Army history written from enlisted soldiers’ view differs sharply from officers’ version

Evidence

This book started from the conviction that it is much more interesting and useful to write the history of the Egyptian army, or any army for that matter, from the point of view of the people who did the actual fighting and suffered most from its atrocities, rather than from the viewpoint of their commanding officers, watching from a safe distance on horseback. … It has therefore attempted to give these soldiers a chance of narrating their own experience and writing their own history. — Khaled Fahmy, All the Pasha_s Men_ Mehmed Ali, his…, 1695

Categorization

• DEFINE: Frames the book’s method: writing military history from below, against the great-general tradition.
• XREF: The reader studies Ottoman/Egyptian and British military performance; this contradicts the ‘great generals’ tradition seen in standard imperial histories. — connects to: Military history can be written from the vantage of the common soldier. — Khaled Fahmy, All the Pasha_s Men_ Mehmed Ali, his…, 410; Ethnic and linguistic gaps between officers and soldiers sharpened army tensions — Khaled Fahmy, All the Pasha_s Men_ Mehmed Ali, his…, 1323; Army histories should center on the soldiers who fight, not their commanders. — Khaled Fahmy, All the Pasha_s Men_ Mehmed Ali, his…, 1667 (+7 more)
• yield-rescued: below the book’s yield-target cutoff, included anyway for connecting to: Military history can be written from the vantage of the common soldier. — Khaled Fahmy, All the Pasha_s Men_ Mehmed Ali, his…, 410; Ethnic and linguistic gaps between officers and soldiers sharpened army tensions — Khaled Fahmy, All the Pasha_s Men_ Mehmed Ali, his…, 1323; Army histories should center on the soldiers who fight, not their commanders. — Khaled Fahmy, All the Pasha_s Men_ Mehmed Ali, his…, 1667 (+7 more)