Interesting write up. Thank you.
Matthew Spring has positioned his work in a burgeoning field of research on the military culture of the Old Regime armies. I'd recommend, if you are interested, reading Kevin Linch and Matthew McCormack's work on the British army during the Napoleonic Period:
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/britains-soldiers-9781846319556?cc=us&lang=en&The price is exorbitant, thanks to it being an academic text, but it is extremely well researched drawing on gender, culture, soldier civilian relationships, burgeoning patriotism, ideas of education and the evolving understanding of the common soldier in intellectual thought to provide a clearer and more nuanced depiction of the contemporary perceptions of military service.
It moves beyond the agreed class consensus that the nobility were meant to project on lower status peoples (which we are aware existed thanks to their own correspondence with each other and to each other) and reveals that actually, the military gentleman did view the common soldier as an integral asset to be looked after, and provided with care and support. Even if some civilians did not.
Also seek out Ilya Berkocvich's book on Old Regime army motivations. Fantastic insights:
http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/2183And Matthew McCormarck's analysis of the Militia's position within the cultural frameworks of the eighteenth century. Just as good:
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/embodying-the-militia-in-georgian-england-9780198703648?cc=us&lang=en&These are all far more expensive than the works usually picked up at the local wargame show or by more military centric publishing companies. However, they provide a real glimpse of the past and of the common solider which far outstrips the work done by historians outside of Faculty. Matthew Spring excluded.