Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

WWI Battle Honours


Guest

Recommended Posts

Steve

Many thanks for you long and detailed post. I greatly appreciate all the effort that you are putting into this. It is very educational and as a 'deep diver' I find the detail fascinating.

Have you changed your view since post No.37? On post No. 37 you were absolutely emphatic that battle honours were only awarded at Regimental level [your emphasis in bold]. Unless I misunderstand your latest post, I hope that we are finally in agreement that this was not universal and we can agree at least the the 20 or so Battalions of the London Regiment were awarded battle honours at a battalion level, not a Regimental level. [my emphasis].

I have been at the National Archives to do some research which I will post when it is complete. I have examples outside the London Regiment too, so to avoid any misunderstanding at this stage. I continue to politely and completely disagree with your view that "...only Battle Honours awarded to individual battalions are for those belonging to the London Regiment with each battalion being treated as a separate entity, all other Honours were issued solely on a Regimental basis" and later "the London Regiment battalions, for whatever reason, were the exception to the rule, no battalions of any other Regiment were treated similarly in being issued individual Battle Honours according to Army Orders etc". In my view the London Regt was not [my emphasis] the only exception. There are other Territorial units that have exemptions.

There was no date limit to my original question. It was about WWI battle honours, regardless of when they were recognised or awarded. I think we can consider subsequent changes, because if the universal rule applied, surely this would not matter, as all the battalions of amalgamated units would carry the same battle honours. Amalgamated units usually were presented with new colours. But we find they don't always show the same battle honours. The 6th and 7th Bns of the Royal West Surrey regt are battalions within a single Regiment. When the 22nd and 24th London were absorbed into these units, if the 'universal rule' applied it would have been easier to just have these Bns acknowledge the same battle honours as all the other battalions within the regiment. (They fought in at least one of the engagements on the West Surrey's battle honours). They didn't. They could have chosen to add MACEDONIA 1916 to their battle honours and apply this to every battalion. They didn't. They allowed 2 battalions to recognise different battle honours to the rest of the Regiment.

While there is a blanket Army Order from 1922, there are many subsequent Army Orders right up to the 1950s making changes or additions. In fairness it would be better to say there was a general rule, but there were many minor additional exemptions or changes, and a large general exemption for many Territorial battalions.

All this interesting debate aside. I still am very interested to know which Battalion was awarded (atributed/won, was responsible for, whatever suits the reader) the most number of battle honours, as per the few lists on my previous post - which was the original subject of this thread.

Regards MG

P.S. One thing that is coming out of this is how difficult it is to find out about battalions receiving their colours and laying them up. There is a lot of evidence that some Bns were disbanded before they had chance to receive their colours. Many unit histories have very little on the history of the battalion after the end of the war - usually a few pages as a postscript. Big gaps in time-lines and lots of colours seem to be untraceable which is really quite sad. Some histories don't even mention them. Very surprising. MG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Steve was correct, a few posts ago. The Regiment is represented by one or more battalions in a battle. The honour is awarded to the Regiment. Battalions could be created, amalgamated and disbanded. The regiment carried on. As just one example of my thinking, The Black Watch had 4 battalions listed in OOB for Loos 1915. ( O.H.) That would be one battle honour I believe. One of the battalions, the 1/5th, amalgamated shortly afterwards with 1/4th, to be come the 4/5th Black Watch. This would have no affect on the battle honours awarded since they went to the Regiment. Incidentally, in Capt James' little book of Battles, engagements etc., he lists divisions as having taken part, not regiments and certainly not battalions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Battle Honours are awarded to and carried by Regiments, but the basis for each battle honour would be the battlefield actions of one (or more) individual battalions. To establish that a Regiment was entitled to a battle honour would require the regimental committee to first determine that any one of its battalions in the field earned that honour. This would have had to be done for each battalion fielded, and then the composite lists (with appropriate authorities and publication in Army Orders) become the Regimental battle honours list. Depending on the number of battalions fielded, and their individual participation in each battle, each battle honour carried by a regiment may represent one or more unit actions/engagements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this interesting debate aside. I still am very interested to know which Battalion was awarded (atributed/won, was responsible for, whatever suits the reader) the most number of battle honours, as per the few lists on my previous post - which was the original subject of this thread.

Just out of curiosity, why ...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just out of curiosity, why ...?

Because I am researching material on Suvla Bay in Gallipoli, a campaign that involved the 29th Division who fought at Gallipoli and the Western Front. I hope to illustrate that a battalion or battalions of the 29th Div saw more action* than any other in WWI. There is no way to check this easily and it is extremely important to establish if this is right. The reason behind this is that the historiography of WWI generally considers Gallipoli to have been a side show. For example, a recent publication argued that nothing outside the Western Front compared in terms of the intensity and hardship of the Western Front. The hard numbers of the Gallipoli campaign in terms of Total Casualties/troops committed or Battle casualties/Troops Committed would indicate that Gallipoli, and the first 2 weeks of Suvla Bay in particular would be among the most intense fighting of WWI, especially among the 29th Div and the Kitchener battalions of the 11th and 10th Divs (who were first used en masse in the offensive role at Suvla Bay). An Army Corps was effectively destroyed in just 2 weeks.

There are many personal accounts of 29th Div men who fought at Gallipoli and the Western Front, and most considered that Gallipoli was much harder - a view that is not in the mainstream of the historiography of WWI. If my hunch is right that one or more of the Regular Battalions of the 29th Divs saw more action than any other unit, then their view that Gallipoli was a far harder test than the Western Front is significantly reinforced. I did not want to bias any response with my assumptions. I am aslo guessing that the nearest contenders will be BEF battalions.

One could argue that this kind of measure is subjective - how does one compare fighting on different fronts? Is is a valid measure? ... but the men did compare their experiences and their view has credibility if one can demonstrate that they fought in more actions than any other unit. I know of no other way to attempt to illustrate who saw the greatest amount of action. It is rather subjective but as a starting point it will open up avenues for more detailed research and perhaps give their lost voices a greater audience. I have transcribed the War Diaries of the Bns of the 29th, 10th and 11th Divs and many dozens of personal diaries - pushing well over 200 so far, so I am familiar with these units in minute detail, but my detailed understanding of units that fought exclusively on the Western Front and in particular the BEF is significantly lower

That is why I am pursuing this 'battle honour' question. It has nothing to do with Colours or Army Orders a etc which are interesting as an offshoot to the original inquiry, but not central to what I am looking for. I am sure when the book "The Official Names of the Battles and Other Military Engagements Fought by the Military Forces of the British Empire During the Great War 1914-1919" arrives I will get a better idea. The main obstacle is that the Regimental battle honours are a catch all. For example, anyone looking at the Regimental battle honours of the DLI might be forgiven thinking the 1st Bn DLI fought all over France. They didn't, they spent the whole of the war in India, and only got Afghanistan 1919 as a battle honour as late as 1926. If I had a decomposition of the battle honours by battalion, I could quickly identify those battalions that might be considered as units that saw the most amount of action in WWI, and the memoirs of the men who fought throughout would be worth seeking out and comparing with the men of the 29th Div who survived the whole war.... to see how their experiences compared. I am assuming that the experinces of the non 29th Div will be just as harrowing, and might serve to frame the experiences of the 29th Div at Gallipoli.

Unfortunately, the early Regimental histories tend to be very biased. The intro on the Manchester Regt's battle honours posted on the bottom left of post No. 50 is a very good illustration of this. Anyone reading it would think that no Regiment saw more action..." No British unit emerged from the Great War with greater honour...countless battlefields...every front... on practically every battlefield...." Is a bold claim that warrants closer analysis. If honour was measured in VCs for example**, the Lancashire Fusiliers (31 Bns) might have a strong point to the first claim (17 VCs against the Manchester's 11 VCs), ..."countless battlefields"? I think they were counted..... "every front"? really?......"on practically every battlefield"? There were 80 battle honours awarded for France and Flanders alone, 33 for Italy, 50 in Macedonia, 53 in Gallipoli, 41 in Palestine and 51 in Mesopotamia... so over 300 (not counting all the other 'sideshows' such as Russia, East Africa, etc) recognised battle honours from these fronts alone, so for the Manchester Regt's historian to make the claim that they fought on 'practically every battlefield' is just a nonsense.

I don't want to belittle the fine achievements of this Regiment, but their historian seems to be a little over enthusiastic with his claims and sense of proportion. The Manchesters (all 44 Bns) had 72 battle honours between them, so they participated in somewhat fewer than the 23% of the Battlefields recognised in the short list above, and probably less than 20% of all WWI battles. This also compares to 81 for the Hampshire Regt (with 'only' 33 Bns) but this does not tell us if, say, a battalion of the Essex Regt saw more action than any of the Manchesters' or the Hampshires' battalions. In defence of the Manchester Regt's historian, he is typical of the age, but this poses huge hurdles for researchers trying to even get a slight feel of which unit(s) saw the most action in WWI.

A rather long winded explanation, but I hope it helps you understand the origin. I thought the original post would flush out a quick answer, or at least some punchy claims to this title. ....Alas 'twas not to be.... Regards MG.

* my logic being that anything classified as a battle honour would generally be an intense period of warfare and therefore a good proxy for measuring how much action a battlion saw....this in turn would open up new avenues of research.

** Numbers of VCs winners being an extremely popular measure of a Regiments achievements cited in many early historians. Personally I think this approach obfuscates the wider achievements of a broader body of men and a much more complex, deeper contribution by many thousands of men. On this scale the Dorsets (zero VCs in WWI) would be considered to have not done their bit despite their 57 battle honours. A ridiculous standpoint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martin

I'll quote you 'in blue' again if I may..

Have you changed your view since post No.37? On post No. 37 you were absolutely emphatic that battle honours were only awarded at Regimental level [your emphasis in bold]. Unless I misunderstand your latest post, I hope that we are finally in agreement that this was not universal and we can agree at least the the 20 or so Battalions of the London Regiment were awarded battle honours at a battalion level, not a Regimental level. [my emphasis].

Changed my mind? Most definitely not!. Army Order No.338 of 1922 which introduced the award of Battle Honours clearly states that "His Majesty the King has been graciously pleased to approve of the award of battle honours to regiments and corps" which is where my emphasis in Post #37 came from. Nowhere in the relevant Army Orders does it mention Battle Honours being awarded to battalions. Why the London Regiment was treated differently remains a mystery, to me at least, at the present time. I had thought the clause I added in Post #47 covered it but on re-reading I believe it actually refers to those Territorial units such as the Regiments of Cambridgeshire, Monmouthshire, Herefordshire, Hertfordshire etc., I'm guessing that there was something in the way the London Regiment was organised that meant it's individual battalions were treated as a separate regiment/corps for the purpose of Battle Honours, perhaps a London Regiment expert can throw some light on the subject?

I have been at the National Archives to do some research which I will post when it is complete. I have examples outside the London Regiment too, so to avoid any misunderstanding at this stage. I continue to politely and completely disagree with your view that only Battle Honours awarded to individual battalions are for those belonging to the London Regiment with each battalion being treated as a separate entity, all other Honours were issued solely on a Regimental basis" and laterthe London Regiment battalions, for whatever reason, were the exception to the rule, no battalions of any other Regiment were treated similarly in being issued individual Battle Honours according to Army Orders etc"In my view the London Regt was not the only exception. There are other Territorial units that have exemptions.

Please feel free to disagree by all means, it is after all a free country and I look forward to seeing the fruits of your research, I'm always open to alternative viewpoints if they hold water. As a matter of interest, and leaving aside the 22nd and 24th Londons for the moment, which other Territorial units do you feel have the exemptions?

There was no date limit to my original question. It was about WWI battle honours, regardless of when they were recognised or awarded. I think we can consider subsequent changes, because if the universal rule applied, surely this would not matter, as all the battalions of amalgamated units would carry the same battle honours. Amalgamated units usually were presented with new colours. But we find they don't always show the same battle honours. The 6th and 7th Bns of the Royal West Surrey regt are battalions within a single Regiment. When the 22nd and 24th London were absorbed into these units, if the 'universal rule' applied it would have been easier to just have these Bns acknowledge the same battle honours as all the other battalions within the regiment. (They fought in at least one of the engagements on the West Surrey's battle honours). They didn't. They could have chosen to add MACEDONIA 1916 to their battle honours and apply this to every battalion. They didn't. They allowed 2 battalions to recognise different battle honours to the rest of the Regiment.

With all due respect, what happened in 1938 when the Army restructured a number of it's battalions has, in my opinion, very little to do with the awarding of Battle Honours in the direct aftermath of the Great War. Yes, in 1938 Army Orders seemingly made an exception for these two battalions and maybe more, Army Orders were fluid and dealt with the details/organisation of the day as it saw fit. The exception that was applied in 1938 did not apply when the Battle Honours were awarded to the original recipients on a Regimental basis. As already stated the London Regiment was different in that each battalion was accorded Honours in it's own right and I believe that there was a very good reason for this and had something to do with the way the Regiment was organised with each battalion being affiliated to a parent Regiment rather than actually being incorporated into a Regiment. Each London Regiment battalion was therefore treated as a separate Regiment/Corps in it's own right.

While there is a blanket Army Order from 1922, there are many subsequent Army Orders right up to the 1950s making changes or additions. In fairness it would be better to say there was a general rule, but there were many minor additional exemptions or changes, and a large general exemption for many Territorial battalions.

Again, can you expand on this "large general exemption for many Territorial battalions"?

P.S. One thing that is coming out of this is how difficult it is to find out about battalions receiving their colours and laying them up. There is a lot of evidence that some Bns were disbanded before they had chance to receive their colours. Many unit histories have very little on the history of the battalion after the end of the war - usually a few pages as a postscript. Big gaps in time-lines and lots of colours seem to be untraceable which is really quite sad. Some histories don't even mention them. Very surprising.

I would recommend you try to get hold of "Geddes, James D., Colours of British Regiments Volume 2: Units raised during World War I (James D. Geddes, 2000)" I managed to get hold of a copy through inter-library loan.

Regards

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure when the book "The Official Names of the Battles and Other Military Engagements Fought by the Military Forces of the British Empire During the Great War 1914-1919" arrives I will get a better idea.

Martin, it's been a while since I've seen a copy of "The Official Names ...", but to give you an idea, it should look something like the tables on my page here. If I recall correcty, it was the official document that linked names of actions, dates and geographical boundaries which established the time and space restraints for battle honours and ensured everyone involved in the process was talking about the same actions. I believe it was the parent document from which the Canadian extract that my site shows would have been taken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The London Regiment, as ever, would present anomalies: many battalions became (post War) battalions of Line regiments (Martin, I believe, has quoted the 22nd and 24th, which both became battalions of the Queen's). One would assume that the 7th Queen's would carry Colours with the old 24th London Honours. Similarly, my regiment - the London Scottish - went from being the 14th London to being The London Scottish, part of the Gordon Highlanders. We would still have carried a Colour with 14th London Honours.

That said, my understanding of the London Regiment is that all battalions (with the exception of the 1st to 4th, which were always badged to the Royal Fusiliers) were totally separate entities. I guess it's a blessing that so many were "Rifles" and didn't have to worry about Colours on which to emblazon Honours :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, my understanding of the London Regiment is that all battalions (with the exception of the 1st to 4th, which were always badged to the Royal Fusiliers) were totally separate entities.

In that case their situation should simplify the quest of this thread. As separate entities their individual lists of battle honors should have been published and there would be no need to unravel a "regimental" list to determine the greatest "battalion" entitlement. Their being a special case neither changes the value of the question nor complicates the eventual solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In that case their situation should simplify the quest of this thread. As separate entities their individual lists of battle honors should have been published and there would be no need to unravel a "regimental" list to determine the greatest "battalion" entitlement. Their being a special case neither changes the value of the question nor complicates the eventual solution.

I like your thinking :thumbsup: . But, and there's always a but, it's made me think (always dangerous) and I've realised it's not that simple. Battle Honours awarded to the London Regiment Battalions were earned by 1st, 2nd & 3rd Line Battalions and not a single Battalion, the results are shown only on a single "Regimental" list proving that each battalion of the London Regiment was treated as a Regiment in it's own right for the purpose of Battle Honours, the battalion bit is a bit misleading.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like your thinking :thumbsup: . But, and there's always a but, it's made me think (always dangerous) and I've realised it's not that simple. Battle Honours awarded to the London Regiment Battalions were earned by 1st, 2nd & 3rd Line Battalions and not a single Battalion, the results are shown only on a single "Regimental" list proving that each battalion of the London Regiment was treated as a Regiment in it's own right for the purpose of Battle Honours, the battalion bit is a bit misleading.

Not misleading at all.

If each of the three line battalions earned the same list of battle honours, i.e., all three were equally involved in each awarded action, then for them the question is moot. Their regimental list, therefore, would also be their three battalion lists, for the line battalions.

Alternatively, if each of the three line battalions were not in the exact same list of engagements with awarded honours, then they too have a composite regimental list, even if that list was separately published in Army Orders under the individual names of the three separate battalions.

Regardless, if any one battalion of another regiment is shown to have a longer list of recognized battle honours contributing to their regimental list, then the London Regiment is out of the running for the purpose of this discussion and the terms of how their honours were compiled becomes moot (with respect to the current question only, of course).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The London Regiment, as ever, would present anomalies: many battalions became (post War) battalions of Line regiments (Martin, I believe, has quoted the 22nd and 24th, which both became battalions of the Queen's). One would assume that the 7th Queen's would carry Colours with the old 24th London Honours. Similarly, my regiment - the London Scottish - went from being the 14th London to being The London Scottish, part of the Gordon Highlanders. We would still have carried a Colour with 14th London Honours.

That said, my understanding of the London Regiment is that all battalions (with the exception of the 1st to 4th, which were always badged to the Royal Fusiliers) were totally separate entities. I guess it's a blessing that so many were "Rifles" and didn't have to worry about Colours on which to emblazon Honours :lol:

The history of the London Regt is very complex. According to The Territorial Battalions 1859-1985 by Ray Westlake The London Regt only existed between 1908 and 1937 and was formed from various Volunteer Battalions within the Greater London area or County of London.. The 22nd Bn London Regt was formed from the 3rd VB Queens Royal Regt (West Surrey) - hence its original title: 22nd Bn London Regt (The Queen's). When the London Regt was broken up in 1937 the 22nd Bn's title reverted to the Queen's, becoming the 6th (Bermondsey) Bn The Queen's Royal West Surrey Regt. Similarly the 24th London Regt (The Queen's) was originally formed from the 4th VB The Queen's Royal Regt (West Surrey) in 1908, and became the 7th (Southwark) Bn The Queen's Royal West Surrey Regt in 1937.

For the first eight years the London Regt battalions were not connected with any other Regt despite some of them carrying their forbears titles such as Royal Fusiliers or KRRC or The Queens for example, but in 1916 each Bn was numbered and designated and became part of a designated regular Regiment*; in most instances those that they had served under as VBs prior to 1908 and the creation of the TF.i.e. the 22nd and 24th Bn once again became part of the Queen's Royal West Surrey Regt. In 1922, the remaining battalions without designated regular Regiments were given Regimental status of their own and assumed designations. It is unclear to me which battalions had not been designated as part of another Regiment. Most have titles alluding to other Regiments such as the Royal Fusiliers, KRRC, Rifle Bde, Middlesex Regt, etc. Certainly the HAC and the Inns of Court Regt somehow managed to wriggle out of becoming numbered Bn s within the London Regt

It is unclear to me if the 22nd Bn London Regt actually changed anything in 1916. I suspect they just carried on as usual. Battle honours were not an issue as the WWI battle honours would not be settled until 1922..... I am pretty sure the 22nd London didn't change their insignia etc to that of The Queen's despite its new official designation in 1916. I suspect it was just seen as an admin issue. When battle honours were finally settled, one can imagine the old Bns of the London Regt arguing vociferously for their own battle honours. If they carried their own battle honours and not those of their renewed parent regiments, it would be interesting to discover if there was any uniformity within the old London regt battalions. I suspect not.

Separate to this (also using Westlake as a source) : Ever since the linking of the Volunteer Battalions with regiments in the regular army starting in 1881, the Volunteer Battalions were not allowed to display honours of the 'parent' regular Regiment. Scrolls on badges that were battle honours were left blank or omitted, until the Boer War provided the opportunity for the Volunteer Battlions with their own battle honours. Army Order 298 of 22nd Sep 1917: "In consideration of the Services of the Territorial Force during the War HM the King has been pleased to approve of units of the TF being permitted to wear on their badges the mottoes and honours worn on the badges of the corps, regiments, or departments of which they are part." This would appear to be the start of the process to standardise the insignia and honours of battalions within the same regiment.

Unless there were amendments, I assume this is the authority that allowed the TF Bns to carry regimental honours. I suspect that the compliance was varied and in the same way that the 2nd Bn The Cameronians called themselves the Scottish Rifles decades after the amalgamations of 1881, I am sure there are lots of examples of TF Bns steadfastedly refusing to acknowledge certain standardisaitions for as long as possible. This is nothing new...there are many Rifle Volunteer units that refused to take up their new 'Volunteer Battalion' designations for many years after the 1881-1883 reforms, one in particular calling itself Rifle Volunteers right through to the creation of the TF. The legacy of this resistance to cahnge and desire to retain individual identity manifested itself during the creation of the TF...There are more than a handful of TF battalions that had their own cap-badge, separate to the parent Regt.

Regards MG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SteveE

Many thanks for the book recommendation. I am sure I will learn lots from it.

With regards to the long debate, I doubt we will ever agree. Early on you argued that battle honours were awarded to Regiments, not Battalions, and when we discover that the battalions of the London Regt were awarded battle honours separately, you choose to discount it. Added to that, the Territorial Battalions of every Regt in the Territorial Force carried their own battle honours and were prevented from carrying the battle honours of their parent regiment right until 1917. Rules may have changed over time and certainly from 1922 there was a blanket rule, but we also have evidence of exceptions to the rule. It is your prerogative to interpret these facts how you please, and I respect that, but all I know is that there were battalions of the British Army that were awarded their own battle honours. To me it is that simple. I am not trying to convince you or anyone else how to interpret the information and I am keen to avoid a never ending circular debate. Lets agree to disagree.

I am extremely grateful to you and others for your contributions on this thread and I have learned a lot about the post war machinations over battle honours, but I fear it has taken us so far away from my original aim that I will not be able to get the answer to my question. One could lose a lifetime dissecting the complex histories of the London Regiment battalions, and although it is a fascinating subject I will sadly have to leave it for another time.

I shall start another thread to try and get the answer to my original question. Regards MG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I shall start another thread to try and get the answer to my original question. Regards MG.

Up to a point, Lord Copper.

Your original post in this thread asked which Battalion had the most Battle Honours for the Great War. Your new thread asks which Battalion fought in the most battles which were credited as Battle Honours. On the basis that many battalions probably fought in such battles, but didn't claim them as such (because, for example, insufficient numbers of the battalion were engaged, or they were involved only in a peripheral role), I'd say that's a different question, really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With regards to the long debate, I doubt we will ever agree. Early on you argued that battle honours were awarded to Regiments, not Battalions, and when we discover that the battalions of the London Regt were awarded battle honours separately, you choose to discount it.

Martin, I believe you are right and I too doubt we will ever agree. Please read my posts again and you will find I haven't discounted the battalions of the London Regiment, I have merely tried to explain that each London Regiment battalion was treated as a Regiment/Corps, something you have so far been either unable or unwilling to grasp.

Let's take a single London Regiment battalion, Steven's 14th Battalion (London Scottish) as an example. Three battalions, the 1st/14th, 2nd/14th and 3rd/14th, were involved in the war and earnt 34 Battle Honours between them, 1st/14th and 2nd/14th both served on the Western Front but additionally the 2nd/14th served in Salonika and Egypt. In 1925 a single "Regimental" Battle Honours list was issued for the 14th Battalion London Regiment containing the 34 Honours, 10 of which were authorised to be borne on the respective colours; Messines 1914, Ypres 1914 1917 1918, Givenchy 1914, Loos, Somme 1916 1918, Arras 1917 1918, Cambrai 1917 1918, Valenciennes, Doiran 1917 & Jerusalem. As can be seen the 10 Honours were not earnt solely by a single battalion yet both battalions were authorised to bear them on their colours as per Army Orders i.e. as a Regiment. If Battle Honours were awarded on a 'battalion' basis why would the 1st/14th carry those awarded to the 2nd/14th and vice versa?

Don't worry, the question's rhetorical, I don't expect an answer, in the same manner that you've so far managed to avoid supplying any other specific examples of the "large general exemptions for many Territorial battalions". As long as you "know that there were battalions of the British Army that were awarded their own battle honour" but are unwilling to back up the statement with examples then I fear we will never see eye to eye on this one.

Lets agree to disagree.

On that I agree.

Regards

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Up to a point, Lord Copper.

Your original post in this thread asked which Battalion had the most Battle Honours for the Great War. Your new thread asks which Battalion fought in the most battles which were credited as Battle Honours. On the basis that many battalions probably fought in such battles, but didn't claim them as such (because, for example, insufficient numbers of the battalion were engaged, or they were involved only in a peripheral role), I'd say that's a different question, really.

Steve

You are right to point out the differences. It was deliberately done to avoid replicating the circular debate on this thread which distracted from the core question. I thought that I had made this clear in my last post. It is my gross failing for not articulating my original question with enough accuracy. Thank you for pointing this out again. As you have noted, the second thread (I hope) has described more precisely what I am trying to discover. Your literary reference is not lost on me. Goodbye. MG

Martin, I believe you are right and I too doubt we will ever agree. Please read my posts again and you will find I haven't discounted the battalions of the London Regiment, I have merely tried to explain that each London Regiment battalion was treated as a Regiment/Corps, something you have so far been either unable or unwilling to grasp.

Let's take a single London Regiment battalion, Steven's 14th Battalion (London Scottish) as an example. Three battalions, the 1st/14th, 2nd/14th and 3rd/14th, were involved in the war and earnt 34 Battle Honours between them, 1st/14th and 2nd/14th both served on the Western Front but additionally the 2nd/14th served in Salonika and Egypt. In 1925 a single "Regimental" Battle Honours list was issued for the 14th Battalion London Regiment containing the 34 Honours, 10 of which were authorised to be borne on the respective colours; Messines 1914, Ypres 1914 1917 1918, Givenchy 1914, Loos, Somme 1916 1918, Arras 1917 1918, Cambrai 1917 1918, Valenciennes, Doiran 1917 & Jerusalem. As can be seen the 10 Honours were not earnt solely by a single battalion yet both battalions were authorised to bear them on their colours as per Army Orders i.e. as a Regiment. If Battle Honours were awarded on a 'battalion' basis why would the 1st/14th carry those awarded to the 2nd/14th and vice versa?

Don't worry, the question's rhetorical, I don't expect an answer, in the same manner that you've so far managed to avoid supplying any other specific examples of the "large general exemptions for many Territorial battalions". As long as you "know that there were battalions of the British Army that were awarded their own battle honour" but are unwilling to back up the statement with examples then I fear we will never see eye to eye on this one.

On that I agree.

Regards

Steve

Steve E. You are right an I am wrong. I have no idea what I am talking about on this subject. Thank you for steering me in the right direction. But thank you for not being offensive. I enjoyed the debate while it lasted. I surrender. MG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

Culloden used to be carried as a battle honour...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Royal Scots, Border Regt, Kings (Liverpool) Regt, Somerset L.I, Duke of Wellington's, Lancs Fusiliers, Royal Scots Fusiliers, KOSB, Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers, Worcestershire Regt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Culloden used to be carried as a battle honour...

I didn't think it was - are you sure?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Prebble "Culloden" final chapter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As ever, I'm willing to be corrected, but I am almost certain he's wrong on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prebble says:

"A lost cause will always win a last victory in men's imaginations. And no British regiment now has Culloden among its battle honours."

The above makes it sound as if some British regiments once did have it as a battle honour but I've never come across it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I shall fossick about now and try to get concrete evidence. OK after a few minutes I ca,e up with KOSB, Royal Scots and Border Regt along with Lancashire Fusiliers. As to whether anyone believes me I suggest contacting the appropriate regt museum or assoc. Finally back on topic Queen's Lancashire Regt has most battle honours. As with Culloden I stand to be corrected!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

back on topic Queen's Lancashire Regt has most battle honours. As with Culloden I stand to be corrected!

As 'on topic' would be WW1 Battle Honours as per the thread title we are still quite obviously 'off topic' so I'll go back to Culloden if I may.

Steven is quite correct and Culloden is not a Battle Honour. The 'rules' for awarding Battle Honours were initially quite simple, it had to be a victory and it couldn't be a civil war. Culloden wasn't honoured because it was regarded as a "civil war" action rather than an invasion, I believe the only Battle Honour awarded for an action in the British Isles is Fishguard.

Regards

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...