Page 1



GALLIPOLI A place of meeting

Commemorating the The 1915 Allied Gallipoli Campaign a century afterward 1



The events of the 1915 Gallipoli Campaign are ingrained in the social memories of the nations involved, the bravery, losses and bloodshed having an impact on the National Identities of all nations involved. Today the landscape of the Gallipoli Peninsula Peace Park is dotted with numerous graves and memorials marking the key locations, events and dead,many of which follow a classically informed or common style of the early 20th century, being the focal point of the areas they occupy. Now the challenge is to find out what a new memorial can offer the region over those that already exist, how its design will respond to the fact a century has passed since the Gallipoli Campaign began. Another challenge is how its design will adapt and respond to the landscape in which it sits, what its relationship to it will be. The peninsula is covered with fragile ecological situations and historic Archaeological sites In this publication Group 5 (Alex Smith, Matthew Lean, Kieran Dove and John Campbell) attempt to answer these questions through research and establish a position on what a new memorial for Gallipoli should be.


The Allied Gallipoli Campaign, 1915 The Lead Up to Gallipoli The Allied invasion of the then Ottoman Empire's Gallipoli Peninsular was the result of a complex political and tactical situation a the beginning of World War One, involving the "Central Powers" (including the Ottoman Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Germany ) and the "Allied" nations including France, Russia and the British Empire Germany, despite having only unified in 1871 had emerged as an aggressive new power under the leadership and imperialist ambitions of Kaiser Wilhelm II, after his succession in 1888. It's new bold and expansionist foreign policy, in particular the navies rapid development was seen by Britain as a challenge and threat to her naval and commercial supremacy, especially to her vulnerable trade routes to India and the colonies. Britain had worked hard to establish and keep these trade routes in part by becoming a dominant force in the Mediterranean Sea. Like it's rivals over the years it had forged a complex relationship with the major power in the east of the Mediterranean, the 600 year old Ottoman Empire.

interested in the security of the the straights against Russia, sending a Naval mission in 1912. Germany had also been fostering ties with the Ottoman Empire, with visits and political appointments as early as 1883. By the early 20th century the Ottoman Empire was most valued by Germany for it's supplies of oil (in what is now Iraq), now having supplanted coal in the fuelling of Battleships. This was the beginning of the struggle surrounding oil in the region as British, German and other interests began to carve out territories, leading to more rivalry, tension and alliances. In 1904 Britain and France, under the Entente Cordiale agreed to work together in foreign affairs, being joined by Russia in 1907. This lead to an Arms race between these countries to be the most prepared to come to one-another's aid. With the Assassination of the Archduke of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Franz Ferdi-

By the Early 20th Century the Ottoman Empire was referred to as "the sick man of Europe", an empire that was shrinking as it's provinces and minorities rejected the rule of the Sultan creating a power vacuum in the region and forming what was know as the "Eastern Question" in rival countries minds "who would get to the sick mans booty first" (Broadbent, 2005). The "Booty" most desired was control of the Dardanelles and the straights of Bosporus and the trade and transport routes from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, Russia had already tried to gain control of Constantinople and the Dardanelles in the Crimean War, but had been repulsed by a combination Ottoman, British and French forces. Britain was especially


Fig 1. Politicial Situation 1914

The Dominions of the Empire were quick to support Britain, mustering their reserve forces and beginning recruitment drives as soon as war was declared. New Zealand’s Battalions of soldiers joined with those of Australia, leaving in a convoy for Britain and the Western Front from Albany in Western Australia on the 1st of November 1914. However En route they were diverted to Egypt after the Ottoman Empire entered the War on the side of the Central Powers. In August 1914 the then neutral Ottoman government began to mobilise and expand it’s army, conscripting mainly rural citizens from all over it’s empire in response to facing potential enemies on all sides. Although the Ottoman Government (controlled by the recent Party of Union and Progress and puppet sultan) was divided on what position to take in the conflict, the War Minister Enver Pasha had signed a secret treaty with Germany promising to tie up significant Russian forces, protecting her Eastern front. Germany had been involved in the years prior to the War with reorganising the Ottoman army into a modern army, effectively infiltrating it and winning influence with the then war minister. However it was the British that swayed the Ottoman Empire to side with the Germans. Upon the declaration of war in Europe Britain seized two Dreadnoughts being built for the Ottoman Navy in British shipyards, refusing to return the capital which had been raised through public subscription. Germany then offered two ships in return, allowing the infiltration of the navy by German interests and leading to the Ottoman Empires eventual entry into the war following a German advocated attack on Russian warships in the Black Sea. Fig 2. Wellingtonian Leave for Europe


With the Ottomans now in the war the other Allies felt obliged to support Russia, especially after the demonstration of the Ottoman armies bravery and dedication in defending the Caucuses. Having failed diplomatically the Allies now felt they would have to remove the Ottoman Empire from the War through Military Means. The British immediately focused upon the capture of the Dardanelles. Should these be taken, they would allow a swift passage to the Capital Constantinople and the Bosporus Straight and allow the Russian Navy into the war. Many in Britain’s Navy were opposed to any attempt to force the Dardanelles. Although it had been done previously by the Royal Navy in 1807, they believed modern weaponry and mines would make such a thing too risky in the current situation. Winston Churchill himself rejected the idea in 1911, saying in a memorandum to the Cabinet “it should be remembered that it is no longer possible to force the Dardanelles, and nobody would expose a modern fleet to such peril” (Broadbent, 2005). However by 1914 his opinion had changed, ordering the Bombardment of the outer forts in the Dardanelles and leading to the spectacular destruction of one as it’s ammunition bunker exploded. By January 1915 the need for action against the Ottomans had become a political as well as military priority, with the security of an oil supply being a primary motivation for the British Navy. Taking the Ottomans out of the war would secure allied oil supplies, while denying the Germans theirs. Despite other high ranking naval Sea Lords recommending a joint naval and land attack on the Dardanelles, by the 13th of January Churchill had pressed and convinced the War Council agree to a pure Naval Assault.


Fig 3. Kilitbahir Fort, the Narrow, 1915



8 June 28

July 28 30

Aug 2 3 4 7 12

Fig 4. Assassination of ArchDuke Ferdinand at Sarajevo ke


l an



S ar

Ne w



df or ec rm lar an ed se Ge nte wa rm ro an red nR yd Brit F ran uss ec ain ce ia. lare d e . The Ru dw cla s sia ar off New red n on w erin Z a Fra s ente ro g t eala nc n red he n e. Ser ser d go Germ Ge vic vic v rm a e n es es rnm y. an o of y. en fa NZ tc nE EF a xpe ac b ce dit led t ion pte ot yd





e in

i na

Fer d

Pre ec l the limina ared wa Exp ry a ro ed rra n ng itio em Serbi na a ry F e orc nts m . e. ad





fA rch






Sep 28

Nov 2/3 5

Dec 14 25

Fig 5. HMS Irresistible




ry F the Im orc e. peria eria l go l au ve tho r nm ritie en t s.


Tur k inte ey c rce lose s pti on the D of a T arda urk n ish elles tor pe to all do s bo hippi Init a t b ng f clu ial na y th ollo e R win bo ding val b g oy mb the om al N the ard ba bar av the ttlec dm y. e r T n u urk t Brit i s o e ish f r (Tu ain a for s HM Galli n t r S s Ind poli. at ma key) d Fra t . h ns n e e omit Roya en Russi ce o a ntr ter a an ble a l Nav WW dec fficial c nd y sq et 1 o lare ly d o the HMS uad n th s w ecl Da Ind ron, e s ar o are rda efa i ide nO dw tig nne ar of t t o a l o les Ge m ble . rm an E n Ott , 2nd an o mp m y a . i re Re info (Tu n Emp Ch rke rce rist y). ire me ma Ott nts sd oay left spe Ne nt wZ on the ealan d. de ser t.



10 Jan 18 25

Feb 1 2 3 14 19 25

Fig 6. Corporal Seyit lifts a 125kg shell during the March 18th Naval battle. isio

nn am Infa ed n th try NZ Brig e ‘Ne Infa wZ ad ntr eo ea yB la rde riga red nd a de n left to Sue d Aus Zei tra zC tou l i an an nf Ad al . or Div va Ism isio nc ai l i n’. ep Mu a art s a t a n Nin ies dK f ete a Ke 4th ub m ri. en th al (A Aust. Div Tur I t k isio aturk nf. Bd die s att n in ) e d o ack Thr is app arriv f w ed ac e ou e. ointe d at 3rd nd Suez Zei dt sa Ca Re o t n n r eo oun. do al. Firs inforc r ga N ne ni z wo ew Z on t Allie eme ea e u n t d a n nd de l an att he fo na ts lef d. va co d ac t r e N t l sa mm rs e k. t th attac ew Z ng an ee k o eala ag d e n n nd Sec tra d; t h . e on nc tac ond em e o Dar d n k f an the ane Ma . Mu ava ido Da lles sta l att rda a s, o fa b ne egin n G Kem ck on l l es. s. N alli a av po l est the D Un a ab li P s a u r c d l en ce l atta ins ishes anel ssfu ck ula He les. l na . ad U v NZ


Mar 18

Apr 17 25 25

May 5/6 6

Fig 7. Anzac Cove 25th, day of the invasion.


Tur k lau ish n Da nche aval v dis rdane s fina ictor ting l y l A uis les. O llied at th he s h cean nava e Da rd ims elf , Irres l atta ane in b istib ck. lles . le A att les , an llied VicedB . A fl ou eet f dmir 4th ve Re t su ails to al de i n f nk. R orc Lan f Mu orce obec e d me Zea ing s t k ta f h lan at A nts l aK e e dA em n f rm zac t New al y C Co Zea orp ve s ( A m a l and All ied NZ de b . AC A& mil ) . y the Brig NZ A itary Au stra ash ade rmy land l i an Co i f n o o g r two e a rce rps sa an dN NZ com t 10.0 d a la land t Arib ew e E u 0 n p am din d at rnu du ngin ani ring ee es (A ;A ga A the rs an of th uck t da nzac nzac la w ), e C d aft ern Can Can nd Ba n. NZ ove Helle ; te oo t s n. erbu rbur ttalio Divisio 3rd A , and n r y u y NZ an Bat all a nal H stra Kum d O tal Infa s Q a l i an K tag ion; hore ntr nd Infa ale. 3rd yB N b o n d y1 Infa o.1 r Re 2 n et a i l t ry F info igad i n e s o try ea l rce ca d Co on w nd me m m 2nd e a pa ith nts sho ny Au arr ive stra re dA l nza i an B riga c( 839 de left )– sen for td Ca ow pe nt He oH elle lles. s.

dq U va ua nsuc l rte c e rs o ssfu f 19 l th D nava ivis l at ion at


12 19 24 31

1915 Jun 1 3 7 28

Jul 11


Fig 8. Quinns Post, April.

sta f 2nd a Ke ma Fie l pr 4th ld C o o mp mote Qu Rein dC inn forc any olo ’s P NZ em ne Ea ost en Ba l. rriv nig ts a ttle e h r d Tur t o rive ( 23 k of 9) Suc ish a Gully f 7/8 d at t tta An . h. ce Ra c z ssfu v ac k l Br on Q ine b Co e itis ve h a uinn gins ( 17 tta ’s P . AN 61) ck ost Z . So AC at rt i e He Pop div l l es fro ers e’s m . Hi l l i on a sec ry NZ tor atta Ho c of spi An k. tal zac shi pM . ah en o le ft W elli ng to


Infa Tur ntry a k An ish f nd 2 o z tur ac d rces nd Au ne e m s Arm d fro feate ount tralia nB d m a is ( Tur tice d Helle heav mass rigad k i yT NZ ish b ay to s. urk ve at e atta RM loc tac ish c kho bury for k a ks o l o s ce t s u t h es) An n Kri d t se b e d . t z e oa N l Z In ac. T hia d ba own ad. e u f an u nd try rkish feate on p in Brig att d Old fron ad ack . No t of er .3 P Q u e- at ost inn ’s b . y tw os ap pe rs.


3 6/7 7 8 10 12 13 14 21 26 28

Fig 9. Dead at Lone Pine, August.


h( N Ba ew A ttl Ba e rm ir ra of S y) co att ac nge ari B mme k a co a n t Lo mm ir co ced la m e ne Pin nces men ndin g . Br e, c Qu itish es. M at A inn n ’s P atta ain A zac. Ba c ost n t k an at C zac o Rh tle of od d Ru ape ffen od the N sse s en e ll’s Helle ive to dro k. A Ba Top s. A w n R ust t ust ard at idg ralia Brit tle of The ralia Sar Ba ish su Chun e in t n att Ne ns i h rba bm a uk eh k. c no k r a an a rth ossa rine Bair. t ds t ern . W E of he N are Must 11 to ellin N Ba ew ek ta afa rpe gto a. t Zea ke n Ke tle of Ke s ma ma does Batt l Ch the alio ande place l re l is un u ca ap r n . ptu k Ba po Turkis cap s. Ba i i ttle h r nte re t Da Ch ends d o batt ures C wn of Lo un l e ve n u k w he ay ral ship hunu nT Ba at e Pin l co Ha k ir a urk GH e e Ba mm yre Bair. ish nd ttle Q fi nd a n ddi n f dri s. of rst de ve orce 6th Krit pu Atta ro the s l e ts f hia ck Re f db o A o i n e r f l w for l nd y i Ita e I a s o Mu / ce s. rd ly d ff t s me ide 5 No ec he tafa nts a o r fo Ma lare h l k left fp ei g he dw art Batt hts no Ne a a i a . Ne ro wZ l ev lion w Z arrive nT ea a a urk t do c ea l an S ua ey lan ff A d. ti o u v l a . de n . n . zac r’s ho . ld o na nd co nso lida te the ir p osi ti o no nH ill 6 0.




14 2 6

Oct 15 17

1915 Nov 10 28


Fig 10. Commencement of the Great Blizzard, Anzac Cove. 3

NZ fro Moun m Brit ted ish Rifle Co Ca s bin retu mm rn e en t. to ce An me zac nt .W of ins the ton Gre Ch at u rc Bliz hill zar re s d. ign ed Ge

wn ay Tro de op s w parts for it Bul ga hdra Lon an wn do d A rians n. ust agr to res ee ria t ca ns. to m inv a d p at S eS erb arpi o ia i nL nc em on no j s. un Brit cti ain on de wit Sir hG Ian clare d er m Ha w mil an ton ar on s B de ulg pa ari rts. a.


3 10 19 20

1916 Jan 9

1918 Oct 31

Fig 11. Evacuation of Suvla Bay.




















mp lete

d. En


fD ard an e


e ev nera lM ac All uatio onro rem sick, wn of orde A re ov ed ound nzac d G . ed an ene The , su d S rplu uv ral Bir las dw t s tr la nig Eva oo oo h dt cu to ps, op ati f ve ev on roc h a i cle cu of ee ati An s dw an on zac dv i th o fA by al u n 4a ab zac m le s an an tor dS dS es u vl uvl a. ac om ple ted by da ylig ht.

The Allied Naval Assault The Allied Naval assault on the Dardanelles opened on the 19th of February, after a rushed and confused preparation. The fleet, consisting largely of obsolete battleships supported by two modern dreadnoughts bombarded the outer defences of the straights from their maximum range for the entire morning. Forces were unequal as German support had not yet reached the Ottoman army and there was little the defenders could do to retaliate, as their guns lacked the range to strike back. However the accuracy of the Allied bombardment was low, due to the extreme range they were operating at, and when Admiral Carden pulled his forces out that evening very little significant damage had been done to the fortifications of the Dardanelles, with most of the recently reinforced inner forts having been out of range and untouched. Rough weather followed, lasting for five days, until the 25th of February, when Carden tried again to force the straights with the power of the Navy alone. On this day the long range guns of the outer forts of Sedd端lbahir and Kumkale were silenced. Over the following days land around the entrance to the straight seemed deserted, Allied warships bombarded the intermediate forts near Kilitbahir and Canakkale and minesweepers penetrated six miles into the straights without finding mines. Landing parties roamed the outer straights, destroying defences and managing to put a few big guns out of commission, however this as at the cost of 22 marines, and many parties had to be hastily evacuated after Ottoman and German forces returned in strength. Allied bombardment of the intermediate and Narrows forts was hindered by the need to fight a six knot current and more to avoid shelling, which itself hampered accurate targeting of the fortifications. Ships also had to fire from a distance to avoid minefields, while minesweepers with poorly trained civilian crews and poor sailing speeds made easy targets for the Ottoman Defences, preventing them from doing the crucial job of clearing the mines and allowing battleships through. The Ottomans also made good use of mobile howitzers, a major threat for the small unarmed minesweepers, and a hindrance to the larger ships. Nighttime minesweeping attempts were tried with little success, the minesweepers being spotted by searchlights, then targeted by light artillery shells. Weather worsened and by March 8th a deadlock had been reached. Lord Kitchener had stated previously that if a naval attack proved to difficult the navy could withdraw, writing the assault of as a demonstration and losing no prestige. However on the 5th of March a secret treaty had been signed between Russia and Britain, allowing Russia to annex Constantinople and the Dardanelles. This was an effort by Britain to keep Russia


Fig 12. The Naval assault.


Fig 13. Sinking of the Bouvet, March 18th. in the war and placed a new pressure on the Naval Campaign, they could no longer withdraw with prestige. Kitchener decided to deploy the Armies 29th Division to a Aegean, (something he had been delaying) making up a force of 75,056 men in the region, also made up of the Anzacs, Royal Naval Division and a French Division (Broadbent, 2005). These forces were placed under the command of General Sir Ian Hamilton in the new Mediterranean Expeditionary Force (MEF), indication Kitchener had more in mind than restricted military action. The next Naval assault was planned for March 18th, however Admiral Carden had cracked under the pressure of the planning and control was passed to the hastily promoted Admiral John de Robeck. The plan was to arrange the ships into three squadrons or attacking lines, A, B and C, with support ships flanking the leading outer edges of the formation. With the modern Battleships leading in line A they were to smash the inner forts from long range, soon to be joined by the flanking ships. Line B would then move through this line and engage the forts at a closer range, followed soon after by the ships of line C. As much mine sweeping as possible took place in the days


before the offensive, however they had failed to spot a line of 28 mines laid by the small Ottoman Ship, Nusret earlier in march, a failure that was to prove costly. On the morning of the 18th of March 18 Battleships and the supporting flotilla of Cruisers, Destroyers and Minesweepers steamed into the straights, the Battleships then taking the lead. Opening shots were fired at 11:30 am towards the Intermediate Forts and those in the Narrows and by noon, firing from the shore had dropped in rate, the defenders perhaps waiting for a more accurate shot, or running out of Ammunition. It was at this point Admiral de Robeck ordered line B to advance, his fleet had taken few causalities and only some hits, the damage from which was under control. By 2 pm the forts were barely firing and de Robeck ordered the minesweepers forward and line B to turn starboard in a large arc. This point was crucial as it was where previous operations had failed, largely due to the inexperience of the inadequate minesweepers.

Suddenly things began to go awry, the French ship Bouvet hitting a mine at speed as she move through Erenköy Bay and causing a great explosion to rock the ship. Within two minutes the Bouvet had foundered, capsized and sank, killing 600 of her crew (Broadbent, 2005). It is possible a Turkish shell had also hit her just after running into the mine. The Nusrets mines had proved deadly, the Allies minesweepers and spotter planes completely failing to spot them. Simultaneously the Minesweepers were fired upon by an array of Howitzers and Field Guns as they neared the first minefield, causing them to flee. The Battlecruiser Inflexible was then rocked by an explosion while manoeuvring near where the Bouvet had sunk, killing 33 crewmen and officers and causing the ship to list noticeably. The minefield had claimed its second victim, and soon took a third, the Irresistible which sank with the lives of 168 men. The French ship Suffren took a direct hit from a shell putting her out of action. For Admiral De Robeck and his staff the battle had changed from an assault to a matter of saving ships. The Inflexible was escorted by destroyers from the straights to the Aegean Island of Tenedos. Ocean was dispatched to aid the sinking Irresistible, but struck a mine herself and began to list, threatening to capsize. Theirs crews were transferred to other ships as they foundered and sank. The commanders ship, the Queen Elizabeth had been hit several times herself. The decision was made to retreat.

genthau, 1918). The defending forces determination to defend the Dardanelles at all costs is symbolised by the feat of Corporal Seyit, who lifted three 275kg artillery shells up to the gun after its shell crane was damaged. Germans had manned the defences too, guns and gun crews from the ex-German ships of the Ottoman Navy forming the entire crew of the successful Dardanos (Canakkale) fort (Morgenthau, 1918). The exhausted Turks and Germans manning the defences fully expected the Allied fleet to return the following day and orders were given to the gun crews to man their posts until they had expended their ammunition (Morgenthau, 1918), which at the at stage was running perilously low. The most powerful fort on the asiatic side, Fort Hamidié only had 17 armour piercing shells remaining, while Kilid-ul-bahir on the European side had only 10. Had the Allied Fleet attacked again immediately, the remaining defences could not have stopped them reaching Constantinople. Bad gales and the Admiral De Robeck’s misgivings over a second attack meant that it did not eventuate, despite pressure from Churchill. As the fleet retreated the victory gave the Ottomans something to be proud of after years of setbacks. They had now gained the skills and confidence in their ability to match the enemy.

In all six ships were out of action, including three capital ships. Three ships had been sunk outright. The Turkish Batteries had fired 1600 rounds and scored 139 direct hits (Broadbent, 2005), despite running low on ammunition and extensive damage in some places. Particularly effective was a system of mobile howitzers and field guns, which after each shot were transferred to a new location to avoid destruction. Several fake guns were that made from scrap metal managed to divert allied fire form the real thing through the use of smoke (Mor-


The Land Campaign The Allies (lead by the British) decided to overcome their Naval defeat by mounting an attack on the Gallipoli Peninsula by land and sea, as had originally been favoured by some in the War Council. Lead by 62-year-old General Sir Ian Hamilton, the 75,000 strong MEF (Mediterranean Expeditionary Force) was composed of troops from Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand, Gurkhas and Sheiks from India, Greeks and Eastern Jews. Gathered on the island of Lemnos they were the half the number some believed would be needed, their force approximately equal to that of the defenders, when generally a 2:1 ratio was favoured when attacking. The planning of the invasions was also hurried and ill informed, the staff appointed for the role hurriedly recruited and crucial information on the Peninsulas defences and topography were withheld or not supplied. The plan was to land the Anzacs first at Ariburnu, just north of Kabatepe. This would distract the Ottoman’s attention from the south and enable the taking of the strategic Hill 971 after climbing the shallow hills behind the beach. On the next day the Anzac would move down to the hill Maltepe, from which the Narrows Defences could be neutralized. Meanwhile in the south the British would land at 5 locations around Cape Helles/Ílyasbaba Burnu, with the aim of moving north along the Asiatic coast to reach the forts after taking the high ground. A bluff landing would be staged at the isthmus of Bolayir to the North, while on the southern shore of the Dardanelles the French would land at Kumkale to occupy the forces there while the beach heads to the north were established. Meanwhile the Defences of the Gallipoli Peninsula were being strengthened. The departure of the Allied forces from the Island of Lemnos to Egypt after the March 18 Battle had taken the pressure off of the defenders and allowed their commanders, a mixture of Turkish and Germans, to organise the improvements to defences. The leader


of the Ottoman forces on the Peninsula, Marshall Von Sanders had the difficult job of protecting the peninsula with only 80,000 men, the length of coastline to be protected was simply too large. Von Sanders knew the size of the Allied force gathered on Lemnos through Aerial reconnaissance, it was simply a matter of predicting where they would land. He started by positioning two divisions each at the Bolayir Isthmus to the North and the Asian side of the straights in the south to cover other invasion possibilities. This left him with only two divisions to cover the lower peninsula and this dilemma was what General Hamilton was banking on to succeed. To cover for this, these divisions were deployed in a manner that left detachments of 100-200 men guarding each likely invasion spot. At the widest and most accessible beaches, such as Kaba Tepe, defences were reinforced with machine guns and artillery, the remaining men were stationed inland in positions that allowed quick movement to any landing point. This technique was particularly risky at the peninsulas south, where the force was understrength, with only four machine guns between them. By mid April a threefold trench system had developed, with deep trenches for units overlooking the beach, a main frontline trench network on higher ground and a third line further back in the reserve positions. An allied surprise attack was now an impossibility. The Allied landings began before dawn on 25th of April. The events of 25th April 1915 would see the name ANZAC passed into legend. New Zealand had entered the war ‘ignorant of its causes and innocent of its meaning’. War was something remote, fought far away from these shores always in the Empire’s cause. New Zealand had never been threatened nor had experienced war’s presence. ‘the public would sing men off and cheer them home with no understanding of what they had been through.’ The First World War was never of New Zealand’s

Fig 14. Map of Invasion Sites.


ANZAC did not, as the term suggests, indicate a close and indistinguishable union of the two forces (Pugsley, 2008). Rather, it emphasized the uniqueness of each of the nationalities, Australia and New Zealand, working together, but highly individual and increasingly proud to be so.

Fig 15. Map of invasion of Cape Helles, 25th April. making; the causes of the conflict were not entirely clear but that did not matter. Britain had declared war on our behalf and that was enough.

When they sailed from Wellington, many saw it as a chance to be ‘home’ for Christmas. Home was Britain, but Egypt changed that; the reality became the towns and farms they left behind. They travelled across the seas only to find that what they wanted most was back in New Zealand. ‘It seems great to be such a long way from home but we are all New Zealander’s and now that we are away from our own country we all stick together like glue.’

was the chance to go away and see the world, to escape the isolated spot on the globe and do something.

In April the ANZAC sailed to Mudros Harbour on the Greek island of Lemnos as part of the Mediterranean Expeditionary Force commanded by Sir Ian Hamilton. This hotchpotch force of French, British, Indian and ANZAC troops was to be committed to an ‘adventure unprecedented in modern war’, an opposed landing on the Turkish mainland to seize the Gallipoli Peninsula and open the straits of Dardenelles to the battleships of the Royal Navy.

Indeed, we did not even go to war as New Zealander’s. Nothing in our experience had forced us to consider our relationship to the land in which we lived. This war was to change that; but when 8574 men sailed from these shores in October 1914, they sailed not as New Zealander’s but as a number of highly competitive provincial teams: Otago, Canterbury, Wellington and Auckland. Jealous of their reputations, more conscious of their differences than of any national identity, they were sailing overseas to play a series of games whose results, in their minds, was preordained. The British Empire would win. The destination? No one was sure where. It did not matter, off to find adventure and the rest of the world.

It was an ambitious project. Today it seems obvious that Sir Ian Hamilton saw this as another colonial war (Pugsley, 2008). The Turks were just another hill tribe to be overawed with the guns of the Royal Navy. A show of force by the Empire on land, and any Turk opposition would be swept aside. The difficulty would be getting ashore. The Australians landed before dawn but instead of doing so on the beaches near the open expanse of the Maidos Plain that crossed the Peninsula from west to east, the Navy blundered and set them down two kilometers north. Instead of a low coastal ridge and an open plain, the Australians faced a lunatic landscape of clay slopes and ravines all cloaked in an impenetrable prickly

Of the young men clamouring to join up, few consciously enlisted for King and Country. Patriotism was a comfortable cloak worn unthinkingly, an accepted tenet of New Zealand faith. Men joined for more immediate and personal reasons. Now there


scrub. They landed around a headland on the northern point of an unnamed beach some 600 meters long and a cricket pitch wide. This part of the coast was all but deserted, as the Turkish command considered this the least likely area for a landing.

by contrast, were widely separate in small groups, often out of touch with the men on their flanks.

It was a fatal mistake on the Navy’s part. Even though the isolated pockets of Turks guarding the coast were soon driven inland, from the beginning the fight was as much with the landscape as it was with the Turk. It was the landscape that broke and scattered the Australian battalions as they waded ashore, across the narrow beach, and started up the heights above them. A yet unknown Turkish divisional commander, Mustafa Kemal, had heard of the ANZAC landing. Recognising the threat, he committed his leading regiment to a counter-attack about the time the Auckland Battalion was lining up in four ranks on the beach. As they stood gaping at the sights and breaking ranks, Kemal’s battalions were advancing on the Australian line. Though heavily outnumbered, the Turks new the ground Fig 16. Anzac Cove invasions scheme, 25th April. and were in organized units. The Australians,

Fig 17. These steep hills north ofAnzac cove are typical of the region.


Description of the Gallipoli Peninsula The Navy’s blunder in landing MacLagan’s Covering Force on the wrong beach would be a fatal blow to the hopes of success. The plans relied upon surprise; upon the Australians landing, forging inland and establishing themselves before the Turkish defenders could react (Pugsley, 2008). Everything apparently was going to plan, except that the landing beach was some two kilometers north of that intended. For instead of landing on the long expanse of beach below the low foothills just north of Gaba Tepe as planned, the Navy had set the Australians ashore on the northern tip of a narrow unnamed cove. This narrow bay, today enshrined in legend as Anzac Cove, became the centre for all activity from then on. It is a sandy beach enclosed by two headlands some 600 meters long, with a strip of sand 20 meters wide, and is overshadowed by the steep slopes climbing to a flat plateau and the spurs of the Sari Bair Range. The hinterland is considerably more rugged than the open plain beyond the intended landing beaches above Gaba Tepe. The Australians’ battle that morning was to be with the landscape, and it defeated them. Though they pressed inland in small groups, the lunatic tangle of gullies and ravines over which they had to cross-grain threw plans and organisation into chaos. This confusion would allow a much smaller Turkish force the time and opportunity to threaten the landing with disaster. With their backs to the sea, they clung to two narrow ridges of land that linked inland as the two arms of a triangle, with the third arm being the coast and being the sea coast and the beach. It was an impossible situation. The Turk’s fought to drive the Anzacs into the sea, the Anzacs fought to


secure their foothold by seizing the apex, Baby 700. Only when these heights were seized could the Anzacs move from the defensive to the offensive. It is important to understand the landscape on which the troops landed, as it was to shape the New Zealand and Australian experience at Gallipoli.

Physical Setting The Gallipoli Peninsula extends 85 km southwest from the Turkish Thrace into the Aegean Sea, creating the 70 km long Straight of Dardanelles on its eastern side, which connects the Aegean with the Marama Sea. The Dardanelles, Marama Sea (to the North-east) and the Bosphorous Straight in Istanbul constitute a system of water exchange between the Aegean and Black Seas, which has defined the regions marine ecology due to the differing salinity and temperature of the water currents. This system is also affects winds and is important for the migratory birds of this region as it forms an important stoping point on their routes. At the southern entrance of the Dardanelles lie the islands of Gökçeada and Bozcaada. The Gallipoli Peninsula Peace Park is a 30,000 National Park located at the southern end of the Gallipoli peninsula. It has a triangular shape formed by the Saros Bay on the west and Ardenelles to the east and lies across the Dardanelles from the ancient city of Çanakkele (pop 55,000). Istanbul also features largely in the areas history, given the strategic importance of the Dardanelles straights in the defense of the city. The Park is accessible by road from Istanbul and Edirnem with the main highway terminating at Ecebat, in the middle of the park. The park may also be accessed from the eastern cities of Ankara, Bursa and Ismir via

Fig 18. Maquis bush typical of the Mediterranean. the ferry connection from ร‡anakkele to Ecebat.

Topography The park features two major hill systems: the northern crescent and a northeastsouthwest band. The Northern Crescent encompasses the fertile Anafartalar Plain, which opens westward to the Bay of Saros and the Aegean Sea. Where the crescent of hills meets the sea at Kemikli and Ariburnu Points there are spectacular land formations, these form the ends to the long Sulva and Kemikli Sand Beaches. They also encompass the Salt Lake created by the Sulva Beaches shifting sands enclosing an estuary. The second major hill system runs from the northeast to southwest along the Dardanelles coast of the park from Ecebat to Alรงitepe. Less impressive in stature than the Northern Cresent, they define the Ecebat Plain (smaller then the Anafartalar plain) as well as the southern boundary of the Kilye

Plain. From heights of 22 m around Ecebat, they rise to commanding heights of 218 m near Alรงitepe, falling to peaks of 60m around Seddulhbahir at the Peninsulas tip. Deep and narrow valleys are typical of this hill system and these played a vital role in the Battles of the 1915 Allied Land Campaign. The Kilye plain itself lies between the two hill systems, running from the Kabatepe Harbour in the west and the Kilye inlet in the east. This is the shortest and easiest crossing of the peninsula due to its narrow breadth, making it strategically important. With the exception of the Sandy beaches of the parks Northwest and where minor valley plains interface with the sea, most of the parks shoreline consists of high, narrow cliffs with rocky formations interspersed with maquis.

Hydrology Despite the rock types of the park possessing high porosity and permeability, the park



Fig 18. Tree and soil quality Map of the Peninsula

possesses no important groundwater supplies, despite 100m deep test bores being drilled. This may be explained by the parks many short running streams rapidly draining surface water to the Aegean Sea or the Dardanelles, and an underlying geologic structure that drains water to the coast underground. Ground water supplies that exists are restricted in capacity and their water quality poor. Town and irrigation water supplies are taken from wells and streams, despite a dam existing on the northern edge of the park. The springs within the park only have low yields. The wells within the park vary in depth, ranging from 3 to 11 m. Water levels in them range from 2 to 4 m. The quality of the water from these wells is low and their existence threatened should deeper wells be dug to expand irrigated areas. An areas of still water exists in the form of a lagoonal salt lake, however it’s former connection to the sea has now been cut off by a fish farming venture.

Flora In 1915, the commencement of the Allies Gallipoli Campaign, the dominant vegetation on the Gallipoli Peninsular was Maquis, a dense scrub vegetation consisting of hardy evergreen shrubs and small trees that is characteristic of coastal regions in the Mediterranean. In todays Gallipoli Peninsula Peace Park this is still the case, the maquis covering relatively high plateaus and slopes and often mixed with forest and/or riparian vegetation where year round water is present. The Maquis is rich in biodiversity and it’s species composition is highly variable, being dependent on the degree of exposure an area receives. Despite their importance to the parks character and ecosystems, as of 1997 they were poorly studied and cared for (GPPIO & METU, 1997). The parks Maquis may be classified into high and low, determined by it’s make up of species which are typical of higher or lower altitudes. High Maquis typically contains various pines,

Oak (Quercus trojana), Eastern Strawberry tree(Arbutus andrachne), Myrtle (Myrtus communis), while the Low Maquis consists predominantly of Kermes Oak (Quercus coccifera); cistus (Cistus salvifolius); dork thyme (Coridothymus capitatus); prickly tree juniper (Juniperus oxycerdus); tree heath (Erica arborea) and Thymelaea spp. This classification of maquis was suggested by W.B.Turrill, an English botanist who in 1924 drew together the fragmented previous studies and observations of the peninsulas vegetation into a single resource, later published in his 1929 book “The Plant-life of the Balkan Peninsula”. In his examination of the peninsulas flora he identified 472 species belonging to 71 families (subsequent surveys now list 520 species from 80 families), two of which were new species. Leguminosae dominated this list accounting for 315 of the species. In addition to the Low and High Maquis categories of vegetation, Turrill also suggested Rich Herb Vegetation and Grassland (trees and plants found along streams and creeks), Salty Marsh (herbs and weeds characteristic of the salt lake shore), Sand Dune Vegetation (found on the dunes between the slat lake and the coast) and Shore Vegetation (plant common on the pebble shorelines). Turrill also noted that there was a lack of forest vegetation in the region at the time of his writing, there being only small patches of Oak and Pine forest mostly above an altitude of 200m. This is also apparent in the photographs taken during the Gallipoli Campaign. It is believed that in ancient times the peninsular was originally covered by forests of valonia and pedunculate Oak (Quercus acgilops, Quercus pedunculiflora respectively), today however the climax vegetation of the park is red pine (Pinus brutia). Patches of this later natural climax forest remain on hills 200m-300m in altitude and slopes unsuited for agriculture elsewhere, however since 1964 programs of afforestation were carried out, greatly increasing the area of land covered by forest. The Afforestation schemes were aimed at


Fig 19. Vegetation map of the Peninsula.


turning the economically unproductive maquis into valuable productive forests, creating homogenous forests of mainly red pine, stone pine, maritime pine and cedar, without thought for the impacts this may have on historical and cultural values and the landscape, especially the damage done to the little understood maquis. The 1973 establishment of the peninsular as a National Historical Park allowed the development of a long term development plan for these new forests, dividing them into two zones, Zone One for aesthetic and recreational purposes and Zone Two for timber production. Unfortunately this plan was largely ignored through to 1994, when a massive forest fire destroyed 4,049ha of forest within the park. Following the 1994 fire the Eceabat Forest Management Office, responsible for managing 35,518.5ha of land (33,000ha of which is within the park) largely implemented a forestry plan that afforested 3,511.5 ha of previously burnt land, 1,453.5 for homogenous production forestry as before, with the remaining 2,068 ha being afforested with additional planting and landscaping work to make a more diverse and attractive forest. In other areas the maquis was left to regenerate for primarily practical reasons or as a buffer around margraves and memorials. Following information published with the plan it may be suggested that 55% of the park is covered in forests (including high maquis) and low maquis (each representing 33% and 22% respectively). With the exception of the remaining 2,800 ha of natural red pine, most of this forest is young, and fairly homogenous. Several areas were identified in the 1997 Gallipoli Peace park Design Competition Book as being ecologically sensitive. These included the Salt lake to the north of the peninsula whose delicate lagoon habitat was threatened by the discharge of a fish farm. Fish farms are also listed as a threat to the inlets and bays of the peninsula, with its impact on the bays natural ecosystem and restriction of uses. Sandy Beaches and their dunes are listed as being threatened by reckless development of seaside housing

and the riparian zones of the peninsula’s Valleys are also under pressure for the water they contain or used as rubbish dumps. Agriculture generally forms a buffer between the Forest and Maquis and the settlements of the Gallipoli Peninsula. Despite being an extension of human habitat, agricultural land is also part of the natural environment and is its own ecological setting. Agriculture on the Gallipoli Peninsula generally consists of grain and crop farming, goat herding and olive growing using minimal irrigation and mainly traditional techniques. The growth of Agriculture poses a threat to the maquis, as development pressures build in some regions. Stubble burning of grain crops can also a danger for forests with its potential for fires. Changing farming techniques such and increase in irrigation may upset water flows, while indiscriminate grazing, herbicide and pesticide use also adversely effects the natural areas bordering farmland.

Fauna Technically part of the Mediterranean faunal region, the Gallipoli Peninsula Peace Park’s relative isolation (due to the Mediterranean sea and Dardanelles straights) has led to the park offering a unique range of animal species from not only the Balkans region, but also Europe and southwest Asia. It is estimated that at least 7 mammal species, 4 big game bird species, over 45 fish species and 14 shell fish species are present in the (GPPIO & METU, 1997). This uncertainty is due to a lack of adequate studies into the fauna of the park, particularly into its aquatic life forms in both fresh and salt water (as of 1997). Despite this uncertainty, the variety of conditions and environmental conditions found within the park suggest the park is a habitat for a diverse range of species. Several bat species have made the park their home, the Long Eared Bat in particular being known in only one other place in Turkey. Wolves and perhaps Jackals are believed to still roam remote areas of the


Fig 20. Some other species of birds and insects that can be found on the Peninsula.

Fig 21`. Fish species that can be found around the Gallipoli Peninsula.


parks. Other typical mammals within the park include the Eastern Hedgehog, European Mole, Brown Hare, Red Squirrel, Red Fox, Wild Boar, Badger and Rock Wood Mouse (GPPIO & METU, 1997).

homes and tourist facilities. The Maquis ecosystems have also been disturbed by habitat fragmentation and destruction, through afforestation and advancing agriculture. An balance will need to be struck between these varying land uses to avoid further The shores of the lagoon Salt Lake, with their damage to fragile natural ecosystems, marshes and vegetation covered shores impact assessments perhaps being used to are certain to be the habitat for many spe- avoid future damage. cies, Flamingo, Black and Ordinary Storks and Plover are seen here, among other waders and waterfowl. Situated on one of Climate the Western Palaearctics major flight paths, many migratory birds stop over in the park The climate of the Gallipoli Peninsular has as the pass in summer, including raptors, characteristics of the Black Sea and MediWhite Storks, and Pelicans (GPPIO & METU, terranean climates, with long Autumns and 1997). Shearwaters also fly over the park Springs, hot summers and generally mild while moving between seas. winters, often with some snowfall. Rain falls Reptiles also form a significant contribution to local fauna, with common reptiles including several Gecko and Lizard Species (including the Long Toed Gecko, Glass Lizard Meadow Lizard and Wall Lizard) and a number of snakes such as the Sand Boa, Grass snake and Horned Nosed Viper. Due to the largely dry nature of the park amphibians are scarce, except near streams and wet areas, with only a few Toad (Common, Green, Thracian and Syrian Spadefoot) and a single frog species present. Some of the parks fauna is under threat, the delicate ecosystems of the Salt Lake lagoon are being impacted on by the water discharge and presence of a fish farm on the lakes northern shore. The damage done by this has yet to be fully investigated (GPPIO & METU, 1997). A solution would be to re-establish a natural outlet to the Agean Sea, which would aid in the recreation of the shallow, warm, nutrient rich saline water in the lake. Fish farming also threatens the marine life of the peninsulas inlets and bays if improperly permitted or controlled. As previously mentioned the ecosystems of both the Maquis and Sandy Beaches of the Park are threatened by development, the dune land ecosystems behind the parks three best beaches being disturbed by the sometimes illegal development of holiday

throughout the year. The temperature averages at 14.6C, with temperatures in summer ranging from low of 6C to highs of 24.6. In winter lows in February can reach -11.5C (GPPIO & METU, 1997). The region is generally humid, with an average humidity of 72%. Humidity can reach highs of 80% and often drops to 60% by July. The region averages 7.7hours of sunlight a day, however in winter this can drop to 3.4 hours of sunlight, while in summer it may rise to 12.5 hours. The sea temperature averages at 15.5C, generally peaking around 23.5C in the summer months. Over a year 608.3 mm of rain falls over the peninsula, the highest falls occurring through winter with and average 105.3 mm in December and 101.5 mm in January. Precipitation is lowest in summer, falling as low as 7.6mm in June (GPPIO & METU, 1997). Snow generally falls Jan through March, with the maximum snow height reaching 24 cm. It generally melts in 5-6 days. The dominant wind direction is north-east, blowing an average of 180 days a year (GPPIO & METU, 1997), in a largely consistent manner. Occasional strong southerly winds occur throughout the year, with the exception of summer. The winds have been the major cause of forest fire expansion with the park in previous years.


‘Bloody rough country for infantry’ The heights up which the Australians scrambled that morning of the 25th were those of the Sari Bair Range, a thorny scrub-covered line of dissected gravel and clay ridges running south-west from the narrow valley containing the two villages of Anafarta.

It is a story that remains largely unrecorded; much now will never be kno tragic detail. It is a soldier’s tale, and many New Zealanders would die th ground that would not be walked on again by New Zealanders and Aust (Pugsley, 2008).

Fig 22, Rhodedendron Ridge August Attack.


‘parties had advanced to Third Ridge. Though the Australians heavily outnumbered the Turks, their position was far from secure. Units were inextricably mixed and the men had little idea where they were. However, they had been ordered to push forward and seize Third Ridge and this they were determined to do. ‘Who can stop us? Not the bloody Turks.’ Isolated parties under the senior man present pushed forward until killed or driven back by reinforcements. Colonel MacLagan was disconcerted by the disorganization of the battalions. He appreciated that he lacked the strength to hold Third Ridge and ordered his men to dig in and consolidate on Second Ridge until the remainder of the division was ashore. Maclagan reorganized the key to successfully holding Second Ridge was Baby 700. If the Turks held Baby 700, they could fire from it along Second Ridge as far as the 400 Plateau. They could also observe along Monash Gully. MacLagan was racing against time. Already he could see Turkish reinforcements moving along Third Ridge.. To consolidate he his position, he pushed every man available toward Baby 700. As the New Zealanders landed, the hill was held by three groups. On the inland slope Major Kindon of the 1st Australian battalion held a line facing Battleship Hill, his men a mix of every unit of the Australian Brigade. On the seaward slopes another party was digging in at The Nek. This was under Captain Lalor. A platoon from Lalor’s party commanded by Lieutenant Margetts had been ordered forward of The Nek to hold the crest and seaward slopes of Baby 700.

own in its full and hat day on the tralian until 1919

It would be here among the low thorny scrub that covered the slopes of Baby 700 that New Zealanders would first fight the Turks on Gallipoli. They would be only a very small part of the total force ashore. Some 1500 New Zealanders of the 3100 to land that day would be ashore by midday. It was these men, the New Zealander’s from the Lutzow, who would stake New Zealand’s claim to Anzac Day. They would fight and die on the slopes of Baby 700 and in the serrated gullies of Second Ridge. The struggle of the day for the New Zealanders was in four acts, though none of the participants could have recognized the intervals between. The first and most critical act, involving most of the New Zealanders ashore, was the battle for the inland slopes of Baby 700 as they fought to hold the thinning Australian line. This involved the Waikatos, Haurakis and the South Canterburys, though individuals from all companies ashore fought with these groups. Over the ridge, the second act was played out simultaneously with the first. It was the struggle for the seaward slopes around the narrow saddle – The Nek. It was to involve the Lutzow, men from mid-afternoon onwards through the night of the 25-26th. The third act narrates the frustrations of the remaining New Zealanders as they landed piecemeal into the confusion of the Anzac in the late afternoon and evening. The final act was the battle for the yet unnamed Quinn’s Post and Second Ridge. Here men of the Auckland Battlion, inextricably mixed with Australians, would fight into the night, clinging by the fingernails to the slopes nearest baby 700 after the Turks had forced them back. Here, Major Dawson, OC of the 3rd Auckland Company, first held that vital, seemingly untenable niche that later became famous as Quinn’s Post.


The day we ‘beheld the Narrows from the hill’. If I were asked to give a description of the colour of the earth on Chunuk Bair on the 9th or 10th of August, I would say it was a dull browny red – and that was blood. Just dried blood. Nicholson Anzac Day in terms of Gallipoli alone, better stands for another dawn uniquely ours – 8th August 1915, the day we ‘beheld the Narrows from the hill’. Anzac was a tiny, foreign and besieged foothold on Turkey. Its shape had been determined by the failure of the attacks in May (Pugsley, 2008). Birdwood’s Anzacs held two ridges on an inhospitable coast. On the land they were always overshadowed and under fire from higher ground, and at sea, their only source of communication and supply, they were under fire from both flanks. In the north guns in the Anafarta area and Suvla could fire at any shipping movements into Anzac by day. In the south, the batteries in the Olive Groves inland of Gaba Tepe could fire onto the southern arm of Anzac Cove at Hell Spit and reach inside the cove itself, bursting shrapnel over the beach at the north end of the cove. All the beleaguered garrison could do was to hold on and wait for the forces at Helles to break out and link up with them. Within the Anzac lines everyone was aware that the landings had failed and the Turks held the upper hand. It was with relief that that the New Zealand Mounteds and the Australian Light Horse were welcomed in early May. Under Russell’s energetic direction, the Mounted’s consolidated their position on Russell’s Top and sapped out into No Man’s Land towards the Turkish front line. Percy Overton, the second-in-command of the Canterbury


Mounteds, co-ordinated the patrolling programme. On 16 May he wrote: ‘The country here is very hilly and is broken with steep gullies, the sides of which are very steep and covered with dwarf oak and scrub holly but will suit us down to the ground as it is what were are accustomed to. I am assisting General Birdwood’s staff by reconnoitering…I was able from what I saw of the country to make a map and gain much information as to the movements of the Turks, and would not have missed the experience for worlds.’ Hemmed in by Baby 700 on the obvious route to the vital heights of Chunuk Bair and 971, the left flank offered the best way out of the impasse. The Turkish commanders appeared to have considered the terrain too rugged for a major advance. From the Turkish perspective it was the Anzacs who were pinned against the sea, and the isolated Anzac outposts were to prevent the Turks breaking in rather than being a way for the Anzacs to break out. Overton’s reconnaissance showed that the valleys leading up towards the heights bordering the coast offered routes for infantry. Malone had also thought of the possibilities on this flank. ‘If I were GOC I should make a good defensive line on the ground we have gained, make it impregnable, then garrison it with the weakest troops. Except a few take all the best troops north to Gaba Tepe or Anzac Bay, as I believe is the right name of our landing place North of here. ‘Then prepare a plan of attack on Hill 971 from Nibrunesi Pt. Get every available man of war to come up at night take position at sea commanding 971 and line thence 224 D% (Baby 700) which is the crest of the Ridge. A frontage of about 2800 yards… Then march up, say three divisions, say 45,000 men, to take up position to attack… ‘Everybody and everything in position by night and attack commenced at dawn…At dawn the troops now at Anzac to make a feint and so engage Turks now facing them.

British 8th Corps as well as two French Divisions in the south, so now Birdwood’s ANZAC Corps would play the primary role in the centre of the Peninsula. Increased by 25,000 men, the Corps would break out of the Anzac foothold. Godley’s NZ & A Division, reinforced by a further division of Kitchener’s New Army, would make a left hook to the north and seize the high ground of the Sari Bair Range.

Fig 23. Anzac trenches 1915. ‘Aerial reconnaissance would show, I believe, that the Turks have not really fortified the NW slope of the position to be attacked. The crest gained. Dig in. Bring up guns etc. and prepare for further advance either immediately or next day to Mal Tepe and thence to Kilia Tepe on the straits. This would cut the Turks’ communications. ‘At present it is a stalemate and attack direct on Achi Baba or 971 must be slow and costly…Manoeuver is the antidote to entrenchment.

“All that the men knew and even the officers knew was that the great effort of the expedition had been launched and that it was their duty to say that it did not fail. The attack had manifestly not gone as was intended. The high hopes of the morning advance had long faded. They were up against the fire of some Turkish Force. A comparatively scattered fire at first, but now incessant and always growing. Each man could only keep touch with one or two others on either side of him in the scrub, and, as one after another was hit, the line was thinned to breaking point. But they knew that all the other parts of the line must be depending on them to hold the flank. If the line gave, it meant failure. With an unknown and increasing force ahead of them – with the long hours passing, and the enemy showing no signs of exhaustion – yet the determination of each individual man and officer held them to that hill.’’ C.E.W Bean

“I hope to be able to get GHQ to consider such a plan, if one is not already under way.’

‘I expect to go thro alright, but dear wife, if anything happens to me you must not grieve too much – there are our dear children to be brought up – You know how I love you and have loved you…I am prepared for death and I hope that God will have forgiven me all my sins.’ Malone to Mrs Malone, letter dated 5 August 1915.

By the end of May, Godley, Birdwood and Skeen, Birdwood’s Chief of Staff, were working on a plan similar to that contemplated by Malone.

It seems a miracle that the crest was won so cheaply. Artillery fire in the night had wounded the Turkish commander and his men had deserted the hill.

By August, Birdwood’s plan had grown enormously from that contemplated in May. Three months of fruitless and costly hammering at Helles had worn down the

‘We walked over – we walked right up to the Hill and there wasn’t a shot fired. Wasn’t a shot fired until we got half way up on


Fig 24. Wounded at Anzac Cove. top and the shells were still coming. We sat down and waited. When the last shell came we charged that hill. The Turks, there were pretty few of them there, they scooted, and there was one old fellow there – he had a beard – about 70 – he pulled his rifle on us…the poor old joker, somebody shot him.’ Charlie Clark After months of fighting, Chunuk Bair, the goal of the Covering Force on the first day, had at last been taken. Chunuk Bair, the attackers found, was two crests with a saddle between, some 200 meters in length. To the east, the ground sloped away quite steeply before flattening out into a step which contained some empty As it became light, the Wellingtons could see in the centre across the valley containing the north-south road and the village of Boghali and over the southern shoulder of Su Yahtaga, the straits of the Dardanelles – the Narrows. ‘Some chaps had a glimpse of the sea and all the country in between and we new perfectly well that this hill was the key to vic-


tory or defeat on the Peninsula.’ Curham IV On the 8th it was evident to all that Malone’s achievements on Chunuk Bair offered enormous prospects if they could be exploited by the soldiers of the Empire struggling up the slopes. It was a soldier’s battle – the Indians, Gurkhas, Anzacs and the raw soldiers of Britain were stolidly dying to meet their commanders’ directions. It was the commanders, and Godley in particular, who failed to show the touch, the insight that marked a capable tactician. Not even brilliance was required; the bravery of their soldiers only needed a commander to show sound judgment at the right time. There was no lack of this amongst the Turks. Mustafa Kemal would be given command of the Turkish divisions on this front and at once move to the sound of the guns. He would counter-attack Suvla, consolidate the position there and then move to Chunuk Bair. “Now - Chunuk Bair has gone!...Trenches badly sited, they say, and the Turks able to form close by in dead ground” Sir Ian Hamilton 10th August 1915 Its unlikely that most New Zealanders who fought on Chunuk Bair saw their hilltop

as the door to victory in the campaign. Certainly some would have seen its importance, but for most it was another hill, with more hills behind and ahead (Pugsley, 2008). But it was important, because once the hill had been won, there were moments aplenty when it could have been lost again. Some unwounded men left the line on Chunuk Bair. It could be said that for the men, fighting isolated and outnumbered, this was a sensible option to take. But most did not take that option for the New Zealander fought on Chunuk Bair as he had lived. It was another struggle like breaking in the land or clearing the bush. He fought like a complete professional despite his amateur status. But on Chunuk Bair, New Zealand soldiers gave up their amateur status and found an identity as fighting men. For an army ‘is also a mirror of its own society and its values, in some places and at some times an agent of national pride or a bulwark against national fears, or perhaps even the last symbol of the nation itself.’ O.E. Burton On Chunuk Bair we demonstrated our nationhood to the world for the first time in a manner which we in New Zealand have only just begun to appreciate. ‘But the way men died on Chunuk is shaping the deeds yet to be done by the generations still unborn…When the August fighting died down there was no longer any question but that New Zealanders had commenced to realize themselves as a nation.’ O.E. Burton In the grey years of the 1920s and 1930s, Anzac Day for the veterans took on an increasing significance. In looking back on ‘those years of insane destruction, it remained unhappily true, that for the first and only time, they had identified with a cause bigger than themselves and had known what it meant to be a man’. L.C.F Turner, (1914-1919’ in ‘A New History of

Australia” (Heinmann, 1974) Anzac Day – the anniversary of the landing at Anzac Cove – was first celebrated in 1916 with a memorial service, and games and sports among the men of the Expeditionary Force. As the years went by, it became a day of increasing somberness. So it was that Anzac Day had two meanings for New Zealanders. For the New Zealand public at home it signified the legend, and a proclamation to the world that a junior partner in the British Empire had come of age. Anzac Day became the symbol of our willingness to share the burdens of the Empire, and those that died were our payment towards this. To the soldiers of the New Zealand Expeditionary Force, Anzac Day, or Landing Day, was a myth, as 25 April was Australia’s Day. They deserved the credit for gaining that foothold, while the New Zealand role came later. It became a symbol of something found in war, something akin to that expressed by a passage Malone at Chunuk Bair had marked in Ruskin’s Crown of Wild Olive: ‘I found, in brief, that all great nations learned their truth of word, and strength of thought, in war: that they were nourished in war, and wasted by peace, taught by war, and deceived by peace, trained by war and betrayed by peace – in a word, that they were born in war and expired in peace.’ To the New Zealand soldiers, Anzac day became the touchstone of an identity, a sense of purpose, a growing recognition of themselves as New Zealanders. It is true that it was a day of sadness, of men gone, but there was also joy and comradeship. Comradeship was vital because it made the obscenities endurable. It overlaid the bitterness and suffering. Anzac Day was a day of shared experiences remembered. A day of competitions and sports, of a beer with mates, and a toast to those they had served with and loved. The New Zealand public is starting to recognize that it is a day


to keep alive a memory that had been ‘born in war and expired in peace’. Post-war years were years of conservatism, and the puritanical streak that is part of New Zealand’s make-up showed in the manner of its remembrance of the dead. There was no war literature as in Australia; New Zealand fashioned its memorials in stone We are now old enough in national terms to re-examine our history, to understand the carnage and admire the spirit which enable men, through a bond with each other, to endure such conditions. What possessed and drove them still exists today. We are still conscious of our isolation and we are still prepared to set out at any excuse to see the world. In the grey years of the 1920s and 1930s, Anzac Day for the veterans took on an increasing significance. In looking back on ‘those years of insane destruction, it remained unhappily true, that for the first and only time, they had identified with a cause bigger than themselves and had known what it meant to be a man’. L.C.F Turner, (1914-1919’ in ‘A New History of Australia” (Heinmann, 1974) Anzac Day – the anniversary of the landing at Anzac Cove – was first celebrated in 1916 with a memorial service, and games and sports among the men of the Expeditionary Force. As the years went by, it became a day of increasing somberness. So it was that Anzac Day had two meanings for New Zealanders. For the New Zealand public at home it signified the legend, and a proclamation to the world that a junior partner in the British Empire had come of age. Anzac Day became the symbol of our willingness to share the burdens of the Empire, and those that died were our payment towards this. To the soldiers of the New Zealand Expeditionary Force, Anzac Day, or Landing Day, was a myth, as 25 April was Australia’s Day.


They deserved the credit for gaining that foothold, while the New Zealand role came later. It became a symbol of something found in war, something akin to that expressed by a passage Malone at Chunuk Bair had marked in Ruskin’s Crown of Wild Olive: ‘I found, in brief, that all great nations learned their truth of word, and strength of thought, in war: that they were nourished in war, and wasted by peace, taught by war, and deceived by peace, trained by war and betrayed by peace – in a word, that they were born in war and expired in peace.’ To the New Zealand soldiers, Anzac day became the touchstone of an identity, a sense of purpose, a growing recognition of themselves as New Zealanders. It is true that it was a day of sadness, of men gone, but there was also joy and comradeship. Comradeship was vital because it made the obscenities endurable. It overlaid the bitterness and suffering. Anzac Day was a day of shared experiences remembered. A day of competitions and sports, of a beer with mates, and a toast to those they had served with and loved. The New Zealand public is starting to recognize that it is a day to keep alive a memory that had been ‘born in war and expired in peace’. Fig 25. Lieutendant Colonel Malone

Memorials Today, two monuments command the eye at Gallipoli. High on the ridge, gleaming in the sun, stands the Turkish memorial to Femal’s feat in throwing back the British Forces off the crest on 10 August 1915. The inscription acknowledges this as the turning point in the campaign. Further along, on the point of Chunuk Bair, is the New Zealand memorial. Malone’s crest line trench has gone, hidden by the road that now connects the cemeteries. Pines now clothe the heights, but on the seaward slopes the tier upon tier of ragged scrapes can still be seen. If you clear away the pine needles that fill them, the debris of battle is still evident: dixies, water bottles, shrapnel and bones. The soldiers who fought upon Chunuk Bair performed one of the outstanding feats of arms in New Zealand history. It was a soldier’s battle. ‘There was no power of command; in the nature of things their could not be; but every man on that ridge new that the thin line of New Zealand men was holding wide the door to victory…how men were to die on Chunuk Bair was determined largely by how men and women lived on the farms and in the towns of New Zealand.’ O.E. Burton, ‘The Silent Division’.

1900’s Memorials: The 20th century marked a significant change in the relationship between war, society and the common soldier. For centuries before, the typical war monument commemorated a victorious battle or war. During the latter half of the 19th century, this trend gradually changed as the form and function of memorials began to change

(Connelly & Donaldson, 2010). The importance of commemorating victories and commanders faded with the introduction of the Victoria Cross in 1856, which brought an opportunity for valor and honour for the everyday soldier (Connelly & Donaldson, 2010). Moreover, the significance of mourning and funeral rituals in general was also increasing (Connelly & Donaldson, 2010). Consequently, the typology shifted from celebrating victorious battles and leaders to bringing honour to the common fallen soldier who had given their life for the freedom of the country. A strong political movement began as lower and middle class soldiers volunteered in great number for the South African War of 1899, realizing the potential for increased recognition in society. Though memorials for this war were often designed by individual war committees, the undermining support and drive for the creation of the memorials came from communities and the people who sought to honour their fellow citizens who had served (Connelly & Donaldson, 2010). These monuments highlighted a series of requirements for successful commemoration: a leader or committee to drive the process, capability of the public to uphold the monument, and a realistic fund-raising scheme within the community (Connelly & Donaldson, 2010).

The South African Memorial: Toronto, Canada This monument was a significant piece of transitional sculpture in the early 1900’s. Designed by Walter Seymour Allward, it is situated at University Ave and Queen Street in Toronto, Ontario (Vronsky, 2012). Completed in 1910 to commemorate Canada’s part in the British-led Boer War of 1899-1902, this highlights a number of features common in 19th and 20th century monuments


Fig 26. The South African memorial. (Vronsky, 2012). It is a 90 ft. high granite monument capped with the bronze figure of winged victory, the universal symbol of victory (Vronsky, 2012). Surrounding the bronze figure of britannica, which represented the British empire, are two flanking soldiers. Outfitted in typical tropical warfare gear, these soldiers symbolize a rising national sense of self and as Canada as its own nation (Vronsky, 2012). Around the monument’s edges are names of battles where Canadian soldiers distinguished themselves. This is significant because it represents a shift in societal values from the 19th to 20th centuries. In addition to the traditional commemoration of victory through the tall spire and symbol on top, the presence of the common soldiers defines the importance of the everyday hero in a nation’s growing identity.

Upon the end of World War I, the development of war memorials to commemorate lost soldiers became a pivotal practice


in defining nations. The development of these monuments served as a cultural phenomenon, wherein communities were comprised of men with both equal share and equal duty (Harvey, 1985). During the mid-1800’s, Britain often commemorated highly ranked officers using monuments built at the expense of the public (Harvey, 1985). With the outcome of the first world war came the new ideology that every soldier, regardless of rank, was a hero (Harvey, 1985). Consequently, many WWI memorials do not class ranks together on the memorials (Harvey, 1985). This had a profound effect on nations, who gave equal honour and glory to all members involved in the war. The end of World War I also brought about the Imperial War Graves Commission in 1917, which sought to bury and commemorate the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in the war (Veterans Affairs Canada, 2011). The commission employed prominent architects to design cemeteries and monuments in a way that was beautiful, reflective and serene (Veterans Affairs Canada, 2011).

The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier: London, England This memorial marks the first of its kind. An unknown soldier’s body was brought home from France and commemorated through burial in Westminster Abbey on the 11th of November 1920 (Westminster Abbey, 2012). The memorial bears the inscription “A British Warrior who fell in the Great War 1914-1918 for King and Country. Greater Love Hath No Man Than This.” (Westminster Abbey, 2012). The tomb, clad in black marble stone, was filled with 100 sandbags of earth brought from France so that the soldier could lie in the soil that many of his comrades died in (Westminster Abbey, 2012). During the commemorative ceremony, the nave was lined with 100 soldiers of the commonwealth who had been awarded the Victoria Cross (Veterans Affairs Canada, 2011). This reinforces how key the Victoria Cross was in the societal uprising of the common and middle class. As a result, ceremonies and monuments like this are clearly tied in with the honour the Cross brought to the common man. This was a remarkable

change in war commemoration, as a soldier unknown by name or rank was given the highest honour in death. It serves as a symbol for the sobriety that war brings to society, and how war calls upon common men to rise up for their country and freedom. During the early 1900‘s, Britain’s lower and middle class made up the majority of volunteers for the army, bringing them great pride (Connelly and Donaldson, 2010). At a time when Britain was struggling through its democratic relations in the community, this memorial arose through a binding of multiple commemorative practices (Ziino, 2003). This trend would become typical for hundreds of WWI memorials to come.

Fig 27. The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.



Fig 28. A View of Thiepval Memorial popping out of the canopy in the distance.

Thiepval Memorial to the Missing: Somme Battlefields, France The Thiepval Memorial to the Missing is perhaps one of the most significant WWI memorials, commemorating those lost at the battles at Somme. At 150 feet high and clad in red brick, it is certainly one of the largest; and one that dominates the surrounding landscape (Ziino, 2003). It was designed as an Anglo-French Battle Memorial to commemorate the joint alliance against Germany in 1916 (Great War, 2009). The grand archway represents the British and French alliance, with the French Tricolore and the British Union Jack on either side of the highest arch. The designer, Sir Edwin Lutyens, intended to use the grand arches to reinforce human loss by using complex repetition of names (Sherman,1998). Etched into the 16 portland stone piers are over 72,000 names of soldiers who have no graves (Ziino, 2003). This marked a common feature of early 20th century monuments: Names gave the monument a personal

and collective story, while its setting in the war zone became a place for people to seek meaning and comfort (Ziino, 2003). By providing names to those who’s bodies lay elsewhere, people saw monuments like this as a way of safeguarding the memory of the fallen (Ziino, 2003). The monument is set atop a hill and easily seen from the surrounding countryside, overlooking significant battlefields of the past. Surrounding the monument itself are British and French cemeteries, all of which is enclosed by a courtyard on top of the hill. The courtyard in itself is a common typology of this era, wherein the grand monument attracts the attention and the rows of crosses subtly compliment the atmosphere. While the abstract Thiepval memorial is a collective means of commemoration, the rows of cemetery graves provide an individual sense of remembrance (Ziino, 2003).


Fig 29. Thiepval Memorial monument.


The National World War 2 Memorial With the large amounts of casualties and fatalities that came from the events of World War II, many nations that were involved such as The United States of America, France, Germany, New Zealand and of course Japan erected war memorials or cenotaphs to honour victories and the dead. I feel that the U.S. WW2 war memorials are more along the lines of the triumphal memorials like the Romans built over 2000 years ago. The Germans made more somber memorials to the dead, with the focus on preserving the dead and not a victory. The National World War 2 Memorial in Washington D.C was a late 20th Century nationwide design competition with the winning initial design by an architect named Friedrich St. Florian. After several years of review and design modifications, a final design was approved and construction started in September 2001 (National WW2 Memorial, 2012). Though both critics and organisations heavily opposed the design and location, the USA congress seemingly

brushed aside all criticism with the rationale of wanting the remaining veterans to see the memorial before they pass (M. Killian, 2001). The chosen site is situated between the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial at the end of the reflecting pool. The site is a 7.4-acre block consisting of landscaping, water and hard surfaces. At the center of the memorial is the Rainbow Pool, a 70m by 40m oval shaped pool. The historic waterworks of the Rainbow Pool are completely restored and contribute to the celebratory nature of the memorial. The design provides seating along the pool circumference for visitors. Semi-circular fountains at the base of the two memorial pavilions and waterfalls flanking the Freedom Wall complement the waterworks in the Rainbow Pool (National WW2 Memorial, 2012). Fig 13. Semi-circled around the edge of the memorial is a series of 56 17-foot granite pillars, each inscribed with the name of the 48 states (at the time of the war there were only 48) and the 8 districts. Each pillar is decorated with oak and wheat bronze

Fig 30. The Rainbow Pool facing 1 of the 2 inscribed arches and 27 granite pillars. (DCTraveller, 2008)


wreaths. The 17-foot pillars are open in the center for greater transparency, and ample spacing between each pillar allows for viewing into the landscape and across to the other memorials (National WW2 Memorial, 2012). At either end of the memorial are two large inscribed arches, one for the Atlantic theater and the other for the Pacific theater. At the western side of the memorial holds 4,048 golden stars, this is known as The Freedom Wall. A 25m long wall holds the sculpted stars, with each star representing 100 dead American Soldiers. The gold star is the symbol of family sacrifice, Fig 14.

Fig 31. The Freedom Wall with its 4,048 golden stars. (Freedom Wall, 2012)


Vietnam Veterans Memorial December 29th, 1980, this day over 2,500 individuals and teams applied for the competition to design the new Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington D.C. By May 1st 1981 a single winner was chosen, Maya Ling Lin. An undergraduate architect from Yale University was chosen for her design of a memorial that felt open, would encourage access on all occasions, at all hours, without barriers, and yet free the visitors from the noise and traffic of the surrounding city. Maya Lin wanted to create a park within a park – a quiet protected place onto itself, yet harmonious with the overall plan of Constitution Gardens (The Wall, 2012). The materials chosen complemented the landscape as the polished black granite acted as a reflector for the surrounding trees, lawns, monuments and visitors. The

walls orientation suggests that the ends are stretching out into the near by monuments. Directing you towards the Lincoln Memorial to the west and The Washington Monument to the east. The two walls are 246.75 feet long at an angle of 125 degrees. The height of the wall increases from ground level to 10.1 feet at the center vertex. The granite slabs come from Bangalore, India, but are cut and fabricated in the USA. The 58,191 names are inscribed in chronological order of the date of casualty, showing the war as a series of individual human sacrifices and giving each name a special place in history (VVM, 2004). Fig 3. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial has a very strong landscape element, with the memorial cutting into the earth. It seems that the large cutting memorial that it is scaring the

Fig 32. Viewing down the lane towards the center apex. (Vietnam Veterans Memorial , 2012)


earth is a reference to how the war scared America as a nation. Instead of creating a large monument or evocative piece of memorialization. Maya Lin has created a very humble harmonious gesture.

stands an orphan in bronze pointing to an inscription ‘Maudite soit le guerre’ (Cursed be war). Feelings run high regarding the bronze orphan, with local army personal being ordered to turn their heads when they walk past the statue (War Memorials, 2012)

Fig 33. Google Earth view of the Vietnam Memorial and its inconspicuous blending in with the land. (Google Earth, 2012)

In many cases, World War I memorials were later extended to show the names of locals who died in the World War II in addition. Since that time memorials to the dead in other conflicts such as the Korean War and Vietnam War have also noted individual contributions, at least in the West. After World War 1, several towns particularly in France set up pacifist war memorials. Instead of commemorating the glorious dead or a victory, these certain memorials denounced war with figures of grieving widows and children rather than soldiers. These memorials provoked anger among war veterans and the military in general. The most famous example is at Gentioux-Pigerolles, below a column on names of fallen soldiers


Throughout the late 20th Century, a common trend of landscape driven designed memorials have arisen such as The Holocaust Memorial in Berlin and Vietnam War Memorial in Washington.

It is a signal in the landscape, one that honours the memories of the fallen and brings meaning to all those hurt by the Great War. This grand scale and hilltop setting are both typologies of these early war zone memorials. The writing of thousands of names is another typology which originated after WWI, needed due to the great number of bodies lost and in different countries. Names overwhelmed individual mourning, as they provided both consolation for loved ones and together formed the narrative and meaning of the war (Ziino, 2003).

Summary: In the landscape, the commemoration of war through monuments brought a number of new typologies to the layout and design of these spaces. The coming of the 20th century brought perhaps the strongest shift in the design and occurrence of war memorials. From celebrating victory to honouring the fallen, war memorials bring into question the morality and great sacrifice of war (Bennet, 1998). The biggest shift between centuries was the rise of the common soldier. Whereas previous monuments celebrated great leaders and victories, this century focused on the contribution and heroism of the everyday soldier. The ensuing memorials were still grand and beautiful, but in a solemn and respectful way. Below is a list of the common typologies found in the early 20th century, as exemplified through the South African War Memorial, the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and the Thiepval Memorial to the Missing: • Monuments are centered around fallen people rather than victories • Bronze statues often depict the common soldier rather than a great leader • Symbols of victory (South African Memorial) are often replaced by names of the fallen (Thiepval) • Bringing the highest honour for every common soldier became the norm • The idea of having thousands of names brought a personal touch and a collective purpose-driven story to the war

• Memorials often placed in a courtyard type space, wherein the grand vertical monument in the center was the highlight and cemeteries surrounded it • Monuments typically stand out in the landscape: There is a sense they are not meant to fit in with their surroundings in order to draw attention and focus • Many monuments, parks, murals, cemeteries commemorate battles and fallen sol diers, but fail to celebrate peace (Bennet, 1998) • Memorials often serve as a symbol of national resolve through force and violence(Bennet, 1998) • Memorials are permanent and unmovable In the later part of the 20th Century the trend of large monument like structures such as the Thiepval Memorial or many of the monuments that scatter the Gallipoli Peninsula have had slowly been changing to a more landscape sculptural memorial. With such examples as the Vietnam War Memorial with its scar-like design in the landscape as to the Holocaust Memorial in Berlin with its terrain of concrete blocks with no names to commemorate the Jews from WW2. The monuments had gone through a change from the traditional headstone to the giant walls that had all the names of the soldiers that gave there lives to the war. From the large granite slabs of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial to the National WW2 Memorial and its wall of Golden stars. Below are some of the main typologies of the later half of the 20th Century. • A trend to commemorate every soldier by placing a name/rank/DOD • Design competitions instead of having 1 main architect for all the regions memori- als. • Monuments changed from the large vertical column to a more subtle landscape statement such as Vietnam War Memorial or Korean War memorial. • Alot of temporary structures have being installed such as the NZ Anzac Memorial in Hyde park


Remembering the Anzac Legend Anzac Day – the anniversary of the landing at Anzac Cove – was first celebrated in 1916 with a memorial service, and games and sports among the men of the Expeditionary Force. As the years went by, it became a day of increasing somberness. Post-war years were years of conservatism, and the puritanical streak that is part of New Zealand’s make-up showed in the manner of its remembrance of the dead. New Zealand fashioned its memorials in stone. In the grey years of the 1920s and 1930s, Anzac Day for the veterans took on an increasing significance. In looking back on ‘those years of insane destruction, it remained unhappily true, that for the first and only time, they had identified with a cause bigger than themselves and had known what it meant to be a man’. L.C.F Turner, (1914-1919’ in ‘A New History of Australia” (Heinmann, 1974) it was that Anzac Day had two meanings for New Zealanders. For the New Zealand public at home it signified the legend, and a proclamation to the world that a junior partner in the British Empire had come of age. Anzac Day became the symbol of our willingness to share the burdens of the Empire, and those that died were our payment towards this (Pugsley, 2008). To the soldiers of the New Zealand Expeditionary Force, Anzac Day, or Landing Day, was a myth, as 25 April was Australia’s Day. They deserved the credit for gaining that foothold, while the New Zealand role came later. It became a symbol of something found in war, something akin to that expressed by a passage Malone at Chunuk Bair had marked in Ruskin’s Crown of Wild Olive: ‘I found, in brief, that all great nations learned their truth of word, and strength of thought, in war: that they were nourished in war, and wasted by peace, taught by war, and deceived by peace, trained by war and betrayed by peace – in a word, that they were born in war and expired in peace.’ To the New Zealand soldiers, Anzac day became the touchstone of an identity, a sense of purpose, a growing recognition of themselves as New Zealanders. It is true that it was a day of sadness, of men gone, but there was also joy and comradeship. Comradeship was vital because it made the obscenities endurable. It overlaid the bitterness and suffering. Anzac Day was a day of shared experiences remembered. A day of competitions and sports, of a beer with mates, and a toast to those they had served with and loved. The New Zealand public is starting to recognize that it is a day to keep alive a memory that had been ‘born in war and expired in peace’. As Pugsley says, we are now old enough in national terms to re-examine our history, to understand the carnage and admire the spirit which enable men, through a bond with each other, to endure such conditions. What possessed and drove them still exists today. We are still conscious of our isolation and we are still prepared to set out at any excuse to see the world.



Position ‘Almost a generation of the best young men were wiped out, and throughout my life I have been conscious of this deprivation. In all walks of life many of those who would have been the leaders were missing. The ineptitudes of the decades between the two wars, both in Europe and in New Zealand may in large measure be due to this. Not only these men, but those who would have been their children are missing, and we have to do our best without them. It is hard to estimate what human loss and depreciation was the result of these experiences‌â€? Keith Sinclair Designing a new memorial for the Gallipoli Campaign presents a challenge. The Peninsula is already home to many memorials, most of which dating from the early 20th century. These follow the Commonwealth war graves style, with a monument at one end of a walled graveyard, or are some form of prominent structure such as an obelisk, sculpture or statue commemorating an event, personality or the sacrifice of individual soldiers. Given the large number of these types of memorials already present we felt that the stories these memorials tell have been well covered already. Instead of continuing in this style, we are interested in commemorating the events of the Gallipoli Campaign in a way that shows 100 years have passed, a way that reflects a modern approach to remembering the events of 1915. Today the battlefields of 1915 lie within a National Park, the Gallipoli Peninsula Peace Park. Much of the former battlefields are now covered in the increasingly scarce Maquis vegetation or forest, and are themselves fragile archaeological sites. Many thousands of people visit these sites each year, especially those from Australia and New Zealand as well as an increasing number from Turkey. From this we take that any


new memorial design must be careful not to disturb the fragile ecosystems and battlefields more than they already are, it must be of low impact design. The Centenary memorial must also offer something new to the tourists who visit these sites, something different to what is currently there. Our preferred memorial is the construction of a Pier at each major invasion site, Suvla Bay, Anzac Cove and Cape Helles (at Y beach). These Piers would commemorate the bravery, losses and sacrifices made by both Allied and Turkish forces and reflect the manner in which these events shaped the national identities of the nations involved. By commemorating both combatants we hope to emphasise the ties between these nations. Designed for use by local tour boat operators, the Piers would give tourists the opportunity to experience a taste of views Allied soldiers had as they prepared to land in April 1915, rather than the approach from inland, the defenders viewpoint.


Fig 34. The view from the Aegea, looking to Anzac Cove. Remembrance and Commemoration can be instilled in practical and functional spaces like Piers. An example of this is the Veterans Memorial Pier in New York City. Although dedicated in name to War Vetrans, previously the Pier contained no memorial other than the American Flag. This changed with the 2001 9/11 attack, the Piers view of Manhattan Island offering clear views of the destruction. Because of this connection with the disaster, it was recently chosen as the location for a monument that commemorates the 283 people from the area who died in the disaster (Freudenheim, 2010). Despite this sombre purpose the pier is alive with leisure activities, a place of dual purpose, remembrance and recreation (especially fishing (Freudenheim, 2010)). The memorial is not the focus of the place, rather a means by which its users can experience the landscape around it and derive their own meaning from it We believe the Piers will also offer a chance for interaction between cultures. Since ancient times the Gallipoli Peninsula, due to it’s location on a trade route, has been a meeting places for many cultures, often through war. To continue and encourage the National Parks mandate of peace, we must stimulate dialogue between cultures and people, hopefully encouraging understanding and tolerance, preventing violence. We hope the Piers could be used by local residents and domestic tourists as places of leisure, a place to swim or fish from as well as a place for reflection and rest. When tourists arrive, offered the opportunity they may take the time to talk to a local Turk or to a fellow tourist, enriching both persons understanding of each other.

Veterans Memorial Pier, New York City 52

focus but rather a means by which users can fur The of Piersthe wouldspace, be designed to compliment landscape in which they are situated, andthe derive meaning from it. acting almost as a natural extension of the land rather than being designed to stick out and draw attention. The design may also reflect the piers used by Allied forces in their 1915 invasion. Their design would also try to avoid any negative impact on the fragile ecosystems and archaeology of the Peninsula, perhaps through the use of modern construction techniques or through floating upon the water. In all we hope to design something that will become integral to the Gallipoli experience, a memorial that goes beyond the remembrance of past events and becomes something in itself.

space, but rather a means by which users can further experience the site eaning from it.

Fig 36,37


References Harvey, A.D. (1985). War Memorials. History Workshop Journal, 20 (1), 214-a-214. Bennet, James R. (1998). From Patriotism to Peace. Humanist, 58 (5), 5-9. Ziino, Bart. (2003). Claiming the dead: great war memorials and their communities. Journal of the Royal Australian Historical Society, 89.2 (145). Connelly, Mark, Donaldson, Peter. (2010). South African (1899–1902) Memorials in Britain: A Case Study of Memorialization in London and Kent. War & Society, 29 (1), 20-46. Vronsky, Peter. (2012). South African War Memorial. Retrieved from Veterans Affairs Canada (2011). Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Retrieved from Westminster Abbey. (2011). Unknown Warrior. Retrieved from Freudenheim, Ellen. (2010). September 11 2001 Memorials in Brooklyn — A Guide for Visitors and Locals. Retrieved from AboutSeptember11th-2011/ss/ September-11-2001-Memorials-In- Brooklyn-Places-To-Visit-To- Remember911-From-The-Heart_2.htm The Sunken Road by, Retrieved March 6, 2012 from VVM, (2004) Vietnam Veterans Memorial, Retrieved from The Wall, (2012) Vietnam Veterans Memorial, Retrieved from Fig 33: Vietnam War Memorial, (2012), Google Earth, Retrived 5th March from Fig 32: Vietnam Veterans Memorial, (2012), 10ga, Retrieved 11th March from


Fig 30: National WW2 Memorial, (2012). WWII Memorial Retrieved March 8th from http:// Michael Killian, (2001), Chicago Tribute, Retrieved March 8th from The DCTraveller, (2008), National WW2 Memorial, Retrieved March 5th from http://www. Fig 31:Freedom Wall, (2012), Freedom Wall, Retrieved March 5th from Gallipoli Peace Park International Office & Middle East Technical University. (1997). Gallipoli Peninsula Peace Park International Design Competition, The Book. Ankara, Turkey: Publisher is the Author. Broadbent, H. 2005. Gallipoli, the fatal shore. Penguin Books Ltd, London Images Title Page: Anzac Boat Skeleton: Fig 4: ArchDuke Ferdinand, (2009), World History Plus, Retrieved 12th March from Fig 5: HMS Irresistible, 2011), Naval History, Retrieved 12th March from JPG Fig 1-3, 6-11,13,15-17, 22, 24, 25: Broadbent, H. 2005. Gallipoli, the fatal shore. Penguin Books Ltd, London Page 51:Anzac Boat Skeleton, North Beach: Fig 34: Anzac Cove (Boat offshore): Fig 23: Pugsley, C. (2008), Gallipoli: The New Zealand Story. published by Penguin Group, Auckland. Fig 27: Unknown Soldier, by Getty Images, Retrieved March 6, 2012, from Fig 26: South African War Memorial, by City of Toronto, Retrieved March 4, 2012 from Fig 28: Thiepval Memorial to the Missing, by, Retrieved March 6, 2012 from Fig 29: Thiepval Memorial by, Retrieved March 6, 2012 from


Fig 12, 14, 18-21: Gallipoli Peace Park International Office & Middle East Technical University. (1997). Gallipoli Peninsula Peace Park International Design Competition, The Book. Ankara, Turkey: Publisher is the Author. Fig 18: Maquis, Arbutus andrachne, sourced from: http://photos.v-d-brink. eu/Flora-and-Fauna/Asia/Turkey-Western-part/14389177_K6Lf89/1082940807_ FepJG#!i=1082940807&k=FepJG Fig 37: sunset pic s1600h/VeteransMemorialPier.jpg Fig 36: fishing pic The Monster - 69th St Pier, Bay Ridge, Brooklyn Greening the Ridge 69th Street Veteran’s Memorial Pier Bay Ridge, Brooklyn Page 51: Anzac Cove, North Beach: Page 51: Beach Y: Page 51: Suvla Bay North: Page :Boat, Suvla Bay North Headland: Page 51: Suvla Bay: Page 51:Seddulbahir, V Beach: Page 51 : W Beach: Sunday, June 22, 2008 mem union pier other veterans pier sunset



Group 5 Gallipoli  
Group 5 Gallipoli  

Research Assignment Kieran Dove Alex Smith John Campbell Matt Leen