The relationship between British society and its military has long been the subject of focus for historians and contemporary commentators alike. The conventional view has tended to favor the notion that a traditional mistrust of a standing army (not so much the navy, of course) resulted in an uneasy relationship, causing the army to remain isolated from society. It then follows that the military evolved organically and separately with its own law (enshrined in the military code), customs, and practices. The orthodox view of this relationship proved increasingly difficult to sustain once the spotlight was directed on the “total” wars of the twentieth century: the First World War, it has been argued by Marwick and by others, brought about changes in society at least in part because of mass participation in the war effort; and the Second World War has become a paradigm of the “people's war.”

But can this model also be applied to earlier British society? As Kevin Linch and Matthew McCormack, the editors of Britain's Soldiers, point out, the period 1715 to 1815 was one of almost continuous war for Britain. This meant that one in four British men passed through the nation's military forces (we might also add here that 22.11 percent of British men enlisted during the period of the First World War, according to figures compiled by the War Office in 1922). Many of these were not career soldiers but moved between civilian society and military service—and back again. What, then, was the impact of this on the relationship between society and the military? To answer this, the contributors to this volume invert the usual approach and give primacy in their analyses to the soldiers themselves. This, of course, can be problematic, because, unlike social and military elites, ordinary soldiers left behind few sources. This potential problem is acknowledged in the introduction and new ways and approaches have been adopted in an attempt to overcome this, including analysis of courts martial records, hospital admissions, pension records, and so on. The success of this approach is variable, however, and in some chapters the balance does swing back in favor of those who led rather than those who followed. Although anyone looking for a ground-up social history of the rank and file will therefore find some chapters to be less useful than others, it is important to consider that the army comprised officers and men, and it is the relationship between these as well as with wider British society that provides the basis for much discussion. For example, in his chapter on military discipline, William P. Tatum III argues that it was negotiation, rather than a blind obedience to inhumane coercion, that characterized relations between men and officers. In matters of discipline and procedure, military practice often reflected that of civilian society. The findings here appear to be consistent with work carried out on the military in later eras.

The breadth of the contributions is wide. But Linch and McCormack have brought a good degree of cohesion to the collection by organizing the chapters thematically in five parts: nationhood, hierarchy, discipline, gender, and soldiers in society. This works well and provides a good structure on which the otherwise diverse contributions adhere together surprisingly well. The balance is also maintained with two chapters to each theme. This makes the collection more accessible to scholars with specific interests and to those from disciples other than the study of war and society.

The book is not without some minor problems. For the most part these are beyond the control of the contributors, such as the small number of examples of British soldiers in other armies—though the chapter “Soldiering Abroad,” by Graciela Iglesia Rogers, remains a worthy one in spite of this limitation of available sources. Other issues might easily have been addressed, though. Take, for example, the chapter “Conflicts of Conduct,”on portrayals of masculinity in painting, by Cicely Robinson, which this reviewer found to be a particularly strong contribution. Robinson expertly handles the detailed analysis of two paintings. But the inclusion of two small monochrome prints of the paintings does nothing to assist writer or reader. With such a high price tag attached to the book, it is disappointing that the publisher did not include two full-page color plates to do justice to the accompanying analysis. Again, this is the fault of the neither author nor of the editors, but it does detract from an otherwise illuminating essay.

Taken together, the chapters present a picture of soldiers of all ranks who were not passive but were active participants in shaping their own world: military and social. They also show how the brutalized soldier or veteran was accommodated within a society that considered itself civilized yet still managed to reconcile this apparent contradiction through various devices and means. Interaction between civilians and military was commonplace and could be initiated by either (epitomized by the women who sought out vantage points from which to gaze upon soldiers, discussed by Louise Carter in her chapter, “Scarlet Fever”). Far from being marginalized, the military is shown to be an extension of British society often sharing its values, even at a time when these were seemingly at odds with the brutal reality of war and soldiering.

Does the book achieve its stated aim and refocus the war and society approach? In many ways, it does. But it does so without losing sight of some now well-established lines of historical inquiry—particularly in the field of cultural history and gender studies—and this is perhaps its greatest strength. Each chapter has its own focus, but collectively the essays also challenge the view that war and soldiering was in any way remote from British society during the eighteenth century. However, without a clear conclusion to the diverse essays in the book, this broader argument is more implied than explicit.