"units distrusting officers?" Topic

Hi,Gents WhereThere any examples for this question? best to you all serge joe

Not only political but military as well greetings serge joe

Officers were in general aristocrats whereas the rank and file were often from the lowest ranks of society. No love lost between them.

French 9th light infantry regiment at the siege of madrid – ignoring orders of a general

Officers were in general aristocrats whereas the rank and file were often from the lowest ranks of society. No love lost between them.

Not in the French service.

For example, 16 of the 26 general officers who became marshals began as enlisted men.

And because of conscription in the French army, a solid cross-section of French society was in uniform, not 'the lowest ranks of society.'

I suspect this was all too common. The real question was could they do anything about it?

If the Prince of Orange,, in a TV series, says to form a line, not a square, can they easily refuse?

deserted of a whole unit in the revolution 4trd husar? politcal difference wth the men? greetings serge joe

I heard the 4 rd sq did not the number 5th was later was changed in the 4tth do not know what happened to the 4th sqad greetings serge joe

Not in the French service.

For example, 16 of the 26 general officers who became marshals began as enlisted men.

Did you notice the words "in general" and "often"? The French were of course, the exception …

And because of conscription in the French army, a solid cross-section of French society was in uniform, not 'the lowest ranks of society.'

Of course, those in the upper echelons could "persuade" others to take their place …

Of course, those in the upper echelons could "persuade" others to take their place …

or simply (and legally) hire substitutes.

Of course, those in the upper echelons could "persuade" others to take their place

Do you know how the 1798 Conscription Law worked?

In short, substitutes could be paid for, and they were not cheap. And the substitute had to be accepted for service at the depot or the deal was off. And the substitute could not have been called up by the conscription.

So, it was just a little more than 'persuade.'

none of which answers Joes question. Dislike and distrust certainly, that is pretty much troops at any time and anywhere there are going to be malcontenets.

Are you7 asking, did they do anything about it? Like mutiny, or fragging? That part I dont know myself, but the more leatned on here probably do, if they can stop dancing bully Sgts on a bayonet point and tell you.

Good luck I would like to know as well.

Owen

The French had a common-sense approach to conscription, in that, as Daru stated, conscription 'is an ineluctable consequence of political equality. If you demand equality, then accept the consequences.'

That is the French version of 'with rights come responsibilities.'

Conscription was under the 'supervision' of General Jean Lacuee, who was the military representative on the Council of State.

lacuee was described as 'a man of force and presence, cold, dry in his speech…and not loved…Napoleon's ideal henchman…who obeyed without pity, indifferent to the unhappiness he caused with his level enforcement of the law.'

In short, a good man to have around…

Apparently, some of Picton's descendants claimed that the bullet which pierced his top hat came from behind. Not sure if it's true, but if the scenario was considered, then it was within the range of possibility.

I read that the 85th Light Infantry had a poor record in their first tour… Attributed at the time to the poor quality of its officers and the fact the men didn't like most of the officers. They were sent home, the bad officers all cashiered or put on half pay and the unit restaffed with better officers. It's performance improved considerably being a highly effective unit again in Spain and aiding the British in defeating the USA in the war of 1812.

I remember reading that the 15th hussars also had their entire officer corps replaced apart from the CO and 1 major in 1814, after the other officers wrote a letter accusing him of cowardice and incompetence. I don't know if the rank and file felt the same. The Prince regent didn't and had them all drummed out and replaced. So at Waterloo the 15th hussars had only 2 officers with commissions older than 1814.

As to the aristocracy. In the British army they were woefully under represented, though they were most often to be found in guards regiments and the cavalry. The fact that so few aristocrats served was often lamented as it was felt they made the best officers and the men looked up to them. As it was the overwhelming majority of officers in the British army were from decidedly middle class backgrounds, and would have more chance in the line infantry regiments at least, of meeting a man risen from the ranks than an aristocrat.

I think throughout history the common soldier was more interested in the officer's competence, as in "is this guy going to get me killed"?

Many soldiers who had officers they disliked either voted with their feet by deserting or by putting a bullet into him during a battle, or by the ACW roling 16" shells into a general's tent.

Glenrarry that is both my understanding and experience. You can deal with dislike, but you cant survive incompetence. Of course it depends on what the dislike stems from. Flog somebody and they are probably not going to looking for your best welfare on a battlefield.

Are there recorded instances of it happening? or is it something that would not havew been mentioned if it did?

Owen

deserted of a whole unit in the revolution 4 rd husar? politcal difference wth the men? greetings serge joe
I heard the 4 rd sq did not ran away the number 5th was later was changed in the 4th do not know what happened to the 4th sqad greetings serge joe

A Long topic right ?will start a new one now greeting serge joe

During the revolution many French units had the problem of officers being accused of being anti-revolutionary, royalists etc. by disgruntled soldiers. At the battle of Blenheim a British officer was detested by his men, who had plans to kill him. The officer asked his men to hold off until after the battle. Just as victory was determined he was shot. "Fragging" officers is hardly a modern development. At the 'battle' of Fishguard the French troops mutinied against their commander, surrounding him at bayonet point.

I stil do not know with th 4th sq!
merged in to other cavalry units? the serge joe

@Serge Joe:

You mean the Hussar regiment which defected? link

You can read about the incident at the bottom of this one: link

Dear hirlwind
that is it
thanks

A long time ago 20 years and more i went from the Netherlands to france on the way going there i saw a bronze plate mentioning this event dumb enough i took no picture so i do not where it was i should have marked on my map to late now a shame
!!

istil remeber the road going up in a hill
i salute you al serge joe

As to the aristocracy. In the British army they were woefully under represented, though they were most often to be found in guards regiments and the cavalry. The fact that so few aristocrats served was often lamented as it was felt they made the best officers and the men looked up to them. As it was the overwhelming majority of officers in the British army were from decidedly middle class backgrounds, and would have more chance in the line infantry regiments at least, of meeting a man risen from the ranks than an aristocrat.

Michael Glover's excellent book on the army Wellington commanded has an entire chapter devoted to the myth of all officers being aristocrats. He pointed out that the 400 titled families in the UK would have needed to produce 20 sons each just to officer the 100+ infantry and 30 cavalry regiments of the Regular Army – and that was completely ignoring the needs of the Board of Ordnance, the County Militias, the Colonial forces, the Royal Navy, the Established Church, the Civil Service, the Judiciary, and those first-borns inheriting/managing the family estates. When the Regular Army was at its largest, in 1813, the number was barely 100 – less than 1% of all officers (compared to over 10% promoted from the ranks). The most common "father's occupation" given for officers was simply "gentleman" which could cover anything from someone with a substantial estate, to the owner of an eating house (the father of the CO of The Blues at Waterloo), or someone "in trade".

The requirements for becoming an Army officer were:-
1) being over the age of 16,
2) being fully literate, and
3) being of good character and sponsored by a serving or half-pay officer of the rank of major or above.

Alternatively, you could become one of the 5% of officers who had been"gentlemen volunteers", joining as a private and serving until a vacancy occurred. In peacetime, another 5% of officers were ex-rankers/promoted sergeants – a figure that rose to almost 10% during the Napoleonic Wars (ironically, it was often the inverted snobbery of the rank-and-file that forced this last group to move to another regiment after being commissioned).

In addition, quite a few rank-and-file who achieved fame, or came into money in one way or another, procured commissions for their sons, who went on to establish themselves among the officer corps. Captain Edward Nolan (of Balaklava fame) was the son of an officer, but the grandson of Babbington Nolan, a Napoleonic trooper in a hussar regiment. The descendants of Sgt Masterson of the 87th, who captured a French eagle at Barossa, served as officers in the Royal Irish Fusiliers for three generations until the regiment was disbanded in 1922; his grandson won the VC in the Boer War (albeit serving in another regiment at the time).

Lt Col Hamilton, who led the charge of the Royal Scots Greys at Waterloo, was born to the Sergeant Major (nowadays the RSM) of the 21st Foot, just outside Fort Ticonderoga on July 4, 1777; both parents died in the Saratoga campaign and the orphan was adopted by the CO, whose name was Hamilton, and later bought a cornetcy in the RSG.

Finally, genuine question – can anyone name another European army in which three men joined voluntarily as privates and rose to the rank of Field Marshal? Oh, and don't make the mistake of equating "Field Marshal" in the British Army with "Marshal of France" under Napoleon – they aren't the same thing, socially or militarily.

(Colin Campbell, Luke O'Connor and William Robertson, in case you were wondering.)

Coignet tells the story of one regiment in 1800 in Italy that killed all of its officers save one lieutenant, in action.

Napoleon promoted the lieutenant to captain, and gave the regiment a new 'set' of officers.

The next time the unit was in action, Napoleon held it there so that it's casualties were heavy, and thereafter it behaved itself.

There is also the story of one French regiment that mutinied in camp, and when the troops and senior officers showed up to quell the 'mutiny', the troops explained that they were bored and wanted something to do.

2) being fully literate, and

Well, that would probably rule out about 90% of the population.

Until the French Revolution it was not unusual to find members of the British "officers corps" that were promoted through the ranks. After the French Revolution it became less common due to hyper Jacobinphobia.

"Defection to the enemy" is a slippery concept in what had elements of a civil war.

I've read comments that officers promoted from the ranks were given a hard time by the men. Also I think there are a few indications that the rank and file preferred aristocratic officers. Back in the 50's I remember there was a common attitude that workers resented taking instructions from anyone who they judged to be of insufficient social status. Typically "I'm not taking orders from that jumped up ****". I suppose it gives men a feeling of personal superiority if they only take orders from a high status aristocrat.
But I've also seen criticism of the British Raj that so many of the men running the place were middle class with typical middle class prejudices. The aristocrats were bought up to deal with staff and I think (despite popular fiction) were more relaxed about it and consequently less brusque. I think it is people who are not used to giving orders who tend to be a bit brutal about it.

This was also a factor in the US Army during WWII. Soldiers who knew the new 1st Lt. back home, having trouble taking orders from an ex Soda Jerk. Of course this was also an issue during the AWI.

I wonder if the affair that Serge Joe was referring to actually shows the opposite case: a unit of cavalry which was more loyal to its officers than to its homeland/country/government. Desertion en masse might show poor officer quality – there are some hints of this in the behaviour of some Spanish units at points in the Peninsular War. But desertion to the opposite side might show something else.

Supercillius Maximus:

Somewhat related: In the Royal Navy, the crew of one frigate mutinied because their officer wasn't a gentleman.

In Peter's Russia, a black ex-slave (Abram Gannibal) rose to recome a high-ranking military engineer.

link

'…don't make the mistake of equating "Field Marshal" in the British Army with "Marshal of France" under Napoleon – they aren't the same thing, socially or militarily.'

What's the difference?

And it is 'Marshal of the Empire' not 'Marshal of France.'

'…don't make the mistake of equating "Field Marshal" in the British Army with "Marshal of France" under Napoleon – they aren't the same thing, socially or militarily.'

What's the difference?

I believe "Field Marshal" in the British Army is a military rank whereas "Marshal of the Empire" is a civil post.

link
link

What's the difference?

Are you being serious, here? I would have thought that an expert on the French Army would know the answer.

And it is 'Marshal of the Empire' not 'Marshal of France.'

So Ney got it completely wrong when he said: "Come and see how a Marshal of France dies!" then. Fair enough.

In military terms, a Marshal of the Empire would typically command a force equivalent to that commanded by a Lieutenant General in the British Army. Whereas a British Field Marshal was more an administrative post, most often occupied by the monarch or as a reward for long and distinguished service; it was rare, until WW1, for a serving Field Marshal to actually command troops in the field.

In my experience, it is unfortunately quite common for people to equate "Marshal" with "Field Marshal" – particularly when discussing men who started their careers in the ranks.

Wasn't the purchase system only abolished for the UK in the late 1800s? Wouldn't that indicate that at least most officers had to come from backgrounds with enough money to purchase a commission? Doesn't that indicate the officers were at least from a background that was wealthier than 90% of Britons?

Wealthy. Yes.
But wealth is not the main link to class. Many business men, farmers, and merchants (middle class) and industrialists later were richer than the upper classes.

The lowest ranked commissions were less pricey but not unaffordable to families of a decent income. Especially if you avoided cavalry units or guards. Marine, West Indian regiments and units with high numbers were unfashionable and their commisions were cheaper.

Purchase was only one way of gaining a commission. A "volunteer" could be promoted into it after distinguishing himself. You could also "raise for rank" at one point, and if you brought enough recruits with you you could be rewarded with a commission.

Besides if you lacked the money you could borrow it…. Debtors prisons were always housing a collection of half pay officers… all broke.

The lowest ranked commissions were less pricey but not unaffordable to families of a decent income.

Except that very few people in early 19th century England would have what you would call a "decent income".

There were far more "volunteers" than you might imagine in the British army in Spain. They messed with the officers but fought in the ranks as private soldiers in the hope of distinguishing themselves enough to be offered a commission without purchase when one became available. See the book "A Gentleman Volunteer" by George Hennell.

Wasn't the purchase system only abolished for the UK in the late 1800s? Wouldn't that indicate that at least most officers had to come from backgrounds with enough money to purchase a commission? Doesn't that indicate the officers were at least from a background that was wealthier than 90% of Britons?

Purchase was abolished in 1871; however, from 1849 all officer candidates had to take an exam (which could only be re-sat once) in order to be accepted. Later, passing out of Sandhurst guaranteed you a commission regardless.

As others have pointed out, if you avoided the Foot Guards and the older Cavalry regiments (the latter also required you to buy one or more good quality horses, remember), most gentry and quite a lot of tradesmen, could afford to buy a son an ensigncy in the infantry – as I said in an earlier post, by far the most common entry under "father's occupation" was "gentleman" which was deliberately vague in order to hide the lowly origins of many officers.

The Army contracted considerably in peacetime and was thus more selective in who it accepted; in some cases it became more of a social club, but many regiments managed to maintain an environment of professionalism as well.

The armies of the HEIC, and later the Indian Army, did not have purchase, and many prominent British commanders of the 1860-1945 period reached high rank via that route.

Except that very few people in early 19th century England would have what you would call a "decent income".

There was a burgeoning middle class and many wealthy skilled and semi-skilled tradesmen as a result of the Industrial Revolution. The idea that there were "very few" people earning a decent living is just not true. The very reason that Dickens highlighted the straights of the urban poor was precisely because the rest of society was doing reasonably well.

Contrary to popular myth, there was a fair amount of social mobility in Georgian and Victorian Britain – it tended to take two, or sometimes three generations, but plenty of people got there (and that's not to say that individual "rags-to-riches overnight" stories didn't happen, as well).