British naval dominance during the age of sail
72 comments
·May 16, 2025lurk2
strken
I think Allen is arguing that, if the beached officers were either on full pay and forced to accept postings by law, or no pay and forced by poverty, they would not be able to reject commissions. They would thus be forced to accept adverse postings that were bad for the navy as a whole.
They were able to reject commissions because they weren't technically employed by the navy while unassigned. Officers could turn down a posting and still draw half pay, and in fact they kept their half pay during retirement.
Keyframe
As is customary, I read only what you quoted before the article.
The way I understood it is that main incentive was to capture ships, that's on top of the pay; So, like a bonus structure in modern day and age. If you weren't assigned to a ship, you'd still get paid but half of what you'd get on a ship. Since there were eventually more officers than ships, this created a pool of officers eager for assignments and thus "if you won't, there's someone that will" management style.
Now, a bit more complicated what Allen argued about, also from what I understood, is if captains were on fixed wage they'd turn down assignments (which they could since they weren't permanently employed) since reward isn't following the risk and you'd probably get only the worst or desperate captains to accept the job instead of competent which have all the reasons to refuse.
I don't know, maybe I read it wrong, but it makes sense like that at least.
unholyguy001
There was an oversupply of officers. At any particular point in time many of the officers were “on the bench” at half pay.
This made it easy to replace underperforming officers with those on the bench
anigbrowl
Now do the part in brackets that appears to contradict it.
giraffe_lady
I may have some of the terminology wrong (but I think they are also using it sloppily?) but that's the basic idea yeah. The "captains list" is the officers eligible to be posted in the role of captain of a ship, which is not quite the same as the rank of captain.
Officers with the actual rank of captain would normally be permanently posted to a ship's command, and only large, prominent, or prestigious warships were captained by captain-rank officers. So it was highly desirable to at least attain that rank. You could get there by achievement on a temporary command which is part of why they were so sought after. Or simply through politics and patronage: the naval officer corps being intimately tied up with both the waning aristocratic and emerging modern nation-state systems.
Officers on the lists were necessarily "gentlemen" in a technical legal-social sense, and were mostly free to pursue their social, family and business interests when not posted to a command. Depending on their resources and connections outside the navy, they could have quite excellent alternatives to a command that was unlikely to make them much money. Or, like younger sons of small or declining holdings would take anything they could get.
Anyway this is what I remember from all the external reading I did trying to make sense of the politics of command in the aubrey-maturin books which is I think the normal way to learn it these days.
roter
There is also the theory that the British just had more practice at gunnery and sailhandling while blockading the French/Spanish in the various ports.
IAmBroom
Which leads to the theory of why the USS Constitution was so superior to British ships.
The Americans drilled daily with live cannon, while the British drilled less often, and without live fire (presumably to conserve powder and balls).
As an unsurprising result, American crews were more experienced at reloading under the duress of cannonade. The sound on the gun decks was so great it would burst eardrums. The smoke made it too hard to see anything a few feet from the portals.
If you've never been near a gunpowder cannon fire, it's hard to comprehend the surreal rupture of reality it causes in your perception. I was to the side, but in front, of one. My world went black, then lightening values of gray. Sound returned. Then people appeared in the fog, moving with their arms out trying to get away blindly from the threat they perceived (that was already over).
Without proper training, new sailors will stumble badly in their first firefight, and each man on the gundeck is crucial to a team. The officers were outside the deck, so they could receive orders. If you can't load your cannon while blind and deaf, your cannon sits quiet a long time.
OxfordOutlander
This may have been a contributing factor, but the reason the American frigates were successful in the War of 1812 was because they were significantly larger and more powerful ships, with more powerful cannons. They had material advantages in size (100% heavier), crew (50% more numerous), and firepower (30-50% more weight of shot). The crews were well trained (and included many former British navy able seamen, pressed from American merchantmen) but it was the material advantages that swayed these combats.
It was curious how effectively the American naval establishment gamed the European 'honor' system of naval warfare - they knew that if they kept these warships technically rated as 'frigates' (even though they were the largest and most powerful frigates ever built, similar in size to smaller ships of the line), the British would still try to fight them one on one with their frigates.
wood_spirit
Also the oak used in the construction was much better.
kayodelycaon
The USS Constitution and her sister ships were “super frigates” armed with ~50 guns of 24lb cannons and 36lb carronades. Most British frigates they went up against had fewer guns and used 18 lb cannons. The USS Constitution also had thicker hulls.
The British had to start using cut down ships of the line against them.
In WW2 terms, they were battle cruisers taking on heavy and light cruisers.
The battle cruiser example is especially apt because a 24lb cannon could pierce any ship of the line’s hull.
nkrisc
When I visited Oslo we went to Akershus festning, where we heard this enormous blast that sounded like a bomb going off, it really startled us as we weren't expecting it. After recovering, we realized they were firing off some cannons there, I don't know if it's a regular thing or not. I was expecting some massive cannon based on the blast, but it really didn't seem all that large. I can't even imagine what it must have been like on the gun deck of a large warship with 30 or more cannons.
sklargh
My first time hearing 5.56 fire when I incidentally had ear pro off was shocking. Cannot imagine what a gun deck was like in the age of sail.
alabastervlog
Gunfire is insanely loud. Even a little .22 is louder than the apparent volume of heavier rounds in most film and TV. It's one of those things people can have entirely the wrong idea about if their only exposure to it is media. You see things like people firing rifles from inside a car and it's like... nobody in that car should be able to hear a damn thing for a full minute, and with repeated fire their ears might ring badly through the next day.
Archer kinda gets this more-right than most things, LOL. "MAWP! MAWP!"
ggreer
I've noticed that even with good hearing protection (foamies + earmuffs), being next to loud guns (like .50BMG outdoors or most rifle calibers indoors) disorients me and causes me to feel a little strange for hours afterwards. I think that anyone who spends a lot of time near such explosions risks brain injury.
I'm pretty sure the effect comes from the sound and not something like toxic gasses because I never get the feeling shooting smaller calibers, nor do I get it when shooting with a silencer. It's too bad silencers are so restricted in the US. I think a lot of shooters would be in better health if they were more common.
lowbloodsugar
Dude was using a shotgun in an indoor range next to me and the air pressure was so bad I had to move. Pressure against my whole body.
vintagedave
> Then people appeared in the fog, moving with their arms out trying to get away blindly from the threat they perceived (that was already over).
With an actual threat, it sounds like it was a genuine cannon firefight -- though surely not these days. May I ask what this was?
simonbarker87
The rest is history podcast have a three parter on the battle of Trafalgar, they cover a lot of the lead up and essentially it sounds like the Royal Navy professionalised in a way that the the French and Spanish didn’t. Portsmouth was very industrialised to constantly develop and churn out naval assets and improvements. Coupled with the kings use of new financial methods and that 25% of the country’s GDP was spent on the navy you had basically an unbeatable force by the time Trafalgar happened.
stnmtn
It was well-known during that period that French shipwrights could built better ships - the problem was that the Royal Navy had better seamanship and would win most naval actions, and commandeer the better-built french ships and integrate them into the Royal Navy. So the british had the advantage of their own ships, and many of the better-built french ships.
kridsdale3
25%!
If the modern US did that, we'd have Gundams and Super Star Destroyers.
techterrier
no, just a squillion LCS
null
wagwangbosy
The french navy had been super formidable throughout the 17th and 18th centuries. I don't really get how they folded so quickly to the UK.
nradov
After the French revolution, their government executed or dismissed many of their best officers. They often came from the aristocracy or had royalist loyalties and were thus politically suspect. Replacement officers were often appointed purely based on revolutionary ideology with little attention paid to experience or competence. At times the government was also just short of cash and supplies needed to keep the navy running.
bell-cot
France ditched most of its senior naval officers late in the 18th century, for the "crime" of being loyal to the prior regime: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution
zardo
The French army purged old loyalists and replaced them with young officers, but wound up more capable, not less.
plank
What I missed in the piece is a description on how they did against the Dutch. Both Spanish and French were more ‘land type’ armies, as a Dutchmen I remember in the history wé were taught that the Dutch punched above their weight on sea warefare.
Indeed, if I had to wager, I would assume that the English against the Portuguese or the Dutch would do worse then against the Spanish or French, given the same firepower/size of ships etc. (For the record, did not check ‘the mighty internet’ whether my gut feelings are supported by facts) (Edit: but -> both)
bgnn
Weren't Dutch ships much smaller but more numerous than the English? What I remember is reading that this made Dutch ships more maneuverable and more capable of piracy. They were good at harassing ports too.
ojbyrne
I'm currently reading a book about the American Revolution and it mentions the adoption of "coppering" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_sheathing
That seems like a significant technological advantage that the British Navy had over their adversaries, probably not specific to battle, but definitely for reliability and length of service, reduced maintenance, etc.
dmckeon
While the "weather gage" and heeling does have an effect on cannon range, the more important issue is that the upwind ships (that have the weather gage) thus have more maneuverability, and can more easily pursue a ship trying to flee downwind. Of course, one could always: "Never mind manoeuvres, go straight at 'em”
turtlesdown11
The article is a massive oversimplification of the importance of the weather gage, to the point it's not accurate at all.
A ship with the weather gage can choose when and how to engage.
> This was technically inferior since the lower gun ports could often be underwater (see image) and because the downwind (leeward) position made it easier to flee if needed.
This is reductive to the point of error. The ports of the lower gun deck MAY be unable to be fired in very heavy seas, but that doesn't affect frigates, or the upper deck of a ship of the line.
Additionally, if a leeward ship attempts to flee from the windward ship, the leeward ship would risk exposing its stern to the windward ship's raking fire. The stern of a ship is the least armored, least armed and also contains the essential steering elements of a ship. A stern raking fire could pierce the hull and fly the entire length of the ship, causing tremendous damage, in addition to potentially crippling a ship's ability to steer.
Finally, the encouragement to engage with the enemy has an advantage the article omits - massive career incentives - it's a chance for British Navy lieutenants and commanders to earn promotion. Many a commander was made post after a successful engagement with the enemy and many a lieutenant was promoted to commander after a successful battle. Beyond glory, a lieutenants would make roughly half what a commander made, and a post captain could rely on additional pay based on seniority and ship. Since promotion to admiral was almost solely due to seniority on the post captains list, naval officers felt urgency to win promotion and to get on the list as soon as possible. An admiral took a share of any prizes won by vessels under his command and was the true way to gain wealth in the Navy.
Finally, Byng's case is an extreme outlier and relying on it to make arguments is dicey at best.
_joel
Relevant, also the original meaning of "Copper Bottomed Promise". https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/copper-bottomed.html
bell-cot
If you're seriously interested in this topic, I'd suggest https://www.youtube.com/user/Drachinifel
Upside: He's a professional British naval historian, and knows this subject extremely well.
Downside: That I recall, he's never produced a video that concentrates on answering the "why was the Royal Navy so dominant..." question. Instead, he's covered the subject in bit and pieces across a huge number of videos.
nradov
There was also just a basic matter of competence among the commissioned officers. The British Royal Navy was at least somewhat more of a meritocracy than most of their adversaries. While there was a certain level of nepotism and corruption, even aristocrats and sons of admirals generally needed some level of experience and seamanship in order to earn a promotion to lieutenant. And it was totally possible for a talented enlisted sailor to earn an officer's commission (although there was some luck involved).
lupusreal
The more history I read the more I think the British have an unreasonable amount of plot armor
dsjoerg
Yeah it was a good run.
Britain only became a thing after union in 1707. They had a good ~200 years, what with a great empire and industrialization and then an added bonus with America speaking English and britain being less damaged by WW2 than the rest of europe.
neonnoodle
APRIL 1805
NAPOLEON IS MASTER OF EUROPE.
ONLY THE BRITISH FLEET STANDS BEFORE HIM.
OCEANS ARE NOW BATTLEFIELDS.
alabastervlog
1) God damn that movie is so good.
2) I think part of why it stands out so much is that there are incredibly few excellently-made age of sail war films. A few of the black & white and early color era ones are pretty good (The Sea Hawk and such) but those are pretty different in tone. Master and Commander is very nearly unique. You have to switch over to sci fi (Star Trek, maybe Forbidden Planet) to scratch a similar itch. If you want specifically age of sail, with that structure and tone (war, edge-of-civilization exploration with a ship), your options are very limited.
3) I have discovered only very-belatedly that Peter Weir is one of my favorite directors. I had no idea for the longest time that the same guy did The Mosquito Coast, Master and Commander, The Year of Living Dangerously, Dead Poet's Society, Witness, and The Truman Show. Dude just knocked out one quietly-great movie after another, across multiple genres. I've gone back and picked up some others (Gallipoli, The Cars that Ate Paris) and have yet to be disappointed. The remainder of his all-too-short catalogue is high up my to-watch list. I've seen zero duds from him so far.
kridsdale3
I have always desperately wanted a Star Wars movie that is essentially nothing more than Master and Commander.
No magical beings, no one-in-a-trillion mega-celebrities. Just professionals doing their jobs within the Navy and the adventures they had as mortal, skilled, men.
What are the TIE Pilots talking about off-shift, how does the Captain feel about the new mission priorities?
Andor is closest we've had to seeing this POV.
xeonmc
If Peter Jackson had followed through with Temeraire I think it’d be right up your alley.
kryogen1c
> Just professionals doing their jobs
This is one of the reasons I love Rogue One. There is a desperation that permeates the film that culminates into the titanic final scene
alabastervlog
Yeah, kind of what Lower Decks (the show, and for that matter also the episode "Lower Decks") is to Star Trek, but not comedy. Andor is indeed the closest I know of to that, though you see little touches of similar things in some episodes of The Mandalorian and the Clone Wars cartoon (though of course that one's also full of the "magical beings")
iainmerrick
Don't forget Picnic at Hanging Rock!
I really love Peter Weir -- I don't think all of his movies are amazing, but many of them are, and they're all really ambitious and unique. He never rests on his laurels. (Reminds me in that respect of George Miller, director of Babe and Mad Max)
alabastervlog
That one and The Last Wave are the ones from his remaining ~7 movies I've not seen, that I fully expect to be good. I know less of the reputation of the other five, but even if all of them are bad that'll leave him with an excellent batting average.
[EDIT] To expand on my late-discovered love of the guy's work, the key figures in my slowly drifting toward being a bit of an actual film fan were all people I knew by name: Spielberg (Empire of the Sun, plus all his usual biggies), Don Bluth (Learning so young that a movie can hurt... and that can be a really good thing!), and George Lucas (first by hooking me on Star Wars, which got me into making-ofs and the craft of film-making and editing, the idea of the pastiche film which sent me chasing down influences, and then with the prequels with wanting, owing to my prior high levels of engagement with the franchise, to dig deeper into "... but why, exactly, are they so bad?" which was its own kind of education); but then, some time in the back half of my 30s, I discovered that a bunch of other films that'd been key on that journey were all by this one other dude whose name had previously failed to register. He was this fourth major figure in the early and middle parts of this journey, for me, and I didn't even know it!
rienbdj
If you like the exploration type stuff, maybe try the Van Rijn series. It’s loosely based on Dutch merchants but in a sci fi setting. Some interesting discussion of capitalism, trade and exploitation too. It is also very much of its time.
libraryofbabel
Highly highly recommend Patrick O’Brian’s series of novels on which the movie is based. They are amazing: full of deeply-researched detail about life in the British navy during the napoleonic wars, with wonderful characters, and thrilling page-turners as well. Best historical novels ever written.
throw0101c
> Patrick O’Brian’s series of novels
gadders
The Bernard Cornwell's Sharpe books are good as well, if you'd like to see Napoleon's armies defeated on land instead of sea.
rout39574
And Allan Mallinson's series about Matthew Hervey adds another branch of the military. Post-napoleonic, but a fascinating trip through colonialism.
mwigdahl
Strongly seconded. For me, they were better than the Hornblower novels (which are excellent in their own right).
burntalmonds
After seeing the movie I devoured the entire series. Great stuff.
idontwantthis
And the Simon Vance recordings are delightful.
Lio
Master and Commander[1], I love that film and the series of books.
A detail I loved from both is that the French are treated with respect as formidable adversaries.
There's no love lost in battle but when either side are captured they generally treat each other well[2].
The other detail is the amount that the protagonists get permanently injured; burned, amputated, broken or just lost overboard. That happened, a lot and people just got on with it.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_and_Commander
2. Maturin does get tortured in one of the books but we'll gloss over that.
dghlsakjg
Maturin gets tortured because he is involved in “ungentlemanly or dishonorable” forms of warfare (phrased to avoid revealing a plotline).
tclancy
Well yes, but the torture is outsourced to a villainous Spainiard!
turtlesdown11
While the torture takes place in Spanish held Port Mahon in Mallorca, the torturers are unarguably French (Colonel Auger, Captain Dutourd, unnamed other Frenchmen).
sklargh
Assemble the dads for the dad film!
(Incredible movie and very enjoyable novels, recommend Master and Commander and Aubrey Maturin to all HN users)
dylan604
It's funny now how the opening of a movie can be read as a prompt to an LLM. Given the heavy copyright infringement, it would not be surprising to get the actual plot line to this specific movie as a response as seen in previous examples posted here before.
null
> Compensation: In addition to huge prizes—capturing a merchant vessel could make a captain wealthy for life—there was a wage system where officers were oversupplied and naval officers that weren’t at sea were kept at half pay. The unemployment pool that resulted from this efficiency wage made it easier to discipline officers by moving them back to the captains list. (Allen argues that a fixed-wage system would have led to adverse selection since captains on half pay weren’t permanently employees of the navy but would reject commissions that weren’t remunerative.)
I reread this three times and I can’t make heads or tails of what it’s supposed to mean. There is an oversupply of officers. They are kept at half pay. This affords opportunities to discipline officers. This is presumably because there are others willing to take his place, but all that is referenced is a captain’s list. Is this the list of officers on half-pay?
I genuinely can’t even understand the argument being made in brackets.