Bible Encyclopedias
1911 Encyclopedia Britannica
Officers
Historically the employment of the word " officer " to denote a person holding a military or naval command as representative of the state, and not as deriving his authority from his own powers or privileges, marks an entire change in the character of the armed forces of civilized nations. Originally signifying an official, one who performs an assigned duty (Lat. officium ), an agent, and in the 15th century actually meaning the subordinate of such an official (even to-day a constable is so called), the word seems to have acquired a military significance late in the 16th century. 2 It was at this time that armies, though not yet " standing," came to be constituted almost exclusively of professional soldiers in the king's pay. Mercenaries, and great numbers of mercenaries, had always existed, and their captains were not feudal magnates. But the bond between mercenaries and their captains was entirely personal, and the bond between the captain and the sovereign was of the nature of a contract. The non-mercenary portion of the older armies was feudal in character. It was the lord and not a king's officer who commanded it, and he commanded in virtue of his rights, not of a warrant or commission.
European history in the late 15th century is the story of the victory of the crown over the feudatories. The instrument of the crown was its army, raised and commanded by its deputies. But these deputies were still largely soldiers of fortune and, in the higher ranks, feudal personages, who created the armies themselves by their personal influence with the would-be soldier or the unemployed professional fighting man. Thus the first system to replace the obsolete combination of feudalism and " free companies " was what may be called the proprietary system. Under this the colonel was the proprietor of his regiment, the captain the proprietor of his company. The king accepted them as his officers, and armed them with authority to raise men, but they themselves raised the men as a rule from experienced soldiers who were in search of employment, although, like 1 This section also disqualifies colonial governors and deputy governors and holders of certain other offices.
At sea the relatively clear partition of actual duties amongst the authorities of a ship brought about the adoption of the term " officer " somewhat earlier.
Falstaff, some captains and colonels " misused the King's press damnably." All alike were most rigorously watched lest by showing imaginary men on their pay-sheets they should make undue profits. A " muster " was the production of a number of living men on parade corresponding to the number shown on the pay-roll. An inspection was an inspection not so much of the efficiency as of the numbers and the accounts of units. A full account of these practices, which were neither more nor less prevalent in England than elsewhere, will be found in J. W. Fortescue's History of the British Army, vol. i. So faithfully was the custom observed of requiring the showing of a man for a man's pay, that the grant of a special allowance to officers administering companies was often made in the form of allowing them to show imaginary John Does and Richard Roes on the pay-sheets.
The next step was taken when armies, instead of being raised for each campaign and from the qualified men who at each recruiting time offered themselves, became " standing " armies fed by untrained recruits. During the late 17th and the 18th centuries the crown supplied the recruits, and also the money for maintaining the forces, but the colonels and captains retained in a more or less restricted degree their proprietorship.
Thus, the profits of military office without its earlier burdens were in time of peace considerable, and an officer's commission had therefore a " surrender value." The practice of buying and selling commissions was a natural consequence, and this continued long after the system of proprietary regiments and companies had disappeared. In England " purchase " endured until 1873, nearly a hundred years after it had ceased on the continent of Europe and more than fifty after the clothing, feeding and payment of the soldiers had been taken out of the colonels' hands. The purchase system, it should be mentioned, did not affect artillery and engineer officers, either in England or in the rest of Europe. These officers, who were rather semi-civil than military officials until about 1715, executed an office rather than a command - superintended gun-making, built fortresses and so on. As late as 1780 the right of a general officer promoted from the Royal Artillery to command troops of other arms was challenged. In its original form, therefore, the proprietary system was a most serious bar to efficiency. So long as war was chronic, and self-trained recruits were forthcoming, it had been a good working method of devolving responsibility. But when drill and the handling of arms became more complicated, and, above all, when the supply of trained men died away, the state took recruiting out of the colonels' and captains' hands, and, as the individual officer had now nothing to offer the crown but his own potential military capacity (part of which resided in his social status, but by no means all), the crown was able to make him, in the full sense of the word, an officer of itself. This was most fully seen in the reorganization of the French army by Louis XIV. and Louvois. The colonelcies and captaincies of horse and foot remained proprietary offices in the hands of the nobles but these offices were sinecures or almost sinecures. The colonels, in peace at any rate, were not expected to do regimental duty. They were at liberty to make such profits as they could make under a stringent inspection system. But they were expected to be the influential figure-heads of their regiments and to pay large sums for the privilege of being proprietors. This classification of officers into two bodies, the poorer which did the whole of the work, and the richer upon which the holding of a commission conferred an honour that birth or wealth did not confer, marks two very notable advances in the history of army organization, the professionalization of the officer and the creation of the prestige attaching to the holder of a commission because he holds it and not for any extraneous reason.
The distinction between working and quasi-honorary officers was much older, of course, than Louvois's reorganization. Moreover it extended to the highest ranks. About 1600 the " general " of a European arm y 1 was always a king, *prince or nobleman. The lieutenant-general, by custom the commander of the cavalry, was also, as a rule, a noble, in I Except in the Italian republics.
virtue of his command of the aristocratic arm. But the commander of the foot, the " sergeant-major-general " or " major-general," was invariably a professional soldier. It was his duty to draw up the army (not merely the foot) for battle, and in other respects to act as chief of staff to the general. In the infantry regiment, the " sergeant-major " or " major " was second-in-command and adjutant combined. Often, if not always, he was promoted from amongst the lieutenants and not the (proprietary) captains. The lieutenants were the backbone of the army.
Seventy years later, on the organization of the first great standing army by Louvois, the " proprietors," as mentioned above, were reduced to a minimum both in numbers and in military importance. The word " major " in its various meanings had come, in the French service, to imply staff functions. Thus the sergeant-major of infantry became the " adjudant-major." The sergeant-major-general, as commander of the foot, had disappeared and given place to numerous lieutenant-generals and " brigadiers," but as chief of the staff he survived for two hundred years. As late as 1870 the chief of staff of a French army bore the title of " the majorgeneral." Moreover a new title had come into prominence, that of " marshal " or " field marshal." This marks one of the most important points in the evolution of the military officer, his classification by rank and not by the actual command he holds. In the 16th century an officer was a lieutenant of, not in, a particular regiment, and the higher officers were general, lieutenant-general and major-general of a particular army. When their army was disbanded they had no command and possessed therefore no rank - except of course when, as was usually the case, they were colonels of permanent regiments or governors of fortresses. Thus in the British army it was not until late in the 18th century that general officers received any pay as such. The introduction of a distinctively military yank 2 of " marshal " or " field marshal," which took place in France and the empire in the first years of the 17th century, meant the establishment of a list of general officers, and the list spread downwards through the various regimental ranks, in proportion as the close proprietary system broke up, until it became the general army list of an army of to-day. At first field marshals were merely officers of high rank and experience, eligible for appointment to the offices of general, lieutenantgeneral, &c., in a particular army. On an army being formed, the list of field marshals was drawn upon, and the necessary number appointed. Thus an army of Gustavus Adolphus's time often included 6 or 8 field marshals as subordinate general officers. But soon armies grew larger, more mobile and more flexible and more general officers were needed. Thus fresh grades of general arose. The next rank below that of marshal, in France, was that of lieutenant-general, which had formerly implied the second-in-command of an army, and a little further back in history the king's lieutenant-general or military viceroy. 3 Below the lieutenant-general was the marechal de camp, the heir of the sergeant-major-general. In the imperial service the ranks were field marshal and lieutenant field marshal (both of which survive to the present day) and major-general. A further grade of general officer was created by Louis XIV., that of brigadier, and this completes the process of evolution, for the regimental system had already provided the lower titles.
The ranks of a modern army, with slight variations in title, are therefore as follows: (a) Field marshal: in Germany, Generalfeldmarschall; in Spain " captain-general "; in France (though the rank is in abeyance) " marshal." The marshals of France, however, were neither so few in number nor so restricted to the highest commands as are marshals elsewhere. In Germany a new rank, " colonel-general " 2 The title was, of course, far older.
In England, until after Marlborough's death, rank followed command and not vice versa. The first field marshals were the duke of Argyll and the earl of Cadogan. Marlborough's title, or rather office, was that of captain-general.
(Generaloberst ), has come into existence - or rather has been revived 1 - of late years. Most of the holders of this rank have the honorary style of general-field-marshal.2 ( b) General: in Germany and Russia, " general of infantry," " general of cavalry," " general of artillery." In Austria generals of artillery and infantry were known by the historic title of Feldzeugmeister (ordnance-master) up to 1909, but the grade of general of infantry was created in that year, the old title being now restricted to generals of artillery. In France the highest grade of general officer is the " general of division." In the United States army the grade of full " general " has only been held by Washington, Grant, Sherman and Sheridan.
(c) Lieutenant-general (except in France): in Austria the old title of lieutenant field marshal is retained. In the United States army the title " lieutenant-general," except within recent years, has been almost as rare as " general." Winfield Scott was a brevet lieutenantgeneral. The substantive rank was revived for Grant when he was placed in command of the Union Army in 1864. It was abolished as an American rank in 1907.
(d) Major-general (in France, general of brigade): this is the highest grade normally found in the United States Army, generals and lieutenant-generals being promoted for special service only.3 ( e) Brigadier-general, in the United States and (as a temporary rank only) in the British services.
The above are the five grades of higher officers. To all intents and purposes, no nation has more than four of these five ranks, while France and the United States, the great republics, have only two. The correspondence between rank and functions cannot be exactly laid down, but in general an officer of the rank of lieutenant-general commands an army corps and a major-general a division. Brigades are commanded by major-generals, brigadier-generals or colonels. Armies are as a rule commanded by field marshals or full generals. In France generals of division command divisions, corps, armies and groups of armies.
The above are classed as general officers. The " field officers " (French of iciers superieurs, German Stabsoffiziere ) are as follows: (a) Colonel. - This rank exists in its primitive significance in every army. It denotes a regimental commander, or an officer of corresponding status on the staff. In Great Britain, with the " linked battalion " system, regiments of infantry do not work as units, and the executive command of battalions, regiments of cavalry and brigades of field artillery is in the hands of lieutenant-colonels. Colonels of British regiments who are quasi-honorary (though no longer proprietary) chiefs are royal personages or general officers. Colonels in active employment as such are either on the staff, commanders of brigades or corresponding units, or otherwise extraregimentally employed.
(b) Lieutenant-colonel: in Great Britain " the commanding officer " of a unit. Elsewhere, where the regiment and not the battalion is the executive unit, the lieutenant-colonel sometimes acts as second in command, sometimes commands one of the battalions. In Russia all the battalion leaders are lieutenant-colonels.
(c) Major
This rank does not exist in Russia, and in France is replaced by chef de bataillon or chef d'escadron, colloquially commandant. In the British infantry he preserves some of the characteristics of the ancient " sergeant-major," as a second in command with certain administrative duties. The junior majors command companies. In the cavalry the majors, other than the second-incommand, command squadrons; in the artillery they command batteries. In armies which have the regiment as the executive unit, majors command battalions (" wings " of cavalry, " groups" of artillery). .
Lastly the " company officers " (called in France and Germany subaltern officers) are as follows: (a) Captain (Germany and Austria, Hauptmann, cavalry Rittmeister) : in the infantry of all countries, the company commander. In Russia there is a lower grade of captain called " staff-captain," and in Belgium there is the rank of " second-captain." In all countries except Great Britain captains command squadrons and batteries. Under the captain, with such commands and powers as are delegated to them, are the subalterns, usually graded as 1 The 16th-century " colonel-general " was the commander of a whole section of the armed forces. In France there were several colonels-general, each of whom controlled several regiments, or indeed the whole of an " arm." Their functions were rather those of a war office than those of a troop-leader. If they held high commands in a field army, it was by special appointment ad hoc. Colonels-general were also proprietors in France of one company in each regiment, whose services they accepted.
2 In Russia the rank of marshal has been long in abeyance.
In the Confederate service the grades were general for army commanders, lieutenant-general for corps commanders, majorgeneral for divisional commanders and brigadier-general for brigade commanders.
(b) Lieutenant (first lieutenant in U.S.A., Oberleutnant in Germany and Austria).
(c) Sub-lieutenant (second-lieutenant in Great Britain and U.S.A., Leutnant in Germany and Austria).
(d) Aspirants, or probationary young officers, not of full commissioned status.
The continental officer is on an average considerably older, rank for rank, than the British; but he is neither younger nor older in respect of command. In the huge " universal service " armies of to-day, the regimental officer of France or Germany commands, in war, on an average twice the number of men that are placed under the British officer of equal rank. Thus a German or French major of infantry has about 900 rifles to direct, while a British major may have either half a battalion, 450, or a double company, 220; a German captain commands a company of 250 rifles as against an English captain's 110 and so on. At the same time it must be remembered that at peace strength the continental battalion and company are maintained at little more than half their war strength, and the under-officering of European armies only makes itself seriously felt on mobilization.
Great Britain. | France. | Germany. |
Lieutenant-colonel 1. | 328 | 263 | 292 |
Major 1 | 248 | 224 | 292 |
Captain 1 | 210 | 139 to 200 | 150 to 195 |
Oberleutnant (Lieutenant) 1. | 118 | 101 to 120 | 78 |
Second Lieutenant (Leutnant, Sous-lieutenant) | 94 | 93 | 45 to 60 It is different with the questions of pay and promotion, which chiefly affect the life of an army in peace. As to the former (see also Pensions) the Continental officer is paid at a lower rate than the British, as shown by the table of ordinary pay per annum (without special pay or allowances) below: - 1 Infantry, lowest scale, other arms and branches higher, often considerably higher. It must be noted that in France and Germany the major is a battalion commander, corresponding to the British lieutenantcolonel. But the significance of this table can only be realized when it is remembered that promotion is rapid in the British army and very slow in the others. The senior Oberleutnants of the German army are men of 37 to 38 years of age; the senior captains 47 to 48. In 1908 the youngest captains were 36, the youngest majors 45 years of age. As another illustration, the captain's maximum pay in the French army, £10 per annum less than a British captain's, is only given after 12 years' service in that rank, i.e. to a man of at least twenty years' service. The corresponding times for British regular officers in 1905 (when the effects of rapid promotions during the South African War were still felt) were 6 to 7.1 years from first commission to promotion to captain, and 14 to 19 years from first commission to promotion to major. In 1908, under more normal conditions, the times were 7 to 82 years to captain, 15 to 20 to major. In the Royal Engineers and the Indian army a subaltern is automatically promoted captain on completing 9 years' commissioned service, and a captain similarly promoted major after 18. The process of development in the case of naval officers (seeNAvY) presents many points of similarity, but also considerable differences. For from the first the naval officer could only offer to serve on the king's ship: he did not build a ship as a colonel raised a regiment, and thus there was no proprietary system. On the other hand the naval officer was even more of a simple office-holder than his comrade ashore. He had no rank apart from that which he held in the economy of the ship, and when the ship went out of commission the officers as well as the crew were disbanded. One feature of the proprietary system, however, appears in the navy organization; there was a marked distinction between the captain and the lieutenant who led the combatants and the master and the master's mate who sailed the ship. But here there were fewer " vested interests," and instead of remaining in the condition, so to speak, of distinguished passengers, until finally eliminated by the " levelling up " of the working class of officers, the lieutenants and captains were (in England) required to educate themselves thoroughly in the subjects of the sea officer's profession. When this process had gone on for two generations, that is, about 1670, the formation of a. permanent staff of naval officers was begun by the institution of half-pay for the captains, and very soon afterwards the methods of admission and early training of naval officers were systematized. The ranks in the British Royal Navy are shown with the relative ranks of the army in the following table (taken from King's Regulations ), which also gives some idea of the complexity of the noncombatant branches of naval officers.
|