Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

You British authorities out there: how did a British officer under Wellington advance in command? Was there political pressure to put a commander in a field command or was it based on merit?

I haven't read enough on this and have been doing some reading of the Peninsular Wars. Recently read Ian Castle's Osprey book on Vittoria.

Know that Hill, Picton, Crauford, etc were all good commanders but how did alot of the generals gain rank? Did Wellington have favors he had to answer up in placing these guys in command (partly) or was it purely on merit.

Napoleon would place men in positions of authority sometimes to keep a faction from actively politicicking against him - witness Bernadotte's appointment as Marechal. Etc.

Russians - alot of court maneuvering going on here. First, the Germans were in after the years of Frederick as a reform maneuver than as 1812 came around they were unpopular.

The Brits had no such foreign issues. Except for integrating the KGL and Portugese in with their army, the Spanish having their own commands, they were pretty much a Anglo bunch of commanders.

British commissions were bought of course (right?) but how much of the command assignments were politically maneuvered vs. outright ability on the field of battle?

Bill Peters
Former NWC President, Club Founder, Prussian and Austrian Army Founder, Stefan Reuter's hunting buddy. HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram)

[url="http://www.fireandmelee.net"]Fire and Melee Wargame site[/url]

Commissions were purchased (until 1871) only within the regiment, i.e. up to lieutenant-colonel. (Even then promotions by merit or seniority were possible under certain circumstances, usually when a vacancy occurred due to death rather than selling off; and the RA and RE didn't sell commissions.)

The promotions to colonel and to the general officers rank were at the discretion of the superiors. Of course this opened the door wide for all sorts of favoritism and abuse. Even if some commanders turned out to be good, even excellent, this was far from being the rule. Wellington notoriously deemed his generals (whether superiors or subordinates) perfect amateurs. Of one is his superiors he wrote (around 1808?), quoting from memory, "the general has no plan, or even the idea of a plan, nor do I believe he knows the meaning of the word plan." And of his subordinates some years later he said "nobody ever reads an order in any other manner than as if it were an amusing novel, and when the order to advance is given, and complicated arrangements are to be put into execution, every gentleman proceeds according to his fancy."

I think it's only necessary to see how much high command remained the sphere of the nobility during these decades up to and including the Crimean War to realize how small a role actual military experience, let alone expertise, played in advancement into senior general officer ranks. No patronage--no gold lace.

Of course, the Royal Navy way of advancement, exclusively by seniority once post rank was reached, was not much better. Just think Provo Wallis. [:D]



<center>
D.S. "Green Horse" Walter, Maréchal d'Empire
Duc des Pyramides, Comte de Normandie
Commandant la [url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_Walter/NWC/3_VI_AdR_Home.htm"]3e Division Bavaroise[/url], L'Armée du Rhin
Commandant [url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_Walter/NWC/EdM_start.htm"]L'Ecole de Mars[/url], L'Armée du Rhin
Commandant la Brigade de Grenadiers de la Moyenne Garde
</center>

Interesting question Bill. Dierk has it right regarding promotions and the great number of 'amateurs'. Looking at it in that light it makes the achievements of the 'good' commanders like Wellington all the more noteworthy when you consider how much he had to take upon himself, never wanting to trust to the initiative of some of his less capable subordinates. The scope for disasters and blunders must always have been on his mind. No wonder he always looked so serious. I also wonder if the need to keep in favour with those in high places, and with Parliament, reflected itself in Wellington's cautiousness and carefullness with his army. He may not have been given a second chance if he'd lost an army or regularly suffered the kind of casualty figures that Napoleon tolerated.

<center>[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/Napoleonic/nap.htm"]Lieutenant Colonel Antony Barlow[/url]
~ [url="http://www.geocities.com/anglo_allied_army_stats/Anglo_Allied_Army_Cavalry_Corps.htm"]2nd British (Union) Brigade, Anglo-Allied Cavalry Corps[/url] ~
~ [url="http://www.geocities.com/militaireacademie/dragoons.html"]4th (Royal Irish) Dragoon Guards[/url] ~
</center>

"He may not have been given a second chance if he'd lost an army or regularly suffered the kind of casualty figures that Napoleon tolerated."

Or those that certain Allied nations tolerated! [:D][:D]

Mack had a high tolerance! [:p]

Kutusov even more so. [;)]

Thanks guys. Much appreciated. Its going to help me with a project I have going.

Bill Peters
Former NWC President, Club Founder, Prussian and Austrian Army Founder, Stefan Reuter's hunting buddy. HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram)

[url="http://www.fireandmelee.net"]Fire and Melee Wargame site[/url]