Thread: Rank and Age
View Single Post
  #18  
Old 05-19-2009, 10:37 AM
Turboswede Turboswede is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 33
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker
Back before proper "professional" armies, rank was often based purely on social status. We're all probably aware of at least a few generals and other high ranking officers who were appointed to various commands without any military experience at all.

Thankfully, those days are largely past with only a few third world militaries carrying on with such stupidity.
For field ranks I don’t think it was all a question of social status. My understanding is that in the Royal Army & Navy of the 16th-19th century officers would purchase a commission and then would purchase promotions as well. At the time officers were entitled to some of the “spoils of war” so to speak so that success on the battlefield or the high seas would provide the financial ability to buy promotions and rise in rank. Depending on the success of a campaign a young officer could rise in rank quickly, but during times of peace the higher field grade ranks were dominated by those wealthy enough to purchase the grade outright.

It was actually an ingenious way to finance the military before income taxes were established. “So Mr. Gates, your son wants to go by Colonel Gates? Swell, just send $10,000,000 to the treasury and we will rush out his pips and insignia”.

So, if you were an officer of modest means, there would be a real financial motivation for going to war in addition to status and adventure.
Reply With Quote