Abstract
This article explores how mules were procured in Cyprus for the Salonica campaign and how they were treated by Cypriot muleteers in the British army in Macedonia. Cyprus provides an ideal case since over 6,000 mules were recruited for the Salonica campaign, presenting a sizeable sample for analysis of recruitment strategies and practices. Equally, since over 12,000 Cypriot muleteers served in the British army in Salonica and later in Istanbul during and after the Great War (from July 1916 to April 1920), the focus on the treatment of mules by Cypriot muleteers offers a significant sample. This article contributes to the growing historiography on the role of equines and their treatment and condition in the Great War. It argues that Cypriot mules were procured in significant numbers and became important to British supply and logistics in Salonica. Cypriot muleteers treated their mules relatively well, and therefore mules in Salonica, although overworked, were generally in reasonable condition.
I. Introduction
This article explores why and how the British procured mules for army transport purposes from Cyprus and what the condition of mules was like in the Macedonian campaign, especially those mules under the command of Cypriot muleteers. It is important to first understand why and how the mules were procured before exploring how they were treated in Macedonia. Cyprus provides an ideal case since over 6,000 mules were procured for the Salonica campaign, presenting a sizeable sample for analysis of procurement strategies and practices, while the Salonica Army was an important theatre as regards transport animals and drivers, since British divisions in Salonica contained 4,300 drivers per division, as against 1,300 in France. 1 Over 12,000 Cypriot muleteers served in the British army in Salonica and later in Istanbul from July 1916 to April 1920, 2 and so the treatment of mules by Cypriot muleteers offers a significant sample. This article contributes to the growing historiography of the role and condition of equines in the Great War. It argues that Cypriot mules were procured in significant numbers and became important to British supply and logistics in Macedonia. Cypriot muleteers treated their mules relatively well, and therefore the mules, although overworked, were generally in reasonable condition.
Historiography
Historians have written little and nothing sustained on the army mule during the Great War. In keeping with a greater focus on the role of horses in warfare more generally, as reflected in a recent conference titled ‘War Horses of the World’, 3 the focus on equines in the Great War has been on horses. The other focus of the historiography has not been on equines as subjects, but rather as objects alongside the labour, usually colonial labour, recruited to handle the mules.
Significant research has been published on the role of horses in warfare. Aside from general accounts, 4 there have been important works on their role in the English Civil Wars, 5 the American Civil War, 6 and even in the highly mechanized Second World War. 7 For the Great War the focus has been on the role of the horses and their fate. 8 Mules have been treated as an afterthought. Singleton’s article provides some important information and conclusions on the use of mules during the Great War, yet the title of his article mentions only horses. 9 Focusing on the functioning of the British Remount Department on the Western Front, he found that ‘between 1914 and 1918 the success of the British war effort was heavily dependent on the horse’. 10 This may be the case for the Western Front, but on the Salonica front mules were at least as important, as will be shown in this article. Singleton also concluded that ‘horses and mules were treated with greater care by the British army between 1914 and 1918 than they had been in earlier wars’ because veterinary services were of a higher standard and fodder rations were generous. 11 This may be true, yet he did not cite any veterinary reports to substantiate his conclusion.
Mules are also mentioned, although more as objects rather than as subjects, in the historiography of labour recruitment during the Great War. There are three articles of note for focusing on labour corps in the British army during the Great War, one dealing with African labour from the East Africa Protectorate, 12 another on Chinese labour, 13 and a third on Indian labour. 14 These articles deal with the experiences of the labouring men, but not the treatment of the mules. The mules are there, but little is said about them.
II. The Macedonian Campaign and Mules in Macedonia and Other Theatres
Mules, the offspring of a male donkey (jack) and a female horse (mare), and hinnies, the product of a female donkey (jenny) and a male horse (stallion), 15 played a part in all the theatres and campaigns of the Great War, but as can be seen in Tables 1 to 3, by comparison to horses they were more important in the ‘Eastern’ theatres, Salonica, Mesopotamia, and Egypt-Palestine, with the Macedonian and Mesopotamian theatres the only ones with more mules than horses.
Equines in all theatres, 31 August 1917.
Source: War Office, Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire during the Great War, 1914–1920 (London, HMSO, 1922), p. 400.
Light draught.
Heavy draught.
Unclassified.
Equines in all theatres, 31 August 1918.
Source: War Office, Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire during the Great War, 1914–1920 (London, HMSO, 1922), p. 401.
Light draught.
Heavy draught.
Unclassified.
Equines in all theatres, 31 August 1919.
Source: War Office, Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire during the Great War, 1914–1920 (London, HMSO, 1922), p. 402.
Light draught.
Heavy draught.
Unclassed.
The table shows a total of 8,500 horses and mules for the Army of the Black Sea, but no figures were entered into any of the categories, nor were any distinctions made between how many were horses and mules. It is safe to assume that the majority were mules.
On 6 October 1915 French and British forces established the Salonica front after their failed Gallipoli landings, in an attempt to aid Serbia against the combined attack of German, Austria-Hungarian, and Bulgarian forces. On 15 October the British and French troops landed at Salonica, which had come under Greek sovereignty in November 1912 during the First Balkan War when the then Crown Prince Constantine (who became King Constantine I in March 1913) rode into the surrendered city a day before Bulgarian forces. 16 The French and British forces were sent north of Salonica, but failed to prevent the fall of Serbia. They were hampered by the political crisis in Greece, with the resignation of the pro-Entente prime minister, Eleftherios Venizelos, because of Constantine’s ‘neutrality’, 17 and the subsequent rejection of the British offer to cede Cyprus to Greece upon its militarily aiding Serbia. 18 Allied troops, numbering 600,000 in 1916, under French commander Maurice Sarrail, withdrew to the Salonica town area and established, through an extensive system of trenches, strong defensive positions from the Albanian Adriatic coast to the Struma river. Limited Allied attacks near Monastir in Serbia in 1916 and 1917 led, in September 1918, to a breakthrough into Bulgaria and the liberation of Serbia. 19
In Salonica the mules were worked hard and were pivotal because of the mountainous terrain. Their main task was to haul supplies to the front and return with the wounded and dead. Loads for pack mules were on average 160 lb in December 1916, depending on the size of the mule. 20 The weight was not only great, but traversing the narrow mountain tracks, which had steep ravines, was very hazardous. Indeed much of the early work of the Cypriot muleteers and mules was on road construction, which involved carrying very heavy loads. 21
III. Formation
It was not until after 24 April 1916 that General Sir Bryan Mahon, the commander of the 10th (Irish) Division and at the time also the head of the British Salonica Force, upon being ordered to march to the Greco-Serbian border, claimed that in order for his widened operations to succeed he immediately needed an additional 1,676 pack animals and 1,232 drivers per division. 22
The procurement of Cypriot mules and recruitment of Cypriot muleteers followed, with an enquiry on 24 May 1916 from the British minister in Athens, Sir Francis Elliot, to the high commissioner of Cyprus, Colonel Sir John Clauson. The Cypriot government was most willing to oblige, and immediately went to work, along with Major L. Sisman, who was sent from Salonica to take charge of the Mule Purchasing Commission established at Famagusta. In reply to a Colonial Office request, on 4 August, for information on the recruiting process, 23 on the next day Clauson telegraphed Andrew Bonar Law, the colonial secretary, that 1,091 Cypriot muleteers had already left for Salonica. 24 Indeed, on 2 August, 796 Cypriot muleteers had arrived at Salonica; 500 were allotted to the 12th Corps and the rest to the 16th. 25 Mules were initially the main want of the Salonica authorities; hence Clauson informed Bonar Law on 7 August that the Mule Purchasing Commission had been established to buy mules and engage muleteers. Already, he revealed, 919 mules and 49 ponies had been purchased in 6 weeks, although this was half what he had promised. 26
Within a few months the Cypriot colonial authorities, the military authorities in Famagusta, and those in Salonica had established the Mule Purchasing Commission to recruit both mules and muleteers. This triangle structure worked relatively well (although not without some problems), and in July 1917 the Mule Purchasing Commission changed its name to the Muleteer Recruiting and Supply Purchasing Staff, reflecting the greater want for muleteers. 27 Around 12,000 Cypriot men aged between 18 and 39 served, representing a staggering 24% of the male population aged between 15 and 35, 28 an overwhelming success for the British Empire.
IV. Why Cypriot Mules and Cypriot Muleteers?
Clearly mules and muleteers were desperately needed for the Salonica front to be successful, but why choose Cypriot mules and muleteers? It is unclear from the archival evidence available why the British military authorities in Salonica decided upon Cypriot mules and muleteers. The idea to raise Cypriot muleteers must have emanated from the British military authorities in Salonica because, as mentioned above, the initial contact with Clauson was from the British minister in Athens and not from the War Office or the Colonial Office. In the absence of any document that answers why Cypriot mules and muleteers were selected, it can only be assumed that there were members of the British military forces in Salonica with knowledge of the Cypriot mule and the abilities of Cypriot muleteers. A historical survey, beginning from the middle of the nineteenth century, shows that Cypriot mules and muleteers had good reputations.
During the Crimean War, when Cyprus was a part of the Ottoman Empire, French merchants visited the island to buy mules for the French army in the Crimea. The sub-governor of Cyprus informed the Ottoman Foreign Ministry that mules would be sold to the French consul in Larnaca, and that he had instructed the local majlis to offer all assistance to the consul travelling the interior searching for more mules to purchase. 29
Soon after the British occupation of Cyprus in 1878, the British also discovered the value of the Cypriot mule, for both military and sporting purposes, and the Cypriot muleteer. In the long Cypriot summer, which lasted the best part of six months and sometimes more, the central government left Nicosia and the garrison left Polymedia, Limassol, for the Troodos Hill Station, where ‘Britishness’ could be maintained away from the ‘natives’. There, one of the many sporting pursuits was polo, with matches played on Cypriot mules. 30 This may have been threatened when in December 1880 High Commissioner Robert Biddulph received a rude awakening to ‘Greek’ politics. He did not stop the Greek military, which was mobilizing against the Ottoman Empire, from purchasing mules on the island in breach of British neutrality, after receiving a letter of thanks from the Greek consul on the island on behalf of King George of Greece for Biddulph’s assistance in the matter. Biddulph denied that he or anybody else in the government had offered any assistance, despite the erroneous reports in the Daily News. 31 The British realized the value of the Cypriot mule and muleteer during the Egyptian campaigns from 1882 to 1885 when Cypriot mules were prized, and a contingent of Cypriot muleteers served under British command during the Sudan campaign. 32 An officer also recruited Cypriot Muslims for service under General Evelyn Wood, while other Cypriots served as muleteers on six-month contracts. 33 Hugh Sinclair, the private secretary of the high commissioner at the time, later claimed that Cypriot muleteers ‘were famous for horse-mastership . . . and the mules . . . unequalled for docility and endurance’. 34 Although the Cypriot muleteers did invaluable work, the families of those who died were not compensated, and nor were those muleteers if they were invalided, because they were not British subjects. 35 Also, when the Cypriot government received medals for the veterans, they had to travel to the Troodos Hill Station for the ceremony, although most could not because they lived in all parts of the island and mainly in rural areas. 36
By the turn of the century, the Indian government was showing interest in the Cypriot donkey ‘jacks’, mules, and hinnies. From the mid-1880s the Indian government had been consistently purchasing Cypriot donkey stallions or jacks, reaching a high in 1897–8 with 21 ordered. 37 Then in 1898–9 the Indian government ordered a record 61 and another 25 the following year. 38 In October 1898 the veterinary colonel A.E. Queripel, inspector-general of the Civil Veterinary Department in the Indian government, visited Cyprus to purchase donkey stallions and to report on the state of transport animals generally. Queripel claimed that the general state of transport animals on the European continent was very poor, and that for a small territory Cyprus was doing well. He saw on the island numerous pony mares with mules at their feet whose height on average exceeded those bred in India. He revealed that the ‘jenny’ donkeys were larger than the ‘jack’ donkeys because the best jennies were crossed with pony stallions to obtain mules (i.e. hinnies, or ‘jennets’ as the British called them in Cyprus). Although this was not the norm in most parts of the world, this meant that the hinnies in Cyprus were of a size that made them ideal for pack transport purposes. This also meant that there were not that many jack donkeys on the island, and many were sold overseas (Bosnia-Herzegovina, Constantinople, and Syria), although some were also crossed with horse mares. He approved of the jack donkeys for India, purchasing nine, and recommended that the Indian government enter into a formal agreement with the Cypriot government to purchase 25 to 30 donkeys, aged about 4, per year, with the Indian government guaranteeing the contract would not be terminated without a three-year advance warning. 39 Queripel made five recommendations for the Cypriot government to consider in order to improve the breeding stock of all transport animals:
(a) the levying of a small tax on all donkeys exported;
(b) either the levying of a heavy tax on the importation of donkeys or the prohibition of importation altogether;
(c) the awarding of prizes at all the large fairs to donkey stallions (fairs at Famagusta in March, Larnaca in April, and at Paphos and the Karpass in September);
(d) the maintenance by the Cypriot government of two indigenous jack donkeys in each district for breeding purposes;
(e) the maintenance of a few good Arab pony stallions not exceeding 14 hands in size. 40
The Indian government strongly endorsed Queripel’s report, and sent it to the India Office on 9 March 1899. The cover letter agreed that it was highly desirable for the Indian government to enter into an agreement with the Cypriot government on purchasing 25 to 30 jack donkeys every year. 41 The recommendation was also supported by the undersecretary of state for India, Charles Leslie Sutherland, who claimed that Poitou was noted for its focus on mule breeding, and Cyprus too could become noted for its jack donkey breeding. Sutherland supported Queripel on discouraging the exportation of donkeys from the island. 42 The India Office agreed to a contract with the Cypriot government to purchase jack donkeys and informed the Colonial Office in September 1899, while showing pleasure that some of Queripel’s recommendations had already been implemented. 43 Before the Cypriot government could respond, the India Office ordered 28 Cypriot donkey stallions for 1900–1. 44 William Haynes Smith, the high commissioner of Cyprus, approved of the offer of the India Office, only pointing out two issues:
prices needed to be reconsidered every three years because they were unstable and because he intended to encourage better breeding that would lead to a better product;
thus far there had been little incentive to breed donkeys, particularly jacks, which were usually sold overseas when young, with good mares kept for mule breeding.
Haynes Smith had already tried to improve quality, with the government having stationed in some districts high-class jacks whose services were offered free, with the offspring purchased by the agricultural department. 45
Haynes Smith, who was notorious for putting forward suggestions that were ‘too much on the grand scale’, 46 was encouraged by the Indian government’s interest in the Cypriot jack to propose that the Colonial Office offer the Cypriot mule to the War and Indian offices. 47 He wanted to capitalize on the interest in Cypriot transport animals by pushing forward the claims of the Cypriot mule, 48 which he argued was better than any other mule in the world because it:
was more active than the Italian and American mule;
could manage hard work better;
could stand hardships better;
was less prone to sickness;
thrived on dry food;
was more docile;
was cheaper. 49
Haynes Smith claimed that there were many sized 12.3 to 13.3 hands, and some larger sized 13.3 to 14.2 hands, but if larger mules were wanted they could be bred to 15 hands in a few years. But from his experience, Haynes Smith believed that the medium-sized mule was just as strong and more mobile. In order to strengthen his argument he referred to how Lord Kitchener had used the Cypriot mule to great advantage in the Sudan. 50
On 3 February 1900 the Colonial Office strongly endorsed Haynes Smith’s proposal and referred to Queripel’s report as more evidence in favour. 51 This seemed to strike a chord with Lord Lansdowne, the war secretary, who immediately asked how soon 1,000 trained draught Cypriot mules aged 5 to 9 years of age and measuring 13.3 to 14.2 hands could be ready for shipment and at what price. The matter was so urgent he wanted communication via telegraph. 52 Seemingly satisfied that 1,000 mules could be purchased in no time, three days after his initial message he asked the Colonial Office whether the mules could be gathered at Larnaca for inspection by the purchasing officer he was sending. 53 Then, on 17 February, Haynes Smith was informed that the purchasing officer was arriving on 1 March and the War Office wanted any rejected mules to be disposed of without loss. 54 A week later the War Office became concerned about information that the majority of Cypriot mules were ‘jennets’ (actually hinnies) and therefore unsatisfactory compared to the mules produced from a horse mare. Yet it did not want to back out of the deal, desiring though that the majority of the mules put up for inspection would be from a horse mare. 55 The inspection officer, however, was clearly not satisfied: the mules were too young and too small. 56 Twelve months later Haynes Smith tried again. This time he proposed a similar agreement over the mules to that agreed to with the India Office over the donkey stallions. He claimed that currently the average Cypriot mule was 13.2 hands, but would be willing to implement policies to encourage better breeding and bigger sized animals, while he emphasized that the Cypriots were very experienced in raising docile mules. 57
The War Office, however, did not believe that the Cypriot mule (hinny or ‘jennet’) was up to scratch. It referred to the men sent to Cyprus to purchase transport animals for the Anglo-Boer War who were unsatisfied with them. Of the 590 examined, a mere 128 were deemed fit for army requirements and purchased at £19 each. The War Office informed the Colonial Office that military requirements for mules were that they be aged 5 to 9, with a height between 14 and 15 hands, trained to harness and not stallions or albinos. Lastly, the war secretary was not interested in a continuing contract, and any arrangement, although unlikely, would be temporary. 58 If this was not a slap in the face for the proponents of the Cypriot mule, that came when in May 1902 the War Office proposed to the Colonial Office that if the Anglo-Boer War continued they wanted to establish a horse and mule reception depot in Cyprus for animals purchased in Russia and Syria. 59
Correspondingly, the Indian government had a different view of the Cypriot mule and jenny donkey. In 1901 Captain Knapp visited Cyprus to report on the donkey and mule supply for the ‘Horse and Mule Breeding Commission’ appointed by the Indian government in 1900. Knapp argued that the Cypriot jennet (hinny) and jenny donkeys were exceedingly fine and that the Indian government should purchase them from Cyprus until it could produce its own. He was particularly enthused about using the jennet (hinny) as an ordnance mule, as those in Cyprus were large enough and were used as such by the Egyptian artillery. Knapp also argued that Cypriot donkey stallions, although few in number because many were sold to South Africa, Uganda, Egypt, and Syria, were fine, that the Cypriot government had established a ‘Breeding Committee’ which had stationed six donkey stallions at the district headquarters for breeders, and that they cost a third of the price of Italian stallions. 60
As part of the British encouragement for the agricultural industry in Cyprus they invested in improving the Cypriot mule breeds. The Ottoman government, which still had sovereignty over Cyprus, reacted in December 1910, when the British embassy in Istanbul informed the Ottoman Foreign Ministry, which in turn informed the grand vizier, that the Cypriot government wanted to import horses and mules from Arabia in order to improve the quality of the horse and mule breeds there. The grand vizier informed the Sultan that he initially wanted to oppose this move, but, realizing that the Ottoman government had no right to do so, he gave his ‘consent’. 61
The export of mules and donkeys grew from 1910 as breeding practices improved. Table 4 shows that in the years before the establishment of the Mule Purchasing Commission in 1916 the sale of mules and donkeys was going very well, although the war had reduced exports of both.
Exports of mules and donkeys, 1905 to 1914.
Source: State Archives, Nicosia, Secretariat Archive 1, SA 1/758/1916.
Reflecting the government’s success in encouraging mule breeding since the late 1890s was the increase in muleteers on the island between 1901 and 1911, particularly when compared with camel drivers (Table 5). In the 1901 census 354 men listed their occupation as being a muleteer, as opposed to 325 camel drivers. 62 In the 1911 census muleteers more than doubled to 730 (including 3 women), while camel drivers remained static at 348 (including 5 women). 63
Number of muleteers across districts in Cyprus in 1901 and 1911 censuses.
Source: Alexander Mavrogordato, Cyprus: Report and General Abstracts of the Census of 1901 Taken on the 1st April 1901 (Nicosia, Government Printing Office, 1901); Alexander Mavrogordato, Cyprus: Report and General Abstracts of the Census of 1901 Taken on the 2nd April 1911 (London, Waterlow, 1912).
One was a woman.
Two were women.
Beyond the fact that the number of muleteers more than doubled in the ten-year period between 1901 and 1911, only one district had a decrease, and that was Famagusta, almost certainly because of the introduction of the train that ran from Famagusta to Nicosia, and was extended to Morphou between these two census dates. 64 This also explains why Nicosia had the least growth in this occupation compared with the other districts, all of which had significant growth, particularly Kyrenia, which went from 6 muleteers in 1901 to 172 in 1911.
Members of the British army in Salonica may also have read the two General Staff military reports published in 1907
65
and 1913
66
, which supported Cypriot pack animals and the martial qualities of Cypriots. The report of 1913 claimed that Cypriot horses were small (mostly around 13 hands), yet hardy and docile. Larger horses were growing in number thanks to crossing with English and Syrian stallions and the Athalassa stockbreeding farm. Nevertheless, some were suitable for army work. Far more was said about the Cypriot mule. The report stated that the Cypriot mules were ‘particularly fine and docile, and well adapted to mountain work’, and therefore British military personnel in Salonica would have realized that they would be ideal for Macedonian conditions. The report added that the ‘points of great importance in their suitability for mountain artillery work are the straight backs and well-arched ribs’. Additionally, it clarified that mules bred from jennies were preferred for pack, while the ones from jacks were preferred for harness work. Larger mules were fewer in number, but the Egyptian artillery purchased their supply almost exclusively from Cyprus.
67
The report added that: The weight-carrying powers of Cyprian mules are considerable, and it is not unusual to see them carrying from 350 to 450 lbs. of wheat from Nicosia to the mills of Kythrea, a distance of 8 miles, and return the same evening laden with flour. For harness purposes they are not less suitable, and are noted for their endurance, being capable of performing the journey from Nicosia to Larnaca and back (52 miles) in a day.
68
The report also disclosed that the Cyprus Blue Books gave the total number of horses, mules, and donkeys as 69,832 in 1911–12, and that at least half were mules. 69 The entire report was a very positive endorsement of the Cypriot mule, especially for mountainous work.
Equally important was that both reports of 1907 and 1913 claimed that the Cypriots had military potential, especially as muleteers. They mention that Cypriot Muslim muleteers showed considerable courage at the Sudan in 1885, while all Cypriot men were excellent horsemen and horse-masters. 70 The perceived Muslim fighting abilities had become a received wisdom to the extent that the same paragraph was included in the two subsequent reports. 71 Clauson referred to them when initially supporting the raising of a Cypriot mule corps in the summer of 1916. 72
V. Mule Purchasing and Numbers
The procurement of Cypriot mules was important for supply and logistics in the British army at Macedonia. The mountains were hazardous because they were very steep and winding, the roads were poor, and the valleys were deep. This was reflected in the initial thinking that mules were the priority, since at first mule procurement was on a par in importance with muleteer recruitment, and perhaps even seen as more significant, because initially the name of the operation at Famagusta was the Mule Purchasing Commission. By July 1917 the focus had clearly switched to muleteers. This was reflected in the name change to Muleteer Recruiting and Supply Purchasing Staff 73 and the greater numbers of muleteers recruited in comparison to the mules purchased.
Nevertheless, a very significant number of mules were procured in Cyprus, around 6,000. It must be noted that Cyprus was not the main supplier of army mules during the war, with thousands of mules procured from India, China, Argentina, Canada, and especially the United States, 74 although Cyprus was a significant supplier of the Salonica army, so much so that in September 1919, when the Colonial and Foreign offices were putting together a dossier on the importance of Cyprus remaining British to counter those naysayers wanting to cede it to Greece, Admiral John de Robeck, then the Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean Fleet, argued that one of the advantages of the British possessing Cyprus was their access to its mules, which were enduring and docile, and had been supplied to the army during the Crimean War, the Abyssinian campaign, the Egyptian campaign of 1882, and the Great War. 75
After the Mule Purchasing Commission was established in August 1916, on the 14th Clauson issued a proclamation under martial law to requisition mules for military purposes: Any person having in his ownership or under his control any mule shall when warned by public notice under this order signed by or on behalf of the District Commissioner and Provost Marshal and posted in the village or when notified by any member of the Cyprus Military Police produce such a mule at any place and time specified and shall deliver up such mule if required by the military purchasing officer on payment of such compensation as may be awarded by a Board appointed by the High Commissioner and Commander-in-Chief consisting of an officer of His Majesty’s Military Service and an inhabitant of the Colony. In case of a difference of opinion the amount of compensation to be awarded shall be decided by the votes of a majority of the members and the award shall be final. The said Board in fixing the price to be paid for mules taken under this Order shall not make any addition on account of the purchase being compulsory.
76
The proclamation warned that any person who did not comply would be taken before the provost marshal (the commissioner of each district) and upon conviction would be ‘liable to fine or imprisonment or both such punishments’. 77 This was harsh, but reflected the desire of the government to facilitate the needs of the military authorities. It also opened further opportunities for the development of a mule-breeding industry. No doubt, however, those without a means to breed and who merely had a mule or two for farming purposes could be severely harmed, and this was taken into account by the various district boards that were created.
Initially it was decided to attempt to purchase the mules by treaty, with the experiment being conducted at Platres on 17 August, with failure to lead to the commandeering as per the proclamation. The government informed the district commissioner of Limassol, Wilfred Bolton, of this policy, and instructed him to issue a warning to all the villages around Platres to comply. The warning essentially reflected the proclamation: anybody failing to bring their mule to be purchased by the officer of the Mule Purchasing Commission would be punished under martial law. Platres was chosen because it was near the summer seat of the colonial government at the Troodos Hill Station. 78 In the event that commandeering was needed, the board would consist of Captain T.P. Goodchild, of the Remount Department of the Egyptian Expeditionary Force, Roy McLaughlan, a police officer, and the mukhtar of Platres, Ioannis Demetriou. 79
The approach trialled in Platres was adopted throughout the island. So although the proclamation had been made, it was decided to purchase the mules by treaty before commandeering was instituted. Consequently, the structures for both approaches were in place and virtually identical, since the commandeering board set up in each district first tried to purchase mules by treaty, being conscious of not depleting mule stocks, damaging breeding programmes, and harming the agricultural work of the peasantry and labouring classes. The composition of the boards was interesting. Goodchild was always a member and the most powerful, being the expert on what mule was worth purchasing. The government was represented either by a policeman, such as McLaughlan in Limassol, M.C. Kareklas in Paphos, or inspector Alfred Wilson in Larnaca, or by a member of the colonial service, such as C. Barrett in Nicosia or C.M. Georgiades of the Railway Department in Famagusta, or by a member of the judiciary, such as Michael John Lobarides, mudir of Kyrenia. The local population was also always represented, in Nicosia by Nicolakis Papadopoulos of Lacadamia, in Larnaca by Costis Aspri of Scala, in Famagusta by C. Constantinides, in Paphos by Yannakos Maltezos of Ktima, and in Kyrenia by N.K. Pyrgos, the mayor of Lapithos. 80
It appears that the treaty approach did not work to the satisfaction of the authorities. In August 1916 numerous events were held where purchasing of mules by private treaty was undertaken. 81 By 31 August a total of 2,208 mules (over 1,000 since Clauson’s letter to Bonar Law on 7 August) had been purchased from across the various purchasing centres, as shown in Tables 6 and 7.
Mules purchased by 31 August 1916.
Source: State Archives, Nicosia, Secretariat Archive 1, SA 1/758/1916, Numbers of mules purchased at various centres.
Total mules purchased in each district.
Source: as Table 6.
This was not enough, especially since the Mule Purchasing Commission now wanted to purchase larger mules for riding and draught. 82 So, on 26 September, Clauson authorized the compulsory acquisition of mules irrespective of size under his order of 14 August. This meant that all mule-owners within a radius of 20 miles of the purchasing place had to produce their mules for inspection by Goodchild at the required places and dates (see Table 8).
Places where compulsory buying of mules was to take place, October 1916.
Source: State Archives, Nicosia, Secretariat Archive 1, SA 1/758/1916, Fenn to all district commissioners, 26 September 1916.
This only resulted in the purchasing of a little over 500 additional mules. So from July to November 1916, 2,750 mules, in addition to 1,200 donkeys and 140 ponies, embarked for Salonica. 83
The purchasing and sending of mules and other animals to Salonica continued into 1917, even though the recruiting of muleteers took precedence. From July 1916 to 30 September 1917 the Mule Purchasing Commission purchased 5,881 transport animals, the majority being mules. 84 In June and July 1919 the acting high commissioner of Cyprus (Clauson had died in December 1918), Malcolm Stevenson, informed the colonial secretary, Lord Milner, that over 3,500 mules and over 3,000 donkeys had been exported for military purposes during the war.
Goodchild, who was in Cyprus for several months in 1916 and 1917 for, as discussed above, the purchase of mules and donkeys for army purposes, produced a report on mule and donkey breeding on the island.
85
He claimed that Knapp’s report of 1901 was so much to the point that very few new ideas can be put forward, even after the lapse of 16 or 17 years, during which time the conditions of road transport on the Island have considerably changed, and even also after the recent severe drain on animals caused by the purchase of mules made on a large scale for Army purposes under war conditions.
86
Goodchild stated that ‘the export of mules and donkeys from Cyprus is of considerable importance’ and so ‘the Government must decide which is of the most importance, the draught, the riding, or the pack animal’ so as to focus its attention on breeding the best of one of these. Because of the excellence of the Cypriot jennet (hinny), at size 13.1 hands to 14.1 – a clear improvement from 10 years earlier, when Haynes Smith reported that most were 12.3 to 13.3 hands – they were ideal for pack purposes for the army, and according to Goodchild they ‘cannot be surpassed in any country in the world’. Consequently, he recommended that ‘it is to this class of animal that the most encouragement in breeding should be given’. In order to maintain and even improve the jennet (hinny), it was important to develop the breeding of large jacks, so that a plentiful supply of jenny donkeys was available, and for this to be achieved good donkey stallions were needed. In this way, Cypriot jacks would also improve and could be sold to India. Equally important was the importation of a quality stallion breed, such as an English or Welsh variety. So, Goodchild concluded that when the excellency of the Cyprus donkey is maintained by selection, and the stamp of pony stallions is improved by importation, the production of that most useful and valuable pack animal – the Cyprus jennet – is sure to follow.
87
The district commissioner of Nicosia, C.S. Cade, and the principal forest officer, A.K. Bovill, agreed with Goodchild’s recommendations, although Cade believed that the best locations for pony stallions were not the hills south of the Troodos mountain (i.e. Platres, Fini, Omodos, and Kilani), as Goodchild suggested, but on the plains at Morphou, Deftera, Lefkoniko, and Vatili. 88 This was an interesting point of difference. It is not possible to determine from where the most mules were purchased, but it can be determined from where more muleteers were recruited, even though this is not an accurate representation of where better mules came from because many of the muleteers were inexperienced in handling mules (although the British claim to inexperience might simply be more to do with lack of knowledge on the part of the Cypriots). Yet the results are instructive, since Morphou (11% of the 1911 male population), Deftera (12%), and Vatili (14%) had enlistment percentages well above district averages (Nicosia was 7.1% and Famagusta was 5.6%), while for several villages south of the Troodos mountain, such as Platres (0.8%), Fini (5.8%), Omodos (2.1%), and Kilani (6.7%) the averages were either on or below the district percentage (Limassol had 6.5% enlistment). 89
Goodchild’s report had engaged Cypriot colonial service personnel and both contributed important recommendations on transport animal breeding, particularly of mules. Not only were the Cypriot government and the British military authorities in general interested in breeding more Cypriot mules, but they were interested in breeding better-quality mules, and these recommendations went a long way to achieving this during the course of the war. Additionally, impetus was given to the already growing mule-breeding industry and therefore opportunity was provided for Cypriot breeders to profit. A good example of this was the father of Dr Fazil Kurchuk, later the first vice president of Cyprus and Turkish Cypriot leader, who bred and sold mules. 90 Yet the main game quickly shifted from securing mules to enlisting men to drive them.
VI. The Health and Treatment of Mules in the Salonica Army
The condition of the mules in Salonica depended on how they were treated by muleteers. In Salonica the vast majority of Cypriot muleteers, who served in various units of the British army, were charged with transporting weapons, ammunition, water, and food to the front, and wounded back from the front, on army transport mules, mostly at night, across barren mountains that had potted and narrow roads, and treacherous ravines. Indeed much of the early work of the muleteers and mules was on road construction, which involved carrying very heavy loads. The climate added to the difficult task, since in the winter the winds were fierce and freezing, while in the summer the humidity and heat were hard to bear and thick with malarial mosquitoes. 91 Life was harsh for both man and beast, although the condition and treatment of the mules in Salonica was far better than in the Italian army. 92
Many of the men would later discuss their experiences with their families, and would emphasize the hardships they endured endlessly driving their mule at night up and down narrow and winding dirt tracks carrying heavy loads. Damianos Styllis, from Paleohori Orini, Nicosia, related to his children how the transporting of goods was mostly done at night, which was very tiring and difficult, especially as regards visibility. Many muleteers and mules, Styllis revealed, became caught in swamps and their comrades would go back to find them, while sometimes the mule would remain with or even manage to find his handler. 93 The grandson of another muleteer, Kyriakos Riri Chichi, no. 6575, from Lefkoniko, Famagusta, recalled how his grandfather told him stories of driving his mule, which was loaded with food and ammunition, in freezing conditions through icy rivers, and on one occasion when his mule had been killed he had to carry the material on his shoulders. 94 Similarly, Savas Toufexis, from Lithrodonta, Nicosia, transported wounded from the front, and once, after his mule had been killed and he had been wounded, he had to carry a wounded soldier on his back, and was cheered upon reaching the hospital. 95 There were other heroic acts of self-sacrifice. On one occasion, Georgios Louka Ttakkas, no. 10902, from Tripimeni, Famagusta, saved numerous mules that had wandered into enemy lines. 96
There is little information on what life was like for the mules in Salonica, how they were treated, and their overall health. It has been established that at least 6,000 Cypriot mules served in the Great War, mostly in Salonica in the various British units. Lists of these units with equine numbers exist for a selection of units in Salonica in the British XVI Corps put together by the Colonel F. Eassie from the Army Veterinary Corps as part of his inspections. These show that tens of thousands of mules were used and provide critical information on their condition at the Salonica front. It is not possible to know whether Cypriots served in these units, unless Eassie says so. His reports on each inspection usually provide the very basic of details on whether the mules were well or not, and if not what was wrong and why. 97
Of the units for which it is known for certain that Cypriots served, the condition of the mules seems to have been slightly better and in some cases considerably better than in those units where Cypriots did not serve, with the exception of the professional mule corps from India. Eassie opined that the best supervised unit in the 10th Division train was the 841st Army Supply Company pack echelon, 98 in which it is known that Cypriots served, namely Ioannis Haji Georji, no. 3796, of Livadia, Larnaca, who lost his left foot. 99 Eassie reported that this company, which in April 1917 had 152 mules, only had 30 mules evacuated for debility during the last 6 months, and that the ‘Greek personnel [were] better trained than in other Units of this Train’, 100 ‘Greek’ being mistaken for ‘Cypriot’. It was not so good in the 840th Army Supply Company in the same train, in which it is known that Andreas Sava, who later died serving in the 121st Company, had served his first year. 101 Eassie observed that the majority of the mules were good, but several were poor, since about a third were unclipped and these were dirty and needed attention. In the last 6 months 70 mules had been evacuated for debility, but this was a large number because there were 400 mules in this company in April 1917. 102 The other two companies, the 842nd and 843rd, had 147 and 169 mules respectively, and so were about as large in size as the 841st. The mules in the 842nd were generally in a good condition, although more attention was required with the unclipped mules, and there were several which had long feet and were dumped. 103 A rather large number, 64, had been evacuated for debility in the last six months. 104 By comparison the 843rd had only had 46 evacuated, but according to Eassie it was ‘the worst company in the Pack Echelon’, because too many mules were too thin, their feet needed clipping and they were dumped, and many that had been recently clipped had marks of lice infection. 105
The condition of the mules in the units of the 27th Division in which Cypriots served were generally better. It is known that Cypriots served in the 852nd Army Supply Company pack echelon, namely Kyriacos Pavlou of Kadythata, Nicosia, 106 and Ioannis Constantino of Larnaca tis Lapithou, Kyrenia. 107 In March 1917 it had 276 mules: Eassie reported that the section of this company at Kopaci was mostly very good, with only one evacuated in six months. 108 But the detachment from this company at Tashli was not as good, because there were several mules there that were too light, grooming needed attention, and there was some dumping on feet, while 55 mules had been evacuated for debility in 6 months, and a further 34 grazing at Monuhi were dirty and needed more supervision. 109 The 855th Army Supply Company, at Kopaci, which also had Cypriots serving, such as Costis Nicola, from Agios Ermolaos, Kyrenia, 110 George Georgiades, no. 3625, from Filia, Nicosia, 111 and Michalis Sava, no. 7737, 112 was as good as the 854th Company at the same place, with only two mules evacuated for debility in six months. 113 The other two pack echelons in this train, the 853rd and 854th, were equally good. 114
The mules in the 28th divisional units did not seem to fair as well as those in the 27th and 10th divisions. In the 122nd Army Service Company, in which it is known that Cypriots served, such as Nicholas Zachariades, 115 the 154 mules in March 1917 were mostly in fair condition, with several being too thin. Grooming needed attention and it had not been thoroughly done, and several needed clipping for lice. Their feet were lowered well enough, but there was some dumping to toes. Some 40 of the mules had been sent to the valley for rest and grazing, while 90 had been evacuated for debility in the last 6 months. Eassie believed that the wheel train units, of which the 122nd was a part, had suffered working in the winter on very heavy roads, ‘but even so the condition should have been better’, and he put this down to a lack of supervision. 116 Indeed this unit was probably the best of the group, since the 125th and 120th (both of which are likely to have been serviced by Cypriots) had had 108 and 160 mules evacuated for debility in the last 6 months, while the 125th had several mules infested with lice, which Eassie reported was due to ‘defective animal management’. 117
It is also known that Cypriots served in the 16th Corps, which was spread across the 10th, 27th, and 28th divisional areas. The condition of the mules in these units depended on which divisional area they were stationed in. The units of the 16th Corps serving in the 10th divisional area were a mixed bag. The mules in the 16th Corps Signal Company, which had 118 mules, were ‘fairly good’ in April 1917, 118 while the 222 in the 16th Corps Provisional Combined Horse Ambulance Convoy were well supervised and in good condition in March 1917, although in winter, when the roads were heavy, they had been returned to the field ambulance in a poor condition. 119 But those in the other units did not fare as well. The 295 mules in the 799th Convoy Army Supply Company were too thin in April 1917, their grooming was badly in need of attention, especially since some were unclipped, and these and recently clipped ones showed signs of lice infection. Eassie attributed their condition to the fact that they were carrying heavy loads of stone at the quarries and only had Sunday to rest and graze. 120 Those mules in the 16th Corps with the 27th Division were much better, as these were serviced by professional muleteers of the 31st Indian Mule Corps and the Sharatpur Imperial Service Mule Transport. 121 Those mules in the 16th Corps serving in the 28th divisional area were mostly with the ‘C’ Section 16th Corps Ammunition Column, and therefore had much hard work, with their condition being only fair, with 148 evacuated for debility in the last 6 months.
The condition of the mules depended on a number of variables: how many were in one unit, where the unit was serving, the nature of its work, and the abilities and experience of the supervision. All in all, the majority of the mules seemed overworked, and although there were efforts to keep them in good condition, this was often better said than done, as it depended on the quality of supervision and handling.
By the second half of 1917 the condition of the mules started improving slightly, both because much of the hard road-building work had been done, and also because the Cypriot muleteers, who now made up almost half of the muleteers in the British army in Salonica, were better trained, and those with experience were more knowledgeable. In his September 1917 letter to General Milne, Major General Rycroft, the deputy quartermaster general at Salonica, claimed that after visiting training at Lembet Road (muleteers also received preliminary training at Famagusta) he was very satisfied with the Cypriot muleteers, and that new muleteers would be better trained than those before, being able to harness and clean animals. 122 This implied that the earlier muleteers had been employed in haste and had lacked adequate training in caring for their mule.
Although there were improvements in how the Cypriots were treating their mules, these improvements depended a great deal on how the Cypriots were being trained and therefore on which unit they were in. For example, in March 1918 Lieutenant Colonel P.J. Harris reported on his inspection of the mules and muleteers at Arakli Farm that he ‘witnessed the men (Cypriots) grooming, which was done in a very half-hearted way’. 123 This was saying much since their officers would have no doubt conveyed through the interpreter the need to do this very well given the inspection taking place, so clearly it was more to do with skills than attitude. Harris added at the end of his report that he had only inspected this unit a month before and was annoyed that his then recommendations to improve the quality of the treatment of the mules had been ignored. 124 On 19 March, Harris inspected the mules of the 209th Army Supply Company, which Cypriot muleteers were also handling. These were in a slightly better condition, except for those mules carrying heavy loads of stone and rock, of up to 25 kg, up and down the Kapujilar-Hortiach road. These were not faring well at all, especially the lighter mules at 7.5 kg. Harris revealed that the detachment with 11.5 kg mules had recently arrived with Cypriots handling them, and the commanding officer informed him that ‘they had no knowledge of riding, driving or grooming and have had to be taught and the welfare of the animals, in my opinion, has not benefitted thereby’. 125 Clearly, newly arrived Cypriot muleteers were not much better than earlier men, despite what Rycroft believed.
It is important to note what became of the mules after their war service. Most were sold to locals, upon a guarantee that they would be well treated and subject to periodic inspection. Indeed, until July 1919, nearly 30,000 mules were sold in Macedonia at prices varying from £33 to £46, compared with 22,196 camels at an average price of £22, 11,101 horses at prices varying from £17 to £42, and 11,046 donkeys sold at prices varying from £8 to £9. 126 Mules in Salonica were also transported to other areas of conflict and interest, such as Egypt. Also, in February 1919, following the decision of the War Cabinet in November 1918 to provide all assistance to Anton Denikin, the commander of the Anti-Bolshevik Volunteer Army at Novocherkassk in the northern Caucasus, two shiploads of mules from Salonica were sent to him. 127 In August 1919 the War Cabinet agreed to send a further 4,000 mules. 128
VII. Conclusion
In Macedonia mules played a significant part in the fortunes of the British army. They were procured in large numbers in Cyprus for the Salonica campaign via government regulation because of the desperate need for their services. Despite popular views on the ineffectiveness and difficult temperament of mules, these animals were clearly not only the opposite (effective and docile) but also absolutely vital to British supply and logistics in this theatre. Once in Salonica, some of them (and of course the others procured from elsewhere) may have been driven by Cypriots, who often were transported to Salonica together with them. In any event, the treatment of mules by Cypriot muleteers in the Salonica campaign depended on many variables. It depended on what work was being asked of a mule and its handler, although clearly work generally, because of the terrain and climate, was hard. It also depended on the mule-handling experience, skills, and knowledge of its driver, and this was usually linked to his supervision, either by his immediate foreman, a compatriot, or his superior, a British soldier. The chief veterinarian and his assistants regularly inspected the mules and gave advice to improve their condition, but sometimes this advice was not taken. Clearly, the health of some mules was very good, but most were overworked and suffered in health because of it. Relations with handlers, at least with Cypriot handlers, were close, as both man and beast mutually relied upon each other and endured similar hardships. Cyprus proved a successful imperial asset at least in relation to mule procurement and muleteer recruitment.
Footnotes
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.