ss002d6252 Posted 15 October , 2016 Share Posted 15 October , 2016 (edited) This is not gratuity related and ranks/appointments are out of my area but why does each battalion with a regiment have a Regimental Serjeant Major rather than there being just one in the regiment ? I imagine there's probably a simple answer that I haven't thought of yet. Craig Edited 15 October , 2016 by ss002d6252 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 15 October , 2016 Author Share Posted 15 October , 2016 Thanks Gareth - that makes perfect sense. I knew it would be an obvious one I was missing. Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gareth Davies Posted 15 October , 2016 Share Posted 15 October , 2016 But it was wrong - that's why I deleted it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 15 October , 2016 Author Share Posted 15 October , 2016 (edited) Oh well - it did make sense as a reason though !. Craig Edited 15 October , 2016 by ss002d6252 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolt968 Posted 15 October , 2016 Share Posted 15 October , 2016 I have no idea exactly where I came across the following. It was in some genealogical research about three brothers who served in the Royal Scots about 1790 odd to about 1812. Doesn't the RSM's appointment "descend" from the appointment (rank?) of sergeant major (one per battalion) which was formalised somewhere in the 1800s which had informally existed for some years before. Roger M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 15 October , 2016 Share Posted 15 October , 2016 Not knowing what Colonel D posted, I could be repeating the error, but is it a hangover from the pre-1881 regimental system in which regiments were generally single entities rather than a collection of sub-units? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 15 October , 2016 Author Share Posted 15 October , 2016 1 minute ago, Steven Broomfield said: Not knowing what Colonel D posted, I could be repeating the error, but is it a hangover from the pre-1881 regimental system in which regiments were generally single entities rather than a collection of sub-units? That's pretty much what the good colonel posted. Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill24chev Posted 15 October , 2016 Share Posted 15 October , 2016 (edited) I don't know if this is correct but I was once told when asking "why REGIMENTAL Sergeant Major when each major unit of a Regiment or Corps has a RSM" the answer was this the use of the designation "Regimental" does not mean belonging to the Regiment because it is not only Regiments that have an RSM . As well as Battalions of Infantry all Major Military establishments such as training Depots have an RSM. Regimental has the meaning in"he was a regimental type always smartly dressed and had a soldiers bearing", similer also to the word Regimented referring to being disciplined and carrying out tasks in a uniformed way. Because the RSM must be the epitome of the efficient soldier in Dress and Behaviour and was responsible, to the unit Adjutant and CO to ensure all members of the unit meet the required standard of Dress, Behaviour and Discipline Edited 15 October , 2016 by bill24chev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnboy Posted 15 October , 2016 Share Posted 15 October , 2016 He was the serjeant with the shiniest boots? 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