Professionalism in the early Victorian army

[TS Allen]

Hello all,

The British Army in the Victorian era had a very unique officer corps, and I'd like to illicit your help in helping me fully understand them.

I'm reading Marcus Cunliffe's excellent book "Soldiers and Civilians," about the regulars (ie the professionals) and the militia and volunteers, and how they effected the American "martial spirit" in the decades prior to the Civil War. Reading the book, one is reminded of parallels between the American and British military structures, especially in how they had to interact with popular and political opinions of the day. The regular US Army of the period comes off as a very professional, if somewhat dramatic and often maligned.

The British Army of the period also seems to be a very capable group, despite the disasters of the Crimea and the problems caused by a glacial leadership under the Duke of Cambridge. However, the more I read about them, the more I feel that they were truly a group of gifted amateurs, as opposed to the United States, which possessed a truly professional, West Point-trained officer corps (I will openly admit my bias towards the Point. Beat Navy!). Whereas the British carried the day in colonial battles based more on a willingness to close with the enemy, superior technology, and courage, whereas the Americans (when they got their act together, and didn't fight with each other, such is in the Seminole Wars) combined excellent staff work and logistical understanding with broad strategic vision to mount successful campaigns.

The British seem to be good soldiers, but soldiers of an old school, one that they would find distinctly out of place in the Crimea. The Americans, however, seem to often act like small children with their petty internal conflicts, but still succeed in almost modern operations like Scott's march on Mexico City that it seems to me that the British Army of the period would have never attempted, probably because of logistics. (Of all the conflicts of the period, I feel that the comparison between the Mexican war and the Crimean war is the best, because the Russians and the Mexicans have some parallels as opponents, and while the operational situation was different, the logistical situation, the naval element, barren conditions are all somewhat comparable. There is a temptation to compare the Civil War to some British conflict of the period, but sadly, I see no parallels with the British, nor can I find an American parallel with the Indian mutiny. Indeed, the failings of the British response only reinforce my feeling that the British regulars were not very interested in warfighting.)

The British also seem to have had a amateur attitude that reminds me more of the attitude found among American militia officers than American regulars. Whereas the "home" of the US Army is West Point in this era, the British Army has no "home" as such. The Americans remember the place where they received years of rigorous training, while the British care largely for their own regiments, in which they still purchase their commissions. And of course, Sandhurst in the period was not usually attended by university graduates, while Woolwhich seems to have had almost a negative reputation, as it was the school for officers of the "technical" services. I do wonder, though, how much of the differences in attitudes towards academies can be seen as a product of the American obsession with infrastructure development in the period, and the Point's relationship with the Corps of Engineers.

I realize that my opinions, as presented above, are very biased, but, they are based on what I know. So, I humbly request refutations of the many points I am sure to be incorrect on. I really want to understand the British officer as someone better than the fictional Flashman (!), as I have come to see American officers as better than, "Old Fuss and Feathers" Scott. But, I still lack the evidence.

Cordially,

~TS Allen

[William1]

Hi TS

The later Victorian Army was certainly professional, albeit in a rigid and limited sense, when it came to fighting. It was also harsh, unjust and rife with corruption and bullying. If you are interested in the view from the ranks, you might want to get hold of "John Bull's Army From Within" by fomer cavalry NCO Robert Edmondson. Written in 1907, it is an angry, bitter denunciation of all he hated about the Army, and it caused a minor scandal, even though the establisment figures he blames seem to have come out of it relatively unscathed by a combination of ignoring what they could and indignantly denying what they couldn't. Plus ca change... Edmondson tended to raise uncomfortable issues that his superiors would much rather have brushed under the carpet, and you can almost (but not quite) sympathise with them having to manage this barrack-room lawyer who wouldn't play the game but insisted on stirring up trouble. The incident that motivated Edmondson to write his book occurred when serving with the Middlesex Yeomanry in the Boer War, and is a classic case of the officers taking the credit where things went well and blaming the other ranks when they went wrong. Personally I'm inclined to believe Edmondson's version. Amery takes the opposite view in the Times History, but perhaps that's a case of a gentleman believing another gentleman over some upstart from the ranks.

Another book by a former Boer War Middlesex Yeoman (serving in the 34^th Company; E was in the 35^th), this time the amateur Private William Corner, is one of the most detailed and personal Boer War memoir and also highlighted the injustices of the system. His book must have been a particularly uncomfortable read for one of his former officers, Lt. Prideaux-Brune. PB seems to have been chastened and reformed by the experience, and completely redeemed himself as the commander of a Pals Battalion in WW1. C's prose is a bit slow-moving and stilted, but if you allow for that then it is a wonderfully evocative read.

I realise this isn't exactly about the "early" Victorian army, but hopefully it will be of some interest anyway..

Best wishes,

W.

[Busterdog]

I'm amazed that anyone would think the British soldier of the Victorian era was not 'into' war-fighting! Sikh Wars - against a numerically superior and equally well armed foe. Various wars in South Africa against Boers and Zulus, The Sudan, Egypt, Gold Coast, Fenian Raids in Canada - logistic excellence there I might add, the Indian Mutiny, China, 2nd Afghan War, Burma, Chitral, Tirah. All pretty decently supplied and victualled over vast distances with the LoC and MSR having to be protected. The Crimea provided the catalyst for improvements in logistics, medical services and soldiers welfare., though progress in those areas was indeed slow.

The British Officer Corps was certainly amateur - commission by purchase being the norm for most of Victoria's reign - though despite this produced some able Generals - Roberts, Wolsely, Kitchener - to name but a few - and many, many brave and enthusiastic officers. British 'Other Ranks' i.e. - Enlisted Personnel - were subjected to extremely harsh discipline - flogging was extant until, IIRC, 1868 - were brave though were not required (officially) to display initiative. it was not until the last years of Victoria's reign that Baden-Powell (founder of the Boy Scout movement) started to encourage and train his soldiers to act independently - this caught on throughout the Army though was not universally popular among hide bound traditionalists in the Officer Corps.

I highly recommend a book called 'Old Soldier Sahib' written by Frank Richards DCM MM, a memoir of his service as a Private Soldier with the 23rd Royal Welch Fusiliers in Britain, India, and Burma. from 1900 through 1908 - not much had changed during his time from the late Victorian era and shows the enthusiasm for soldiering and loyalty to Regiment pervading the British infantry of that time.