RootsChat.Com
General => Armed Forces => World War One => Topic started by: dtcoulson on Tuesday 30 April 24 14:53 BST (UK)
-
I have a question about soldiers who served in the RAMC at field hospitals well behind the front lines and never participated in any of the combat at the front lines.
My grandfather was such a man. In no way am I suggesting that his work was inferior to that of the front-line soldier, and neither am I questioning his courage, hard work and patriotism. But it occurs to me that others at the time might have held those kinds of prejudices.
Some years ago a relative of mine visited the town where my grandfather lived before and after the war and met up with some distant cousins still living there. They visited the town's memorial stone which listed the names of the soldiers from the town that had enlisted and gone to war, including those who survived and came home. These local cousins said they had been told by their parents that this man - an uncle and grand-uncle to them - should not have been included in this list. They did not know why.
Now I can think of a few alternative reasons for why they may have been told this, but the one I want to ask you about is this: was there any kind of prejudice or contempt shown to the soldiers who worked in 'safe' positions behind the lines, and would this extend to not wanting to include them on a list of soldiers representing a town? Is there evidence of this in any surviving documents from the period?
The alternative explanation (and the one I prefer) is that my grandfather was not born in this town but moved to it as a young man shortly before the outbreak of war. Quite possibly he was regarded as an outsider to those that had spent their childhood there. Maybe there was some resentment that he should be thought of as 'from' this town.
We could imagine all kinds of things, so I am not asking you to speculate.
I would like to know if there is documented evidence to support either of these explanations.
-DC
-
This book was published in 2019 and may be of interest to you:
An Equal Burden: The Men of the Royal Army Medical Corps in the First World War (OUP, 2019)
Author: Jessica Meyer
"Though they were not professional medical caregivers, they were called upon to provide urgent medical care and, as non-combatants, were forbidden from carrying weapons. It additionally explores the gendered status of these men within the medical, military, and cultural hierarchies of a society engaged in total war. Through close readings of official documents, personal papers, and cultural representations, Meyer argues that the ranks of the RAMC formed a space in which non-commissioned servicemen, through their many roles, defined and redefined medical caregiving as men's work in wartime".
On a personal note, I have a relative who served with the RAMC from 1900 into the 1920s. My family always spoke of him with pride and admiration. He even took a bullet in 1916, so it [RAMC] wasn't a "safe" position. I believe nearly 7,000 RAMC personnel died during WW1. My relative fortunately survived, and returned to the Western Front.
-
What are the reasons why a man would choose (and be accepted) or be forced to serve in the RAMC rather than the regular army? Was being a conscientious objector a valid reason? Or a relatively minor physical disability or weakness?
-
Looks like my relative went into the RAMC due to height requirements. According to his 1900 attestation record he was only 5 feet 2 inches, and weighed 7 stone. His height would've been considered too short for any form of combatant service.
-
Without 'other ranks' in the RAMC, many more front line soldiers would have died. All men that served in the Great War were brave.
-
My grandfather and three of his brothers-in-law were in the RAMC.
Two of their army records still survive. These show that they all joined the RAMC in 1911. When they would have attended the local army barracks for a couple of hours a week where they were given first aid training and what to expect as a medical attendant in the battlefield. During that war poisonous gas was used and on one occasion my grandfather was sheltering from the bombing in a farmhouse which was then attacked by gas. He was subsequently sent back to the UK for treatment. The record does not say whether the farmhouse was used as a hospital or whether they were using it briefly as a shelter
His record also shows that prior to WWI his unit were sent up to Newcastle for a fortnight's special training.
Wikipedia gives a precis of the RAMC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Army_Medical_Corps
P.S. Whilst he was recuperating he was sent home for a short period and was given a card that stated he was a serving personnel on sick leave - he also carried a red feather.
Men who were considered cowards were given a white feather.
-
I never suggested it was a 'safe' assignment for all RAMC. There were RAMC at the front line, in ambulance teams moving to and from the front line, in field hospitals well behind the front line and in home hospitals in the UK. Clearly, some assignments were safer than others. My curiosity is entirely to do with the circumstances of my grandfather who was at a field hospital on the coast of France.
Thank you for the book reference. It looks to be the same as the online text I was reading in the last half hour. According to this author, there was a great deal of mockery of the RAMC soldiers across the board.
These town memorial stones erected after the war were presumably designed and approved by town council (in whatever form that takes). This means that the dedication text on the stone and the selection criteria for names differed from town to town. That may have led to controversy over which names qualified and which did not. That's what I'm interested in finding out. Did it ever happen that a town council decided against engraving RAMC names on one of these monuments?
We could broaden the discussion to include other corps. Examples that come to mind would be military police, secretarial staff and drivers and mechanics in the ASC. Where did they stand in this process? If there was a cutoff line, what was it?
-DC
-
Just catching up on the replies.
Some interesting (though off-topic) points have emerged.
- Some people were RAMC before and after and throughout the war, doing training that might only have required a few hours a week (Thank you, Rena). It occurs to me that my granddad may have been in the RAMC before the war and still working at his factory job in the pre-war years, which may explain why he was sent to France in the first detachment in 1914.
- Physical characteristics such as height and weight determined whether a man would go to the regular forces or to alternatives such as the RAMC. My family are short and therefore this may have been a consideration for my grandfather, over and above any preferences he may have had.
- That there was a 'feather' system of identification. I'd like to hear more about this if you have info.
Rena, my grandfather was from South Shields and very likely part of that Newcastle training process you mentioned. Can you give me more info or point me to online resources?
Thanks all
-DC
-
Looks like my relative went into the RAMC due to height requirements. According to his 1900 attestation record he was only 5 feet 2 inches, and weighed 7 stone. His height would've been considered too short for any form of combatant service.
According to his discharge certificate my grandfather was 5' 7", so well above the minimum height.
-
If he went overseas in 1914 means he was one of 3 types of soldier, a pre-war regular.
a recalled reservist or a Territorial.
So you can rule out a conscientious objector as these men were only identified after conscription.
Had he been TF he would have been awarded the Territorial Force War Medal & this will be reflected
on his medal card.
If he received the 14 Star means he was one of the other 2.
I would agree with the other comments in that he was a vital part of the medical chain & appreciated
by the wounded & would certainly have a rightful place on any War Memorial.
-
Quite right, Jim. That online doc I've been reading reflects your point nicely: stories of injured soldiers who said they changed their attitudes towards the RAMC when they saw firsthand just how difficult their job was.
I've been able to trace back to the source of the comment. It was a comment made by some of my English second cousins back in the 1990s when another cousin from NZ went over to visit. They said they'd been told by their Dad that the man who is my grandfather should not have his name on that memorial stone. Since the father was born well after WW1 and was born far away from where this monument stands, this opinion must come from his own Dad, my grandfather's younger brother, who would have been resident in that town and would have been old enough to attend the unveiling ceremony back in 1921. It suggests that there was some ill-feeling between the brothers and this lingered long enough to be transmitted down through the next two generations. That's quite a grudge.
But to be fair, there could be dozens of other explanations that none of us are aware of. It may simply have been some kind of joke that got out of hand. But even if it was a friendly taunt, it nevertheless rests on some kind of prejudice that a man from the RAMC was not a real soldier; that's what I find interesting.
We'll never know so I guess there's nothing more to be said on this topic.
Thanks to all that replied.
-DC
-
You're right, we'll never know the full circumstances, indeed the conversation might have referred to somebody else and two stories have got muddled over the years. If you've seen images of injured soldiers you'll know they had pieces of their faces missing as well as other parts of their bodies, which your ancestor must have seen.
.
Some boys as young as fourteen years old applied and lied about their age, others who had migrated abroad came back to the UK to fight for the land of their birth. Others joined the army in their new homeland.
I didn't appreciate my own grandfather's time in the RAMC until I learnt he had been a stretcher bearer in front of the Canadian forces at a place known as "Hellfire Corner". The toll on the horses being shot, injured and killed must have been another nightmare as they galloped or struggled along the road pulling guns and other equipment in the deep clinging mud.. This meant they were defending Ypres,
What civilians don't appreciate is that when a canon makes a loud noise it also means that compressed air is heading towards the target and this can rock the brain inside the hard bony skull and injure the soft tissue - these soldiers will often never be freed from mental problems.
-
"What civilians don't appreciate is that when a canon makes a loud noise it also means that compressed air is heading towards the target and this can rock the brain inside the hard bony skull and injure the soft tissue - these soldiers will often never be freed from mental problems."
The statement above is misleading. Compressed air does not travel from a cannon to a target. The injuries referred to are due to an High Explosive artillery round detonating close to a victim. The resulting blast wave causes concussion.
Tony
-
"What civilians don't appreciate is that when a canon makes a loud noise it also means that compressed air is heading towards the target and this can rock the brain inside the hard bony skull and injure the soft tissue - these soldiers will often never be freed from mental problems."
The statement above is misleading. Compressed air does not travel from a cannon to a target. The injuries referred to are due to an High Explosive artillery round detonating close to a victim. The resulting blast wave causes concussion.
Tony
The soldiers operating the cannons, wear ear defenders these days to protect their hearing. We learn something new every day and, for instance, now know that the "spent" missiles/bombs that were scattered about the ground after the Iraq war resulted in babies born with imperfections. The expectant mothers had been touching the metal which the locals later used for their own purposes.
There would be no sound and no light if the earth was in a vacuumed bottle. Sound travels through the air and if you have been under the flight path of an airplane breaking the sound barrier, then you would have heard a very loud "bang".
I remember sitting in a classroom of my new school. In walked the headmaster wearing his cloak and mortarboard
"Look how strong I am" he said holding up his arm to show his biceps. "I'm holding up 14 lbs per square inch, so why can I hold up my arm without it getting tired and wilting"?
One boy answered "Because there's 14 lbs per square inch all around and holding up your arm sir"
If you visit the youtube pages and search for "shell shock" - you will see what constant loud noises did to soldiers and sailors
-
Light can travel in a vacuum.
A vacuum is empty space. There are no molecules of air or anything else in a vacuum. Like all forms of electromagnetic waves, light can travel through empty space, as well as through matter.
Tony
-
Light can travel in a vacuum.
A vacuum is empty space. There are no molecules of air or anything else in a vacuum. Like all forms of electromagnetic waves, light can travel through empty space, as well as through matter.
Tony
I've just found the same statement online. This is far different to us being taught that light could only travel via particles of dust.