I'm writing a history of the colonial wars of the Napoleonic period, and I've hit a practical problem that I hope the collective wisdom of the forum might help me with!
Prior to 1808, the Batavo-Javanese army placed 'Major' between Captain and Lt. Colonel.
After 1808, it used something akin to the French model, wherein 'Major' lies between Lt. Colonel (Chef de Bataillon) and Colonel.
As a result, some officers are promoted to Major, then again to Lt. Colonel, and then again to Major, again..before going on to be Colonel.
Furthermore, there is obviously a problem in English-language writing in any case, as in the British Army, for example, Major follows the first model, not the second, and this is very likely to cause considerable misunderstanding about the relative seniority of the ranks, and indeed it appears that the role of Major is not what was typical in the French army.
So, has anyone bright ideas of how to avoid this confusion? I'm inclined to retain Major for the earlier usage, and perhaps some modification of Colonel for the later one? Any ideas gratefully received.
Yes, but here the titles did not differ, nor the task, only the order of precedence. The lieutenant-colonel was still bataillon commander, only junior to the major, rather than senior.
NATO gets around this problem by prefacing the title rank with a grade, ie OF 1-10 for Officers and OR 1-9 for other ranks. Then a later OF3 Major cannot be confused with an earlier or later OF5 Major?
Thanks Rob, that means my understanding of the terms was correct. Weirdly, some oud Majors were (Occasionally) on active service...one even served as a Brigadiet for a while. I have suspected this was atypical given the term. Things in Indonesia appear to have been...flexible!
I really appreciate the clarification.
The inconsistency about lieutenant is certainly not simply information being left out, in the case of Java, even army rolls, combat reports, annual registers and army orders use the term on its own as unambiguous. The problem stems from the histories of the units involved. Each unit individually makes sense and has its own logic, but as a set it’s inconsistent. I spent years untangling it...but it explains why quite a few things turned out as they did... The force was quite...quixotic.
"oud Major" means: "former major". "tit." is short for: "titulair" and is similar to honorary rank. Generally in Dutch "lieutenant" without an addition is used as an abbreviation of the full title. Only if something is added you can be sure of the exact rank.
Oh, that should be "outside of captains and colonels"... they at least are consistent. 99% of the time, anyhow.
Indeed Rob. That change only happened in Java in 1808, when Daendels re-organised things. However, it didn't get applied consistently, nor was it applied instantly, so some of the 'old' majors retained the title for some time after, so while one Major was super-ordinate to a Lt. Col., another would be sub-ordinate...and 'oud Major' and 'tit. Major' were also used, though rarely for active officers in the former case. (I'm not 100% sure what the 'tit.' means, by the way, though that's merely personal curiosity frankly. Worse, in Java the term lieutenant wasn't consistent between regiments: e.g. in one unit it meant sous-lieutenant or 2nd lieutenant; in another it meant 1st lieutenant; it varied in different branches, and it varied over time even in the same unit. The entire ranking scheme is a complete mess, outside of captains and lieutenants, and while I'd be inclined to just use the label from an original document, the level of footnoting required is likely to prove tiresome to the reader (if in fact simpler for me personally!). What sort of caveat is used by Dutch historians? That might be the right thing to follow.
Many thanks.
In the Dutch Army in 1806 the lieutenant-colonel and major switched in seniority in order to mirror the French system. The lieutenant-colonel became the equivalent of the French Chef-de-Bataillon.
Chef de Bataillon was used after 1808. Terry Crowdy (p.11 - N's Infantry Handbook) describes the major as second only to the colonel and not a field officer, very different from Chef de Bataillon and certainly not interchangeable. Having said that Major Jacques Louis Dornier commanded the 15e Ligne at Villamuriel on this day in 1812!
Looking at this seems confusing, my understanding of the French system is that
- In the Ancien regime you have Colonel (regimental commander) and Lieutenant-Colonel (battalion commander)
- Then August 1793 this changes to do away with the "aristocratic" system with A Demi-Brigade Commander (i.e. the regimental commander in all but title) and Battalion Commander, or a Chef de Battalion (in command of each battalion)
- By February 1808 this is changed to Colonel (ie as the Regimental commander) and Major (as the Battalion commander)
Are the changes in the Netherlands, not a case of duplication by different meaning. is the "Majoor" of pre-1808 not the most senior "Kaptein", possibly even recorded as "Majoor-Kaptein". Also, the French 1808 system is not a case of the Major being between Lt Colonel and Colonel. The rank Lt Colonel had been abolished since 1793 in favour of Chef de Batallion. Thereafter a "Chef de Batallion" is called a "Major". There are Adjutant-Majors in the French system. Which seem to be a battalion 2ic. So promotions with "major" in the title may not be the case of having to repeat a rank, but that the holder never had the equivalent post.
Perhaps others familiar with 1791, 1793 and 1808 regulations on rank titles could confirm their contents.
Regards
Scott
I think that my first call would be to talk to your editor; most publishers have guidelines on this sort of thing. If it were me, I'd give the ranks in the native language and include a note somewhere to explain the quirk.
And what then would you call the Lieutenant-Colonel? The same happened in the Kingdom of Holland itself of course. Dutch historians are familiar with it and generally use the titles unchanged (but with a caveat). Changing he titles would in time create a lot of confusion and misunderstanding through unclear quotes and captions of portraits.