East Surreys

[Chris_B]

A question for anyone with an interest in the East Surreys.

My Grandafhter had two cousins, brothers Samuel George Burge (KIA) and Reuben Burge, who both served in the East Surreys. Samuel is known to have served in 2nd East Surreys, but as I cannot get to Kew I've no idea about Reuben.

But the MICs show their regimental numbers to be very close, 1809 and 1821, they could have been recruited together.

Is there any significance in these being low 4 digit numbers?

Chris.

[Guest Ian Bowbrick]

Chris,

Interesting - my great-uncle was 1599 and his good mate Bert Skinner was 1601. He apparently met him in the queue to enlist!

What is 'nice' about this is that they enlisted on the same day 4 September 1914, served in the same Bn, the 9th, and were demobbed on the same day 21 March 1919. Strangely Charlie carried Bert in the Retreat of March 1918 as he was wounded and only put him down when ordered. Unfortunately Bert became a POW. There must have been a very strong bond there..............

Ian

[Chris_B]

Ian,

Yours is a great story. I was guesing low numbers might just mean early enlistment, from your Great-Uncle and his mate this would seem to be the case.

I've known a little about Samuel's story for a while now, as a consequence of family research and even have a picture of him in uniform via a descendant of one of his much younger brothers that I manged to contact. Reuben is still just a name really, still searching for a descendant and still not managed to get to Kew because of ill-health.

Strangley, although Reuben was four years younger than his brother, he ended up being sent to France first on 26/3/1915, while Samuel arrived over a month later.

2nd East Surreys, like others in the Ypres salient, got a terrible mauling in the Spring of 1915. It's just sods law that one brother should live and another die. Whether they fought side by side who knows (not yet anyway), but the thought of seeing your own borther die in such circumstances feels me with despair.

Apart from Battalion diarys, is there any where else to look for information about troop movements, ie which drafts of men were sent to Fance - where and when?

Regimental history comes to mind, but are there other sources?

Chris.

[HarryBettsMCDCM]

A question for anyone with an interest in the East Surreys.

My Grandafhter had two cousins, brothers Samuel George Burge (KIA) and Reuben Burge, who both served in the East Surreys.   Samuel is known to have served in 2nd East Surreys, but as I cannot get to Kew I've no idea about Reuben.

But the MICs show their regimental numbers to be very close, 1809 and 1821, they could have been recruited together.

Is there any significance in these being low 4 digit numbers?

Chris.

These Low 1000s Numbers are usually an indication of Territorial Force Battalions{1~3000 circa 1914[Each TF Battalion using the same set of Numbers,so there would be duplication,hence the need for the later 6 digit numbering]},the proximity of your numbers seems to indicate they would have enlisted into the TF around the same time,probably in early 1914[pre August} or even late 1912/3]Had they enlisted @ the outbreak of War they would probably been standing behind one & other in the queue!,but as they are 11 numbers apart I expect they may have joined within a day or two of each other ,unless there was a Recruiting drive for the TF around January 1914 in the Cachement area?If he served in the 2nd Bn;I presume he must have transferred as a re-inforcement from the TF Battalion to the Regular 2nd?[Regular Battalion Numbers tend to start around the 6000-10000 range in Most Regiments,lower number belonging to Pre 1900 Enlistments]

[Jock Bruce]

Chris,

I am not an expert on E Surrey numbering, I am an expert (perhaps the only one) on 5/Seaforth numbering.

What I will say is that I would be very reluctant to make any firm statements from the information you've presented (apart from the fact it is very likely they joined the E Surreys about the same time - which is different from when they enlisted) unless I had the chance to look at the pattern of numbering in E Surrey as a whole.

I see SG Burge was killed in May 15. 2/E Surrey went to France in Dec 14. I'm not at all sure that at that stage of the war a regular battalion would have been receiving TF men as reinforcements - and if they did they would probably have received new numbers on posting to a regular battalion

Based on what Ian knows of enlistment dates v numbers in E Surrey and a quick look at SDGW I suggest 1xxx numbers in E Surreys are probably early war 'duration' enlistments - this assumes there was a single numbering series for all wartime (non-TF) enlistments into E Surrey.

But I'm happy to be contradicted on any of the above.

Jock

[Chris_B]

I've read everyones contributions with interest. If the Medal Roll entry and info on SDGW CD are accurate them Samuel George Burge definitely fought and died in the 2/E.Surrey Battalion. He was not re-numbered.

Of the one page of the Star Medal Roll I have - covering nos. 1801 -1816, all dismebarked in 1915, the earliest in March, the latest in November. Of the one page of the Victory/War medal roll that I have, the individuals with these nos. are scattered amongst the 2,7,8,9 Battalions.

While it is unwise to make generalisation from such a small sample, the individuals whose MIC are online with other nos in the 1800 series appear to be similarly scattered amongst battalions (at least checking those who sadly were casualties). Some show later re-numbering to 6 digits or transfers, many do not.

It would seem these men were all early recruits, possibly initially into the TA force before assignment to active units.

[Guest Ian Bowbrick]

Ian,

Yours is a great story. I was guesing low numbers might just mean early enlistment, from your Great-Uncle and his mate this would seem to be the case.

I've known a little about Samuel's story for a while now, as a consequence of family research and even have a picture of him in uniform via a descendant of one of his much younger brothers that I manged to contact. Reuben is still just a name really, still searching for a descendant and still not managed to get to Kew because of ill-health.

Strangley, although Reuben was four years younger than his brother, he ended up being sent to France first on 26/3/1915, while Samuel arrived over a month later.

2nd East Surreys, like others in the Ypres salient, got a terrible mauling in the Spring of 1915. It's just sods law that one brother should live and another die. Whether they fought side by side who knows (not yet anyway), but the thought of seeing your own borther die in such circumstances feels me with despair.

Apart from Battalion diarys, is there any where else to look for information about troop movements, ie which drafts of men were sent to Fance - where and when?

Regimental history comes to mind, but are there other sources?

Chris.

Chris,

Charlie fought with the 9th Bn at Delville Wood in September 1916. Less than a quarter of a mile away, his cousin Bob was killed with the DCLI in the same Battle

Ian

[Guest Ian Bowbrick]

Chris,

I am not an expert on E Surrey numbering, I am an expert (perhaps the only one) on 5/Seaforth numbering.

What I will say is that I would be very reluctant to make any firm statements from the information you've presented (apart from the fact it is very likely they joined the E Surreys about the same time - which is different from when they enlisted) unless I had the chance to look at the pattern of numbering in E Surrey as a whole.

I see SG Burge was killed in May 15. 2/E Surrey went to France in Dec 14. I'm not at all sure that at that stage of the war a regular battalion would have been receiving TF men as reinforcements - and if they did they would probably have received new numbers on posting to a regular battalion

Based on what Ian knows of enlistment dates v numbers in E Surrey and a quick look at SDGW I suggest 1xxx numbers in E Surreys are probably early war 'duration' enlistments - this assumes there was a single numbering series for all wartime (non-TF) enlistments into E Surrey.

But I'm happy to be contradicted on any of the above.

Jock

JB,

I have had a look through the early East Surrey enlistments 1 - 2000 and can confirm there is a spread of Battalions - both TF and Kitchener's men. The significant blocks of men tend to be Kitchener's men as opposed to TFs.

I agree with you (& your PM ) - this needs further study to reach a conclusion that will stand up to scrutiny.

Ian

[Charles Fair]

I have no knowledge of E Surrey numbering, and can only claim some wrt 19th London. I have noticed a lot of E Surreys ending up in the London Regt. Here is the most relevant example from my database, the only one of this group who both has a low number and where I know the enlistment date:

CHARMAN, John, Pte

enlisted 08/09/14 as 473 East Surrey Regt

served on W Front:

1st East Surrey 15/1/15 to 10/2/15

7th East Surrey 12/12/15 to 19/2/16

then tf 19th London Regt w numbers 6163 and 612437

served on W Front w 1/19th from 16/06/16 to 03/12/17

discharged wounds age 34 on 05/06/18 Para 2(a)(1) AO 265 dated 10/8/1917

SWB no 398972

(Sources 19th London BW&VM Roll and London TF SWB Roll)

so this man must have gone straight into a regular bn. I have other former E Surrey who have 4 digit numbers who appear to have seen overseas service with a variety of bns.

[Guest]

My uncle, Pte: Edward Ernest Hooper, joined the 8th Bttn East Surrey Regiment and some time later moved to the 9th. His number was 1484. Does this mean he is likely to have enlisted around the time of the outbreak of war in 1914? Could he have been a Territorial? I hadn't considered this latter possibility.

Ray Hooper

[Desmond7]

With regards to 'close' numbering - this may add to debate

Grant John Rfn. 12 RIR 1/7.1916 19005 Galgorm, Thiepval Memorial.

Grant William, Sgt. 12 RIR 1/7/1916 19003 Railway Cottages, Ballymena. Thiepval Memorial.

Notetheir numbers - one man between them?

In the book 'Soldiers who died on 1st July' they are connected with an 'R' for relative, I had originally hought brothers - but obits do not add up (cousins?). See:-

Sergeant William Grant

Information was received yesterday that Sergeant William Grant of the 12th Royal Irish Rifles has been killed in action.

He was the son of Mr. William Grant of Railway Cottages, Ballymena, and prior to his enlistment in September of 1914 was a tailor in Messrs. Barclay and Crawford’s , Church Street, Ballymena.

Sgt. Grant was a prominent member of the Harryville Company of the UVF. The Rev. Alfred McFadden of High Kirk, to which Church he belonged made a touching reference to him last Sunday.

Rifleman John Grant

INTIMATION was received yesterday by Mr. John Grant, Galgorm, that his son Rfn. John Grant 12th RIR has been killed in action. Rfn. Grant enlisted in September 1914 and before joining the colours was in the employment of the late Mr. John Young.

Numbers can be a nightmare!

[Guest Ian Bowbrick]

My uncle, Pte: Edward Ernest Hooper, joined the 8th Bttn East Surrey Regiment and some time later moved to the 9th. His number was 1484. Does this mean he is likely to have enlisted around the time of the outbreak of war in 1914? Could he have been a Territorial? I hadn't considered this latter possibility.

Ray Hooper

Ray,

The East Surreys have very detailed medal rolls, including HS units, so if he was a terrier, the respective battalion will be noted on his medal roll entry.

Ian

[HarryBettsMCDCM]

I have had a look through the early East Surrey enlistments 1 - 2000 and can confirm there is a spread of Battalions - both TF and Kitchener's men. The significant blocks of men tend to be Kitchener's men as opposed to TFs.

I agree with you - this needs further study to reach a conclusion that will stand up to scrutiny.

Ian

The Battalions that men were serving with @ the Time of Death can not be relied on as a Cross section of Battalions they originally enlisted in,due to massive cross posting,{Kitchener Battalions Generally have 5 Figure Numbers in the 10000~20000 Range},By entering East Surrey Only in MiC some 17770++ Names come up a quick random selection of all those in the first few pages with numbers in the 1000~2500 Range gives a high proportion having served, serving with TF battalions or ending up in TF Bns or with a 1916~:6 Figure TF Number or designated 1/Xst Bn East Surrey{TF by definition}

[Guest Ian Bowbrick]

Unfortunately with the East Surreys you find that every Battalion a soldier on the medal roll served with, is mentioned on the roll whether he served with that Battalion overseas or on HS.

For example the 3rd Bn is regularly found mentioned on the medal rolls of this regiment, however this Battalion was only ever a HS training and holding Battalion, and never went overseas.

eg 22724 Pte W J Wedlake who DoW on 10 November 1916 with the 7th Bn. His medal roll entry also states previous service with the 3rd Bn.

Therefore you can say with certainty from the Medal roll information whether a soldier of this regiment was a territoial or ever had been.

Ian

[Chris_B]

I can second what Ian has said about the E Surrey Medal Rolls. My example is:

1807 BRIDGER, Frederick Robert, 9/E.Surrey, 1/E.Surrey, 8/E.Surrey

But I noticed a couple of other things when looking again at my photocopies of two medal roll pages and the on-line MIC.

1. There is no entry for a soldier with no. 1806 on the Rolls. What happended to him?

2. Rather confusingly, there appears to be quite a few examples of soldiers with the same regimental number on the MICs, eg 1808 (2 people), 1809 (2 People), 1834 (3 People). What's going on?

[Jock Bruce]

I think in this debate it is important to distinguish between TF and 'Kitchener' enlistments in 14-15. And I repeat that my knowledge is based on the Seaforths, which don't translate to other regiments (although an interesting debate would be the extent to which similar numbering systems were used in regiments administered by the same records office).

Remember that TF battalions were run by County Association who did their 'own thing' in many respects.

There were 3 Seaforth TF battalions - men enlisting in these received numbers in the battalion series. The result is that it is usual to find the same number occuring in 4th, 5th and 6th Seaforth. BUT you cannot say with any certainty that 1234 Pte McGlumpher, 5th Seaforths enlisted at the same time as 1235 Pte McTavish, 6th Seaforths. Although all 3 battalions started at '1' in 1908 there were differences in the way numbers were allocated, in the number of men recruited and the turnover.

This means that when 5th Seaforth went to France in May 15 their ranks included men numbered in the high 4xxx range. The 6th, who went out the same day, had nobody numbered abouve the low 3xxx range.

Kitchener/'duration'/whatever men received numbers in a regimental series i.e. there was no duplication of numbers between men. BUT a number allocated to an early Kitchener man could also occur in any or all of the 3 TF battalions - and did. The Kitchener enlistments were supposed to be prefixed 'S/' but this is sometimes dropped - the result is it is possible to have FOUR Seaforths numbered 1234.

I know that this system of a single numbering series for wartime (non-TF) enlistments seems to have been followed in the other Highland regiments. I also know that it has no application elsewhere, where some New Army battalions seem to have used battalion series with a numerical prefix - ant there are many other variations involving letter prefixes, etc.

Another point to bear in mind is that (before the early 1917 renumbering of TF units) men were renumbered when they were transfered between TF battalions. They were also renumbered if they transfered from a TF battalion to a non-TF battalion or vice versa. In the case of the Seaforths they were not renumbered if they moved between regular/service battalions (because there was no duplication of numbers for wartime non-TF enlistments). But transfers from TF to non-TF battalions are rare in '15 - in part because of the restrictions placed on the transfer of TF men by their terms of enlistement.

And none of the foregoing considers the numbering series used for regulars and Special Reservists.

I've banged on at length, and I realise that not everybody shares my fascination with a bunch of Jocks in frocks from the misty bens and glens - the real point here is, in my humble view, that where numbering is concerned it is extremely difficult to come up with general rules.

As for the use of SDGW - I would contend that the CD is the only readily available source of a sampling of numbers in softcopy, bar the databases many of us are building ourselves. There are many pitfalls but an intelligent manipulation of the data can help the identification of patterns in numbering.

Returning to the specifics of the original question, I think Ian and Chris have answered it. My only addition is that I don't think these particular 18xx men ever served in the TF.

Enough of this anorakish wittering, the sun is poking through the clouds here in Belguim - time for beer.

Jock

[Guest Ian Bowbrick]

1. There is no entry for a soldier with no. 1806 on the Rolls. What happended to him?

1806 could have transferred to another Regiment/Corps and his details will appear on their medal roll.

OR

The number 1806 was not allocated.

OR

1806 was a Home Service man who did not serve overseas and was thus not eligible for medals.

Ian

[GrandsonMichael]

2. Rather confusingly, there appears to be quite a few examples of soldiers with the same regimental number on the MICs, eg 1808 (2 people), 1809 (2 People), 1834 (3 People). What's going on?

I asked the same question a while back and Chris Baker gave me this explanation:

There will be many men with the same number, as numbering systems were not army-wide, but done at a regimental (and in some cases battalion) level. Thus there could be a 1234 in the Essex, a 1234 in the Warwicks, a 1234 ... you see the picture.

I did indeed, hope you do too,

Cheers,

Michael

[Chris_B]

Well, what we appear to have here is duplication within the same regiment, ie at battalion level, assuming all these individuals were in different battalions, which is someting I'm not able to check.

But this begs another question as to how this relates to what is seen in the actual EAST SURREY medal rolls.

See my other post:

http://1914-1918.org/forum/index.php?showt...ndpost&p=109875