Saphroneth
Banned
The Cardwell reforms in the mid-late 19th century were something of a mixed bag at best for the British Empire.
Cardwell went into them with a remit to cut expenditure and abolish purchase of commissions, which meant that - while some genuinely good things were done - the British Army was also fundamentally reorganized in a way counter to its main strategic objective.
Pre-Cardwell, a soldier enlisted for 11 years with an extra 10 (IIRC, the numbers may be off) optional, and large numbers took the optional. With the at-the-time establishment strength of 220,000, the British Army could meet colonial commitments with relative ease (since most of the army could be sent overseas for garrison - young soldiers weren't allowed) and maintain a large force in the UK to raid for overseas deployments.
Cardwell introduced short service, which reduced the time spent in service drastically and meant that time was spent in the reserve instead of on active duty. This chops up the number able to go overseas, reduces the average experience level of the soldiers (the average soldier pre-Cardwell would have well over five years of experience, post-Cardwell it's more like two to three at best) and means that the reaction force in the UK is too small to provide major commitments.
(From memory, the army is shrunk by something like 40,000 to 50,000 men, which means that the home force takes the brunt of the loss and that it's mostly the less experienced men).
So.
What would have changed in British history if the worse parts of the Cardwell Reforms had been skipped or ameliorated? Could it have had an effect on British culture to have a reasonably large standing army (on a continental scale, though at the small end) in addition to the militia and volunteers?
And would any wars have gone significantly differently?
Cardwell went into them with a remit to cut expenditure and abolish purchase of commissions, which meant that - while some genuinely good things were done - the British Army was also fundamentally reorganized in a way counter to its main strategic objective.
Pre-Cardwell, a soldier enlisted for 11 years with an extra 10 (IIRC, the numbers may be off) optional, and large numbers took the optional. With the at-the-time establishment strength of 220,000, the British Army could meet colonial commitments with relative ease (since most of the army could be sent overseas for garrison - young soldiers weren't allowed) and maintain a large force in the UK to raid for overseas deployments.
Cardwell introduced short service, which reduced the time spent in service drastically and meant that time was spent in the reserve instead of on active duty. This chops up the number able to go overseas, reduces the average experience level of the soldiers (the average soldier pre-Cardwell would have well over five years of experience, post-Cardwell it's more like two to three at best) and means that the reaction force in the UK is too small to provide major commitments.
(From memory, the army is shrunk by something like 40,000 to 50,000 men, which means that the home force takes the brunt of the loss and that it's mostly the less experienced men).
So.
What would have changed in British history if the worse parts of the Cardwell Reforms had been skipped or ameliorated? Could it have had an effect on British culture to have a reasonably large standing army (on a continental scale, though at the small end) in addition to the militia and volunteers?
And would any wars have gone significantly differently?