Casualty Figures: Scotland

[crickhollow]

In his book 'The Pity of War' Niall Ferguson (Table 35,p.299) has these figures (source is J. Winter 'Great War'):

Country ......................................................................Scotland................Britain & Ireland

Total Killed as a % of total mobilized ............................26.4 .......................11.8

Total killed as a % of males 15-49 .................................10.9 .........................6.3

Total Killed as a percentage of population.................... 3.1 .........................1.6

.........plus many other countries.

What is noticeable is the high casualty rate for Scotland compared to all other countries (except Turkey).

Assuming the data is correct, is there any explanation for the relatively high figures for Scotland?

Chris.

[Ron Clifton]

Hello crickhollow, and welcome to the Forum!

I suspect that the answer may be, in part, that all casualties in Scottish units may have been treated as Scots, which was almost certainly not the case. Whilst the units forming 51st (Highland) and 52nd (Lowland) Divisions were originally all locally raised TF units, I am not convinced that the men of the RFA, RE and other support services in 9th (Scottish) and 15th (Scottish) Divisions were all native Scots.

I have no doubt that the Scots fought hard, and it would not surprise me that their casualties were heavier than the average for other nationalities, but figures twice or more the averages are a bit dubious, and suggest that different definitions are being used. (Ferguson is himself a Scot, I understand.)

Ron

[Derek Robertson]

We can discuss figures until the cows come home. There is no one definitive number for Scotland's war dead.

However, Scotland's contribution was, per head of population, greater than any other of the home nations. More Scots, per head of population in the UK volunteered.

Why?

The belief by the Scottish population that they had a martial history to live up to. That service in the Services was far preferable to life in boring, humdrum civilian life.

And, when in battle, the Scots Divisions were looked upon by the Generals as being more dynamic, reliable and downright stubborn than any other of the rest (apart from the CEF and Anzacs).

Thus, Scotland ultimatley paid a higher price than the rest of Britain.

ps Ferguson is a Scot but his views on history need to be taken with a sizeable pinch of salt.

[phil andrade]

The belief by the Scottish population that they had a martial history to live up to.

That phrase " Glasgow Kiss" says a lot...perhaps they just like a fight !

Phil (PJA)

[truthergw]

Two of the set piece battles, Loos and Arras, had a high percentage of Scots in the assault battalions. Arras in particular was a very expensive battle with a high casualty rate. That may well have accounted for the higher figures.

[Piorun]

The data is relatively correct. Any suggestion that English are included in Scots figures would be balanced by the number of Scots in English regiments and, therefore is largely irrelevant to the discussion. As to the reasons, which are worthy of far greater examination than trite urban mythology, lies far back in the reasons for so many Scots joining the British Army before and after the pivotal effects of the Jacobite defeat in the mid 1700s. In other words, one has to go back to before the "martial history" to uncover its origin. The growth of the cash economy as opposed to subsistence living, harsh penalties, religious persecution, upper-class greed, the need for agricultural families to move on the females and younger sons . . . . . . . . all these played a part - as they did in other largely rural economies around the world. In Scotland, as in Ireland, the percentage affected by these factors was relatively, although not necessarily absolutely, higher than in England. In Ireland, they, too, went a -soldiering but, more often, went away. In Scotland, they ended up as the back-bone of British assault troops. But, like the Irish, they were expendable in the eyes of English commanders. Yours, Antony

[phil andrade]

But, like the Irish, they were expendable in the eyes of English commanders. Yours, Antony

Thank goodness, for Scotland's sake, then, that Haig was a Scot !

Phil (PJA)

[George Armstrong Custer]

Yes, I'm afraid Scots can't have it both ways, Antony. It can't be said on the one hand that the C-in-C who led the British Army to unprecedented victories in 1918 was a Scot, whilst at the same time trotting out the old whine that Scots casualties were all down to callous English generals. None of Haig's men wrere 'expendable' to him in the sense you mean. But that is not to say that he did not believe that spending lives along with other materiels of war was the inevitable cost of beating the main German Army in the field.

George

[Guest]

The stats are quite interesting...taking the casualty data from the Infantry as a large sample (Source: "British Regiments 1914-18" by Brig E A James) and the 1911 census data for male population , the casualties as a percentage of population are as follows:

Scotland: 336 Battalions.......................83,371 casualties................ male population in 1911: 2,308,839 ...... .casualties/male population: 3.61%

England & Wales: 1,372 Battalion......446,341 casualties..............male population in 1911: 17,445, 608.........casualties/male population: 2.56%

I have not been able to split out the Irish population separately or the Welsh population from England & Wales to compare regions of the British Isles. The England and Wales data strips out the KRRRC and Rifle Bde who recruited heavily in Ireland. Also I have not adjusted for the Liverpool Scottish, Liverpool Irish etc...but I think that this would not distort the general picture too much. Please note this is only the data for the Infanty.

That said, I am not sure that there is any hard evidence that 'English' commanders regarded the Scots or Irish as anything more expendable. They certainly joined in disproportionately larger numbers to their population bases, probably for economic and cultural reasons and therefore died in disproportionately higher numbers. The data for Scotland indicates they raised a far higher number of battalions per head of 10,000 population [1.45 v 0.78 Eng & Wales] so it stands to reason to expect to see higher casualty rates per 10,000 population. After conscription in 1916 the recruiting percentages/population would have been roughly equal. The fact that proportionally more Scots volunteered between 1914 and 1916 is the source of the 'high' casualty figures.

MG

[Derek Robertson]

Two of the set piece battles, Loos and Arras, had a high percentage of Scots in the assault battalions. Arras in particular was a very expensive battle with a high casualty rate.

Did someone not say that at Loos, six times as many Scots fought there than with Robert the Bruce at Bannockburn?

Arras was particularly tragic to the whole of Scotland - our casualties there were mind numbing.

Also, by the near end of the war, the 3 Scots Divisions in F&F were seen as "shock troops", alongside the CEF and ANZACS. And accordingly, they were used when the tougher nuts were needing cracked. So their casualties were higher.

[salesie]

MG's figures would appear to suggest that English/Welsh battalions were considered some 31% more "expendable" than Scottish one's i.e. 248 (dead?) per Scottish battalion, 325 (dead?) per English/Welsh one's. Statistics, eh! Why do I loathe them so much?

Cheers-salesie.

[phil andrade]

Presumably, Martin, the "casualties" you tabulate are actually, fatalities, and that additional hundreds of thousands ( probably a million and a half) were wounded, gassed or taken prisoner.

There is, I suspect, a theme in this - and other - wars, in so far as some regions of a particular nation sustain inordinately high loss of life. I believe that some of the areas of the Piedmont in Italy were conspicuous for suffering higher death rates than the rest of the country in the Great War, and I would be interested to find out wheter there were, similarly, parts of France that carried an especially high burden of mortality. The most outstanding example I have encountered is that of South Carolina in the American Civil War...in this case it's definitely attributable to secessionist fervour. The reasons for this sort of disparity in the Great War are not so readily apparent, and are, perhaps, too often accompanied by the sort of "whine" that George alludes to ; this is particlarly so in the case of Australians, who insist - contrary to statisitcal evidence - that they suffered uniquely high death rates.

Edit : I remember a heated discussion on this forum about German casualties in the Great War. One of the posts in that thread revealed how the state of Saxony was keen to commemorate its war dead, and inscribed on one of its memorials a compelling testimony to how much higher its death rate was compared with the German norm, and how fewer of its soldiers had been taken prisoner. The Germans , too, it apears, had their own versions of Scotland.

Phil (PJA)

[MikeMeech]

Hi All

From the distant past I seem to remember an old Scottish 'Joke' that Haig was popular because he was the 'Scottish warrior who killed the most Englishmen in their history'.

More seriously I do worry when conversation gets round to 'nationality' and 'who done better/sacrificed more etc'. Pride in 'Nation' and 'martial ability' is good, however, it can go overboard. Recently I was talking to someone who had been out to Gallipoli and was challanged by an Australian as to 'Why he as a Brit was there?' Presumably the Australian thought only ANZAC was involved! In WW2 we get message that British troops at Normandy and on the route Arnham and other battles just sat around 'drinking tea', which of course rather annoys veterans who were there.

Also there are the accusations that the 'English' commanders sacrificed the 'Scots, Irish, ANZACs Canadians etc' and sometimes it appears strange that English villages, towns and cities have War Memorials with lots of names on, one presumes 'drinking tea' was a dangerous occupation.

Martin Middlebrook dealt with the casualties of (British) Infantry Battalions in 'Your Country Needs You', Appendix 2, pages 162-170. On page 167 it has the 'Top 12' of highest average active service battalion deaths, it is headed by the Scots Guards and followed by; grenadier Guards, Irish Guards, Seaforth Highlanders, Northamptonshire, Gordon Highlanders, Rifle Brigade, Cameron Highlanders, Kings Own Scottish Boarderers, Coldstream Guards, The Buffs (East Kent) and the Black Watch. There are lots of caveats as to to why and he states all figures "...should be treated with caution."

On page 147 he also states the total wartime enlistments figures for the four 'home' countries, with the percentages of there estimated male population enlisted:

England - 4,006,158 (24 per cent), Scotland 557,618 (24 percent), Wales 272,924 (22 per cent), Ireland 134,020 (6 per cent).

Of course Ireland did not have conscription, this did mean of course that Irish Regiments towards the later part of the war became less 'Irish' with mainly 'English' conscripts being brought in to replace casualties. I believe there was a 'minor' protest by troops in these units when they were being referred to as 'Celtic' troops which they objected to as they were from various parts of England and believed they were being deliberately forgotten (although I cannot remember the source of that and am open to correction).

By the way my father served in the Gordon Highlanders in WW2 (he was one of the many Hampshiremen, Londoners and one man from the Irish Republic that served in the 8th Battalion that became the 100th Anti-Tank Regiment) also his mother (my grandmother) came from Cork and worked in munitions at Woolwich in the great War.

I hope this is of minor interest.

Mike

[crickhollow]

As a new member to the 'Great War Forum' I would like to thank you all for some very interesting observations.

The high proportion of 'Total Killed as a % of those mobilized' is the intriguing aspect. It suggests Scottish soldiers were individually brave / reckless (one or both perhaps?!) and also that Sottish regiments were involved to a greater extent than others in some unusually fierce fighting. This site summarises some of the actions involving Scottish regiments http://www.renegademiniatures.com/article10.htm and offers sources for further research.

Regards

Christopher

[Piorun]

I had not considered Haig's nationality of birth. It's irrelevant. Like many senior officers, Haig was a product of the Army establishment and this, largely, was an England-based and central-government-oriented career elite. I also don't hold to Haig being the author of every death on the Western Front. Many other commanders take responsibility for the use of specific troops in specific areas. General Wolfe summed up an early and pervasive British attitude to the Scots soldier when asked where the Army could find more troops; "The Highlands", he said. "They are a hardy, intrepid race and no great mischief if they fall". This attitude was carried in the Army down the years. My comments are not based on the nationality of individual commanders or soldiers, but on origin of regiment and, therefore, on Army perspectives as to their characteristics and usefulness. Personally, I don't "do" race, religion or politics unless hard data can prove them as factors. In this discussion, the main factor , I suggest, is Army attitudes - no matter their origin. Cheers all, Antony

[trajan]

It suggests Scottish soldiers were individually brave / reckless (one or both perhaps?!) and also that Sottish regiments were involved to a greater extent than others in some unusually fierce fighting.

Perhaps true on both counts? An analolgy is the WW2 Battle of Alamein. If I remember rightly (ready to be corrected!) Australian units made up less than 5% of the total 8th Army forces but suffered up to 29% of the casualties.

Trajan

[MikeMeech]

All

Of course your casualty rates can be due in part to the 'luck (or badluck) of war', for example being sent to a 'quiet' sector for a rest and being hit by a German offensive! Or the train your unit is travelling is caught up in a bombing attack before you reach the front line. Or in more modern warfare the Chinook you are in gets hit increasing your unit's casualties but other units 'get away with it' in their Chinook mission therefore their casualty rates are lower. There are many permutations in the whys and wherefores of casualty rates, you can have high casualties in what is supposed to be an 'easy' operation due to something 'going wrong' and minor casualties in a 'difficult' operation due to everything 'going right'. It may be nothing to do with fighting prowess, good training or nationality of troops involved. I think it is very hard to generalise and each operation has to be looked at individually to take into account the terrain, weather, opposition, planning, training, logistics, command etc as they can all differ on the same battlefield let alone in different theatres of war!

Mike

[Steven Broomfield]

In WW2 my Uncle Sid, Hampshire born and bred, ended up in the 5th Seaforth. He survived.

Taking Anthony's point, in the GW, would blokes like Uncle Sid have been kept to one side while the Highlanders were being machine-gunned at the behest of murderous English Generals? Similarly, would Jocks who'd wound up in, say, The Hampshire Regiment have been shoved over the top before the plough boys and farmers from England?

I must say I've seen some strange conspiracy theories, but equating what Wolfe may have said in the 18th Century with somewhat more enlightened industrial generals on the 20th Century seems a little far-fetched.

It might, of course, as has been implied, actually be a sign of pride that Scottish units were (apparently) selected for tough jobs, while the English formations and units sat and drank tea or played cricket. Effete lot, those English. Amazed they kept the hairy-a*sed Jocks in check all those years.

[dundeesown]

Amazed they kept the hairy-a*sed Jocks in check all those years[/

Did they ?

Gary.

[Steven Broomfield]

Humour us. We like to think we did

[George Armstrong Custer]

I don't "do" race, religion or politics unless hard data can prove them as factors.

Yet your earlier assertion that "like the Irish, [the Scots] were expendable in the eyes of English commanders" during the Great War is just such a statement Antony, and one unsupported by 'hard data'. Indeed, you had to go back to Wolfe to find an example of such a sentiment from an English general.

One other point I'd make is that your suggestion that, as part of the Army establishment, Haig was more English in outlook than Scots is wide of the mark. Haig was intensely proud of his Scottishness, but he was not parochial about it. However that certainly did not mean that he saw himself as part of an 'English establishment' - he had a wider world view founded upon the British Empire, and Great Britain and Scotland's place within that. His loyalty was to Scotland, to Great Britain of which she was a part, and to the British Empire of which Great Britain was the mother country. Haig viewed pride in these component parts as being complementary to each other, and the essence of the patriotism which brought together the nations of the British Empire to fight in the Great War - an entirely different proposition from Wolfe's nasty little piece of parochial racism from nearly 200 years earlier. What Haig certainly never saw himself as was as part of an 'English establishment'. Rather he saw himself as proudly Scottish within the panoply of the Union and the Empire. He expressly said so at St Andrews on 14 May 1919:

"I am a Scot, I have no desire to be an Englishman. No Englishman of my acquaintance ever confessed to me his secret chagrin that he was not born in Scotland. I know of no Australian, Canadian, New Zealander or South African who has any wish to be either an Englishman or a Scot. Yet they all came to fight for us, and proud as they rightly are of their own splendid lands they are proud too to be members of the great free Empire which we all hold in common."

George

[Moriaty]

Of course, there were a fair number of Scottish born who had emigrated to Australia, New Zealand and Canada and then joined up those forces.

Moriaty

[MikeMeech]

Yes Moriaty there were along with the Irish, Welsh and English born or come to that the sons of those people.

Indeed I seem to recall that many of the first Canadians to arrive had also seen service in the British Army before emigrating. The future 'Bomber' Harris served as a trooper in Africa as he had relatively recently emigrated there to farm. After service there he of course came back to the UK to serve in the RFC. It was a British Empire and there were many connections. Quite a few next of kin to Australian, Canadian and New Zealand Troops that were killed were in the UK so towns and villages were not only affected by 'British' but also the deaths in Dominion Forces.

Also as casualty rates varied over time, many units, including Scottish, suffering a very high rate of casualties in the 1914-16 period, so if this was due to bravery or recklessness does this mean if/when the casualty rates go down they are less brave/reckless?

Also reputations can change, was it not after 51st Highland took Beaumont Hamel in November 1916 that one Highlander said (to Harper): "Well, anyhow they canna' ca' us Harper's Duds ony mair."

Also does being in a particular formation make you 'good' unit. So being in the II ANZAC Corps at Messines 1917 (NZ Div, 3rd & 4th Australian Divs) may make you an 'elite' ANZAC soldier, but where does that leave the 25th (North Western) Div that was also part of the II ANZAC?

As the Canadian and Australian Divisions are considered 'elite shock' divisions in 1918, is this due just to their fighting prowess or also to the fact that they were still on the whole 12 Battalion divs instead of the 9 BNs of British Divisions, so had a 'bigger punch'?

There are lots of variables to consider in considering 'fighting capabilities' in the Great War.

Mike

[truthergw]

The casualty figures are there for all to see. How they are interpreted is another matter. The reasons for Irish or Scots having high casualties is rooted in a historically high percentage of young men joining the army as a profession. High unemployment at the outbreak of war also had its part to play. We might as well inquire into why city dwellers were more likely to volunteer than those who lived and worked in the country. Is there anyone who thinks townies are braver or more warlike than country boys?

[crickhollow]

Niall Ferguson in his interesting analysis of casualties and the concept of 'net body count', observes ( p.308) that , the Germans shaped their tactics around new ideas and technologies in a more effective manner than the Allies. Examples given are 'defence in depth', use of machine-gun nests , storm troopers even the 'creeping barrage'.

We know that it took bitter experience over a many years for the British Army to learn how to develop an effective attacking strategy against a well-defended enemy. I wonder if the rate of adoption of new techniques in the British Army varied amongst different regiments etc.? Could it be that the Scottish regiments were the last to be trained to use new techniques?

Just a thought...

C.