Field punishment no. 1

[Katie Elizabeth Stewart]

I read an account by Robert Graves of how a batman of his was tied up to a gunwheel within range of the shells and left there. I looked it up, and it was used for offences like drunkeness - presumably not deserving execution (well, I hope not). I'd like to know more about it - if the shelling on the surface was heavy, they surely wouldn't stand much chance, would they? What an awful way to die. I'd like to know, please, what were the offences considered worthy of it, was it deliberate execution or just public humiliation, was it used regularly?

Also, I've heard the term 'crucifixion' used in reference to Field Punishments of WW1 - is this what is meant by it?

[Neil Mackenzie]

Katie.

Welcome to the forum.

For a diagram of how a soldier might be secured for FP No. 1 have a look at this website.

I would not have thought it was used when the unit was in the front line trenches - but am happy to be proved wrong. But it would certainly have been used within enemy shellfire range - don't forget this was a long way, in the Ypres Salient the Germans could (and did) shell Poperinge.

Neil

[truthergw]

The soldier would not have been tied up in the front line, he would have been required in the trenches doing his duty. FP1 would have been served when in the rear. As Neil says, he would have been within range of German artillery. So were all the men in the rear. Men who were judged not fit for front line duties were given duties in the rear areas such as road making for example. Many of these men were casualties to artillery fire. Heavy artillery had a range of 10 miles or more.

[Guest nicholaspdthompson]

as for the term 'crucifixion', i believe that to be correct. it does refer to the punishment of being strung up on the wheel. there is a book with mention of it that i can refer you to but i'll have to get its title and info next im at the uni library.

[truthergw]

There is almost no connection between crucifixion and FP1. The man undergoing FP1 was restrained against an immovable object as in the illustration referred to. Regulations required that circulation not be affected by tying the ropes too tight. He was not suspended. The point of Field Punishment was to inflict a lack of movement, prolonged standing and loss of liberty in conditions where it was not feasible to imprison a man i.e. when on field exercises. That is why the object was normally a gunwheel or fencepost.

[Tony Lund]

I think this originally came from a post on the Forum a while back:

Manual of Military Law, 1914.

Rules for Field Punishment under Section 44 of the Army Act.

1/. A court-martial, or a commanding officer, may award field punishment for any offence committed on active service, and may sentence an offender for a period not exceeding, in the case of a court-martial three months, and in the case of a commanding officer twenty-eight days, to one of the following field punishments, namely: Field Punishment No. 1 Field Punishment No. 2.

2/. Where an offender is sentenced to field punishment No. 1, he may, during the continuance of his sentence, unless the court-martial or the commanding officer otherwise directs, be punished as follows: He may be kept in irons, i.e., in fetters or handcuffs, or both fetters and handcuffs; and may be secured so as to prevent his escape.

B/. When in irons he may be attached for a period or periods not exceeding two hours in any one day to a fixed object, but he must not be so attached during more than three out of any four consecutive days, nor during more than twenty-one days in all.

C/. Straps or ropes may be used for the purpose of these rules in lieu of irons.

D/. He may be subjected to the like labour, employment, and restraint, and dealt with in like manner as if he were under a sentence of imprisonment with hard labour. Where an offender is sentenced to field punishment No. 2, the foregoing rule with respect to field punishment No. 1 shall apply to him, except that he shall not be liable to be attached to a fixed object as provided by paragraph of Rule 2.

Every portion of a field punishment shall be inflicted in such a manner as is calculated not to cause injury or to leave any permanent mark on the offender; and a portion of a field punishment must be discontinued upon a report by a responsible medical officer that the continuance of that portion would be prejudicial to the offender’s health. Field punishment will be carried out regimentally when the unit to which the offender belongs or is attached is actually on the move, but when the unit is halted at any place where there is a provost marshal, or an assistant provost marshal, the punishment will be carried out under that officer.

When the unit to which the offender belongs or is attached is actually on the move, an offender awarded field punishment No. 1 shall be exempt from the operation of Rule (2), but all offenders awarded field punishment shall march with their unit, carry their arms and accoutrements, perform all their military duties as well as extra fatigue duties, and be treated as defaulters.

Tony.

[Katie Elizabeth Stewart]

I think this originally came from a post on the Forum a while back:

Manual of Military Law, 1914.

Rules for Field Punishment under Section 44 of the Army Act.

1/. A court-martial, or a commanding officer, may award field punishment for any offence committed on active service, and may sentence an offender for a period not exceeding, in the case of a court-martial three months, and in the case of a commanding officer twenty-eight days, to one of the following field punishments, namely: Field Punishment No. 1 Field Punishment No. 2.

2/. Where an offender is sentenced to field punishment No. 1, he may, during the continuance of his sentence, unless the court-martial or the commanding officer otherwise directs, be punished as follows: He may be kept in irons, i.e., in fetters or handcuffs, or both fetters and handcuffs; and may be secured so as to prevent his escape.

B/. When in irons he may be attached for a period or periods not exceeding two hours in any one day to a fixed object, but he must not be so attached during more than three out of any four consecutive days, nor during more than twenty-one days in all.

C/. Straps or ropes may be used for the purpose of these rules in lieu of irons.

D/. He may be subjected to the like labour, employment, and restraint, and dealt with in like manner as if he were under a sentence of imprisonment with hard labour. Where an offender is sentenced to field punishment No. 2, the foregoing rule with respect to field punishment No. 1 shall apply to him, except that he shall not be liable to be attached to a fixed object as provided by paragraph of Rule 2.

Every portion of a field punishment shall be inflicted in such a manner as is calculated not to cause injury or to leave any permanent mark on the offender; and a portion of a field punishment must be discontinued upon a report by a responsible medical officer that the continuance of that portion would be prejudicial to the offender’s health. Field punishment will be carried out regimentally when the unit to which the offender belongs or is attached is actually on the move, but when the unit is halted at any place where there is a provost marshal, or an assistant provost marshal, the punishment will be carried out under that officer.

When the unit to which the offender belongs or is attached is actually on the move, an offender awarded field punishment No. 1 shall be exempt from the operation of Rule (2), but all offenders awarded field punishment shall march with their unit, carry their arms and accoutrements, perform all their military duties as well as extra fatigue duties, and be treated as defaulters.

Tony.

Thanks everyone for the information - I've had a look at the website I was recommended, and it confirmed what I thought I already knew. In Pat Barker's 'Regeneration' trilogy, the fictional character Billy Prior talks sarcastically to W.H.R. Rivers about 'crucifixtion' (of course, I appreciate that war fiction is subject to fallability) - perhaps this was merely an army nickname for something not actually calculated to cause death.

I've had another look at 'Goodbye to All That', by R.G - there were also details on the website - in fact, a Private soldier was sentenced to 28 hours and the sentence was carried out in the corner of a farm field. R.G. says: 'He wanted to tell me that he regretted having let me down, and his immediate reaction was an attempt to salute.' Perhaps I thought that meant he was saying goodbye??!! I am certain the punishment was used during WW1 - I read an account of someone having to endure it for two days, and on top of everything else? Well, someone must have dreamt up the punishment. It doesn't bear thinking about, does it? I can only begin to imagine how raw and red a young man's skin must be after two days tied to a gunwheel, and the thoughts that must keep recurring.

[Alan Lines]

Hi Katie

Here are a few examples of FP No.1 awards. I have pasted them from an earlier thread. These were all "awarded" to Canadian troops.

Drunkenness + stealing rum................14 days.

Refusing to obey an order + Insolence to an N.C.O......28 days.

AWOL 25 hours. 2 days loss of pay +........3 days.

Losing by neglect Government property

in the form of a rifle..............7 days.

Wilfully damaging rifle + Using insolent and

obscene language to an officer...........14 days.

Disobediance of Battalion Routine Orders

Urinating in a public place............1 day.

Striking a superior officer (FGCM) 1 year IHL later commuted to.....90 days.

Being in an estaminet during prohibited hours +

Stating a falsehood in that he gave a false name and

number to the M.P.3 + Absent from billet without

a pass............14 days.

Defaced the wall of a tent...............14 days.

In a letter did make improper statements

concerning his superior officers.......7 days.

Assault, 90 days later commuted to.........45 days.

Tying a horse and mule to a tree......3 days.

Losing by neglect 1 small box respirator and

1 p.h. helmet...........10 days.

Falling out on line of march + drunk......21 days.

Drunk and disorderly.........7 days.

Absent off morning parade, returning at

9:00 a.m. + Disobedience to Orders.........21 days.

Absent from billet 24 hours...........7 days.

Destroying government propery by cutting

breeches at knees...........5 days.

Absent 30 hours.......7 days + fined 3 days pay.

Drunk in Town.......7 days.

Quitting dental party and remaining absent until apprehended

by M.P. + drunk and out of bounds......28 days.

AWOL 72.5 hours (sentenced by FGCM).......56 days + lost 4 days pay.

Drunkenness. (FGCM) 2 years inprisonment with hard labour

commuted to.........90 days.

Refusing to obey an order in that he on a Bathing Parade

refused to take a bath as ordered....7 days.

Being away from sentry post while on duty.....7 days.

Theft of Government stores "rum"........7 days.

Theft......28 days.

Drunk on parade........4 days.

Continuousuly chewing on parade + inattentive on parade and generally

untidy + Smoking in billets......28 days.

[Katie Elizabeth Stewart]

Thank you, that is really useful. One small point: is an NCO (Non-commissioned Officer) a Corporal, Lance Corporal or Sergeant?

[PoW1988]

From my time in army cadets, I hope my memory serves me well:

NCOs: Lance Corporal, Corporal, Sergeant, Staff Sergeant, Warrant Officer Class II, Warrant Officer Class I

A WO1 is the same as an RSM right?

Lynz

[dycer]

This is how one Soldier describes punishment.

Miltary Law

"The unpunctual,unshaven,insolent etc,could land oneself before the Company Commander,with the sergeant giving evidence agaist you.Punishment for minor offences was confinement to barracks,but in France one was already confined.Consequently the Company Commander would give one the rough edge of his tongue or ask the Sergeant Major to find some fatigues of which there wre always plenty,many not very pleasing.

In severe cases the Colonel had formidable powers and could take away acting rank or priviledge,impose stoppage of pay or inflict field punishment for as long as twenty eight days.They could be harsh,for example being tied to a wagon wheel,being given dangerous duties,or being paraded at the double by the Regimental Police.Priviledge to open envelopes and rum ration were revoked.

Serious offences were sent to field general for court martial,convened by a brigadier when necessary.----"(Forum Rules prevent me going further in his description of the ultimate sentence.

George

[Jon6640]

From my time in army cadets, I hope my memory serves me well:

NCOs: Lance Corporal, Corporal, Sergeant, Staff Sergeant, Warrant Officer Class II, Warrant Officer Class I

A WO1 is the same as an RSM right?

Lynz

I believe that NCO is:

Corporal

Sergeant

Staff/Colour Sergeant

Company/Squadron Sergeant Major

Regimental Sergeant Major

Lance Corporal being an appointment, and not an NCO.

[PoW1988]

I was right then?

The way I was taught in cadets was that Lance Corporal is treated as an NCO, perhaps that was just in the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards? Just like in the incident with Staff Sergeant, in our battallion you addressed this person in the Royal Highland Fusiliers as Colour, whereas in RSDG you called them Staff...variations all over the shop.

Lynsey

[PoW1988]

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I got something right for a change

Lynz

[Katie Elizabeth Stewart]

This is how one Soldier describes punishment.

Miltary Law

"The unpunctual,unshaven,insolent etc,could land oneself before the Company Commander,with the sergeant giving evidence agaist you.Punishment for minor offences was confinement to barracks,but in France one was already confined.Consequently the Company Commander would give one the rough edge of his tongue or ask the Sergeant Major to find some fatigues of which there wre always plenty,many not very pleasing.

In severe cases the Colonel had formidable powers and could take away acting rank or priviledge,impose stoppage of pay or inflict field punishment for as long as twenty eight days.They could be harsh,for example being tied to a wagon wheel,being given dangerous duties,or being paraded at the double by the Regimental Police.Priviledge to open envelopes and rum ration were revoked.

Serious offences were sent to field general for court martial,convened by a brigadier when necessary.----"(Forum Rules prevent me going further in his description of the ultimate sentence.

George

I have heard of another punishment, and I could not believe my eyes when I read it. According to various sources, young soldiers were sometimes sent into a barrage unarmed. How ghastly.

Katie

[Katie Elizabeth Stewart]

I'd be interested in the sources because that punishment isn't listed in SDITF. An unarmed soldier is of no use.

Very true. Can't remember. Perhaps someone told me, in which case they could easily have been wrong.

[truthergw]

There are reports of unarmed French soldiers being turned out into no mans land to survive a night if they could. Anecdotal and I do not believe hard evidence exists but it was widely believed in France.

[Desdichado]

Sending an unarmed man out into action was not a proscribed punishment. If an officer imposed such a punishment and the victim was killed, it would be tantamount to murder, a capital offence under both military and civil law. In fact when a soldier was charged with murder under Section 41 of the 1881 Army Act, it was conisdered a civil and not a military offence.

Most minor offences committed at the front were dealt with summarily by the commanding officer, who had restricted powers to punish. Docking a micreant's pay was one method used.

[Muerrisch]

Lance Corporal is actually a rank, not an apppointment. An appointment can come with any rank and that would be a job title, i.e armourer, fitter, or some such, including company or squadron sgt major. Regimental Sergeant Major is also an appointment, the rank being Warrant Officer first class (WO1). There may be several WO1's in any unit but the RSM has the seniority of his appointment. He is also in charge of all messes except the officers mess.

So your full list of NCO's is:

L/Cpl

Cpl

Sgt

Staff (or colour) Sgt

WO2

WO1

You will find many regimental variations on this. For example:

The Brigade of Guards does not have L/cpls. It has Cpls and L/Sgts. In real life these are really L/cpls and Cpls.

Many cavalry regiments do not wear one stripe for L/cpl and only refer to Cpls. A full Cpl will wear an identifying badge above his stripes in No2 dress or above however.

In many line units a "Sgt Major" is the term given to a staff or colour Sgt - which is perfectly correct.

In the Household Cavalry there are no sgts. Only cpls, so the rank structure goes:

Cpl

L/Corporal of the Horse

Cpl of the Horse

S/CoH

Cpl Major

Regimental Cpl Major

There is no sgts mess either. Just a cpls mess but anyone under the rank of CoH has restricted priviledges.

That's only the tip of the iceberg too. The army has many refinements in different units due to battle honours or other distinction.

Oh and by the way - Field Punishments were still on statute when I was serving. The were in a chapter of a manual called "Staff Duties in the Field". I never saw anyone get No1 but myself and a friend got FP No2 for sleeping on stag. It was no fun either. Hard manual labour.

I beg to differ with some of the above which may, for all I know, describe the army in 2007, but does not do so for 1914 1918. I have KR 1912 amended to 1 August 1914 propped open in front of me.

I will number my points in case discussion ensues.

1. LCpl was definitely an appointment for a private soldier. The essence of rank was that only a Court Martial could take it away, whereas an appointment was much more easily rescinded by local line of command. It made sense to have LCpl easily rescinded, as it was probationary in nature and, in the first instance for the individual, usually unpaid. [Lcpls were habitually referred verbally as Corporal].

2. Warrant Officers class I and, from 1915, Warrant Officers class II [which by 1915 comprised RSM, RQMS, ORQMS and CSMs in line infantry] were referred to as 'Warrant Officers' and listed separate from and above 'Non Commissioned Officers and Men' in the 'Rank and Appointments' tabulation.

3. LSgt was an appointment for a full corporal, abolished 1946 for all except Guards. [Again LSgt could easily be reduced to corporal by administrative action].

4. No colour sergeants or staff sergeants seem to have been referred to as 'sergeant major', although different regiments had different verbal addresses for that rank such as 'pay sergeant' of Grenadiers, 'Colours', Colour 'Staff', and even ''sir'.

5. Re. the Household Cavalry, LCoH is a fairly recent invention, intended to accord the same privileges to their man paid as an army corporal as a Guards LSgt [paid as a full corporal]including access to any Guards or Household Cavalry SNCO's Mess .

Finally, here is an account which has never been published before. I have removed dates, names and places, but, as far as I can tell the writer had no cause to lie, and the incident rings true.

…….. I will give you an example of X's inhuman discipline which I don’t think I ever told you. During the latter end of 19xx we did one turn in some trenches which were on the right of the Z trenches we occupied later, and A Coy’s trench was about 600 yards from the enemy’s trench. One night my platoon went out for 24 hours rest, with us was the battalion machine gun sergeant, Y, one of the most popular and efficient NCOs in the Bn. During the 24 hours some of us drank more looted champagne than was good for us, and Y in addition had drank a lot of rum as well. By the time we arrived back in the trench he was a shouting raving madman, we did our best to quit him, but it was a hopeless task. Attracted by the shouting, X arrived on the scene, and told Y that if he did not stop shouting he would have him tied up on the ruddy wire in front for 2 hours. This threat only made Y curse and shout all the more, so X ordered an NCO and 3 men to manhandle him over the parapet and tie him on the wire and leave him there until he gave the order to bring him back in the trench.

X went with the party to supervise the tying up, heavy snow was falling at the time. After being tied up Y continued to shout and rave for about half an hour, then he became silent just after an enemy machine gun had traversed our front, which it did occasionally throughout the night. Enemy sentries were occasionally firing 5 rounds rapid at our front, but X left him there for the 2 hours before he gave orders to bring him back in the trench. We were all very pleased that he had not been hit or frozen to death, I expect the rum had saved him from the latter fate. He had a hazy recollection of what had happened, and said that he must have gone to sleep, because he had not long been awake when the men brought him back. He was later court-martialled, sentenced to be reduced to the ranks, and 6 months imprisonment. After serving about 2 months of his imprisonment, he was released, and rejoined the Bn. in the ZZ sector. He was immediately made full corporal, and on the first day he was back again in a front line trench he was killed by shell fire.

[Muerrisch]

Sending an unarmed man out into action was not a proscribed punishment. If an officer imposed such a punishment and the victim was killed, it would be tantamount to murder, a capital offence under both military and civil law. In fact when a soldier was charged with murder under Section 41 of the 1881 Army Act, it was conisdered a civil and not a military offence.

Most minor offences committed at the front were dealt with summarily by the commanding officer, who had restricted powers to punish. Docking a micreant's pay was one method used.

Do you mean proscribed or prescribed? Proscribed means forbidden, illegal, and I don't think you mean that.

[Desdichado]

Do you mean proscribed or prescribed? Proscribed means forbidden, illegal, and I don't think you mean that.

Oh dear. I'll rephrase my answer. An officer could not legally order an unarmed soldier into action.

[Muerrisch]

Firstly I need to point something out. My dissertation was off the cuff, given as a rough guideline to someone who didn't know the rank structure. Let me take some issues with the points I've left remaining.

Point 1. Lance Corporal is a rank. Try disobeying one and find out, although there are restrictions on what a L/Cpl can and cannot do. One of those is that he cannot issue a 252. It requires an act of the commanding officer to reduce the rank to that of Private/Trooper or whatever, it cannot be done on Company or Squadron Orders. You may find that the book says it IS an appointment but in reality it is the first step on the rung of promotion for junior nco's.

Point 3. A "Lance Sergeant" is (for admin purposes) the full rank of corporal which means that only courts martial can reduce the rank.

Point 4. The title Sergeant Major has been in use since the 18th century and was originally designated with four stripes. The position was traditionally associated with the quartermaster's department which is why, to this very day, some regiments refer to the CQMS or RQMS appointees as "Sarn't Major" when addressing them in the first or third person. Technically, the term Sgt Major refers to one rank above sgt and where most units transferred the title to the new "warrant" ranks in 1881, some preferred to keep the title for colour/staff sergeants. Just the same as some units still have the rank of "serjeant" instead of "sergeant".

Point 5. Although the introduction of L/CoH may be a recent innovation the rank of CoH has existed since just after the formation of the New Model Army. There are two explanations as to why this might be: one is that, as the monarch's personal bodyguard they could nto be called "sergeant" as the word is French for servant and Charles the 2nd decreed that his bodyguard would be servant to no man but he. The other is that, as even the lowest ranks of the Life Guards were of noble extraction, the term "sergeant" was inappropriate.

What you need to be very careful of when reading anything about the army is that it is very difficult to generalise because what is the truth 99% of the time can often mean the exact opposite on that other 1%.

I have witnessed the use of the term "Sarn't Major" in use with the Queen's Royal Irish Hussars and the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards and been instructed in the reasons behind its use. In those regiments it was inappropriate to refer to a warrant officer as "sarn't major", the correct term being "mister" or "sir".

I need to remind readers that this is the Great War Forum, and therefore any statement using 'is' rather than 'was' may be technically correct in 2007, but often inappropriate for 1914 1918. My contribution was an attempt to define the set-up in 14-18, plus a few clarifications of changes since then.

However, at risk of boring readers, and referring only to line infantry and using para. numbers as above.:

1. I disagree. KR 1 Aug 1914 para 282. is authoritative.

2. I take it that we now agree that Warrant Officers were not included among NCOs.

3. There appears to be agreement in that a LSgt could be administratively reduced to his rank of corporal, but below that a Court Martial would be needed [other than voluntary reduction]

4.The evidence disagrees with much of this para. The sergeant majors' rank badge was introduced by GO of 14 July 1802, which is 19th century [Major NP Dawnay's work on rank badges refers]. The same badge was used for Quartermaster Sergeants, whose role was entirely different. The rank above sergeant was indeed sergeant major/ QM sergeant but only until 1813, when Csgts were introduced. There were no CQMSs until late 1913, when the 4 company establishment was adopted. The appointment was held by a Csgt, paid a small additional amount.

As for being very careful about reading anything about the army, that is precisely why I attempt to quote references, and attempt to talk about our period and try to avoid the present tense.

Because so many people refer to this site for the truth about Great War matters, I believe it is worth while presenting the evidence in some detail. However, on this subject [off topic anyway] I have said enough.

[Muerrisch]

I doubt if there is any body of evidence that I can adduce to convince GDav that he is wrong regarding our period, particularly as my evidence was offered with full references and his comes with a lecture and an appeal to usage. For example "The point you must take on board is that no matter what Kings Regs or Queen's Regs (VR) say, there were and are differences which were tolerated because of expediency or tradition so there are times when it is difficult to put forward a hard and fast rule, particularly between arms and corps where differences run rife. That is why in 1914 right up to 2007 you will still find archaic terms still being used long after their use was discontinued by army order. Calling staff sgts "sgt major" or 2nd Lt's "Cornet" are only two I can think of".

I feared I was wasting my time! Fancing my relying on contemporary official sources, I should have known better.

I suggest that if the matter is to be taken further, and GDav wants to provide evidence instead of confident statements, the discussion be moved to PMs.

Herewith a piece from Dawnay, subjected to peer review and published by JSAHR.

Sorry, I'll try a larger scan.

[Muerrisch]

hopefully full size Dawnay. I rest my case.

[tintin1689]

Steering ourselves ever so slightly back to Field Punishment...

One of the reasons people were tied to posts, often too tightly or with the feet only just touching the floor (sometimes deliberately) and thus FP No.1 got a bad name, was that there was a severe shortage of handcuffs

The Army also had intended that the punishment be carried out purely regimentally, but due to wartime demands Field Punishment Centres were set up under the Ls of C. As MP and MPSC staff were like gold dust "semi-professional" staff were recruited from other arms.

Black soldiers being tied up by white men caused such bad racial feeling that the policy was revised for black units (eg Bermuda RGA) and only carried out regimentally

On the ranks issue can we steer a middle path? I agree we ought to start off with official documents and take them as a kind of default, but evidence otherwise, including anecdotal evidence needs to be taken seriously. A good example is the use of the terms Ensign and Cornet - the book of words tells us they were abolished sometime in the mid-19th century, but they are astonishingly persistent. Archaisms like that are unlikely to have been suddenly re-introduced so their survival is probably good evidence of continuous use. (Good grief this is almost starting to sound like Biblical scholarship)

One example of the unreliability of official manuals is the phrase in many of the drill books "without excessive stamping" - which is total tosh. I believe it was put in to appease some medical interests.