In 2014, to mark the 100th anniversary of the outbreak of the First World War, the BBC did a series of programmes in which some of the data later became almost the most powerful "supporting material" for the "spirit of nobility":
1. The mortality rate of British soldiers in World War I was about 12%;
2. The mortality rate of British officers in World War I was about 17%;
3. The mortality rate of Eton College graduates who served in World War I is about 20%.
Today's Eton College still has a "noble fan"
Looking at these numbers alone, it is really quite moving.
However, in addition to the "inspiration" of the British aristocracy's core concept of honor, responsibility, courage, self-discipline and other excellent character values, if we compare the background of the year and taste it carefully, you will find that behind these data, it is far from the inspiration of "aristocratic spirit", so simple.
First and foremost, it is the problem of money.
At the beginning of the 20th century, although the British aristocrats and grandfathers were still as good as before on the surface, in private, many of them were quite anxious.
The Earl of Grantham in the hit TV series "Downton Abbey" is very representative.
As heirs to family estates and titles, in the beginning, the traditionally minded Earl of Grantham was very reluctant to participate directly in a livelihood or to acquire certain vocational skills, and they despised the urban middle class like the "big cousin" who insisted on "going to work", and considered such life to be very "undignified".
"Downton Abbey" stills, such a guest, a toss is a day, according to different occasions to constantly change clothes, even if there is kung fu to "work"
Hereditary aristocrats such as the Earl of Grantham, their financial income was mainly based on the output of the manor, and at the same time, through the client, invested in some industry and commerce. For example, in the early 19th century, the railway from Liverpool to Manchester was invested by the aristocracy as high as more than 40%.
Originally, riding on the east wind of the first industrial revolution, the income of the masters was very good.
Like the old landlords and rich people in China, most of the British aristocrats at that time made money in industrial and commercial investment, and their first choice was to buy land and buy fixed assets.
As a result, throughout the 19th century, the British aristocracy fell into an infinite cycle of making money - buying land - making money - buying land, and even some masters, in order to compare, even borrowed money to buy land.
Such an industry, maintained up, is very cash-burning
Unexpectedly, with the reduction of preservation technology and transoceanic transportation costs, a large amount of grain from British colonies and other overseas countries began to flood into the British Isles.
At the same time, in order to support industrialization, the British government has also tightened the price protection policy for local agricultural and sideline products.
As a result, in the last three decades of the late 19th century, the prices of agricultural products, represented by wheat, continued to fall, and the prices of land with them also depreciated wildly.
Under this circumstance, the property of the nobles who had been frantically hoarding land a while ago began to shrink continuously.
What is even more tragic is that the political status of the British aristocracy is also much worse than before, and the newly introduced bills such as the Secret Voting Act and the Redistribution of Seats Law have continuously weakened the power of the nobility.
By 1910, the British enacted the Bill of Rights, abolishing the absolute legislative veto power of the House of Lords. Since then, the hereditary aristocrats have almost completely lost direct influence over the decision-making of the British government.
Today's British House of Lords is more of a performative and ritualistic existence
The Queen and his wife preside over the house of lords
Scene of the House of Lords event
This noisy, crowded House of Commons is the center of Power in Britain
Because of this, the nobles could no longer defend their interests at the national level through legislative means.
At the same time, some aristocrats were also infected with the vices of gambling, alcoholism, mistresses, and buying and buying, but in order to maintain "decency", they refused to change the extravagant pomp and lifestyle habits handed down from their old generations.
As a result, in the early 20th century, the British aristocratic circles, the debts and bankruptcies of the lords, abounded.
The "fox hunting" tradition of the British nobility was a special money-burning activity
Although the nobles are not ashamed to directly withdraw money, it is impossible to do without it.
In order to save their ancestral property, some aristocrats who had reached the brink of bankruptcy began to lay down their bodies and marry the daughters of rich American families - taking their wives' dowries to continue their "decent lives".
Americans must seek status and prestige when they get rich, but the republican United States has no aristocracy - at this time, the "superiority" of the British political system is reflected in time.
As a result, a large number of rich American women who were raised according to aristocratic ladies from childhood appeared in various social occasions in British high society to help the family realize the "Aristocratic Dream of the Americans".
So much so that Wilde once commented bitterly, "For the London social world, Americans are all women, and we have never met a male American." ”
For example, The mother of the later famous Prime Minister Churchill, Jenny, was the pearl in the palm of Leonard Jerome, one of the richest americans and one of the shareholders of the New York Times.
Churchill and his mother
After the two sons of the elder Churchill gave birth to two sons, they basically lived their own lives, and their emotional lives almost did not intersect.
Honestly, a cross-border marriage like the Earl of Grantham and his wife in Downton Abbey, which marries first and then falls in love, was not common during those years.
The Earl of Grantham and his wife in Downton Abbey
What's more, the number of rich women in the United States is also limited, the vision is generally not low, just hope to find a woman to marry to improve the living conditions to revitalize the family business, the opportunity is not always available.
Then, as mentioned earlier, going to work like a middle-class white-collar worker, and being considered "undignified", the "decent occupation" that they can choose to make a living seems to be the only way to fight in the military.
Moreover, historically, the British aristocracy has a tradition of military service - whether it is the eldest son or the second son, the parents like to send their sons to the army for "training".
For the eldest son who wants to inherit the family property, it is enough to experience the military life, while the remaining second sons who do not have the right to inherit must continue to stay in the army and make meritorious achievements.
In the colonial era, many of the famous generals who opened up territory for the British Empire were the second sons of aristocratic families. For example, we are familiar with Colonel Gordon, who got the yellow coat of the Qing Dynasty (when he died in Africa, he was already a major general).
Charlie George Gordon (1833-1885) The English nobility generally had long names, like Churchill, whose full name was Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill
Young men in the middle and upper classes, especially the children of the nobility, who have obvious advantages in education and social status, generally become officers directly after training, and almost no one goes to the grass-roots level to become a big head soldier.
So, let's look at the data at the beginning:
In World War I, the mortality rate for British soldiers was about 12%, but the mortality rate for British officers was about 17%, and the mortality rate for Eton College graduates was about 20% (including some non-war attrition, such as translators and diplomats).
At that time, Eton College enrolled most of the children of nobles, and a large part of the officers of the British Army came from the large and small nobles in its territory. Looking at it this way, 12% of the big-headed soldiers were killed, and 20% of the nobles were killed, which is easy to explain.
The British army in the World War I movie War Horse
In addition, it is worth noting that at the beginning of the First World War, neither the Allies nor the Allies expected the war to be fought in a protracted war, and most people believed that the frontal war would end easily in just a few months - the nobles at that time generally felt that by Christmas, it should be almost over.
For example, the eldest grandson of the poet laureate Tennyson, the third marquis of Tennyson, wrote excitedly in his diary that —
"Hurry up and pack some bags, thinking that you can't miss this war..... Our greatest fear is that before we reach the front, the war will be over. ”
Moreover, since the Crimean War, the British army has not fought much major battles with evenly matched opponents, and the largest Boer War in South Africa, although it took a lot of effort, was ultimately victorious.
Therefore, the British upper echelons of that year generally thought too lightly and optimistic about the duration, scale and scope of the war, as well as the degree of tragedy.
It is in this mentality that british aristocrats have signed up for the army, hoping to go to the front line to "gild" military merits and seek decent positions, so as to improve the economic situation and maintain their "decent life".
Old photographs of World War I officers
Moreover, if we reconnect with the previous and subsequent wars, we can find a strange phenomenon.
Except for the First World War, the rest of the wars were almost all civilian casualties higher than those of nobles and officers, so why was it that in the "First World War", it was such a rate?
If you use only the "sense of honor" to explain, it seems a bit unreasonable - in the past, the nobles did not have such a strong sense of honor, and when it came to the "First World War", how did the sense of honor suddenly "burst"?
In fact, if you understand the pattern of war that prevailed in the West before that, you know what the problem is.
Most of the western wars in modern times have adopted "linear tactics", which is what we commonly call "queuing and shooting".
This was mainly limited by the performance of the weapons of that year - the accuracy of firearms was low, the rate of fire was slow, and in order to increase the density of firepower, it was necessary to engage in man-sea tactics - in the flat field, the soldiers wore flowers and branches, stepped on the drums and lined up in a square array, and when the two sides approached the firing range, they shot at each other with the commander's password, and when they were nearest, they would also engage in bayonet hand-to-hand combat.
The "linear tactics" scene in the movie, before the end of the 19th century, the British army was wearing a bright red, also known as the "lobster soldier"
Subject to the visibility of the battlefield at that time, as soon as the guns were fired, black smoke billowed out, in order to enhance the recognition of the enemy and us, the officers would always dress very conspicuously and exaggeratedly, riding a high-headed horse like a small rooster, shuttling back and forth in the queue, controlling the speed, and issuing orders.
At that time, the battlefield did not pay much attention to concealment, and the dress was very high-profile
Earlier, this kind of "ritualistic" war also paid attention to the so-called "dignity" and "bottom line".
Therefore, many times, although the image of the commander is very crazy and cool, sitting on a high horse wearing a red and willow green uniform, and passionately directing the soldiers to attack each other, the death rate is not too high.
Because, at that time, the officers still paid attention to -- "leave a line in everything, and see you in the future" - this time I let you go, next time, big brother, you also have to be merciful.
Especially the upper commanders, many of them are not low in origin, many may be the original old classmates, distant relatives abroad, or have shared the same "social flower" and so on - everyone originally belonged to a circle of aristocrats, after the war may have to come and go, how can they come up and kill each other first.
By the beginning of the 20th century, however, world war i had seen a marked escalation – in addition to the large-scale equipment of The Maxim, the range of ordinary rifles had reached one kilometer.
The Maxim machine gun and barbed wire in World War I sent the linear tactics to the grave
That is to say, the "linear tactics" that once lined up to shoot face to face have become the old yellow calendar, replaced by various unexpected "ambushes" - when the target army enters the predetermined position, the commander observes it with a telescope, and everyone attacks according to the instructions.
You don't have a chance to see what the other person is like, and the bullets that come roaring in will reap your life.
Such a battlefield, acquaintances, foreign aristocratic relatives, and so on, will not work.
In the beginning, British officers were still leading the way on horseback, as before, or shuttling between the lines.
As a result, several rounds down, each time a sudden wave of "barrage", often the largest target of the officer, the first to be destroyed.
As a result, in the first year of the war, the casualty rates of officers on both the Allied and Allied sides were surprisingly high.
After the British side was confused for a while, it quickly made "rectification", and the officers began to dress more and more low-key and plain, and no longer rode a high-headed horse to the front leader.
In the movie "War Horse", the British army of World War I
Therefore, the high death rate of British officers in World War I is an exception in the long history of war, which has not happened before and after.
Of course, such a high death rate of British officers is indeed inseparable from their aristocratic creed and the "feelings" of loyalty to the king and the country - after all, as hereditary nobles, they all belong to the "Zhao family", the country has their shares, they are born superior, the family enjoys privileges for a long time, and naturally has to bear obligations higher than ordinary people.
However, simply taking out those data deliberately to emphasize and prove the spirit of the nobility's dedication to the country, and then make people yearn for a society with nobility, avoiding talking about the other side of the monopoly of state power by the nobility since ancient times.
Such conclusions remain untenable.
The coat of arms of the European nobility has become a key element of today's "college style" clothing, and you can see if there is a similar logo on your down jacket or sweatshirt
In fact, this is more reflective of the fact that the commander's position in the British army was held for a long time by the sons of the nobility, and this obvious class division was always reversed into the so-called "heroism and honor of the aristocratic class".
In short, the British aristocracy admired a sense of honor, and always bravely walked in the front of the war, so the casualty rate in the war was the highest, so that it was destroyed in the First World War - this statement is actually an exaggeration.
According to statistics, 6 of the hereditary nobles who died in the first world war were cut off, leaving no heirs and brothers, and within the framework of the primogeniture system, the blood source was cut off.
But to this day, there are still about a thousand hereditary nobles in Britain.
Therefore, most of the British aristocrats who have "disappeared" for more than a hundred years were not lost in the First World War, but more like they were "harvested" by the increasing inheritance tax and several industrial revolutions.