Originally Posted by dave angel

i think - and i believe that this is OoE's views as well - that its an accident of the colonial policing role that was the BA's bread and butter for several hundred years. relatively small forces could be responsible for quite large areas in an age where comms are either bad or non-existant, ergo the commander of that unit might need almost plenipotentary powers to make peace and war (particularly as 'divide and rule' is one of the best ways to secure influence when you don't have great numbers), obviously this isn't a job for a twenty-five year old... there are two other reasons that spring to mind, firstly that the US Army was built on a 'Prussian model', one of very strict discipline and a very 'top-down' operational model, whereas the BA has a somewhat different approach of not just allowing initiative at a very junior level, but requiring it - you can imagine that local initiative (and effectively self-sufficiency of command) is a requirement for a rifle company on the North-West frontier where the next level of command might be a weeks march away.