#2,367 in History books

Reddit mentions of Command at Sea: Naval Command and Control since the Sixteenth Century

Sentiment score: 1
Reddit mentions: 1

We found 1 Reddit mentions of Command at Sea: Naval Command and Control since the Sixteenth Century. Here are the top ones.

Command at Sea: Naval Command and Control since the Sixteenth Century
Buying options
View on Amazon.com
or
    Features:
  • Used Book in Good Condition
Specs:
Height8.937482125 Inches
Length5.7499885 Inches
Number of items1
Weight1.14 Pounds
Width0.999998 Inches

idea-bulb Interested in what Redditors like? Check out our Shuffle feature

Shuffle: random products popular on Reddit

Found 1 comment on Command at Sea: Naval Command and Control since the Sixteenth Century:

u/reginaldaugustus ยท 13 pointsr/AskHistorians

>bigger navy's

I don't think there were any larger navies, really. All of my books are packed up at the moment, but I am pretty sure the Royal Navy was, by far, the largest. It came at a price, though. The British army, by comparison, was small and much less effective. The British could afford to neglect their land forces, by comparison, because they for the most part, no longer had enemies that could invade by land.

Because of this, too, especially during the Napoleonic Wars, British sailors and officers were much more experienced than their Spanish and French counterparts, partly because the French Revolution decimated the French naval officer corps, and because French military ships spent most of their time bottled up in port by the British blockade. So, it is why Nelson wanted to sail in close with the French and Spanish at Trafalgar, trusting to superior British gunnery (In that they could fire much faster, thanks to experience) and the greater skill of his officers, to overcome the relatively inexperienced Combined fleet.

The French, on the other hand, had to maintain a large army because they were constantly fighting wars in Europe, specifically against their Habsburg rivals in Austria.

Nor did they always win. The most important example of this is the Battle of the Chesapeake in 1781, which led to the French blockading Cornwallis in Yorktown, and his eventual surrender during the American Revolution.

In any case, I'm not too knowledgeable about how promotion in the French navy of the period worked (And would love if someone could fill me in on it), but the British had a semi-meritocratic system of filling their officer corps and promotion. British officers started out essentially as apprentice officers, midshipmen. To get their first real promotion, they had to pass an examination conducted by superior officers to achieve the rank of lieutenant, and then had to either distinguish themselves, get lucky, or have family connections in order to receive a post-captainship. Though, once they got there, promotion was determined only by seniority, and as long as they did not die or disgrace themselves, they would eventually end up an admiral.

So, I think it, generally, was a result of Britain's focus on its naval assets (which none of the other powers did to the same extent), it's system of semi-meritocratic promotion, and really, just luck in some of the people that ended up in the Royal Navy, such as Horatio Nelson.

This is really a question that can't be answered in such a short post. There are tons of books about the subject. Some works that are on the general subject are Command at Sea: Naval Command and Control since the Sixteenth Century, pretty much any of the books by N.A.M Rodgers on the subject. John Keegan also talks a bit about it in his chapter on Trafalgar in The Price of Admiralty

I hope the post helps. I don't think I really can do it justice in this format, though. Plus, I just kinda woke up, so I am not sure if my brain is completely on at this moment!