Regimental reputations, efficiency etc.

[cbuehler]

All,
I am very interested in what a particular regiment, or battalion thereof, may have had with regard to efficiency, smartness or any distinction (or lack of the former, crime, poor officers, etc.) in the old early 20th century army. In example, I have a vague recollection that a battalion of the Suffolk Regt. had a high reputation for marksmanship at some time.
Of course the entire army had standards, but surely a given battalion must have been reflective of the abilities of the commanding officer at times and there must have variations in efficiency and reputation in some cases. I recall some battalions may have had problems in India.
Also, what regiments were thought to be very fashionable and desirable to be in, or less so.
Any further info, anecdotes etc. would be very interesting please!

CB

[billy4294]

Could be a touchy subject this. I don't think many members will want to risk upsetting other members by appearing to run down regiments or corps they may have served in, or have an allegiance to for any other reason. As for units with a good reputation that attracted recruits. That would be whatever regiment or corps someone served in (and maybe some you served along side) or have an allegiance to, for whatever reason. That's my opinion anyway.

billyh

[cbuehler]

I understand what you are saying Billy, but the period I am interested in is 100 years or more ago, so hopefully no feathers will be ruffled!

CB

[MH331]

Regimental loyalty has a memory that extends back over 3 centuries so only 100 years ago is just like yesterday not only will feathers be ruffled but newspapers rustled. ��

Originally Posted by cbuehler

I understand what you are saying Billy, but the period I am interested in is 100 years or more ago, so hopefully no feathers will be ruffled!

CB

[oc14]

Originally Posted by MH331

Regimental loyalty has a memory that extends back over 3 centuries so only 100 years ago is just like yesterday not only will feathers be ruffled but newspapers rustled. ��

It might even get as far as some "Harumphing" if the allegations are serious enough.....

Besides which, it is a well known fact that we gentlemen who were fortunate enough to wear a rifle green beret were the only truly "chosen men", the rest were just making up the numbers …..

PL

OC14, i didn't realise you were a 'Green Jacket'!

[leigh kitchen]

Originally Posted by oc14

It might even get as far as some "Harumphing" if the allegations are serious enough.....

Besides which, it is a well known fact that we gentlemen who were fortunate enough to wear a rifle green beret were the only truly "chosen men", the rest were just making up the numbers …..

PL

A green beret? Call that a beret? That's not a beret, this is what you call a beret - my most recent aquisition..

Stylish and practical.

The only problem is that as I I now have two of these I have to keep them apart to ensure they don't mate.

Down boy!

[Lancer 17]

Originally Posted by cbuehler

I understand what you are saying Billy, but the period I am interested in is 100 years or more ago, so hopefully no feathers will be ruffled!

CB

I wouldn't bet on it !!

Phil.

[leigh kitchen]

It's luck of the draw, you find some forum members (like me) who are proud enough of their old regiment but really don't give a hoot what criticism or insults are levelled at it, others (I can think of some) who bristle at such insult and those (I can think of one) who, outraged, lose all control of reason and hammer away at spittle flecked keyboards in foul mouthed rants before disappearing for extended periods (presumably scouring the web for more opportunity to vent on behalf of their old regiment).

In terms of WWI units, I've read that 2nd Battalion The Royal Welsh Fusiliers (nicknamed "The Birmingham Welsh") are regarded by many people as the best British infantry battalion of WWI.

[High Wood]

I can remember reading an anecdote about the London Rifle Brigade, a prestigious T.F. unit that allegedly charged an annual fee for membership before the Great War. After a particularly hard fought battle, probably on the Somme, some L.R.B. soldiers were coming out of the line in a rather dishevelled condition. They passed some men from a county battalion going up the line, one of whom shouted something along the lines of, "to think these mugs laid out two guineas to get this and we are getting it for free".

I may not have got the wording exact.

[grumpy]

Originally Posted by leigh kitchen

It's luck of the draw, you find some forum members (like me) who are proud enough of their old regiment but really don't give a hoot what criticism or insults are levelled at it, others (I can think of some) who bristle at such insult and those (I can think of one) who, outraged, lose all control of reason and hammer away at spittle flecked keyboards in foul mouthed rants before disappearing for extended periods (presumably scouring the web for more opportunity to vent on behalf of their old regiment).

In terms of WWI units, I've read that 2nd Battalion The Royal Welsh Fusiliers (nicknamed "The Birmingham Welsh") are regarded by many people as the best British infantry battalion of WWI.

Birmingham Fusiliers I believe. Possibly the best recorded, in terms of published books and articles. Also a very lucky unit, in terms of casualties and in terms of continuity. The luck began when the 2nd were on a Home posting as war broke out so had first pick of the pool of regular reservists. By the time the 1st arrived from Malta, there were not a lot of reservists to choose from. The poor 1st were straight off the ship and into the worst experiences of 1st Ypres. By early November scarcely an officer or an original SNCO standing. Difficult to recover from that start.

[Frank Kelley]

Robert Graves served in that battalion, it was certainly the case that it's members who were actually Welsh born were in a minority.

Originally Posted by leigh kitchen

In terms of WWI units, I've read that 2nd Battalion The Royal Welsh Fusiliers (nicknamed "The Birmingham Welsh") are regarded by many people as the best British infantry battalion of WWI.

[Toby Purcell]

Originally Posted by cbuehler

All,
I am very interested in what a particular regiment, or battalion thereof, may have had with regard to efficiency, smartness or any distinction (or lack of the former, crime, poor officers, etc.) in the old early 20th century army. In example, I have a vague recollection that a battalion of the Suffolk Regt. had a high reputation for marksmanship at some time.
Of course the entire army had standards, but surely a given battalion must have been reflective of the abilities of the commanding officer at times and there must have variations in efficiency and reputation in some cases. I recall some battalions may have had problems in India.
Also, what regiments were thought to be very fashionable and desirable to be in, or less so.
Any further info, anecdotes etc. would be very interesting please!

CB

There is an excellent, well researched and well written book on this subject, by David French (Oxford University Press). It’s expensive to buy but perhaps you can order one from one of the superb libraries in the USA.
I recommend this book to all who have an interest in this subject. There is a preview available here: https://books.google.co.uk/books/abo...on&redir_esc=y

“The regimental system has been the foundation of the British army for three hundred years. This iconoclastic study shows how it was refashioned in the late nineteenth century, and how it was subsequently and repeatedly reinvented to suit the changing roles that were forced upon the army.Based upon a combination of official papers, private papers and personal reminiscences, and upon research in the National Archives, regimental museums and collections, and other depositories, this book challenges the assumptions of both the exponents and detractors of the system. The author, David French, shows that there was not one, but several, regimental systems and he demonstrates that localised recruiting was usually a failure. Many regiments were never able to draw more than a smallproportion of their recruits from their own districts. He shows that regimental loyalties were not a primordial force; regimental authorities had to create them and in the late nineteenth century they manufactured new traditions with gusto, whilst in both World Wars regimental postings quickly brokedown and regiments had to take recruits from wherever they could find them. French also argues that the notion that the British army was bad at fighting big battles because the regimental system created a parochial military culture is facile.This is the first book to strip away the myths that have been deliberately manufactured to justify or to condemn the regimental system and to uncover the reality beneath them. It thus illuminates our understanding of the past while simultaneously throwing glaring new light on the still continuing debate over the place of the regimental system in the modern army today.“

[leigh kitchen]

Thanks button.

[cbuehler]

I have learned to be wary of books such as this, as in all history, one cannot be sure of just what is the truth and what is not. So often half truths are the answer. The British regimental system was one of the more unique phenomena of military history and much just will not be known.
One of my favorite go to accounts are the two works by Frank Richards; Old Soldier Sahib and Old Soldiers Never Die.
Although limited in some aspects, they do provide what is likely an honest appraisal of the RWF at the time.
I am getting the impression that there was little real connection with the supposed regimental recruiting areas.

CB

PS, a couple of anecdotes I recall: Field Marshal Montgomery chose the Royal Warwickshire Regiment because he liked the cap badge. David Niven, when given the choice of his regiment, said any but the HLI. We know of course where he ended up!