Working with a non-decimal system can be problematic and confusing. This might be the case when one tries to study financial topics during the early 18th century. In those days, a English pound was divided into 20 shillings, and each shilling numbered 12 pence.
Two tools were created to ease working with this non-decimal system. One is designed to convert a daily payment into its yearly equivalent. In documents on, for example, half-pay officers, the sums paid to these officers is given in daily or yearly sums. The second tool is a simple calculator, to enable addition and subtraction.
The tools can be found at http://drenthpublishing.nl/research.html.
Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts
Saturday, 22 September 2012
Friday, 13 July 2012
Equipping the artillery train for Flanders in 1702
The Journals of the House of Commons are an important source of information for those looking for numbers and financial matters. War needed to be paid, and paid by someone, and the list with annual estimates for the armed forces are very useful.
Volume 13 of this journal gives us some insight in the genesis of the train of artillery that was being prepared for service in Flanders in early 1702. Everything, from the number of sakers, fourteen of them, to the number of horse shoe nails, 18000, is listed. The estimated cost for everything is listed as well (£9 for the nails, £3,075 for the sakers). A list of spare parts for the army carried by the train is given as well. Taken along were, amongst other items, 3000 snaphance muskets, 1000 long pikes and 400000 flints. The total cost for all equipment was a little over £34,806! The officers and men required an additional £10,630 12 0 per year, and the cost for horses amounted to £16,000 for half a year.
All in all this list gives a fascinating overview of the amount of stuff needed by a (not so big) train of artillery 300 years ago. It also illustrates the technical nature of the ordnance (lots and lots of tools and nails). I have found no list of stuff that was carried (officially) by, say, a regiment of foot to compare with, unfortunately.
This volume of the Journals of the House of Commons is found at Google Books, with said overview found on pages 690 - 695.
Volume 13 of this journal gives us some insight in the genesis of the train of artillery that was being prepared for service in Flanders in early 1702. Everything, from the number of sakers, fourteen of them, to the number of horse shoe nails, 18000, is listed. The estimated cost for everything is listed as well (£9 for the nails, £3,075 for the sakers). A list of spare parts for the army carried by the train is given as well. Taken along were, amongst other items, 3000 snaphance muskets, 1000 long pikes and 400000 flints. The total cost for all equipment was a little over £34,806! The officers and men required an additional £10,630 12 0 per year, and the cost for horses amounted to £16,000 for half a year.
 |
| Material needed by the mortars (glue-kettels, 2 reams of paper, amongst a few dozen other items). |
This volume of the Journals of the House of Commons is found at Google Books, with said overview found on pages 690 - 695.
Tuesday, 18 May 2010
Administration of the army
And now for something completely different ...
the administration of the army.
In the 17th century the army as we know it today did not exist. Basically, the army consisted of regiments of foot and horse owned by the colonel-proprietor. This colonel was obviously paid by the government, but the regiment was his property so to speak (as were the soldiers in his regiments in some sense).
Other parts that would constitute an army were chiefly operated by civilians, or a mixture of civilians and military. One should think of artillery, engineers, and logistics. Here especially the latter gives an interesting insight in the administration that made the army operate (and probably, but that is the author's opinion, insight in how the society was organized).
Since the army did not possess a corps dedicated to supply and transportation (like the Royal Logistic Corps or Regiment Bevoorradings- en transporttroepen), civilians were contracted to provide food, transport the food, take care of the wounded etc etc. However, there was of course some administrative mechanism that, in theory, had to take care of all this. And here the step it made towards the topic of this article: the administration of the army. In this case the focus is on the British Army (which is an anachronism actually for the period under consideration). The author is very much aware information presented here is far from complete, and will try to provide updates soon.
At the top of the pyramid stood the monarch, being factual and titular head of state, and in command of the army.
Next came several departments and functions, that did not have a clear relation. But all had their voice in matters related to the army.
The deployment of the army was the responsibility of the Secretaries of State; there was a Northern Department for Northern European/Protestant countries, and a Southern Department for Southern European/Catholic and Muslim countries. (This is not the exact division!)
Furthermore, the role of the Secretary-at-War became more and more important towards 1700 and after. He was the administrative head of the army and looked after the day-to-day running of the army.
The Board of Ordnance with its Master-General of the Ordnance was important, as it controlled almost everything that was not foot or horse. However, he was not subordinate to the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces. The Board was actually a civilian organization, and didn't form part of the army.
The Lord High Treasurer at the head of the Treasury was important for obvious reasons. Subordinate was the Paymaster-General who took care of the disbursement of soldiers' wages and money for subsistence. Also subordinate to the Lord High Treasurer was the Commissariat Department. This department was responsible for moving and feeding the army. This was a civilian bureaucratic department, again not part of the army, and had to contract civilians for providing food, transport, etc.
Not least, an important role was played by the General in Chief Command and Captain General. However, that post was not always filled.
Next step will be to identify links between the various departments and their responsibilities with respect to the army. From the above, the author is aware that it will not be a clear and comprehensive chart that makes clear the responsibilities and hierarchy. (An initial investigation of the administration of the Dutch Army of the late 17th Century shows a much more comprehensive business model.)
the administration of the army.
In the 17th century the army as we know it today did not exist. Basically, the army consisted of regiments of foot and horse owned by the colonel-proprietor. This colonel was obviously paid by the government, but the regiment was his property so to speak (as were the soldiers in his regiments in some sense).
Other parts that would constitute an army were chiefly operated by civilians, or a mixture of civilians and military. One should think of artillery, engineers, and logistics. Here especially the latter gives an interesting insight in the administration that made the army operate (and probably, but that is the author's opinion, insight in how the society was organized).
Since the army did not possess a corps dedicated to supply and transportation (like the Royal Logistic Corps or Regiment Bevoorradings- en transporttroepen), civilians were contracted to provide food, transport the food, take care of the wounded etc etc. However, there was of course some administrative mechanism that, in theory, had to take care of all this. And here the step it made towards the topic of this article: the administration of the army. In this case the focus is on the British Army (which is an anachronism actually for the period under consideration). The author is very much aware information presented here is far from complete, and will try to provide updates soon.
At the top of the pyramid stood the monarch, being factual and titular head of state, and in command of the army.
Next came several departments and functions, that did not have a clear relation. But all had their voice in matters related to the army.
The deployment of the army was the responsibility of the Secretaries of State; there was a Northern Department for Northern European/Protestant countries, and a Southern Department for Southern European/Catholic and Muslim countries. (This is not the exact division!)
Furthermore, the role of the Secretary-at-War became more and more important towards 1700 and after. He was the administrative head of the army and looked after the day-to-day running of the army.
The Board of Ordnance with its Master-General of the Ordnance was important, as it controlled almost everything that was not foot or horse. However, he was not subordinate to the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces. The Board was actually a civilian organization, and didn't form part of the army.
The Lord High Treasurer at the head of the Treasury was important for obvious reasons. Subordinate was the Paymaster-General who took care of the disbursement of soldiers' wages and money for subsistence. Also subordinate to the Lord High Treasurer was the Commissariat Department. This department was responsible for moving and feeding the army. This was a civilian bureaucratic department, again not part of the army, and had to contract civilians for providing food, transport, etc.
Not least, an important role was played by the General in Chief Command and Captain General. However, that post was not always filled.
Next step will be to identify links between the various departments and their responsibilities with respect to the army. From the above, the author is aware that it will not be a clear and comprehensive chart that makes clear the responsibilities and hierarchy. (An initial investigation of the administration of the Dutch Army of the late 17th Century shows a much more comprehensive business model.)
Tuesday, 9 March 2010
Standing Army 1685
The university library of Utrecht appears to have the Manuscripts of the House of Lords for the 17th century. In the volumes for 1689-90 and 1695-97 some information about army estimates and regiments to be raised is given (as per references found elsewhere). However, these two volumes appear to have gone AWOL during some reorganization ....
Nevertheless, the volume for 1697-99 has one page showing the state of the army as it was in November 1685. This was delivered to the House of Lords 24 January 1699. Probably this list has to do with the debates going on at that time about the disbandment of the army, and the future size of the standing army.
Nevertheless, the volume for 1697-99 has one page showing the state of the army as it was in November 1685. This was delivered to the House of Lords 24 January 1699. Probably this list has to do with the debates going on at that time about the disbandment of the army, and the future size of the standing army.
Monday, 1 February 2010
Economizing the army in 1690?
Fresh from the library, the article Fluctuations in the Strength of Forces in English Pay sent to Flanders during the Nine Years' War, 1688 - 1697, by David Chandler, and published in 1983 in War & Society, Vol.1, No. 2 pp.1-20.
As usual, William of Orange had to battle with Parliament each year to get the money he needed to maintain the army at a strength deemed necessary to fight Louis XIV. As a measure to reduce costs, it was suggested by Count Solms to merge three regiments into one single regiment composed of three battalions with eight companies each. This would save a little money, and make available some 4,266 men for new units.
However, the plan fell on stony ground and the idea was never made effective. Probably the opponents of this plan were too deeply involved in the profitable business of the English regimental system...
As usual, William of Orange had to battle with Parliament each year to get the money he needed to maintain the army at a strength deemed necessary to fight Louis XIV. As a measure to reduce costs, it was suggested by Count Solms to merge three regiments into one single regiment composed of three battalions with eight companies each. This would save a little money, and make available some 4,266 men for new units.
However, the plan fell on stony ground and the idea was never made effective. Probably the opponents of this plan were too deeply involved in the profitable business of the English regimental system...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
