I am currently reading, Sharpe’s Tiger by Bernard Cornwell, a novel set in the late 1700’s during a British campaign in India. The novel mentions “purchasing commissions”. In one part, an ensign is unable to be promoted because he doesn’t have the money to buy a promotion to Lieutenant.
Is this factual? My guess is it was designed to keep the lower classes from being officers. How long was this standard practice? Was it used for all branches of the military? Were people without enough money ever able to be promoted (was valour on the battlefield enough)? Could someone without any military experience buy a high rank, or did they have to start at the bottom and work their way up?
I’m not an expert by any means, but certainly all sorts of ranks and positions used to be for sale.
I’m sure we English used to have ‘Rotten Boroughs’, which meant you could become a member of Parliament just by spending money. (Nowadays, you can’t buy an election of course :rolleyes: ).
Monarchs certainly used to slip people honours for financial assistance.
And rich fathers bought their sons positions in the army and navy…
I expect the Sharpe books are great (I’ve only seen the TV series!). I strongly recommend:
C. S. Forester - the ‘Hornblower’ series.
(example ‘Hornblower and the Hotspur’ Penguin Books ISBN 0 14 00.2901 X)
These are the adventures of a gallant seafarer. His 5 year mission… (sorry, wrong series). Actually the books are based on a real-life character who rose thru the ranks to Admiral of the British fleet in the 1800’s. They are incredibly atmospheric and enjoyable.
G. MacDonald Fraser - the Flashman series.
(example ‘Flashman and the Mountain of Light’ Fontana ISBN 0-00-617980-0)
This is a fictional continuation using a villain of a rather boring book ‘Tom Brown’s Schooldays’. They are comedy adventures, extremely well researched and describe Flashman (a bully and a coward!) getting accidentally involved in almost all the major incidents of the century (the charge of the Light Brigade, the battle of the Little Bighorn etc.).
The last I heard of Sharpe was with Napolean in exile…Cornwell said he went to France and lived happily ever after…is this a prequil in the 1700’s?
Hornblower and Flashman are cool.
Yes, in that era, most British army commissions needed to be
purchased. It wasn’t the same in the Navy, although family connections and political influence were helpful in getting promotions.
If I recall this correctly from a biography I’m reading about Charles Gordon, commissions were bought by qualified young men (not just anyone, as are Kentucky colonelcies) in the British Army until approx. 1877. This was because unike the Royal Navy (where commissions were earned after lengthy duty as midshipmen and even longer waits on the seniority list) the army didn’t grant pensions. It was much like stockbrokers who sell their seats on the Exchange to feather their retirement nests.
The British Navy (among officers anyway) ran mostly on ‘interest’, i.e. patronage, but with examinations and seniority along the way. Officially, there was no money involved, though a bribe or two probably showed up sometimes.
I suppose part of the reason is that ships represented a huge capital cost, and were considered Britain’s main defense. (I’ve seen an estimate that a 74-gun ship of the line cost proportionally about the same as another Space Shuttle.) The army, on the other hand, was relatively cheap - sweep up the poor or get the courts to offer criminals the choice, and hand them a musket. Most of the powerful people of the day didn’t much care if the lower classes got killed, so competent leadership wasn’t too important.
In a lot of ways, as well, it was a matter of status. That is, officers in the army were expected to be of a certain social station, and by requiring money to be paid in order to ensure a promotion, one could ensure that ruffians didn’t rise up into the ranks of generalcy and marshallcy just through seniority. Or, at least, that was one of the reasons I was told by a friend of mine who was very knowledgable about the British military of the Victorian era.
So the guys who kicked butt at Rorke’s Drift (sp)? would have purchased their commissions? As well as they guys at Iswalda who wrapped themselves in the flag and blew their brains out with their last round.
It’s important to note that the real leadership in the blackpowder-era British Army (and, whilst many legitimate criticisms can be levelled against it, it should be remembered that it was better trained than many contemporary Continental armies) was provided by its NCOs. As far as the lower grade of commissioned officers went, the most important qualification was thought to be a willingness to get out in front and die gloriously for King and Country.
IIRC, there were only 2 commissioned officers (other than the doctor) at Rorke’s Drift. Both were Lieutenants, one of whom was an engineering officer. I doubt engineering officers ever had to purchase commissions. Also, I think Rorke’s Drift was after the era of purchased commissions.
I cannot beleive after 2000 plus posts that I can actually contribute something deep and meaningful to someone’s question.
Dear Goddesses, I am answering a question.
(Ahem) From *What Jane Austen Ate and Charles Dickens Knew: From fox hunting to whist - the fact of daily list in 19th century England *
“In the 1800’s the army was builty around the regiment, a unit norminally commanded by a colonel, in reality usually by a Lieutenant colonel. In the case of the infantry, a regiment usually consisted of 750 men, divided into eight to ten companies of 60-100 men each. These were in turn each commanded by a captian who was assisted by a commissioned officer like a lieutenant and by an ensign, as well as by a “ranker”, or noncommissioned officer, like a sergeant. In battle several regiments might be slapped together to form a brigade. Thus the " Charge of the Light Brigade” was compsed of the 8th Light Dragoons, the 11th Hussars, the 13th light dragoon and the 17th Lancers. Units, such as brigades were never more than temporary forms of organizations, however, for the spirit of the British Army, perhaps uniquely among European armies, lay always in its regiments.
Partly this was owing to the system of officers having to purchase their commissions. a practice that was not abolished until 1871.
Commissions were not cheap either: in 1821 it cost 1,200 pounds or more to buy a commission in the Household Foot Guards or Calvary. 800 Pounds for a regular calvary post and 450-500 for infantry. (Artillery and engineer ranks were not for sale) This of course meant that the army was characteristically officered by the well-to-do - especially, perhaps, the younger sons, who would not inherit the family estates."
I really got into the tv series, it’s a great boys yarn, well done (considering the limited budget and, Shirley, you might appreciate the talents of Sean Bean
My knowledge of the period is pretty informal but just to add a couple of things.
One of the main distinctions between the Navy and Army of the 18th and 19th centuries was that the Navy was approaching a true meritocracy. The tradition of the Navy during the time of the 17th century Elizabethan Privateers (Drake, Henry Morgan, William Kidd, etc.) was for Captains to offer shares of future captured bounty (the ships themselves and the cargo) to potential crews. It was, therefore, in everyone’s interests that the most able should be recognised. That tradition of meritocracy was maintained through to Nelson and explains why the Navy won the day so often against the more class orientated French and Spanish navies. Drakes routing of the Spanish Armada and both the Nile and Trafalgar (Nelson) are prime example of better seamanship and innovative tactics overcoming weighty opposition.
Originally, success on the high seas necessarily allowed individuals to accumulated the wealth to socialise, dress and live in the appropriate manner i.e. far beyond the means of someone living solely on military pay. And, of course, Naval socialising was different in character to that of the Army because either the ship was at sea (in which case social costs were minimal) or the crew was at home.
Life for the serving Army ranks didn’t have quite the same degree of financial opportunity yet the social costs were much greater. Perhaps this explains why the ups and downs of Sharpe’s personal wealth are addressed more frequently than one might otherwise expect. The serendipitous manner in which Cornwell allows Sharpe to accumulate a degree of wealth as he rises through the ranks is, at best, unusual.
Also, the almost exclusively public school nature of the Army’s officer corp meant that ‘Honour’, ‘Duty’ and loyalty to ‘The Regiment’ were really just extensions of relationships and ‘breeding’ established on playing fields and in classromms. The Naval tradition was considerably different.
Of course, Sharpe stold a great deal of that wealth in “Sharpes’s Gold”.
Lord Cochrane was in debt and into it for the prize money; a larger ship would not fire first at a sloop, and he took advantage of that. Cool.
Was it Admiral Byng that the French spoke of “The English occasionally shoot an Admiral to encourage the others.”?
Forgive me, London if I am mistaken.
carnivorousplant - Byng was certainly an interesting case. He was effectively court marshalled and executed for sheer incompetence (what he actually did was hardly Treason or Cowardice) and, under the law of the period, that was the appropriate sentence.
I could be wrong but I think Byng’s fate was pretty much the exception to the general rule and even in its day, I believe the sentence was seen by many as rather harsh. I don’t know how he came to hold such a high rank but I’ve always assumed there was more to his story than met the eye.
However, letting the French get the upper hand was never acceptable and he may have paid the price for committing an unforgivable sin. He was certainly made an example of. The whole business was very unfortunate.