officers` servants

[PhilB]

A recent TV programme suggested that an officer`s servant`s duties consisted of getting his shaving water, cleaning his boots and kit, opening his hampers from Fortnum and Mason`s and generally doing the Paul Burrell bit. Is this a fair reflection of the servant`s duties? Did the Empire troops have a similar upstairs/downstairs set up? Did all officers have servants? Did senior officers have more than one? Phil B

[gord97138]

This may help with an answer to your question on an officer's servant's duties-

they were generally known as a "Batman" during WW1.

gordon

A batman was in British Army parlance an officer's uniformed servant or

orderly, supposedly taken on as a voluntary extra duty, for which the

officer paid for the service. In addition to his normal duties, the batman

was responsible for the officers clothing and kit and also in preparing and

serving meals. The duties varied depending on the officer's rank and role

and whether he was serving in barracks, on training or on operations. In

the trenches, a batman carried his personal weapon and often acted as a

bodyguard, while the officer carried out his duties as a platoon, company

or battalion commander. There is anecdotal evidence of continuing close

relationships between officers and their batmen and of officers going under

fire to rescue their batman and vice versa.

Senior officers on the staff and in command positions were entitled to a

personal staff, including a batman. It was usual to seek a volunteer from

the senior officer's regiment who was detached from the regiment and posted

to the senior officer's headquarters or unit.

[Desmond7]

Snippet from a file: The term 'servant' is used - I much prefer 'Batman' too. When it came to action, they were in the thick of it.

Context set :-

While the vast majority of casualties in the 12th Rifles were drawn from the rank and file, the percentage of officers killed and wounded was extreme.

‘Tommy’ Haughton - already mentioned by Rfn. Bobby Letters - was just one of many young subalterns who led their men into action that hot July morning.

Lt. Haughton had already sent several letters home to the next of kin of soldiers in his unit who had been killed or wounded in the months leading up to the Somme. Now it was his brother officers who had to tell young Haughton’s relatives in Cullybackey of how he met his death..

One such letter was sent by Lt. Robbie Hanson, a Larne man also serving with the 12th Btn.

He wrote to Lt. Haughton’s brother, Samuel:

Dear Sammy - I know Dempster Wilson has written to you about Tommy, but I just want to write a line and say how awfully sorry I am for you all. I have lost practically all my best friends, and can, perhaps, realise just a little what his own people are suffering. Tommy died like a hero leading his men in a grand charge for the German lines. I think he would have liked that death best. His name will never be forgotten by his friends in the battalion.

I went up the night before last with the adjutant to try and find him but we couldn't get out, the shelling was too heavy. The adjutant and I both got hit but not badly.

If I can find out any more or get up there again I'll let you know.

Lt. Robbie Hanson, 12th Royal Irish Rifles

It was not the only letter received by Sam Haughton. Another had come from a Ballymena soldier, Rfn. Jack Anderson of Princes Street who himself was wounded in the attack.

Anderson, who had worked in Kane’s Foundry in Harryville before the war, had been ‘batman’ to Lt. Haughton. On receipt of the letter, Sam Haughton felt moved to publish its contents in the ‘Ballymena Observer’.

He told the editor:-

“I quote freely from a letter which has drawn a veil of comfort over the great sorrow of our loss, in the hope that those same words may help many another aching heart throughout this countryside.

My brother's servant, Rfn. Jack Anderson, has written home from a hospital, Lonaghan Lodge near Sheffield and gives a wonderful account of what took place.

He was in my brother's platoon which met such deadly machine gun fire. Rfn. Anderson actually reached the German lines but, as he puts it, so few of his comrades were left that he immediately missed my brother.

Regardless of the ruthless fire he went back into the open and after searching for some time, found his officer. Bending over his master to bandage his wounds, he himself was hit and I now realise intensely with what justice Tommy often said that Anderson was 'one of the best'.

Having done everything he could and realising that all need for human aid was passed, Rfn. Anderson thought of his own hurts.

No medals or words can repay in full such things and we can but hope that the inner knowledge of real self sacrifice brings with it an ample measure of recompense.”

Jack Anderson was among many wounded who crawled across no-man’s land in an attempt to regain their own lines that day. Many fell exhausted into a shellholes and, in the words of one officer, took out their Bibles and family pictures and died.

Jack was obviously a tough customer, he reached the wire in front of the British trenches and , lying on his back, pulled himself under the barbs. On the brink of safety he must have fainted and was finally being brought into safety by a comrade when utterly exhausted.

How the world has changed ...

Des

[gord97138]

Des:

That was an absolutely BRILLIANT article and answer you gave on a "BATMAN"!

I agree with you on how the world has changed!

gordon

[Desmond7]

Thank you very much - I remember when I read those letters for the frist time how angry I was at the useof thename 'servant'/'master'!

I came from the same community as the servant. In fact my great - grandmother worked as a servant to a 'big house' family.

[Andrew P]

One of the Fremantle soldiers I'm researching was batman for a Lt Mitchell of the 51st Battalion AIF.

Before the war Hubert Hitchcock was a young theology student and it was thought that giving him the job of batman would keep him out of much of the danger.

After some time in this role, he wrote a letter to his company commander requesting to be relieved of his batman duties so he could participate in the next stunt.

So on April 24/25th 1918, he took part in the counter attack by the 13th Brigade on Villers Brettoneux. Unfortunately he didn't survive this attack and is buried in Adelaide Cemetery Villers Brettoneux.

[Muerrisch]

I believe you will find that in history the batman, with circumflex 'a', [corruption of bastman, one who looks after beasts] looked after the officer's horses, whereas his servant looked after him.

In the Guards, the officers had servants, the RSM had a batman.

In 2RWF servants [not usually known as batmen] were trained fighting soldiers, and acted as immediate bodyguard and devoted right hand man, sometimes killed, wounded or captured beside their officer. They received a personal allowance from their 'bloke'. It was not considered [nor should it be] demeaning to be a servant. If an officer was to command respect, he simply had to be looked after to a degree, because his own job involved, among other things, ensuring his men were fed, watered, feet inspected, kit accounted for , all before he himself could take a break. And in a cavalry unit, the horses were top of the pecking order, then men, then officers.

If you find this concept strange, those of you who have had personal responsibility for something as non-life-threatening as a Boy Scout Camp will understand the stresses and strains of being responsible for 30 people, all with needs, all with problems, all with personalities. To be asked to brew up and scrape the mud off your uniform because the CO was due in 3 minutes would have been a bit thick.

[Desmond7]

Langley - Have you also come across the term 'officer's orderly' being used?

It may be just me looking back from today's vantage point but I have the sneaking suspicion that men who were servants to officers had become uncomfortable with the term by the later years of the war.

In 1918 obituaries from the old papers etc I see a couple of references to a man being 'orderly to such and such'

Maybe another example of how the rank and file attitudes changed?

[PhilB]

Desmond7:- "When it came to action, they were in the thick of it."

Andrew P:- "he wrote a letter to his company commander requesting to be relieved of his batman duties so he could participate in the next stunt."

Are these contradictory, or did things vary from one unit to another?

LangleyB:- I have an old dictionary (1932) which has:-

bat - a pack saddle. bat-horse - A sumpter-horse carrying officers` baggage during a campaign.

batman - A man in charge of a bat-horse and its load; the military servant of a cavalry officer; a man in charge of the cookery utensils of a company of soldiers in the field.

More or less what you said! Does this indicate that batman was a cavalry name while servant was an infantry name?

As to whether the role of servant was demeaning - that`s a subject for a whole new string!

Thank you, gents, Phil B

[Raster Scanning]

The report below details a patrol carried out in September 1915, Pte Strange was Edgerton Hine's servant and certainly faced the same dangers as the other men.

20.9.15.

I have the honour to report that whilst on a patrol composed of myself, Sergeant Fountain, and Pte. A.E. Strange, we found at a distance of 45 yards (or thereabouts) from our front line trench immediately in front of "Birdcage Walk" a chalk pit or quarry, some 12 ft deep and 30 feet across running back 30-40 feet from the roadway.

Into this quarry, running from the right is a deep and narrow trench which crosses the roadway at the spot where these stands an old Artillery Limber. This trench seems to connect up with another trench leading back to the German main fire trench.

From the appearance of the place, I imagine it has been prepared to mass men in, in the event of the Germans making an attack on points 88 and 88.

The place was not occupied, but to the right and rear of it, there were some 10 or 12 snipers who kept up a fairly lively fire all the time.

Unfortunately I believe we were seen as Pte. Strange was shot through the head and died while we were bringing him back and I myself was slightly wounded, after which the firing was much heavier and very well directed. We were not hit again, and succeeded in regaining our lines in safety.

I wish to bring specially to notice the admirable manner in which Sgt. Fountain assisted in bringing Pte. Strange back, and when it became necessary going back to the fire trench and bringing out help under a persistent fire.

Trusting that this information may be of service, I have the honour to be,

Sir,

Your obedient Servant

S. Egerton Hine,

2nd. Lieut.

7th Bedford Regt.

[Raster Scanning]

This newspaper article (spread over 3 posts) gives a better picture of the bond formed between Officer and servant.

Cheers

[Raster Scanning]

Part 2

[Raster Scanning]

last part

[Muerrisch]

Some wonderful contributions, brings a lump to the throat.

And, yes, I do recall 'Officer's Orderly' but I suspect this not synonymous with batman/ servant.

The essence of 'orderly' was that it was a delegated duty, to be carried out for a day or a week or whatever. Hence: Orderly Officer of the Day. Sensible to give him a gofer, in modern parlance.

[Joe Sweeney]

Phil B.

There are several categories of Officers servants/Batmen. This should be looked at in both peace and war time definitions.

I have 1/2 dozen Pre-war Standing Orders from Irish Guards to Kings Own to Army Service Corps. Dates ranging from 1911 through 1912. Irish Gurads Amendments through 1914. In all these cases Officers had extra employed men as Servants and Grooms and no Batmen. Batmen were for Warrant ranks and NCO ranks usually down to Lance Serjeant. Officers Servants could be extra employed men from the ranks who were freely offered, with the right of refusal, that duty (all SO state if a man refuses he can no longer be employed/offered employment by any other officer). An Officer was also free to use civilian servants. Rules and regulations on officers servants are usually fairly well spelled out in each units Standing Orders and can be different from unit to unit.

Servants/Batmen in War were different. By most War Establishments, and Field Service Manuals, Batmen/servants were authorized in the field at the rate of 1 per each dismounted officer and officer with one mount. Two were authorized for Officers authorized two mounts. In an Infantry Battalion in 1914 this would be only the Lieut-Col. In 1915 the Battalion OC went from two to one Horses so he lost a Batman. WO and NCO's lost their Batmen completely for all units including the Guards (at least per regulations) on mobilization. All Batmen were to be armed and trained soldiers unlike peace time. By the War Establishments Officers Servants were called Batmen, but I'd hazard a guess that, particularly in Regular units, they continued to be called Servants/Grooms.

David is correct Orderlies and Servants/Batmen were two completely different duties. At least as defined with-in the Standing Orders of the units examined.

Joe Sweeney

[Muerrisch]

they were generally known as a "Batman" during WW1.

gordon

much of the above demonstrates that 'batman' was not much in use.

[PhilB]

I`m grateful for your erudite contributions, gents. I still haven`t settled in my mind what a servant`s daily routine would consist of. Was it a part time duty, with soldier training being included? Was it (as I suspect) a full time duty? In which case, where did the "real soldiering" come in? Why did his "bloke" see a need to pay him, as he was already being paid by the army?

The replies give me the impression that the officer`s servant was virtually a gentleman`s servant/valet but in uniform, and on army pay.

Finally, was Albert Rochester right in suggesting they (or many of them) be abolished? (See string in "Soldiers") . Thanks for your interest. Phil B

[Joe Sweeney]

Phil B.

Pre-War Officers Servants and Grooms were paid at the option of the Officer. No pay and I think all soldiers would likely refuse.

Irish Guards option was 5s or 10s a week whether or not Civilian Clothes were provided. Pay was provided out of the Officers pay and not by the War Office. This was in addition to their Regimental Pay. If a Civilian Servant was employed pay was up to the Officer Servant arrangements. The Soldier was excused duties while a servant. His duties were like a valet, he would clean, fetch and if the Officer was married look after the family quarters. In the case of the Kings Own if an Officer was on leave for 3 or more days the soldier would be returned to duty, but allowed 24 hours prior to the Officers return to clean his "Masters" Quarters.

Batman for WO and NCO's provide more of an extra hand to the WO or NCO. He too would clean but, in the case of the Irish Guards, only the Serjeant Major and Pay Serjeants Batmen were excussed fatigues. These men too had to be paid. In the case of the Irish Guards Pay Serjeants batman at 3s a week, Serjeants at 2s a week etc. Pay either came from the WO or NCO or through supplementary Regimental/Mess funds.

In war time I could find no particular pay scale for men employed as Servants/Batmen. I would again hazard a guess that they would receive gratuities from their "Masters" as it was in the rights of any soldier to refuse duties as a servant or batman with no penalty.

Joe Sweeney

[Annette Burgoyne]

In 2RWF servants [not usually known as batmen] were trained fighting soldiers, and acted as immediate bodyguard and devoted right hand man

Captain Dugdale, M.C., was the 6/K.S.L.I. intelligence officer, and went on patrols, his Batman Jack Whittington always went with. Jack was Dugdale's devoted right hand man, and when Dugdale moved to Brigade Staff, Jack went too.

Dugdale, dedicated his book to Jack Whittington, evan thou Jack was his servant, fetching and carrying for him, I think Dugdale saw him as a friend two people who shared the same dangers, the same discomforts and same jokes.

Annette

[Desmond7]

I was reading up on this subject again today - in a nice warm bath. Weather here awful NI.

Anyway - here we go:-

Servants seems to be the most common term used. However, the relationship was much different from what that subservient word would, on the surface at least, indicate to modern readers.

Officers often formed very close attachments to and friendships with their soldier-servants. Plenty of examples of that in the above posts.

And there is ample evidence that the fondness was not just a one-way affair. Thus we have examples of wounded servants writing to the mothers of their 'missing' officers from hospital seeking the latest information and extolling the virtues of the said officer. "The best lad in the army ..." being one touching reference from, I presume, an older servant about his younger master.

Of course, if an officer treated his servant like dirt - and there does not seem a great deal of evidence to this effect - he could hardly expect much respect in return.

I think that my understanding of the 'class' relationship between soldier/servant and officer/master is now much better largely due to the spur which this post and all the contributors to it have given me.

To sum up - the servant was just that:- a personal manservant to 'his' officer; he was also a fighting soldier and many of these 'teams' died together because of their bond.

Hope I'm making sense, Des.

[Charles Fair]

I have just had a look through my grandfather's wartime letters, written between July 1915 and January 1918. My grandfather was an officer in the 1/19th London Regt, 47 Div, and was 2 i/c (and for 6 months acting CO) for most of this period. He tends to use 'servant' more often than 'orderly' (about 60:40) and never used 'batman'. Two examples:

He wrote on 19 September 1916, just after 47 Division had captured High Wood:

"We lost heavily in officers killed and I lost my servant - Prewer. The last thing he ever did was to bring me (unasked) some supper. The Regiment did simply magnificently and were really worthy of Hamilton and his training."

In 1920 he visited the battlefield and wrote:

"We wandered about waist-high in the undergrowth gradually finding the trenches, and then I saw some graves outside the wood, and on going over to them I found they were mostly those of officers and men in the regiment. Captains Henderson, Gauld and Davis; Lieutenants Pleydell-Bouverie, Cooper and Rowson; R.S.M. Ridout, C.S.M. Bolton, Sergeant Deighton, Corporal Toole, Privates Whybrow and Prewer (the latter my own orderly) were some of the many names I saw. For me it was I think the most touching moment of the week."

There are also a couple of references to my great-aunts sending parcels to whichever man was his orderly at the time.

Pte Frederick Prewer is buried along with the other men mentioned above in the plot just inside the entrance to London Cemetery. His details from the CWGC site are here: Pte F Prewer, 19th London Regt. This plot of graves in particular never fails to bring a lump to the throat.

[JulianB]

Further to this discussion, I, like Charles, have gone through my grandfathers letters. He was a MGC officer and arrived at the front in June 1916. The following examples perhaps illustrate something of officer’s cares and concerns and ‘servant’s’ duties. Note that the terms ‘servant’ and ‘batman’ are both used, though the former slightly m,ore often. One of the first letters he wrote includes:

“The officer whom I am taking over from is still here, & we are sharing a dugout till he goes. He has an excellent servant who cooks well. My man is good but is a novice, as yet, at cooking tho' he is picking it up quickly.”

In July 1916 he described his dugout noting that “Spencer, my batman” slept in the corner: “He always stays in my dugout when I am away, to take messages for me etc.”

Regarding Spencer’s cooking he notes (apropos a meal he had elsewhere): “You can't expect a solic. clerk (my batman) to make silk purses out of sow's lugs in the way of food, tho' he is learning v. well.” And, when he had a sore throat, that: “Spencer my batman has persuaded me to eat some Maconochie - or ration stew in tins, “ but “We sometimes get fresh (!) meat in the trenches. Spencer does all my cooking in the trenches.”

Another ‘duty’ seems to be collecting laundry: “There is a laundry where my servant takes my clothes” and “My washing is done in some little village laundry. The last time Spencer went for it the place had been shelled & the people vanished, but a few days later when I sent him down fr the trenches, he found my stuff had been left a few doors away.”

However, in bad conditions …: “Am sending just a few things to be washed. Owing to the fact that we are so far from inhabitants who at other places washed for us - there are no people except troops for miles & miles as all their country was in the hands of the Hun before; as the weather is too bad for my servant to wash them, it is the only way I can get them washed. The things I have on are my last change so if they come back as soon as poss. I will be glad.” (Remarkable to think how good the post was in those days !)

The final entry regarding Spencer is a sad one: “Just now I am very fed up - poor Spencer has been killed. He has been with me every day since I have been out, & a very cheerf. willing, good fellow he was. He was killed instantaneously by a bit of shell going thro' his back into his heart region. The shell burst just by the kitchen dugout door in our headquarters in the line.” Pte 29122 William Henry Spencer, from Southport is recorded by the CWGC as KIA. 19.1.17 aged 26. There is a photograph of him in my grandfather’s album.

He had also written in October 1916: “There is a man from the company who was wounded up there in hospital at Wallasey - he was Shaw's servant. He, if he is still there, might be able to tell you more than I may put in a letter. His name is Private T. Bridgewater - address:- Ward B7. New Town Hall, Milt. Hospl. Wallasey.”

Shaw was 2/Lt FL Shaw, his servant was thus probably the Charles T Bridgewater Pte 30359, MGC. He’s the only MGC T.Bridgewater on MIC online, moreover his number is similar to others in the Company.

There is no record as to what happened between Spencer’s death and March 1917 when he wrote: “I have got Mallender for a servant now - he used to be a valet. He is quite good as a servant. He was in my section ab initio.” Lastly, after his capture in March 1918, my grandfather eventually wrote home enquiring, amongst other things: “I wonder how Mallender my batman got on: I forget his initial or number but if you dropped a line to him addsd. Pte M- it would prob. find him as it is not a common name.” There is also a photograph of Mallender. I’m not yet sure of his identity as the seven listed in CWGC all died before March 1918.

Regarding duties, a passage in a letter from my great-uncle at Grantham in late 1918 reads: “When we came up here we had no batmen & the men who were sent to us had never done the job before, so as soon as mine turned up I gave him a timetable of all he should do, something like this;-

Before 8 AM - clean buttons boots etc

8 AM bring water, waken me etc

Etc

so now I have almost an ideal servant with no vices, & all his sins those of omission, things which I have forgotten to put on the list.”

In conclusion I would say that although class differences were a fact of life in the period of the 1WW, officers and servants had a mutual respect whilst they were all engaged in a job that had to be done.

Finally, I have heard of other (probably aristocratic) officers who took their butler / groom / footman with them on war service, merely swapping livery for khaki.

[PhilB]

I am grateful for your replies, gents. Does anyone have a reference to a servant`s eye view of things? Phil B

[Desmond7]

Here's an example ...

Dear Mrs. Russell

I am almost afraid to write you concerning your son Lt. J. W.B. Russell -9th Btn. Duke of Wellington's Regt. - but I would like to know how he fared in our scrap before Mametz Wood as I was knocked out early on, a wound in the neck and thigh you see.

I have been servant to him for a long time and I have been in three fights and never a better lad or soldier ever stepped on a field and what I say every word true, any lad in the batt. would follow him and was respected by all and I may add when I packed his fighting kit I put in a little blue testament. So just say nothing more than wounded and oblige.

I remain yours,

S. Woodhead.

Pte. Sam Woodhead enquires after his officer. Lt. Russell had been killed in July 1916 on the Somme.

This is word for word from a reproduced picture of the original letter - it's not my typing!

Published in 'Facing Armageddon' Hugh Cecil and Peter Liddle - in a chapter by Gary Sheffield on 'Offcier-man relations, discipline and morale in the British Army of the Great War.'

Sorry to keep harping on about this book - but it is brilliant.

Des

[Muerrisch]

This thread is a good example of what this forum does so well, and I commend it to the House.