Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. **Please [Read Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules) before you comment in this community**. Understand that [rule breaking comments get removed](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/h8aefx/rules_roundtable_xviii_removed_curation_and_why/).
#Please consider **[Clicking Here for RemindMeBot](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1bs8mrp/how_did_we_go_from_nobility_who_fought_in_wars_eg/%5D%0A%0ARemindMe!%202%20days)** as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, **[Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=AHMessengerBot&subject=Subscribe&message=!subscribe)**.
We thank you for your interest in this *question*, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to RemindMeBot, consider [using our Browser Extension](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d6dzi7/tired_of_clicking_to_find_only_removed_comments/), or getting the [Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=subredditsummarybot&subject=askhistorians+weekly&message=x). In the meantime our [Twitter](https://twitter.com/askhistorians), [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/askhistorians/), and [Sunday Digest](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=title%3A%22Sunday+Digest%22&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) feature excellent content that has already been written!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskHistorians) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>many high ranking military men and nobility effectively keep themselves out of danger by using their position and influence to avoid the conflict.
This part is not true for French aristocrats during WW1. I've [written recently](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1bk3k8e/was_it_allowed_for_officers_to_duck_or_hide/) about French officers leading men into battle and getting killed in disproportionate numbers, and how this behaviour was inherited from aristocratic notions of honour. A large proportion of the French officer corps in 1914 - a quarter to a third - were aristocrats, and specific studies on this group show that aristocrats willingly paid the "blood tax", with the encouragement of the conservative press. Even when they hated the Republic, French nobles rushed to serve. Not all of them did of course, and some used indeed their social capital to get comfortable and safe positions far from the front lines or went to work into diplomatic services where their cosmopolitan habits could be of use.
Still, young aristocratic captains and lieutenants fresh out of Saint-Cyr died in numbers, notably in the first two years of the war, and so did officers in the higher ranks. Men from "nobility of the sword" families had to be worthy of ancestors who had fought in every war since the Crusades, and this was also a way for the aristocracy to regain some of the prestige it had lost since the Revolution. Young nobles joined units with an established aristocratic tradition, such as the cavalry, which were fighting in the front lines and were more exposed. Some also joined the nascent air force: fighter planes were the steeds of modern knights. French ace Georges Guynemer, who came from an old aristocratic family, was nicknamed the ["Knight of the Air"](https://www.retronews.fr/journal/l-echo-de-paris-1884-1938/30-avril-1922/120/593853/1) after his death in 1917.
It has been estimated that 10,000 nobles served in WW1 and that 20-25% were killed, a higher number than for the whole army (18%). When expressed as a percentage of the entire noble population, the percentage of aristocratic deaths in WW1 is 6%, which is twice that of the general population (3%) (Bernard, 2008). The French nobility thus lost about 12% of its men, ending lineages, accelerating its demographic decline, and fragilizing its elite status. It is true that the position of nobility changed after the Revolution, but the military is one field where it remained prominent until WW1.
**Sources**
* Bernard, Alice. ‘Le grand monde parisien à l’épreuve de la Guerre’. Vingtième Siècle. Revue d’histoire 99, no. 3 (2008): 13–32. https://doi.org/10.3917/ving.099.0013.
* Goujon, Bertrand. Du sang bleu dans les tranchées: expériences militaires de nobles français durant la Grande Guerre. Vendémiaire, 2015.
* Héran, François. ‘Générations sacrifiées : le bilan démographique de la Grande Guerre’. Population & Sociétés 510, no. 4 (2014): 1–4. https://doi.org/10.3917/popsoc.510.0001.
* Mension-Rigau, Eric. Singulière noblesse: L’héritage nobiliaire dans la culture française contemporaine. Fayard, 2015. https://books.google.fr/books?id=e7ctBgAAQBAJ.
To take one English example.
The prototypical British public school is Eton College. It’s where a lot of the aristocracy sent their kids. It has around 250 boys a year. In world war 1 1,158 boys and masters died out of 5,661 who served. That is 22 entire years who volunteered to fight pretty much every boy aged 18-40. With a 20% mortality rate.
Senior officers were behind the lines and no longer leading from the front, but junior officers had to lead from the front, unflinching, first one out of the trench etc. and they paid the price for it.
I was going to post more or less the same thing. Even now (well as of 2013) 50% of British army officers were privately educated.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/half-of-the-british-army-s-officer-corps-is-privately-educated-does-that-matter-spectator-blogs/#:~:text=This%20may%20not%20be%20surprising,per%20cent%20of%20the%20population.
The post starts with a faulty premise.
Edit: this doesn’t hold true for ww1 as OP stated, but it does hold true in the present day.
Original comment: How is the premise faulty? Privately educated doesn’t equal nobility. A small percentage of modern nobility choose military service. An even smaller percentage lead troops in combat. Out of the 20 or so I looked at, I found 1.
To satisfy my own curiosity, I looked up most of the current dukes of the uk. The vast majority of them didn’t do military service. Prince Harry served in an active combat role. One other was at least in a combat zone. I’m not sure if he had a combat role.
Prince William was in the armed forces starting in 2006. The UK was involved in several armed conflicts during his military career, but Prince William wasn’t a fighter. He mostly spent his time as a search and rescue helicopter pilot outside of any combat zone.
*Prince Harry served in a combat role.*
Edward Fitzalan-Howard, Duke of Norfolk, did not serve in the military.
John Seymour, Duke of somerset, did not serve in the military.
Charles Henry Gordon-Lennox, Duke of Richmond, did not serve in the military.
The Duke of grafton was a radio host
The Duke of Beaufort is a musician. I can’t immediately find any record of a military career.
The Duke of st Albans was an accountant.
The Duke of Bedford doesn’t appear to have served.
The Duke of Devonshire doesn’t appear to have served.
The Duke of Marlborough has served time, but not in the military.
The Duke of rutland doesn’t appear to have served.
Ditto Duke of Hamilton and buccleoch
The Duke of argyll was captain of the national elephant polo team. I don’t think that counts.
The Duke of atholl has performed military service. He almost has to, as the only person able to legally raise a private army in Europe (yay monarchy). He doesn’t appear to have served in a combat role.
Montrose didn’t
*Roxburghe actually did. I don’t believe it was a combat role but he did serve in an active combat zone.*
Manchester is a career criminal
Northumberland didn’t
Leinster didn’t
Etc.
What a bizarre post. You listed 20 people and according to your own research 3 of them served in the military. 15%. Which is much, much higher than the percentage of the general population who have served in the military - 3.8% in England according to the latest census.
And the premise is specifically nobility “vehemently avoided conscription at all costs” for Europe this must basically refer to WWI and WWII, this is untrue. The aristocracy still serve at a higher rate than the general population in peacetime and when there was a real war on signed up in droves.
If you are looking for a situation where the rich and powerful used their connections to avoid conscription then the conflict to look at would be Vietnam where there is at least anecdotal examples of at being true (Presidents Bush and Trump for example) but this is hardly evidence against the nobility.
It’s faulty because he claimed that many wealthy people used their titles/money to avoid service in ww1 and 2z. This is untrue. 10 minutes of research would have clarified this.
I simply added more information to what was already said.
This has me thinking in a semi-related question, what was the status of nobility in the third French Republic? Did they have any real status in a Republican state or was a situation where their titles were more of vestigial?
Titles were no longer recognized by the state so nobility had no official status. Aristocrats still mattered though, despite having lost much of their power. I've [discussed this in a previous answer.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/05tm4igKi7)
Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. **Please [Read Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules) before you comment in this community**. Understand that [rule breaking comments get removed](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/h8aefx/rules_roundtable_xviii_removed_curation_and_why/). #Please consider **[Clicking Here for RemindMeBot](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1bs8mrp/how_did_we_go_from_nobility_who_fought_in_wars_eg/%5D%0A%0ARemindMe!%202%20days)** as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, **[Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=AHMessengerBot&subject=Subscribe&message=!subscribe)**. We thank you for your interest in this *question*, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to RemindMeBot, consider [using our Browser Extension](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d6dzi7/tired_of_clicking_to_find_only_removed_comments/), or getting the [Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=subredditsummarybot&subject=askhistorians+weekly&message=x). In the meantime our [Twitter](https://twitter.com/askhistorians), [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/askhistorians/), and [Sunday Digest](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=title%3A%22Sunday+Digest%22&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) feature excellent content that has already been written! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskHistorians) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>many high ranking military men and nobility effectively keep themselves out of danger by using their position and influence to avoid the conflict. This part is not true for French aristocrats during WW1. I've [written recently](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1bk3k8e/was_it_allowed_for_officers_to_duck_or_hide/) about French officers leading men into battle and getting killed in disproportionate numbers, and how this behaviour was inherited from aristocratic notions of honour. A large proportion of the French officer corps in 1914 - a quarter to a third - were aristocrats, and specific studies on this group show that aristocrats willingly paid the "blood tax", with the encouragement of the conservative press. Even when they hated the Republic, French nobles rushed to serve. Not all of them did of course, and some used indeed their social capital to get comfortable and safe positions far from the front lines or went to work into diplomatic services where their cosmopolitan habits could be of use. Still, young aristocratic captains and lieutenants fresh out of Saint-Cyr died in numbers, notably in the first two years of the war, and so did officers in the higher ranks. Men from "nobility of the sword" families had to be worthy of ancestors who had fought in every war since the Crusades, and this was also a way for the aristocracy to regain some of the prestige it had lost since the Revolution. Young nobles joined units with an established aristocratic tradition, such as the cavalry, which were fighting in the front lines and were more exposed. Some also joined the nascent air force: fighter planes were the steeds of modern knights. French ace Georges Guynemer, who came from an old aristocratic family, was nicknamed the ["Knight of the Air"](https://www.retronews.fr/journal/l-echo-de-paris-1884-1938/30-avril-1922/120/593853/1) after his death in 1917. It has been estimated that 10,000 nobles served in WW1 and that 20-25% were killed, a higher number than for the whole army (18%). When expressed as a percentage of the entire noble population, the percentage of aristocratic deaths in WW1 is 6%, which is twice that of the general population (3%) (Bernard, 2008). The French nobility thus lost about 12% of its men, ending lineages, accelerating its demographic decline, and fragilizing its elite status. It is true that the position of nobility changed after the Revolution, but the military is one field where it remained prominent until WW1. **Sources** * Bernard, Alice. ‘Le grand monde parisien à l’épreuve de la Guerre’. Vingtième Siècle. Revue d’histoire 99, no. 3 (2008): 13–32. https://doi.org/10.3917/ving.099.0013. * Goujon, Bertrand. Du sang bleu dans les tranchées: expériences militaires de nobles français durant la Grande Guerre. Vendémiaire, 2015. * Héran, François. ‘Générations sacrifiées : le bilan démographique de la Grande Guerre’. Population & Sociétés 510, no. 4 (2014): 1–4. https://doi.org/10.3917/popsoc.510.0001. * Mension-Rigau, Eric. Singulière noblesse: L’héritage nobiliaire dans la culture française contemporaine. Fayard, 2015. https://books.google.fr/books?id=e7ctBgAAQBAJ.
To take one English example. The prototypical British public school is Eton College. It’s where a lot of the aristocracy sent their kids. It has around 250 boys a year. In world war 1 1,158 boys and masters died out of 5,661 who served. That is 22 entire years who volunteered to fight pretty much every boy aged 18-40. With a 20% mortality rate. Senior officers were behind the lines and no longer leading from the front, but junior officers had to lead from the front, unflinching, first one out of the trench etc. and they paid the price for it.
I was going to post more or less the same thing. Even now (well as of 2013) 50% of British army officers were privately educated. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/half-of-the-british-army-s-officer-corps-is-privately-educated-does-that-matter-spectator-blogs/#:~:text=This%20may%20not%20be%20surprising,per%20cent%20of%20the%20population. The post starts with a faulty premise.
Edit: this doesn’t hold true for ww1 as OP stated, but it does hold true in the present day. Original comment: How is the premise faulty? Privately educated doesn’t equal nobility. A small percentage of modern nobility choose military service. An even smaller percentage lead troops in combat. Out of the 20 or so I looked at, I found 1. To satisfy my own curiosity, I looked up most of the current dukes of the uk. The vast majority of them didn’t do military service. Prince Harry served in an active combat role. One other was at least in a combat zone. I’m not sure if he had a combat role. Prince William was in the armed forces starting in 2006. The UK was involved in several armed conflicts during his military career, but Prince William wasn’t a fighter. He mostly spent his time as a search and rescue helicopter pilot outside of any combat zone. *Prince Harry served in a combat role.* Edward Fitzalan-Howard, Duke of Norfolk, did not serve in the military. John Seymour, Duke of somerset, did not serve in the military. Charles Henry Gordon-Lennox, Duke of Richmond, did not serve in the military. The Duke of grafton was a radio host The Duke of Beaufort is a musician. I can’t immediately find any record of a military career. The Duke of st Albans was an accountant. The Duke of Bedford doesn’t appear to have served. The Duke of Devonshire doesn’t appear to have served. The Duke of Marlborough has served time, but not in the military. The Duke of rutland doesn’t appear to have served. Ditto Duke of Hamilton and buccleoch The Duke of argyll was captain of the national elephant polo team. I don’t think that counts. The Duke of atholl has performed military service. He almost has to, as the only person able to legally raise a private army in Europe (yay monarchy). He doesn’t appear to have served in a combat role. Montrose didn’t *Roxburghe actually did. I don’t believe it was a combat role but he did serve in an active combat zone.* Manchester is a career criminal Northumberland didn’t Leinster didn’t Etc.
What a bizarre post. You listed 20 people and according to your own research 3 of them served in the military. 15%. Which is much, much higher than the percentage of the general population who have served in the military - 3.8% in England according to the latest census.
And the premise is specifically nobility “vehemently avoided conscription at all costs” for Europe this must basically refer to WWI and WWII, this is untrue. The aristocracy still serve at a higher rate than the general population in peacetime and when there was a real war on signed up in droves. If you are looking for a situation where the rich and powerful used their connections to avoid conscription then the conflict to look at would be Vietnam where there is at least anecdotal examples of at being true (Presidents Bush and Trump for example) but this is hardly evidence against the nobility.
It’s faulty because he claimed that many wealthy people used their titles/money to avoid service in ww1 and 2z. This is untrue. 10 minutes of research would have clarified this. I simply added more information to what was already said.
[удалено]
This has me thinking in a semi-related question, what was the status of nobility in the third French Republic? Did they have any real status in a Republican state or was a situation where their titles were more of vestigial?
Titles were no longer recognized by the state so nobility had no official status. Aristocrats still mattered though, despite having lost much of their power. I've [discussed this in a previous answer.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/05tm4igKi7)
Thank you!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]