Commissioned from the Militia

[jsneddon2]

Hi,
i am a new member of the Forum. I joined because I find my reading in military history continually draws me into aspects of the Victorian army.
My current interest is ti look at the career development of battalion 'middle management' in 1914. that is officer holding the rank of Captain or Major. My first surprise is that almost half of these career officers in 'County' infantry regiments were commissioned from the Militia during the Boer war bypassing formal military education at Sandhurst. I would like to understand this process and am hoping that I may 'borrow' the expertise of members of this Forum.

(i) I have a little information extracted from the evidence to the Elgin Commission that young men who exhibited 'officer material' left school and entered the militia for a very short time before becoming commissioned into the Regular army and shipped to S. Africa as junior officers. Can anyone provide me with information on this process, evidence of military training etc?

(ii) Young men commissioned from the embodied militia served several months before joining the regular army. What is the difference between (i) and (ii)?

(iii) any pointers to information on the process of being commissioned from militia to army during the Boer war would be much appreciated.

thank you in advance

john

[FROGSMILE]

Hi,
i am a new member of the Forum. I joined because I find my reading in military history continually draws me into aspects of the Victorian army.
My current interest is ti look at the career development of battalion 'middle management' in 1914. that is officer holding the rank of Captain or Major. My first surprise is that almost half of these career officers in 'County' infantry regiments were commissioned from the Militia during the Boer war bypassing formal military education at Sandhurst. I would like to understand this process and am hoping that I may 'borrow' the expertise of members of this Forum.

(i) I have a little information extracted from the evidence to the Elgin Commission that young men who exhibited 'officer material' left school and entered the militia for a very short time before becoming commissioned into the Regular army and shipped to S. Africa as junior officers. Can anyone provide me with information on this process, evidence of military training etc?

(ii) Young men commissioned from the embodied militia served several months before joining the regular army. What is the difference between (i) and (ii)?

(iii) any pointers to information on the process of being commissioned from militia to army during the Boer war would be much appreciated.

thank you in advance

john

(i) Regimental Colonels of regular regiments could accept as officers subalterns of militia who had undergone two yearly "drills" (i.e. annual training camps lasting a fortnight - see separate threads on militia), who had held officer's rank for at least 15-months, who were under 24-years of age and who had passed a competetive examination similar in severity to that undertaken by 'gentlemen cadets' at Sandhurst. The number appointed as at 1899 was between 50 and 120 per year, depending upon demand. They were a 'manning measure' akin to polyfilla, in that they were used to fill unpredictable cracks caused by the day-to-day turbulence of casualties (often from disease) and officers 'selling out' (or otherwise retiring - including some cashiered) that could not be filled quickly by any other means.

N.B. This method of entry was often referred to colloqially as the "back door". Interestingly it has recently been resurrected so that young men can taste the Army via the TA and then, after some training and experience (often 'operational' nowadays), enter the regulars without the offputting rigmarole of going through the 'full' Sandhurst (one year). As always this has been controversial with their fellow, regular officers, who entered through the normal channels.

(ii) 'The Militia' was effectively an army in waiting that only gathered once each year for a fortnight's camp, in order to qualify for their financial sinecure known (then and now) as a Bounty. As such they were not well versed, or experienced in much other than rudimentary drill and weapon handling. The aim was that at the end of their annual drills they were once more pepped up and up-to-date, both with their military skill (such as it was) and the latest military thinking. This latter was generated by war office circulars and the Regular Army instructors, who had usually come from the territorial depot allocated to the regiment. The "embodied militia" was merely that same body of men after they had been mobilised and seen some service with the rest of the (i.e. Regular) Army, on the basis that serving alongside regulars and exercising their duties during an intense period of activity (especially with a whiff of gunpowder), would make them more fitted to make the transition to regular officers.

(iii) Transition between militia and regular service became more common in the Boer War for the simple reason that never before had such a large body of militia been embodied, en masse, and then sent abroad to fight alongside their regular brethren (previously, e.g. in the Napoleonic wars, the militia had relieved the regulars of garrison duty so that the former could be deployed overseas). As a result, a relatively large number of educated young men were exposed to a full-time military life who might not otherwise have considered such a career. Those who enjoyed the life took the opportunity afforded by the terms and conditions outlined in (ii) above to move across to a regular career. The process was also made easier because there were regular officers, who had had direct contact with aspirational militia officers, that could (and did) make the necessary 'he's a good chap' recommendation to the relevant Regimental Colonel.

There is a good article about the employment of the militia in the 2nd Boer war at this link: http://www.victorianmilitarysociety.org ... s&Itemid=9

[heliwest]

The problem in the late Victorian period and for the Boer War is that Sandhurst (and Woolwich for the Gunners and Engineers) could not cope with the numbers required and the Militia was a way of getting young officers into the system. In many cases many were too thick to pass the exams which explains why "crammers" came into existence. After failing to get into Sandhurst they could join the Militia (influence helped) as explained and get in that way. However officers had to pass the militia exams to go forward. Once in the system they then had to get into the regular army and get a regiment. Google up the career of Robert Montague Poore who crept into the Wiltshire Milita , then into the Wiltshire Regiment and his father used "contacts" to get him into the 7 Hussars and then his career went forward. Incidentially he still holds the English County Cricket record for the highest sixth wicket stand set in 1899 and in that year played the full county cricket circuit as a regualar officer. Happy days.

[FROGSMILE]

The problem in the late Victorian period and for the Boer War is that Sandhurst (and Woolwich for the Gunners and Engineers) could not cope with the numbers required and the Militia was a way of getting young officers into the system. In many cases many were too thick to pass the exams which explains why "crammers" came into existence. After failing to get into Sandhurst they could join the Militia (influence helped) as explained and get in that way. However officers had to pass the militia exams to go forward. Once in the system they then had to get into the regular army and get a regiment. Google up the career of Robert Montague Poore who crept into the Wiltshire Milita , then into the Wiltshire Regiment and his father used "contacts" to get him into the 7 Hussars and then his career went forward. Incidentially he still holds the English County Cricket record for the highest sixth wicket stand set in 1899 and in that year played the full county cricket circuit as a regualar officer. Happy days.

Yes, I think you have made a good point about limited capacity at the RMC and RMA and your example in case is very interesting.

Further candidates were accepted as follows:

1. Two cadets per year (as at 1899) from the Royal Military College in Canada (Kingston).

2. University candidates from 17 to 22 years of age who had passed a competetive examination. The number varied year on year according to demand (see 'polyfilla' comment above).

3. Officers of Colonial Militia or Rifle Volunteers to a limited number each year.

4. Warrant officers and sergeants, who had to be proposed for such a promotion by their officers, not be more than 24 years of age, at least substantive Corporals and have a minium of 2 years service. At the time of their appointment they had to be at least Sergeants, no older than 26 and in possession of a First Class Certificate of Education. The number so appointed ranged from between 12 and 20 per annum.

[grumpy]

category 4 also had to be unmarried.

[FROGSMILE]

category 4 also had to be unmarried.

Yes indeed.

They were not joking when on the distaff side of things they referred to "Officers and their Ladies, SNCOs and their Wives and Rank and File and their Women!"

Couldn't possibly have one of the wives rubbing up against the ladies old boy.

[grumpy]

2nd RWF went to war in August 1914 with nine Militia [or Special Reserve, successor to Militia] officers out of 30. I do not know if this was typical, but it was partly caused by having no regular 2nd Lieutenants on the books, being a Home Service battalion. Some 400 extra all ranks were needed to complete on mobilisation.

And "officers' wives have pudding and pies, soldiers' wives have skilly".

[jsneddon2]

Thank you all for your comments and advice. There is a lot I have yet to undersatnad about the role of the militia and its relationship to the Regular army.

thanks again

John

[grumpy]

Start with Col. J. Dunlop's Development of the British Army 1899-1914 .

[FROGSMILE]

For the period in question I cannot recommend highly enough: Scarlet into Khaki (first published in 1899) by Lt Col James Moncrieff Grierson. ISBN 0-947898-81-6. New edition by Greenhill Books in 1988.

N.B. I earnestly recommend the above book to all members of this Forum as absolutely indispensable to the study of the period whose interest links and enthuses us all.

And on the Militia specifically: The Constitutional Force (first published in 1908) by Col Geo Jackson Hay. ISBN 0 950 8530 7 0. New Edition by Ray Westlake - Military Books in 1987.

[grumpy]

I found Hay's book disappointing, in that, as it covers 54BC to 1905 AD, and that the second half is all about the services of Militia in SA for the Boer War ....... by units ........ So the Victorian period is rather thin. But then I only paid £1..15!

Regarding Grierson's book, I commend the new edition [1988] prefaced by my friend Col. Peter Walton, with some very good illustrations.

[FROGSMILE]

prefaced by my friend Col. Peter Walton, with some very good illustrations.

Grumpy, you really must get out of that bad habit of name dropping....most unedifying....

[grumpy]

No, the essential point here is to say that I have an interest ............ this is not name dropping .......... if he were Fred Bloggs, an unemployed bricklayer I would mention that I knew him if recommending his book. It is normal practice to come clean about such connections.

[FROGSMILE]

No, the essential point here is to say that I have an interest ............ this is not name dropping .......... if he were Fred Bloggs, an unemployed bricklayer I would mention that I knew him if recommending his book. It is normal practice to come clean about such connections.

I don't think that anyone doubts your integrity, it was just too much of a tempation to tease you (as you yourself are sometimes want to do) .

[grumpy]

Ah! Temptation!

Never to be resisted: otherwise, boils, plagues of Egypt, piles* and shingles and duodenal ulcers**!

I have to agree!

* got, screaminlgy funny to family and friends, but a pain in the a@se.

** had