Fit to command? The Surprising Truth of British Army Officers of the Napoleonic Wars
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 июн 2024
- The Napoleonic wars - the first Great War. An era that saw the British army come of age.
But how much do you know about the officers at the forefront of the war?
Were they all aristocratic buffoons like Henry Simmerson?
Were most commissions and promotions paid for?
What sort of training did they receive?
And were battalion commanders actually younger and more dynamic than their counterparts in other armies?
Historian Steve Brown joins me on the show today and we are going to busting plenty of myths today…The answers to these questions really surprised me and I think you may be shocked.
Steve's fantastic book "Fit to command" can be purchased on the Helion website or via this Amazon link - amzn.to/46kuIJq
If you are interested in the Zulu War, then please sign up for my mailing list to receive my free book on the subject: redcoathistory.com/newsletter/
If you are very generous, you can also buy me a coffee and help support the channel via ko-fi.com/redcoathistory
I found this incredibly interesting and really appreciate the amazing research that Steve has conducted. Let me know what myths he has helped to burst for you. PS to the small minority of trolls...before starting a fight or just generally being unpleasant maybe just look in the mirror and consider if your life is so bad that you want to take the time to abuse someone in RUclips comments. Pleasant and friendly debate is really welcome - being a troll who want to fight for no reason is not cool.
Can’t appreciate more the author having a print of David’s famous “Napoleon crossing the Alps” behind him. Class.
Who was getting abused/trolled and what was it about?
Have you figured out how to end human slavery?
The first son inherited, the next sought a commission in the armed
What about senior command officers? Versus line command officers?
Something that always stuck with me is that there is a doctrine in military tradition that identifies suitable officers by their reluctance, not their wish to lead. I've often thought that it's a shame that the same principle cannot realistically be applied to politics.
It was a core principle of Plato's imaginary republic.
In the UK parliament the new speaker has to be dragged to the chair to take up the large salary, pension and no one to stand against them in elections.
@@trubass23 It was also an early American Ideal, as evidenced by the popularity of comparing Washington to Cinncinatus.
Same thing w/ bishoprics.
It never applies to military in practice, or to any institution. Positions get filled by those who are willing to fill them, and those who are willing to fill them usually seek them out not reluctantly. The reluctant are never proactive (in numbers) to set themselves up for it and thus are always disadvantaged against the eager. It is a platitude, no more.
Think the most important lesson the British Army provides, particularly learned by the Americans, is just how much more important it is to have a standing professional NCO Corps. Anything goes wrong or sideways, they are the ones generally fixing it.
As an NCO. Yup, and people wonder why we are always grumpy.
@CF_Sapper As a great man once said shit rolls downhill but it lands on YOUR boots
The UK armed forces are the odd ones out who are not a mass army up to the Great War.
“Listen to your officers and do what your Sgt. tells you.”
Russia doesn't have NCOs and their officers plus a few commanders are dying
"There are two kinds of officers: murdering bastards and killing bastards. Murdering bastards get you killed on purpose and killing bastards get you killed by accident." - Sgt. Patrick Harper
Are you OK?
@Peter-lm3ic It's a quote from _Sharpe's Rifles_ by Bernard Cornwell. It's one of the books in the series the clip is mentioning. Sgt. Patrick Harper is Lt. Richard Sharpe's senior NCO from the Peninsular Campaign to Waterloo.
Harper and the rest of the platoon don't like Sharpe at first. Sharpe was a commoner like them who was promoted from the ranks to an officer’s commission rather than a gentleman who bought his way in. Sharpe later proves himself as a good leader and tactician, earning Harper's respect and friendship.
Sgt. Harper is complete in his assessment of the situation. I would recommend him for promotion.
That is their job. If you count them leading you into a dangerous act, which is what soldiers do.
Marketing killing?
Really awesome to see Sharpe shown prominently. "MAJOR LENNOX ANSWERED WITH HIS LIFE, AS YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE IF YOU HAD ANY SENSE OF HONOR!"
now that's soldiering
“Damn good thrashing” is a line that lived in my head for the last 24 years.
As someone who went to school in the early 1980s, it's lived in mine for about forty.
Doesn't trump "damned good burning"... about Catholics from the same series.
@@theradgegadgie6352 From my personal memory it was a saying at least 50 years ago.
@@patrickcorliss8878 Much longer than that. Centuries!
As an American, when you say "English officer" I immediately think of the Monty Python scene of Graham Chapman shaving with a straight razor while bullets are shattering his mirror. I know that was comedy, but it was based on truth. English officers were bonkers foolhardily brave.
Lt Colonel would be late 30s/early 40s in the US too. I dated a USMC colonel's daughter once-- he retired when they told him they wanted him to be a general... his words-- "I don't want that shit".
If you like that Monty Python scene you might also appreciate a scene in 'Carry on up the Kyber.' The Carry on series of films were silly but enjoyable comedy. Made before the political correct idiots were in charge. (the best were ..Cleo & ...Kyber with several others being v' good (avoid the last ... Columbus.))
There is a documentary where an officer who served at Arnhem complained that the film of the battle showed a British officer bent over whilst running. He said ~British officers don't run, we might walk briskly but not run and certainly not couched over. That is a very long hang over or shadow from a previous time.
Respect to the USMC colonel's views semper fi Sir
From a per mare per terram RM.x
Unfortunately we see sharpe go from an enlisted man, to an unprepared officer, upon which we see his journey till the end of the series where he is basically at his wits end; He's a great character
In France, we also often ask the same question to ourselves. Did our officers were that stupid, or were they actually good ? In fact, a good soldier could climb the ranks up to colonel by promotion, but he had to be a nobleman to climb higher. All of the general staff was composed of nobles, but at large they were not better or worse than in other countries at the time. It's mostly because of the Enlightment (as always, mostly because of Voltaire) and the Revolution that we have nowadays the image of incompetent noblemen in command : many of them deserted and joined the other nobles that fled in other countries, so they became the "bad guys" of the story, and they were replaced by "good Republicans". This is why we still have the myth of the "genius commoner" born in a poor family, who became a general, thanks to the Revolution and Napoléon. "Genius", they certainly were, but "commoner", it's another republican myth.
I'd love to hear far more of the French side. Especially their corps and Army commanders in WW1.
it was a severe lmiitation before napoleon, you had to be noble to be an officer in the army or navy. it meant you limited the pool you could draft from and a raging incompetent was hard to replace. and it created resentment among the enlisted men that there was no hope for promotion-hence napoleon's dictum-there is a marshal's baton in every privates back pack. By comparison the british system although ...narrowed by money and social standing was open to a commission to the talented man. Sir william robertson enlisted in the army as a private and in WW1 was a field marshall and chief of the imperial staff.
"Did our officers were that stupid,"
(Were) would be the word you would probably want to use.
@@mill2712 hes not native and you understood his meaning, so why care about it?
Your officers were better than all of mainland Europe. Mainland. Europe.
**sips tea with little finger extended**
Good uns and bad uns? I Like that comment as I served with some really good ones and some really bad ones. Arrogance and incompetence and a reluctance to trust the opinion of their NCO,s as opposed to honesty, willingness to confer, and trust.
A confident leader prizes competence in others and uses that to advantage, promoting the best.
An insecure leader fears competence in others and promotes people less competent than he is.
@@retiredbore378 Don't worry, it was said about Maggie Thatcher as well.
Just to add a note. It was stated "I don't know whether promotions still appear in the gazetter" (or words to those effect).
I can confirm promotions still appear in the gazette. Source: I was a British Army Officer and I remember looking at the gazette when I was promoted
Interesting 😮
You're not informed of a promotion, you have to find out about it from the newspaper?
@Galastel no. That's what makes it "effective". Until it's "gazzeted" it's not official. Here in the US it's published in the congressional record.
You are officially not Commissioned, promoted until it is published in the London, Edinburgh and Belfast Gazette's.
Same for Canada it's called the Canada Gazette
Fascinating discussion. Just on the last point about India, I went to a boarding school called Scinde House back in the day (sent there to get away from rural poverty by my parents) and the town we lived in had many streets named after areas, towns and battles from India.
Having read a biography of Arthur Wellesley (the Duke of Wellington) I got the impression the young Arthur's status as a young Protestant Irishman was a huge impediment to his progress.
Wellesley strove to establish supply trains to prevent alienating his army from the local population.
I got the impression many many changes were in place during the Napoleonic campaigns.
The British army after Napoleon was very different from the army as it was before Napoleon.
Was being an Irish Protestant really a barrier at this time? Viscount Castlereagh was too, and he seemed to do alright
He also insisted that any supplies obtained from the local populace were fully bought and paid for (and severly punished anyone caught stealing from them). It's partly the reason the French population in the south, were not as hostile to the English army coming from Spain towards the end of the Penninsular War as they were to the French army, who just took (requisitioned!') everything.
He also purchased at least 2 commissions.
That was extremely enlightening. Thank you!
A very good presentation. I particularly liked the evidence-based approach.
The irony is that Wellington attended aged 16 The Royal Military Academy of Angers in France. Graduate just in time to avoid the French revolution
So he knew his enemy
@@johnnypickles5256 He also spoke French well. The pre-revolutionary French officer corps was entirely aristocratic - even Napoleon had some sort of patent of nobility. It made an interesting contrast with the British army, whose officer corps was partly aristocratic but rather more middle class.
@@stevekaczynski3793 ruff stuff us lol
I am not sure. The school was run by the Avril de Pignerolle family and was known as formerly as Académie Royale d'équitation but colloquially as Academie Militaire de Pignerolle. It was run similarly to the Prytanée still existing in France except it combined with Gentleman finishing school.
You learned to dance, ride, hunt in your spare time, fence, some military training and had academics such as Maths/ history/ Classics / languages etc
The difference of this one from Napoleon is Pignerolle you paid while Napoleon was bursar at Brienne and Ecole Militaire. Both of these were there to build future engineers and artillery officers.
Wellington also went to Eton with not much success . He thrived at Pignerolle but only spent a year according to Richard Holmes. Another alumni was William Pitt the elder.
Keeping to the theme is how much preparation was done by schools such Shebourne, Eton, Rugby etc for academics and by military training in the regiments.? How many Brits went similar schools like Wellington before joining (not many I guess) but there was flow to Pignerolle. Woolwich had been training engineers and artillery officers since 1741.
Then on the French side how many of the corps of the military schools remained in place seeking opportunity or emigrated as royalists. A lot of the Napoleonic generals did come through the ranks and were graduate of the several campaigns but also how Much did they depend on the graduate of ecole Militaire and the other schools.
Also it interesting that it is during this period that Woolwich, Sandhurst, Addiscombe and Haileybury are formalised or reformed. So did they see value?
Very educational, more of that slack Chris👍👍👍Merry Chrismas❤👍🤟
Brilliant guys, loved it. Another fascinating subject.
Glad you enjoyed it mate.
Brilliant stuff guys
Excellent work. What jumps out to me is that in the last graph, at 27 minutes in, is that the majority of company grade officers came from other sources. Company grade is where you would expect to the majority of casualties. I think that a fair number of these officers were most likely qualified former rankers, needed to staff open billets due to combat/operational losses.
I note that the majority of field grade officer positions were by purchase. To me this indicates that these former rankers did not have the funds to advance beyond company grade. It also helps explain a term I have occasionally run into "career captain", i.e., someone who has been a company commander for a very long time.
Hi. We have a film coming out on the 22nd that looks at officers coming up from the ranks. It is certainly an interesting story.
I look forward to watching it.
BTW, I was reading about the movie "Zulu" and decided to look up Color Sergeant Frank Bourne. According to Wikipedia, he was offered a commission after Rourke's Drift but declined it. In declining the commission, he said "being an eighth son, and the family exchequer ... empty". I don't know if the purchase process was still in effect for the 1870's British Army, but the quote makes it sound like he didn't think he could afford to be an officer. @@redcoathistory
The British navy was diffrent.you had to be a midshipman for 7 years before you could take the exam to be a lt
Commissions and substantive promotions are still published in the London Gazette
very interesting and well researched
Thank you so much ! i like the comparison between officer ' background of Napoleonic wars and Crimean war .Very interesting ,i am keen on all these details .
Great conversation based on solid research. Am from Sunderland, which was once part of County Durham. Never served in the military but grandfather served in WW2 and dad did his national service in the regiment in the D.L.I./Royal Artillery.Two very hard, resourceful but empathetic guys. Grandad got captured put in pow camp….but the only story he told me about the war was when the Italian guards surrendered. In hindsight his story was really funny….not a Hollywood movie ending……ps no Italians were hurt but the local farmers continued to get their harvest in!
Many thanks for this analysis. I have done some academic research on the British army forts on the northern Australian coast during the post Waterloo period (1824-1848). Most of the officers I reseached were veterans of the Napoleonic campaigns and some became outstanding leaders in these settlements. Most came from humble 'middle class' backgrounds, the sons of clergy, army officers and merchants, so they were sent out to Australia to make their fortune. I guess we need to define what the terms 'astrocracy' and the 'middle class' actually mean. In 19 century Britain, the 'middle class' were hardly the average. The aristocracy were possibly 1% of the population, the 'middle class' were possibly 2-10% of the population. The working class or other underclasses made up the rest. The middle classes where an educated class, and therefore were the prime canditates for military service during this period. Class diferentiation did not really impact on the British army until the early stages of WW1. At this stage, most of the higher command were from the upper classes, and remote from the interests of the ordinary soldier. By the end of the conflict, the promotion based on merit had taken over, especially in the middle officer group.
The details of Army Officers' commissions and promotions are very much still gazetted today!
Love your channel mate
Much appreciated
Have been reading Adrian Goldsworthy's napoleonic novels, as well as rules to play Le Bat de Mon St Jean by COA, so this dovetails nicely for me - wonderful! Thanks.
Well done! Fascinating. I, too, had a poor impression of officer quality, based on "Now It Can Be Told" and other sources, like "Those Damned Rebels."
Commissions, promotions, Honours and Awards and appointments still appear in the London Gazette. The head of Army career management is still the Military Secretariat. The work that goes into writing appraisal reports is commonly known as 'doing MS'.
Very interesting
Thank you
Great video
Interesting discussion. It would be interesting to see how the Army developed from Cromwells New Model Army up to the present day. Taking into account advances in technology (particularly in WW1) and the influences of foreign wars, not involving the UK, such as the American civil war. As always the question of logistics and keeping an army in the field supplied must necessarily rear its head. Were lessons learnt from the US war of independence, for example.
UK wasn't involved as a combatant but had interests in the American Civil War. Sold lots of Enfield Pattern 1853s to CSA.
One interesting factoid is arrogant Prussians scoffing at the Americans performance and yet Americans were the first to deploy the gatling in combat and to feel its affects. A precursor to the machine gun emplacements of WW1 that would shred entire squads in seconds.
Great video. Love that mention of the new Napoleon film 🤣👌
One thing not mentioned is the layers of control above the battalion CO. In most European armies battalions took the field as part of a regiment that was subordinated to a brigade. The French typically would have two regiments of two or three battalions under a brigadier and the regiment was the standard tactical unit in any sort of action larger than a skirmish.
For the British, the battalion was the tactical unit and battalion CO's were directly subordinated to their brigade commander. Thus a British battalion CO had a greater degree of responsibility but also a greater say in how his battalion would operate within the orders issued by his commander.
As for the promotion by purchase differences, in 1815, the army had been through 22 years of bloody conflict. At the start of the Crimean War the army had been through a long period of relative peace. The Darwinian selection of the battlefield had played a much smaller role in promotion.
Cracking bit of history, thank you!
Cheers, Henry.
The biggest reason why the army background changes so much from 1815 to 1854 is the same as the biggest reason army background changes from 1945 to today. In WW2 or 1815 the country is at war and has been at war a while and the army is huge. There are all sorts of people who wouldn't have joined the army in peacetime but have because their country needs them, like Tom Hanks' character in Saving Private Ryan. But in peacetime, or early in a war when the army hasn't grown yet, the army draws from a much narrower segment of society, and that's why soldiers today are almost all politically conservative and the army of 1854 is disproportionately descended from soldiers.
Excellent reflection
Agreed... there is also the influence that combat has on promotion. In wartime, competence is both more valued and more obvious.
@@peterwebb8732 Absolutely! 👍👍
Very good points. One partial counter argument would be that between the ‘big wars’, the British army was almost constantly engaged in colonial wars of some description, so they were getting combat experience and to some extent would have weeded out dead wood. Just not against European opponents.
"soldiers today are almost all politically conservative " I beg to differ I have never been politically conservative "in my life nor were the majority of people I served with. I was probably the only serving soldier whose political ambitions involved the demise of the country's monarchy.
As an American, we don't learn any of this. Very good interview both ways. Hope the other gentlemen and you both know your study is heard and very cool!
Certainly in the 70s 80s and 90s when I was in the Army your commissioning promotions, change of units and resignations and retirement appeared in the London Gazette along with award of decorations.
I believe officers in the RA and RE were trained in technical schools from early on. An interesting study is "Wellington's Engineers Military Engineering in the Peninsular War 1808~1814. :Thompson, Mark S.,published by Pen & Sword.
Hi Barry, yes I believe that is mentioned in the interview and Mark has been on the show multiple times so I think you will enjoy those episodes. All the best.
The comparison between 1815 and 1854 was really interesting regarding where the officers’ backgrounds. Interesting fact, every head of the British Army (Chief of the General Staff) since WW2 went to private school.
Interesting but near fact.
I saw the guy who played Henry Simmerson in an old 1973 British series " Warship " about the crew and commanders of " Hero " . He played a young Marine LT. who kills a NATO officer who is questioning him after he is caught in an exercise gone wrong ! Great actor ! loved it when Simmerson was taken out by a priest ! I spent 10 years U. S. Army and I have seen both good and bad ! Luckily for me , I had mostly good commanders !
brilliant, thank you
Well that suddenly changed my view of the Antelope! Been there fairly often in the past but never knew that.
Perhaps my favorite channel
Thanks a lot.
I'm rewatching Sharpe rn, i feel they really did embellish a lot of what we see, but there is a lot of truth in it too. Its great to see such a dive into the actual history of the period while I'm part way through again
I loved his allusion to Colour Sergeant Bourne..eyes to the front, mark your target when it comes.
What happened to officer training in WW1? Tactics were abysmal.
By 1917/18 both officers and men were rigorously trained and practiced in the tasks in hand by men who had experience in action and drew up the appropriate tactics. The abysmal situation was the situation they had to cope with. The combined arms action of the ‘100 days’ demonstrated both the quality of the training in existing situations and those needed for mobile warfare. In many ways the British army of 1918 was the best for it’s day that they have ever had.
@@johnfisk811 theres truth to that. However they didnt have them in anywhere near the numbers they needed until midway imo...
The difference in the British army and the Royal navy was that in the British army was that in the Royal Navy you could purchase your son a posting as a midshipman but everything above that was by your performance in the servic and your results on tests.
I'm sure however that family "connections", wealth & political influence did n't hurt
The Horatio Hornblower series demonstrates the process aptly
The reason Sandhurst (and West Point in the US) were initially established was to provide technical training to artillery and engineer officers. Because the Army (like the Navy) finally realized that certain Officers required professional technical training and purchases couldn't be made in those branches.
@@dogfaceponysoldierThat’s not quite true, unlike the Infantry and Cavalry which were administered under the Commander in Chief and Horseguards, the Artillery and Engineers were administered by the Board of Ordinance and had an officer training academy based at Woolwich since about 1740, as stated in the video. Artillery and Engineer officers needed far more technical, scientific and mathematical skills than infantry or cavalry officers, so such an institution was vital.
@@keithorbell8946 which is exactly what I said.
Great knowledge and information on the officer corp during the 1815 period, but Why does he avoid eye contact with the camera?
Army, Navy, RAF and Marine officer promotions and gallantry awards of all ranks are still published in the London Gazette.
This discussion mirrors a lot of Peter Brown’s work in another book in the same Helion Books series: the Army of George II. The British Army, including its officer corps, of the 18th Century was much more professional than it is often given credit for.
For the time…..
Keep in mind that Britian was a naval power so most of the good officers went to the Navy. For the most part the Army was used to squash illiterate Irish and Scottish rebels and leading the infantry was seen as a dummy job. France got so far because Napoleon was an artillery officer which required technical proficiency
@@patrickr3438 yeah, well, I guess that’s the point of the video and the two books. To dent historical stereotypes.
Now that's soldiering
I was an infrantry corpman (rifleman) and bat-man for thr CO of an infantry weapons training school in the Australian army. My boss was a Major, and when i started, it was coffee and laundry, by the time I left, there wasn't much of his area of responsibilities that I couldn't largely handle.
This was really interesting. Funny how little changes, but this really is where we see the birth of the idea of a modern professional army, and of course many of our traditions and doctrine come directly from our British origins and connections.
Thanks!
IIRC, Wellington himself said that his aristocratic officers were brave and stood to their duty under fire; the problem that he had was getting them to do the administrative scut work that is so important in between battles to keep the army fit. He himself recruited his personal staff from 'sprigs of nobility' like Fitzroy Somerset (who was a very competent staff officer before he became Lord Raglan, that is often forgotten) and they served him well. So I agree that a fair and true picture of the army's officer corps at the time is more nuanced than fiction and film would have us believe for the sake of creating drama.
Good to see some great stats, my kind of research. In researching all the officers of the Zulu War, both Imperial and colonial interesting findings are also emerging
Earl of Duke no less than All Army Command🎉
Royal even more .. like 2023😂
Upon seeing this video in my recommends I naturally decided to watch, that's my style sir.
Fascinating.
Thanks man, confirms Mr Wickham's resume!!
Very interesting. I would be interested in learning if the social dynamics mentioned were the same in Irish, Scottish, Welsh regiments as well or if there were any distinctives.
Interesting question but given that so many senior officers across the army were Irish and Scottish I suspect it was a very similar dynamic.
Super interesting story! I always thought with "purchased" commissions they were all English toffs only, and Captain Sharps saved their bacon. Thank you! Regards from Canada 🇨🇦
There are too many people who think Sharpe and Blackadder goes Forth are historical documentaries 😂
@@andrewcarter7503 sadly, you could be quite correct...
Yes. There're plenty of folks who do not understand the concept of "historical fiction".
And at times, a good storyteller could blur the line.
Historical Fiction sometimes dovetails nicely into their preconceived biases and stories told by relatives years ago ...
All promotions and postings are still "Gazzetted." That is, they are published in the London Gazette.
This is great.
Thanks
They sound just like the British Navy of the same period.
Even if they bought in as society fops, they developed into solid professionals.
The bad examples, like Lord Lucan, and the Earl of Cardigan, are more famous for their rarity.
I would be curious to see what the percentages are for purchased commissions in 1790 and 1795.
What is the best resource to utilize troop information from this period? I'm doing research and have been trying to find a good primary or secondary source to get accurate details.
Very interesting and definitely not in keeping with my previous understanding. I have spent more time reading about the Royal Navy in the Napoleonic era than the British Army and have the impression (perhaps incorrect) that the training of RN officers was a lot more technical and rigorous than that of Army officers and that RN officers advanced through the ranks much more quickly (e.g. Nelson was made Post Captain at age 20).
I remember the Hornblower episode where he had to cram up to pass the exam board for promotion to Lieutenant
@@marmite1076 Yup. I read the entire Hornblower series back in the day. Pre-GPS (celestial) navigation involved a fair amount of math as did figuring out the loading on various parts of the ship's rigging.
The Royal engineers had to have technical training to build fortifications etc.
Indeed
Up until the army was modernised as it is today the engineer's were men dragooned into the service so any training they got was to ride horses as far as the trades go they already knew their trades
I served in the Army Reserve and still to this day marked in the parking spaces at Bradia Barracks were the letter's ASM
so I asked my training sargent - I knew what a CSM, RSM and SSM were but not that one and he said the rank doesn't exist anymore because it was an artillery position that was used when the consisted of just cavalry and artillery
Armament Sgt Major was the rank and just like the rank of Lance Corporal today the rank no longer exists
What a fascinating video, thanks, Just one comment - In the initial comments about applying for a commission adding 'or after 1803 sending money to Mary Anne Clarke' the mistress of the Duke of York who became Commander in Chief in 1803 might have been appropriate.
21:02 at least in later French drill books it is the norm that company commanders walk in front of their company when in column. But not when in line.
So I would think tis not a French/British difference but a line vs column.
However the tactical formation was the column much more than the line for the French and the opposite for the British so the contrast remains valid.
It seems that the pop culture depiction of British officers matches the Crimean campaign better than it does the Peninsular. The obvious conclusion is that this is yet another of the very many areas of history where we have looked at the Victorian Era (particularly those elements we find distasteful or foolish today) and projected it backwards, assuming it was "always like that" and thus masking the true (and often superior, by today's standards) situation. The Victorian assumption that they were the pinnacle of progress and society has done a lot to confuse the truth of what happened in earlier times.
I'm sure Victorians knew they had plenty of problems by their attempts at reform.
@@joebloggs396 my formal education in history ends at the BA level, so I don't want to overstate my knowledge. That said, *so many things* we "know" about history from gender roles to race relations to the idea that people fit in those 5-foot-tall suits of armour one finds in British manor houses have been so horribly distorted because of the unconscious assumption of the Victorians that everything they had was the best it had ever been.
Popular understanding of almost everything goes back to the back half of the 19th century, and then makes a faulty projection on the assumption that it must have been worse before then.
Popular understanding of British officers seems to be yet another subject caught in that trap.
Very good video my experience of officers was they were very middle class
I think the truth of the officer class in this period is that, apart from the damage they could do through sheer incompetence, they were largely irrelevant. If Bonaparte and Wellington had lost their entire officer corps, they could probably have functioned perfectly with NCOs and quartermasters. Especially Wellington.
I am surprised by the time and intensity of officer training I always imagined they were turned out in a third of the time discussed here.
Great video Chris , shows our brave forebears as they should be. Shame they're aren't more in power nowadays.
We elect those idiots.
We should blame ourselves and then elect someone else.
Instead we blame our neighbours.
@seanfaherty9010
There's an old saying Sea.
"No matter who you vote for the government always gets in."
Shame the book isn't avaible on kindle
How frequently did the British Army engage in "small war" actions(Patrols, Foraging small unit raids etc) in the Peninsular War?
Highly educational and hella funny ❤😂. No " dandies"😂❤
I literally had one line about the peninsula war in a Russian history class I took in HS , The Duke of Wellington was Checking the French in Spain, until i found the Sharpe series
Sharpe was the best officer to have ever served in the British Army. And Horatio Hornblower was the greatest naval officer.
it still comes down to whice side makes the least errors
For the record, promotions still appear in the Gazette, though I'd hope one is now told beforehand
mind you the artillery and engineers were in fact at the not actually part of the army but rather part of the board of ordnance until 1855 after the crimean war debacle.
Quite a refreshing expose of how far from the truth our common conceptions are. It would be nice to take a similar look at Earl Haig.
To be an officer in that era just like today meant being educated and capable. You tend to finder wealthier sections of society are better educated and in that era the gap between the wealth classes was much greater. Hence why the upper middle and upper class by and large dominated the ranks of commissions.
Not only Officers of the Royal Artillery had to pass Woolwich, also any men which would to become an Officer with the Royal Engineers.
And these men would only be promoted by seniority, and not by achievements!
I read once that after Waterloo, in times of peace, it was preferred that an officer came from the establishment as such people could be depended on to protect the state from internal enemies.
Proper training its needed in all the armies.From the lower private to the commander in chief.
So TRUE
Just expensive to keep paid troops around in times of peace and little time during war..
I gather that there was an expectation of a length of service as well as purchasing a rank, that was involved. So a complete newbie could not just turn up and buy a rank.
BTW I went to a grammar school in the 1970s. Friday afternoons were spent on military drill. The idea was that we would be ready to be future officers.
I understand that the practice of purchasing commissions was abolished due to the 1871 Cardwell reforms but have always been curious as to where the “purchase money” went. Some current officers could sell their commission as a way to get a pension so to speak but others could purchase from the Regiment or a representative. So where did the majority of the money go? Also, if you sold your commission as e.g. a Colonel would you still be entitled to be referred to as Colonel so and so in civilian life?
The success of the British army throughout its history would give testament to the general ability of it's officer corps.
The casualty rates of WWI & WWII brought a need for expediency and some of the societal concerns were waived in order to replace losses…
Not just the casualty rates but the enormous rate of army expansion in the recruitment drive of 1915. My grandfather was typical, a grammar school educated bank clerk who volunteered as an ordinary soldier in The Royal Welch Fusilliers but was selected after basic training to receive officer training, served as a subaltern in a light infantry regiment at the Battle of the Somme and finished the war as a Captain in the King's African Rifles.
@@roberthardy3090 I salute your Grandfather 🏴🇬🇧🫡
@@roberthardy3090 you’re absolutely right about army expansion especially under war time conditions….the German army went through the same process during the years of 1933 and 1938….however by 1942 the tremendous losses they suffered on the Eastern Front…meant that there were Oberfeldwebels(senior Sargent)commanding platoons and Hauptmanns (captain )commanding battalions in fact officer losses were 3 times the rate of replacement….
Sandhurst was founded in 1799 by Maj Gen Le Marchant...they had their bi centenary the year i was there in 1999.
And of course we were and still are "Gazetted"
What’s the name of the music
The thing with purchasing commissions is that it's like any other investment. You want a good return on it, if you're men perform badly the reputation of your men goes down and your commission isn't as desirable so you lose money. Your men gain a good reputation, your commission becomes more desirable and the price you can ask for it increases.
I imagine one reason for the drop in middle class officers by the crimea was the colonies. The middle class sons were becoming colonial administrators in africa and india instead for example.
How did chain of command work in a practical context? Could a captain have found himself leading a battalion or brigade in action if more senior officers had been killed ?
Yes and did.
Sir Sidney Ruff Diamond should of made an appearance.
"should of ..."?! Dear Lord. It's "should have ..." One would blame the schools, but the teachers probably don't know any better.
God forbid that the “Upper Class” Officer would actually go to war! In the Peninsula War, Wellington had a special unit that constantly ferreted out the Officers and NCOs “hiding” behind the lines, often with “letters” from their superior Officer excusing them from their unit! It all depended on who you were and what influence you could muster or what you could pay.
Attended a "chat" with a Colonel at a well located but nondescript office just off Trafalgar Square whose first task was to read me a substantial list of Regiments that I would NOT be applying for a Commission in due to my lack of the correct education. I may have fared better 150 years prior!