"just a job?" Topic

being a general , or an officer

One that could get you shot or imprisoned.

But really, it's more than that. It's a way of life. The military makes a lot of off-hours demands that even the most demanding civilian employer would be hesitant to require. You're expected to set an example, all the time, whether you feel like it or not. You're expected to participate, cheerfully, in activities that aren't meant for your enjoyment. There are a lot of requirements that aren't in the job description, but can make you or break you. And every so often, through the haze of fatigue and irritation, you get a brief little fleeting glimpse of what it's all about.

I don't know why, but for some reason, I found the scene in "Chernobyl," where the general speaks to the conscript liquidators about the work they are about to do, and have completed, to be strangely moving. It explains what militaries ask of people, and how they ask it, and why, although it's a job, it's not just another job.

It's not a job, it's a career.

Lifestyle as well.

Good Officers are an example of what a country aspires to.

Pretty much what the others have said.

Eric

How different was it in the Napoleonic period? Many British officers, because of purchase, could advance without giving much thought to their trade, or their men. Professional officers without means advanced much more slowly.
Other armies may have managed better.

In Prussia it was a way of life, or even the bed rock of society, along with bureaucracy. A method of surviving when surrounded by more powerful nations.

I sometimes think too much is made of purchase. There's a sense in which it's just the posting of bond, money to be held in the treasury for the eventuality of an officer's retirement, and forfeit if he behaves badly. It wasn't as if every British officer was a wastrel aristocrat: they were in a sense paying money for the privilege of serving their country.

Years after I had left the Army, I googled someone I had previously known, and got a shock: he turned up, in a photograph taken after I had left, among men I had known. One of those men, it turned out, had later received a posthumous Medal of Honor for actions in Afghanistan.

Looking at the picture, and with more than a decade gone by, I couldn't place the man in my memory, although I am positive I knew him. There were so many people in a battalion, and you see and talk to many of them over a four year period, that you think, was it this guy, or that one?

And then you realize, it could have been so many of them. It could have been almost any of them, because it was that kind of place, and they were that type of man.

That's why it's not just a job.

I sometimes think too much is made of purchase. There's a sense in which it's just the posting of bond, money to be held in the treasury for the eventuality of an officer's retirement, and forfeit if he behaves badly. It wasn't as if every British officer was a wastrel aristocrat: they were in a sense paying money for the privilege of serving their country.

Who makes too much of this? Although there were incidences of aristocratic officers (sometimes under or overage for command) not being involved with their rank or regiment, the purchase system wasn't too ineffective. I mean it was neither meritocratic nor democratic but the entire army was sort of a possession of the King and thus purchasing fits in with the structure.

In any case, irrespective of the purchase system, the British army of the 19th century seemed to produce a lot of good amateur officers because they were from the same class and didn't want to let each other down.

What's wrong with being a wastrel aristocrat?

maybe quit this " job" ? and going home to the farm or what ever

Depends a bit on where you were from

As noted, for the Prussian minor aristocracy it was a way of life – notably as many of the Prussian minor aristocrats were dirt poor

For the Brits it was a mixture of things but honour and duty were high up there

For the French it was a career – and one many of them excelled at

Quite variable for the Austrians – they had a mixture from across a very diverse empire

For the Russians it was a great place for a foreigner to make a living!

For the Brits (and probably others too), the Army was a place to park younger sons who (all going well) weren't going to inherit. The same applied to the Navy and the Church. The middle class also appeared to see the Army and Navy as offering some prospect of upward social mobility.