Northern Industrial Slums: The Working Class and the Great War

[Guest]

My virtual bookshelves are groaning under the weight of hefty tomes that focus on all kinds of minority groups that allegedly won the war. Has anyone ever written a book about the men from the Northern Industrial slums who (proportionally) actually 'won the war'?  The Census demographics make it quite clear where the high density population base was.  

 

The closest I can find is "Hell's Foundations" by Geoffrey Moorhouse which focuses on the town of Bury.  Has anyone  written a suitable eulogy for the defrauded yoof of the industrial north who gave so much and received so little by way of recognition. I am looking for a tome on the scale and depth of Kitchener's Army (Simpkin) or Mitchinson's rather sublime trilogy on the TF or Seldon's Public Schools and the Great War?  To be clear I am not looking for regimental histories. 

 

The Industrial North and the Great War. Has anyone written this book? If not why not? 

 

MG

Edited 2 December , 2017 by Guest
' ' added

[51st Sikhs]

I can think of no other than yourself MG. 😊

[Kimberley John Lindsay]

Dear MG,

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the Leaders tend to be more "sexy" than the Led?

Kindest regards,

Kim.

[paulgranger]

The closest things I can think of are the various 'Pals' battalion histories that Pen & Sword have published over the years. But I doubt these have the depth of analysis you seek.

[ilkley remembers]

MG,

 

You pose an interesting question, although, I don't think that the British could have pursued the war without mobilising the vast manpower resources of the industrial working classes from the whole of Britain not just the Northern Counties. 

 

I'm not sure that anybody does 'Working Class History' any more it seems, sadly, to have rather gone out of fashion. E P Thompson where are you when your country needs you?

 

It has always struck me as an interesting paradox that the working class communities who contributed so much to the war gained so little from it.

 

As far as literature is concerned my experience is that it is a bit sparse, although, some left leaning journals seem to pick up on the topic occasionally. A book which is on my Christmas list is 'Citizen Soldiers; The Liverpool Territorials' by Helen B McCartney which given the City's working Class credentials might give some interesting insights.

 

Last year I read '1919 Britains Year of Revolution' by Simon Webb which chronicles the unrest in the immediate aftermath of the Armistice when tanks were put on the streets and warships appeared off certain coastal ports in the lead up to the Victory Celebrations. Events largely now forgotten included the burning down of Luton Town Hall.

 

Anyway, it is certainly an interesting and as you rightly say a rather under-researched  subject

 

. 

[Medaler]

Why single out the north? or was life on the wrong side of the Trent a bowl of cherries for one and all?

 

Seriously, how are you defining "north"? Are we talking UK here, or does your north end at Berwick? More interestingly, where does it start, are you classing Birmingham as north?

 

Regards,

Mike

Edited 1 December , 2017 by Medaler

[Retlaw]

31 minutes ago, Medaler said:

Why single out the north? or was life on the wrong side of the Trent a bowl of cherries for one and all?

 

Seriously, how are you defining "north"?

 

Regards,

Mike

Because up North were where most of the hard graft in engineering were done, them lads as talked Brumy, Lanky, Scouse, an Yorkshire, and the like, who unlike them Southern Jessies, worked hard for 9 or more hours  day, 5 1/2 days a week, some were lucky to make 2 guineas a week, like my grandfather who was a foreman core maker, labourers happen about 25 bob.

My first wage at 14, was 17/6d a week, and you kept your nose to the grind stone, no gassing  wi fellow workers or playing on IPads, or such like as today,  and when the gaffer said jump, your only question was how high.

Most  of the members on here won't have a clue what conditions were like back then, especially after the war when getting a job was lifes ambition.  Been there, lived thro it, done it.

Edited 1 December , 2017 by Retlaw

[kenf48]

What evidence is there that men from the Northern slums won the war.

 

‘Military Recruiting and the British Labour Force during the First World War’ P. E. Dewey

Available on Jstor

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2639348?seq=20#page_scan_tab_contents

identifies that the percentage of recruits in 1915 from the South East and the North were identical at 22% (p216).

 

You also need to distinguish between the period of voluntary recruitment and conscription.  It could be argued that the war was won by the eighteen year old conscripts of 1918.  Not the men of K1 who as Becket observes in ‘Nation in Arms’ came from the traditional recruiting demographic, one which filled the middle class recruits with horror.  Consideration should be given to the type of industry and medical conditions.  Dewey notes recruitment in from the textile industry, for example was very low.

 

Those in the Northern slums, or any slums, suffered the diseases and mortality of poverty.  The 40th Division originally conceived as a ‘Bantam’ formation lost nearly half its recruits when serious training began, delaying their embarkation to France.

 

It’s an interesting question, but more to do with class rather than geography.

 

Ken

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 2 December , 2017 by kenf48

[Guest]

 i)  In terms of absolute numbers, it was the Working Class wot won the war, compared to any other socio-economic group serving in the armed forces during the Great War. That is not so much History as just plain truism.

 

ii)  In terms of the distribution of the Working Classes, the the Industrial North and South-East are joint champions ("South-East" is a euphemism for the economy centered on Greater London)- the concept of regional economies applies here-especially with regard to the  West Midlands and the Clyde which seem to have had a greater concentration of war industries and,consequently, sumped more men of military age away from direct military service. Thus, numbers served in the armed forces by region gives a skewed result unless the comparative  numbers of those taken for industry are also included.

 

iii)  That the "Working Classes" won the war by  percentage of socio-economic group is open to debate.  By percentage served, it may be that the working classes  suffered less than a.n.other group-perhaps lower middle class. The percentages of  casualties by rank are well known- safest-private, most dangerous-2LT,LT,Captain. Given the social structure of the junior officer corps, then  AS A PERCENTAGE, it is likely that lower middle class took the hammering-  it being well established that group provided the greater part of those ranks.

iv)  As a percentage of that group served in the armed forces, then it is possible/probable that the Working Classes did not win the war for 2 factors that diminish as a group

     1)  Those taken for industry

      2)  Those rejected for military service. Indications are that the Working Classes had a greater proportion of men rejected-the old stuff about "physical deterioration" ,health, nutrition,etc.

Edited 2 December , 2017 by Guest

[Medaler]

44 minutes ago, voltaire60 said:

 i)  In terms of absolute numbers, it was the Working Class wot won the war, compared to any other socio-economic group serving in the armed forces during the Great War. That is not so much History and just plain truism.

 

 

There are some who would argue that it it was the American working classes wot won the war, by starting to turn up in sufficient numbers that the German working classes realised that the game was up, thereby prompting their decision to lose.

 

And what of the French working classes, who suffered more than most? Are they to be given no consideration?

 

Sorry, but nobody can simply say that the British working classes, be they northern or southern, "won the war". They were just one influence amongst many.

[John_Hartley]

11 hours ago, QGE said:

 

The Industrial North and the Great War. Has anyone written this book?

Possibly at least touched on in the various "Town/city in the war" series published by Pen & Sword. I suppose it will depend on each authors take on the subject. For example, the Manchester book makes significant points of the working class experience, whereas the Stockport one doesnt (also very much an industrial urban area). You're also going to find "local stuff" in other books. For example, in my "Bully Beef & Biscuits", I relied heavily on the Stockport newspapers for research for human interest aspects

 

That said, and as suggested by other contributors, I'm not sure what such a book as you suggest would look like.

[ianjonesncl]

"The Flowers of the Forest - Scotland and the First World War"  Trevor Royal gives quite a good insight into the social conditions and effects of WW1.

 

It is not specifically about socio-economics, the main narrative being about the battles Scottish regiments were engaged in.

 

It not only covers the slums of Glasgow, it also includes those living in agricultural poverty. It was not totally grim up North (still isn't), with accounts of those coming from other parts of society.

 

Ian

[Guest]

A quick quiz: Which had the larger population? the administrative county of London or the administrative county of Lancashire?  I got the answer wrong. Answer is below. 

 

The UK had become urbanized in 1851; more people (50.2%)  lived in urban areas than in rural areas as defined by the Census.  The strong trend in urbanization continued to the 1911 Census, the last measure before the war. In 1911 some 78.1% of the population were living in urban areas.  Roughly speaking four in every five people. The UK's largest urban areas outside the administrative county of London were predominantly in the North; London's population was ten times larger than Leeds which was sixth on the list.

 

The chart below shows the population by administrative County in 1911. The first three large bars are Lancashire, London  and Yorkshire. The population of Lancashire exceeded that of London - something that was mildly surprising. I would have guessed the opposite. 

 

 

When we resolve this against the number of battalions fielded by the recruiting areas as a very rough guideline; 

 

London Regt..................................88

Middelsex Regt ............................47

Royal Fusiliers...............................49

Total 'greater' London...............184

 

Lancashire....................................212

Yorkshire.......................................146

Northumberland and Durham....84

etc....

 

Demographics determined where the volunteers and conscripts came from.  It is this high concentration in the industrial heartlands that interest me. They just happen to be largely in the North.  

 

Unskilled labourers may well have been over-represented in the recruiting data as their chances of being exempted Conscription were less than those of a skilled labourer or artisan. I am interested in exploring this dynamic. Countering this is the idea that the lowest socio-economic groups were less likely to make the physical grade. The link between poverty, nutrition, physique and height is well understood. This might suggest they would be under-represented in the data and these two seemingly conflicting dynamics are of interest. A counter-counter claim is that the lowest socio-economic groups would be defined by the survival of the fittest. In an age when child mortality was high one might argue only the fittest survived. This natural selection might have skewed the data. The dynamics are potentially quite complex.  As already highlighted on this thread, the formation of Bantam battalions are perhaps just one response; men who in peace time would not have made the physical standards were recruited in reasonably large numbers. 

 

Of greater interest is the impact the war had on these working class communities. It is their social history that is interesting and how their lives changed before during and after the war. They seem to be a rather large part of the Army. Most of the histories are focused on units. On the surface these unit histories might well capture the essence of working class communities, in the shape of Pals Battalions. I am however extremely skeptical about the consistency in the makeup of Pals Battallions. I suspect it was an interesting concept that was unsustainable. In simple terms were there enough tramways workers/ railway workers/ commercials/ etc to sustain these narrowly focused battalions. I doubt it and this is why I think the Pals Battalions histories don't quite fit the bill. There are of course exceptions (the Post Office Rifles seemed to have no shortage of Post Office workers willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, although I would argue that a London TF 'battalion recruiting by professional class was a slightly different organisation.  

Edited 2 December , 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

   Martin- 3  comments;

 

1)  Pals Battallions. Those that are designated by occupation- eg Stockbrokers. Just how many were there of any occupation (or locality) when initially formed- let alone with reinforcements after losses. I believe studies of Accrington show that men came in from surrounding towns as well. I think  the designation of a Pals battalion aided initial recruiting and acted as a focus for unit loyalty which was what was needed at the  moment.  Stockbrokers, for example, was anyone vaguely City.

      Post Office- in 1914 the Post Office was the largest department of the Civil Service- thus, many more potential recruits than in our lifetimes.

 

2)   Bantam battalions are at the margin-  Whatever number were raised, they were  comparatively few when set against the total number of military age manpower. It is probable that more men rejected as physically unfit for military service worked in war industries. Figures for Poor Law relief during the war (from memory) show that men of military age went down-so those not in the armed forces must have been in industry??   

 

3)   The statistic that skews the figure most is emigration-which averaged half a million a year for the century from 1815-1914..  It is not the old or the  crippled that migrate (eg-Canada ran its own system like Ellis Island-rejecting the unfit,the drunk,etc)  Thus a reminder again of one of the statistical quirks of the war that the UK ended the war with effectively no loss of  "Lost Generation" manpower-  the  closure of emigration meant more men of military age were retained in the UK than the losses were year on year. It caused long term dislocation and imbalance but in terms of pure numbers, the UK  was untouched. The manpower cost of the war was borne by those Dominions and the US-the places where the migrants would have gone- hence, in part, the inter-war  recessions in Aus., NZ, S.Africa.

 

      In absolute losses, it was the Russian working class who took a bashing. If the Russians had not borne such heavy l;osses for 3 years, then  the Germans would have had their victory procession down the Champs Elysees in 1815.  Operation Michael would have been in 1915-1816 at the latest-and without American manpower the Germans would have won.  Given the rampant Cold War leftovers of dislike of anything  "Russky", then it might be well to remember  that the Russians  were our allies in 2 world wars amd that their catastrophic losses contributed in large measure to our survival.

[Medaler]

39 minutes ago, voltaire60 said:

   Martin- 3  comments;

 

 

2)   Bantam battalions are at the margin-  Whatever number were raised, they were  comparatively few when set against the total number of military age manpower. It is probable that more men rejected as physically unfit for military service worked in war industries. Figures for Poor Law relief during the war (from memory) show that men of military age went down-so those not in the armed forces must have been in industry??   

 

 

 

Could also be said of Pal's battalions, well at least those that are accepted as falling under that definition. They were a long way from forming a majority of the extra "Service" battalions that were formed.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, voltaire60 said:

   Martin- 3  comments;

 

1)  Pals Battallions. Those that are designated by occupation- eg Stockbrokers. Just how many were there of any occupation (or locality) when initially formed- let alone with reinforcements after losses. I believe studies of Accrington show that men came in from surrounding towns as well. I think  the designation of a Pals battalion aided initial recruiting and acted as a focus for unit loyalty which was what was needed at the  moment.  Stockbrokers, for example, was anyone vaguely City. The whole Pals battalion thematic is one that I think is overblown. large scale sampling of SDGW quickly exposes the gaps between the concept and the reality.  

Post Office- in 1914 the Post Office was the largest department of the Civil Service- thus, many more potential recruits than in our lifetimes. The SDGW and CWGC data seems to indicate Post Office workers from across the country were channelled into the PO Rifles,ostensibly a London unit.

 

2)   Bantam battalions are at the margin-  Whatever number were raised, they were  comparatively few when set against the total number of military age manpower. It is probable that more men rejected as physically unfit for military service worked in war industries. Figures for Poor Law relief during the war (from memory) show that men of military age went down-so those not in the armed forces must have been in industry??   My knowledge of Bantam uniti is next to zero. I would simply make the observation that their existence alone suggests some creativity by the War Office in stretching the physical requirements. My understanding (and this may well be mis-informed) is that the Bantam concept was largely a failure.

 

3)   The statistic that skews the figure most is emigration-which averaged half a million a year for the century from 1815-1914..massively skewed by Irish emigration from the 1841 Census onward.  It is not the old or the  crippled that migrate (eg-Canada ran its own system like Ellis Island-rejecting the unfit,the drunk,etc)  Thus a reminder again of one of the statistical quirks of the war that the UK ended the war with effectively no loss of  "Lost Generation" manpower-  the  closure of emigration meant more men of military age were retained in the UK than the losses were year on year. It caused long term dislocation and imbalance but in terms of pure numbers, the UK  was untouched. The manpower cost of the war was borne by those Dominions and the US-the places where the migrants would have gone- hence, in part, the inter-war  recessions in Aus., NZ, S.Africa. Very interesting. I would add that one needs to net off natural wastage from the battle fatality numbers as well. Also net inward migration of Irish workers exempt conscription may well have released men in the UK for military service. 

 

      In absolute losses, it was the Russian working class who took a bashing. If the Russians had not borne such heavy l;osses for 3 years, then  the Germans would have had their victory procession down the Champs Elysees in 1815.  Operation Michael would have been in 1915-1816 at the latest-and without American manpower the Germans would have won.  Given the rampant Cold War leftovers of dislike of anything  "Russky", then it might be well to remember  that the Russians  were our allies in 2 world wars amd that their catastrophic losses contributed in large measure to our survival. Yes I am sure the Russians won the war. They certainly won  WWII. They need to join the long queue of nations and minority groups claiming to have won the war. My focus is Anglo-Centric. I use 'urban working class 'won' ' the war very loosely. It is predicated on the simple fact that nearly 80% of the UK's population were urbanized, and Conscription would largely create an Army that reflected the social demographics of the country with some obvious but very small distortions; the Irish (exempt conscription) and (smaller yet) Public School educated men who seemed determined to die for their King and Country in vast proportions. J M Winter in his sublime book "The Great War and the British People" describes this as the 'slaughter of the social elites' It is a depressing read. 

 

 Comments in blue

 J M Winter's book "The Great War and the British People" provides a useful starting point. One of the most fascinating chapters is the "Paradox of the Great War" that argues that society saw a large net benefit from the war on a vast range of measures. (there are other threads on this) It is one of the most incisive books on the War and largely buried under an avalanche of detritus about the 'Lost Generation' - itself a rather large myth.  It is largely this book (greatly undervalued in my view) that triggered interest in the social aspects of the war rather than guns and bombs and VCs. We know lots about various minority groups (pals) but (I think) very little about the lowest but largest of the socio-economic group; the lumpen proletariat  as Marx would call them. As mentioned, unit histories don't really capture this. For example: while there are a number of beautifully and carefully researched books focused on the relatively small Officer corps the Newcastle "slum birds" that Parsons (16th Div) so ungraciously rejected have no voice. While the Tyneside Irish have fine published histories, they are not social histories. Similarly where is the counter to Charles Bean's rather invidious comments on the poor fighting qualities of the British 'slum-bred' soldiers. In this instance he was (I believe) referring to the men of the 42nd (East Lancashire) Division (TF)*. I see no equivalent hefty tome to support the bootless cries of Britains defrauded youth. 

 

* 42nd (East Lancashire) Div (TF):

 

1/5th Bn Lancashire Fusiliers........Bury, Heywood, Radcliffe

1/6th Bn Lancashire Fusiliers........Rochdale, Middleton, Todmorden

1/7th Bn Lancashire Fusiliers........Salford

1/8th Bn Lancashire Fusiliers........Salford

1/4th Bn East Lancashire Regt......Blackburn, Darwen, Clitheroe

1/5th Bn East Lancashire Regt......Burnley, Padiham, Accrington, Haslington, Ramsbottom, Bacup

1/5th Bn Manchester Regt.............Wigan, Patricroft, Leigh, Atherton, 

1/6th Bn Manchester Regt.............Hulme

1/7th Bn Manchester Regt.............Manchester

1/8th Bn Manchester Regt.............Ardwick

1/9th Bn Manchester Regt.............Ashton Under lyne

1/10th Bn Manchester Regt...........Oldham

 

One can only wonder what these town's War Memorials really represent. 

 

 

Edited 2 December , 2017 by Guest
their for there. I cant quite believe I typed that.

[ianjonesncl]

5 minutes ago, QGE said:

Newcastle "slum birds" that Parsons (16th Div) so ungraciously rejected have no voice.

 

 

Newcastle - 16th Division ?? or 16th NF ?

 

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, ianjonesncl said:

Newcastle - 16th Division ?? or 16th NF ?

 

 

When the 16th (Irish) Division was facing a manpower crisis, an idea was floated to include the recently raised Tyneside Irish to make up the numbers. Parsons (GOC  16th (Irish) Div) flatly rejected them as 'slum birds' that he did not want and rambled on about hurley playing Oirish as the type he wanted. Most historians of the Irish formations are a bit 'Donnybrook'  in their perceptions. 

 

It was possibly one of the most short-sighted reactions in recruiting history. Newcastle's catchment area was Northumberland and Durham (the districts had a n unusual agreement to consolidate) - a region that sustained more battalions than most recruiting districts. By 1917 Parsons would have been begging for the Tyneside Irish. 

 

The Tynesde Irish went on to sacrifice themselves on the First Day of the Battles of the Somme in rather large numbers. Ditto the Tyneside Scottish as I am sure you are aware. 

Edited 2 December , 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

13 hours ago, Medaler said:

Why single out the north? or was life on the wrong side of the Trent a bowl of cherries for one and all?

 

Seriously, how are you defining "north"? Are we talking UK here, or does your north end at Berwick? More interestingly, where does it start, are you classing Birmingham as north?

 

Regards,

Mike

 I live on the beach on the South Coast facing the Isle of Wight, so everything else is the North to me.

 

On a more serious note I don't have a strict definition. A line from the Wash to the Severn was always a rough guide; above was the North and below was the South. It is one of many definitions all of which are subjective.  I wasn't born in this country so Idont have any prejudiced inclinations. Parents live in Co Durham and outlaws live in North Lancashire . If you fell over you would be in Cumbria - places that I am very familiar with as well as the A 66. 

 

 No-one can agree on what defines being a Scotsman or an Irishman  so I suspect defining a man from the North will be more problematic. It is more to do with population concentrations and class; Where did most of the lowest socio-economic groups (who enlisted) come from. I am fairly confident that Lancashire, Yorkshire, Staffordshire, Warwicksire, Worcestershire, Co. Durham and Northumberland will feature. One might easily add Derbyshire, Cheshire and Nottinghamshire. Either way one cares to define the North it will remain a function of perspective. In the 1980s some people in Newcastle (where I once lived)  regarded people from Yorkshire as Southerners such are the distortions of perspective.  I cant think of a more suitable word to describe the men who lived in large sprawling urban areas outside London

Edited 2 December , 2017 by Guest

[Medaler]

56 minutes ago, QGE said:

 Where did most of the lowest socio-economic groups (who enlisted) come from. I am fairly confident that Lancashire, Yorkshire, Staffordshire, Warwicksire, Worcestershire, Co. Durham and Northumberland will feature. One might easily add Derbyshire, Cheshire and Nottinghamshire. Either way one cares to define the North it will remain a function of perspective. In the 1980s some people in Newcastle (where I once lived)  regarded people from Yorkshire as Southerners such are the distortions of perspective.  I cant think of a more suitable word to describe the men who lived in large sprawling urban areas outside London

 

I see that as part of the problem. The lowest socio-economic groups were not remotely restricted by geography, and in many ways the minority who stuck to the agrarian sector of the economy were no better off. It all  smacks of an artificial divide to assume that everyone north of Watford is working class/industrial and that everyone in the metropolis somehow magically fared better. That wasn't true then, and it isn't true now.

 

In my own neck of the woods we didn't have a Pals Btn as such, though the 9th and 10th Btns of the Foresters contained large numbers of local men at the outset. As Service Btns went they were probably as close as we got to a Pals Battalion. On the other hand, the concept of "local men enlisting, serving and dying together" is more than aptly represented in the Territorials of their 6th Battalion. Whilst they were a bit far-flung, with some elements from the Peak District, many of their Companies were raised from the industrial and mining communities that surrounded Chesterfield. One should however be careful with these men to an extent, as a huge proportion were already serving before 4th August 1914, and therefore can not be said to have volunteered specifically to fight in the Great War. I believe that distinction still stands regardless of if they chose to wear the Imperial Service badge or not. Indeed, there had been very little "take up" of the commitment to serve overseas until after war had been declared.

 

At the end of the day, the sweeping statement that the working class of whatever you want to define as "the north" does  not stand up to any real scrutiny, no more than the concept that elements of society who were not working class did not suffer and contribute in equal proportion.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Medaler said:

 

I see that as part of the problem. The lowest socio-economic groups were not remotely restricted by geography, and in many ways the minority who stuck to the agrarian sector of the economy were no better off. It all  smacks of an artificial divide to assume that everyone north of Watford is working class/industrial and that everyone in the metropolis somehow magically fared better. That wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. I don't assume everyone above some imaginary line is "working class/industrial and that everyone in the metropolis somehow magically fared better".  I am not sure why you think I believe this. The working class were obviously everywhere. For  historical reasons an extremely large proportion of the population happen to have concentrated in parts of the country other than London.  They simply happen to be largely in what I care to call the North. It is these sub-groups that interest me. 

 

In my own neck of the woods we didn't have a Pals Btn as such, though the 9th and 10th Btns of the Foresters contained large numbers of local men at the outset. As Service Btns went they were probably as close as we got to a Pals Battalion. On the other hand, the concept of "local men enlisting, serving and dying together" is more than aptly represented in the Territorials of their 6th Battalion. Whilst they were a bit far-flung, with some elements from the Peak District, many of their Companies were raised from the industrial and mining communities that surrounded Chesterfield. One should however be careful with these men to an extent, as a huge proportion were already serving before 4th August 1914, and therefore can not be said to have volunteered specifically to fight in the Great War. I believe that distinction still stands regardless of if they chose to wear the Imperial Service badge or not. Indeed, there had been very little "take up" of the commitment to serve overseas until after war had been declared. The idea that there had been "very little "take up" of the commitment to serve overseas until after the war had been declared"  rather conflicts with the facts recorded by the Battalion.  Before the War the 6th Bn Sherwood Foresters (TF) stood at 31 Officers and 962 Other Ranks of whom 26 Officers and 723 Other Ranks had signed the Overseas Service Obligation.. To save you the maths this meant that 84% of the Officers and 75% of the Other Ranks were already committed to serve overseas before the War was declared. Source: The Sherwood Foresters Regimental Annual 1913 "6th Battalion Notes" page 178.  

 

The 6th Bn recruited from communities that were very far flung. the 8 companies were Chesterfield, Chapel-en-le-Frith, Buxton, Bakewell, Wirksworth, Staveley, Claycross and Whaley Bridge. Most had no connection with coal mining. Chesterfield was the exception rather than the rule.  A circle covering all eight Companies would cover 450 530 square miles. Whaley Bridge (H Coy) is a marathon (26 miles as the crow flies) from the Bn HQ at Chesterfield. Other than annual camps it is unlikely that the men of H Coy ever met men from A Company. Their recruiting area was congruent with the Derbyshire Yeomanry's. 

 

At the end of the day, the sweeping statement that the working class of whatever you want to define as "the north" does  not stand up to any real scrutiny, no more than the concept that elements of society who were not working class did not suffer and contribute in equal proportion. I don't understand this last sentence.

 

 

My comments in blue. MG

Edited 2 December , 2017 by Guest

[ilkley remembers]

35 minutes ago, QGE said:

The working class were obviously everywhere. For  historical reasons an extremely large proportion of the population happen to have concentrated in parts of the country other than London.  They simply happen to be largely in what I care to call the North. It is these sub-groups that interest me. 

 

MG, I have followed the thread of your argument with interest and with some considerable degree of agreement. However, I am a little perplexed by the comment quoted above, particularly the mention of sub-groups. What sub-groups do you mean? I have read back through your previous comments and rather than place my own, inevitably imprecise, interpretation on what you said, I wonder if you would be happy to explain in a little more detail what you are alluding to.

[John_Hartley]

6 hours ago, QGE said:

In simple terms were there enough tramways workers/ railway workers/ commercials/ etc to sustain these narrowly focused battalions.

No. At least not in the case of the Manchester Regiment Pals battalions.

 

When the first four were formed in September 1914, there was very tight recruitment. The early joiners had to bring along a certificate from tneir employer proving they were a "clerk or warehouseman". In essence, these were pretty much exclusively lower middle class "white collar" workers. In January 1915, each battalion recruited a temporary fifth reserve company. By then , they were taking anybody - including my grandfather, a fireman (stoker) at the local gasworks and his brother, also working at the gasworks.

[John_Hartley]

5 hours ago, QGE said:

1/6th Bn Manchester Regt.............Hulme

Not "slum bred soldiers".

 

The battalion recruited prewar amongst the upper echelons of Manchester society. If you were the son of the mill owner and wanted to do your bit, you joined the 6th. When it went overseas in September 1914 and the 2/6th was formed, that unit pretty much retained a middle class background. You don't really see numbers of working class men joining the battalion until 1918.

[Medaler]

Hi,

 

Well you started off by including ...............

"Has anyone ever written a book about the men from the Northern Industrial slums who (proportionally) actually won the war?"

You then however seemed to have struggled to define what you mean by "Northern". That kind of makes progress on proving the validity of your opening statement (that they won the war) a bit tricky. Moving on from that however, and accepting that it is the contribution made to the war effort from industrial areas that hold your interest, I had wondered why you were choosing to ignore those from areas that you might define as the south. No matter really, if you are only interested in the loosely defined "North", then I can better identify where you are coming from. There is then, of course, the point that your interest only extends to the industrial areas in that region, and therefore excludes those in other sectors of that regional economy. I understand that much better now you have explained it.

 

The 6th Bn recruited form communities that were very far flung. the 8 companies were Chesterfield, Chapel-en-le-Frith, Buxton, Bakewell, Wirksworth, Staveley, Claycross and Whaley Bridge. Most had no connection with coal mining. Chesterfield was the exception rather than the rule.  A circle covering all eight Companies would cover 450 square miles. Whaley Bridge (H Coy) is a marathon (26 miles as the crow flies) from the Bn HQ at Chesterfield. Other than annual camps it is unlikely that the men of H Coy ever met men from A Company. Their recruiting area was congruent with the Derbyshire Yeomanry's. 

 

I take your point about my use of the word "many", but the the units at Chesterfield, Staveley and Clay Cross were certainly at the heart of the mining industry. Not all were miners of course, but the men in the other companies were also from the pools of "industry" and "working class" that you were particularly interested in. There was however certainly some coal mining going on around Whaley Bridge, and many of the other company bases were in areas where textiles and quarrying were important parts of the local economy. They weren't all sheep farmers - far from it.

 

The idea that there had been "very little "take up" of the commitment to serve overseas until after the war had been declared"  rather conflicts with the facts recorded by the Battalion.  Before the War the 6th Bn Sherwood Foresters (TF) stood at 31 Officers and 962 Other Ranks of whom 26 Officers and 723 Other Ranks had signed the Overseas Service Obligation.. To save you the maths this meant that 84% of the Officers and 75% of the Other Ranks were already committed to serve overseas before the War was declared. Source: The Sherwood Foresters Regimental Annual 1913 "6th Battalion Notes" page 178.  

 

Quite right! - I have just looked it up myself. I think I was mixing them with a memory of 8th Btn (which are a bit of a different animal). The point remains though. Did they take on the obligation in order to fight in WW1? - I'm not so sure that they did. Their knowledge of it must have been pretty limited if they signed on for it before it actually started.

 

" I don't understand this last sentence." I'm not sure that I do now either. What I meant to say was.............

 

At the end of the day, the sweeping statement that the working class of whatever you want to define as "the north" actually "won the war" does  not stand up to any real scrutiny, no more so than the concept that elements of society who were not either northern or working class did not suffer and contribute in equal proportion.

 

I think I have probably become too wrapped up in your opening sweeping statement. Now you are refining things a bit it is helping my understanding.

 

Regards,

Mike