Day by Day with the Russian Army, 1914-15 — Text and Context

Proximity and Routine Under Fire

Pares repeatedly emphasizes the startling closeness of enemy positions. At one advanced post, the distance between trenches is just sixty yards, and opposing sentries often face each other at twenty-five yards. This proximity shapes daily routines: soldiers use mirrors to observe from cover, and any head appearing above an embrasure draws an immediate volley. Pares notes that artillery is less effective at such short ranges, replaced by a constant shower of mostly explosive bullets and bomb-throwing machines improvised from Austrian shells. Inside the earth hut, the roof is vulnerable to shrapnel, and rockets from the enemy light up the door at night. Yet the accommodation is described as first-rate, and sleep comes easily—a contrast that underscores how quickly extreme conditions become ordinary.

Improvisation and the Human Element

The diary records numerous small acts of invention and adaptation. Soldiers craft mirrors for periscope-like viewing; one man builds a bomb-throwing device from a captured shell and fires it off in front of Pares, the officer casually calling out to two exposed soldiers, “Here, Beard and Black Collar, get out of the way!” The Red Cross flying column from the Union of Russian Towns operates under fire, and Pares meets a student on horseback taking wounded to the rear. The chief scout, a young Muslim volunteer with a determined face, displays complete ease and indifference while explaining the risks of fur-lined coats. These details reveal a war fought not by abstract armies but by individuals making do with what is at hand.

The Observer’s Position and Its Limits

Pares is explicit about his role: he holds a written permit from General Radko Dmitriev to visit any part of the firing line, but his instructions do not include telegraphing, and his diary notes take a month or more to reach England. He is attached to the Red Cross, working in transport and forward hospitals, and is entertained with hospitality. This position grants him access—he crosses bridges under fire, walks along fully occupied front lines, and shares quarters with officers—but also frames his account as that of a guest rather than a combatant. The diary does not claim to present a complete picture of the war; it offers what one observer saw, heard, and experienced, filtered through the constraints of his assignment and the time lag of communication.

Pares’s diary is best read as a document of witness rather than analysis. The entries gain value from their specificity—the names of villages, the distances between trenches, the texture of daily risk. Readers should note that the excerpts cover only a portion of the full text; the diary likely includes many more such episodes across different sectors and seasons. The author’s preface indicates he had long sought closer relations between England and Russia, and this perspective colors his account without overwhelming it. For those interested in the Eastern Front’s human scale, Pares provides a rare, grounded record.

That rain fell all afternoon while I followed Pares through the muddy Russian lines, his steady, weary notations of men and trenches. When I closed it, the thought of another front crept in—unbidden, quiet. I pulled down The Somme, Volume 1. The First Battle of the Somme (1916-1917) (Albert, Bapaume, Péronne) — Inside the Classic, and the rain seemed to fall on both fields at once.