futile offensives; Edmonds's subjects were heroes and beyond criticism. Tim Travers wrote that Edmonds eschewed direct criticism of senior officers, was obliged to Haig and protected his reputation, rigged facts and drew false conclusions in the volumes on the Somme (1916 Part I), Passchendaele (1917 Part II) and 1918 Part I. In 1996, Paddy Griffith (4 February 1947 – 25 June 2010) called it an Griffith called the quantity of writing on the Great War "prodigious" and that despite Edmonds being unstable, insecure and having never held a field appointment, he was conscientious, intelligent and rarely allowed his devious and opinionated nature to distort his work on the official history. Edmonds determined the presentation of information, which imposed constraints on the authors. All but implied criticism was to be avoided and the author was to resist the temptation to be "wise after the event". Disclosure of facts about opponents was to be kept to small-type footnotes or in notes at the end of chapters, because introducing facts not known at the time was hindsight, which was unfair and un-scholarly. A conclusion could be written for reflection and comment but not for fault finding. For Edmonds, the constraints were necessary for some facts innocuously to be shown to the lay reader, yet be significant to experts reading between the lines. Henry Stacke, the first author of Military Operations: East Africa, Volume I died and Charles Horden, his replacement, wrote that Stacke had been frustrated by being obliged to The avoidance of hindsight was consistent with the education Edmonds received at the Staff College on the teaching of Carl von Clausewitz (1 June 1780 – 16 November 1831), that the critic must only use the information available to a commander and his motives, rather than introduce matters that the commander did not and could not know. Using knowledge after the event could show arrogance and a lack of critical judgement. In writing the first Gallipoli volume (1929), Cecil Aspinall-Oglander ignored the convention and on the draft copy, Edmonds called his account biased and lacking in the objective judgement necessary for an official historian. When Aspinall-Oglander refused to revise his text, Edmonds criticised him for a complaint which was occasionally levelled at Edmonds by the War Office and by several of the participants in the war. Despite the constraints that Edmonds imposed on the form of the official histories, Andrew Green called his