Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Scottish casualties myth meme


Skipman

Recommended Posts

It clearly was not that, as it still lives and breathes. In any case, it is comment rather than content and and could easily be dispensed with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 25/09/2019 at 17:08, phil andrade said:

If some of the estimates in that article are to be believed, it was not the Scottish soldiers who died at an excessive rate, but the sailors.

 

I wonder if the mercantile marine contained disproportionate numbers of Scotsmen : perhaps they produced large contingents of fishermen who were ready, willing and able for maritime service.

 

Phil


isn’t it said if you stick your head in the engine room of any merchant ship, anywhere in the world and shout “Hey, Jock!” somebody will answer??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I initially saw this post's title, I assumed it was in relation to the picture of 1st Battalion The Cameron Highlanders outside Edinburgh Castle in 1914, and thereafter a photo of dubious provenance allegedly taken in 1918 (because everyone went home on 12 November) showing a car parked in the same place as it was in the 1914 photograph, and the sole officer and 27 ORs who "survived" from the battalion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the sole officer and 27 ORs who "survived" from the battalion.

 

I am sure that you will be aware that similar "survivors" photos exist of a fair number of battalions, fakes or otherwise.

 

If the criteria for inclusion are:

 

continuous service with the unit [excepting leave, wounds etc]

availability for the photo [already demobbed, absent for any reason etc]

 

then an officer or two and a dozen other ranks does not betoken mass slaughter or even one in ten [decimation] because continuity was surprisingly unusual due to postings to another battalion of the regiment, or postings to another regiment, or commissioning, usually to another unit. Wounding often meant permanent civilianisation, and thus survival. In particular many "survivors" were to be found in the massive Labour Corps, to which medically downgraded soldiers were often posted. Lost to the unit, but survivors nevertheless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Keith_history_buff said:

When I initially saw this post's title, I assumed it was in relation to the picture of 1st Battalion The Cameron Highlanders outside Edinburgh Castle in 1914, and thereafter a photo of dubious provenance allegedly taken in 1918 (because everyone went home on 12 November) showing a car parked in the same place as it was in the 1914 photograph, and the sole officer and 27 ORs who "survived" from the battalion.

 

I know the picture you mean and thought the same.

 

But it's on FB so it must be pukka.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the car came back unscathed, and the image has done the rounds on FB, so it must be pukka.

As I understand it, the two pics have been posted to overemphasise casualties. Saying that, there was a heavier butcher's bill for the BEF units in 1914 than the oft quoted 11% died 89% survived for the British Army overall. The manner in which the pics have been presented implies that there was a Bataan death march that the battalion went on, rather than any implication that reasons other than death would result in a soldier leaving the battalion - or even the fact that there would have been a flow of reinforcements to the battalion for the duration of the war. 

As for Muerrisch's post, I don't disbelieve that only 2 or 3 dozen originals were still with the unit at the end of the war, as this corresponds with research done into a battalion of the BEF, the details of which were shared with an ex-forum member who has done a lot of number crunching. I daresay he has gathered similar information in relation to the RWF. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you. He has. 2nd RWF.

 

Drafts and other reinforcements, Other Ranks.

 

Month/ Year

1914

1915

1916

1917

1918

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jan

-

100

49

28

+

Feb

-

50

Nil

Nil

Not known

Mar

-

67

Nil

Nil

Not known

Apr

-

69

Nil

136

Not known

May

-

Nil

* 157

120

Not known

Jun

-

50

Nil

Nil

Not known

Jul

-

20

545

326

Not known

Aug

-

45

13

71

Not known

Sep

# 189

25

129

53

Not known

Oct

54

100

Nil

Nil

+

Nov

57

nil

152

168

Not known

Dec

95

Nil

203

Nil

Not known

Total

395

526

* 1248

902

+

Grand Total

First 12 months total 796

 

 

3071 at least

 

#            at least, and excludes First Reinforcement which was included in the planning.

*             includes 120 noted in The War the Infantry Knew but not WD

+            The War the Infantry Knew notes ‘reinforcements’ without giving numerical detail

The grand total of the above is at least 3071, excluding officers, probably (even allowing for Prime Minister Lloyd-George’s notorious parsimony with reinforcements in 1918) as many as 4000.  These, added to the 1065 originals, including First Reinforcement (and making no attempt to quantify those recycled at least once through the system) suggest that some 5000 Other Ranks (and indeed about 250 officers, dealt with in Chapters 3, 5, 6, 10, and 13) fought with Second Battalion Royal Welch Fusiliers in the Great War.  At least 1139 Other Ranks lost their lives, including the missing, together with 68 officers (48 officers whilst on duty with the battalion, 20 after serving with it). 

Edited by Muerrisch
addendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the relevant paragraph 

 

We know the birth places of 579 of the men – 386 were born in Galashiels  -66%.  The rest were generally born elsewhere in Scotland but 6 were born in England 3 in Ireland 2 in each of  Canada and South Africa  and 1 in Thailand, New Zealand, Australia and the United States.

They mostly lived in Galashiels .  There are addresses of some description for about  560 of the men of those 396 are in Galashiels.  124 lived elsewhere in Scotland, 13 in England, 1 in Ireland and the rest in parts of the Empire.  It’s likely that less  than 396 actually lived in Galashiels, they were mostly young men and a number may have lived in Edinburgh or Glasgow in lodgings but gave their “home” address as Galashiels.

Using the population data from the 1911 census about 4.5% of British men died in WWI,  Based on the number of men we know lived in Galashiels we can estimate that about 70% of the men on the GWM  lived in Galashiels.  As the male population of Galashiels was  6900 in 1911 this means Galashiels lost about 6.4% of its male population – about 40% more than the national average.   If you consider just the “military age” population (15-50) of Galashiels was 3698 the percentage is higher at 12%,  

 

I think that Scotland did lose more men as a % of population, but this may well be due to higher levels of enlistment, something I’ve only assessed qualitatively.  The % of men on the Galashiels who are missing is similar to the British average which may indicate they weren’t exposed to any more danger than other troops as you might expect units who are more often in the van to experience more missing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I have seen the following information on a board in the regimental museum in Sauchiehall Street, Glasgow
 

Quote

The war did bring fame to the Scots as soldiers, but at great cost. Of the half million Scots who volunteered to serve their country in the First World War, some 125,000 were killed in action or died on active service - one sixth of the British and Empire list of 908,371.


What would be the source of the 125,000 fatalities? No source of information was stated on the board itself.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of points which may (or may not) affect the mortality figures:

 

1. Do they include first-generation immigrants to Canada from Scotland? The titles of many Canadian battalions, even before the war, make it clear how heavy the migration from Scotland was.

 

2. Col Nicholson's book "Behind the Lines" mentions that when 51st Highland Division were sent to their war station in Bedford, a significant number of men caught measles and died from it, not having been exposed to it as children. The locals could not understand it.

 

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not particularly about Scottish units, what was the average daily wastage in killed and wounded on the Western Front ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 15/03/2020 at 09:33, stripeyman said:

Not particularly about Scottish units, what was the average daily wastage in killed and wounded on the Western Front ?

 

For all belligerents, or just the British Empire ?

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, phil andrade said:

 

For all belligerents, or just the British Empire ?

 

Phil

Phil

Just the BEF....

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Total battle casualties BEF 1914-1918 were  just under 2.7 million.

 

That’s battle wastage only : no sick or accidentally injured included....just killed, wounded or prisoners .

 

If you confine to killed or wounded only, then the figure’s c. 2.5 million, which, if my arithmetic’s correct, equates to something like 1,625 per day.  Remember that there are about 175,000 gas cases included in that.

 

That’s not accurate, but just rough and ready reckoning.

8 hours ago, stripeyman said:

Phil

Just the BEF....

Bob

 

Hope this helps.

 

Phil

Edited by phil andrade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, phil andrade said:

 

Sorry for double posting, Bob : lost control of editing !

Edited by phil andrade
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil

 

If you have not already seen it, Casualties and Medical Statistics, edited by Major T Mitchell, one of the volumes in the Medical Official History series, has most of the information you are looking for, although not a breakdown of UK casualties into Scottish etc. It also identifies battle and non-battle casualties separately.

 

Some of the tables include Dominions troops and some do not, but this is always specified in the relevant chapter.

 

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron,

 

Yes  : that’s the source that I used!

 

I kept the figures to the simplistic realm, you can go mad if you insist on precision.

 

Thanks for your kind intervention.

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...