Organization: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Template:BAI}} | |||
The names contained in the following list are in systematic rather than strictly alphabetical order. A consistent system was required in order to avoid an inevitable arbitrariness in placement which would have resulted from strict adherence to the alphabet. This may sound more contradictory than it is. When confronted with, say, eighteen individuals known only as "J. Smith," the alphabet alone is inadequate to assure anything beyond arbitrary grouping. Military rank could not be relied upon, quite apart from the fact that several of our "J. Smiths" might have held the same rank. Much variation has been observed in this area, according to sources consulted. While many authors, in writing of the Second Afghan War, assign participants ranks they held at the conclusion of hostilities, or even later, after the general promotions customary at the conclusion of wars, for the sake of consistency I have tried to assign to each person the rank held at the time of service during the war (including promotions and demotions), as set forth either in the Medal Rolls, or in the Annual Army List for the pertinent years, ignoring local ranks and brevets unless held at the time of service in the war (not briefly for some war-related event or period; these are separately noted). Many officers will, therefore, appear to have lower ranks than they are commonly accorded while among the other ranks subsequent demotions and promotions are not reflected here, unless they occurred during the period of the war and are noted in the contemporary records. | The names contained in the following list are in systematic rather than strictly alphabetical order. A consistent system was required in order to avoid an inevitable arbitrariness in placement which would have resulted from strict adherence to the alphabet. This may sound more contradictory than it is. When confronted with, say, eighteen individuals known only as "J. Smith," the alphabet alone is inadequate to assure anything beyond arbitrary grouping. Military rank could not be relied upon, quite apart from the fact that several of our "J. Smiths" might have held the same rank. Much variation has been observed in this area, according to sources consulted. While many authors, in writing of the Second Afghan War, assign participants ranks they held at the conclusion of hostilities, or even later, after the general promotions customary at the conclusion of wars, for the sake of consistency I have tried to assign to each person the rank held at the time of service during the war (including promotions and demotions), as set forth either in the Medal Rolls, or in the Annual Army List for the pertinent years, ignoring local ranks and brevets unless held at the time of service in the war (not briefly for some war-related event or period; these are separately noted). Many officers will, therefore, appear to have lower ranks than they are commonly accorded while among the other ranks subsequent demotions and promotions are not reflected here, unless they occurred during the period of the war and are noted in the contemporary records. | ||
Latest revision as of 15:38, 25 October 2022
The names contained in the following list are in systematic rather than strictly alphabetical order. A consistent system was required in order to avoid an inevitable arbitrariness in placement which would have resulted from strict adherence to the alphabet. This may sound more contradictory than it is. When confronted with, say, eighteen individuals known only as "J. Smith," the alphabet alone is inadequate to assure anything beyond arbitrary grouping. Military rank could not be relied upon, quite apart from the fact that several of our "J. Smiths" might have held the same rank. Much variation has been observed in this area, according to sources consulted. While many authors, in writing of the Second Afghan War, assign participants ranks they held at the conclusion of hostilities, or even later, after the general promotions customary at the conclusion of wars, for the sake of consistency I have tried to assign to each person the rank held at the time of service during the war (including promotions and demotions), as set forth either in the Medal Rolls, or in the Annual Army List for the pertinent years, ignoring local ranks and brevets unless held at the time of service in the war (not briefly for some war-related event or period; these are separately noted). Many officers will, therefore, appear to have lower ranks than they are commonly accorded while among the other ranks subsequent demotions and promotions are not reflected here, unless they occurred during the period of the war and are noted in the contemporary records.
The following basic decisions were made in order to eliminate the arbitrary factor and achieve a list where each name can appear only in the place it does. For the British Army, this system combines the alphabet with the 1861 Order of Precedence, the one pertinent to the period of the war. Unfortunately (for our purposes) the Order of Precedence and designations of the regiments were changed in 1881, shortly after the conclusion of the war. Hence, many authors, writing after the war, in citing the names and numbered (or simply the Territorial names) regiments of men who served in the war, employ the 1881 Order of Precedence with its revised designations, and thus compound the confusion. This is particularly the case in Shadbotl, and to a lesser extent in Hart’s Annual Army List. The 1861 Order of Precedence has been published many times, but I include it here since it is crucial to finding a name in the lists. It might be noted, as well, that there is no absolute standard in the citations to the 1861 Order of Precedence, and I have followed no single source. In general, I have followed the format of Hart's Annual Army List for 1880 for officers, but at times have diverged when it was at odds with other sources of equal authority. Hence, the list I include here is that I have employed throughout this work, but it should present no problems in relation to others from the period.
I have followed the same general procedure with respect to the Indian Native Regiments of the Bengal, Madras and Bombay Presidencies. The names and numerical designations of many regiments were changed in the years following the war (though a major reorganization did not take place until 1903), and some of the spellings (viz. Kemaoon vs. Kumaon, with the 3rd Goorkha Regt.) now seem old-fashioned, awkward, or quaint.
The order in which the regiments of the lndian Army appear here, and their numerical designations, are according to Hart's Annual Army List for 1880, with additional reference to S. Shadbolt (Historical Division, pp. 251-352), and other sources listed in the Bibliography. Additional reference has been made to the authoritative work by Boris Mollo, The Indian Army (Poole: Blandford, 1981) to which the user of this list may wish to turn for a more exhaustive treatment of this subject. The order of the regiments as bound in the Medal Rolls occasionally differs from that of the 1861 Order of Precedence. Since it was the primary source employed in compiling this register, I have adhered to the order in the Medal Rolls.
If two "J. Smiths" appear in the same regiment, corps, brigade, or department, the one with the lower regimental number precedes the higher, irrespective of rank, Company, or Brigade. Some officers of the Staff who, during the war were not attached to a particular regiment, are listed before those of the same name with regimental affiliation. Additionally, officers of a regiment with the same name as a regular soldier with regimental number, will precede these. Officers and men attached temporarily to other regiments during the war are normally listed under their permanent affiliation (if known), with a notation of the attachment. The regiments, corps, departments of the Indian Army follow listings for the British Army. Medical officers are included with the regiments with which they served, if known; otherwise they appear in their respective medical departments, along with commissariat, transport, clergy, and civilians, following military with the same name. Transfers between regiments and brigades, when known and verifiable, are also given in annotations, but the transfers are recorded with the Regiment, Battalion, or Brigade, normally are retained where they had been at the beginning of the war.
The alphabetical organization is based primarily upon surname followed by first Christian name. When only the initial letter of the first Christian name is known, it precedes identical surnames where the full Christian name is known. Hence, "J. Smith" always precedes "Jacob, James, John, Jaylon Smith." The order in which both the "J. Smiths" and the "John Smiths" appear depends upon their regiments and regimental numbers, as previously noted. Additional names beyond the first Christian name are not considered alphabetically since so few are known. Therefore, while " J. Smith" will always precede "John Smith," in the same regiment, it is possible for "Smith, Lieut. John William" to precede "Smith, Lieut. John James," since following the first Christian name the regimental number and/or Order of Precedence, becomes the determining factor.