mystery Coldstream Ledger book

[Derek Black]

9 hours ago, DavidOwen said:

 

My apologies for the detour!

 

Back to CCS this link appears in many threads and it gives the locations and dates for each of them (I think a spreadsheet project may be looming!) - don't know if it could be tied into the war diary and battalion locations? http://www.vlib.us/medical/CCS/ccs.htm

 

David

The LLT has the info layed out better:

http://www.longlongtrail.co.uk/army/regiments-and-corps/locations-of-british-casualty-clearing-stations/

Cheers,

Derek.

[Coldstreamer]

Im not convinced this is for CCS - look at these men, all have one entry, all transferred out the same day - would OR transfers be in battalion orders ?

 

 

Edited 23 April , 2018 by Coldstreamer

[SteveE]

59 minutes ago, Coldstreamer said:

Im not convinced this is for CCS - look at these men, all have one entry, all transferred out the same day - would OR transfers be in battalion orders ?

In a word, yes. OR transfers and all daily activity would have been recorded in the battalion’s Daily Orders.  However, if the ledger was an index to these I’d expect the entries to go higher than the 64 you’ve found.

 

Steve

[Coldstreamer]

Would these orders go into 3 digits?  I can't see more than 2

[stiletto_33853]

As Steve has indicated yes they would. I must admit I did wonder if they were re-inforcement drafts received by the battalion, i.e. 1st RB received 8 drafts in 1914, 2nd RB 4 drafts, 3rd RB 9 drafts.

 

Andy

[DavidOwen]

One connection between a battalion and the number 64 is the number of sections (16 platoons, 4 companies, etc. ).

Probably just another of my famous red herrings....

[Coldstreamer]

I'm going to check again for higher numbers

 

 

 

[johnboy]

both links for CCS locations differ, 

[Coldstreamer]

found a 69/18

[DavidOwen]

12 minutes ago, Coldstreamer said:

found a 69/18

Certain it is 69?

Not a badly written 63??

 

 

Back to the beginning then.. 

 

[Coldstreamer]

ok, i have a theory

 

20th July 1915 - 1st copy of battalion order part 1 published

 

highest number i can see is 69. 365 day divided into 69 is an order every 5 days or 6 per month

 

battalion goes to France 15th August and 1st OR mentioned in the diary (to hospital) is Pte Appleby on the 19th .  So Im expecting to see 6/15 on Appleby.....and it says 9/15.

 

Pte Boulter has a 1/18  - so Im hoping to see him in the war diary for the 1st week in January 1918 - and I dont. But his papers show he got to France 28.12.17 - few days to get to battalion ...

 

Also CSM and Drill Sgt Black MM (2 MIDs) has lots of entries - first being 1/16 and also 2/16 amongst others - this makes he wonder, when did he get to the battalion, looks to me like should be in January 1916  ...... and his papers say.....February 1915

 

Im going for a walk - might be a while.....

[Coldstreamer]

17 minutes ago, DavidOwen said:

Certain it is 69?

Not a badly written 63??

 

 

Back to the beginning then.. 

 

 

no also found  a Pte Alliss with 65/18 and 67/18

 

 

[tullybrone]

1 hour ago, Coldstreamer said:

ok, i have a theory

 

20th July 1915 - 1st copy of battalion order part 1 published

 

highest number i can see is 69. 365 day divided into 69 is an order every 5 days or 6 per month

 

battalion goes to France 15th August and 1st OR mentioned in the diary (to hospital) is Pte Appleby on the 19th .  So Im expecting to see 6/15 on Appleby.....and it says 9/15.

 

Pte Boulter has a 1/18  - so Im hoping to see him in the war diary for the 1st week in January 1918 - and I dont. But his papers show he got to France 28.12.17 - few days to get to battalion ...

 

Also CSM and Drill Sgt Black MM (2 MIDs) has lots of entries - first being 1/16 and also 2/16 amongst others - this makes he wonder, when did he get to the battalion, looks to me like should be in January 1916  ...... and his papers say.....February 1915

 

Im going for a walk - might be a while.....

 

 

Sounds promising Ian....

 

I wouldn’t keep rigidly to the 5 or 6 per month....more likely on a fixed day every week......or simply published when necessary for movements in and out of the Battalion and/or other information ie discipline matters to be recorded and promulgated to the troops. I think they might’ve used Part 2 orders for that?

 

Re CSM Black - his papers may say he was posted to 4th Battalion Jan 1915 when it was the Reserve Battalion?

 

Boulter would pass through an IBD on arrival in France...you see loads of records of men taking several days or a week or more to get to a Battalion after disembarkation. Their B103 and statement of service are endorsed on leaving Reserve Battalion at Windsor as posted to a BEF Battalion - “umpteenth draft for ? Battalion” - sometimes the designated Battalion was changed on arrival at IBD - like Regiments were changed for line Regiment drafts on their arrival at their IBD.

 

My gf Pte 6332 Devlin left Windsor 31st May 1916 for 4th Battalion but his B103 says he only arrived with them 18th June 1916. - let me know what his ledger entries (if any) say and I’ll try and interpret from his papers.

 

Steve

 

[DavidOwen]

Thinking aloud here folks!

 

Back to first principles:

1. Do we believe it was produced retrospectively (ink / writing etc.?

2. It must have been created for a purpose (unless some particularly nasty superior didn't like the clerk in question) what might that purpose have been?

3. It has greater numbers than those of the CCS

4.The numbering goes higher than it would for the sections of a battalion (64)

5. A whole tranche of transferred men all have the same (23/16) entry

6. If it is battalion orders how is it every man appears to have at least one entry (probably needs checking) but others have more?

7. As per 5 how come some individuals have numerous entries 12+ in some cases (were these officers?)

8. As per 5 I think I have seen instances when a lower number (for the same denominator) appears after a high one, how might that be the case? (again would need checking)

9. As per 5 if it were to record who was affected by which order what would be the purpose?

10. According to rules of demobilisation - it has nothing to do with that!?!

 

So what are we left with?

 

Was it designed to be an index of some sort, if so an index to what?

A history of the battalion?

A record of passes given to those on the move / leave (then you might expect to find all numbers for each year from 1 to max)?

 

Why was it not given a title page????!!!

 

Time for a long, long walk I think........

 

My apologies for wasting everyone's time in reading this!

 

[tullybrone]

38 minutes ago, DavidOwen said:

Thinking aloud here folks!

 

Back to first principles:

1. Do we believe it was produced retrospectively (ink / writing etc.?

2. It must have been created for a purpose (unless some particularly nasty superior didn't like the clerk in question) what might that purpose have been?

3. It has greater numbers than those of the CCS

4.The numbering goes higher than it would for the sections of a battalion (64)

5. A whole tranche of transferred men all have the same (23/16) entry

6. If it is battalion orders how is it every man appears to have at least one entry (probably needs checking) but others have more?

7. As per 5 how come some individuals have numerous entries 12+ in some cases (were these officers?)

8. As per 5 I think I have seen instances when a lower number (for the same denominator) appears after a high one, how might that be the case? (again would need checking)

9. As per 5 if it were to record who was affected by which order what would be the purpose?

10. According to rules of demobilisation - it has nothing to do with that!?!

 

So what are we left with?

 

Was it designed to be an index of some sort, if so an index to what?

A history of the battalion?

A record of passes given to those on the move / leave (then you might expect to find all numbers for each year from 1 to max)?

 

Why was it not given a title page????!!!

 

Time for a long, long walk I think........

 

My apologies for wasting everyone's time in reading this!

 

 

Ian,

 

I’ll base my responses below on my previous suggestion that it’s likely an Index to Battalion Orders - 

 

1. Do we believe it was produced retrospectively (ink / writing etc.?

 

No opinion - could be either from what you’ve posted.

 

2. It must have been created for a purpose (unless some particularly nasty superior didn't like the clerk in question) what might that purpose have been?

 

I think the index would be used like we use a “search” facility to save time in locating an individual record. Picture it being used like an Index in a non fiction book.

 

3. It has greater numbers than those of the CCS

 

So clearly not CCS related?

 

4.The numbering goes higher than it would for the sections of a battalion (64)

 

The numbers relate to the individual orders published in date order - 1915 orders would start at 1/15, 1916 orders at 1/16 etc not in relation to Platoons or other Battalion sub unit.

 

 

5. A whole tranche of transferred men all have the same (23/16) entry

 

That reflects that their movement is recorded in Battalion Order Number 23 in 1916?

 

 

6. If it is battalion orders how is it every man appears to have at least one entry (probably needs checking) but others have more?

 

I’d expect a man to first feature in a Battalion Order as a record of his posting to his Company. Further entries could cover various occurrences - inter company transfer, transfer out of the Battalion ( including sick/ wounded/ attached elsewhere etc) , promulgation of discipline outcomes, promulgation of Bravery Awards etc, temporary absence on leave to U.K. etc.

 

7. As per 5 how come some individuals have numerous entries 12+ in some cases (were these officers?)

 

 Not necessarily.

 

8. As per 5 I think I have seen instances when a lower number (for the same denominator) appears after a high one, how might that be the case? (again would need checking)

 

Do you mean written such as 9/16 or 4/18? That would mean Battalion Order Number 9 in 1916 and Number 4 in 1918

 

9. As per 5 if it were to record who was affected by which order what would be the purpose?

 

If it is an Index it could be a “clerk’s” shortcut should an enquiery be made about an individual so they didn’t have to trawl through the whole of Battalion Orders.

 

10. According to rules of demobilisation - it has nothing to do with that!?!

 

Agreed.

 

The title page may have been erased by some means?

 

With no personal military service I’m basing my comments on having had sight of some of the surviving CEF Battalion Orders as well as entries on relatives service records I’ve seen - both WW1 and WW2.

 

I also recall that when I joined the Police over 40 years ago - when military practices and procedures were much more in evidence - we had weekly published Part 1 and Part 2 Force Orders. 

 

Steve

 

[Coldstreamer]

CSM came direct from the 2nd battalion

Ill get Devlins entry and post it shortly

 

[Coldstreamer]

Devlin

 

 

[DavidOwen]

Posting this on a tablet so apologies for not quoting Steve in post #40 above

On point 8 no it was like 23/16 followed by 3/16 (numbers are mine), this of course could be a clerk's error

 

David

[Coldstreamer]

1 hour ago, DavidOwen said:

Thinking aloud here folks!

 

Back to first principles:

1. Do we believe it was produced retrospectively (ink / writing etc.?

2. It must have been created for a purpose (unless some particularly nasty superior didn't like the clerk in question) what might that purpose have been?

3. It has greater numbers than those of the CCS

4.The numbering goes higher than it would for the sections of a battalion (64)

5. A whole tranche of transferred men all have the same (23/16) entry

6. If it is battalion orders how is it every man appears to have at least one entry (probably needs checking) but others have more?

7. As per 5 how come some individuals have numerous entries 12+ in some cases (were these officers?)

8. As per 5 I think I have seen instances when a lower number (for the same denominator) appears after a high one, how might that be the case? (again would need checking)

9. As per 5 if it were to record who was affected by which order what would be the purpose?

10. According to rules of demobilisation - it has nothing to do with that!?!

 

 

1. I think not, no reason, just my opinion. He probably didnt have many pens!

2. agree - plenty of other crappy jobs he could have been given - like being sent to France!

3. yes

4. yes

5. and there are plenty of other examples showing same

6.id need a list of the battalion to do this - there are 50 odd pages, with 62 on page is 3100 men - probably less as not all pages are full so lets says 2500 -  2366 OR and officers according to Regimental history (just checked) - seems all or very nearly all of them. 

7. more reason to be recorded - good work, promotion, jobs to do

8.retrospectively added due to omission

9.good house keeping on who did what and where

10. no thoughts on that

Edited 23 April , 2018 by Coldstreamer

[tullybrone]

Ian,

 

1 hour ago, Coldstreamer said:

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Ian,

 

Thanks for posting my gf entry in the ledger.

 

The numbers in the columns after his name are listed below together with my “informed guess” at what they might refer to from my knowledge of his service papers -

 

28/16- First Arrival in Battalion and Company posting June 1916

 

29/17 - Possible Discipline outcome July 1917

 

36/17 - Departure on 2 weeks UK leave Oct 1917

 

47/17 - Return from U.K. leave 

 

15/18 - Possible intercompany posting on reduction from 4 to 3 companies Feb 1918 - I note the struck through number 4 preceded by number 2 are before his name (although that may also denote his service in 2nd Battalion before 4th Battalion?)

 

50/18 - Departure on 4 weeks U.K. leave Sept 1918 as part of bounty payment for completing his 12 year commitment (+ 1 year)

 

53/18 - Return to Battalion after U.K. leave

 

3/19 - Despatch to UK demobilisation Centre from Cologne.

 

Steve

 

PS

 

Having seen this page I think the ledger may have been written retrospectively in alphabetical order.

Edited 23 April , 2018 by tullybrone

[Coldstreamer]

So are we back to battalion orders again ?

[Coldstreamer]

And you raise a good point, in alpha order then sorted by regimental number

[tullybrone]

 

2 hours ago, Coldstreamer said:

So are we back to battalion orders again ?

 

Ian,

 

I think I could make a case that the ledger entries accurately reflect entries on my gf B103 that would’ve been contemporaneously  published in Battalion Orders.

 

Looking at it dispassionately (rather than with wishful thinking) I think you’d need to compare the ledger entries to a couple of other surviving service records before you could draw a definitive conclusion that it is a retrospectively created Battalion Order Index ledger book.

 

I’d do it myself but I don't have access to FMP/Ancestry☹️

 

Steve

 

EDIT TO ADD

Just reviewing the first posted extract of the ledger. It features a 14738 Booth evacuated wounded 1st June 1916 with a reference 26/16 which ties in nicely with my gf arrival in 4th CG 18/6/1916 with reference 28/16.

Edited 23 April , 2018 by tullybrone

[Coldstreamer]

thanks for the thoughts to date so far.  the archivist I asked didn't know either

[DavidOwen]

26 minutes ago, Coldstreamer said:

thanks for the thoughts to date so far.  the archivist I asked didn't know either

Rats! I was hoping they may well have eased our pain. 

So, the best fit is the Battalion Orders, can these be cross checked?