Tattoos & the AIF

[Prunesquallor]

Whilst looking for something else I chanced across this:

http://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/enlistment/index.asp

Enlistment standards

First World War

During the course of the First World War standards for age, minimum height and minimum chest measurement for enlistment in the AIF were altered.

On enlistment recruits were examined for BC or D tattooed on their skin. These were British army tattoos. BC stood for bad character and D for deserter.

Can anybody throw any light on this?

[David B]

I expect that if a man was discharged from the British Army in those days he would have been tattooed with either of these letters BC or D. A condition of the discharge, they were tough times in that era.

This of course, would indicate to the recruiting staff that these volunteers were not the nice, clean, healthy recruits that they were looking for and enlistment would be denied. Who wants a proven

trouble maker in your unit?

David

[headgardener]

David,

That's an interesting theory, and if I hadn't read it on the AWM website I would have dismissed it. But has anyone here ever heard of this before? I find it very hard to believe. I can't see how it would have prevented such a man from re-joining; it would have been easy enough to get such a tattoo covered over or incorporated into another tattoo.

I've seen records to men who had 'bad character' references, and there was no note of them being tattooed. There are also plenty of records of men being dishonorably discharged, having their buttons and epaulettes cut off, swords broken, drummed out onto the street, etc. But not tattooed for heavens sake!!!!!

Can anyone find anything that backs up this edict? I find it almost impossible to believe.

Edit; I have discovered that until the Cardwell Reforms of the 1870's it was commonplace for deserters to be branded (perhaps tattooed?) in order to prevent them from rejoining. But it looks like that went out in the 1870's. So what are the chances of a man who was dishonourably discharged in the 1870's (therefore born in the 1850's - at the latest) re-enlisting in the Australian army during WW1? I understand that prior to, and probably for some time after, the Cardwell Reforms army MO's would check for these marks during initial medical exams. The idea was to prevent a deserter from collecting an enlistment bounty and then deserting again. But this would have been completely redundant long before WW1. Whoever wrote that AWM article had read something from long before and extrapolated it to cover the WW1 period.

[David B]

HG,

Normally one has to take what is printed with a grain of salt, however as this comes from the AWM's files I expect that there may be a grain of truth in the statement - don't believe that they

would have listed such a contraversial statement without some substance. Probably requires further research. Who's to know that the following scenario m ay have occurred "Have a tatt and a discharge or

have five years in the slammer son. Which do you prefer? If the Cardwell reforms were carried out to the letter, as you say a man would have had to been born in the 1850's and would be in the order of 60

at least by 1914. It is also not impossible to authorities on discharging a man to bend the rules a bit as well. Looking a bit later on my g/father (a reservist) was born in 1868 (1866 according to the RA)

and he had no trouble being called up again in 1914.

David

[Ken S.]

Edit; I have discovered that until the Cardwell Reforms of the 1870's it was commonplace for deserters to be branded (perhaps tattooed?) in order to prevent them from rejoining. But it looks like that went out in the 1870's. So what are the chances of a man who was dishonourably discharged in the 1870's (therefore born in the 1850's - at the latest) re-enlisting in the Australian army during WW1? I understand that prior to, and probably for some time after, the Cardwell Reforms army MO's would check for these marks during initial medical exams. The idea was to prevent a deserter from collecting an enlistment bounty and then deserting again. But this would have been completely redundant long before WW1. Whoever wrote that AWM article had read something from long before and extrapolated it to cover the WW1 period.

Here's an example in case anyone's interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mark_of_a_deserter.jpg

[David B]

HG,

I have asked the AWM for an explanation and will get back to you when it arrives.

David

[Prunesquallor]

HG,

I have asked the AWM for an explanation and will get back to you when it arrives.

David

I have some contacts who are walking encyclopedias on Victoriania & all things military. I shall ask them to see if they can throw any light on this

[auchonvillerssomme]

No idea about the AIF but reading this Hansard it wasn't practised at this date, 1874.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1874/apr/13/observations#S3V0218P0_18740413_HOC_35

[auchonvillerssomme]

And this one from 1879 tells how it was done before being abolished

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1879/may/15/army-discipline-and-regulation-bill-bill#S3V0246P0_18790515_HOC_143

ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION BILL.— [bill 88.]HC Deb 15 May 1879 vol 246 cc407-75

Proceeding to another part of the question—the system of branding—it was supposed by many persons who knew nothing about the matter that officers were in the habit of binding a man hand-and-foot, throwing him upon his face, and branding him with a hot iron. But the truth was, the marking was done by the much more simple and painless process of tattooing, generally on the left breasts—the pain in that case being no more than would be felt on pricking a finger with a pin. When the House deprived itself of that means of checking fraudulent enlistment, the public purse by that act suffered to the extent of £320,000 a-year, and would continue to do so until a remedy was discovered.

Proceeding to another part of the question—the system of branding—it was supposed by many persons who knew nothing about the matter that officers were in the habit of binding a man hand-and-foot, throwing him upon his face, and branding him with a hot iron. But the truth was, the marking was done by the much more simple and painless process of tattooing, generally on the left breasts—the pain in that case being no more than would be felt on pricking a finger with a pin. When the House deprived itself of that means of checking fraudulent enlistment, the public purse by that act suffered to the extent of £320,000 a-year, and would continue to do so until a remedy was discovered.

[headgardener]

I'm thinking that checking for a tattoo or a 'brand' would have been a consideration (but only just - probably more of an historical hangover) at the time that the Australian and British armies were recruiting for the Boer War. But not for WW1.

According to the very interesting info that's been posted here by Auchonvillierssomme I'd suggest that a 'branded' recruit would have had to be almost 60 in 1914-15.

It's a great (though rather tragic) story, but not applicable to the particular era that the AWM is talking about.

[David B]

I will be interested - as, I hope others are, in reading the reply from the AWM. Hopefully it will arrive in the next day or two, will keep posted.

David

[derekb]

I will be interested - as, I hope others are, in reading the reply from the AWM. Hopefully it will arrive in the next day or two, will keep posted.

David

Hi Everyone,

Not sure of the date, but I have a book somewhere with a photograph of a "tattooing" device in the shape of a "D" that was used to brand/tattoo deserters by just charging with ink and applying it to the mans body..

Regards,

Derek.

[headgardener]

Ken S already posted this (post No. 5). Gruesome.

[Ken S.]

ARMY DESERTERS.

HC Deb 30 March 1897 vol 48 c116 116

§ MAJOR RASCH (Essex, S.E.)

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, according to the Return of the Inspector General of Recruiting, the number of deserters was 3,357 for last year; if his attention has been called to the case of the man who admitted enlisting and deserting from the East Yorkshire and fourteen other corps in succession; and whether, owing to the prevalence of this practice, he will consider the possibility of marking, by vaccination or otherwise, every officer and private on joining the Army?

§ MR. BRODRICK

The number of deserters in 1896 was only 1,819, which is a fairer criterion than the number of desertions. Such a case as that referred to is mentioned in a magazine as having occurred apparently 13 years ago, but the references are too vague to be traced. The practice of marking was deliberately abandoned; and as the loss by desertion is shown to be annually decreasing there is no present ground for seeking to re-introduce it.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1897/mar/30/army-deserters#S4V0048P0_18970330_HOC_117

[David B]

This is the slightly abbreviated text of a reply to my query to the AWM.

Ýou are quite correct in your belief that the practice of branding or tattoing was abolished under the Regularisation of the Armed Forces Act of

1871. Obviosuly it would therefore be highly unlikely that a recruit in 1914 would bear either the D or BC tattoo, nonetheless this stipulation

remained on the AIF recruiting forms used throughout the war of 1914-1918.

After examining the instruction manuals for medical officers I can only conclude that the forms themselves were based on outdated regulations;

as the instructions on carrying out a medical examination do not refer to a check for tattoos or brands of any kind. As with the majority of AIF forms

used in the First World War the AIF enlistment forms were reproductions or adaptations of British Army Forms. I presume these forms also include

references to the D and BC tattoos although I have not been able to source a form to confirm.

I hope that this information is of some assistance.

My comment: They probably roneo'd the original forms and never got to change the master copy.

David

[headgardener]

Very much the reply that I expected, but they're apparently conceding that this edict wasn't relevant while their website is highlighting it as being an intrinsic part a man's initial medical. Not only that, they're highlighting it as being of particular relevance to WW1 recruiting, which is plainly wrong.

Surely I'm not being unreasonably pedantic?

[David B]

Just slightly HG. Probably would have been much better if they had dropped that last sentence alltogether as it was irrelevant anyway, and then all of us would have been happy.

Cheers David

[Fromelles]

Belatedly came across this post while searching for something completely different. I found the AWM response interesting as they suggested the instruction manual for MOs doesn't mention inspecting for tattoos. 

This screenshot is from an AIF Attestation Form and clearly states what was required of MOs during the medical examination.

Dan