Talk:Cardwell Reforms

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

"Obvious instances of incompetence and maladministration"

"The starting point was a Royal Commission in 1858, established in the aftermath of the Crimean War .... In addition to the obvious instances of incompetence and maladministration which had been revealed...." -- When? How? And most importantly, what? Could someone please expand on these "obvious" instances of incompetence and maladministration, and how they were revealed? (Or if we have an existing article on this, please link to it.) Thanks. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garnet Wolseley

Could someone help me here. What are the rules for editing an article with this special status? I am keen to add in a section on the role of Garnet Wolseley - both as an aide to Cardwell, when assistant adjutant general, and then in his battle to shore up and develop the reforms in a series of more senior posts afterwards. As the article already says, there was a great deal of resistance in the Army - especially to both strands of the policy on reserves (short -regular - service and integrating the militia). Yet this was what made Britain able for the first time to construct a large expeditionary force in the 2nd Boer War - and provided the foundations for Haldane's reforms before the 1st World War.Julian Brazier (talk) 09:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stepping forward. There's no special protection on the article, so provided you have found reliable sources, go ahead. Also consider updating the section in Garnet Wolseley, 1st Viscount Wolseley. --Wire723 (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Wire723, will do. I have in fact made some additions to the article on Garnet WolseleyJulian Brazier (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soldiers discharged prior to 1870 - interesting, but not sourced properly

There is a very interesting element of this article that was added in 2007

They then had the choice between accepting discharge without pension or signing on for a further term, being rewarded with two months furlough, another enlistment bounty and a pension on completion of their term. More than half of all discharged soldiers chose to sign back on immediately, while around one in five who were discharged signed on again within six months. While this produced a long-service army of veterans, it provided no class of men who could be summoned back to the colours in case of emergency.

Here is the link to that version of the article: [1]

The contributor has not been active on Wikipedia since 2015. Does anyone know where this came from? I looked in the books authored by Skelley, Spiers and Raugh, but the above was not sourced from these secondary sources. Keith H99 (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uniforms

This doesn't mention anything about the uniform changes, e.g. the imposition of tartan trews on the Scottish Lowland regiments who hitherto had worn regular army uniforms. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]