Duke of Wellington's - Brodericks

[grumpy]

Originally Posted by leigh kitchen

Are the men in the photo you're showing Royal Marines? They kept the Broderick longer than other units did'nt they?

Brodrick [nb spelling] was the Secretary of State for War at the time. The cap was NOT universally unpopular: Frank Richards DCM MM RWF much preferred it to its successor, for example.

[johnG]

My apologies to the memory of my dear father: I should of course have said RMLI, not RM. I can still recall him wearing a RMLI necktie with green background well into the 1950's, and have tried to get one for my collection but without success.

[Toby Purcell]

Originally Posted by grumpy

At 16 drummers to a battalion, a company might expect 2 or three as its drummers on the company strength. This shot has seven!

As for "leave" the concept did not exist as such, there was no entitlement, but men of good conduct were allowed an extended furlough once the training year was completed.

So, I still do not buy a simple "company photo" theory.

Staff caps were not issued to most of the SNCOs, the most one sees in a battalion is about 9 or 10, whereas there were some 45 or so sergeants and CSgts without them.

Staff status was accorded to [different regiments had a slightly different take on this]:
Sergeant Major
Bandmaster
Schoolmaster if in uniform
RQMS
Orderly Room QMS or CSgt
CSgt Musketry instructor
Pioneer sgt
Band sergeant
sergeant drummer

In addition to the cap, all wore the sword on formal occasions, with the tunic [frock in India] more highly decorated.

I am aware of all that you have said, but count how many there are in the photo and its breakdown in terms of the number of officers and SNCOs . If you agree there are near to 100+/-(I make it 84), then I do not see the issue with the sole exception of the number of drummers, which I concede seems odd. The battalion at that time had an all ranks strength of around 900-1,000, comprising 8 rifle companies (each of 100), a HQ company and RHQ.

You take me too literally regarding leave, I was referring to the normal 'parade state' on a day-to-day basis of detached duty (guard, fire picquet and other daily/weekly 'duty men' including cookhouse and coal fatigues plus others), furlough men (I thought that few readers would be familiar with this term and so used the modern word, 'leave'), of which a company might expect to have 1 or 2, and of course the sick, of whom there would be several.

I am aware that Staff Caps were for 'Staff Serjeants' (as indeed was the 'Sword Staff Serjeant') and those you list are those who would, I can imagine, have barracked for a replacement cap. The fact that the other 'SNCOs' (a modern term) have also benefited is neither here nor there.

With the caveats I have made and going by the number of officers, SNCOs and ORs present, I stand by my assessment that the photo captures either, one of the 8 (rifle) companies, or perhaps the Headquarters company. I would be interested to know what your theory is for the grouping if it is not a company? Companies A to H had a CO and 2IC, 4 x subalterns, 2 x CSGTs(one a CQMS), 2 Platoon Sgts and 4 Sect Cpls. I do not have my reference material to hand, but I think HQ company included the QM and Senior Major, RQMS, battalion Staff Serjeants from those you listed and ORs from the battalion stores, transport section, telegraphy (signals) section, scouts section, Maxim Gun section, pioneer section, band, COs and Adjts drummers and cookhouse. RHQ comprised the CO, Adjutant, RSM, and Provost and Orderly Room staff. Looking at the make up of the photo again it seems more likely to be HQ Company.

[grumpy]

Thank you Toby.

However.

First can I say that I have no wish to cross swords with a senior member .... far from it.

Secondly, the Forum is [I hear] very respected as a source of the truth in these matters, so that any errors here may well be quoted as truth.

And thirdly, the period c. 1885 to 1919 is my core period, and I claim some knowledge of it.

So, what have I to say?

Toby may correct in that we are looking at a company ..... I said it looks odd, and it does, with all those drummers. On my screen the shot is insufficiently detailed to pick out much in the way of badges, the only really obvious chaps to 70 year old eyes are drummers and officers!

There seems consensus that we are looking at a group of regular infantry between 1902 and 1910. I favour a slightly narrower window, but never mind.

We are not looking at an HQ Company as such, because the concept of such a large grouping only slowly emerged during the Great War: the 1914 War Establishments [WE] define an Headquarters, but not an HQ Coy.

This may be dismissed as semantics, but it is symptomatic of a degree of confusion.

Toby is clearly describing the organisation of infantry pre the 1913/14 changes, implemented over about a year, bringing the British army into line by merging pairs of companies.

Taking the figures offered for a company and multiplying by eight we get exactly twice as many officers and CSgts in the companies than there were in fact.

For the uninitiated, establishments were of four basic types: War [the largest], India, "the Colonies" and Home [the smallest].

Taking the WE for 1905 [I collect establishments like I used to collect fag cards] a company comprised:

Captain or Major
subalterns x 2
CSgt [sometimes called Pay Sgt]
Sgts x 4
drummers/buglers x 2
cpls x 5
pioneer
ptes x 96
signallers x 4
stretcher bearers x 2 [these are bandsmen]
drivers x 2
Total 120

[2 of the Coys had extra pioneer and one less pte]

HQ
Lt-Col
Major 2 i/c
Adjt
QM
Transport officer [taken from a company]
Signalling Officer ditto
MG officer ditto
Sergt-Maj
QMS
OR Sgt [who may be a QMS rank]
OR Clerk
Sgt Drummer
Pioneer Sgt
Sgt Cook
Transport sgt
Signalling sgt
Sgt shoemaker
Drivers x 2
Medical orderlies x 2
Batmen x 6
MO
Armourer sgt
Drivers ASC x 18

and an MG section listed separately
subaltern [see above]
Sgt
Cpl
ptes x 12
drivers x 5

all the above excludes the prerogative of the CO to make up lance-sgts and lance-cpls, paid and unpaid, within defined limits.

havig said all that, it would be good to have a quality scan via PM to get to the bottom of this, would it not?

[Toby Purcell]

Thanks for your reply Grumpy,

I take it the reference to 'senior member' was tongue in cheek, I do hope so for I hold no truck with ranking based purely on time and am always happy to learn from someone with in depth knowledge of a particular subject.

I know exactly who you are, am aware of your specialist field, and recognise that you are a published author of books on army badges and articles for (I think) the MHS.

I concur that there was no HQ company establishment until 1915, after the 4 company reorganisation and should have remembered that. I currently rely on knowledge stored in personal grey matter and have no access to my fairly extensive library, nor can I boast a collection of unit establishments.

I also agree that the photo is more indistinct than either of us would prefer and I suppose I am basing my assessment on a combination of what I can see, my own extensive service in an infantry battalion (where the unit/sub-unit photo is still much the same), my basic knowledge of unit establishments and my familiarity with similar photos of that period.

Going from what you have shown in terms of establishments, I am still of the view that if it is not a company as I originally thought, then this is likely to be a HQ grouping of some kind, perhaps RHQ and attached personnel. I can only see 2 officers in universal (home service) helmets, one man with peaked cap and staff tunic, who looks as if he might be the Sgt Maj, and a handful of Sergeants. Apart from the drummers and the men in Brodricks, all else is too indistinct to make detailed analysis. The number of 84 all ranks seems fairly key in establishing likelihood as to make-up, as photos are/were never taken at random, especially in full dress tunics.

[grumpy]

Until we can through the glass clearly, then!

[Toby Purcell]

Originally Posted by grumpy

Until we can through the glass clearly, then!

One key omission is a QMS, I cannot see one at all.

[Keith Blakeman]

Large (22mb!) file emailed to you Grumpy.

[grumpy]

Many thanks, the mystery of the 7 drummers is solved!

We have a company with the following attached for admin. purposes: 5 bandsmen, seated, with woodwind instruments, band wings [no crown and inch lace] and band badges upper right. The only two drummers are the company drummer on ground, crown and inch lace etc. The RSM is there [try keeping an RSM out of a photo], the OC Coy, a subaltern, the colour sergeant, and 5 full sergeants with sash. There may well be a pioneer somewhere in the group.

So Toby and I were both right after a fashion!

I am always happy to puzzle over groups of soldiers 1885 to 1920 if analysis is needed, great fun.

[Toby Purcell]

Originally Posted by grumpy

Many thanks, the mystery of the 7 drummers is solved!

We have a company with the following attached for admin. purposes: 5 bandsmen, seated, with woodwind instruments, band wings [no crown and inch lace] and band badges upper right. The only two drummers are the company drummer on ground, crown and inch lace etc. The RSM is there [try keeping an RSM out of a photo], the OC Coy, a subaltern, the colour sergeant, and 5 full sergeants with sash. There may well be a pioneer somewhere in the group.

So Toby and I were both right after a fashion!

I am always happy to puzzle over groups of soldiers 1885 to 1920 if analysis is needed, great fun.

A company minus, as we say in the trade (i.e. not at full strength). My original assessment was not too bad then given that I did not have the benefit of a high resolution photo, or contemporary establishment tables.