Upcoming Napoleon movie

[moggy_cattermole]

More or less what Wellington said before Waterloo.
But in the end Wellingtons attitude was fairer and more benign.
And won.

The French Army was famous for the levels of social mobility it allowed (for a given value thereof, let's not imagine for a moment that it wasn't a hard organisation be in), whilst conversely the British Army was infamously rigid. The French Army was better at recognizing good work and promotion was geared more towards competence than the British.

Even as a competent officer, advancement was exceptionally slow, even when the regiment took grievous casualties, if you were an officer of limited means because of the purchase system.

George Simmons for instance, a Lieutenant in the 95th, spent well in excess of a decade in post because he kept being passed over, even though a demonstrably excellent officer with a lot of battle experience.

Paternalism in the British Army is an Edwardian concept. Wellington was a great general, but I doubt many would describe him as benign.

 

[Pteranadon]

The French Army was famous for the levels of social mobility it allowed (for a given value thereof, let's not imagine for a moment that it wasn't a hard organisation be in), whilst conversely the British Army was infamously rigid. The French Army was better at recognizing good work and promotion was geared more towards competence than the British.

Even as a competent officer, advancement was exceptionally slow, even when the regiment took grievous casualties, if you were an officer of limited means because of the purchase system.

George Simmons for instance, a Lieutenant in the 95th, spent well in excess of a decade in post because he kept being passed over, even though a demonstrably excellent officer with a lot of battle experience.

Paternalism in the British Army is an Edwardian concept. Wellington was a great general, but I doubt many would describe him as benign.

Agreed on both counts. Some of the better french officers suffered from very slow promotion, if they were not part of Napoleon's family or cronies. FRor erxample,

François Étienne de Kellermann, 2nd Duke of Valmy (4 August 1770 – 2 June 1835) is regarded in retrospect as one of Napoloen's best cavalry commanders. He came to notice in Italy in 1796 forcing the riover Tagliamento. At Marengo he led the heavy cavalry brigade that saved he day - and Napoleon's career. Distinguished himsef at Austerlitz and did well in Spain. In 1808 he was then French negotiator for the Treaty of Cintra which was a dimplomatic triumph for France ending the careers of two British Generals and a serious threat to that of Wellington. He became a cavalry corps commander in 1814.

 

[javaguzzisti]

Which Wellington quote?
The one about the "playing fields of eton" or "scum of the earth" I donopt recall Wellington as being well regarded as a trainer - unlike Moore.

The second.
He recognised what his soldiers were.
He appreciated them in a way napoleon did not.

 

[Old Cloud Puncher]

The French Army was famous for the levels of social mobility it allowed (for a given value thereof, let's not imagine for a moment that it wasn't a hard organisation be in), whilst conversely the British Army was infamously rigid. The French Army was better at recognizing good work and promotion was geared more towards competence than the British.

Even as a competent officer, advancement was exceptionally slow, even when the regiment took grievous casualties, if you were an officer of limited means because of the purchase system.

George Simmons for instance, a Lieutenant in the 95th, spent well in excess of a decade in post because he kept being passed over, even though a demonstrably excellent officer with a lot of battle experience.

Paternalism in the British Army is an Edwardian concept. Wellington was a great general, but I doubt many would describe him as benign.

Stagnation still applied in the 1930s.

David Niven wrote that on joining the HLI in the 30s he was horrified to find two old men in the Mess who were still Lieutenants. Purchasing commissions was abolished in the 1870s but preferment because someone was 'Johnny's boy' was very common, especially in the smarter units which were repositories for the useless younger sons of the landed gentry.

My father's experience in the Western Desert (as an artillery officer) was that the cavalry officers he was tasked to support couldn't actually read a map so this is far more of a cultural thing than down to individual training organisations. Noblesse Oblige and Plus ca Change (as Napoleon might have said).

 

[javaguzzisti]

The French Army was famous for the levels of social mobility it allowed (for a given value thereof, let's not imagine for a moment that it wasn't a hard organisation be in), whilst conversely the British Army was infamously rigid. The French Army was better at recognizing good work and promotion was geared more towards competence than the British.

Even as a competent officer, advancement was exceptionally slow, even when the regiment took grievous casualties, if you were an officer of limited means because of the purchase system.

George Simmons for instance, a Lieutenant in the 95th, spent well in excess of a decade in post because he kept being passed over, even though a demonstrably excellent officer with a lot of battle experience.

Paternalism in the British Army is an Edwardian concept. Wellington was a great general, but I doubt many would describe him as benign.

The French social mobility came in part from a desire to get rid of the Nobility, in many ways it was as hidebound as the British, and remained so into 1915 and beyond. Witness their blue tunics and Red trousers when most others had abandoned bright colours.
By the standards of the time I would regard Wellington as benign, even if only because he relied on volunteers and not conscription. As was Churchill and Nelson, this did not stop them all using severe discipline to get the desired results.
It is something in the background of the state.
Castles in Europe from the 9th century onwards were to cow the populace.
They mostly came to England with the Conquest but in the end treating the populace reasonably well was seen to be easier.
Not perfect but it led to a better country and no French/Russian style revolution.

 

[javaguzzisti]

Stagnation still applied in the 1930s.

David Niven wrote that on joining the HLI in the 30s he was horrified to find two old men in the Mess who were still Lieutenants. Purchasing commissions was abolished in the 1870s but preferment because someone was 'Johnny's boy' was very common, especially in the smarter units which were repositories for the useless younger sons of the landed gentry.

My father's experience in the Western Desert (as an artillery officer) was that the cavalry officers he was tasked to support couldn't actually read a map so this is far more of a cultural thing than down to individual training organisations. Noblesse Oblige and Plus ca Change (as Napoleon might have said).

It still applied when I was in.
Civy street is still even worse. 30 years ago a friend was promoted from cheif engineer to new equipment testing at another factory.
He was asked by another friend, 'How much do you like golf?'
'Can't stand it'. was the reply.
'You will'.
He did after 6 months.
People complain about cronyism in the Tories but it is everywhere in society. It cannot be eradicated because it is part of who we are.

 

[babyjocks]

Which Wellington quote?
The one about the "playing fields of eton" or "scum of the earth" I donopt recall Wellington as being well regarded as a trainer - unlike Moore.

Or perhaps, "It all depends on that article." Quoted, indicating a private soldier wandering off duty in Brussels.

 

[javaguzzisti]

Or perhaps, "It all depends on that article." Quoted, indicating a private soldier wandering off duty in Brussels.

Or after Albuera when visiting the wounded, 'It pains me to see so many of you in here'.
He meant it.
He was a self admitted snob, but that is not always bad.

 

[Rodney2q]

Agreed on both counts. Some of the better french officers suffered from very slow promotion, if they were not part of Napoleon's family or cronies.

Precisely - promotion was faster for those serving under Napoleon and where they could be seen. If you had a posting to a post outside the Grand Armee, such as an admin posting in France or Italy, or some guerrilla infested outpost in Spain your chances of promotion were very limited.

 

[Albertous]

Precisely - promotion was faster for those serving under Napoleon and where they could be seen. If you had a posting to a post outside the Grand Armee, such as an admin posting in France or Italy, or some guerrilla infested outpost in Spain your chances of promotion were very limited.

Napoleon once said he was a 100,000 soldier a year general, i.e. he needed 100,000 replacements due to casualties. Unlike Wellington he did not really care about casualties, so the chances of promotion serving with Napoleon was greater than most other napoleonic armies or French armies in a different theatre to Napoleon.

 

[Pteranadon]

Precisely - promotion was faster for those serving under Napoleon and where they could be seen. If you had a posting to a post outside the Grand Armee, such as an admin posting in France or Italy, or some guerrilla infested outpost in Spain your chances of promotion were very limited.

Having been critical of Boney's promotion policy, it should be noted that to reach high rank and survive also involved a lot of courage and some luck. Senior officers were expected to lead their troops in battle with fatal results for Desaix, Lannes, Bessieres, Poniatowski, Desalle, Moore, Picton and Crawford.

There is an anecdote that after the fall of Napoleon some of the old aristocracy treated one of Napoleon's old marshals , (Mortier?), with some distain. The aristos looked down on his and his wife's common background. The old marshal offered to give up his title and estate to anyone who would take their chance against Mortier firing a musket at them at point blank range for each of the battles in which he had served.

 

[moggy_cattermole]

The second.
He recognised what his soldiers were.
He appreciated them in a way napoleon did not.

In this, I would agree - he tried harder to preserve his forces and to sort out logistical issues around sustaining them in the field. But I would also suggest there was a fair amount of cold pragmatism in that. Losses were not easily replaced, because Britain didn't have a system of conscription, and the need to avoid too much outrage from foraging was in part due to a need to keep allies on side.

They mostly came to England with the Conquest but in the end treating the populace reasonably well was seen to be easier.

Not so sure. Most of our rights historically were won by a very self-interested strata of nobility looking out wholly for themselves, who were happy to lean on their subordinates' rights if it suited them.

 

[Tricky1982]

I hope this is going to be good, but I think historians will be having kittens...

 

[Bodenplatte]

Castles in Europe from the 9th century onwards were to cow the populace.
They mostly came to England with the Conquest but in the end treating the populace reasonably well was seen to be easier.

"My son," said the Norman Baron, "I am dying, and you will be heir
To all the broad acres in England that William gave me for share
When he conquered the Saxon at Hastings, and a nice little handful it is.
But before you go over to rule it I want you to understand this:–

"The Saxon is not like us Normans. His manners are not so polite.
But he never means anything serious till he talks about justice and right.
When he stands like an ox in the furrow – with his sullen set eyes on your own,
And grumbles, 'This isn't fair dealing,' my son, leave the Saxon alone.

"You can horsewhip your Gascony archers, or torture your Picardy spears;
But don't try that game on the Saxon; you'll have the whole brood round your ears.
From the richest old Thane in the county to the poorest chained serf in the field,
They'll be at you and on you like hornets, and, if you are wise, you will yield.

"But first you must master their language, their dialect, proverbs and songs.
Don't trust any clerk to interpret when they come with the tale of their wrongs.
Let them know that you know what they're saying; let them feel that you know what to say.
Yes, even when you want to go hunting, hear 'em out if it takes you all day.

They'll drink every hour of the daylight and poach every hour of the dark.
It's the sport not the rabbits they're after (we've plenty of game in the park).
Don't hang them or cut off their fingers. That's wasteful as well as unkind,
For a hard-bitten, South-country poacher makes the best man-at-arms you can find.

"Appear with your wife and the children at their weddings and funerals and feasts.
Be polite but not friendly to Bishops; be good to all poor parish priests.
Say 'we,' 'us' and 'ours' when you're talking, instead of 'you fellows' and 'I.'
Don't ride over seeds; keep your temper; and never you tell 'em a lie!"

Kipling, "Norman and Saxon"

 

[Murphy_Slaw]

I hope this is going to be good, but I think historians will be having kittens...

View attachment 785751

View attachment 785752

The same could be said about film directors.

At least most historians are getting their knowlege from recognised sources and not the Hollywood casting couch.