2nd Battalion, Royal Irish Regiment.

[FROGSMILE]

23 hours ago, Captain Chip said:

Ok got it. I only mention this factor in one segment of the book. But just you guys pointing out that this is highly unlikely for them to even join in 1905. 

They would join, just not all at once.  It was more a trickle feed.  As Peter pointed out a majority proportionately were usually regular soldier’s sons (often from the same battalion) and the rest came from industrial board schools and orphanages.

Here is a photo of a Royal Dublin Fusiliers battalion’s enlisted boys Football (‘soccer’) team, that played in an inter-battalion league.  At left rear is the battalion band sergeant, in whose charge they appear to be.  The other uniformed sergeant is probably either, the master tailor, or master shoemaker.  The man in the white jumper is almost certainly a battalion Assistant Physical Training Instructor, as he wears the off-white knitted woollen jumper issued to such appointees.

Edited 9 January by FROGSMILE

[Captain Chip]

Hm. But the story follows this band of friends who joined in 1907. So how would they eventually end up in the same section of a company in 1914?

[FROGSMILE]

30 minutes ago, Captain Chip said:

Hm. But the story follows this band of friends who joined in 1907. So how would they eventually end up in the same section of a company in 1914?

The minimum age is 14, but they could enlist a little older at say 15, although as Peter mentioned they wouldn’t have reached the minimum 19 for overseas service by 1914.

 It was ironic that the Army was strict about those boys who enlisted officially under the Boy Entrant scheme, whilst at the same time there was often a blind eye turned (or at least failure to investigate thoroughly) those underage boys that declared a false (older) age upon enlistment through the adult category at wartime recruiting offices.

Edited 8 January by FROGSMILE

[Captain Chip]

Ok. So the lads should enlist in 1907. They would all be eighteen except 1 who is the younger brother of one of the friends. He would li about his age. They joined due to the bleak prospects of farming. So they decide to join the army. They would join on November 10th, 1907. Now is it possible that at the age of 18, they could join in as a group?

[FROGSMILE]

22 hours ago, Captain Chip said:

Ok. So the lads should enlist in 1907. They would all be eighteen except 1 who is the younger brother of one of the friends. He would li about his age. They joined due to the bleak prospects of farming. So they decide to join the army. They would join on November 10th, 1907. Now is it possible that at the age of 18, they could join in as a group?

I thought I’d already explained the trickle feed enlistment?  There was a maximum establishment of 12 and their ages would range between 14 and 17.  At best in your scenario I would suggest 2 or 3 who might enlist together.

They would usually enlist in the regimental recruiting area, apart from those already the sons of serving soldiers.  Then attend some basic training at the regimental depot and HQ before posting to the regiment’s home service battalion wherever it was based.  After about 6-months to a year (depending upon the trooping season) a few boys would then be posted from the home battalion to the foreign service battalion. This cycle then continued.

Edited 9 January by FROGSMILE

[Captain Chip]

Ok. So I'll instead have three friends from Kilkenny Ireland join the army. The rest they could make in the army. And you know what this makes better sense. Now I must ask could a recruit who joined in 1907 be promoted to the rank of Corporal by 1914 before the war started?

 

[FROGSMILE]

1 hour ago, Captain Chip said:

Ok. So I'll instead have three friends from Kilkenny Ireland join the army. The rest they could make in the army. And you know what this makes better sense. Now I must ask could a recruit who joined in 1907 be promoted to the rank of Corporal by 1914 before the war started?

 

Extremely unlikely having enlisted as a Boy Entrant and so still relatively young, but entirely possible to have been appointed as an unpaid Lance Corporal.  Substantive infantry Corporals were generally mature, relatively experienced men in 1914.  Among the SNCOs might be a few Boer War veterans.

Edited 8 January by FROGSMILE

[Des Moriarty]

2 hours ago, PRC said:

Can't comment on the situation in Ireland,

There were similar economic issues in Ireland,  made worse by increased poverty. If you look at the pictures of Irish recruits they were all skinny.

in addition there was a political element. When war broke out; ulster unionists commonly aligned with Britain, and at the time there was also pro British groups in the south. Also many republicans viewed the defense of small nations as something worth fighting for, there was a big message in Ireland that we need to help Belgium. There was a desire for Irish self-determination which increased numbers who joined, the Nationalist leader John Redmond called for support of the war to safeguard the Home Rule concession, which had been postponed. We were promised home rule after the war 

 

are you also including a section on what happened when they came home?

apart from living with the aftermath of the war, they returned to a changed Ireland, 

The 1916 Easter Rising and the subsequent War of Independence and Civil War had changed the political landscape and the public opinion of the British army. Many Irish veterans felt alienated by their own countrymen, who saw them as traitors or collaborators.
Some also felt betrayed by the British government, who failed to deliver on the promise of Home Rule or to recognize their sacrifices. The Irish soldiers who fought for Britain in the first world war were largely forgotten or ignored, and their stories were rarely told or commemorated

[Captain Chip]

I am focusing on 1914 at this point. Then we keep going through the years and then we get to the end. When they get home. 

[PRC]

58 minutes ago, Captain Chip said:

I am focusing on 1914 at this point. Then we keep going through the years and then we get to the end. When they get home. 

Is there any real value to them enlisting so long before the war and some of them at so young an age? Every year back you go leads to either more of the boring minituae of peacetime soldiering to cover or the need to keep taking big leaps in time. If the point is to show the relative mundanity, regularity and certainy of army life in peacetime and contrast it with the sudden intense bouts of anarchy and personal hell of fighting and the near constant fear of death then could that not just as easily be achieved by having them enlist as 18 year olds in 1912 / 1913. Any events you need to shoe-horn to develop character can be days\weeks apart, rather thn months. They would still have got their basic trainining time in, might still be finding their feet in the army by being posted to a home service battalion, but would almost certainly be part of that same battalion when it deployed overseas in August 1914. Go too much earlier and chances are they would have been posted out to the Battalion in the Empire.

Promotion in peacetime was slow and that of Corporal was subject to an exam and then waiting for a vacancy - but with the casualties suffered in the campaign so far it was almost literally likely to be a case of dead mans shoes. Your man could even have been promoted on the field, although probably no more than Lance-Corporal, following the losses suffered in the first day of the attack. Most such promotions were acting unpaid, and while there may have been better qualified candidates in other Companys of the Battalion, shuffling men round while they were in close contact with the enemy wasn't really a practical option. Lance Corporal "promotions" were also unit specific appointments, so there was little to lose by temporarily promoting a youngish lad who had shown some leadership potential on the battlefield knowing you could take it off him if he failed to make the grade without having to take any disciplinary action. Meanwhile a Corporal who was confirmed in his rank was a Corporal anywhere in the British Army. He had to either voluntarily give up his stripes or lose it as a result of disciplinary action. Point being that a Lance Corporal is more plausible than a Corporal.

Just a thought,

Peter

Edited 8 January by PRC
Typo

[Des Moriarty]

2 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

I thought I’d already explained the trickle feed enlistment?  There was a maximum establishment of 12 and their ages would range between 14 and 17.  At best in your scenario I would suggest 2 or 3 who might enlist together.

They would usually enlist in the regimental recruiting area, apart from those already the sons of serving soldiers.  Then attend some basic training at the regimental depot and HQ before posting to the regiment’s home service battalion wherever it was based. 

There were also some smaller regiments, like the south Irish horse, some of them also served with other British Empire forces or even the US Army. Irish men were also integrated into various regiments as needed, not solely Irish units.

love that map though, will put it with our family history as we tick a few of those boxes.

 

[Captain Chip]

Currently working with someone to help. But you got a fair point. Is it possible to have them enlist straight into the Battalion in 1914? And go over seas with the BEF?

[PRC]

Just now, Captain Chip said:

Currently working with someone to help. But you got a fair point. Is it possible to have them enlist straight into the Battalion in 1914? And go over seas with the BEF?

January maybe, August no, plus you have to allow for the army believing their age to be 19 when they go overseas. So a recently "18" year old enlisting in January is also likely to be a no.

Cheers,
Peter

[Captain Chip]

No I mean now here's the reason why I had them join in 1907 or 1905. So that by the age of 25, they would be going over seas with the Regiment. Part of the BEF.

[FROGSMILE]

20 hours ago, PRC said:

Is there any real value to them enlisting so long before the war and some of them at so young an age? Every year back you go leads to either more of the boring minituae of peacetime soldiering to cover or the need to keep taking big leaps in time. If the point is to show the relative mundanity, regularity and certainy of army life in peacetime and contrast it with the sudden intense bouts of anarchy and personal hell of fighting and the near constant fear of death then could that not just as easily be achieved by having them enlist as 18 year olds in 1912 / 1913. Any events you need to shoe-horn to develop character can be days\weeks apart, rather thn months. They would still have got their basic trainining time in, might still be finding their feet in the army by being posted to a home service battalion, but would almost certainly be part of that same battalion when it deployed overseas in August 1914. Go too much earlier and chances are they would have been posted out to the Battalion in the Empire.

Promotion in peacetime was slow and that of Corporal was subject to an exam and then waiting for a vacancy - but with the casualties suffered in the campaign so far it was almost literally likely to be a case of dead mans shoes. Your man could even have been promoted on the field, although probably no more than Lance-Corporal, following the losses suffered in the first day of the attack. Most such promotions were acting unpaid, and while there may have been better qualified candidates in other Companys of the Battalion, shuffling men round while they were in close contact with the enemy wasn't really a practical option. Lance Corporal "promotions" were also unit specific appointments, so there was little to lose by temporarily promoting a youngish lad who had shown some leadership potential on the battlefield knowing you could take it off him if he failed to make the grade without having to take any disciplinary action. Meanwhile a Corporal who was confirmed in his rank was a Corporal anywhere in the British Army. He had to either voluntarily give up his stripes or lose it as a result of disciplinary action. Point being that a Lance Corporal is more plausible than a Corporal.

Just a thought,

Peter

Some excellent points again.  However, it’s also important to point out that the Guards engagement was different and much shorter than the line regiments, in order to build up a strong reserve.  As a result the usual Guards contract was 3-years with the colours and 9-years with the reserve.

Edited 9 January by FROGSMILE

[Captain Chip]

So let's have our 3-5 Lads join in 1913. They are 24-23 years old and driven to the army due to poverty in Kilkenny. War is declared in 1914 and they would be in the BEF going over. This logical?

 

[FROGSMILE]

1 hour ago, Des Moriarty said:

There were also some smaller regiments, like the south Irish horse, some of them also served with other British Empire forces or even the US Army. Irish men were also integrated into various regiments as needed, not solely Irish units.

love that map though, will put it with our family history as we tick a few of those boxes.

 

The map is a part of a much larger image showing all of the then U.K. and the recruiting areas of the infantry regiments only (hence no Cavalry, Yeomanry, nor mounted militia).

I am aware that Irish recruiting was not confined to the Irish Regiments, although for a range of reasons, by 1900 it was a relatively pale shadow of what it had once been compared with, e.g. 1850.

Edited 8 January by FROGSMILE

[PRC]

2 hours ago, Captain Chip said:

So that by the age of 25, they would be going over seas with the Regiment. Part of the BEF.

Please accept all of our comments as friendly critique and advice. In this case  - why do they need to be 25 when they go to France with the B.E.F.?
Is that a specific plot point?

I talked earlier about plausibility, and that means there are a number of variables in play that you could tinker with and still remain plausible - almost a spectrum of possibilities so no need to colour outside the box!

Start with one recruit at one end of the spectrum. A Kilkenny district lad, he enlists in September 1913 as the harvest has been poor, his employer has paid him off early and he can't afford to pay for his lodgings. This is not the first autumn and winter like this as he finished school by the time he was 14. He enlists in the British Army, joining the Royal Irish Regiment  on a short service enlistment split 7 years in the colours and 5 in the reserves stating he was aged 18 years and 3 months, regardless of his true age. Only in the most extreme cases was proof of age asked for. He completes his training at the Depot by Christmas and early in the new year is posted to the 2nd Battalion in the UK. He is still with them when the British Army goes to war, and Army age 19 years and 2 months lands in France, fights at Mons and in the retreat and is with them at Le Pilly. Possibly gets promoted Lance Corporal between Mons and Le Pilly as a result of casualties amongst the NCO's.

Sub-variant  - he goes out in the first drafts post Mons and gets a chance to comment on the change in the men he knew from barracks in the UK and learns from eye-witnesses the fate of some of his friends.

Is that plausible - sounds it to me.
Can the variables be changed - of course. Where he was from, when he enlists, why he enlists, age can all be tinkered with but word of caution although men could be taken I believe for a first enlistment up to 29, first time recruits in their mid-twenties don't tend to crop up very often - at least not in the men I've had cause to research. And if you want to scale it to have a group of friends of the same age joining at the same time, then starting to become inplausible.
Can it be scaled - of course. With a local agricultural depression \ recession, a group of drinking buddies might well decide the army is a better alternative to sleeping under hedges, eating scraps and getting by on the odd hour or two's work if you're lucky - or of splitting up if they are lifelong friends. And a group made up of some slightly over 18 and slightly under pretending to be 18 might be easier for those lieing about their age to get accepted. You brought up the prospect of a younger age brother of one of the members of the group, which unless he says he's a twin is going to bring up the age differential. In a world in which half-truths are being attested to and blind eyes turned, why not have him say he is a "cousin" and claim to be over 18.

Cheers,
Peter

Edited 8 January by PRC
Typo

[Captain Chip]

You bring up fair points. I'll set to work tomorrow. Right now, I just need some time to relax a bit. I am just realizing how difficult it is to write something good, yet it is fun to do at the same time. Thank you again and I'll be probably back soon enough.

[micks]

Back in 2018 I presented a case to the CWGC regarding the grave of an unidentified officer of the Royal Irish Regiment who is buried in Montcornet Military Cemetery. Most of my evidence came from the war diary of the 2nd Battalion. This document has a great deal of information regarding their action at Mons. I have included a map of their position at Mons and the group photo which arantxa place on the forum back in July of 2020. 

 

Major E M Panter-Downes is seated in the second-row 2nd from the left. He was killed at the Battle of Le Cateau on the 26th August 1914. Lt Colonel St.J A COX is seated in the second-row 5th from the left. He was wounded at Mons on the 23rd August. Lieutenant R E G Phillips the battalion adjutant is seated in the second-row 8th from the left. He was wounded and became a prisoner of war at Mons. The officer that I identified is Lieutenant F H L Rushton who is seated in the front row 5th from the left. He was awarded the Military Cross for carrying Lt Colonel Cox and Lieutenant Phillips off the battlefield at Mons. Lieutenant Rushton was killed in action at Vailly-sur-Aisne on the 15th of September 1914. A third of the officers in this photo would be dead by the end of October 1914.

 

 

[Captain Chip]

Aye aye aye. I think I underestimated how many casualties the 2nd Royal Irish Regiment took. I guess I will stick with 3 main characters. And I guess figure out how these lads will work in these battles.

Edited 11 January by Captain Chip

[Captain Chip]

I must ask and this is not book-related. Rather just curiosity. Did anyone of the lads from the 2nd Battalion serve from day one to the end of the war?

[micks]

Unfortunately, I can't answer that question. It's a lot easier to research those British soldiers that were killed than those that survived the Great War. Many of the service records for those serving in the ranks were destroyed in the bombing of London in 1940.

As you are aware the 2nd Battalion was all but destroyed at the battle of Le Pilly on the 19th of October 1914. On that day 20 Officers and 884 men went into battle with only one officer   (Lieutenant E G D M Phillips) and 135 men answering the roll call on the 21st of October. Nearly 150 men were killed and of those that were taken as prisoner only one hundred were unwounded.

Lieutenant Phillips was an original, but he was later killed near Ypres while attached to the 6th Battalion on the 14th of November 1916. I'm also aware that Major Stratford Edward          St. Leger was trapped behind German lines after the Battle of Le Cateau on the 26th August 1914. He was able to lead some of his men back through the enemy lines and walk back to the channel coast. He survived the war, but he didn't return to the battalion. 

[Des Moriarty]

3 hours ago, micks said:

Unfortunately, I can't answer that question. It's a lot easier to research those British soldiers that were killed than those that survived the Great War. Many of the service records for those serving in the ranks were destroyed in the bombing of London in 1940.

As you are aware the 2nd Battalion was all but destroyed at the battle of Le Pilly on the 19th of October 1914. On that day 20 Officers and 884 men went into battle with only one officer   (Lieutenant E G D M Phillips) and 135 men answering the roll call on the 21st of October. Nearly 150 men were killed and of those that were taken as prisoner only one hundred were unwounded.

Lieutenant Phillips was an original, but he was later killed near Ypres while attached to the 6th Battalion on the 14th of November 1916. I'm also aware that Major Stratford Edward          St. Leger was trapped behind German lines after the Battle of Le Cateau on the 26th August 1914. He was able to lead some of his men back through the enemy lines and walk back to the channel coast. He survived the war, but he didn't return to the battalion. 

The Commonwealth War Graves Commission has 1,305 recorded WW1 deaths for the 2nd Battalion, Royal Irish Regiment, they were at the brunt of a number of engagements 

a few of my relatives survived the whole war, including one who had enlisted in 1909, but they were not in the RIR. The two who were in the RIR enlisted at different times, but both of them only survived for a year. 

[Captain Chip]

I see...