Re: Snow Was: Smoking. Was: Clarke Award Finalists 2001

On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 17:09:42 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

Bobbie Sellers wrote:

<snippo -- officers mostly aristocrats>

     Well of course they were upper class in most nations as why would
entrust a peasant with an expensive ship and crew.

>
It was not so much upper class as having aristocratic connections. You
could be wealthy and still have no chance without a recommendation from
an aristocratic sponsor, or you could be middle class and get in with
such a connection.
>
Middle class people with a slight whiff of a connection could become
midshipmen (much as C. S. Forster's Hornblower) but promotion beyond
Lieutenant required influence from above.  Aristocratic connections gave
that influence, otherwise you had to rely on your superior officers, who
would be deluged with claims from various of their relatives for
promotion, which would often win out over promotion of a skilled
Lieutenant or Commander.
>
Nelson was the son of a vicar, and not a rich one. But his mother was a
relation of two aristocratic families and an uncle was already a
Captain.  His uncle, the Captain, wasn't keen on the idea but in the end
he sponsored him ("Let Horatio enter the navy and perhaps a cannonball
will take off his head, thus providing for him.").
>
It is perhaps significant that among Nelson's closest friends were
Collingwood and Louis, both of whom also barely met the social
qualifications for officer.  Though Louis was said to be a
great-grandson of Louis XIV, his father was a schoolmaster.
>
Newton, for example, despite being born rich, would not have been
accepted  into the Navy as an officer unless a high ranking officer
recommended him. His ancestors were sheep farmers, none of them even
being on the tax rolls until about a century before his birth.
>
If you were very, very, lucky you could work your way into the officer
class from the lower decks.  Generally you would have to do something
spectacularly brave where an officer could see it, as well as be highly
competent.  I seem to recall reading that two of Nelsons 30+ captains at
Trafalgar had worked their way up, which was considered to be a high
proportion at the time.
>
By 1925 this system was long gone, but the culture remained.
>
It wasn't only England, though.  Napoleon's family had to dig through
ancient records in Italy to prove noble ancestry before he could be
accepted for officer training in the French Army.

Nor was it restricted to the Navy.

Another consideration is that the pay was (in the higher ranks)
insufficient to meet the social obligations. A private income was
necessary.

Nor was it restricted to England. Germany drew its officers mostly
from the aristocracy through WW2. The Waffen-SS, OTOH, did not.

After WW2, this pretty much died (royal sons [and maybe daughters now]
may still spend some time in a military service, but that is generally
temporary). Militaries became both professionalized and very technical
-- just having a title and and income and a winning smile/pleasant
personality was no longer enough. Actual knowledge of how to use the
various types of units (often determined by their equipment) became
necessary.

Not to mention that the shear size of the militaries (as a proportion
of population) pretty much forced some relaxation of the normal rules.

     Education was not evenly distributed then or now.

>
In those days aristocrats could get university degrees merely by showing
up  No exams for them!  Why, they might finish worse than a commoner!

Besides, it's not as if they would ever have to work for a living.

I still remember the Monty Python "Upper Class Twit of the Year"
episode I'm sure each of the contestants had a univeristy degree.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"