assault over the Rapido never stood a chance of success. Clark was responsible for the lack of aggression at Anzio. Clark contradicted Alexander’s specific orders to cut off the Germans (worth noting that Neillands elsewhere accepts Alexander tended not to specific orders). And fine, these may all be true, but other books take the explanations further – I get he place for a general history, but the lack of detailed footnoting makes it problematic as to how Neillands drew those conclusions.
Take the below statement:
The Grant would have been a much better fighting machine had these guns been the other way round, for to use the 75-mm gun the tank had to be fully exposed.
This is a throwaway description that misleads the reader into believing the designers mixed up the jigsaw pieces. It misses the more interesting story of working around timing and design constraints. It is a level of detail that still could have fitted into the book.
On a separate point, the Eighth Army was a multi-national force. If you are Australian or (particularly) a New Zealander, enjoy regaling in the glory of your soldiers and commanders (including, bafflingly, Freyberg, who Neillands believes should have been a corps commander, despite performing very averagely in the times he was temporarily one). The Indian forces are a little shortchanged but acceptable overall. If you are French, Canadian or Polish… …the credit is a bit sparser. It is explicable but does feel lacking compared to Caddick-Adams’ efforts.
From a writing perspective, the narrative is mostly clear and understandabe, though the working in quotes from participants is done in a relatively archaic style (they're long winded asides that do not fit into the main text that well).
Perhaps I am not the appropriate audience for it, but I do consider there are better ways to read the campaigns covered within.
As a warning, most of my recent reading has been on the Italian campaign (Ten Armies in Hell, The Day of Battle, Cassino ‘44) so my points here tend to focus on that. There’s some interesting if not novel points on the African campaign, such as failure of British forces to concentrate and misuse of combined arms.
The temptation when reviewing a book from 2002 is to write “well that was incorrect because [x] now writes …” or “this lacks the proper detail to the decision-making as now set out in [y]”. As I lack the sources or time to weigh up the evidence, I have to be careful in my judgement.
…However, that does lead me to the inherent problem with Eighth Army, it is a very much a summary of more detailed sources without much interrogation of them. This is ironically most noticeable when Neillands does get a bugbear over something, such as whether American troops were in possession of Point 593 above Cassino before handing it over to an Indian Unit. It’s an example of where, despite this being a 5ish year campaign history, Neillands will dive at least somewhat into the leaves.
Otherwise it’s very much received wisdom. The assault over the Rapido never stood a chance of success. Clark was responsible for the lack of aggression at Anzio. Clark contradicted Alexander’s specific orders to cut off the Germans (worth noting that Neillands elsewhere accepts Alexander tended not to specific orders). And fine, these may all be true, but other books take the explanations further – I get he place for a general history, but the lack of detailed footnoting makes it problematic as to how Neillands drew those conclusions.
Take the below statement:
The Grant would have been a much better fighting machine had these guns been the other way round, for to use the 75-mm gun the tank had to be fully exposed.
This is a throwaway description that misleads the reader into believing the designers mixed up the jigsaw pieces. It misses the more interesting story of working around timing and design constraints. It is a level of detail that still could have fitted into the book.
On a separate point, the Eighth Army was a multi-national force. If you are Australian or (particularly) a New Zealander, enjoy regaling in the glory of your soldiers and commanders (including, bafflingly, Freyberg, who Neillands believes should have been a corps commander, despite performing very averagely in the times he was temporarily one). The Indian forces are a little shortchanged but acceptable overall. If you are French, Canadian or Polish… …the credit is a bit sparser. It is explicable but does feel lacking compared to Caddick-Adams’ efforts.
From a writing perspective, the narrative is mostly clear and understandabe, though the working in quotes from participants is done in a relatively archaic style (they're long winded asides that do not fit into the main text that well).
Perhaps I am not the appropriate audience for it, but I do consider there are better ways to read the campaigns covered within.
April 5, 2013
You know you're in trouble when the first letter of the first word in the book is a typo (!) and the sloppiness continues throughout this pedestrian military history, riddled with errors of fact, grammar, and even spelling. Neillands bases his interpretations almost entirely on secondary sources, while tossing in random, mundane quotes from veterans that add nothing to the narrative. The author's preoccupation with fending off what he regards as anti-British slurs in the US Official History of the Italian campaign, even when these have little to do with Eighth Army, further detract from what might have been an interesting study.
July 25, 2014
No aporta nada nuevo y tiene algunas partes mejores que otras pero se deja leer. Veo un poco innecesario que dedique el tiempo que dedica a reivindicar la actuación de los británicos frente a los americanos.
November 11, 2014
I read this because my uncle fought in North Africa, and this filled in more knowledge about those campaigns. Good book.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews