Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

Hull Pals

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by csareb1 (U1824674) on Tuesday, 9th August 2005

  I have just fininshed watching the program on the pals and find it very interesting. Having been through the Beverly Minster in the last year and seen the touching memorials, it was nice to have part of the story behind the memorials explained. But being an American, the story of the pals is fascinating. The use of "local" regiments here ended not long after the US Civil War (except for National Gaurd and some reserve units). The program brought up some interesting questions concerning comtemporary units that I hope some can answer. When did the British military stop using local manned units and are the current units still named after the old? I think I know the answer to the first one, but can't find the specifics. I also know that for instance the Black Watch is still around, but with Units like the watch, do you have to be Scottish or is it open to all now? Hope the questions are not confusing, but I hope all can see my sense of direction that I am going. Thanks

  Link to this forum: Hull Pals

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Tuesday, 9th August 2005

  csareb1,
  
  Hi, to explain the regimental system of the British Army over now nearly 350 years of history would take a book. I'll attempt a brief overview it in a post and hopefully others will point out where I'm wrong.
  
  First off, the history of some British regiments goes all the way back to the English Civil War, secondly the Regiment has been administrative rather than a functional fighting force, the fighting was done by battalion rather than by regiment.
  
  In the 17th and 18th century the regiments (and associated battalions) were generally known by the name of the commanding Colonel, not a number (or nickname). They did generally recruit from a local area, although as convicted criminals were allowed to choose the army as an alternative to a spell in jail you got a mixed bunch. It was around the time of the Napoleonic Wars that regiments were numbered. At around this time it became convenient for the regiments to designate the battalions e.g. 1st/42nd (1st battalion of the 42nd Regiment (or Black Watch)). [I think that it was the "Grand Old Duke of York" who did this, but I could be very, very wrong without checking]
  
  The second battalion was generally formed for "home duties" as a pool for reinforcements to send to the 1st battalion.
  
  So to the Cardwell reforms, where instead of serving for 21 years a soldier could enlist for 7. (This is the late Victorian army that served in the first Boer War, and the Sudan).
  
  So onto the Second Boer War, where overwhelmed by volunteers the Army decided to form additional "regiments" from the area where people volunteered (ignoring I admit the lessons learnt by the Americans during the ACW). This proved well, not a disater.
  
  Onto WW1, and please bear in mind this was the first time that Britain had a mass volunteer or conscript army. So in the wisdom of the time it was decided that it would be best to form additional regiments (with associated battalions) from the volunteers from the local area.
  
  Predictable results ensued. (Something we didn't learn from the ACW!).
  
  Between the two World Wars there was a certain amount of reorganisation, some Cavalry regiments became armoured, the RTC was formed, the RAF was formed.
  
  Onto WW2, having learnt from WW1, although still attempting to recruit from a local area the draftees were organised into a regular regiment and the number of battalions increased. (This meant that the recruits had a sense of regimental history and pride). Efforts were made so that the differnet battalions served in different brigades so attempting to alleviate the dangers of having all the men from a certain geographical area all in danger at the same time.
  
  After WW2 there have been so many reorganisations of the British Army that I can't keep up. In answer, nowadays you don't have to be Scottish to be in the Black Watch (although it helps).
  
  The current units are still named after the old, but you have to be a lot wiser than I am to work it out.
  Cheers AA, hope this helps!

  Link to this forum: Hull Pals

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by csareb1 (U1824674) on Wednesday, 10th August 2005

  Arnald,
  Thanks for the explanation on the elementary question, atleast an elementary question in my own mind. But you don't know till you ask. I have always found military history to be fascinating. Not in a rah rah type of way, but in the sense that I find it interesting as far as the types of people who made up, the hardships and the everyday life of the common soldier. Essentially, what made them tick. You have to forgive me, but it has only been over the last couple of years that I have become interested in the British Military. It wasn't till a wedding of a good friend of mine that my uncle and his uncle were talking and they peeked my interest. Both are British mind you, and both served Britain in the armed forces, one was RAF and the other a retired Brig. General from the army who now works for Vickers Defense. Listening to them was intriguing and now that I know that I have had direct family members who served. Family has always been the main influence on my history. Enough rambling though, thanks for the anwers and I am sure I will have more.

  Link to this forum: Hull Pals

  Report message3

Back to top