Alias use in 19th century army.

 Alfred Long: 1855: 1871/2 signed up age sixteen at Aldershot. Just up the road from his home in Sussex. What intrigued me about this man (one of the things) is why he'd need an alias? But then I found this: Think it was from findmypast, but it might be from one of the other ancestry sites.

A very small percentage of men had aliases. Many men who erred enlisted to thwart arrest by the civil power. When doing so they used a false identity knowing once that once subject to military law the civil authorities would probably not pursue them further. Many such subjects probably completed a term of engagement without the Army being aware of their true names. However, men who had been serving upwards of 10-12 years who intended to remain in service and to eventually apply for a pension often admitted to a mis-statement of name to avoid losing their pension rights. Mis-statements were generally accepted by the Army and an entry would have been made in their records recording the details. Where indicated both names are entered in the index.

I wondered what he'd done? What more could he do? Damage to the frontal lobes can result in lack of restraint. . .  Then I discovered on my rummaging: The 9th Lancer's nickname is the Delhi Spearmen. Part of the 9th Lancer’s earlier history (prior to his enlistment) was one of the officer’s wives having her unborn child ripped from her womb. The story was retold to instil a sense of revenge in the men. The men would also train using a knife in both left and right hand.

He’s my guess. Circumstantially he ticks many boxes. Jack the Ripper was, if we accept at least some of the letters were written by him, typical of the mocking tone: James Short, Alfred Long? That's the long and the short of it