Talk:Commander-in-Chief of the Forces

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Relationship between C-in-C and Captain-General?

I've seen a post on alt.talk.royalty that describes captain-general as "something akin to principal field marshal", which implies that the position was (or became) largely honorary. Could the relationship have been similar to that between the Commandant General Royal Marines — the Royal Marines' professional head — and the Captain General Royal Marines — their titular, ceremonial head? Was the captain-general, in effect, Colonel-in-Chief of the entire Army?

Another possible parallel is Admiral of the Fleet, in the days when there was only one at any one time (at least up to 1805, and maybe later). He was the Royal Navy's senior officer, but he was not its commander-in-chief: that would be the First Lord of the Admiralty, if anyone could be said to be. (One divergence: promotion in the Navy above the rank of captain depended entirely on seniority, so you became Admiral of the Fleet simply by neither dying nor retiring. In the Army, however, that would only get you as far as (full) general: promotion to field marshal was in the gift of the king and his government, as was appointment as captain-general.) — Franey 10:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of source

This list of Commanders-in-Chief of the Forces does not seem to be properly sourced. Indeed regiments.org gives a different list of Commanders-in-Chief which it terms "General-in-Chief Command" - see [1]. I am proposing to amend the list in the wiki article so it agrees more precisely with the list at regiments.org (which is repeated in other sources [2]). Does anyone have any views on this? Dormskirk (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now amended the list to agree with the sources stated - please revert if what I have done is historically inaccurate stating the new source. Thanks Dormskirk (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some weird stuff under the late Stuarts

How was Monmouth commander-in-chief after his death? Why would Feversham have been William's commander in chief? john k (talk) 04:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why would Marlborough have been dismissed in 1708? john k (talk) 04:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to check this list back to the Oxford History of the British Army (OUP 1996) which seems to have been the original source Dormskirk (talk) 10:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I think we really need is not to base the list on regiments.org, which is no longer even up, but on reliable printed sources if possible. john k (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The British Army did not Exist in 1660 - Needs Split into Separate Pages

The first line's: "the professional head of the British Army from 1660" is historical nonsense.
The British Army (and indeed the Kingdom of Great Britain) did not exist before 1707, so to suggest it had a commander is foolish and misleading. This error sets the scene for a fictitious list of Commanders-in-Chief, suggesting a continuum from 1606 to 1904. The list in fact comprises commanders of three separate armies: that of England to 1707, that of Great Britain to 1800 and that of Great Britain and Ireland.
(This error is equivalent to listing commanders of the US Continental Army by starting with the commanders of some colony years before the United States Continental Congress occurred, and listing half-a dozen names ahead of that of George Washington.)
Modifying this page to comment the changes from one army to another would not be adequate, as this would be no more meaningful than a list starting with the commander of the forces of Scotland and segueing that into the post-1707 list.
This page therefore needs to be split into pages for commanders of the forces of England, Great Britain and Great Britain & Ireland.
Unfortunately, this is beyond my editing skills. Help, please! Not Proven (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's your source for the statement that the British Army did not exist before 1707? The land forces of the monarch of England, Scotland and Ireland comprised regiments paid for by the three Kingdoms, but that doesn't necessarily mean those regiments should be regarded as separate armies, especially after 1688 when they all served together in the War of the Grand Alliance and the War of the Spanish Succession. Opera hat (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source: The National Archives (the UK government's official archive, an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice) page British Army operations up to 1913: “A permanent, professional, standing army was not established in England until 1660, following the Restoration. What was then the English Army did not become the British Army until 1707.” http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/research-guides/army-campaign-to-1913.htm

btw, the norm is for an army to be under a state and that the Kingdom of Great Britain did not exist before 1707 is presumably beyond dispute. If it is to be asserted that the British Army existed when the state of Britain did not it surely would require a strong citation.

(Additionally, unless corrected this page is inconsistent on the founding of the British Army with a great many other Wikipedia pages, e.g.:

Timeline_of_the_British_Army: “The British Army would not exist, however, for another 46 years, as Scotland and England remained two independent states, each with its own Army” and “1707 – Kingdom of Great Britain is formed. Scottish and English armies merged to create the British Army.”

British_Army: “The English Army, founded in 1660, was succeeded in 1707 by the new British Army.”

English_Army: “Scotland and England maintained separate military establishments until the Acts of Union 1707.” and “Shortly after the Act of Union in 1707 the English and Scottish Armies amalgamated to form the British Army.”

Royal_Scots_Army: “The Royal Scots Army (Scots: Ryal Scots Airmy), was the army of the Kingdom of Scotland between the Restoration in 1660 and the Acts of Union of 1707”, “Early units wore grey, but adopted red like the English army after 1684.” and “The new British Army created by the Act of Union...”

Military_of_Scotland: “After the Act of Union in 1707, the Scottish Army and Navy merged with those of England. The new British Army incorporated...”)

Are you able to address the changes needed? I am that incompetent. I appreciate your help. Not Proven (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The founding date for the British Army has already been discussed at Talk:British Army. I believe there is consensus there that the British Army was founded in 1660 (albeit it was then called the English Army). This article properly reflects that discussion in that it shows appointments back to 1660. If there is a desire to reopen the discussion that the British Army was founded in 1660 then it is probably best if it is reopened at Talk:British Army. Dormskirk (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the consensus on Talk:British Army was for foundation in 1660, and note that the first para of the current page reads: "The English Army, founded in 1660, was succeeded in 1707 by the new British Army." This could not be clearer: the British Army was new in 1707. Letting this page stand with an assertion of a 1660 foundation puts it at odds with the other major Wikipedia pages addressing this subject. If someone has a definitive citation for the British Army's foundation before the British state they should add it in the page, because right now my UK National Archive citation saying 1707 is the discussion closer.Not Proven (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With respect Wikipedia works on the basis of consensus and you alone are not in a position to say when the discussion is closed. That said I would have no problem inserting the same words that you quote viz "The English Army, founded in 1660, was succeeded in 1707 by the new British Army" into this article to give additional context. I hope that helps. Dormskirk (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With respect in equal measure, nothing in my posting suggested my opinion to be definitive, but rather that standard practice and a citation of the UK National Archives trumps no citation at all. Per my original posting here, the architecture of the page is fundamentally flawed, the historical fiction of continuum from commander of the English Army to that of Britain being no more more valid than that from the Scottish commander, but a correction of the type you describe would be something of an improvement. Thank you. Not Proven (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I have tweaked the introduction to the article accordingly. The article is about the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces so the easiest way to deal with this is to work on the basis that the post holder was initially the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in the English Army and then the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in the British Army. I hope my edit achieves that but please feel free to tweak if you think you can improve it. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]