Hi guys. Thanks for watching. This is a deep and fascinating subject. Can I please tho ask people to watch the film before commenting - it makes life much easier. There are so many ‘but what about’ comments all of which are reflected in the film…also yes I do sometimes confuse bought and brought - I’ve done it my whole life but I’m sure in the context you know what I mean. I know my English is bad but if that’s all some people take away from the film then it’s a real shame.
Fascinating video on a subject rarely covered thank you. Your English is good in my opinion. I myself also mixed up bought and brought until I learnt 'buy" and 'bring' that helps me remember!
The example of Malcolm Offord is a modern day example of exactly that. A Lord for life for one thing and one thing only £147,000 donated to the Tories. The establishment knows how to look after itself.
One thing that seems to be forgotten is that buying commissions was like buying an investment. If you and your troops performed consistently well then the price you could ask for your commission would rise. If you,and they, performed badly then your commission would lose value.
Not all officers purchased their ranks even in infantry regiments. My three time great grandfather joined the Army in 1795 as a fifteen year old 'Gentleman Ranker' and went with his officer uncle to the West Indies where he trained alongside the troops until he proved himself. Only then was he offered a Commission free of charge at age 16 as an Ensign. By his actions he was soon promoted step by step and by 1815 to the rank of Lt Colonel of the Royal Africa Corp. This was all achieved without purchase. Anyone interested in Army life in the 18th and 19th century might be interested in my book: "The Readeption of Colonel Brereton" available from all the usual sources. This details his very eventful and colourful life in great detail which all ended in tragedy.
I joined the RAF in 1964 as a lowly airman. Received a distinguished pass in my final air traffic control exam. Was told by the CO I should apply to Cranwell for Officer class. There was no way you could afford it coming from a working class family that my parents could subsidise my salary as a pilot officer for two years, plus buying mess kit, better quality uniform, mess bills,etc. You had to come from an affluent or privileged background to be an officer, even in the 60’s! I finally ended up in civvy street as a vice president and division manager with AON in Canada,an international corporation when I retired. Even if you were smart back then it was difficult to beat the class system in the UK. Non existent in Canada.
@@nikola12nis I have puzzled over this many times, because as a LCPL I was offered the chance to try for a commission, but if I had, I,m sure my life would have been completely different.....having stayed a JNCO and leaving after 15 years to start my own business....I managed to accumulate enough wealth to retire from most forms of work😜 at the age of 49....doesn't get any better than that?? as an Officer maybe I would have been working to 65...???
@@Pinzpilot101 Sounds good man. I'm also on a crossroads of sorts. If i finish my engineering degree, I'll have a good life, that's for sure. Problem is, I don't just want a good life, I want an epic one. I know I can make it in any field I go into, the problem is will I feel sort of emptiness if I ditch that stupid piece of paper down the road.
The toast for promotion in the Royal Navy was, "To hot wars and sickly seasons." The RN also paid 'head' and 'prize' money for enemy ships destroyed or taken.
Hot wars led to quick promotions in the modern era, also. WW2 had enormously expanded armed forces and the US Army Air Force, for one, had high casualty rates among the officers since so many were pilots. The commander of a squadron, the "Old Man", could easily be under 25.
@@stevekohl5351 Education for the masses did not occur until the late 19th century, so clearly the wealthy had a straight advantage. Even now in some regiments money talks as mess fees etc. form a barrier. For officers in REME they were exempt from mess fees while attached to a regiment. No doubt minorities/women have similar exemptions and lower education standards to ensure they can scale up the ranks!
One example of the purchase system not working is the New South Wales Corp, or as Australians refer to it the Rump Corp. As it meant being sent to the other side of the world for an unknown amount of time there was little interest in being part of this unit so it attracted the least desirable English gentlemen. Upon arrival they made full use of their ability to commandeer convict labor and control the currency (rum) by prohibiting it's manufacture by anyone else. when the governor (Bligh) tried to stop them they arrested him, sent him back to England and took complete control of the colony. This lasted until a new governor arrived with his own troops and deported the Rum corp. I don't know if they were cashiered for their crimes or hung.
As an Australian this episode is little understood by us. The NSW Corps officers were grifters, it was legal organised crime. But today, Sydney streets are named after them, and one, John Macarthur, is an honoured man whose face appeared on our currency. Like the mafia, they were 'business men' whose activities were illegal, legal, and in a grey area... and as they had opportunistic tendencies they were instrumental in developing the colony. Many stayed around after Macquarie arrived and brought proper governance.
You couldn't purchase anything higher than an ensign if you didn't have a commission for the rank under it. You couldn't buy a captains commission if you are not a lieutenant. Also, anyone with higher seniority has a priority, and the prices are fixed .
Thank you for this illuminating and informative video. My father was a Captain in the British Army and he did what few manage to do, in that he went from being a Corporal to becoming a Second Lieutenant after passing an Officer course at Aldershot.
I went from junior seaman to Sub Lieutenant, my father from Artificer apprentice to Lieutenant and my brother, well he cheated. Joined directly as a Midshipman and made Lt. Commander. His son commissioned directly and made Major RM in his early 30s if not younger. I know he was the youngest to get his majority.
One aspect I think many don't consider is that the system ensured that officers were educated. Far from everyone could read and write in those times and even fewer received schooling in mathematics, foreign languages and more. The youngsters may not have had academy level education, but most boys from the upper class had to varying degrees been taught how to run a household, staffing, finances and so on. Which made up a large part of what an officer had to work with - administration. Yes, there were the infamous examples, but they didn't stop with the end of the purchase system. Incompetent officers would be abundant in the 20th Century in most nations' armies, simply because they were promoted beyond their abilities. So the purchase system ensured in general a high level of schooling that prepared the young officers for what 95% of army officer life was about and it didn't bring about, nor end the incompetency. You can say it prevented some nitwits from ever attaining command while others found the highway to it. After the purchase system was abolished, the highway was closed, but nitwits would still find other ways into positions of command. About the language abilities, I think we tend to overlook that due to Britain's foreign policy of maintaining two equal powers/factions on mainland Europe would give Britain peace to pursue the colonies and trade, Britain almost always went to war when one side got too big (usually France), joining a coalition. This meant the very small British army would be part of a multinational force, many times being the "junior" partner. Having an officer corps that in general spoke several languages made implementation into larger continental armies much more smooth and effective than it could have been.
Also prussian officers were educated nobles. Still they needed to go to a officers college to learn how to administer and lead a platoon, company, batallion, regiment.
It may form the bulk of responsibility in peace time, but war time is another matter. That sort of experience might be useful at the staff officer level (ie knowledge of logistics) but at the junior officer level not having a grasp of tactics (as opposed to strategy) is a disaster waiting to happen, unless you have an experienced NCO by your side
The Duke of Cambridge ,the Victorian one not the present one, being head of the army remarked when asked about a meritocratic introduction in selecting officers 'Brains! It's breeding that counts " An attitude still prevalent in the UK today in many aspects of life.Still striving for 'Worth not birth"
During the American Civil War it was very common for totally inept people to buy their rank. In some cases they even supplied the troops out of their own pockets
Not to mention those who fenagled their way into commands from the political arena. As I recall, even the Speaker of the House of Delegates in Virginia wound up being at least a Brigadier???
No it was not. There are a very limited number of cases in the south where rich men did both recruit and equip a unit. (Wade Hampton III is the obvious example as one of the richest men in the south) but it was vary rare. This was not Europe in the 17th century. The way regiments was raised was normally that a local important man would be given the responsibility (by the state so the governor) for raising a regiment. He would then find a dozen or so other men to help him. And they would all be recruiting the men by giving speeches and going around their local community and asking men to volunteer. And yes usually the men who did this, did end up as the officer, but they did NOT equip them, arm them or pay them as was common in the 17 and 18th century.* At the very start of the war this was done by the states (in the south sometimes also locally with things like uniforms) But quickly it was entirely taken over by the Federal government in the north. In the south it took to early 1862 until the confederate government took over the responsibility. So no, you could not just buy your way to command during the American civil war... But being a well known man, who knew how to make speeches and get men to volunteer was a way to get to colonel... (*and then yes, there are a few examples of units buying their own firearm like Henry repeaters from locally raised money, bank loans or similar. But we are talking a very limited number, in a very large war)
Having served in the British Army for 7 years as an officer, I can honestly say that the sheer number of commissioned officers that were promoted despite their glaring incompetencies just baffled me. I actually think that buying commissions would be a better alternative than the current methods of diversity hiring, sideways promotion to cover for previous mistakes, and flagrant nepotism that STILL goes on in there. At least in the old system everybody knew WHY people held their ranks... I've seen people promoted to positions just because of their race or gender, what school they went to, or even because they were terrible in their current roles and mid-brass thought that a promotion might be the kick-up-the-arse that they needed. It's all a complete joke.
I joined in 1971 when the army was much bigger, albeit with more commitments and your description does not match any of the officers I knew and served with, they were all very competent with one exception, which I will not go into in print, they were all well-trained and competent, a competence that was honed by exercises in West Germany where I was stationed plus active service. Added to that were numerous courses for all ranks, even being promoted to Lance Corporal then meant you had to be competent as a soldier and pass the Junior NCO's course. The W.R.A.C, Women's Royal Army Corps was a separate service and homosexual acts were forbidden by Queen's Rules and Regulations, in fact, you could not join the army then if you were homosexual and anybody found to be homosexual or indulging in such acts were either Courts Marshalled and dishonourably discharged with loss of rank and pension or were offered the option of resignation and in my years of service, this only happened twice that I know of. Don't get me wrong, I know that gay men did serve before I joined, some of them very famous and some in my day either were not suspected or caught, but I state only the rules as they were when I joined and the penalties. As for women serving in integrated regiments, it's not something I have any experience of, but women did serve in anti-aircraft regiments in the second world war as well as flying all manner of planes in the Air Transport Auxiliary, served in the front lines as nurses in both wars, drove ambulances and pretty much kept the UK going in both wars by filling the roles of men who were serving in our armed forces and often coping alone with children on top of that and the women who served with the S.O.E were the bravest of the brave, many being tortured and murdered by the Nazis, so I certainly believe that women are equal to men in every way.
@@seandobson499 Ha ha interesting take...I joined in 72 and officers for the most part were competent the odd one or two were brilliant including a few who had come up through the ranks. (I was in Signals). WRAC....yes we knew that a good percentage of them were lesbians, but they kept it hidden and their officers were sympathetic because some of them were also that way. (or both ways from personal experience) Even my ex told me she had a 6 month affair with her SNCO (female) they used to go to hotels far away from the camp.
Very interesting. I never understood how the purchase system could lead to enough competent officers to keep the British army fighting and winning. Love the Sharpe intro.
I think it was because the people buying commisions were from the 'officer class' they had been to public schools that knew they were training 'gentlemen' mainly for the armed forces..... so there was a reasonably deep pool of talent. AND if most officers bought their commissions then the system doesn't select for incompetence. If only incompetent officers needed to buy commissions then it would have been a very destructive system.
@@occamraiser To make it work, you need knowledge, and there was next to no education system among the working class. That's just the starting point, you need to know how to use it, next. And have the nouse to get the timing right.
Although the purchase has been abolished, the recommendation of senior officer for promotion still remains in most of the commonwealth nation. And to the surprise, the recommendation letter from a senior officer is seen as more valuable to a foot soldier than a govt issued promotion. My grandfather was in british indian army and fought ahainst japanese. He got a field recommendation from a british officer. It landed him a raise and a retirement job in bank after the war. The govt would have given him peanuts.
The majority of the world works like that. I've seen people get jobs purely because they go to the same church as the hiring manager. Hired on looks. Or quota. Often ability isn't the deciding factor.
Lots of top bankers get there based on connections from university and not because of the degree the university gave them. Lots of bankers are under qualified but hold plushy jobs.
@@UkSapyy Biggest factor is Class even today. Getting into prestigious elite schools is required to become anything special without building it yourself. The system is desinged by the rich, to keep thier families rich.
Not all officers purchased their ranks even in infantry regiments. My three time great grandfather joined the Army in 1795 as a fifteen year old 'Gentleman Ranker' after going with his officer uncle to the West Indies where he trained alongside the troops until he proved himself. Only then was he offered a Commission free of charge at age 16 as an Ensign. By his actions he was soon promoted step by step and by 1815 to the rank of Lt Colonel of the Royal Africa Corp. This was all achieved without purchase. Anyone interested in Army life in the 18th and 19th century might be interested in my book: "The Readeption of Colonel Brereton" Its gives a detailed account of his rise through the ranks during a colourful time in British history but which ultimately led to his tragic death in 1831 after the Bristol Reform riots. Available from all the usual sources even online.
One thing I have noticed is that monetary wealth is considered a sign of not only competence and intelligence but also as a barometer for character. ?????
You couldn't just buy an LTC rank, it would take years and years of service, scheming and waiting before it could be bought, with plenty of occasions to die from bullets or sickness
@@Bobblenob Do you have examples of said landowners who raised a regiment and bought straight out a lieutenant-colonelcy? Of course you don't, because it wasn't possible within the system.
No wonder why so many of the Commissioned Officer's in Sharpe didn't want to fight. If I die and my family loses all the money I paid up front I wouldn't want to fight either.
Also these videos are amazing are very much appreciated. And this may be a another video I just haven't seen yet, but why would anyone want to be a commissioned officer if this was the risk they were taking? The job is brutal and dangerous. You're potentially leading untrustworthy criminals. And your paying for everything yourself. Sure you might get the money back when you retire but there must have been other ways for a respectable man to make money. So why be an officer? @@redcoathistory
Please don’t quote Sharpe. It’s FICTION, for heaven’s sake! 1. Peacetime soldiers having the wrong attitude for combat has been a phenomenon in every war. 2. Anyone trying to argue that there was something fundamentally wrong with the British Army’s organisation, has to explain their consistent success against the French.
It was very common practice in many armies. During the outbreak of the US Civil War, although a man could not "buy" a commission, to be considered for one, the man must have personally recruited 100 men, purchased his own horse and purchased his own uniform. In reality most men from working backgrounds could not do this.
Two things to point out about the seeming anachronism of the British system. Firstly, that the British were very wary of Civil War and having a professional military that could take over power. The separation of powers and the protections of civil government that we take for granted were still in the process of development. Therefore it made sense for the military establishment to be closely linked to the political establishment… taking most of your officers from the wealthier classes meant that the average officer had relatives in Parliament and in the senior ranks of the Civil Service. Stability and a commitment to the status-quo is probably more important to people who had faced the threat of invasion for centuries, the threat of internal repression by a religious minority (Mary and James 2) some bloody civil wars and a grandstand view of the chaos the succeeded the French Revolution. Secondly… anyone criticising the system needs to explain the success of the British army against the supposedly more “professional” French
One or two battles in coalition hardly makes your last point a haymaker, good sir. Of course, the triangle of king, parliament and army had been a work in progress since Cromwell at least. Your wider point is extremely impirtant: the fact the'army HAD to be loyal to the ruling elite was (is?) little spoken of, as is the very nature of class power.
@@lllordllloyd Sorry, but that “one or two battles”, was actually a long string of victories over multiple years in the Peninsular, followed by the culminating battle of the Napoleonic Wars. During which, the British army produced the finest infantry in Europe. Secondly, the dynamic between monarch and the various classes of the population - which led to the Parliamentary system, can be traced back to the Saxon-Dane era. The King’s power depended on his ability to persuade the population to turn out in his support. The history of England is replete with complaints about the King “not living within his means”, whether it was paying for his lifestyle or his wars. Parliament developed due to the need of Kings to have a support-base outside of the powerful Barons.
@@peterwebb8732 I'd suggest it's a bit like the claims fir Patton being brilliant: yes, he was very goid, but just how good we can't know because he never faced an equal foe. The French in Spain were hardly the French army of Austerlitz or Jena. That's nobody's fault, but it makes it hard to say the final result (Allied victory) is irrefutable proof the British officer system was good/excellent/the best available/better than that of other nations. (You certainly prove it had certain advantages and wasn't as bad as we might suppose). 'Learning Curve theorists' refers to Great War history, the term is probably most assiciated with Gary Sheffield and the term is referred to by other historians, eg Prior and Wilson, Spencer Jones, Peter Hart... whether agreeing, disagreeing or agreeing with nuance. The genesis of the idea is that in the 1960s there was a consensus Britain's 1914-18 high command was incompetent, callous and rigid. In the 1990s, Sheffield offered the idea that much of the criticism was wrong or exaggerated (true), and therefore Haig, Gough, Haking, Pulteney etc were very excellent commanders who went through a 'learning curve' ending as masters of the battlefield. There is no formal 'Learning Curve' group, but aside from Sheffield it might include William Philpott, Gary Mead, Gordon Corrigan, Michael Senior. Despite my quibbles, great video and very illuminating.
@@lllordllloyd I certainly won’t claim that the British system at that time was ideal. We have enough examples from Wellington’s own dispatches, to show that there were some duds in important positions, appointed or promoted for the wrong reasons. Nor will I claim that the effectiveness of the British forces in the Peninsular were because the British purchase system was superior. I think that there were a number of factors. What I will argue, is that the British would not have been as effective, if the system of Officer appointment and selection was a complete mess. Leadership and organisation are significant factors in any army. An example of a low-quality system of officer-selection would have to be that prevailing in the Spanish forces of the time. Reading a major history such as Oman, I am struck by how many times the Spaniards mustered forces only to be defeated due to poor leadership, poor training and poor Generalship. Neither British or French suffered from that problem, or to the same degree. It’s a very different topic, but I’d suggest that the French forces in Spain were handicapped by the nature of the country. They never did seem to learn - at the highest level - how difficult the transport and logistics issue was. Bony apparently expected his armies to live off the land to some extent, and there was far too little for great armies to scavenge.
@@redcoathistory If you'd like a perfect example of the arrogant young 2Lt (in the RM in this case) see Michael Cochrane's character in the first two episodes of the second season of Warship in 1974. Not purchased - certainly entitled - but also, and that's that dramatic point, obligated.
Do you mean House of Lords? Because Parliament is comprised of elected politicians. They might still be twats, but we elect them, they don't purchase their positions.
I read somewhere (can’t remember where) that artillery and engineer officers were more likely to have general rank because they were less likely to get killed, and the point made about education and maybe therefore professional. Not sure if that’s actually true. As you point out some very able generals had paid their way.
It was NEVER possible to buy a commission in the Royal Engineers, given the depth of education and expertise required to competently advise commanders and devise and supervise works. UBIQUE
Just anybody appearing , saying he wanted a commission with a certain regiment was never the case. Nor was it ever the case that the commission was priced at whatever could be charged. First there had to be an opening. Second, the regiment had to think the applicant would acquit himself well in war and peace. Third, commissions could be bought only up to Lt Col. Fourth, offering to buy a higher commission did not assure getting one. Fifth, the price went up with the commissioned rank. Sixth, the sum paid in was considered a retirement and would be returned when the man left. It was not returned if he got cashiered. On the whole, the system made some rough sense only it had key flaws. Usually, it worked well enough. At times it still let brilliant officers advance up to Lt Col.
A friend of mine left the Paras, and was considering joining a cavalry regiment. During the interview, they were told that they needed a private income of around £20K to maintain their rank in an appropriate manner. Also, you keep saying "brought" instead of "bought", they are NOT the same thing.
A case in point I applied to be an officer in the Irish Guards, followed by the Royal Irish Regiment and finally the Refile Regiment, but there was no way I could apply for a second Lieutenant in the Guards as I wouldn't to be able to afford the costs of various requirements. This was in 1973.
Don't feel so bad about, I joined the Royal Artillery in 1971 and, to be honest, with the mess fees, fees for other activities, extra fees for dining -in et al., junior officers then really needed some family money behind them. That said, we did have officers that had come up through the ranks, and they knew every trick in the book, so nobody ever tried to play the old soldier with them. Purely as a matter of interest, The Royal Irish Rangers were one of the regiments in our garrison in Dortmund, along with the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, the Royal Anglian Regiment,22 Light Air Defence Regiment, Royal Artillery and a few bits and bobs. The only regret I have is how fast time has passed, it only seems like a short while since I was at Woolwich doing basic training.
Don't forget that companies of men (essentially mercenaries) were purchased very early in our history to support the monarch, lords, etc. Hence the infantry term Company!
I basically feel on the purchase of commissions system if when it works, it works great (like the Napoleonic works and the Duke of Wellington) but when it doesn't, it's an abysmal failure (like the Crimean War).
Thanks for another great episode. Really interesting topic. Especially since meritocracy was not really the driving force behind removing the purchase system. Tshirts look really cool too. I'll be buying one asap.😉
Fascinating subject, and one I've not heard a great deal about to be honest. Only the basics. You explained it very well and ran through it pretty quickly. Very interesting to hear how it began in the first place. That actually had a lot of logic to it, I have to say. Loved the "he was a bit of a nutter" summing up of Cardigan 😂 Cheers Christian.
As an American, I truly appreciate your channel. I don’t think most people take the time to look at the perspective of England and its’ military at the time. Seemingly a complex perspective comparative to our schooling, for sure. Thank you. 🙏
Lovely stuff. Interesting that the cost of commissions in the Foot Guards was more than that of the Life Guards, seeing as they were the most senior regiment (and cavalry was a bit posher) Great stuff, and I learned!
Wasn't also an error where the first burn born child was given the family a state when the father died that meant the only options to get ahead would be the army or going to the clergy
"Imagine a Colonel today having that sort of money to hand" Well, always worth remembering that Jim the Bear had only recently inherited the title and estates of his father, the 6th Earl of Cardigan when he bought the Colonelcy of the 11th, which I imagine put him in a better position than most to raise the sum.
I liked this video. It was comprehensive and explanatory, and not judgmental, as I have when people analyze systems that today are considered wrong, but were perfectly normal for their times.
Interesting. I love the channel as a current Military Officer its very interesting to see how the culture of the past was so different. Especially how in the heck did the UK conquer the world without a serious meritocracy; they must have really relied on the junior soldiers and NCO's
Hi thanks for the comment. It is surprising, but interestingly, many great officers did thrive under this system. Also, worth noting that Rank above Lt Colonel couldn't be purchased. NCOs were and are the backbone of the army but they still need good officers above them and strangely, for every fool, there were plenty of dedicated, motivated officers.
It is also important to note that not all regiments bought and sold commissions and in those regiments that did, most came in as Ensigns who were effectively being coached by the NCOs much of the time. The bulk of the army in the 18th and early 19th centuries were in fact the sons of very minor landed gentry (farmers with as little as 5 acres or clergy) and worked their way up from the bottom. The same was true of the Royal Navy where many a midshipman’s first command was little more than a rowing boat and they would have been expected to work with every trade on the ship to learn their craft. Even Nelson would have assisted the cooks, carpenter or surgeon as part of their training.
@@bl7355 Interesting! you see similarities in the USA Army, most officer's if not promoted up from enlisted are from the middle/upper middle class of the USA. And that On The Job (OJT) training is vital for all military careers. Also I was thinking how the buying of commission is not a bad idea, since really after the LT and CPT ranks you are more a politician and your abilities of leadership is more can you manage multiple personalities of the staff and line officers and men. I could see how the well connected "gentlemen" would be very effective in managing people, and understanding complex social dynamics. You have others to lead the charges, you mange the chaos as they say
I learned this by reading the placards in the museum in Concord Mass that the only officer at the Lexington Minutement Encounter who didn't buy his commission was the British officer who ordered his men to stop shooting when the minutemen fled.
Regarding the age of 16 being the limit to able to get into the army with purchase system, I recently read about a certain Thomas Skinner. Apparently he was commissioned into the Ceylon Rifles at the age of 15 in 1819! Granted, perhaps the Ceylon Rifles did fall into the British army but rather one of the presidency armies (not sure on this), but still it seems even more strange that he became army officer at that age seeing that the EIC required their officers to spend around 2 years at least in Addiscombe.
The American civil war was the end of purchase rank. It was different. If you could outfit a unit. Company, battalion, regiment. You were appointed the rank of leadership accorrdingly. Thus early in that war. There were many incompetant officers. Both sides. Those trained rose up quickly. The most expensive was the cavalry as not only a horse for the trooper. But also a quartet of spare horses for each (end of war requirements). Usually kept far in reserve.
I good friend and fellow officer was in the guards in the 80s, his mess fees were almost as much as his army salary then, not much change today as far as I am aware.
Its fascinating how most of the structure of our civilian life originates in the military. For example, this practice is very common in British politics to this day.
"...he rides too well...,knows a lot.He has no heart.It'll be a sad day when England has her Armies officered by men who know too well what they're doing.Smacks of... murder..." 'Lord Raglan' (Sir John Gielgud) 'Charge of the Light Brigade'(1968).Excellent video.Very informative.Many thanks.
Although the purchase system officially ended in the 1870s, many people talked about buying a commission for their sons well into the early 1940s, though published anecdotes don't reveal the details of how this was achieved. Prices of commissions in the early 19th century seem to have been very variable.
I Also Read That Officers Could Also Have A “Staff Rank” Along With Their Regimental Rank. The Staff Rank Was Supposedly Given To An Officer While He Was On The Staff Of A Commanding General Of An Expedition. He Could Hold Rank Of Captain On Army Staff. But, Was Still Only A Lieutenant In His Regiment.
No, it isn't a shocking story at all; it was the normal way for men of ranks other than private to join the Army. I do wish the people who talk about these videos didn't exaggerate so much! A young man who wanted to 'join up' and had a reasonable income would expect to pay to start with a junior officer rank. A man from a comfortably-off family would not expect to start as a Private in the army.
John A. Lynn wrote on thus subject in his book "Battle". Chapter entitled Linear Warefare, he covers the French purchase of command , called "The Semi-entrepreneurial System: Purchase and Maintenance. During the US Civil War, companies and Regiments were raised by men of influence and wealth. Benjamin Butler comes to mind in the. North and Nathan Bedford Forrest in the South.
It's only been pretty recently that confirmed commissions have been done away with (we're talking a few years ago). For those who don't know what that is, it means that before you even start your officer training at Sandhurst, a regiment has already agreed to take you once you commission, so long as you pass officer training. This tends to happen for people who's parents have a history in the regiment and the like. All the other recruits have to interview for their desired regiment, and their performance during training is a big deciding factor as to whether they're accepted or not. Now given that a regiment will only take a certain number of newly commissioned officers in a year, it's not exactly fair. The recruit with the confirmed commission can put in minimal effort, scrape through, and get into the regiment he wants. Then someone who has actually put effort may not be accepted. So yeah, it always has been, and in many ways still is an old boys club.
Not all of the positions were for sale though, artillery commisioned were based on merit. Also in some cases, if you were risen from the ranks (like Pvt. John Elley, later Lt. General Elley) purchasing your rank from captain to major and onwards was the only way to progress to the heights. But in general it was open to corruption.
It made sense back in the day when wealth indicated education. With the introduction of student loans and comprehensive schooling though it makes no sense.
"Shoot the officers, follow the sergeants". My Father who was very proud to have served 7 years in the British Army said, 2 out of 3 officers were useless but the 3rd was excellent. He rose from Private to acting major, confirmed captain, twice mentioned in dispatches. His Father he told me said, one of his two proudest moments was when one of his sons (all 3 served), became an officer. His Father, my grandfather had been pressed into and escaped from the Russian army.
A wonderful family history to be proud of. The quote you open with is interesting...it makes me think of the Indian Mutiny - NCOs are incredibly important but have no experience of command and control on a large scale and that was one of the reasons the mutineers were eventually defeated. Thanks and keep in touch.
the 1914-18 war was the death of this system, as the dramatic increase in army size dictated that the current size of the upper class could NOT supply enough officers, and talented educated "temporary Gentlemen" from the lower classes were made officers
Bromhead, "He brought orders to hold our ground!" Chard, "to hold our ground, what military genius dreamed that one up, somebody's son and aire, got a commission before he learned to shave!" Bromhead, "I rather fancy that he's nobody's son and aire now!"
I believe the Royal Navy was different my grandfather joined as a seaman. And left as a Lt Com engineer in charge of se Asia in Trincamaler in Cylone in the 1950 under Louis Mountbatten who nearly sank his ship coming out the tyne when he took command. ❤
Thank you for your very informative video. A relative in Poland located a marriage record that showed our 3x Great Grandfather Frydrych Bork was a Captain in the Austrian Army. This surprised us, since the family was Prussian/Pomeranian, and Austria and Prussia didn't always get along. Is it true that Prussia did not sell officer commissions?
My great great grand father was granted his majority for heroism in India. Later he sold his commission and retired to South Africa… only to get caught up in the Zulu and Boer wars.
The real reason for the eventual death of purchasing commissions was the 1842 Afghan Campaign led by General Elphinstone who gained his various officer ranks by purchase and led his 5.200 men army to defeat and death by sheer military incompetence and preferment as he was a distantly related to the Royal's and the ineptness of GOC's during the Crimean War of 1854-57 and the Indian Mutiny of 1857 which finally convinced Horseguards/Whitehall that this system was outmoded and needed replacement.
The ingrained class system persists in the British Army though it is fading somewhat. I saw it during my time in the TA. I could have joined as an officer cadet but was happy to join as an infantry private based at my local drill hall. We had a captain, a barrister, who was a good guy but on my basic training I saw officers who were just arrogant arseholes, strutting around with their Jack Russell's at their heels.. I completed my training and was awarded best recruit, beating all the officer cadets. I was asked to apply to the Intelligence Corp (my background in finance and IT appealled to them). I met a panel of not so intelligent jumped up posh guys and declined to join. Their snobby attitude towards me, highly qualified but with a working class accent, was obvious. Later in my civilian career as Finance Director of a major organisation in London I dealt with our investment managers, many of whom were ex Army officers. They were not the brightest and the real work was done, you've guessed it, by bright younger guys with working class accents 😂 P.S. There are videos of the British Army in the 1950's/60's displaying terrible attitudes by officers towards the regular soldiers...and these were intended to show the Army as a good career psth for young men. Even then they couldn't see themselves objectively.
From the perspective of an American retired officer and military history buff it would seem that the purchase system was ludicrous however, if we judge history purely from a modern perspective we fail to truly understand history. I was always curious about the purchase system and now I understand it a little better thanks to this video.
Both purchase and seniority had their drawbacks. It is baffling that a meritocracy was not considered during this era. With pure seniority, you often run into situations where younger, more competent officers and NCOs are passed over in favour of someone less qualified, simply because they've held that rank longer. There are always exceptions, of course, with some who rise up through the ranks despite the system. During the Zulu War, Sir Garnet Wolseley, as a brevetted full General, was two grades higher than Lord Chelmsford, despite being six years younger. Chelmsford's rank of Lieutenant General was a local appointment, effective only while he was in the Cape. Once he left South Africa, he reverted back to Major General.
I’m always skeptical of government efficency - how many regiments could Britain maintain under the purchase system vice what they have today after a further hundred years of “efficiencies”?
When I joined the army in 1971,there were about three hundred and forty odd thousand men in the army alone, and it had a waiting list. Yes we had greater commitments and were still stretched pretty thinly even then and had a lot of old equipment, but there were more postings, more courses, a lot of training exercises,more chances of promotion,a fair but tougher training regime,for example,on inspections during basic training,a lot of kit and bedding was likely to end up on the floor,you could be ordered to raise your fifle above your head and double around the parade ground until ordered to stop or made to march with one,somtimes two sand buckets until ordered to stop and more besides but the section sergeant and junior NCO'S never picked on anyone or were in any way unfair,we pretty much all got it in tern as the training was intended to prepare us for anything we might face as soldiers and to weed out those who could not take it,were not fit enough or just not up to scratch or totally unsuitable for the army and during basic training,you could also ask to leave if you wanted to and the section sergents and nco's would help anybody out they knew was struggling but trying their very best and they knew from expirence who was trying and who was not and who just needed a little more encouragement and I can honestly say that I never knew a single one of them that was a bully.
It still goes on, we had a few terrible officers in 1RRF who were only marking time till they got out and got their money off mummy and daddy, one in example was an officer called Mr Herbert, he was so bad he slung his rifle on his back then spent 2 hours looking for his lost rifle!
And as an old gunner,that makes me very happy,especially when I served a few tours in Northern Ireland from 1972 onwards as a P.B.I.(poor bloody infantry man) just like most soldiers did.
Just because somethings been "Abolished" doesn't mean there still isn't favoritism in the military especially from politicians wanting someone in a position that favors the politicians. I believe we're seeing that now or at least I believe I see it
