When did European states start allowing commoners to be in the officer classes of their armies?

The Duke of Hull · Jul 30, 2025

johnincornwall said:
Another 'how long is a piece of string?' question.

Commoner is not defined in the thread. For example a 'commoner' certainly wouldn't get to be an officer in many British regiments, certainly up to the WW1. But neither were the officers largely nobility - just of a certain class.

Conversely Marius's reforms allowed 'commoners' to join the Roman army - before that you also had to be of a certain class to even join!

Different systems in different countries. I'd suggest commoners became officers earlier in Russia, once they shot all the officers!

A commoner does not own land. The live and depend on common land. If they are employed by a landowner they become part of that person's household/estate. That is a commoner.

The OP question is a fair one. Who was a decision maker in military forces?

It migrated from nobles to professional soldiers during the 1000s-1100s, as fewer nobles fought and preferred to pay scutage which was used to hire professional soldiers. The Hundred Years War was a turning point as so many nobles were killed, but also armies left in situ after the war's battles, which meant they self organised as Routiers.

Famous early example: Mercadier - Wikipedia

A soldier might be given land and promoted by a noble. That stopped them being a commoner. If they were promoted by other commoners the only land they could claim would be won (and retained) by conquest & contest.

pugsville · Jul 30, 2025

The Duke of Hull said:
A commoner does not own land. The live and depend on common land. If they are employed by a landowner they become part of that person's household/estate. That is a commoner.

The OP question is a fair one. Who was a decision maker in military forces?

It migrated from nobles to professional soldiers during the 1000s-1100s, as fewer nobles fought and preferred to pay scutage which was used to hire professional soldiers. The Hundred Years War was a turning point as so many nobles were killed, but also armies left in situ after the war's battles, which meant they self organised as Routiers.

Famous early example: Mercadier - Wikipedia

A soldier might be given land and promoted by a noble. That stopped them being a commoner. If they were promoted by other commoners the only land they could claim would be won (and retained) by conquest & contest.

No. commoner could and did own land. Your thinking is more in line with what would be called a serf.

AlpinLuke · Jul 30, 2025

In Middle Ages free peasants existed and they owned their own land [that's why we define them "free peasants": they weren't serfs or peasants who worked on the land of someone else].
Personally, when I see the word "commoner" I tend to think to the definition: "someone who is not member of the aristocracy or the clergy".

And thinking well, for not a few centuries the clergy has been an engine of social mobility [a commoner had the possibility to become an abbot, for example].

chornedsnorkack · Jul 30, 2025

JoanOfSnark said:
Then, from the same source, the military school’s “politics; function and substantial tuition payments demanded ensured that all but the prominent and wealthy would be effectively excluded.” So formal education, an important route for officers, was still largely off-limits to the lower classes. Which means those without pedigree relied heavily on battlefield skill and experience to climb. So merit wasn’t erased — it became essential for those outside the elite.

To remind you - wealth (or connections) was essential to get military education, because of high tuition, but it was not only people with pedigree or formal status of nobility who might have the wealth to attend a paid school. A merchant would usually not be a noble and might or might not have a well-connected pedigree - but he could have the wealth to pay for his son´s studies in a military school. Which armies accepted merchants´s sons as officers?

The Duke of Hull · Jul 30, 2025

pugsville said:
No. commoner could and did own land. Your thinking is more in line with what would be called a serf.

No a serf is attached to the land of a landowner. Commoners are free.

JoanOfSnark · Jul 30, 2025

[MOD EDIT: AI generated post deleted]

REITRE · Jul 30, 2025

Willempie said:
Quite a few medieval armies had city militias with them. They were usually lead by a non-noble commander, often guild heads or patricians.

Yes, for example municipal militias were an important part of iberian medieval warfare. In the end medieval armies could be highly diverse, made up by several contingents with their own internal military hierarchies and different rights and obligations with regard to the military service that could be demanded of them.

Under normal circumstances, when (municipal) militias were called upon by the king, they usually joined the very heterogeneous royal armies, which were mainly composed of men from the royal retinue, seigneurial militias, military orders and mercenaries. In these cases, the militias did not usually disperse among the army, but maintained their structure and command, sometimes serving as part of larger units, but without merging with them. In this way, the militiamen retained their hierarchy, symbols and flags, thus maintaining the cohesion typical of forces composed of men fighting alongside their neighbours and friends.
....
In border towns, a type of municipal troop emerged that we consider prudent to analyse in a separate paragraph. We are referring to the so-called ‘caballeros villanos’ (non-nolbe knights). In cities such as Ávila, constant warfare and the economic benefits obtained through the continuous flow of booty gave rise to a type of warrior of plebeian origin, but who had the ability to acquire a mount and armour that equated him with the noble knights. At the same time, they also became wealthy thanks to their possession of land, livestock and other assets, thus becoming an influential social group that tended to monopolise council positions reserved for commoners, thereby gaining control of city administration and the direction of military campaigns. Over time, they achieved a certain degree of recognition of their status from the crown and the nobility and, in practice, were equated with the hidalgos, being granted certain noble privileges such as exemption from certain taxes. This social group played a leading role in many of the military actions of the ‘Reconquista’ and is frequently mentioned in the chronicles, which tells us of its importance and the benefits that could be achieved in Hispanic frontier life.
(Translated from Milicias concejiles en la plena Edad Media Hispana. El caso de Castilla y León en los siglos XII y XIII)

As we see the issue here for a commoner was not to be admitted and rise through the ranks of a non-existent officer corps but t hold a position of command and social status among their own that would enable him to claim some kind of noble status, i.e. petty nobility.

pugsville · Jul 30, 2025

JoanOfSnark said:
The “but merchants’ sons could buy in” defence is a classic sleight of hand. Sure, If daddy had a fortune and greased the right palms, a non-noble could squeak through. In fact, many of those merchants had to go so far as to purchase titles of nobility just to be considered officer material.That was a loophole, not proof of a level playing field. The ancien régime didn’t reward battlefield grit; it rewarded the size of your purse and the length of your family tree.

That’s what the Revolution blew open. It didn’t just add a few merchants’ sons to the mix—it tore down the old barriers and let men rise on merit in a way the ancien régime never did.

So asking “Which armies accepted merchants’ sons as officers?” is a dodge. The real point is this: before 1789, the system overwhelmingly served birthright; after the Revolution, talent had a fighting chance. That’s the shift you’re trying very hard not to acknowledge.

It worked the other way, Commoners bought t military commissions to get into the nobility,

chornedsnorkack · Jul 30, 2025

JoanOfSnark said:
The “but merchants’ sons could buy in” defence is a classic sleight of hand. Sure, If daddy had a fortune and greased the right palms, a non-noble could squeak through.

And that varied.

JoanOfSnark said:
In fact, many of those merchants had to go so far as to purchase titles of nobility just to be considered officer material. That was a loophole, not proof of a level playing field. The ancien régime didn’t reward battlefield grit; it rewarded the size of your purse and the length of your family tree.

That’s what the Revolution blew open. It didn’t just add a few merchants’ sons to the mix—it tore down the old barriers and let men rise on merit in a way the ancien régime never did.

So asking “Which armies accepted merchants’ sons as officers?” is a dodge. The real point is this: before 1789, the system overwhelmingly served birthright; after the Revolution, talent had a fighting chance. That’s the shift you’re trying very hard not to acknowledge.

Let´s have a look at the French marshals.
Napoleon in 1804 created 18 (14 active and 4 retired ones). And Bonaparte did not create himself a marshal but he was one of them.
Background:

Augereau: born 1753, son of a small merchant. Entered army age 17. Deserted and served abroad before returning on amnesty.
Bernadotte: born 1763, son of a prosecutor. Was an apprentice attorney, joined army age 17, made career up to adjutant-major
Berthier: born 1753, son of a military engineer of common birth who had been ennobled for military career. Admitted to Royal Engineering School age 11, reached rank of colonel in old regime
Bessieres: born 1768, son of a surgeon, joined military during revolution
Brune: born 1764, son of a lawyer, studied law, joined military during revolution
Buonaparte: born 1769, son of an old petty noble family. Joined a military school at Brienne age 9, graduated another military school age 16 and entered service.
Davoust: born 1770 of a poor minor noble family. Joined the school at Brienne like Buonaparte.
Jourdan: born 1762, son of a surgeon, apprenticed to a cloth merchant, joined royal army and after demobilization returned to be cloth merchant
Kellermann: born in 1735, son of a petty noble, joined army age 15, became marshal of camp in old regime
Lannes: born 1769, son of a merchant, apprenticed to a dyer, joined army during revolution
Lefebvre: born in 1755, son of a miller, tried to study to join church, worked as clerk to a lawyer, joined army age 18, reached rank of sergeant
Massena: born 1758, son of a wine merchant, apprenticed to a baker, worked in a soap factory, went to sea as a cabin boy age 14, joined army age 17, reached rank of adjutant
Moncey: born 1754, son of a lawyer, twice tried to join army, got in on third attempt age 24 as an officer
Mortier: born 1768, son of a draper, joined army during revolution
Murat: born 1767, son of a rich peasant who also was an innkeeper and postmaster. Father tried to educate the son for church - the son ran away to join army.
Ney: born 1769, son of a cooper, educated at a school, started working as a clerk age 13, joined army age 18
Perignon: born 1754, son of petty noble. Was in army for some time, retired to his estate.
Serurier: born 1742, son of petty noble, joined army age 12. Reached rank of major by 1789
Soult: born 1769, son of a notary, joined army age 16

What I seem to get is that 6 of the 19 were noble - all of them petty. Not one inherited a higher noble title (but all of them got these from Napoleon).
And just 1 of the 19 - Murat - was a peasant.
Since 3/4 of Frenchmen were peasants - probably even bigger fraction of French soldiers because bourgeois had better prospects of paying for substitutes - if promotion had been on merit then peasants should have been 15 out of 19 marshals+emperor, not 1 out of 19.

JoanOfSnark · Jul 30, 2025

[MOD EDIT: AI generated post deleted]

chornedsnorkack · Jul 30, 2025

Cherrypicking marshals only allows picking samples of manageable size (but big enough to be representative).
Louis XVI promoted 20 marshals. A nice comparison to Napoleon´s 18+self (and unlike Napoleon, Louis was no general himself).

Harcourt - born 1701, son of a duke, entered army in 1716, marshal 1775
Louis de Noailles - born 1713, son of a duke, entered army in 1729, marshal 1775
Nicolai - born 1711, son of a marquis, entered army in 1729, marshal 1775
Fitz-James - born 1712, son of a marquis, entered army in 1730, marshal 1775
Philippe de Noailles - born 1715, son of the same duke as Louis, entered army 1729, marshal 1775
Duras - born 1715, son of a duke. In front by 1734, marshal 1775
Muy - born 1711, son of a marquis, in front by 1734, marshal 1775
Saint-Germain - born 1707, marshal 1775. No Wikipedia article seems to clarify whether he inherited the title Count or whether he was a petty noble and got the title for service
Laval - born 1723, son of a marquis, entered army 1741, marshal 1783
Haucourt - born 1707, son of a marquis, entered army 1726, marshal 1783
Aubeterre - born 1714, son of a marquis, entered army 1730, marshal 1783
Craon - born 1720, son of a prince, entered army 1738, marshal 1783
Vaux - born 1705, son of a count, entered army 1723, marshal 1783
Segur - born 1724, son of a count, entered army before age 18, marshal 1783
Choiseul - born 1727, son of a marquis, marshal 1783
Castries - born 1727, son of a marquis, entered army age 12, marshal 1783
De Croy - born 1718, son of a prince, entered army 1736, marshal 1783
Levis - born 1719, son of a baron, entered army 1735, marshal 1783
Luckner - born 1722, son of a commoner (innkeeper), entered (Bavarian) army in 1741, (French) marshal 1791
Rochambeau - born 1725, son of "governor of Vendome", no Wikipedia article is specific whether "Count" was created or inherited, but a governor in old regime was certainly noble. Entered military 1742, marshal 1791.

Note the contrast with Napoleon´s marshals! Only one commoner (Luckner) - and he was after revolution. Saint-Germain and Levis seem to have been relatively obscure nobles compared to the rest - but even they were Levis definitely son of a baron, Saint-Germain maybe count. And now compare it to Napoleon and the minority of his marshals who were noble - Berthier, Davoust, Kellermann, Perignon, Serurier. None, even the noblest of Napoleon´s marshals, qualified under old regime, at all, nor himself. Too petty nobles. Oh, and too young. The youngest marshal of Louis XVI was Choiseul who was 55 in 1783 - which age Napoleon never reached.

Willempie · Jul 30, 2025

REITRE said:
.....

As we see the issue here for a commoner was not to be admitted and rise through the ranks of a non-existent officer corps but t hold a position of command and social status among their own that would enable him to claim some kind of noble status, i.e. petty nobility.

Not sure how it worked in Spain, but here in the Low Countries that wouldn't make you a noble. For that you would need some strongarming some nobles to give you a title. Not even Jacob van Artevelde became a noble.

JoanOfSnark · Jul 30, 2025

[MOD EDIT: AI generated post deleted]

Naomasa298 · Jul 30, 2025

When did European states start allowing commoners to be in the officer classes of their armies?

Another 'how long is a piece of string?' question. Commoner is not defined in the thread. For example a 'commoner' certainly wouldn't get to be an officer in many British regiments, certainly up to the WW1. But neither were the officers largely nobility - just of a certain class. Conversely...

historum.com

I suggest you read the rules on AI generated posts.

TL;DR? Don't post AI generated posts and pretend they're your own. Clearly mark them as such, and we *may* allow them to pass. I won't go through and delete all the other ones. Yet.

chornedsnorkack · Jul 30, 2025

JoanOfSnark said:
[MOD EDIT: AI generated post deleted]

It was a glaring example of stupidity. Quite plausibly Artificial Stupidity.
Since it´s deleted, I won´t point out the errors now.

REITRE · Aug 3, 2025

Willempie said:
Not sure how it worked in Spain, but here in the Low Countries that wouldn't make you a noble. For that you would need some strongarming some nobles to give you a title. Not even Jacob van Artevelde became a noble.

Spain was very peculiar in that sense, and so ended having in the 16th century one of the biggest nobilities of Europe, more than 10% of the population. This was due to he huge number of hidalgos or at least people who claimed to be hidalgos.
Besides obtaining hidalgo status by military merits, there were addtional ways to achieve hidalgo status and maybe one of the more peculiar to us was by "collective privileges", were some villages and valleys claimed hidalgo status for it´s entire population. So by one means or another, we find several spanish provinces, all in the north (Cantabria, Asturias, Burgos...), that had more nobles in the census than plebeians. And the most extreme case of "universal nobility" privilege were the 16th century "fueros" (charters) of the provinces of Biscay and Gipuzkoa which recognised that all their residents (and their descendants) were "hidalgos".

The stereotype of a spanish hidalgo was a poor man, where his only assets were his "lineage" and a sword, having to make a living with that sword (as a soldier) or at least with a pen (as a lawyer, civil servant...), but refusing to do any kind of manual labour. Of course in those provinces with a huge percentage of hidalgos, they do all kind of offices for a living.

Of course other countries, barely aknowledge spanish hidalgos to be real "nobles" and even despised the low or lack of nobility of many of the officers of the spanish Tercios during the 16th century; though someones earned a kind of respect and/or admiration:

The Spanish military commanders in question are those who resonate most in the narratives of the time and held the most important positions during the first decade of the Revolt in the Low Countries. Sancho Dávila y Daza was the Governor of the Antwerp citadel and the commander of the Duke of Alba’s personal guard; Cristóbal de Mondragón y Mercado
was Governor of the castle in Ghent and a Colonel of Walloon troops.Julián Romero and Francisco de Valdés were both Maestres de campo, commanders of a Spanish infantry tercio, even reaching as high as being nominated Maestres de campo general, commanders of a whole army. None of these men belonged to the high nobility, and they were not even noble enough to put a ‘Don’ in front of their names. The relatively lowbirth of some of the Spanish high command was exceptional in early modern Europe.
(...)
In general, Dutch anti-Hispanic texts have a tendency to emphasise the low birth of the Spanish commanders but, as we shall see, in the specific case of Sancho this was certainly not true. Interestingly enough, the seventeenth-century play about Julián does describe how this commander started off as the servant of a drummer, showing that rising high from low birth could also be considered very positively.
Raymond Fagel. Protagonists of War; Spanish Army Commanders and the Revolt in the Low Countries

Willempie · Aug 3, 2025

REITRE said:
The Spanish military commanders in question are those who resonate most in the narratives of the time and held the most important positions during the first decade of the Revolt in the Low Countries. Sancho Dávila y Daza was the Governor of the Antwerp citadel and the commander of the Duke of Alba’s personal guard; Cristóbal de Mondragón y Mercado
was Governor of the castle in Ghent and a Colonel of Walloon troops.Julián Romero and Francisco de Valdés were both Maestres de campo, commanders of a Spanish infantry tercio, even reaching as high as being nominated Maestres de campo general, commanders of a whole army. None of these men belonged to the high nobility, and they were not even noble enough to put a ‘Don’ in front of their names. The relatively lowbirth of some of the Spanish high command was exceptional in early modern Europe.
(...)
In general, Dutch anti-Hispanic texts have a tendency to emphasise the low birth of the Spanish commanders but, as we shall see, in the specific case of Sancho this was certainly not true. Interestingly enough, the seventeenth-century play about Julián does describe how this commander started off as the servant of a drummer, showing that rising high from low birth could also be considered very positively.
Raymond Fagel. Protagonists of War; Spanish Army Commanders and the Revolt in the Low Countries

I wonder if Sancho Dávila y Daza is the same chap that was commander of the fortress at Utrecht for a while. There is a captain d'Avila who is a supporting character in one of my favorite childhood books. The writer mainly wrote historical youth novels, but unlike most, she did a ton of research.

Thea Beckman

Author of Kinderen van Moeder Aarde, Hasse Simonsdochter, and Geef me de ruimte!

www.goodreads.com

The book is called "Val van de Vredeborch", which afaik hasn't been translated. It is about the city of Utrecht in the early 80-years-war and the destruction of the fortress the "Vredeborch" (literally Peacekeep), which is now a square in the city.

Back to the subject. I think that most of the emphasis on the low-birth is from the start of the war. Philips II was turning his administration professional, meaning many common people in the administration and in powerful positions to boot. Much of the resentment came from the noble class. So it would make sense that they would use the low birth of the Spanish and others like Granvelle as a punching bag. Ironically the noble class had lost much of its power after the war was over. Much more then they would have under Philips.
For the townsmen it was more about taxes and religion.

pugsville · Aug 3, 2025

chornedsnorkack said:
Cherrypicking marshals only allows picking samples of manageable size (but big enough to be representative).
Louis XVI promoted 20 marshals. A nice comparison to Napoleon´s 18+self (and unlike Napoleon, Louis was no general himself).

Harcourt - born 1701, son of a duke, entered army in 1716, marshal 1775

Louis de Noailles - born 1713, son of a duke, entered army in 1729, marshal 1775

Nicolai - born 1711, son of a marquis, entered army in 1729, marshal 1775

Fitz-James - born 1712, son of a marquis, entered army in 1730, marshal 1775

Philippe de Noailles - born 1715, son of the same duke as Louis, entered army 1729, marshal 1775

Duras - born 1715, son of a duke. In front by 1734, marshal 1775

Muy - born 1711, son of a marquis, in front by 1734, marshal 1775

Saint-Germain - born 1707, marshal 1775. No Wikipedia article seems to clarify whether he inherited the title Count or whether he was a petty noble and got the title for service

Laval - born 1723, son of a marquis, entered army 1741, marshal 1783

Haucourt - born 1707, son of a marquis, entered army 1726, marshal 1783

Aubeterre - born 1714, son of a marquis, entered army 1730, marshal 1783

Craon - born 1720, son of a prince, entered army 1738, marshal 1783

Vaux - born 1705, son of a count, entered army 1723, marshal 1783

Segur - born 1724, son of a count, entered army before age 18, marshal 1783

Choiseul - born 1727, son of a marquis, marshal 1783

Castries - born 1727, son of a marquis, entered army age 12, marshal 1783

De Croy - born 1718, son of a prince, entered army 1736, marshal 1783

Levis - born 1719, son of a baron, entered army 1735, marshal 1783

Luckner - born 1722, son of a commoner (innkeeper), entered (Bavarian) army in 1741, (French) marshal 1791

Rochambeau - born 1725, son of "governor of Vendome", no Wikipedia article is specific whether "Count" was created or inherited, but a governor in old regime was certainly noble. Entered military 1742, marshal 1791.

Note the contrast with Napoleon´s marshals! Only one commoner (Luckner) - and he was after revolution. Saint-Germain and Levis seem to have been relatively obscure nobles compared to the rest - but even they were Levis definitely son of a baron, Saint-Germain maybe count. And now compare it to Napoleon and the minority of his marshals who were noble - Berthier, Davoust, Kellermann, Perignon, Serurier. None, even the noblest of Napoleon´s marshals, qualified under old regime, at all, nor himself. Too petty nobles. Oh, and too young. The youngest marshal of Louis XVI was Choiseul who was 55 in 1783 - which age Napoleon never reached.

Pierre-Joseph Bourcet - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

May well be the only commoner to make General in the 18th century French Ancient Regime.

The young age of Generals risingin teh French revolution is not just the commoners where now considered much more favorably. But the exedos of about 80% officers corps (which I would assume was skewed towards the more senior ranks) but also the dismissal, execution of many High Reanking generals (about 230) the constant combat nad officer casualties mean the opportunities for Promotion to high rank was frequent. Though many of the NCOs promoted were of advanced age who were often removed by both the Revolutionary Government and Napoleon.

Frederick the Great administrative changes after his major wars, made reduced income of his officers significantly making retirement diffacuklt for many, leading to a very aged officer corps by the time of the revolutionary wars. The Prussians reforms after their defeat in 1805-07 lead to te dismisal of all but two of the existing 190 odd senoir generals.

chornedsnorkack · Aug 4, 2025

pugsville said:
Pierre-Joseph Bourcet - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

May well be the only commoner to make General in the 18th century French Ancient Regime.

No. Marshal Luckner was General, and not just General but Lieutenant General, under Old Regime too, Except Luckner lived into Revolution, and became Marshal.

pugsville said:
The young age of Generals risingin teh French revolution is not just the commoners where now considered much more favorably. But the exedos of about 80% officers corps (which I would assume was skewed towards the more senior ranks) but also the dismissal, execution of many High Reanking generals (about 230) the constant combat nad officer casualties mean the opportunities for Promotion to high rank was frequent. Though many of the NCOs promoted were of advanced age who were often removed by both the Revolutionary Government and Napoleon.

Let´s take the ages of Marshals (and Emperor) at promotion, 1715-1815. Italics because it´s year to year - many were a year younger depending on the months of birth and promotion.

1724 Broglie 78
1724 Roquelaure 68
1724 Grancey 69
1724 Le Bourg 69
1724 Alegre 71
1724 La Feuillade 51
1724 Gramont 53
1730 Coetlogon 84
1734 Biron 71
1734 Puysegur 69
1734 Asfeld 69
1734 Noailles 56
1734 Tingry 59
1734 Broglie 63
1734 Coigny 64
1734 Levis-Charlus 65
1740 Cereste 69
1741 Chaulnes 65
1741 Nangis 59
1741 Isenghien 63
1741 Duras 57
1741 Maillebois 59
1741 Belle-Isle 57
1741 Saxe 45
1745 Maulevrier 68
1746 Balincourt 66
1746 la Fare 65
1746 Harcourt 57
1747 Montmorency-Laval 70
1747 Clermont-Tonnerre 59
1747 La Mothe-Houdancourt 60
1747 Löwendahl 47
1748 Richelieu 52
1757 la Tour-Maubourg 73
1757 Biron 56
1757 Lautrec 71
1757 Piney-Luxembourg 55
1757 Estrees 62
1757 La Ferte 72
1757 Thomond 58
1758 Mirepoix 58
1758 Bercheny 69
1758 Conflans 68
1758 Contades 54
1758 Soubise 43
1759 Broglie 41
1768 Randan 64
1768 Armentieres 57
1768 Brissac 70
1775 Harcourt 74
1775 Noailles 62
1775 Nicolai 63
1775 Fitz-James 63
1775 Mouchy 60
1775 Duras 60
1775 Muy 73
1775 Saint-Germain 68
1783 Laval 60
1783 Mailly 75
1783 Aubeterre 69
1783 Beauvau-Craon 63
1783 Vaux 78
1783 Segur 59
1783 Choiseul 56
1783 Castries 56
1783 Croy 65
1783 Levis 64
1791 Luckner 69
1791 Rochambeau 66
1804 Buonaparte (Emperor) 35
1804 Augereau 47
1804 Bernadotte 41
1804 Berthier 51
1804 Bessieres 36
1804 Brune 41
1804 Davoust 34
1804 Jourdan 42
1804 Kellermann 69
1804 Lannes 35
1804 Lefebvre 49
1804 Massena 46
1804 Moncey 50
1804 Mortier 36
1804 Murat 37
1804 Ney 35
1804 Perignon 50
1804 Serurier 62
1804 Soult 35
1807 Perrin 43
1809 Macdonald 44
1809 Marmont 35
1809 Oudinot 42
1811 Suchet 41
1812 Saint-Cyr 48
1813 Poniatowski 50
1815 Grouchy 49

Note that out of the 69 marshals promoted between 1709 and 1804 exclusive, just 4 were not 50 by the end of promotion year. These were Saxe (45), Löwendahl (47), Soubise (43) and one of the Broglies (41).
Of the 26 marshals promoted between 1804 and 1815 inclusive, just 6 were 50 by the end of promotion year. These were Berthier (51), Kellermann (69), Moncey (50), Perignon (50), Serurier (62) and Poniatowski (50).

REITRE · Aug 4, 2025

Willempie said:
I wonder if Sancho Dávila y Daza is the same chap that was commander of the fortress at Utrecht for a while. There is a captain d'Avila who is a supporting character in one of my favorite childhood books. The writer mainly wrote historical youth novels, but unlike most, she did a ton of research.

Thea Beckman

Author of Kinderen van Moeder Aarde, Hasse Simonsdochter, and Geef me de ruimte!

www.goodreads.com

The book is called "Val van de Vredeborch", which afaik hasn't been translated. It is about the city of Utrecht in the early 80-years-war and the destruction of the fortress the "Vredeborch" (literally Peacekeep), which is now a square in the city.

That would be another spanish captain. Under the terms of the Pacification of Ghent, the spanish troops would leave the Low Countries, and the town fortress would be handed to the troops serving directly to the Council of State. The commander of the castle of Utrecht was captain Francisco Hernandez de Ávila. When count Bossu arrived to take possesion of the fortress he refused to comply and resisted until don Juan sent an emissary to confirm that he had agreed to the terms of the Perpetual Edict.
Even more stubborn, was Sancho Dávila, that commanded the citadel of Antwerp. Dávila said that the king himself had appointed him as governor, and didn´t give in until receiving a harsh letter from Philip II himself. Dávila felt deeply offended, even more because he had to give the citadel to the duke of Aarschot, someone whe he hated, so he arranged that it would be his second in command the one to give the "keys" of the citadel, only after he had left it.

Willempie said:
Back to the subject. I think that most of the emphasis on the low-birth is from the start of the war. Philips II was turning his administration professional, meaning many common people in the administration and in powerful positions to boot. Much of the resentment came from the noble class. So it would make sense that they would use the low birth of the Spanish and others like Granvelle as a punching bag. Ironically the noble class had lost much of its power after the war was over. Much more then they would have under Philips.
For the townsmen it was more about taxes and religion.

Yes, here we are talking about the spanish officers in the very first phase of the war. But still, it´s true that by the end of the 80 years war, it was increasingly difficult to find these kind of humble men in high positions. By middle 17th century there were many complaints that what once had been a kind of partial meritocracy, had been eroded to attract "high" nobility that wanted a more easier and faster "cursus honorum".

Search

Search

When did European states start allowing commoners to be in the officer classes of their armies?

The Duke of Hull

pugsville

AlpinLuke

chornedsnorkack

The Duke of Hull

JoanOfSnark

REITRE

pugsville

chornedsnorkack

JoanOfSnark

chornedsnorkack

Willempie

JoanOfSnark

Naomasa298

When did European states start allowing commoners to be in the officer classes of their armies?

chornedsnorkack

REITRE

Willempie

Thea Beckman

pugsville

Pierre-Joseph Bourcet - Wikipedia

chornedsnorkack

Pierre-Joseph Bourcet - Wikipedia

REITRE

Thea Beckman

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions