Would a batman have accompanied his officer......?

[healdav]

 

    Deliberate mistake-  Just to show that it is worth checking whether "factual"  statements are that. Well done,H.!!     And, yes, the front-line career of Dorothy Sayers at Gallipoli  may be the subject of some scrutiny by the fact-checkers.......  

     It is a sensible subject for debate- the relationship between an officer and his batman.  Rather as, on another thread, about Anthony Eden and his MC, Eden's relationship with his platoon sergeant. A notion of the Great War British Army without a hierarchical structure would be pretty much unimaginable. But any hierarchical structure has it's stress points and it's back channels- the times when the structure was compromised by design or chance eg the various references in the literature to junior officers playing football with their men. And in this, the batman played a particular role- neither fish nor fowl- inhabiting a world of officers yet not quite just a.n.other OR. 

The difference between the men and the officers is illustrated by a passage from "Three Corvettes".

Captain: "I was told I was lucky to get one".

First Lieutenant: "I was told it would be like luxury motoring".

ASDIC Operator (from the background: "I was detailed off".

But the relationship between the men and the officers or officers and Captain (I speak of the RN) is close, yet apart. The Captain eats and lives alone. His job is command, not running the ship (although he does most of the paperwork laid on the ship, and is responsible for it all).  His steward works for him alone most of the time, and in the old days cooked for him as well or got the ship's cook to cook special meals.

The other officers share stewards who look after them, serve meals at the right times - i.e. when an officer comes off watch, not at set hours necessarily.

But on the other hand, there is always a distance, and each knows the limits. They can laugh and joke together, but when the officer says "DO X". X gets done. I've seen a senior steward giving an officer a real telling off for doing or not doing something, but the limit is always there.

[TullochArd]

1 hour ago, A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy said:

I wonder, however, whether the position was entirely voluntary. What would have happened if a soldier was invited to accept the role, but declined?

 

Likely not much.

 

As with any appointment in the Army, particularly the Infantry, there is a broad pattern of employing "horses for courses" when allocating specific jobs/appointments.  The older, or less robust or previously experienced would have been offered these appointments first with due consideration to their temperament, suitability and ability to perform the required duties. Not everyone had the ability or temperament to perform these duties and "hats off" to those who did. An unwilling "volunteer" would not find it hard to be declared incompetent or undesirable in this role and be removed with little or no consequence.  Conversely, retaining a proven and reliable Soldier Servant would have required a reciprocal degree of consideration and respect on the part of the officer.

 

Regarding the use of the term "Servant" and the employment these soldiers in combat roles. Servant was a common term throughout British society at this time and it did not carry the baggage it does today.  The Army was/is merely a reflection of society and we should perhaps not read too much into this.  Infantry Soldier Servants/Batmen were all trained soldiers and did accompany officer's on attacks where their primary role was as often Runner. 

 

Edited 30 November , 2020 by TullochArd

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

Thanks for the above comments, TullochArd

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

I have now read a little further in George Coppard’s book, and got to the bit where he ceases to be Mr Wilkie’s servant. He doesn’t say why this happened, i.e. whether it was because he asked to be released, or Mr Wilkie dispensed with his services, but he mentions, almost in passing, in Chapter 20, that he is back in his original Vickers gun team. He says:

Being a batman had its good points but somehow I felt less than a complete soldier, for though there was almost as much danger in the job, there was certainly more personal comfort. The little pin-pricks they [the other non-officer members of his team] had occasionally dished out about my having a cushy job ceased …

Edited 10 May , 2022 by A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy

[Muerrisch]

On 29/11/2020 at 23:37, sadbrewer said:

 

Six Weeks, the short and gallant life of the British Officer in the First World War. 

By John Lewis-Stempel. 

 

It might be a good book: certainly a grotesquely misleading title

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

19 hours ago, Muerrisch said:

It might be a good book: certainly a grotesquely misleading title

It's hard to defend the title on grounds of accuracy, though, to be fair, a book title is not necessarily the first place one would go for the truth, or at least the whole truth, as I am sure Muerrisch would agree. Muerrisch, you might usefully have cross-referred to your thread entitled "Life Expectancy", life expectancy - Other Great War Chat - Great War Forum where you made a number of admirable contributions on this very subject. The last post on the first page of that thread mentions that the title is based on a quotation from Robert Graves, though the quotation also included those who were wounded within 6 weeks, but survived, in arriving at the statistic; of 6 weeks, and the 6 week period related only to junior officers. 

Edited 5 December , 2020 by A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy

[Muerrisch]

True, O wise one. Thank you.

 

Robt Graves, much as I admire him in many ways, never let the truth get in the way of a good story of course.

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

18 hours ago, Muerrisch said:

O wise one.

 

I wish!!

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

I revisited this thread as a result of it having been cross-referred to on another thread, https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/297580-what-were-the-duties-of-an-officers-servant/#comment-3114867 . In doing so, a couple of things came to my attention that I had not been aware of previously.

On 26/11/2020 at 21:07, A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy said:

My grandfather without exception uses the word “servant” in his diary rather than “batman”

First, the statement quoted above is incorrect, as my grandfather does in fact use the word "batman" just once, when naming the men wounded as a result of an anti-aircraft shell landing on their billet while they were at rest in Dainville on 24 june 1916. The wounded men included "Private Maxwell or “Fido” (Company Sergeant Major Howard’s batman)". Having come across this use of the word, I noted that it was used in relation to someone working for a non-commissioned officer, and wondered if that was the difference. Sure enough, in @Muerrisch's first post this very comprehensive thread https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/12919-officers-servants/  he says that "in the Guards the officers had servants, the RSM had a batman".

On 30/11/2020 at 14:39, TullochArd said:

On 30/11/2020 at 13:06, A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy said:

I wonder, however, whether the position was entirely voluntary. What would have happened if a soldier was invited to accept the role, but declined?

 

Likely not much.

Secondly, on the same comprehensive thread, in the first post by former member Joe Sweeney, he says that, having referred to standing orders of various units, including the Irish Guards, the King's Own, and the Army Service Corps, between 1910 and 1914, all standing orders state that, if a man refused the post of servant (thus implying that there was a right of refusal), no other officer could offer the man the position of servant.

[TullochArd]

2 hours ago, A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy said:

I revisited this thread as a result of it having been cross-referred to on another thread,.......

Hi LFBYP.  You mention me name. and I certainly stated,

"As with any appointment in the Army, particularly the Infantry, there is a broad pattern of employing "horses for courses" when allocating specific jobs/appointments.  The older, or less robust or previously experienced would have been offered these appointments first with due consideration to their temperament, suitability and ability to perform the required duties. Not everyone had the ability or temperament to perform these duties and "hats off" to those who did. An unwilling "volunteer" would not find it hard to be declared incompetent or undesirable in this role and be removed with little or no consequence.  Conversely, retaining a proven and reliable Soldier Servant would have required a reciprocal degree of consideration and respect on the part of the officer. Regarding the use of the term "Servant" and the employment these soldiers in combat roles. Servant was a common term throughout British society at this time and it did not carry the baggage it does today.  The Army was/is merely a reflection of society and we should perhaps not read too much into this.  Infantry Soldier Servants/Batmen were all trained soldiers and did accompany officer's on attacks where their primary role was as often Runner." 

Please explain what didn't come to your attention in what I said and I'll try to explain another way.

Regards

TA

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

Apologies, TullochArd, if the way in which I edited your post when quoting it gave the impression that I believed that you thought that soldiers couldn't refuse the position or, at least, extricate themselves from it. What hadn't come to my attention previously was that it seems from Joe Sweeney's post that, although a man could refuse the position of servant, he couldn't (in most units, at least, maybe all) do so merely because he didn't warm to the officer who had offered him the position, in the hope that an officer whom he found more agreeable might offer him the position.

I have tried editing my earlier post so as to quote you more completely, but I don't think I can do that after the event, and anyway that would merely make your response somewhat difficult to understand. Hopefully your response and this further explanation of what the new information was that I had learned will set the record straight. Let me know if you think I need to do anything else.

Best wishes,

Tricia

[TullochArd]

14 hours ago, A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy said:

........ Let me know if you think I need to do anything else.

All's clear now Tricia.  Many thanks.  T.A.

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

I will just add to this thread a specific example of a man being discharged from the role of servant, from W.V. Tilsley's Other Ranks. Soon after Tilsley's main character, Dick Bradshaw, has arrived at the front (page 25 of my copy), a soldier whose nickname is Ginger rejoins the unit, having been sacked from his job as a servant. When asked why he had lost such a cushy job, he emphatically decries its cushiness on the grounds that it involved following the officer on dangerous expeditions across No Man's Land. It transpires that what led to Ginger's dismissal was that one day, when he followed his officer up on to the top of the trench, one of the other officers told him to get back down into the safety of the trench, adding "If 'e wants to commit suicide, let 'im." However, when Ginger's officer looked round and found him not there, he went "ravin' 'airless", and sacked him. "Never mind", says the corporal to whom Ginger is telling the tale: "We'll mak' thee permanent orderly-man".

This is a nice illustration not only of how a servant was expented to accompany his officer at the front, but also as to how easy it might be to secure dismissal from that role (as mentioned by TullochArd), and without necessarily attracting disapproval from the other officers. It also hints at the difference between "servants" and "orderlies", which I have sometimes found confusing.

[FROGSMILE]

1 hour ago, A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy said:

I will just add to this thread a specific example of a man being discharged from the role of servant, from W.V. Tilsley's Other Ranks. Soon after Tilsley's main character, Dick Bradshaw, has arrived at the front (page 25 of my copy), a soldier whose nickname is Ginger rejoins the unit, having been sacked from his job as a servant. When asked why he had lost such a cushy job, he emphatically decries its cushiness on the grounds that it involved following the officer on dangerous expeditions across No Man's Land. It transpires that what led to Ginger's dismissal was that one day, when he followed his officer up on to the top of the trench, one of the other officers told him to get back down into the safety of the trench, adding "If 'e wants to commit suicide, let 'im." However, when Ginger's officer looked round and found him not there, he went "ravin' 'airless", and sacked him. "Never mind", says the corporal to whom Ginger is telling the tale: "We'll mak' thee permanent orderly-man".

This is a nice illustration not only of how a servant was expented to accompany his officer at the front, but also as to how easy it might be to secure dismissal from that role (as mentioned by TullochArd), and without necessarily attracting disapproval from the other officers. It also hints at the difference between "servants" and "orderlies", which I have sometimes found confusing.

A really important dynamic concerning an officer’s ‘servant’ is the intimacy that his duties entailed.  The cooking, preparation of warm water for shaving, or even bathing sometimes when out of the line. Preparing the officers bedding. Laundering or arranging the laundering of his socks and underwear.  Brushing dried mud off his puttees, greatcoat or trenchcoat.  Cleaning leather (boots, Sam Browne and sometimes leggings), not to mention saddlery on occasion.  Cleaning pistol and ensuring ammunition is clean and serviceable.  The Batman was a body servant and very akin to a valet in civilian life.

Edited 6 June , 2022 by FROGSMILE