Pith Helmet Badge - Regiment ID?

[Stereoview Paul]

These Kilted Officers have a very simplistic and modern looking badge - it also appears on their shoulder followed by two numbers, I think the first is 7. Photo may have been taken in India or South Africa.

[FROGSMILE]

9 minutes ago, Stereoview Paul said:

These Kilted Officers have a very simplistic and modern looking badge - it also appears on their shoulder followed by two numbers, I think the first is 7. Photo may have been taken in India or South Africa.

Highland Light Infantry.

The men in the background are wearing trews cut into shorts, a dress popular in the regiment.

Edited 6 December , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[Stereoview Paul]

Hi - the light stripe on these is vertical but horizontal in the photo - is that important?

[FROGSMILE]

1 hour ago, Stereoview Paul said:

Hi - the light stripe on these is vertical but horizontal in the photo - is that important?

No because you’re seeing a small section of the sett (tartan pattern) on the helmet.  Compare with the helmet sideways on in your photo.
The HLI wore their Mackenzie tartan in a distinctive way with the white vertical line positioned in the centre of the trews, as if like a crease.

A famous artist of military uniform, Douglas N Anderson, drew and painted images of HLI soldiers in the same dress as in your photo, that I’m trying to find.  There’s no doubt that your photo is of HLI. 

Edited 6 December , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[Stereoview Paul]

Great, thank you - I am now reasonably sure it is pre-war India rather than South Africa.

[FROGSMILE]

29 minutes ago, Stereoview Paul said:

Great, thank you - I am now reasonably sure it is pre-war India rather than South Africa.

Yes it’s India.  Here is the picture I was looking for, it shows the battalion’s dress for ‘field day order’ when in India.  Notice the shape of the Wolseley helmet flash.  

Edited 6 December , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[6RRF]

The Highland Light Infantry were rather resentful of the fact that they didn't have kilts and so insisted on wearing trews [cut down to shorts in hot postings such as Egypt and India] whenever possible

[6RRF]

A digression, if I may.

Egypt is mentioned above as a possible location for the photie, because my great-grandfather [avatar] served there with 1HLI for a time in 1904, and thus reminded of the fact, I wonder whether anyone can explain a minor mystery. He actually joined 2HLI on a short engagement [3 and 9] in August 1903 and was transferred to the Reserve in August 1906, before being recalled in 1914.

In the meantime he was posted to 1HLI in Egypt in April 1904 before being transferred back to 2HLI six months later in October 1904. That would appear to coincide with the posting of 1HLI to India. Would there have been a reason for his not going to India ? 

Edited 10 December , 2022 by 6RRF

[caladonia]

Hello there

Can anyone identify the HLI battalion seen here ? Going by the shape of the patch it should be the 1st, but all of the illustrations and photos i have manage to find show the white stripe as verticle, not horizonale as seen here.

William

[FROGSMILE]

26 minutes ago, caladonia said:

Hello there

Can anyone identify the HLI battalion seen here ? Going by the shape of the patch it should be the 1st, but all of the illustrations and photos i have manage to find show the white stripe as verticle, not horizonale as seen here.

William

I don’t know for sure William, but circumstantial evidence based on other deliberate, but subtle differences between the dress of the 1st and 2nd Battalions suggests to me that it was another example of that imperative to be slightly different.  This was because the 1st Battalion had been the 71st (Highland) Light Infantry and the 2nd Battalion the 74th Highland Regiment of Foot.  Their backgrounds and traditions had thus been very different and this was maintained via the subtle differences mentioned.  This phenomenon was not at all common for regiments created in July 1881 by merging two separate units that had hitherto had no or little connection.  As the 71st had previously worn [edit] ‘MacLeod’ tartan, but the 74th ‘Lamont’, then the correct orientation of the helmet flash is probably the senior 1st Battalion, with the 2nd Battalion’s reversed.

Edited 10 December , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[caladonia]

Hello Frogsmile

Yes, I suppose that is probally the answer, I was thinking that the officer pictued was perhaps part of the Regimental staff or HQ coy?

William

[6RRF]

4 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

I don’t know for sure William, but circumstantial evidence based on other deliberate, but subtle differences between the dress of the 1st and 2nd Battalions suggests to me that it was another example of that imperative to be slightly different.  This was because the 1st Battalion had been the 71st (Highland) Light Infantry and the 2nd Battalion the 74th Highland Regiment of Foot.  Their backgrounds and traditions had thus been very different and this was maintained via the subtle differences mentioned.  This phenomenon was not at all common for regiments created in July 1881 by merging two separate units that had hitherto had no or little connection.

Perhaps my great grandfather offers a solution. The photie appears to depict members of 1HLI in either Egypt or India in the 1900s. My grandfather belonged to 2HLI but was temporarily posted to 1HLI  in Egypt between April and October 1904. Perhaps he went out as part of a detachment - including the officer displaying the horizontal white stripe on his helmet patch, ie: although most of the officers belong to 1HLI, he is an officer of 2HLI - and so too may be the officer with the basket-hilted sword, not generally worn by 1HLI officers until after the 1906 conference 

[FROGSMILE]

7 minutes ago, caladonia said:

Hello Frogsmile

Yes, I suppose that is probally the answer, I was thinking that the officer pictued was perhaps part of the Regimental staff or HQ coy?

William

I don’t think that would be the case William, as the universally recognised purpose of helmet flashes was to identify the unit as a whole, and so having helmet differences at company level would have compromised that dynamic that was recognised right across the Army.

Edited 10 December , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[6RRF]

Just took another look at the OP picture, the officer with the flash in question also has a basket hilt. Despite the fact that the 1900 Dress Regulations unambiguously declared that the Claymore was to have a removable basket hilt for levees, etc. and "on other occasions a cross-bar hilt" the cross-hilt was only ever worn by the officers of 1HLI. The officers of 2HLI insisted on parading with a basket hilt on their 1828 pattern broadswords until 1906 when the basket-hilt was adopted by the officers of both battalions

[6RRF]

Of course the photie can date to after 1906, but that wouldn't explain the anomalous flash - if there was a distinction between the two battalions that ought to have changed like the swords

[FROGSMILE]

10 minutes ago, 6RRF said:

Perhaps my great grandfather offers a solution. The photie appears to depict members of 1HLI in either Egypt or India in the 1900s. My grandfather belonged to 2HLI but was temporarily posted to 1HLI  in Egypt between April and October 1904. Perhaps he went out as part of a detachment - including the officer displaying the horizontal white stripe on his helmet patch, ie: although most of the officers belong to 1HLI, he is an officer of 2HLI - and so too may be the officer with the basket-hilted sword, not generally worn by 1HLI officers until after the 1906 conference 

Unfortunately we can only see the single helmet flash in the OP’s photo and there’s nothing in the other uniform features to clarify a likely timeline that will help to narrow things down.  The OP also thinks that he can see a 7 on the uniform but the 7th Battalion were never in India, only at Gallipoli and Mudros.

[FROGSMILE]

4 minutes ago, 6RRF said:

Just took another look at the OP picture, the officer with the flash in question also has a basket hilt. Despite the fact that the 1900 Dress Regulations unambiguously declared that the Claymore was to have a removable basket hilt for levees, etc. and "on other occasions a cross-bar hilt" the cross-hilt was only ever worn by the officers of 1HLI. The officers of 2HLI insisted on parading with a basket hilt on their 1828 pattern broadswords until 1906 when the basket-hilt was adopted by the officers of both battalions

The basket hilt thus adds further credence to the reversed orientation flash as being most likely the 2nd Battalion.

[6RRF]

2 minutes ago, FROGSMILE said:

Unfortunately we can only see the single helmet flash in the OP’s photo and there’s nothing in the other uniform features to clarify a likely timeline that will help to narrow things down.  The OP also thinks that he can see a 7 on the uniform but the 7th Battalion were never in India, only at Gallipoli and Mudros.

I think the possible 7 must be a mistake. 1HLI were in Egypt in 1904 and then India until 1914. They then came back to Europe by way of Egypt, but that was only a stop for sandwiches in the Canal Zone. 2HLI went straight to France in 1914 and both regiments [apart from mounted officers] were in khaki trousers rather than tartan trews, [and no sun helmets] so we're still looking at 1HLI in the 1900s

[FROGSMILE]

1 hour ago, 6RRF said:

I think the possible 7 must be a mistake. 1HLI were in Egypt in 1904 and then India until 1914. They then came back to Europe by way of Egypt, but that was only a stop for sandwiches in the Canal Zone. 2HLI went straight to France in 1914 and both regiments [apart from mounted officers] were in khaki trousers rather than tartan trews, [and no sun helmets] so we're still looking at 1HLI in the 1900s

I don’t think that there is any absolutely concrete evidence unfortunately.  It was the 71st that changed its tartan to MacKenzie in the 1840s, so it’s more likely they that wore the helmet flash with the correct orientation and the 2nd reversed.  You’ve also pointed out that the 1st Battalion would not wear a basket hilt as a matter of principle that underlined their difference in having origins as a superior ranking light infantry regiment.  The Wolseley helmet worn by all ranks as opposed to just officers suggests a date after 1908 as in 1904 the men were still wearing the old Boer War style of foreign service helmet.

As was pointed out by the OP, the photo looked remarkably modern.

2nd Battalion HLI:

1923India: Madras 

 1927Cawnpore 

 1930Lucknow 

 1933Razmak

 1934Peshawar

NB.  Although it would’ve still been normal to see the Wolseley helmet in the field circa 1927, I wouldn’t expect to see an officer with sword.  The open collar with khaki shirt and khaki tie would also be odd for 1904, although some cavalry and staff officers wore similar jackets with white shirts and black ties during the latter half of the 2nd Boer War.

 

 

Edited 10 December , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[caladonia]

Hello GRRF

Very interstimg posts, which seem to answer the patch question, presumably the patch was standardised in 1906 and by WW1 all the war raised battalions used a patch of various shapes but  with the white stripe upright.

William

[6RRF]

1 hour ago, FROGSMILE said:

I don’t think that there is any absolutely concrete evidence unfortunately.  It was the 71st that changed its tartan to MacKenzie in the 1840s, so it’s more likely they that wore the helmet flash with the correct orientation and the 2nd reversed.  

Actually the 71st had used the Mackenzie tartan for their kilts since they were first raised as the 73rd in 1777 [the 78th Seaforths adopted the same tartan in 1793 but arranged it differently] then lost it between 1809 and 1834 when they adopted trews. The 74th also adopted trews of Lamont tartan - a white overstripe but no red. The trouble then came when the 71st and 74th were amalgamated in 1881 to become the HLI. For various reasons the two battalions hated each other, but what made matters worse, as you know, was the other wizard wheeze by the War Office to give all Scottish regiments yellow facings [unless Royal], English regiments white facings and Irish ones green. This was supposed to ease the amalgamations but in 1900 after some adroit lobbying by former 71st officers the HLI changed to buff facings. As the former 74th had already reluctantly accepted [and after a long delay]the Mackenzie tartan trews, this meant that the HLI was wearing the uniform of the old 71st, which is why the thoroughly disgruntled 2HLI [ex-74th] strove to retain as many of the remaining distinctive features as possible - until 1906 when a committee of officers from both battalions sat down to harmonise matters - they still hated each other though

[FROGSMILE]

1 hour ago, 6RRF said:

Actually the 71st had used the Mackenzie tartan for their kilts since they were first raised as the 73rd in 1777 [the 78th Seaforths adopted the same tartan in 1793 but arranged it differently] then lost it between 1809 and 1834 when they adopted trews. The 74th also adopted trews of Lamont tartan - a white overstripe but no red. The trouble then came when the 71st and 74th were amalgamated in 1881 to become the HLI. For various reasons the two battalions hated each other, but what made matters worse, as you know, was the other wizard wheeze by the War Office to give all Scottish regiments yellow facings [unless Royal], English regiments white facings and Irish ones green. This was supposed to ease the amalgamations but in 1900 after some adroit lobbying by former 71st officers the HLI changed to buff facings. As the former 74th had already reluctantly accepted [and after a long delay]the Mackenzie tartan trews, this meant that the HLI was wearing the uniform of the old 71st, which is why the thoroughly disgruntled 2HLI [ex-74th] strove to retain as many of the remaining distinctive features as possible - until 1906 when a committee of officers from both battalions sat down to harmonise matters - they still hated each other though

I’m getting conflicting information on this and so I’ve been wary to use words like “actually”.  In comparison with many other Scottish regiments the HLI is more complex.  Apparently the 71st used MacLeod tartan, as I mentioned earlier above, and according to W Y Carman they switched to what he described as “a new tartan” [we now know as Mackenzie] created by overlaying white and red lines on Government, or Black Watch tartan.  He (Carman) is rarely wrong, although the internet has opened up some sources that he might not have seen in his day.  One has to be careful because even some of the most highland of regiments were reduced to nothing more Scottish than dicing around their headdress during periods when recruiting from Scotland was so dire that the War Office refused to bear the expense of purchasing Scottish dress for soldiers that were coming from anywhere but Scotland.  I’m still digging into published references to see what else I can find date wise.

I am aware of the other matters that you’ve mentioned, having taken an interest in the HLI for many years now and posted details and images on many occasions in the forum.

Edited 10 December , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[6RRF]

MacLeod and Mackenzie are actually the same in this context confusingly enough. The 73rd/71st were raised by John Mackenzie, Lord Macleod. Initially the tartan had a buff over-stripe, matching their facings, but the "new" tartan referred to by Bill Carman saw the buff stripe changed to the white one that we know and love

[FROGSMILE]

4 hours ago, 6RRF said:

MacLeod and Mackenzie are actually the same in this context confusingly enough. The 73rd/71st were raised by John Mackenzie, Lord Macleod. Initially the tartan had a buff over-stripe, matching their facings, but the "new" tartan referred to by Bill Carman saw the buff stripe changed to the white one that we know and love

That certainly is conceivable, but indeed confusing, as the buff lines give an entirely different appearance to the white.  Some might debate that they were “the same” at all.  Carman states that the version with red and specifically “white” over lines, did not make its appearance until around 1849.

Either way, returning to the subject of the thread, it seems to me more likely that the 1st Battalion would have favoured the white line in its vertical orientation, rather than the 2nd Battalion that had in its earlier existence worn Lamont.  Unless a museum can tell us it will be difficult to know.

Edited 11 December , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[6RRF]

It's rather drifting off topic, but seemingly the change was originally down to the 78th Seaforths. They too originally had a buff line matching their facings, but as you know the Seaforths' version of buff was really a milky white and this didn't translate well to their tartan, so they soon went for pure white instead. After that the 71st conformed to what was considered a more attractive version of Mackenzie tartan