Talk:Purchase of commissions in the British Army

Is the article quite right

Didn't the sale of commission remain up until WW1, albeit in a curtainled form. I thought it was the case you could buy your way to Major (but no further) until then. Although the article is basically right on the real issue. There is obviously a difference between buying a Lieutencancy and Generalship.

Not as I understand it. Until WWI officers still entered the service via an "agent" who would arrange their training and commission - nothing like the modern-day system, but not an outright sale as it had been before Cardwell. Shimgray | talk | 18:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here's the situation. As of 1895, you got an infantry/cavalry commission via:

a) Open competition at Sandhurst [50% of places]

b) Competition from among the militia [25%]

c) 'by qualification, through the colonies and through the ranks' [25%]

This last one was broken down into...

1. Queen's Cadets, and others entering 'the college' (?) by qualifying examination;
2. university candidates, who had a set number of commissions to compete for
3. candidates from colonial militaries and colonial universities
4. sergeant-majors promoted on examination

As you can see, competition [ie examinations] was the favoured method, as with every public office in the late-Victorian period. I'm not sure which of the various classes was the standard way for a young gentleman to get a commission; I suspect #1. The Sandhurst regime of the time was not overly taxing... Shimgray | talk | 21:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Price of Cardigan's Commission?

This site http://www.cwreenactors.com/~crimean/purchsys.htm#promos claims the price of Lord Cardigan's commission as 25,000 pounds, not 40,000. I have heard usually 40,000, but as high as half a million pounds (an obvious mistake, of course). Any corroborations in publish accounts you may have, gentlemen? TaylorSAllen 00:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Historical Objections

I actually came here to find out about objections to the practice historically. The article mentions that the Prussians didn't engage in the practice but did senior personnel comment on the practice? Was there controversy between the two styles? This seems to be written from a very British perspective.Nickjost 18:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Oddly Defensive Tone

I completely agree with Nickjost's post about this article having an intensely British perspective. More than that, it seems to actually be defensive about the practice of selling commissions, at one point asserting---implausibly, I think---that it isn't signficantly different from other forms of patronage. Perhaps it is, but a more even-handed and dispassionate discussions of advantages and disadvantages might be more helpful. Also, the offhaned reference to the political patronage in other European and American armies needs to be backed up by citations, and elaborated a bit more for its relevance to be clear. MJM74 (talk) 06:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that myself, but, being a dirty colonial with no real knowledge of the pay-for-commission system, can't really comment. It's true that political patronage produced some real stinkers in the US military (General Hooker comes to mind) but it also made them much easier to replace (again, Hooker). What we need is a military historian that emphasizes more on logistics and political-military infrastructures than battles and body counts... rare animal indeed, then. The Centipede (talk) 04:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Scope of article

This article is almost entirely about the Purchase of commissions in the British army, and should accordingly be moved there. I'll check back in a week or so, and if there are no objections by then I'll BOLDly move it, okay? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

No definition

The article fails to explain what the sale of commission *is*. In particular I had to infer that the money is paid to the previous holder of the position (this became clear only through the mention that the commission serves as a retirement fund). 50.196.145.34 (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Second sentence in the article: "Essentially, the commission purchase price was a cash bond for good behaviour, forfeited to the Army's cashiers (accountants) in the event of cowardice, desertion or gross misbehaviour." --DelftUser (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there evidence that origin of the term Cashiering comes from cashier, ie from officers getting thrown out and not getting their money back?Catsmeat (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually no, from reading article, it seems a coincidenceCatsmeat (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Other countries?

I don't think it's really appropriate to have a section on "other countries" in an article about the purchase of commissions in the British army. If we want a general article about the purchase of commissions, that's fine, but an article about the British army should not be about Austria. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 04:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

That's because prior to 2013 the article was "Sale of Commissions" (see "scope of article" section, above). I'd say the article needs to either be moved back (and the bits about other militaries restored) OR it needs reworking (ie if It's only about the British army, why is the first -and now only - header "United Kingdom"?) Gecko G (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

entry and levelling up

So, in the Napoleonic era, could someone buy straight in as a captain, or did they have to start as ensign and level up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.6.10.234 (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)