Accidental soldiers

[Mdarbycharles]

I can only speak with reference to my g grandfather. He joined up in 1915 and was sent to ormskirk to the remount dept there.

I don't know whether he wanted to go, or whether he thought that he could be some help given the fact he. Probably had experience of working with horses. His job was a furniture removal man.

In 1918, he was sent to the front line and was killed a few months after.

I was just wondering whether there were groups of men who thought they were signing up for one thing, and then later shipped out?

My great grandfather had four children so I can't believe that he would have signed up willingly to go to France to fight but that might have been the times.

[kenf48]

It's difficult to comment on your g/grandfather without any details (name Regtl No etc).

By 1915 it was becoming obvious there was going to be some form of conscription and he may have chosen to volunteer to retain some choice.

There were a number of reasons why a soldier might expect to serve at home, for example the Territorial Force role was home defence and men were not expected to serve overseas although they could agree to do so and signed an 'Imperial Obligation' see LLT http://www.1914-1918.net/tf.htm

After 1916 and conscription this did not apply.

Another possibility was a soldier's medical category, even those not fit fort front line duties might be sent to France on garrison duty and in 1918 become involved in fighting.

In 1918, following the German offensive the British suffered significant losses and many younger and older men were sent to France, once they were in the Army they were a resource to be sent where needed if fit enough.

His number should give a clue as to whether he was in the TF or not.

Ken

[Mdarbycharles]

I know a little about my great grandfather, his service record has survived.

I think I was talking generally about maybe older soldiers who willingly signed up but then circumstances changed and they were forced to the front line, due to dwindling manpower.

The shock for their family, just makes me wonder about them all.

[kenf48]

It's a bit of a modern construct to call them 'accidental soldiers' perhaps it's possible to apply that to the conscripts but a 1915 recruit was a volunteer.

There were considerable financial advantages to joining the Army - one wonders if the furniture removal business was that secure in wartime - in any event from March 1915 his wife, with four children, would have received a separation allowance of 25/6 + 2/- for the fourth child, plus he could elect to make an allotment from his pay up to half his army pay. In addition the wife, depending on family support etc, could have found work either in war industries or jobs vacated by men and the older children from say 13/14 years could get work as messengers and so on. Many women had never been so well off and in addition had control of the family finances, quite an incentive. In addition they were promised "disability" allowance and/or pensions for widows. The average wage for a working man in 1914 was around 10/- to 15/- per week and the scale of women's earnings sometimes caused quite a scandal. In one case a woman received £3 a week from the Army, earned a similar amount in munitions factory and her 14 year old earned £2 a week. The Mayor of Kingston remarked " Eight pounds a week, four hundred pounds a year, it's like something out of Arabian Nights".

On the downside there was a risk but in 1915 the scale of the casualties had not reached 1916/17 levels, of course it's impossible to say what an individuals motivation was to volunteer but imo to say they were 'forced' to the front line does both them and the Army a disservice.

It's impossible to understate the post -war hardship and deprivation caused in all sections of society, but especially widows and veterans, but in 1915 that was probably not a consideration, the men were even promised their old job back after the war, but now we're only too aware of the economic and social consequences of the conflict.

Ken

[Magnumbellum]

It is difficult to assess precisely what were the expectations of the man in question on volunteering in 1915, but it is certainly possible that he came under some pressure to use his experience with horses "in the national interest".

There are, however, clear examples of some men volunteering for other purposes being "forced to the front".. There was a number of men in 1914-15 who volunteered for the RAMC specifically because, although they felt impelled to render assistance in a time of need, they could not conscientiously take part in combat. By 1918, with the shortage of manpower, as has been mentioned, the Army began to direct some of these men into infantry regiments. Unsurprisingly, men refused, and were court-martialled and imprisoned. It is for the Army to explain what value it was to anybody to have these men rotting in prison rather than continuing their paramedical relief work.

[Mdarbycharles]

I have often thought that a reason for my great grandfather joining was a money issue, I knew that they got a separation allowance, which must have seen as being fantastic, when he was in ormskirk!

But obviously times changed. It really was a no win situation wasn't it? Not go. And be court marshalled or risk the front line. Something that in today's world couldn't be thought of.

I suppose we have to realise how much times have changed, that was then , this is now and today's morals are different.

[Guest exuser1]

Many years ago i visted Loos with a mate whos grandads brother was kiiled in the battle , standing by the grave he said yes strange really ,he was a qualified chemist ,so they put him in the Rifle Brigade and he was killed as a infantryman !

[Magnumbellum]

It really was a no win situation wasn't it? Not go. And be court marshalled or risk the front line. Something that in today's world couldn't be thought of.

I suppose we have to realise how much times have changed, that was then , this is now and today's morals are different.

I am not sure that things have changed that much so far as this issue is concerned. I have in mind Leading Medical Assistant Michael Lyons, who joined the Royal Navy in direct response to a television recruiting advert showing Naval medical assistants doing humanitarian work for the UN. Five years on, he was ordered to undergo rifle training preparatory to deployment to Afghanistan. With a developing conscience about killing, he refused, was court-martialled and sentenced to seven months detention in 2011 - perhaps a shorter period than his forebears of the RAMC in WW1, but is there any difference in principle. Plus ca change ...

[Mk VII]

Today (and then) medical personnel can be required to bear arms, for the defence of their patients.