The Dead Person we remember daily.

[Justin Moretti]

Given that it is 8th August, should we not have remembered someone who died at the Battle of Amiens? (Even if it is only the 88th anniversary.)

I would like to suggest that if 'today' is the declared opening day of a major battle or sub-campaign (as today is for Amiens, or 1 July is for the Somme, for example, or 21 March for the Kaiserschlact), that the forum moderators arrange for the remembrance of a soldier who fought in that battle and died on that day.

Another suggestion, though it might be less welcome, is to arrange for 'famous' soldiers (e.g. Wilfred Owen) to be remembered on the day of their death in combat. This by its very nature would tend to favour junior officers and men, and (for those so inclined to that view of history) exclude the 'chateau generals'.

What do the Pals think?

[PhilB]

I`m more than happy that a man killed on Chunuk Bair, or anywhere else, should be remembered on Aug 8th. I don`t think we should grade our remembrance according to the "glamour" of the action. Phil B

[HarryBettsMCDCM]

Chris Baker recently explained the main driving ethos behind the daily rememberance,it is guided not by fame,kudos of any action,or other such criteria but in the rememberance of those who might not otherwise have anyone to remember them~it works for me...

[ianw]

Yes, agree that we should specifically not be looking for victims of "glamourous" or notable actions to be commemorated- indeed I think we have had 1919 casualties quite rightly remembered.

[Jonathan Saunders]

Chris Baker recently explained the main driving ethos behind the daily rememberance,it is guided not by fame,kudos of any action,or other such criteria but in the rememberance of those who might not otherwise have anyone to remember them~it works for me...

Works for me too.

[gem22]

To me all men are equal in death.

Garth

[Jim Clay]

Answer to the question in the heading - No (for the reasons given by Pals above).

Jim

[Bob Coulson]

I'm with the majority, leave it random.

Bob.

[andigger]

I agree with the random aspect of the site banner, but I also think there should be a section where Pals could post the basic information (no more than you'd find on a MIC) on men/women they've researched. I think that would be an excellent way to remember those who paid the ultimate sacrifice in the war, but also give the pals an opportunity to share some of thier work. Andy

[Crunchy]

Hi Justin,

Maybe not as famous Up Over as Amiens 1918, but Chunuk Bair 8/8/15 was a pretty savage battle on Gallipoli for the Kiwis. After a very difficult night march through horrendous terrain they stormed and took the major height on the Sari Bair range as part of the famous August offensive and held it against savage counter attacks by the Turks. They lost as severly there as many actions on the Western Front. It was a very fine action on their part and is as famous in New Zealand history as 1st July 191 is in British history. That is why their national memorial at Gallipoli is located on Chunuk Bair.

Regards

Crunchy (and I'm an Aussie!!)

[marina]

The rememberance should stay random. One battle may be more or less well remembered, but all the men should be remembered equally.

Marina

[nfh249]

I think the aim of remembering here those who might not otherwise be is the best reason to maintain the feature as it is.

Regards,

Neil.

[Guest KevinEndon]

Lest we forget. Everyone a hero everyone remembered in one way or another.

[Terry Denham]

As I am responsible for this feature of the Forum - and the selection of names - let me add this explanation once again for newcomers.

The names are selected as randomly as possible. The only 'selection' being to ensure a balance of soldiers, sailors, airmen, Brits, Canadians etc. A further sift is done to ensure a varied selection of units - to avoid the majority of names coming from the large corps.

Once those proportions are set, there is no further selection because of rank, fame, cause of death, burial location etc. Only I and Chris know the list of names which is prepared and is fixed over a year in advance (well, for those later in the year anyway!).

The point is that there is no special commemoration for anyone and everyone gets roughly the same chance of appearing. The man who died of illness in camp in the UK is deserving of recognition just as much as a man dying in action. All are equal in death and they were all doing their 'bit'.

If Wilfred Owen's name comes up, he will appear - just as Kitchener's would if his was selected by the 'pin'.

[Roxy]

I concur with the majority if views represented - and thanks to Terry for his input to this worthwhile part of the forum.

Whilst it may seem appropriate to commemorate someone who died at the start of a particular battle or the end for that matter, the problem would then emerge - which one?

Random suits me fine.

Lest we forget.

Roxy

[Malcolm]

Agreed Roxy. The majority of people put their remembrance ( like you, Terry etc) in their signature, thus every time you post your memorial is shown.

Aye

Malcolm

[Coldstreamer]

Death was random - so should be the selection

[bluedog]

Coldstreamer

Well said mate , could not agree more

Peter

[Take on me]

Given that it is 8th August, should we not have remembered someone who died at the Battle of Amiens? (Even if it is only the 88th anniversary.)

I think that most of the views expressed here seem to be against you, although it is an interesting point. Although I think I would have to agree with the many views expressed.

However I would point out that as British and Empire casualties were highest in 1918 it is proportionally more likely that the person to be remembered will have died in that year. So those killed during the Ludendorff Offensives and the Hundred Days will be remembered.

Jon

[Willywombat]

The famous ones, poets, senior officers, VCs et al, are all remembered somewhere anyway. Same for the famous battles and actions. Google any of them and you'll find at least a few pages.

Google the men who appear at the top of the page and you're unlikely to get a hit.

I, for one, am simply not interested in the Wilfred Owens or the VCs any more than I am in anyone else. My research is into ordinary names on ordinary memorials and many of their stories are as interesting, if not more so, than those of the 'glory boys'.

[Justin Moretti]

Ladies and Gents,

Thanks for your feedback on my suggestions.

I appreciate your opinions, and I'm in general agreement on not particularly bringing up the names of the 'famous' dead (even I thought it was contentious, but wanted your viewpoints). I thought that commemorating one of the numberless dead on the first day of the more important or notable battle which claimed them was at least a good suggestion, and I'll agree to disagree with those who didn't like it (your battle plan is clearly better than my battle plan!).

I suppose, in the end, that each Remembered Dead Person's "Most Important Battle" was the one that laid them low, whether instantaneously in a sheet of flame, or months later of complications of wounds. In that respect, you're right.

[Roxy]

Justin,

Your topic did bring about a well mannered debate, even if it was a little one-sided. Thanks.

Roxy

[mooshwah]

It was a good topic that also raises perspective - in that:-

How long would it take for every casualty to be remembered in this way ?

Bearing in mind that if you rounded the numbers died, just 1st July for the somme, and every year had 365 days per year (sorry for the lazy maths but want to see the programme on ch5 7pm that Soren1915 pointed out).

It would take nearly 55 years! (just for the 1st July)