Field punishment no. 1

[Muerrisch]

My copy Staff Manual War 1912 has nothing relevant to FP.

Ensign: all Brigade of Guards 2nd Lts, and, if a full Lt carries the Colour, he is the Ensign to/of the Escort.

http://uk.geocities.com/nickdg_westlea/ranks.html is not without errors and best avoided.

My point about Sgt Majors' badge was that it was intro. in 1802 ....... the rank predated that substantially. But 1802 is not 18th century.

Quartermaster sergeant had the same design of badge 4 chevrons in 1802 but sometimes in an inferior material.

Warrant Officers were not NCOs in the Great War as KR1912/14 makes clear, although of course they were 'not commissioned officers' either. The fact that they belonged to the WO and Sgtss mess and usually presided was a matter of convenience: daft having a mess for the Sergeant Major and the bandmaster [the only two WO's in a battalion until 1915]. One certainly could not have them in the Officers' Mess ..... even the [commissioned] Quartermaster Hon Lt. had to be invited to dine in pre-war days.

Some sergeant majors, principally Troop Sgt Majors of cavalry, ranked lower than Warrant Officer[and were equivalent to, and paid the same as, CSgt]

Lance Corporal of Horse was intro. 1972 for the reasons I have given earlier.

Readers may be interested to know that there was a major public spat regarding FP No. 1 in the columns of Stand To! , the Journal of the Western Front Association. The opponents were the then Editor, and a highly respected editor of another journal. It is hair-curlingly rancid and far beyond minor disagreements such as in this thread.

[PBI]

http://www.milism.net/ArchaicPunishment.htm

Cucifixion quite clearly Defined Here.

[Muerrisch]

Troop Sergeant Major still going strong in 1914.

I would be really interested in the evidence for use of four chevrons in 1797: this was not so in the infantry, but Cavalry Regulations 1795 do attribute 'three stripes' to the sergeant major of cavalry. As for shape, they do not say, and Dawnay is in much doubt as to shape. The French and the Americans were using genuine chevrons by then, but for good service not rank.

So, for cavalry, you are nearly right, for infantry, wrong.

Fortunately I have many sources of reference, collected over 50 years. Some are primary, some secondary, and some anecdotal. But I hope that I always say where an assertion comes from.

[Dawnay, by the way, had all the time in the world to undertake meticulous research. As an RO, he had the MoD library next door, and free range of the Royal collections etc etc]

[Muerrisch]

Troop Sergeant Major was still going strong in 1914. Either that, or KR was making it up.

I would be really interested in the evidence for use of four chevrons in 1797: this was not so in the infantry, but Cavalry Regulations 1795 do attribute 'three stripes' to the sergeant major of cavalry. As for shape, they do not say, and Dawnay is in much doubt as to shape. The French and the Americans were using genuine chevrons by then, but for good service not rank.

So, for cavalry, you are nearly right, for infantry, wrong.

Fortunately I have many sources of reference, collected over 50 years. Some are primary, some secondary, and some anecdotal. But I hope that I always say where an assertion comes from.

[Dawnay, by the way, had all the time in the world to undertake meticulous research. As an RO, he had the MoD library next door, and free range of the Royal collections etc etc]

[you can always use copy and paste for quotes: I don't think this impacts on bandwidth].

[Muerrisch]

!

[Jim Clay]

Quote Grumpy: "! "

Indeed!

[truthergw]

I was enjoying this discussion and learning mightily as it progressed. Shame to see it come to an end but good that no abrasions were suffered. Thanks to all contributors.

[Muerrisch]

Truth to tell, the thread makes nonsense reading now because GDav said goodbye, threw his teddy out of the pram and regrettably appears to have deleted his contributions which, although I disagreed on many points of detail, were worthwhile and well-intentioned.

[SiegeGunner]

...and regrettably appears to have deleted his contributions

He appears to have deleted all his forum posts bar one, which is a shame, as several other keenly debated threads will also have been rendered fairly meaningless.

[Muerrisch]

I think the teddy took a fair bit of stick!

[squirrel]

Fascinating both before and after the deletions.

FWIW and IIRC, in the 1914 Field Service Pocket Book the illustrations for FP1 and FP2 show rope or cord being used to restrain the miscreant not shackles or handcuffs. Also, and again IIRC, they make reference to the rope/cord not being tied so tightly as to restrict all movement.

[Muerrisch]

Squirrel have a care: the FSPB was issued with a cautionary 'not to be used as an authority' note, and the rancorous correspondence I referred to earlier was because one proponent relied on it as a prime source.

Very dodgy ground.

Are you a WFA member? If so, you may have the correspondence. I can uplook it if needs be.

[truthergw]

Very interesting Grumpy. So the Pocket Book was a guide not a legal document? Very cunning.

[Muerrisch]

Yes, very specifically, partly because it was a much-condensed version from several legal sources.

[SiegeGunner]

Were NCOs and warrant officers subject to FP? If so, which ranks and equivalents?

[truthergw]

My guess is, only after they were busted down to private. No authority over the men after that. The whole point was humiliation in front of your peers.

[tintin1689]

On the issue of restraint of soldiers undergoing FP No.1 I was only aware it was ideally meant to be done with handcuffs/shackles as I have an MPSC history which mentions the handcuffs shortage

Is the FS Pocket book the source of the famous pen and ink drawing of how to tie a man to a stake which is frequently reproduced in illustrated books on the Great War?

On the ranks thing I too was learning a lot - mainly about how confusing the history/identity of the staff sargeant rank is. I am sorry our other poster has left.

[squirrel]

Grumpy,

point taken. I thought I had been careful with the wording but not careful enough I see.

I was relying on memory as I didn't have the book to hand. Always dangerous!

I am a WFA member, no14507. I'll have a look at the old issues of "Stand To!" and see what I can find. Thanks for the clarification and also that on Ranks as well.

Incidentally, you may recall that I wrote to the Household Cavalry HQ in January to attempt to obtain a definitive list of the Ranks used in WW1. It's receipt was acknowledged in late March advising that it had been sent to Combermere Barracks in Windsor for attention. Since then I have heard nothing.

Tintin,

As far as I can recall the drawings that I have seen reproduced are from the FSPB.

[Muerrisch]

On the issue of restraint of soldiers undergoing FP No.1 I was only aware it was ideally meant to be done with handcuffs/shackles as I have an MPSC history which mentions the handcuffs shortage

Is the FS Pocket book the source of the famous pen and ink drawing of how to tie a man to a stake which is frequently reproduced in illustrated books on the Great War?

On the ranks thing I too was learning a lot - mainly about how confusing the history/identity of the staff sargeant rank is. I am sorry our other poster has left.

The source of the illustration escapes me at the moment .... I will try to dig it out.

[Muerrisch]

Illustration is in Stand To! No. 13 illustrating a letter by the Editor Peter Scott, who attributes it to a FM Haig letter 4 Dec 1916 filed in WO32/5460 [Gen No 2331] at The National Archive.