236 Gentlemen to Officers
of status and rank. It was in this way that they defined their self-image and their
relationship to those above and below them. The really important step on the
ladder was that from captain to major, which raised one from su~tern (ober-
ofitser) rank to that of 'staff officer' (shtab-ofitser). Appointm~ts at this
level and above were, at least in theory, made by the sovereign,^22 witlt whom
staff officers could therefore claim to have entered into a direct personal rela-
tionship. The political implications of this were considerable, as we shall'see in
a moment.
Officers' service conditions were far superior to those of their men. They
could expect to be granted leave, normally limited to a period of 29 days, if
they could be spared from their unit. A quota system operated, and during the
eighteenth century decisions on such matters were gradually decentralized.
Engel'gardt notes that in Potemkin's forces 'almost all the colonels went on
leave for the winter' of 1789, so that their regiments had to be commanded by
majors.^23 The rules were tightened up later.^24 Junior officers, to be sure, might
be too poor to afford the journey home, but if they were lucky a kindly superior
might come to their rescue by sending them on some official errand." Figures
for 1796 show that-as in the ranks-the frequency of leave was highest
among the most senior officers and lessened steadily as one went down the
hierarchy.^26
It was also the wealthy and well-connected who were most likely to put in
for transfer to another unit-perhaps in order to serve alongside a kinsman, or
even (although this motive could not be openly states) to escape an antagonis-
tic relationship with the colonel. In the late eighteenth century such transfers
occurred so frequently that efficiency and morale suffered, since it was
impossible for officers who were continually on the move to get to know their
men or to identify with their unit.27
Materially, those at staff-officer level and above were well lafoked after.
Even a lowly lieutenant's earnings were a multiple of those of a private. In
1748 the difference was 16. 7: 1 (slightly less, 15 .1: I, in 1763), but by 1839 it had
reached 37.1:1.^28 These ratios should be regarded only as rough approxima-
tions. A statistically acceptable index of officers' incomes would require
accurate information on the inflation rate and the fluctuating value of the
paper assignat roubles in which troops were paid during most of this pcriod.^29
22 Petrov, Russkoyo voyennoyos1/o, ii. 156; von Hupe!, Beschreibung, p. S8.
23 Engel'gardt, Zopiski, p. 96. 24 PSZ xxvi. 20042 (I Nov. 1801).
25 Dubrovin, Suvorov, p. 133; E. Shchepkina, foreword to [Vasiryevl Dnevnik, p. v; von
Hupe!, Beschreibung, pp. 108, 127.
26 TsGVIA, V-UA, f. 1349, d. 300. I. I: 41.1 per cent of staff officers, 3S.4 per cent of
subalterns, 13.9 per cent of NCOs, and 9.4 per cent of privates.
27 Levanidov to Rumyantsev, 30 Dec. 1794, in ibid., I. 2; PSZxxiii. 17119(Apr. 1793); Rzhevsky,
'O russkoy armii', p. 360; von Hupe!, Beschreibung, pp. 104, 128; Duffy, Russia's Military Way,
p. 148.
2H MAE.Met D, Russie 14 (1745-1828). f. 17'; Solov'yev, 'O pensiyakh', p. 307; Lcbcdev,
Russkoyo ormiyo, pp. 70-6.
29 The annual (average?) stock exchange quotations are given by Shtorkh, 'Materialy', pp. 812 ff.