"English equivalents of French Ranks" Topic
12 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 remember that some of our members are children, and act appropriately.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestNapoleonic
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile Article
|
Paul Demet | 18 Feb 2020 9:11 p.m. PST |
The decree of the National Convention dated 21 February 1793, which abolished the senior ranks of the old Royal army, stated that ‘in future those who perform the functions of lieutenant-colonel in the infantry will be called chefs de bataillons and in the cavalry chefs d'escadrons' (my translation), yet English language authors generally translate these two ranks as major rather than lieutenant colonel (eg Elting, Swords, p.676). Can anyone explain why? |
Artilleryman | 19 Feb 2020 7:13 a.m. PST |
I think that is just a matter of trying to give a simple equivalent for English language readers to estimate the position of the rank in the hierarchy. |
Paul Demet | 19 Feb 2020 7:28 a.m. PST |
Yes I'm sure you are right. My concern is that the old rank was lieutenant-colonel, which has been translated as major. At this time a (one-battalion) British infantry regiment would be commanded by a lieutenant colonel if available |
Artilleryman | 19 Feb 2020 8:51 a.m. PST |
Indeed, the effective British battalion commander would be a lt col with two majors i.e they were subordinates with one being second in command while each, supposedly, coordinated one of the battalion wings. There was a major in the French hierarchy but he was second to the colonel or regimental commander. Under them each battalion was then commanded by a chef de bataillon. Therefore, the latter was equivalent to a lt col (which the French did not have) not a major. Here is a good illustration of the difference between the British and continental systems. Whereas the former deployed their battalions individually while the latter deployed them altogether as a multi-battalion unit under the colonel (usually). There really is not a direct equivalence so authors tend to make approximations for the general readership. |
Paul Demet | 19 Feb 2020 10:19 a.m. PST |
Thanks for your helpful comments.I think the different models of battalion deployment is a key issue – the decree of the Convention referred to above also created the demi-brigades, each combining one line with two volunteer battalions, although implementation took some time. I agree completely with your final sentence. |
Stoppage | 20 Feb 2020 4:38 p.m. PST |
|
Robert le Diable | 20 Feb 2020 8:36 p.m. PST |
Well, you learn something every day (have just looked the term up on "Google"). The information on the resurrected thread was most useful, too. |
McLaddie | 20 Feb 2020 9:11 p.m. PST |
Indeed, the effective British battalion commander would be a lt col with two majors i.e they were subordinates with one being second in command while each, supposedly Full colonels where the commanders of the regiment, whether one battalion or more. When you say 'effective battalion commander, that simply means the commander on the ground because often the colonels were still in England, or serving in some other capacity. In the French army, the colonel of the regiment had 1 major under him, and under the major were one chefs de bataillon for each battalion. So, in some respects, the Major in the French army was more on a par with with a Lt. Colonel in the British army than a chefs de bataillon. The problem of trying to create equivalents… Which the link above takes you to the same explanations… |
Paul Demet | 21 Feb 2020 12:21 a.m. PST |
Thanks everyone – the old thread was well worth resurrecting. Although the replies mainly refer to the later period (I am especially interested in the period 1792-1800) it is clear that, as so often, what happened on the ground often differed from the regulations. On balance, it looks like a chef de bataillon/d'escadrons in the Revolutionary Wars was closer to a British major than a lieutenant colonel, but not an exact equivalent – have I got that right? |
Artilleryman | 21 Feb 2020 2:42 a.m. PST |
Yes and no. As Mcladdie said, a British regiment was commanded by a colonel but he was usually an honourary post. Beneath him were the lieutenant colonels (the clue is in the name) who actually commanded the constituent battalions on a day to day basis and in the field. The key thing is that even if more than one battalion of a regiment were deployed on the same campaign, the lieutenant colonels still had their individual commands with the next command level upward being the brigade commander (who could be a colonel!). In France the battalions of the regiments (or demi-brigades)would deploy together as a tactical unit so the colonel's command was a more practical application of authority and leadership. So for the infantry… France Regt Comd – Colonel(in the field) Regt Staff- Major Bn Comd – Chef de Bn Bn Staff – Capitaine Adjutant-Major UK Regt Comd – Colonel (not in the field) Regt Staff – No equivalent Bn Comd – Lieutenant Colonel Bn Staff- Major Thus you can see that in neither case did majors actually command anything.
In the cavalry, as you might expect, it was a bit different. Again, in the British Army the colonel was more of an honourary position with the lieutenant colonel commanding in the field. Also, the British system was based upon troops with the squadrons forming for campaigns and subsequently being commanded by a mix of majors and captains. So… France Regt Comd – Colonel (in the field) Regt Staff- Major Sqn Comd – Chef d'Escadron UK Regt Comd -Colonel (not in the field), Lieutenant Colonel (in the field) Regt Staff – Major Sqn Comd – Major or captain Again, we come back to the fact that there was no direct equivalence. However, if it is required, then I would say that in the infantry a chef de bataillon is the equivalent to a lieutenant colonel in the British Army. In the cavalry a chef d'Escadron is the equivalent of a major or captain. It is a not a neat solution and others may pick at it but I think it is as close as you are going to get.
Hope that helps…. |
Paul Demet | 21 Feb 2020 3:26 a.m. PST |
Once again thanks – I think that's the best we'll get! |
42flanker | 22 Feb 2020 2:25 p.m. PST |
If I might amplify a point re. British ranks: the Colonelcy of a regiment, be it of Foot or Horse, was not a rank, nor was it intended to have any command function. It was a Royal appointment that might be held by any officer of staff rank, from Colonel up to full General (Officers above the rank of Colonel received no pay, so colonelcies were awarded to provide a supplementary remuneration by managing a regiment for the Crown's service as a sort of franchise.) All of which is to say that in a British regiment the Colonel need not be, and frequently was not, a Colonel. |
|