Fit to command? The Surprising Truth of British Army Officers of the Napoleonic Wars
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 06. 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
![Eminem - Houdini [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22tVWwmTie8/mqdefault.jpg)
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 CZcams 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
yes commissions into the Armed Forces of the Crown are still ‘gazetted’ as are promotions and retirements . They appear in the London Gazette. Some things don’t change :)
I don't think retirements are still gazetted... I retired in 2019, just looked.. Mind you it took long time to have my commission confirmed.
“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!
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
Officer's are still "Gazetted" today, on commissioning, promotions and retirement.
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**
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
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.
"On sighting the massed French columns advancing, I immediately ordered my men to form square and hold their ground to face certain death whilst I galloped off to safety. That's my style, Sir!" (Simmerson)
Upon walking into Horse Guards I promptly inherited my rank and then spent no time learning how to be an effective leader. That's my style sir!
I have friends at court and a cousin at horse guards
The fault was not mine Sir. Major Lennox must answer.
Major Lennox *ANSWERED WITH HIS LIFE!!!*
@@pickeljarsforhillary102 as you should have if you had any honour!
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.
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
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.
I'm less than 3 minutes into this video and I'm already sitting here with my jaw dropped. Is that really what being "gazetted" meant? I'm gobsmacked and I'm not even British. Can't wait for the rest. After watching the rest: I'm amazed that a higher percentage of officers purchased their commissions in 1854 than in 1815. Regency fiction obviously isn't an accurate source for info about the army in that era. Loved the Sharpe references. Learned so much from this, thank you very much. Just so you know, I'm a 74 year old American woman who has been interested in military history for most of my life so I'm glad I found your channel. Oh! almost forgot. You have to explain the "ZouLou" plaque. I'm dying to know the story of that.
I only heard "gazetted" from the Sharpe movies. I had no idea of the origin of the phrase.
I also request knowledge if the
"Zoulou" plaque.
In 1815 the Army had been at war for years. Therefore you had a period in which competence was both more obvious and more valued.
Plus more officers received "acting" promotions because more senior officers died and had to be replaced.
It's what happens when you have a cousin at Horse Guards and friends at Court - unless Wellington is involved.
I dont know what the "Zoulou" plaque is - and my written english is better than my heard english" - but I suppose its about the Zulu african people... English had several wars with them. Some battle english won, some battles english lost.
Re purchasing the officers commission. WHOM did they purchase from? The state, or the officers whom had these posts, but wished to retire? If the latter, a similiar custom was in Sweden re civilian posts in state administration. Corruption? Nay, at that time there was no retirement money for senior citizens as its today... So being able to sell their post to an eager wannabe was their best possibility to get some retirement money...
A very good presentation. I particularly liked the evidence-based approach.
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
That was extremely enlightening. Thank you!
Commissions and substantive promotions are still published in the London Gazette
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.
Very educational, more of that slack Chris👍👍👍Merry Chrismas❤👍🤟
My great grandfather was in the army, in India. He was batman to an officer who was a 'ranker'. He was not happy. The class divisions were so great and so ingrained that he didn't mind looking after a 'gentleman', but couldn't stand a 'jumped up nowt'!
I remember proclaiming that that attitude was "Toe-curlingly, cringey to think of; what a forelock-tugging peasant!". Then, my mother explained.
Apparently, the officer was an ignorant slob; a poacher turned game-keeper. His kit was a bundle of second-hand rags and his boots were scuffed to buggery! Yet, he flew into a froth if everything wasn't perfect each morning. Every night, my G-granda had to attempt to work miracles.
He never got any of the perks other batmen used to get - gifts of tobacco, beer, wine, cheese and treats sent from home, plus an extra tanner or bob.
'Proper' officers had at least two and often, three or four of everything. You didn't have to stay up half the night; just put out the fresh stuff and sort the rest out the next day, after a decent bit kip! Hey ho!
Edit. My great grandfather was a man of his time. Why did he put up with 'it'? Why did he rail against inclusivity? Why did he think that my granda - other side - educating my mother was a waste of hard-earned money?
He just knew how 'his' world worked. He was quite happy to work within it. He was a good man.
Measuring people in previous eras against the standards of today is done so people of today can admire themselves.
Brilliant guys, loved it. Another fascinating subject.
Glad you enjoyed it mate.
I recall reading a book about the British Army in WW2 , I can’t recall the title, but it discussed it’s structures and ranks. In the early part of the war , officers were chosen predominantly by interview…..which school you went to, and what your father did. I found this to be the case by widespread reading. However by around 1942 , the Army were forced to set up a more “democratic “ system of Officer selection because of casualties and expansion, where candidates who had a grammar school education were not excluded. These officers proved just as capable .
I’m afraid I’m prejudiced, because today when senior officers of all 3 services appear on tv , which school they went to , and what their fathers did, stands out a mile as soon as they open their mouths.
It is impossible for an Englishman to open his mouth without making some other Englishman hate or despise him.-
George Bernard Shaw.
My grandfather was offered a commission during the war but turned it down and stayed an NCO because his education had been so poor he felt he would not have been able to cope with the paperwork.
As you say you are prejudiced. Give me an example of a British officer appearing recently on TV from which you immediately identify both his background and education, because I couldn't even during my many years service in uniform. I would grant that certain Guards officers enjoyed laying it on a bit thick, but even they were mostly poseurs. Today, I would be surprised if few very senior officers did not come from quite ordinary backgrounds, with a solid grammar school and university education behind them.
@@davidfiler7439 Try “British army chief addresses claim of “unacceptable “ conduct by soldiers “
Then look at his Wikipedia page ….Sir Mark Alexander Popham Carleton-Smith. His pedigree is there in all its glory !!
Sorry old boy , but for an officer to reach the highest ranks in the army , his pedigree appears to go a long way, don’t ye know.
😎. I did say I was prejudiced ….don’t ye know, and I’ll match my state education ….Secondary Technical and Grammar School, and my degree in Aeronautical Engineering, to his Eton and Durham degree in Politics and History…..before you get started !!
I was thinking of SIR Iain Duncan Smith initially , but why bring politics into the parade square.
@@harrynewiss4630 Or more probably, an unfriendly pressure from the other officers with the more typical, upper class background. But he couldnt say this, it was easier to be humble and talk about the paperwork. After all, officers did had clerks to do the main burden of the paperwork.
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 .
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
very interesting. I pretty much know how Swedish battalions worked during 17th century with one field officer managing one battalion each. A regiment consisted of two battalions one commanded by a major and the other by a lt colonel, each battalion consisting of 6 companies. the colonel commanded the whole regiment. when in history did companies break out from the battalion formation to a tactical unit where the captain could take tactical decisions, which previous within a battalion line was not possible?
As far as I know, it started in North America in the 1760s and became European practice around the 1790s. The Austrian infantry until the middle of the 1800-10 decade were notably extremely conservative and still formed up by regiment while the French were more nimble. I can try to find the book, but I'm pretty sure it's part of a Wikipedia bibliography haha
@@Sam-nx9ec thank you for the answer. as it appears in the video above, the British kept a solid battalion line throughout the Napoleon wars. When looking at some films of the Civil War in the US battalion lines appear as still intact, perhaps because the way film director orchestrated the battle field was not fully accurate.
It would have been complete around the time of the Prussian absolute butchering of the French, but there was a gradual evolution and it started before that.
The details of Army Officers' commissions and promotions are very much still gazetted today!
Brilliant stuff guys
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.
I loved his allusion to Colour Sergeant Bourne..eyes to the front, mark your target when it comes.
it would be nice to see in more details about what possible formation a battalion could take and how such battalion worked its ways along with other units such as light field artillery, how and when the artillery fired to support advancing battalions and for how long. Also knowing the layout of a regiment, brigade and division in the British Army, the role of a brigadier the rank mentioned would be very useful to me. The NCOs sergeants, furirs, fieldvebels, etc had similar duties of this sort of battalion as in Sweden during 18th and 17th century to march in the rear making sure soldiers wont run away and to encourage them. What differs above mentioned battalion from a Swedish is that battalion in the case of Sweden was only a formation arranged during combat. In camp and not during combat the regiment basically consisted of 12 companies, no battalions. The company was the main unit where solders were served and managed by, identified them self with next up the regiment, not with a battalion. If you asked a solder then what battalion he served at, he would not be able to answer. having a lt col managing two majors looks very odd to me, but may make sense because the battalion here is much larger with 10 rather than 6 companies making it necessary to delegate his command to other field officers. the interviewer asked a very valid question about the autonomy of a battalion and what the commander was able to do with his unit as the conditions on the battlefield changed, but I did not get a clear answer. I would appreciate a second version of this video with more details.
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'.
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.
Excellent video, really informative. Great to see some of the traditional cliches about this exposed.
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 !
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.
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!
very interesting and well researched
One wasn't
William Erskine:
"On his father's death in 1795, Erskine became baronet. He represented Fife in Parliament in 1796 and 1802-1805. Despite being "blind as a beetle", according to a fellow officer, in 1808, Erskine received promotion to major general. When he heard Erskine was being shipped to Portugal, Wellington complained that he "generally understood him to be a madman." The administrators of the army at Horse Guards responded that, "No doubt he is sometimes a little mad, but in his lucid intervals he is an uncommonly clever fellow; and I trust he will have no fit during the campaign, though he looked a little wild as he embarked."
"From 19 June 1811, Erskine led four mounted regiments in the newly organized 2nd Cavalry Division in Rowland Hill's corps. He soon relinquished command, but reassumed his post on 8 April 1812.[10] Soon after, he was declared insane and cashiered. He took his own life in Lisbon in 1813 by jumping out of a window, reportedly with the last words, "Now why did I do that?""
I remember hearing that in one battle that Gen. " blind as a beetle" asked a fellow officer to point him in the direction of the enemy.
"Now why did I do that?"
Love your channel mate
Much appreciated
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!
Well that suddenly changed my view of the Antelope! Been there fairly often in the past but never knew that.
Great knowledge and information on the officer corp during the 1815 period, but Why does he avoid eye contact with the camera?
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 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.
Great one again. Thanks
Thanks mate
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.
Irelands population in 1800 was over 4M+. Englands was ~10M. Scotland 1.5M. 1/3 of the British Army being Irish isn’t a demographic overstatement for the time but of course, many irishmen distinguish themselves…
Including born in Dublin The Duke of Wellington.
@davidfiler7439 Wellesley never considered himself Irish, always English, and once when it was remarked about him being Irish, said "being born in a stable, does not make one a horse".
Not sure what your point is. He was indeed an “Anglo” and the ‘stigma’ of being Irish at the time was tantamount (in high social strata) to being considered uncivilized - hence his defensive remark. Many officers of the Irish Regiments were ‘Anglos’ and some /few not (especially after the papist acts were repealed). 1/4 of the Royal Navy crews were Irish.
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.
Cracking bit of history, thank you!
Cheers, Henry.
Army, Navy, RAF and Marine officer promotions and gallantry awards of all ranks are still published in the London Gazette.
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.
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.
Great video
Very interesting
Thank you
Great video. Love that mention of the new Napoleon film 🤣👌
Now that's soldiering
Another excellent video. Thank you. I know you specialize in the British Army but do you know of a similar CZcams channel that covers the Royal Navy?
Hi Harry. Thanks a lot. I'm afraid I don't know one - perhaps there is a gap in the market!
@@redcoathistory Well, then I shall keep looking. I still like your videos. Bravo Zulu (Well Done).
The purchase of a commission was, in theory at least, a bond for your good and effective service in that rank.
Obviously over time theory and practice diverged.
It was also a way of ensuring that the military could not be used to overturn the established order.
You are less likely to support a coup overthrowing Parliament if you were related to half of them and went to school with the sons of the other half.
I suppose there's a certain amount of logic in that.
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😂
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.
Upon seeing this video in my recommends I naturally decided to watch, that's my style sir.
It's interesting that the Royal Navy officers also became more aristocratic over time.
Early on, some Admirals started as ordinary seamen and many Capitans and Commanders. Captain Cook started as a seaman on a Collier--but officers that he promoted up from the ranks were in another generation of a changed navy and ran head on into the contempt and snobbery of their now more high born junior officers.
Royal Navy officers have always been aristocrats
it was almost impossible to get an officer position if you were not an aristocrat or at least rich
to become an officer you had to know how to read and write, you had to know mathematics and astronomy, and this is still a big obstacle for many people today
a naval officer had to master reading, writing and mathematics from the age of 6-10, and then the training on the ship "internship" began
if you survived the carnage of naval battles and disease you had a chance to become a "lieutenant" this is nicely shown in the Hornblower (TV series) the brutality of taking exams
the next obstacle was becoming the captain of his own ship
to become an admiral you must either be a brilliant captain (hero) or a lord
it was almost impossible for an ordinary "sailor" to become a naval officer, but if the sailor survived the battles, earned money from prizes, and did not spend his earnings on whores and drinking, he could retire early as a fairly well-off man.
if he married, his son had a chance to become an officer, provided he was educated early (which was not very common then)
Captain Cook started on a Collier?
A coal-carrying ship, in the age of Fighting Sail?
Or did Collier have a pre-anthracite meaning?
@@Svensk7119 you know navies like to recycle names
let's say the Enterprise has been in two versions so far (the Gray Ghost CV-6 from WWII and the recently retired nuclear aircraft carrier CVN-65)
and a third version Enterprise CVN-80 is expected sometime in 2028
@@tihomirrasperic You missed my question. "Collier" isn't a name of a ship. It is a Type of ship. A Collier carried coal to coal refueling points. Sometimes, maybe it could be a ship that burned coal? But that is, strictly speaking, an incorrect usage. My comment had nothing to do with Navies re-using beloved names.
My question was how could Captain Cook start on the 19th Century equivalent of an oil tanker in the 18th Century? Or was a Collier something else in the age of Fighting Sail?
@@Svensk7119
A collier is a bulk cargo ship designed or used to carry coal. Early evidence of coal being transported by sea includes use of coal in London in 1306. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, coal was shipped from the River Tyne to London and other destinations
So, that type of ship has been in use for 300+ years, so...
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
brilliant, thank you
All promotions and postings are still "Gazzetted." That is, they are published in the London Gazette.
Desk officer remote from action . Plans those can make .. but Who has the lion heart to push it thorough ?
Division or squad?
My first job in Berlin was at the British Officer's Club so I found this clip fascinating. The men in command could be divided up at the swimming pool between those who didn't have tatoos (and had been trained at Sandhurst) and those who had come up from the ranks: czcams.com/video/_57LVNrEJRc/video.html
Perhaps my favorite channel
Thanks a lot.
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.
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.
Surely there was a strong attrition in officers ' ranks, so field promotions were more probable in campaign than in peace, where a guy without money/political connections (or both) could be bogged down in the lower ranks, also if he was more competent than more richer collegues. This could explain some idiocies at the start of a war, then things start to work accordingly after a sort of "Natural selection". The problem is that too many lives were too often wasted , as in Crimea, before competent commanders take the reins.
Usually it's the "commoner officers" who grasp tactical awareness faster than their "social betters"
Things like dressing in non tailored uniforms and taking ranks/pips/belt buckles/shiny shit off so you aren't as noticeable
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 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.
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 ...
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.
I would be curious to see what the percentages are for purchased commissions in 1790 and 1795.
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
Gazetted now I know what Simmerson meant when he said about him recommended an officer being Gazetted Captain in Sharpe
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.
Fascinating.
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."
Thanks man, confirms Mr Wickham's resume!!
My great grandfather, born in 1794, fought in the Penninsular War and was involved in many of the battles. Then came Quatre Bras where he was wounded and thus missed Waterloo, much to his disappointment.
Your great grandfather?! You must be the oldest person alive 🤣
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.
Very good video my experience of officers was they were very middle class
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"
Like most other poorly educated people I assumed purchase of commisions was a uniformly bad system resulting in fiascos like the charge of the Light Brigade: this was largely based on things like that godawful movie made in 1968.
It wasn't until much later I came to read from a contemporary (19th century) source that the purchase price served as something akin to a financial bond whose repayment was contingent upon the continued good character of the officer. Back in the days without a published Code of Conduct regulating every aspect of conduct both on and off the battlefield, it served as a viable proxy.
Also the monetary value of that bond would fluctuate based on the esteem in which the regiment/Colonel were held. These are what stood out to me (as a retired banker) among other aspects of regimental system.
I had a similar reprogramming with regard to the Raj when I finally got round to having a serious look at it: including the very high quality of the personnel selected to go. That some who managed to survive became disillusioned or debilitated by the exotic climate and culture does not detract from their achievement in creating the first unified, functional, nation-state on the subcontinent.
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.
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.
it still comes down to whice side makes the least errors
Shame the book isn't avaible on kindle