"No vacancies" in the Black Watch mid 1900s

[rolt968]

Joseph Valentine, 693, 1 Black Watch was killed in action on 27 October 1914. He was a recalled reservist. That early in the war there is quite a detailed write up of his death in the Brechin Advertiser. The account of his death has the ring of truth and originates from his brother who was serving in the same battalion and was wounded on the same day.

Joseph was serving in 2 Black Watch in India at the time of the 1911 census. He was appointed a postman in September 1912 and was working as a postman in Edzell when he was called up.

The Brechin Advertiser's account of his originally joining the army is curious/ interesting. When he had enlisted there were no vacancies in the Black Watch so he had joined "a Wiltshire regiment" and transferred into the Black Watch in India. His serial number suggests that he joined the Black Watch (presumably 2 Battalion) in late 1906. He would then have been 20.

Following discussions about the strength of "home" battalions before WW1 in recent months, can the explanation be as simple as presented?

Also was it really that easy to change regiment while in India?

Can anyone suggest what his engagement was? (8+4 from 1904. 7+5 from 1905?)

Roger M

[ss002d6252]

If a regiment had sufficient men then recruiting would be directed towards those who needed men.

Assuming he applied for and was transferred then there wouldn't be any change to his terms of service, he would remain on the original terms unless he specifically requested to vary them.

In 1903/1904 the standard term was 3&9 , this then changed to 9 & 3 in Oct 1904. Later changed back to 7&5.

EDITED: to correct service terms

Craig

Edited 6 February , 2016 by ss002d6252

[Guest]

That's interesting Roger. Charles Marshall, 5544 Wiltshire Regiment. Enlisted March 1900, served 2/Wilts Boer War, and 1st Wilts 1914. I always wondered why on earth he enlisted in the Wiltshire Regt, perhaps you've answered it?

Mike

[rolt968]

Thank you this is all very interesting. I knew that in the early 1900s the Black Watch was a popular choice, but I had not expected that at times it was actually full.

Roger M

[ss002d6252]

Thank you this is all very interesting. I knew that in the early 1900s the Black Watch was a popular choice, but I had not expected that at times it was actually full.

Roger M

Not so much with the infantry but around and just after the Boer War (and for the next few years) there was a serious problem with over-staffing in the army as they tried to move back towards a 'peacetime' force. At lot of recruitment was curtailed in many branches and men released early to try and drop the numbers in a controlled way.

Craig

[rolt968]

I haven't done any work on Joseph Valentine for some time.

Although I had downloaded his Soldiers' Effects entry, I had not previously looked at it in detail. It contains his date and place of enlistment. He enlisted in Montrose on 18 January 1905.

That can't be 3+9 if he was still in in April 1911, but he could have extended his service. 7+5 would work - his time completed in January 1912.

Roger M

[Edited for missing punctuation.]

[ss002d6252]

I haven't done any work on Joseph Valentine for some time.

Although I had downloaded his Soldiers' Effects entry, I had not previously looked at it in detail It contains his date and place of enlistment. he enlisted in Montrose on 18 January 1905.

That can't be 3+9 if he was still in in April 1911, but he could have extended his service. 7+5 would work - his time completed in January 1912.

Roger M

In Jan 1905 the standard term was 9&3 (changed from 3&9 in Oct 1904). (I made a typo in my earlier post!)

Craig

[rolt968]

In Jan 1905 the standard term was 9&3 (changed from 3&9 in Oct 1904). (I made a typo in my earlier post!)

Craig

I will need to think about that!

January 1905 was actually a surprise to me. I had expected that he had enlisted in 1904. He certainly can't have served nine years from January 1905 as he was not in the army when he married in October 1913. (Oddly he did not give his occupation as postman.)

Roger M

[ss002d6252]

I will need to think about that!

January 1905 was actually a surprise to me. I had expected that he had enlisted in 1904. He certainly can't have served nine years from January 1905 as he was not in the army when he married in October 1913. (Oddly he did not give his occupation as postman.)

Roger M

I'll check the later army returns as they often let men enter the reserves early and, if so, the scheme should be listed.

Craig

[rolt968]

Thanks Craig.

[ss002d6252]

From the army returns the best explanation I can find is this

Craig

[rolt968]

Thank you again Craig.

He would certainly fit into that period.

Roger M