Hackney Gurkhas

[Guest]

Nicknames are always given by others - maybe you're reading too much into it and it's just a simple joking reference to their unit badge being the chinese dragon against the red brandywine triangle?

[Hackney Gurkha]

After spending the last 4 hours reading this thread i thought id throw my 10p in and hopefully settle the debate on the origins of the "Hackney Gurkhas" nickname.

 

Shortly after joining 162nd Brigade someone in the Norfolks Christened them the "Hackney Gurkhas", an apt name for tough little men, smart as paint, ready to tackle anything and liberally endowed with the supreme military virtue and cheerfulness in adversity. The name stuck and was therefore applied to all Battalions of the 10th. 

 

Source: Unknown officer of the 10th

 

James

[johnboy]

Lucky they weren't named after the pygmies

[Gareth Davies]

17 hours ago, Hackney Gurkha said:

After spending the last 4 hours reading this thread i thought id throw my 10p in and hopefully settle the debate on the origins of the "Hackney Gurkhas" nickname.

 

Shortly after joining 162nd Brigade someone in the Norfolks Christened them the "Hackney Gurkhas", an apt name for tough little men, smart as paint, ready to tackle anything and liberally endowed with the supreme military virtue and cheerfulness in adversity. The name stuck and was therefore applied to all Battalions of the 10th. 

 

Source: Unknown officer of the 10th

 

James

 

Has an anonymous source ever settled a debate?  

[Old Owl]

1 hour ago, Gareth Davies said:

 

Has an anonymous source ever settled a debate?  

 

In the absence of a better explanation, then more than likely yes, and I would have thought that James's source is quite genuine.

 

Robert

[Gareth Davies]

But it doesn't ring true. Is there evidence that the 10th Londons were small? As for a liberal endowment of supreme military virtue, we know that this isn't accurate.

[Bordercollie]

There were no Norfolk battalions in the 162nd Brigade. 1/4/Norfolks and 1/5/Norfolks were both in 163rd Brigade. Not of course conclusive but if the name was invented by a battalion serving alongside 1/10/Londons then it was more likely to have been 1/4/Northamptons who were in 162nd Brigade.

[Gareth Davies]

And that's another reason why I find the anonymous line fishy!

[Hackney Gurkha]

Well I’ve told you what I know and is the only reference to the origins of the Nickname that I’ve come across that comes from a member of the Battalion from that time. I have amassed quite an amount of material now on the Battalion so take from it what you will.

 

The 162nd Brigade which the 1/10th were part of, came under the 54th Division which also incorporated the 163rd Brigade which included the Norfolk’s. So what was quoted by the unknown officer is entirely plausible and I’m happy with that.

 

Feel free to carry on the thread for another 30 pages but that’s my input,

 

James

Edited 8 December , 2019 by Hackney Gurkha

[Old Owl]

5 hours ago, Gareth Davies said:

But it doesn't ring true. Is there evidence that the 10th Londons were small? As for a liberal endowment of supreme military virtue, we know that this isn't accurate.

 

Me thinks that you are being somewhat pedantic Gareth.

I am quite certain that many similar nicknames have dubious sources, but if the name sticks then does it really matter exactly where it originated?  After all it does seem that the source which James has come up with is as likely as any of those previously posted.

I noticed references to 'Cockney Gurkhas' in previous posts--which could be rhyming slang for 'Cockney Shirkers' also 'Hackney Shirkers'? Only a thought, but it may fit with the London Territorials poor showing during the Gallipoli campaign.

Robert

[Gareth Davies]

Of course, doubting the veracity of a single, anonymous, source is being pedantic. Bring on the elephants and munitions factories.  

[Old Owl]

13 hours ago, Gareth Davies said:

Of course, doubting the veracity of a single, anonymous, source is being pedantic. Bring on the elephants and munitions factories.  

 

Best of luck with this rather pointless debate--I just wonder how much further you can drag this out?

[Gareth Davies]

Gosh the egos are strong this week.  Top tip people; if you think a debate is pointless, stay out of it.  

 

Having reviewed the evidence in this thread we really are no closer to finding out the confirmed background to the nickname. But that people are still chipping in offers after all this time strikes me as a good thing that generates decent debate.  

[Old Owl]

19 minutes ago, Gareth Davies said:

Gosh the egos are strong this week.  Top tip people; if you think a debate is pointless, stay out of it.  

 

Having reviewed the evidence in this thread we really are no closer to finding out the confirmed background to the nickname. But that people are still chipping in offers after all this time strikes me as a good thing that generates decent debate.  

 

Ta Ta

[Moonraker]

6 hours ago, Gareth Davies said:

Gosh the egos are strong this week.  Top tip people; if you think a debate is pointless, stay out of it.  

 

Having reviewed the evidence in this thread we really are no closer to finding out the confirmed background to the nickname. But that people are still chipping in offers after all this time strikes me as a good thing that generates decent debate.  

And are we any closer to discovering claims to earliest usage?

 

Moonraker

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, Moonraker said:

And are we any closer to discovering claims to earliest usage?

 

Moonraker

 

  1)  I have already put up January 1917-an issue of a regimental journal in a previous post. Not aware that anything earlier has turned up.

 

2)  If there is a Dignitas for dying threads, this one should be referred to it.

[Gareth Davies]

Why? We haven't got a definitive answer, and the question remains valid, so why would we want to kill it off? 

[Moonraker]

 

  1)  I have already put up January 1917-an issue of a regimental journal in a previous post. Not aware that anything earlier has turned up.

 

2)  If there is a Dignitas for dying threads, this one should be referred to it.

Sorry, GUEST. I hope that I may be forgiven for not ploughing back through eight pages of posts, few of which addressed Gareth's question.

On 10/12/2019 at 16:29, Gareth Davies said:

Why? We haven't got a definitive answer, and the question remains valid, so why would we want to kill it off? 

Someone may come along with the answer!

 

Moonraker

[Guest]

On 10/12/2019 at 17:18, Moonraker said:

Sorry, GUEST. I hope that I may be forgiven for not ploughing back through eight pages of posts, few of which addressed Gareth's question.

Someone may come along with the answer!

 

Moonraker

 

    Not a problem at all. I gave it a good go-  and, I think, it is the only known reference to 10th Londons as Gurkhas DURING THE WAR.  All else is speculation, which I don't think will be resolved. Knife carriers?  No evidence and suggests taint with associations of present-day Hackney (and: Would ORs be allowed to carry extra large knives anyway? I think not)  Dark?  (Highly probable if in Middle East)  Short (Possible-  I can't see anything thus far as to what grade the battalion was-  thus possibly a B2 -so just poss. there was a  larger number of smaller men -not bantams but maybe the reduction of the height limit in the Spring of 1915-Only a trawl of surviving Burnt Docs. might illumine that-and life is too short for that one)

    Now when we get on to the origins of "Steady the Buffs" there might be some debate...........

[Bordercollie]

On 03/08/2017 at 10:27, Guest said:

If memory serves it is mentioned in correspondence between Aspinall Oglander and an Officer in the 1/10th Londons. The relevant files are CAB 45 at The National Archives. I did not make notes at the time as it was a piece of trivia and having served in the Gurkhas it stuck in the mind.... but my notes from trawling these files show Lord Dunalley DSO (Capt Hon H C O'C Prettie in WWI) and Capt F A S Clarke and Brig Hammond (although I think the latter was 1/11th London Regt (Finsbury Rifles). I was focused on the failed attack on 15th Aug 1915 on Kidney Hill where 1/10th lost heavily (44 killed, or two thirds of all its Gallipoli casualties) and nicknames for battalions were then not of interest. De Winton commanded the Brigade (162nd Inf Bde) and his papers  (if you can trace them) are probably worth trawling if you are determined to get to the bottom of this. He was wounded in the action and I think it is this particular action that probably started the process of constructing reputations.  The correspondence was from 1931 an related to clearing up minor points of the Gallipoli campaign.

 

 

I think this must be the 1931 correspondence (or part of it) which I came across some time ago in the 1/10/London war diary. Unfortunately no mention of Hackney Gurkhas but I copied it because the reference to Terrier COs not being taken seriously was relevant to my research at the time.

[Steve B]

To add a bit more historical context to the date the “Hackney Gurkhas” sobriquet came into use, this postcard shows the nickname applied to troops of the 2^nd Battalion.

With the presence of so many Imperial Service badges I’ll go for 1915/early 1916 at the latest. In common with every other photograph of the 10^th London Regiment known to man, it shows men of all shapes and sizes.

Steve

[Gareth Davies]

Thanks Steve.

[Hackney Gurkha]

Cracking photo Steve, thanks for sharing.

 

Here is a link to the IWM interviewing a veteran of the 5th Hackney Battalion the Royal Berkshire Regiment Post WW2. The 10th London become the 5th Berkshires in 1937. He talks about the origins of the “Hackney Gurkhas“

 

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/80013948

 

The Hackney Gurkhas explanation starts around the 7:30 mark

 

James

 

 

Edited 19 December , 2019 by Hackney Gurkha

[FROGSMILE]

On 18/12/2019 at 15:05, Steve B said:

To add a bit more historical context to the date the “Hackney Gurkhas” sobriquet came into use, this postcard shows the nickname applied to troops of the 2^nd Battalion.

With the presence of so many Imperial Service badges I’ll go for 1915/early 1916 at the latest. In common with every other photograph of the 10^th London Regiment known to man, it shows men of all shapes and sizes.

Steve

An interesting photo because it ostensibly shows the battalion’s ‘corps of bugles‘, as is entirely appropriate for a former ‘rifle volunteer’ unit, but the odd thing is that they don’t wear a bugle badge, as was stipulated for a unit with pure rifles lineage, but instead wear the drum badge.  This would imply that the men shown appear on the battalion roll as drummers rather than buglers.  This is such a departure that there must be an explanation for it.  Perhaps it was taken after the battalion became affiliated with the Royal Berkshire Regiment, although that seems unlikely.  As with so many WW1 drummers they are wearing the badge on both arms in the same way as they would a stripe, despite the fact that regulations decreed wear on the right arm only.  This has been commented upon before in a separate thread regarding postcards showing drummers.

Edited 20 December , 2019 by FROGSMILE

[Steve B]

9 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

An interesting photo because it ostensibly shows the battalion’s ‘corps of bugles‘, as is entirely appropriate for a former ‘rifle volunteer’ unit, but the odd thing is that they don’t wear a bugle badge, as was stipulated for a unit with pure rifles lineage, but instead wear the drum badge.  This would imply that the men shown appear on the battalion roll as drummers rather than buglers.  This is such a departure that there must be an explanation for it.  

 

With regard to the lineage of the 10^th Londons it should be borne in mind that when the original 10^th London Regiment, the Paddington Rifles, was disbanded in 1912 and replaced by a battalion raised in Hackney all links to the Paddington Rifles and its rifle volunteer antecedents were severed. The 10^th (County of London) Battalion, The London Regiment (Hackney) was a completely new unit and had the uniform and drill of a line regiment, so the existence of a Corps of Drums rather than Bugles is not entirely unexpected.