"British Rank Structure" Topic
16 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please be courteous toward your fellow TMP members.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestNapoleonic
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Profile ArticleThe gates of Old Jerusalem offer a wide variety of scenario possibilities.
|
ScottWashburn | 27 Jan 2016 6:46 p.m. PST |
I'm working on my British Waterloo Army and I'm noticing the wild range of ranks for the brigade commanders. Some brigades are commanded by lieutenant colonels, while others (of approximately the same size) are commanded by major generals. Is there any reason behind this? |
Frederick | 27 Jan 2016 7:57 p.m. PST |
I could be wrong but I think that this was related in some part to decisions about promotion being based in part on politics and connections with the Horse Guards – plus there being no fixed age for retirement |
Edwulf | 27 Jan 2016 11:23 p.m. PST |
Because the Major General in charge of the Brigade is dead, wounded, on leave, sick and a Lt Colonel has taken over. This might be temporary or he might get promoted to it later. Most of the Lt. Cols would be from the battalions in the brigade. |
Gunfreak | 28 Jan 2016 2:50 a.m. PST |
Often attrition. I think some prussian brigades in 1813 where commanded by majors(prussian brigades beeing the aquviliant of everyones elses Divisions. |
Jemima Fawr | 28 Jan 2016 3:54 a.m. PST |
A lot would be 'breveted' (i.e. acting) Brigadier, though for the purposes of paperwork retained their substantive rank and are therefore recorded as such in orbats (e.g. Wellesley in India). So at the time they were 'Brigadiers', though would revert to their old rank as soon as they were relieved from that post. Re promotion: IIRC, promotion through General rank was strictly by seniority, whereas every rank up to Colonel could be purchased. Legend has it that when it became abundantly clear that Wellesley was the man for the job, every General above him in the army had to be 'promoted out of the way' so that he could be elevated. |
matthewgreen | 28 Jan 2016 8:56 a.m. PST |
Yes I'd noticed that about the British brigade commanders at Waterloo. No Brigadier-Generals though. In fact very few of this rank appear in this era at all. I think the lowly rank compared to command of the Prussian army is an indication of how fast they had to expand their officer corps. Indeed I think some of their officers were a bit inexperienced for their role, even though the Prussian command system as a whole seemed to work the best of the 3 armies in 1815. |
enfant perdus | 28 Jan 2016 9:08 a.m. PST |
The key is that Brigadier was an appointment, not a rank. Promotion went from Colonel to Major-General. Ideally, a MG commanded a brigade, but the demands of a campaign often interfered with this; illness, injury, death, leave, or simply having insufficient MGs on hand. The last situation was a frequent feature of period campaigns in India. Looking at the Anglo-Hanoverian army of the 100 Days, you'll note that LtCols and Colonels commanding brigades are almost exclusively confined to KGL and Hanoverian troops. The small (and recently reconstituted) Hanoverian Army was understandably not awash with Major-Generals. Perhaps someone better versed in the details of the KGL can explain why none of their veteran commanders had been promoted. |
Gunfreak | 28 Jan 2016 9:26 a.m. PST |
When did brigader become a rank? They apear alot during the ACW and seems to be a propper rank. Also in modern military brigader is a rank. |
42flanker | 28 Jan 2016 10:29 a.m. PST |
The shortage of 'bona-fide' brigade commanders was a perennial problem. Speaking of Wellington, in June 1794 when the young Lieutenant Colonel Wesley, newly appointed CO of the 33rd, arrived with his regiment in the Low Countries, there was a shortage of Major Generals with the British contingent. After the 33rd was assigned to the Third Brigade, in the absence of a Major General, the battalion COs took it in turns to act as brigade commander, as new regiments whose COs had seniority were assigned to the brigade. Wesley commanded at the battle of Boxtel in September 1794. Major General Balfour took over the brigade after that. Round about that time, October 12 1794 Harry Calvert, the Duke of York's ADC, wrote home "We want artillery men, we want a general officer at the head of the artillery, we want drivers and smiths; we want three major generals of infantry we want at least two out of the four brigades of mounted artillery with which his Grace of Richmond is amusing himself in England." A month later his mood was no better: "The want of general officers to command brigades has in this army, been an evil of the most serious nature, and has been attended with the very worst consequences. From the time Lord Cathcart left us- which, if I recollect right, was about the 23rd of July- till Generals Balfour and De Burg joined, which was the latter end of September, we had five brigades of infantry of the Line, with one major-general (Stewart), for General Fox is too much occupied in his staff employment to be reckoned as a major-general, though his zeal induces him to come forward as such whenever he can. I wish you could inform critics, if they are in a situation to give us redress on the subject, that General Stewart is ill, General De Burg is wounded, and that General Balfour is at this moment actually the only major general doing duty with five brigades and five unbrigaded battalions of British infantry." As he indicated, Calvert was referring to infantry brigades. The cavalry and Guards were well provided for. About that time Balfour returned home to attend to 'personal business' and Mackenzie of the 78th took command of the Third (though the brigade continued to be referred to as 'Balfour's). General Stewart died in early December and Major Coote of the 70th took over First brigade, leaving Lord Cathcart (Sixth) and De Burgh and Fox (Fourth) as the only actual MGs available. |
MajorB | 28 Jan 2016 10:29 a.m. PST |
As far as the British Army is concerned, until shortly after World War II, brigadier was an appointment conferred on colonels (as commodore was an appointment conferred on naval captains) rather than a substantive rank. They appear a lot during the ACW and seems to be a proper rank. What is true in armies in America is not necessarily true in other countries. Militray traditions and organisations vary. |
matthewgreen | 28 Jan 2016 12:14 p.m. PST |
Interesting. There is a family story that my cousin was made a Brigadier-General in the British army (WW1), and then complained when the Army renamed it Brigadier – as it took away privileges associated with being a General. His gravestone carries the old-fashioned rank… It was a sore point, apparently. |
42flanker | 28 Jan 2016 12:36 p.m. PST |
My Grandfather ended WW1 as an Temporary Brigadier commanding an infantry brigade, brevet Major and substantive Captain, the rank he had achieved in September 1914. He didn't receive his next promotion until 1923. |
Rod MacArthur | 28 Jan 2016 12:49 p.m. PST |
Enfant Perdu said: "Perhaps someone better versed in the details of the KGL can explain why none of their veteran commanders had been promoted." KGL Generals in Waterloo Campaign: Lt Gen Charles von Alten – commanding British 3rd Division Maj Gen Colin Halkett – commanding British 3rd Brigade Maj Gen von Dornberg – commanding British 3rd Cavalry Brigade Maj Gen Victor von Alten – Inspector General (administrative commander) KGL and Hanoverian Cavalry Maj Gen Von Decken – commanding Hanoverian Reserve Corps (Division equivalent comprising 3 Brigades) tasked with Lines of Communication protection Apart from the two KGL Brigades, commanded by Col Von Ompteda and Col du Plat, two of the Hanoverian Brigades has KGL commanders, Col Hugh Halkett and Colonel Best. In fact of the 14 Anglo-Hanoverian Infantry Brigades at the Battle of Waterloo itself, exactly half of them had KGL or Hanoverian commanders. Considering that the KGL had only 10 infantry battalions and 5 cavalry regiments, I would suggest that they had extremely good representation of senior officers at Waterloo, compared to British senior officers who had some 200 battalions and 30 cavalry regiments to source their senior officers from. Rod |
enfant perdus | 28 Jan 2016 1:14 p.m. PST |
What is true in armies in America is not necessarily true in other countries. Militray traditions and organisations vary. Precisely. The US Army during the ACW does provide an interesting comparison to the British Army. Brigades were more often then not commanded by Colonels. Brigadier General was a substantive rank, as was Major General, but there was considerable resistance to creating a substantive rank of Lieutenant General. It had been abolished after Washington, and Scott had only been breveted as such in 1855. For the majority of the War the Union high command was a mass of Major Generals with degrees of seniority, until the rank of Lieutenant General was restored for Grant in 1864. Furthermore, the Regular Army was quite jealous of it's flag ranks, which resulted in Regular rank vs. Volunteer rank, and Regular brevet vs. Volunteer brevet. Custer, for example, held four ranks simultaneously at one point. |
enfant perdus | 28 Jan 2016 1:30 p.m. PST |
Rod, Point well taken! I was focusing on those commanding Hanoverian and KGL brigades (cavalry included) and not even thinking about those others. |
Supercilius Maximus | 31 Jan 2016 6:32 a.m. PST |
The US Army during the ACW does provide an interesting comparison to the British Army. I'm sure someone like Brechtel could confirm/deny this, but I seem to recall that the US Army was very firmly based on the French service at this stage (and had been for some time before this). The French used Generals de Brigade or Colonels of one of the two regiments to command these formations, which seems to me to be the same as in the American service. Further to Jemima Fawr's comment about "brevet" rank, this is actually a way of promoting deserving officers and applied in peacetime, as well. It mean the officer concerned had "army" rank, as well as "regimental" rank (the latter being strictly by seniority within the regiment). There was also "local" rank, in which an officer received a promotion that only applied to that particular theatre of operations; once he left – for whatever reason – his higher rank either disappeared or was confirmed as applicable everywhere (this happened a lot in the AWI, for example, where there was a distinct shortage of general officers). |
|