PJF Posted 14 February , 2003 Share Posted 14 February , 2003 On holiday last year in the Shetland Islands we were told that as a percentage of the population the Shetland islands suffered the highest rate of casualties of anywhere in the Uk during WW1. Can anyone confirm this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clive Harris Posted 19 February , 2003 Share Posted 19 February , 2003 It may be true, I know Norfolk lays claim to a similar dubious honour, the national average was that each parish suffered 1 in 57 men killed in the Great War, in Norfolk this was as high as 1 in 42. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff. Hobson Posted 19 February , 2003 Share Posted 19 February , 2003 To the Statiscians. I was intrigued by what is said to be the national average, that each Parish suffered 1 in 57 killed. I don't know how many men actually served in 1914/18 but in all there were 704,803 killed ( Central Statistics Office 1920.) but I imagine the percentage would have been higher than 1 in 57 although this is probably not a proper comparison. In my Parish in which the Rolls of Honour of those who served still exist, the total who served numbered 370 of these 90 ( 1 in 4) were killed or died of wounds this left me wondering whether the Rolls were complete. I assume they must be because none of those killed are missing from the Rolls. I post this because I know there are wiser heads on this forum than mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clive Harris Posted 20 February , 2003 Share Posted 20 February , 2003 I believe the national average is drawn not from only those who serve but the male population in each village as per the parish rolls, that said it would include all those over and under the age of military service, this would then make the figure 1 in 57 more likely I guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob carman Posted 24 February , 2003 Share Posted 24 February , 2003 In his foreward to the parish-by-parish roll of honour for Norfolk, H. Rider Haggard gave a mortality rate for the UK of 1/57 and for the county as 1/42. Haggard did however complicate matters by saying that the rates were one of every 57 or 42 "souls" without bothering to define "souls". He also uses "England" and "the UK" in a way that suggests he regarded them as interchangeable. Regards, Rob Carman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CROONAERT Posted 24 February , 2003 Share Posted 24 February , 2003 Just as a side note. There is a village/town in Brittany from which a number of soldiers (20 odd)went to the war.All came safely home without so much as a single wound between them. Apparently,it's the only village in France that had serving members,that doesn't have a war memorial.Is this a record in it's own right? Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stoner Posted 24 February , 2003 Share Posted 24 February , 2003 To follow on with Dave's reply, I believe there are only 3 "Thankful villages"? in the UK, were all the men who served during the War returned. I can't remember the full details but I believe that one of them is called either Upper, or Lower Slaughter, in Gloucestershire! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CROONAERT Posted 25 February , 2003 Share Posted 25 February , 2003 As an addenda to my previous post. The village in Brittany DOES actually have a war memorial.It's unique in the fact that it lists all those who went to war from the village (all of whom returned). Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Birch Posted 25 February , 2003 Share Posted 25 February , 2003 Huge numbers of men and women who served did not actually fight. I read somewhere that it was estimated that for every front line soldier there were 9 other men and women involved in his logistical/medical support. (Staff, ASC, Labour Battalions, RAMC, Nurses, VADs, Home Defence etc. etc.) I don't know what the figures are, but if one considers the number of men killed from the total of A1 Category men, then I suspect it would be considerably higher, probably greater than 1 in 10. Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Birch Posted 25 February , 2003 Share Posted 25 February , 2003 Before someone indignantly leaps to the defence of the supporting personel, I will qualify my last post by saying that of course there were exceptions, particularly in the RAMC where Battalion MO's and medical orderlies were often in the thick of the fighting, but generally the majority of people in these Corps operated behind the lines, and whilst at times within range of the guns, statistically they were a lot less likely to be killed than the front line troops. Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Morgan Posted 25 February , 2003 Share Posted 25 February , 2003 Bringing the subject back to Scotland, I read somewhere (one of those "well known facts" that you can't remember actually learning) that Scotland suffered the highest losses of any nation which took part in the war, on the basis of the number of men killed or died taken as a percentage of the total male population of the country. This is the same kind of statistical claim made for the Shetlands, as described by PJF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CROONAERT Posted 25 February , 2003 Share Posted 25 February , 2003 To follow on with Dave's reply, I believe there are only 3 "Thankful villages"? in the UK, were all the men who served during the War returned. I can't remember the full details but I believe that one of them is called either Upper, or Lower Slaughter, in Gloucestershire! I've heard of this one before.I think it's Upper Slaughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedley Malloch Posted 25 February , 2003 Share Posted 25 February , 2003 Interesting that the two contenders, Shetland and Norfolk, were both rural areas. One view is that population was concentrated in rural areas pre-1914. There is another view that casualties were heaviest in rural areas because that is where the British Army prefered to recruit; they wanted soldiers who were not 'contaminated' by what were seen as the twin 'evils' of trades unionism and the newly-emerging Labour Party. Soldiers drawn from rural areas would be more malleable and respectful of the officer class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw Posted 25 February , 2003 Share Posted 25 February , 2003 Approx. 700,000 dead does support 1 in 57 as a proportion of the total U.K population - around 40,000,000 early in the century. Obviously a much greater proportion of men of fighting age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJF Posted 25 February , 2003 Author Share Posted 25 February , 2003 Thanks for the responses to my original post. I'm trying to find out more details re actual rates in shetland and will post an update. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin B Posted 26 February , 2003 Share Posted 26 February , 2003 I used to work in South Shields, up on Tyne Side, and was told on a number of occasions that this town had lost more men as a percentage of its population than any other in the Empire. The bulk of these casualties being in the Royal and Merchant navies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Gordon Posted 27 February , 2003 Share Posted 27 February , 2003 Further to the above may I say that in the far flung days of my youth I was told, on passing through the villages of Ardeonaig or Ardtalnaig on the South side of Loch Tay (can't remember which) that every man who enlisted from that district, or again it may have been all men full stop, were killed. I seem to remember that I also read this in H.V. Morton's famous (in the 1930s) travel book "In Search of Scotland" But again I could be wrong !. Regards Jim Gordon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted 3 March , 2003 Share Posted 3 March , 2003 The Shetland Island claim may be true, mostly Naval losses. 557,000 Scots enlisted of whom 145000 died. (sources: Scottish National War Memorial, Edinburgh Castle and Royal British Legion Scotland) this is 26% of those who served. These figures do not include Scots who died in the Australian and Canadian Forces. My local Memorial lists several men who were in the AIF or CEF and emmigrated in the early 1900s. Serbia, Romania and Turkey had higher percentages although disease played a greater part in the casualty rates. Aye Malcolm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brownag Posted 4 March , 2003 Share Posted 4 March , 2003 PJF I have a list of Scottish Rolls of Honour from the SMHS magazine 'Dispatch' from several years ago. In it it lists 'The Shetland Roll of Honour and Service'. No publishers, authors etc. details are given, but from the title I would imagine it would give figures for total numbers served and total numbers killed. From the 1911 census figures it would be a straightforward matter of getting your percentages. Now all you've got to do is track down a copy of this Roll of Honour!! Cheers Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now