Who Rose to Command? Computational Approaches to Military Careers in the British Empire

• In Event: Peace, War, and Social Conflict Section Refereed Roundtables
  In Refereed Roundtable (60 minute): Peace, War, and Social Conflict Roundtable #1: Conceptualizing and Measuring Conflict

Abstract

How did the British Empire maintain control over officers who wielded coercive power across territories separated from London by vast distances? If monitoring was infeasible at such distances, then who rose to command — and through what channels — became central to how the empire functioned. This paper examines the organizational foundations of that question by asking what actually replaced the purchase of commissions after the army reforms of 1868–1881. Did the post-reform army promote officers on the basis of merit, or did informal patronage networks continue to shape advancement? And if patronage persisted within a formalizing bureaucracy, what does that reveal about how coercive institutions actually operate?

Answering these questions at scale has long been limited by fragmented and unwieldy archives. The paper introduces a computational pipeline that integrates document-layout models, transformer-based named-entity recognition, and probabilistic record linkage to reconstruct thousands of officer careers from the Monthly Army List, a record of every British officer's rank, regiment, and posting. It then links these careers to membership records from London's principal officers' clubs, institutions that maintained strict entry policies and served as hubs for forging elite connections and allegiances within the army. By mapping co-membership and committee service onto career trajectories, the paper tests whether social connectedness accelerated promotion independent of professional credentials.

Sociologists have long recognized that formal hierarchies rarely operate as designed, and that the channels through which individuals advance shape the ties and obligations they carry into positions of authority. By providing systematic evidence on the resilience of informal structures within a modernizing military bureaucracy, the paper contributes to this literature while offering new methodological tools for examining the historical foundations of coercive institutions.

Author

• Gilad Wenig, University of California-Los Angeles