THE MYTH OF GURKHA RIFLEMAN CARRYING PRIVATE

[sirupate]

Jonathan; 2 kukri displayed at the Gurkha museam as battlefield or theartre pickups. The top one in Egypt probably from the 3rd Gurkha rifles the lower one from Gallipoli in 1915. Neither look very official issue or standarised to me....

Jonathan, please at least get the quote correct from the GM, as it puts a whole different emphasise on the kukri one looks at, and is quite misleading;
“acquired by a trooper of the Queen’s Own Oxfordshire Hussars, c.1917 in Egypt, and is potentially from 3rd Gurkha Rifles.”

1st Kukri;The quality of the kukri has in reality only two potential sources;
1/ Lets not forget that this practise was only done if time allowed;
‘If a soldier died in service his possessions were auctioned in Company level auction sales to raise the best price. The total money accrued was then sent to the deceased family’
It is feasable that the kukri was a dead British Officer's kukri, whose face and uniform may have been badly mutilated, and this may have been the reason behind the word ‘potentially’.
2/ That it was a kukri for mess orderlies, here the word ‘acquired’ springs to mind!

Before we go into the second kukri this is what I had to say in my précis about this period, which is relevant to this section;
There is a picture of British Gurkha Officers, of 1/1st Gurkha Rifles, in discussion with Nepalese Gurkha Officers in France during WWI. From the picture it would appear that the British Officers are not wearing kukri, but that the Nepalese Gurkha Officers are. In foreground, of the picture, one of the Nepalese Gurkha Officers is wearing a kukri on his left hip, which has what appear to be metal rings going around the handle and a metal butt plate, and another Nepalese Gurkha Officer (a bit further into the photo) is wearing a wooden handled kukri, again on his left hip, rather than the regulation carry of rifleman on the centre back, or the right back. In WW1 Nepalese Gurkha Officers including Naiks and Havildars etc. were allowed to carry personnel kukri.

2nd Kukri;Displayed directly below the alloy handled kukri in a green scabbard, is a kukri potentially used by10th Gurkha Rifles, and was picked up by Naval Officers during the Gallipoli campaign. We also have to remember that the 2/10 GR had problems getting hold of kukri, and ended up making them themselves for the new recruits, of which I have one.

& then again 4 Gurkhas in WW1 displaying there kukri. Again not very standardised. Looks like at least 3 different types of kukri to me. {picure courtesy of PCpostCards.]

Second picture;First of all, it does seem strange to me that one would present a picture as evidence, without knowing the circumstances and background behind the picture!!
Before we cover that, it is well known that there were huge supply problems for kukri and equipment in general (ref; 2/10 GR.) during WW1, due to the huge influx of men, which would not have been catered for in the normal run of things. Of course this was the same in WWII, for example the new 8th GR training centre at Quetta, by 1943 suddenly found itself with 6,000 Gurkhas!!
Regarding the problems of obtaining kukri, JP had this to say ‘If Ordnance Branch asked Regimental Depots to help out and held a pool of such to supplement other sources, then yes, If not no’. In other words, other sources were used to obtain what kukri they could get. This of course would lead to variations, but the kukri would still be ‘Sarkari’ issue.
Also one has to take into account that to replace Gurkha casualties in 1914 and 1915, they milked other Gurkha Battalions from India for replacements, therefore Gurkhas from different battalions were often mixed in.

So about this picture you have presented;
1/ The Havildar on the left; is not of rifleman rank, and was entitled to carry his own kukri, if he so wished, this did not appear to be the case By WWII.
2/ The two middle Gurkhas; They may well have been pr-WW1 enlistments, with Battalion regulation or original Sarkari issue kukri, from when they joined.
3/ The Gurkha on the right; He may well have originated from another battalion, so a different style of issue kukri, or it may be a replacement Sarkari sourced issue kukri, but not his own private purchased kukri!



Once again there are in reality only two possibilities, it was a British Officers kukri, or a Nepalese Gurkha officers kukri, as mentioned before.
Indeed British Officers often wore large kukri in that period, as you know, I have one from that period, spec; It has a 39cm long blade of the Rana period style, a belly of 7.1cm, a smooth spine, with a width of 9mm by the handle, tapering down to 2mm just before the point, and a ridge-less, hollow forged cross section, weighing 790 grams. It has a thick wooden stick tang handle of 11.2cm in length with a nice curve to help it fit the hand. The handle has a protective metal butt plate which has a basic attachment to the stick tang. For such a large kukri it is beautifully balanced and handles like a much lighter kukri, it is possible that this kukri was made by one of the Battalion armourers.

[spiral]

Originally Posted by sirupate

Jonathan, please at least get the quote correct from the GM, as it puts a whole different emphasise on the kukri one looks at, and is quite misleading;
“acquired by a trooper of the Queen’s Own Oxfordshire Hussars, c.1917 in Egypt, and is potentially from 3rd Gurkha Rifles.”

O dear...

The fact is I didnt quote the Gurkha museam re. the found Egyption & Gallipoli theartre kukris. I paraphrased it in an accurate manner.

Where as despite you accusing me of bieng missleading, you have blatenly deliberatly missquoted what the Museam Identification card actualy says.

Which Is. {& I quote.}

"This kukri which is believed to have belonged to the 3rd Gurkha rifles was aquired in Egypt c.1917 by a trooper of the Queens Own Oxfordshire Hussars."

{End quote.}

Also The Gallipoli kukri Picked up by a chief pety officer makes no referance "potentialy" or otherwise to any particular Gurkha regiment.

It pointless trying to deal in facts with someone who missrepresents evidence in this manner.

Spiral

[sirupate]

Jonathan; Where as despite you accusing me of bieng missleading, you have blatenly deliberatly missquoted what the Museam Identification card actualy says.

Strong language indeed Jonathan, to acuse me of lying, why would I lie about such a thing?
Indeed you are correct about the card on the kukri;

I confess to getting muddled up between Major Gerald Davies description of the said kukri 'potentialy' and what was said on the card.

Jonathan; Also The Gallipoli kukri Picked up by a chief pety officer makes no referance "potentialy" or otherwise to any particular Gurkha regiment.

You are quite correct, and I never said he did Jonathan, but Major Gerald Davies did so, as infact so did Gavin, it is certainley considered a kukri from 10th GR (from notes taken of when Major Gerald Davies the curator of the Gurkha museum talked to me about the kukri on display).

Jonathan; It pointless trying to deal in facts with someone who missrepresents evidence in this manner.

Strong words again Jonathan, I'll let the what the Officers and men of the Gurkhas have said, speak for themselves, which has proved that Ancestral and Private kukri carried by Rifleman of the Gurkhas to be incorrect.

[Mark]

Play nice, people. There is no place for personal attacks in a civil academic debate. ::dusts off his thread-locking key::

[Gavin Nugent]

Originally Posted by Mark

Play nice, people. There is no place for personal attacks in a civil academic debate. ::dusts off his thread-locking key::

I agree, play nice, leave some stuff behind the curtains , I'd hate to see such a passionate thread locked and further mysteries never revealed. Lets stick to the facts and let the evidence speak for itself and we can all draw our own conclusions, no one likes having info shoved down their throat

There is a lot of good info and debate here that no doubt will cause further research to be conducted and presented, this is a good thing , (only if the thread stays open)

However IMHO, with very few things in this world being absolute, especially where human interface is had. Can the initial statement title of this thread be proved beyond reasonable doubt, IMHO not, as there a lot of may, maybe and possibly words used above in response to images, but saying this, there still is a world of scope to be explored so lets keep this open and see what develops

My exacting knowledge only runs so deep but the green velvet sheathed example in the pic above looks to me to be a Nepalese presentation Kukri of as high standard and similar to the one I show sold here;
http://www.swordsantiqueweapons.com/s148_full.html
Not something that would have been worn in the field but something that was found in the field (the auction notion indicated private purchase surely?), again not conclusive without provenance but it offers other suggestions to the notion.

Gav

[sirupate]

The write up doesn't in anyway imply private purchase Gav, it implys that it was potentialy a presentation peice by the Royal Court of Nepal to a Diplomat?
It would be nice if the seller actualy said whose Estate it was from, and why they think it was most likely a presentation peice, so that their statement could be verified.
The kukri has classical Nepalese shape, and the writing on the spine is often found on kukri with that shape and style.
Here is a picture from my 2008 visit to Nepal of Prithvi Narayan Shah's kukri, from when the curator of the National Museum in Nepal, Bhess Narayan Dahal took me around, talking me through the kukri there;

Green velvet covered scabbards of the type in the picture from the GM, are most likley to be either to be officers kukri, or kukri for ceromonial wear by the likes of Mess Orderlies.
I think the statement has to be disproved Gav, as it was obviously against regulations to carry non issue kukri, until around the 1950's.
And obviously using photo's as evidence is not the anwser, unless one knows the exact circtumstances behind the photo, and who is what and from where, which battalion they were transfered from etc etc. as I answered to Jonathan's picture in a prev post.

[spiral]

Interesting to start with we have....

Originally Posted by sirupate

. Certainly in WWI there is evidence QGO did carry their own kukri, but not in WWII, and I have found no evidence of Gurkha Rifleman carrying their own kukri in both WW’s. .

Now QGO or Queen's Gurkha Officers were only the following 3 ranks Subedar Major, {Major,}Subedar Captain & Jemadar {Leutenant.}

Yet after I post a picture that features several varient kukri which includes a Gurkha NCO namly a Havildar {Sergeant] He then states.

Originally Posted by sirupate

1/ The Havildar on the left; is not of rifleman rank, and was entitled to carry his own kukri, if he so wished, this did not appear to be the case By WWII.

mmmmm. pause for thought as Haviladars are not QGO and but know Simons state Seargents can carry there own kukri as well.



The velvet scabbarded kukri is clearly not standard issue, other than that we can only surmise, {Presentation/private purchase or cerimonial seem most likley though assuming the scabbard is original to the kukri of course.} One should also remeber each regiments bandsmen where intitled to wear more exotic kukri though & in front line theartre they would operate as the regiment own strecher bearers. {Separate from either Army Bearer Corps or feild hospital units.} So thats another possibility.{Interestingly the 2nd man from left in the photo I posted seems to most likley be wearing a red cross style armband as used by some strecher bearers, although his kukri matches that of the rifleman next to him.}

I dont know if this helps anyones clarity or just muddys the picture further But Heres two regimental or rather battalion style kukri from WW1 era that would have been actualy purchased & paid for by the troopers of the 2/8 th Gurkha Rifles who carried them. One can see variation between the styles although both were clearly at the very least regiment or battalion approved & marked as such by the regiments armourers.

spiral








But for all these statements,possiblitys, probabilitys, thoughts & "confusians" in the above posts the real answear of the "official" veiw should at least be obtainable.

It will be in the various regimental & battalion standing orders for these time periods and that at the very least the "Official stance" would be prooven.

Spiral