SteveE Posted 17 June , 2004 Share Posted 17 June , 2004 I'm not quite sure where to post this question so 'Other' probably seems the best bet. From medals awarded I know that a soldier I am researching enlisted into the 2nd Bn. Hampshire Regiment in 1902 and was called up as a Reservist in the 1st Bn. Hampshires in August 1914. Nothing strange there as it's a total of 12 years service which I have always understood was the length of service (7 years with the colours and 5 years on Army Reserve except if serving overseas when it becomes 8 and 4 respectively). However what is confusing me at present is the fact that in 1908 (when he got married) he was a civilian, no mention whatsoever of any military connection. Is it at all possible that in 1902 when he enlisted he could have signed on for a different term of service i.e. 5 years with the colours and 7 on Army Reserve. Does anybody have a definitive answer to this please? As always, any and all help gratefully received. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesmessenger Posted 18 June , 2004 Share Posted 18 June , 2004 Steve In 1902 a new engagement term was introduced - three years with the Colours and nine on the Reserve. It did not prove a success and was adjusted to nine and three in 1904 before reverting to seven and five in 1906. Your man was clearly on the three and nine engagement, which explains why he was a civilian in 1908. Charles M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyspiller Posted 18 June , 2004 Share Posted 18 June , 2004 Charles One of my men joined up in July 1904 and his paybook says 3 years with 9 in reserve. This has then been crossed out and amended to 8 & 4 respectively. What would your view on these changes be? Is it as Steve suggests, because he served overseas (India) or is there some other reason? Also, I do not understand why a man would have to serve longer if he was posted overseas. Regards Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveE Posted 18 June , 2004 Author Share Posted 18 June , 2004 Charles In 1902 a new engagement term was introduced - three years with the Colours and nine on the Reserve. It did not prove a success and was adjusted to nine and three in 1904 before reverting to seven and five in 1906. Your man was clearly on the three and nine engagement, which explains why he was a civilian in 1908. Many thanks for the above, certainly makes it clearer now. As a matter of interest when in 1902 did they introduce the change and was it still 7 and 5 years before that date? Regards Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 18 June , 2004 Share Posted 18 June , 2004 As a matter of interest when in 1902 did they introduce the change and was it still 7 and 5 years before that date? For our period of interest, 1881 terms were 7 and 5, May 1902: 3 and 9, July 1902: allowed extensions of 5 years to both sorts of enlistments, Nov 1904: 9 and 3 [!], late 1905: 2 and 10 for some large regiments, [a tentative idea which was not persisted with], Sep 1906: back to 7 and 5. Guards retained 3 and 9, as they had no routine foreign commitments. 3 and 9 useless for bulk of army, as uneconomical to send a soldier overseas, by the time he was trained [minimum 6 months] and got to India [minimum 3 weeks] it was nearly time to send him home. I have all the AOs. As for the extra year if overseas or if in a declared war, it was part of the contract. Many soldiers did their extra year "for King George" in India. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyspiller Posted 18 June , 2004 Share Posted 18 June , 2004 LB Thanks for the update Regards Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesmessenger Posted 18 June , 2004 Share Posted 18 June , 2004 There was a practical reason for the extra year overseas. The transport of drafts to units overseas and the return of time expired men to Britain took place only once a year for economic reasons, with the latter having to wait for their replacements to arrive so that the unit was kept up to strength. Those whose service would not end before they arrived home had to await the next ship home, which would be approximately a year later. Charles M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveE Posted 18 June , 2004 Author Share Posted 18 June , 2004 Charles & LB Many thanks for the clarification, it's given me some food for thought and in hindsight I think I've made some incorrect assumptions. I've assumed my man enlisted in 1902 because of entitlement to QSA Medal with clasps Transvaal, OFS, Cape Colony and South Africa 1902. However, I believe entitlement to the state clasps ended on 31 May 1902 and this coupled with the necessary period of training and the journey time to South Africa would mean he had to have enlisted before the change in May 1902 to the 3 & 9 years system. If this was the case then he must have been on the 7 and 5 years system (which would have finished in late 1913 or early 1914) and then to be a reservist in August 1914 he must have re-enlisted on the Section D reserve. Any comments please? Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyspiller Posted 19 June , 2004 Share Posted 19 June , 2004 Steve Very interesting. For years, I have been trying to work out why my man claimed the SA medals in his paybook. I posted the relevant pages here http://1914-1918.org/forum/index.php?showt...ndpost&p=116876 This says kings and Queens awarded Feb 1903. Any more info that you may have on the subject would be greatly appreciated. Regards Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyspiller Posted 24 June , 2004 Share Posted 24 June , 2004 Pals Can any of the other medal experts answer my questions? Regards Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyspiller Posted 2 July , 2004 Share Posted 2 July , 2004 Pals Still wondering if anybody can help me. Regards Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveE Posted 2 July , 2004 Author Share Posted 2 July , 2004 Andy Your man wouldn't have qualified for the Queen's and King's South Africa medals with the 2nd Bn. DWR who were in Burma at the time before moving to India in 1902 but 1st Bn. DWR would have qualified. His age suggests he may have been a boy soldier but I know absolutely nothing about how the enlistment worked for such 'soldiers'. Would he have had to enlist again when he reached 18? Only more questions I'm afraid. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 2 July , 2004 Share Posted 2 July , 2004 'Boys' were accepted 14 years to 17 and became 'men' on their 18th birthday [their real birthday, boys had to produce birth certificate, men did not]. Pay went up from 8d to a shilling a day. Not liable for Active Service until 19 with some exceptions for drummers etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveE Posted 2 July , 2004 Author Share Posted 2 July , 2004 LB If they had 'enlisted' at age 14, would that have counted towards their 7 and 5 years (or whatever system was working at the time) or would that only start when they became 'men'. Would any overseas service (i.e. as a drummer boy) have seen the award of the relevant campaign medal? Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveE Posted 2 July , 2004 Author Share Posted 2 July , 2004 Andy For years, I have been trying to work out why my man claimed the SA medals in his paybook I've had a look at the other thread and the paybook and unless my eyes are deceiving me there looks as if there is something not quite what it seems. I wouldn't mind some clarification as the scans are not too clear but it looks as if, under Section 5. Campaigns including actions, he's claiming service in South Africa 1901-1902 and then quotes actions Belmont and Spion Kop and something else I can't decipher. The action at Belmont occured in 1899 and Spion Kop in 1900 so I think he's pulled a fast one. From what I can see, IMHO he wasn't entitled to the medals he was claiming in his paybook. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyspiller Posted 7 July , 2004 Share Posted 7 July , 2004 Steve Firstly apologies for the delay in replying. To put all the known facts down 1) Walter was born Oct 1886. 2) Enlisted in DWR – July 1904 – occupation Clerk. 3) Claims previous actions as SA 1901 1902 Belmont, Spion Cop, Ladysmith. Mahmoud 1908 and Zakka Khel 1910. So from this info we can see that he is claiming quite a bit of action as a boy, but I know that it wasn’t with DWR. I guess that until I can find out more about this service I will be none the wiser – it just seems inconceivable to me that he would be allowed to invent such a history for himself – especially as his father was a policeman (at that time) with over 20 years service. Regards Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveE Posted 8 July , 2004 Author Share Posted 8 July , 2004 Andy Claims previous actions as SA 1901 1902 Belmont, Spion Cop, Ladysmith So from this info we can see that he is claiming quite a bit of action as a boy, but I know that it wasn’t with DWR. Very puzzling indeed. What I find strange is that he's claiming SA 1901 & 1902 when he was there from 1899 as can be seen from the other actions, unless they are the clasps to the King's South Africa Medal. Belmont 23 Nov 1899 Spion Kop 18-24 Jan 1900 Ladysmith (Defence of) Oct 29 1899-Feb 27 1900. Ladysmith (Relief of) Dec 15 1899-Feb 28 1900. I thought I'd check to see if there were any regiments that were involved in all three of the actions stated i.e. Belmont, Spion Kop and one of the Ladysmith actions and as far as I can see the answer is no, 2/3 but not the full set. I guess that until I can find out more about this service I will be none the wiser Does look that way I'm afraid. Happy hunting Steve 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