Myth vs Reality: Recruitment and Training in the 18th Century British Army
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 09. 2024
- Everyone has probably heard the tired stories of the shady practices supposedly used by recruiting parties for the British Army during the mid to late 18th century: from enlisting men taken from prisons, to slipping coins into men's drinks. But is there any truth to these stories? Or is it all nonsense, and if so, where does it come from? In this video, which is part of the "History Matters" collaboration, I hope to answer these questions, and more.
Collab Playlist: • Because History Matters!
Enjoy!
/ christheredcoat
Recruiters-
Way back in the stone age of 1980, I was shopping branches. Dad was in the AF and Grandpa was a Seabee.
I knew I wasn't Gung Ho enough to be a Marine so I looked at the other branches.
Army- "I want to do something in construction"
*COMBAT Arms!!!! There's a HUGE enlistment bonus!!!*
Air Force- "I want Red Horse or Prime Beef."
*Look at these Lackland barracks! They have A/C!*
"What about my job after that?"
* A/C in the barracks!!!one!!!!. Don't worry, when you sign, I promise I'll do what I can, but A/C in the barracks!"
Navy- "I want to be a Builder in the Seabees because my Gandpa was one"
* Lets see wat we can do- Take this Pre-ASVAB test.*
-Kurt does it without knowing what it was-
*Look, the wait for a BU is like almost a year, if you're really interested I can send you down to Chicago to MEPS for a physical and the real ASVAB and we'll talk when you get back.*
-Kurt does it. Kurt was a C student because he didn't apply himself-
*Dude! You scored an 87! We have all kinds of rates you can go to, Nuke! Fire Control, ET! ....*
"I don't want to go on a boat, I want to be a Seabee, what do you have?"
*Oh, :-( Okay There's a Construction Electrician billet open in about two months...*
"Where do I sign?"
Yup. Sounds about right
British soldiers who came home from America, just like Americans who came home from Vietnam; came back unappreciated by public that was sick of a long war.
Tbf we're taught the same myths here in the UK, there's a big Anlgosphere wide gap between real history and the myths our government and education systems are happy with
This was the first modern army for a reason, not just because of the tactics they pioneered but the standards of uniformity, supply, and most importantly recruitment.
@@chooseyouhandle modern army, not war
Maybe, but I think the Prussians would have given them a run for their money. One major difference between Britain and Prussia was when Prussia went to war the whole country went to war. What's meant by that is everything in the nation went to the support of the army, hence the statement "Prussia isn't a state with an army, it's an army with a state!"
It's one of the things that drove Baron von Steuben crazy during the RevWar. Knowing the Prussian model where the whole country supported the army, especially since national survival was at stake, he found it unfathomable the Americans didn't have the same sense of urgency.
@@wayneantoniazzi2706 in contrast to that I would like to point out that the Prussian army often suffered from the issue of to much teeth not enough tail. Remember that the Prussian army was quite limited on logistics compared to their British allies in the 7 years war and napoleonic wars
@@terrynewsome6698 Really? Well I don't know, I've read several works on the Prussian Army of Frederick's time and I've never read of any problem with logistics. If there was any issue it may have come from the logistial side of the army not attracting the "best and brightest" in the way of officers. The fast-track for an officer's career would have been in the combat arms, not the supporting services, so combat arms would have attracted the most driven and ambitious.
However, I'm not here to carry the water for Frederick's army, like any army they certainly would have had their strong and weak points.
@@wayneantoniazzi2706 it was more more powder and shot became a issue in multiple campaigns, especially after the first loss of Berlin
A great and informative video Chris, as always!
I'm stuck by a couple of paralells in recruting. There's a comparison to todays US military and the All-Volunteer force. Basically "If you don't want to be here we don't want you here either!" The US Armed Forces have never been crazy about conscription for the above reason and only resorted to it when they had to. The British Army of the 18th Century strikes me as pretty much the same.
Second, the British Army's desire to recruit young men who had a trade, or at least a basic knowledge of one reminds me of what Confederate general William Mahone did when he was recruiting his regiment at the Civil War's onset in 1861. (He was Colonel Mahone at the time.) He had his recruiters scrupulously record what the man did for a living in civilian life so if a blacksmith, carpenter, shoemaker, gunsmith, builder or whatever was needed they knew exactly where to find one. Mahone's regiment was VERY self-sufficient as a result.
Thanks for posting!
Thanks!
Its a pity you don't have a donation option. Always appreciate anyone that combats the myths of this particular war. I suppose I'll just sub to your patreon for a while instead
Well, I appreciate it! Perhaps I should look into setting up a Ko-fi, too.
@@ChristheRedcoat Can't you just use CZcamss donation option or do they take too much of a cut?
@@arwing20 I honestly have no idea what I need to do in order to set up YT donations, or if I'm even eligible. Something to look into, I suppose.
Pay in gunpowder LOL
Given the vagueries of the times, the lack of education, food insecurities and dearth of potable water, it’s not really surprising that men would opt for the relative security of the military, such as they were.
Finally a new series to binge while I eat my breakfast
Well done Chris! I agree with your opinion on the period artwork. I can't imagine that the British Army would have met with any success had it pressed or tricked its soldiers into enlistments.
I knew next to nothing about this topic until I watched this video, really interesting, thank you!
You’re welcome!
News just in: Hessians have revolted and are currently marching on London, not received any major resistance yet. They say they wish to take revenge on the parliament but have no issue with the King himself. They believe the parliament allowed their soldiers to die without British military aid.
Oh my. Topical.
the hessian commander a month or so earlier was seen cursing and laying blame on his british superiors for failing to supply his men with shot and powder
@@polygonalfortress
The commander has now ordered his men to lay down arms and accepted exile to Prussia.
@@eldorados_lost_searcher King Frederick, "Old Fritz," might tell him to keep going! Like Julius Caesar Fritz loves treason but hates traitors!
17 to 25. Ie in practice 16 1/2 which with training means the day he turns 17 is ready for combat. Obviously guys younger and older managed to get in as well. In especially costly wars 16 to 30+ was probably the actual age range.
I forget just where in read this, it's on the bookshelf somewhere, but in the Continental Army it was found the best average age for a soldier was 30 years old. Why? Pretty much for health reasons. Any diseases that were around at the time the 30 year olds had already caught and survived and so were immune to the same. Also, while not at the absolute peak of their physicality as say a 20 to 25 year old man they were still far from "over the hill."
Thank you once again Chris for a well rersearched and intersting presentation. Stay safe. ATB. Nigel
British army are a find force indeed and the same can be said about the American Army at this time as well. Had to be of age, fit and very able body. Yes ragtag in appearance as the American army truly was a mixture of uniforms and hardly the level of the British army and regiments. But followed very similar as Von Steuben stepped in.
a bloody good one mate
coming from down under
appreciate being educated in the less glamorous aspects of these conflicts
Amazing video, thanks!
You're welcome!
It's very enjoyable watching your videos very informative .
Glad you like them!
Fantastic and enlightening content, as always! Thank you, Sir!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Pshaw...to be in the British army have your father pay up, buy your commission, and enter the officers corps as a lieutenant, like Flashman did. JJokes aside a very well presented lesson. Thanks for your research and keep up the good work.
Bravo! Found this from the collab playlist and now im subscribed, keep up the good stuff
Cheers!
Do a Myth and Reality video on King George iii.
Eh. I would honestly prefer to steer clear of making videos about big-name historical figures. I don't think there's anything I can contribute to that discussion that hasn't already been said.
@@ChristheRedcoat I actually disagree. The mythological depiction of the American Revolution runs so deep and is so common that any pushback to it, even if it is just bringing more scholarly work to a more lay audience, does a good job of informing the public.
He was such a nice guy irl. Shame he got that illness.
Generally, conscription into the British Army was mainly between 1916 and 1960. There was a method, a left over from earlier times, whereby service was an alternative to prison. Obviously this was dependent on the type of crime. In 1977 after the oath and the shilling we were gathered before a staff officer and warned that the practice of escaping gaol via enlistment was no longer valid and that all men so under charge had to declare themselves and 'work off' after serving their sentence a period of time of 'good behaviour' before re-enlisting. I don't know when the practice was started/finished of the choice of 'service or sentences but near enough ended still to be warned in the 1970's.
I know this is a bit 'off topic' but hope it gives a bit of background.
Please keep up your very interesting and informative videos.
Finally fully watched it after it's been in my "watch later" for more than a year (university really takes your time). Great video! I just have one question though. How did the sergeant train them? By that I mean, were the sergeants all shouting like Sgt Lynch/Gunny, like the modern day drill sergeants trying to stress out the recruits? Or would they have been shouting only during commands when they needed to be heard or reproaching a particularly obstinate and uncooperative recruit? I was always under the impression that the drill sergeants of this time would not have been as loud as the modern day drill sergeant, perhaps raising his voice here and there and sometimes telling his trainees not to be little girls, but not to the point of calling them useless maggots every minute they're being drilled and threatening them with a good flogging to avoid, as you mentioned, the troops' disillusionment of the army.
I can only recall from Subedar Ram's memoirs when he enlisted in the EIC Bengal Army in 1812 (not exactly the British army during the American Revolutionary War but close enough, I guess) where he stated that he was ill treated by the havildar (and later a British sergeant) who was training him (and was cuffed as well, if I recall correctly) and this was only stopped when he complained to his uncle who was a jemadar in the same regiment.
(Also, would it be safe to assume that a fresh officer who just arrived to the regiment would also occasionally train alongside the troops under the sergeant but accorded with more respect?)
The idea of the shouting sergeant is a very modern one, indeed. Certainly, there are accounts of sergeants being abusive - the one you just listed is one of them. Roger Lamb, who enlisted in the 9th Regiment in 1773, also mentions that some of the drill sergeants who trained him were "unnecessarily if not wantonly severe." However, the fact that there are relatively few of these passages would seem to suggest that this behavior was the exception that proves the rule.
Bennet Cuthbertson has this to say on the manner in which new recruits are to be instructed: "The Sergeants and Corporals who are appointed to instruct Recruits, must not use too much severity with them, least they should be disgusted with the Service: it requires a great share of temper and coolness to lead them on, and break them of their awkward, clownish ways; when that is ineffectual, and a Man appears perverse and obstinate, he must be reported to the Adjutant, who will give the proper directions for breaking such a disposition."
As for fresh officers training with the rest of the men, I don't see why that would be necessary. As officers, they're not required to understand the manual of arms in the same way that the enlisted are. Their tasks are more logistical in nature. Any training they might receive on how to conduct oneself as an officer would most likely be overseen by other officers rather than by sergeants.
It's a pleasure to be your newest patron, sir! (when I'm in another form of course!) I very much enjoy the depth, research and perspective you bring to your videos. Thank you for your work.
(also, shoutout to Merlin!)
Thanks so much!
I didn't know this! Very informative, thank you. Although in school, I don't recall recruitment was ever discussed. The British soldiers were just 'there'. Frankly, recruitment then was very similar to now in many aspects.
I don’t remember my history class ever describing the English soldiers like that ngl😂 guess I was lucky that my teacher explained the history more realistically . Militia and guerrilla warfare were underrated and both sides used it, the real, important battles were fought the traditional way, British had much more difficult supply lines that made it difficult for them to traverse like the colonists could. And colonists were kiiinda low key the bad guys, since I believe I was told the taxes they had were actually lower than England taxes, and the taxes were to pay for the 7 years war that was fought to, yk, defend their territory. Colonists were more against fighting with natives and colored soldiers.
Thanks for pointing out these truths
My pleasure!
Ever read George Farquhar’s “The Recruiting Officer?”
I haven't, actually. But now I suppose I'll have to!
What about the trope that recruits could not tell left from right which was remedied by having a straw stuck in one boot?
I’ve actually not heard that one before.
Thank fuck I went to a private school in america. We learned that the British enlisted men were some of the best trained professionals in the world.
They were certainly capable adversaries and were indeed highly competent and adaptable. Best in the world is somewhat debatable - I think Prussia might’ve given them a run for their money. Still, they were far from being the headless chickens that they’re portrayed as in popular media.
I think its worth considering that rules and regulations encouraging no tricking or forcing recruitment and aiming for young, fit men of good character would not have existed or been enforced if the bad practices of forcing dubious people into the army wasnt done.
Its like how the press ganging of navy sailors was an infamous practice, at the same time as voluntary recruits and career builders were also present
Again, it’s the exception rather than the rule.
@@ChristheRedcoat I don't remember if it was Noble Volunteers or British Soldiers, American War, but one of the two has an anecdote of someone successfully getting a discharge by arguing that he was not properly sworn in by a magistrate.
Possibly from both. I know there’s a fair bit of overlap between the two books.
Thanks so much for this, very useful info!!
You’re welcome!
outstanding work as always!
Thank you!
Been loving your videos, please forgive me if this is the wrong place for a suggestion. Would you consider doing a video on “how to attract and recruit new reenactors”? Weve got a pretty good unit who puts in a lot of work, and always have people from other units fall in with us (and vis versa) but we just cant figure out recruitment.
That’s actually a pretty good idea! I’ll look into covering that once I get a few other topics off my roster.
Thanks brother Ill be looking forward to it. The 71st sends their best!
Sounds a bit like. Marine Corps recruitment I experienced in 1963 .
Dear Chris,
Excellent talk, 1 question you said the regiment had to be self-sufficient but an apprentice cant enlist way is that?
An apprenticeship is a formal agreement that requires the apprentice to serve under the master for a set amount of time - usually about seven years. Entering into the service would be in violation of that contract. Hence why the army is looking for people in their late teens / early twenties - that's generally around the time when young men are just coming out of their apprenticeships.
@@ChristheRedcoat AS aways thank you
Like the WWI Digger in the background.
Really enjoy your work
Cheers!
Conscription is the most evil thing EVER !
Well, that makes me feel a little better, perhaps.
So people in history also thought that boot boys were cringe?
Based.
Sounds like people are confusing soldiers and press gangs for ships.
Another good video👍
Thanks 👍
Where did the idea that a British soldier had to have two opposing teeth come fom?
I don't know where the idea itself originated from, but the supposed "logic" behind it is that you need two opposing teeth to tear into a cartridge. Obviously untrue, because you can always just, you know, use your hands...
Thank you.@@ChristheRedcoat
Chris The Redcoat The British had way more advantages in battle and were far more capable than us during that time it's amazing that we hand't been utterly slaughtered and wiped out in the American War For Independence by them.
Thank Von Steuben. And the French.
Its not really that amazing when you consider they had to fight France and Spain at the same time
@@arwing20 that is also true they had to fight the Spanish and The French as well so really it was out of pure luck that the Thirteen Colonies weren't still under British Rule.
@@ChristheRedcoat it's a miracle that The British still had the ability to defeat us even while the French and Spanish also had to fight them as well.
Thank George Washington. He had a good sense of when to fight and when not to fight. For most of the war his main idea was to keep the army intact and avoid unnessary risks. He knew that as long as the army existed the country existed and if the army was destroyed so was the country.
Washington was critisized often by the "armchair generals" in the Continental Congress for his apparant "do-nothing" attitude but in the end he was right.
Many people confuse the army recruitment with that of the Royal Navy. The navy had the press gangs not the army.
Even the RN only press ganged when they had to. In a lot of ways being on a press gang could be a dangerous detail, a lot of seaport towns rioted at the approach of a press gang.
@@wayneantoniazzi2706 true there were attacks against the press gangs, but that was confined mainly to the southern counties of Kent and Sussex. The reason being that the impressment service was seeking trained seamen and most of the trained seamen either had exemption certificates, whom the gangs could ot touch, or were involved in smuggling which the local magistrates and landed gentry were involved in and would certainly seek to thwart their purpose.
@@simeondarke201 OK, thanks!
I imagine the Royal Navy’s recruitment process was somewhat different
I do touch on this in the video.
@@ChristheRedcoat I saw that it’s brought back memories of the pub cellar at Wapping which still has the loops for the chains pressed ganged men were held with prior to being embarked onto a warship
Interesting. I tend to disagree with a lot of your points, but it's still interesting. For my money, most recruits joined up due to socio-economic reasons; i.s. the army fed and clothed them.
The army was also one of the few careers with a pension when you retired (as long as you served long enough). Yeah, pay was poor, but this was also beginning of the industrial revolution in Britain and there were lots of former farm laborers trying to get manufacturing jobs in the cities. Compared to factory wages and living conditions, the military didn't compare too poorly. Add in the chance for travel and promotion, medical care during and after the service, and a post service pension, military life probably looked like a good alternative to farmers who's fields were taken away through enclosure.
Great video as usual, but I have to disagree with your British Naval Impressment takes. They did impress like 10 to 15,000 Americans between 1789 to 1812. The book "A Evil Necessary" by Denver Brunsman lays a lot of it out.
I’ll admit I am largely ignorant of the Navy. I’ll have to check out that book.
@@ChristheRedcoat Fantastic read. Highly recommend
@@ChristheRedcoat
Have a feeling most people have heard the Navy Press Gangs and assumed it going on everywhere in the military. It was really something you could only do with a boat though... because those on land would so easily defect! Also, could you imagine what would happen if you impressed half a regiment and then armed them? Probably the fastest way to give the battle to your opponent.
I read, on a wiki, that the Army experimented with impressment but dropped the practice quickly... probably the above situation occurred, massive defects and routs.
Amazing vid, but why do you look like you are on the verge of tears for all of this video
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
@@ChristheRedcoat like why does your eye reflect so watery yk?
I don't have an answer to that. Seems like an odd thing to fixate on.
@@ChristheRedcoat just noticed it that’s all
@@ChristheRedcoat and also I have a question about the 1800 british army
I wonder how the background check was conducted?
First, look at the magistrate's own records to see if the recruit had any court appearances in his history. After that, ask his employer (if any) and his landlord and neighbours. Then visit the local pub and ask the landlord there if he'd ever caused any trouble. And maybe most importanly, ask the local vicar - the vicar would know everyone in the parish. Labour intensive, but I can't think how you would have done it in those days.
@@greedycapitalist8590A lot of footwork for sure.
0:10 Conscript armies recruit from almost all classes from society, and they therefore were more diverse than volunteer armies. Meanwhile, mostly lower class men volunteered for the British army.
unless it allow you to pay your way out of it like many 19th century armies did.
@@thomasbaagaard Conscript armies like all armies recruit based on money. If you don't have the money the law might say 'everyone' but in practice it might be just a handful. Austria-Hungary is a notorious case. Due to low funding they only recruited about 1/4 of eligible males. Which proved disastrous in 1914 when they suddenly had to recruit all the guys that had never served up to that point and train them. At the end of the day its a funding issue. No money no troops. Simple.
If you knew history you’d know that British soldiers were criminals, recruited from the dregs of society, most of the time against their will. The more you know!
[sarcasm]
Cheers! 🥳
@@ChristheRedcoat cheers! 🇬🇧
@@ChristheRedcoatdon’t you give that passive tone to his lordship, you’d be lucky to have him even glance at you in the gutter where you make these horribly inaccurate videos. Millennials disgust me.
@@TheFarOffStation No u
My education was shit in South Carolina. I learned that the redcoats marched into the woods in lines (not columns, not sure how that would work) and let the rebels pick them off one by one because they all called themselves Lord this and that and Jesus made sure we had our free-dumb. I've changed the wording a bit but you get it, m'Dude.
Oof.
🪐☄️🕳️☄️🪐
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️👍