What were the duties of an Officer's "servant" ?

[davidbohl]

De Ruvigny describe my casualty as an Officer's "servant". 

The War Diary of the 17/KLR state Capt R.H.Bloore and 2/Lt Tom Harrop were killed on the 28th April 1918, is it more likely he was working for Capt Bloore ?

many thanks

Dave

 

from Anc

 

[Terry_Reeves]

A long thread on the subject here 

 

[FROGSMILE]

And two more of relevance here:

1. https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/255139-would-a-batman-have-accompanied-his-officer/page/2/#comment-2957714

2. https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/292568-servants/#comment-3039726

 

 

[davidbohl]

Thanks for the replies, I've found the perfect answer in one of the threads that suits this circumstance:-

"The duties varied depending on the officer's rank and role

and whether he was serving in barracks, on training or on operations. In

the trenches, a batman carried his personal weapon and often acted as a

bodyguard, while the officer carried out his duties as a platoon, company

or battalion commander"

 

[JulianB]

The best would be Geordie Hamilton....beyond his duties !

[FROGSMILE]

On 01/05/2022 at 18:47, davidbohl said:

Thanks for the replies, I've found the perfect answer in one of the threads that suits this circumstance:-

"The duties varied depending on the officer's rank and role

and whether he was serving in barracks, on training or on operations. In

the trenches, a batman carried his personal weapon and often acted as a

bodyguard, while the officer carried out his duties as a platoon, company

or battalion commander"

 

I don’t think he “carried” his weapon, but he certainly kept it clean. 

Edited 4 May , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[Matlock1418]

On 01/05/2022 at 18:47, davidbohl said:

Thanks for the replies, I've found the perfect answer in one of the threads that suits this circumstance:-

"The duties varied depending on the officer's rank and role

and whether he was serving in barracks, on training or on operations. In

the trenches, a batman carried his personal weapon and often acted as a

bodyguard, while the officer carried out his duties as a platoon, company

or battalion commander"

The officer will certainly have carried his own revolver.

I suspect that, if the officer had carried one, his servant/batman might have held an officer's rifle for him periodically and for short periods of time whilst the officer undertook other tasks such as map & compass work, used binoculars/periscopes etc. as commensurate with his duties.  Of course the officer could have slung his rifle for some of his duties, but probably not all.  Otherwise, what was the purpose of an officer carrying a rifle in the field? - The aim was to look/appear more like an OR.  Having it carried for him would have largely defeated that objective of an officer having a rifle.

As FS has already commented; a servant/batman was likely to have kept an officer's weapon(s) clean.

Preparing/collecting food & water/tea etc. for an officer in the field and helping prepare a place to sleep are a likely other significant tasks [especially when officers were not messing and/or sleeping together in a dug-out].  Scope/range of tasks expanding considerably if the officer was mounted - looking after and possibly periodically holding his charger/horse too I believe.

Those were the essentials - other tasks such as doing and getting his laundry etc. would be much more ancilliary.

The other threads offered above offer many more other tasks too. 

An officer's servant/batman allowed an officer to do his main duties unhindered by the mundane - and such roles/tasks have largely continued.  But an officer and his servant/batman were not necessarily 'joined at the hip' all the time.  

Servants/batmen commonly went well above and beyond both under normal and extraordinary circumstances.  The role was certainly not necessarily a sinecure, especially when close to/at the front.  It's such a great shame the role has often been viewed/portrayed in a less than positive light.

M

[FROGSMILE]

2 hours ago, Matlock1418 said:

The officer will certainly have carried his own revolver.

I suspect that, if the officer had carried one, his servant/batman might have held an officer's rifle for him periodically and for short periods of time whilst the officer undertook other tasks such as map & compass work, used binoculars/periscopes etc. as commensurate with his duties.  Of course the officer could have slung his rifle for some of his duties, but probably not all.  Otherwise, what was the purpose of an officer carrying a rifle in the field? - The aim was to look/appear more like an OR.  Having it carried for him would have largely defeated that objective of an officer having a rifle.

As FS has already commented; a servant/batman was likely to have kept an officer's weapon(s) clean.

Preparing/collecting food & water/tea etc. for an officer in the field and helping prepare a place to sleep are a likely other significant tasks [especially when officers were not messing and/or sleeping together in a dug-out].  Scope/range of tasks expanding considerably if the officer was mounted - looking after and possibly periodically holding his charger/horse too I believe.

Those were the essentials - other tasks such as doing and getting his laundry etc. would be much more ancilliary.

The other threads offered above offer many more other tasks too. 

An officer's servant/batman allowed an officer to do his main duties unhindered by the mundane - and such roles/tasks have largely continued.  But an officer and his servant/batman were not necessarily 'joined at the hip' all the time.  

Servants/batmen commonly went well above and beyond both under normal and extraordinary circumstances.  The role was certainly not necessarily a sinecure, especially when close to/at the front.  It's such a great shame the role has often been viewed/portrayed in a less than positive light.

M

I think that you have summarised things very well. 

Edited 4 May , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[JulianB]

But seriously, my grandfather was upset at the death of his servant / batman. He mentioned his servant/ batman frequently, his last mention was "Just now I am very fed up - poor Spencer has been killed. He has been with me every day since I have been out, & a very cheerf. willing, good fellow he was. He was killed instantaneously  by a bit of shell going thro' his back into his heart region."

On a trip through Flanders a few years ago and found the grave of  29122, Pte William Henry Spencer (Born xxxx, Southport, Lancs. Enlisted Halton. Formerly 22426 Hampshire Regt. KIA 19.1.17 aged 26). Son of William and Charity Spencer, of 46, Hereford Rd., Southport, Lancs.  L.37.  He lies in  L.37 in  Dickebusch New Military Cemetery, Ypres, West -Vlaanderen.

 

We said a brief prayer

 

 

Edited 4 May , 2022 by JulianB

[Matlock1418]

2 hours ago, JulianB said:

But seriously, my grandfather was upset at the death of his servant / batman. He mentioned his servant/ batman frequently, his last mention was "Just now I am very fed up - poor Spencer has been killed. He has been with me every day since I have been out, & a very cheerf. willing, good fellow he was. He was killed instantaneously  by a bit of shell going thro' his back into his heart region."

On a trip through Flanders a few years ago and found the grave of  29122, Pte William Henry Spencer (Born xxxx, Southport, Lancs. Enlisted Halton. Formerly 22426 Hampshire Regt. KIA 19.1.17 aged 26). Son of William and Charity Spencer, of 46, Hereford Rd., Southport, Lancs.  L.37.  He lies in  L.37 in  Dickebusch New Military Cemetery, Ypres, West -Vlaanderen.

We said a brief prayer

I know you are taking this seriously and I don't think anyone else is not taking this seriously - It's clear that your GF, like so many other officers, had a strong feeling of affection for his servant/batman and keenly felt his loss [And frequently the other way too with their feeling evident towards 'their' officer].  Glad you could pay your respects.

Certainly, beyond the 'black' humour, quite typical of and liked by the miltary really, that was intentioned by "Blackadder" and 'Baldrick' [And all the resultant unfortunate image of the GW that that has seemed to widely reinforce/generate more recently - not intended to expand on this programme/topic in this thread!], it's a real shame that such men have not really been recognised quite so respectfully more widely = Often a good job done well, but most commonly on the quiet.

Thanks to all who so served - and RIP, as appropriate.

M

[JulianB]

Thank you Matlock,  (Geordie Hamilton apart) I was very serious. I have about 200 letters he wrote to home and I was amazed by the emotions. Only a couple of months ago I found a letter that he wrote to the family of one of his men. His brother wrote to families too [he was KIA], the third brother was only there for a few months.

2018 – Bowsher, J, A soldier’s story: Finding the other men? Andrew McKie Reid 123^rd MGC. Western Front Association Bulletin 110 (March 2018), 22.

 

Though I was furious that they gave his name McKie not Reid  (full name Andrew McKie Reid - typical Scots name)

(Apart from Spencer, I roamed around the battle sites and photographed all the 123 Coy fallen. I asked my Gfathr about the 1st WW when I was about 14 / 15 - I was horrified.  Many years later I typed out the hundreds of my Gfather and his brothers letters - extraordinary. 

Julian

Edited 5 May , 2022 by JulianB

[JulianB]

It's not just the death of "the men" - it was more the entire men in his command. The officers were very concerned about the men under his command .  

[Matlock1418]

14 minutes ago, JulianB said:

It's not just the death of "the men" - it was more the entire men in his command. The officers were very concerned about the men under his command .

The mark of a good officer(s) [Not withstanding the grim necessities of command responsibilities in wartime]

M

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

On 04/05/2022 at 17:32, JulianB said:

But seriously, my grandfather was upset at the death of his servant / batman.

In his diary my grandfather writes about how he and his fellow officer, Kenneth Waterhouse, and a third man had to dig out the bodies of two men who had been buried by an exploding shell in a trench which they themselves had vacated and cleared only a short time before, having sensed the danger. The two men must not have heard the order to vacate, as they had been seen entering the trench shortly after the order to vacate was given, just prior to the shell landing. One of the dead men was Waterhouse's servant, and my grandfather writes "Ken ... was heart broken ..." and says that both the men who had been killed "really had been splendin fellows". My grandfather himself was lucky enough never to lose a servant in this way, but he did feel the loss of any of his men keenly, on more than one occasion including a mini-obituary for a lost man in the diary.

He also has a lot to say about the role of a servant, but I shall post about this on the more comprehensive thread referred to above ,https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/12919-officers-servants/ as I think the OP on this thread has found the answer he was looking for.