Marines are sissies.

[Al B. Sure!]

MrFun can not join. He's currently medicated for depression, if I recall correctly. Even when he gets off the meds, it would be very tough.

[bc1871]

In response to Alby and company:

When it comes to training during the Victorian Period, all training was done at the unit level with an emphasis being made on drill, marksmanship and discipline. Generally, a Victorian soldier was trained to be able to fire at up to 1500 yards(if period sources are to be believed), with a further emphasis on operating in formations, and being able to effectively use bayonets in coordinated lines of skirmish etc.

Now one of the hallmarks of the Victorian Army would be its iron and some would contend brutal discipline, where an enlisted man could face anything from physical punishment up to and including capital punishment, for what would in modern times be considered minor service offenses.

That being said, it should be noted that the level of discipline in a Victorian Army, is unmatched even today, where whilst a Victorian soldier was taught the necessity of the obedience to orders and the chain of command, today the armed forces seems more willing to allow personnel to use personal initiative (which may or may not be beneficial to the unit as a whole).

When it comes to training, admittedly establishing proper depots and schools to allow for common combat arms training, is not a terrible concept and generally does make for a more streamlined training regime, but at the same time much of discipline of ages past has been lost a reintroduction of a more Victorian styled provost system would lead to a drop in service discipline offenses and would further potentially lead to the recruiting of higher quality individuals.

[Al B. Sure!]

Modern warfare requires "Strategic Corporals" to be effective. Excessive discipline to the point of crippling small unit leadership might have made sense when the success of a battle was predicated on the ability of men to stand in ranks and fire synchronized volleys at the enemy, but even that style of warfare was obsolete through the latter Victorian era.

Harsher discipline was more necessary in that age for operational reasons but also because you were dealing with a much less self-motivated fighting force (yes, I realize the British 'regulars' were volunteers, but were the colonials?). Beating the crap out of enlisted men is not necessary when the modern US fighting force consists of willing volunteers who likely have relatively high espirit de corps compared to Victorian era conscripts.

Are/were you in the Canadian military, bc1871, by the way?

[bc1871]

Now due to how modern warfare is conducted, it is fair to say that corporals should be more than simply the “messengers” between the sergeants and the remaining other ranks.

Unfortunately, as you are well aware, often times many corporals quickly develop a “God Complex” where they come to believe that the NCOs are wrong, the officers are incompetent college graduates (which generally tends to be the case) and that their new and “better” ideas should be adopted.

When it comes down to brass tacks, the sergeants have to be feared and respected. Now I won’t deny that most NCO’s of the past used disciplinary methods which were questionable at the best of times, and more than often would turn to punishment as a universal teaching tool, but at the same time it can also be shown that with such stern and often times physical discipline that service offenses were generally down.

With reference to the Colonies, at least as far as the Dominions go (Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa) their militias were purely voluntary. I believe that a similar system existed in the remaining colonies as well.

Also, I don’t see Esprit De Corps being much higher in this day and age, than it was over 100 years ago. Now obviously the caliber of recruit has increased on the intellectual front, as most potential recruits have a minimum of a 12th Grade Education/some college, compared to the iron mongers and tradesmen of the last century. On the other hand though, the quality of recruit is also more questionable in that many recruits are physically not up the standard, nor do they have the self-discipline or mental fortitude necessary build strong and long serving members.

[Al B. Sure!]

Are you seriously saying that Victorian soldiers were in better shape than todays' soldiers?

As pitiful as the minimum standards are for enlistment, they didn't even have physical standards back in the Victorian days! PT didn't even exist... you were dealing with a bunch of malnourished midgets by today's standards.

Self-discipline or mental fortitude? Where do you get this from? How so do modern servicemen lack such things?

The fact that physical punishment was used and deemed necessary in the past shows how much those guys lacked self-discipline, compared to today.

And when you keep saying Victorian era, are you excluding French, Prussian, etc in that same time period?

And finally, why did you ignore my question? Your talk of beating the **** out enlisted persons, enlisted persons having no discipline, or that the military needs to change its ethos has no weight if you didn't serve yourself.

[bc1871]

Actually, that’s not true.
Regiments required a physical exam (now it’s true that many recruits attempted to cheat, but this is also true with most military processing....look at the US Military’s MEPS, and no doubt you’ll find a ton of recruits attempting to cheat the system).
The medical examination was for two reasons.

1) To ensure that a recruit could endure the rigors of being deployed to overseas (as it was almost an iron guarantee, that a newly enlisted member would spend many a year, in some far flung corner of the Empire)
2) Check for marks left by “flogging”, since some members attempted to re-enlist and collect a bonus, since on some occasion record keeping wasn’t always 100% accurate (but then again, the modern military suffers from much of the same clerical incompetence).

Also, physical training did exist, though it was generally in the form of running, lifting of weights, boxing and swimming. Admittedly, physical training was partially used as a form of punishment by rather sadistic physical instructors, but it was also to ensure that men serving on garrison duty, would be ready in the event that the natives got uppity and had to be put in their place.

[Al B. Sure!]

Why was flogging necessary if the Victorian soldiers were instilled with values and self-discipline?

[giblets]

I guess flogging builds character, leading to values and self-discipline.

[Al B. Sure!]

Or maybe they lacked self-discipline and the whip was the only way the Victorians could control their troops.

[bc1871]

During the Victorian Era, many new recruits would be considered heavy drinkers by modern standards, and would therefore often commit acts of thievery, violence and many other offenses that go along with heavy drinking.

The theory at the time was, that a mix of harsh discipline (in the form of physical discipline) and rigorous training (both drilling and marksmanship) would help to either alleviate or at the very least control the rather unsavory tendencies of the lowerclassmen.

Therefore flogging and other forms of physical punishment were often used, sometimes rather excessively by some rather sadistic sergeants, but it was felt that a good Victorian soldier should be first and foremost a disciplined soldier.

[Al B. Sure!]

And today (well, for at least a century now) we don't have floggings and no one sees the need for them. What does that say about the character and self-discipline of today's troops compared to those of the Victorian era?

[bc1871]

If you remember your Marine Corps history, physical discipline was used up until at least the 1970’s, after which systematic changes began to occur after some rather tragic incidents occurred aboard Parris Island.

Other services also used physical discipline, with the Army and Navy being more willing to use physical discipline as a means of punishment. The air force tended towards verbal abuse as opposed to physical discipline, but this seems more like a cultural aspect of the air force (being considered by some to be the more civilized of the services).

Now flash forward to modern times, and though the old ways of physical discipline and verbal abuse are long passé, incidents involving excessive alcohol, rape and assault still occur, and some would argue to a higher degree than during the Victorian Era. Punishments in this era are often administrative in nature, with the idea that fines and confinement to barracks are supposed to correct behavior, which a good wood shedding by a sergeant would have been just as effective and not requiring the rather excessive amounts of paperwork seen now.

[bc1871]

Also, I’d be interested to see statistics from the point in which all physical discipline was abolished to the present, but I’d wager that the amount of service offenses related to alcohol, assault and rape went up as opposed to dropping, due to the “kinder and gentler” form of discipline.

[N35t0r]

Or maybe they lacked self-discipline and the whip was the only way the Victorians could control their troops.

We should chip in to get albie a sarcasm-o-meter.

[MRT144]

RUM SODOMY AND THE LASH!