8,455
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
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.
no edit summary
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.
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.
