Why has no one experimented with a straight one-ladder hierarchy?
I have a suspicion that during meatgrinder wars (e.g. WW2) the two hierarchies if not merged then became a lot closer. Survivors who showed skill were promoted up including from sergeants to lieutenants.
I also wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the Soviet military in the 1920s and 30s was close to a one-ladder deal.
Note that such promotions were given rarely and usually with a “brevet” designation to keep it from being exactly like the “real” thing.
But to the extent that this existed, it might fit into the framework of this post as a recognition of extreme and exceptional agentiness. Battlefield commissions were not, officially, given for skill, hard work, nor for filling the slot—the usual reasons for a promotion—but rather for “outstanding leadership on the field of battle.”
that the Soviet military in the 1920s and 30s was close to a one-ladder deal.
I recall reading that Napoleon promoted enlisted men who showed conspicuous bravery to officers (I believe continuing a practice started by the French army during the revolution). The historian I read who discussed this practice said that the lack of education of these officers did prove a hindrance to the French at times, but there were also definite advantages to the practice; it produced officers who were conspicuously brave, and set a good example, and it gave the enlisted men incentive to try harder if promotion was possible. But perhaps the biggest benefit was that it guaranteed Napoleon could replace his losses; in most European countries at the time, only aristocrats could be military officers, and losses in the Napoleonic wars were high enough that some countries ran short of remotely suitable aristocrats to employ as military officers.
Nope, and I am too lazy to go search, but it would be consistent with the early Soviet emphasis on egalitarianism and their need to construct an army almost from scratch.
I have a suspicion that during meatgrinder wars (e.g. WW2) the two hierarchies if not merged then became a lot closer. Survivors who showed skill were promoted up including from sergeants to lieutenants.
I also wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the Soviet military in the 1920s and 30s was close to a one-ladder deal.
Interesting. Yes, there were battlefield commissions.
Note that such promotions were given rarely and usually with a “brevet” designation to keep it from being exactly like the “real” thing.
But to the extent that this existed, it might fit into the framework of this post as a recognition of extreme and exceptional agentiness. Battlefield commissions were not, officially, given for skill, hard work, nor for filling the slot—the usual reasons for a promotion—but rather for “outstanding leadership on the field of battle.”
Do you have a reference on that?
I recall reading that Napoleon promoted enlisted men who showed conspicuous bravery to officers (I believe continuing a practice started by the French army during the revolution). The historian I read who discussed this practice said that the lack of education of these officers did prove a hindrance to the French at times, but there were also definite advantages to the practice; it produced officers who were conspicuously brave, and set a good example, and it gave the enlisted men incentive to try harder if promotion was possible. But perhaps the biggest benefit was that it guaranteed Napoleon could replace his losses; in most European countries at the time, only aristocrats could be military officers, and losses in the Napoleonic wars were high enough that some countries ran short of remotely suitable aristocrats to employ as military officers.
Enoch Powell rose from Private to Brigadier during the course of the Second World War., though this was very rare.
He was commissioned because he was educated, so I don’t think that’s a good example.
Nope, and I am too lazy to go search, but it would be consistent with the early Soviet emphasis on egalitarianism and their need to construct an army almost from scratch.