All Things Age of Sail/British Royal Navy 1800's--Pt 1

 I've been finishing up my book SEABIRD and getting ready to send it off. I decided I would put the large body of stuff I gleaned in the way of information about all things sailing and British Royal Navy and Napoleonic wars here. It's a full on MESS, but interesting. So here it is in all its glory but without any of the pictures. If you want a copy with pictures, let me know in the comments.:

&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&

https://archive.org/details/Cyclopediachambers-Volume2/page/n723

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7ktD66YvJ0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ynd85xJ7PYU

http://www.onlineconversion.com/faq_07.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFiWdEBLfyE Trincomalee

A frigate (/ˈfrɪɡət/) is a type of warship, having various sizes and roles over the last few centuries.

In the 17th century, a frigate was any warship built for speed and maneuverability, the description often used being "frigate-built". These could be warships carrying their principal batteries of carriage-mounted guns on a single deck or on two decks (with further smaller carriage-mounted guns usually carried on the forecastle and quarterdeck of the vessel). The term was generally used for ships too small to stand in the line of battle, although early line-of-battle ships were frequently referred to as frigates when they were built for speed.

In the 18th century, frigates were full-rigged ships, that is square-rigged on all three masts, they were built for speed and handiness, had a lighter armament than a ship of the line, and were used for patrolling and escort. In the definition adopted by the British Admiralty, they were rated ships of at least 28 guns, carrying their principal armaments upon a single continuous deck – the upper deck – while ships of the line possessed two or more continuous decks bearing batteries of guns.

In the late 19th century (beginning about 1858 with the construction of prototypes by the British and French navies), the armoured frigate was a type of ironclad warship that for a time was the most powerful type of vessel afloat. The term "frigate" was used because such ships still mounted their principal armaments on a single continuous upper deck.

In modern navies, frigates are used to protect other warships and merchant-marine ships, especially as anti-submarine warfare (ASW) combatants for amphibious expeditionary forces, underway replenishment groups, and merchant convoys. Ship classes dubbed "frigates" have also more closely resembled corvettes, destroyers, cruisers and even battleships. Some European navies such as the French, German or Spanish ones use the term "frigate" for both their destroyers and frigates.[citation needed] The rank "frigate captain" derives from the name of this type of ship.

The term "frigate" (Italian: fregata; Spanish/Catalan/Portuguese/Sicilian: fragata; Dutch: fregat; French: frégate) originated in the Mediterranean in the late 15th century, referring to a lighter galley-type warship with oars, sails and a light armament, built for speed and maneuverability.[1] The etymology of the word remains uncertain, although it may have originated as a corruption of aphractus, a Latin word for an open vessel with no lower deck. Aphractus, in turn, derived from the Ancient Greek phrase ἄφρακτος ναῦς (aphraktos naus) - "undefended ship".

In 1583, during the Eighty Years' War of 1568-1648, Habsburg Spain recovered the southern Netherlands from the Protestant rebels. This soon resulted in the use of the occupied ports as bases for privateers, the "Dunkirkers", to attack the shipping of the Dutch and their allies. To achieve this the Dunkirkers developed small, maneuverable, sailing vessels that came to be referred to as frigates. The success of these Dunkirker vessels influenced the ship design of other navies contending with them, but because most regular navies required ships of greater endurance than the Dunkirker frigates could provide, the term soon came to apply less exclusively to any relatively fast and elegant sail-only warship. In French, the term "frigate" gave rise to a verb - frégater, meaning 'to build long and low', and to an adjective, adding more confusion. Even the huge English Sovereign of the Seas could be described as "a delicate frigate" by a contemporary after her upper decks were reduced in 1651.[2]

The navy of the Dutch Republic became the first navy to build the larger ocean-going frigates. The Dutch navy had three principal tasks in the struggle against Spain: to protect Dutch merchant ships at sea, to blockade the ports of Spanish-held Flanders to damage trade and halt enemy privateering, and to fight the Spanish fleet and prevent troop landings. The first two tasks required speed, shallowness of draft for the shallow waters around the Netherlands, and the ability to carry sufficient supplies to maintain a blockade. The third task required heavy armament, sufficient to stand up to the Spanish fleet. The first of the larger battle-capable frigates were built around 1600 at Hoorn in Holland.[3] By the later stages of the Eighty Years' War the Dutch had switched entirely from the heavier ships still used by the English and Spanish to the lighter frigates, carrying around 40 guns and weighing around 300 tons.

The effectiveness of the Dutch frigates became most evident in the Battle of the Downs in 1639, encouraging most other navies, especially the English, to adopt similar designs.

The fleets built by the Commonwealth of England in the 1650s generally consisted of ships described as "frigates", the largest of which were two-decker "great frigates" of the third rate. Carrying 60 guns, these vessels were as big and capable as "great ships" of the time; however, most other frigates at the time were used as "cruisers": independent fast ships. The term "frigate" implied a long hull-design, which relates directly to speed (see hull speed) and which also, in turn, helped the development of the broadside tactic in naval warfare.

Boudeuse, of Louis Antoine de Bougainville

At this time, a further design evolved, reintroducing oars and resulting in galley frigates such as HMS Charles Galley of 1676, which was rated as a 32-gun fifth-rate but also had a bank of 40 oars set below the upper deck which could propel the ship in the absence of a favourable wind.

In Danish, the word "fregat" often applies to warships carrying as few as 16 guns, such as HMS Falcon, which the British classified as a sloop.

Under the rating system of the Royal Navy, by the middle of the 18th century, the term "frigate" was technically restricted to single-decked ships of the fifth rate, though small 28-gun frigates classed as sixth rate.[1]

Classic design

A Magicienne-class frigate

Gun deck of the Pallas-class frigate Méduse

The classic sailing frigate, well-known today for its role in the Napoleonic wars, can be traced back to French developments in the second quarter of the 18th century. The French-built Médée of 1740 is often regarded as the first example of this type. These ships were square-rigged and carried all their main guns on a single continuous upper deck. The lower deck, known as the "gun deck", now carried no armament, and functioned as a "berth deck" where the crew lived, and was in fact placed below the waterline of the new frigates. The typical earlier cruiser had a partially armed lower deck, from which it was known as a 'half-battery' or demi-batterie ship. Removing the guns from this deck allowed the height of the hull upperworks to be lowered, giving the resulting 'true-frigate' much improved sailing qualities. The unarmed deck meant that the frigate's guns were carried comparatively high above the waterline; as a result, when seas were too rough for two-deckers to open their lower deck gun-ports, frigates were still able to fight with all their guns (see the Action of 13 January 1797, for an example when this was decisive).[4][5]

A total of fifty-nine French sailing frigates were built between 1777 and 1790, with a standard design averaging a hull length of 135 ft (41 m) and an average draught of 13 ft (4.0 m). The new frigates recorded sailing speeds of up to 14 knots (26 km/h; 16 mph), significantly faster than their predecessor vessels.[4]

The Royal Navy captured a number of the new French frigates, including the Médée, during the War of the Austrian Succession (1740–1748) and were impressed by them, particularly for their inshore handling capabilities. They soon built copies (ordered in 1747), based on a French privateer named Tygre, and started to adapt the type to their own needs, setting the standard for other frigates as the leading naval power. The first British frigates carried 28 guns including an upper deck battery of twenty-four 9-pounder guns (the remaining four smaller guns were carried on the quarter deck) but soon developed into fifth-rate ships of 32 or 36 guns including an upper deck battery of twenty-six 12-pounder guns, with the remaining six or ten smaller guns carried on the quarter deck and forecastle.[6]

Heavy frigate

HMS Trincomalee (1817) a restored British 18-pounder, 38 gun heavy frigate

In 1778, the British Admiralty introduced a larger "heavy" frigate, with a main battery of twenty-six or twenty-eight 18-pounder guns (with smaller guns carried on the quarter deck and forecastle). This move may reflect the naval conditions at the time, with both France and Spain as enemies the usual British preponderance in ship numbers was no longer the case and there was pressure on the British to produce cruisers of individually greater force. In reply, the first French 18-pounder frigates were laid down in 1781. The 18-pounder frigate eventually became the standard frigate of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. The British produced larger, 38-gun, and a slightly smaller, 36-gun, versions and also a 32-gun design that can be considered an 'economy version'. The 32-gun frigates also had the advantage that they could be built by the many smaller, less-specialised shipbuilders.[7][8]

Frigates could (and usually did) additionally carry smaller carriage-mounted guns on their quarter decks and forecastles (the superstructures above the upper deck). Technically, rated ships with fewer than 28 guns could not be classed as frigates but as "post ships"; however, in common parlance most post ships were often described as "frigates", the same casual misuse of the term being extended to smaller two-decked ships that were too small to stand in the line of battle. In 1778 the Carron Iron Company of Scotland produced a naval gun which would revolutionise the armament of smaller naval vessels, including the frigate. The carronade was a large calibre, short-barrelled naval cannon which was light, quick to reload and needed a smaller crew than a conventional long-gun. Due to its lightness it could be mounted on the forecastle and quarter deck of frigates. It greatly increased the firepower, measured in weight of metal (the combined weight of all projectiles fired in one broadside), of these vessels. The disadvantages of the carronade were that it had a much shorter range and was less accurate than a long-gun. The British quickly saw the advantages of the new weapon and soon employed it on a wide scale, the US Navy also copied the design soon after its appearance. The French and other nations eventually adopted variations of the weapon in succeeding decades. The typical heavy frigate had a main armament of 18-pounder long-guns, plus 32-pounder carronades mounted on its upper decks.[9]

Role

HMS Warrior (1860), the first iron-hulled armoured steam frigate - the hull survived as an oil terminal dock and was restored to its original appearance in the late 20th century

Frigates were perhaps the hardest-worked of warship types during the Age of Sail. While smaller than a ship-of-the-line, they were formidable opponents for the large numbers of sloops and gunboats, not to mention privateers or merchantmen. Able to carry six months' stores, they had very long range; and vessels larger than frigates were considered too valuable to operate independently.

Frigates scouted for the fleet, went on commerce-raiding missions and patrols, and conveyed messages and dignitaries. Usually, frigates would fight in small numbers or singly against other frigates. They would avoid contact with ships-of-the-line; even in the midst of a fleet engagement it was bad etiquette for a ship of the line to fire on an enemy frigate which had not fired first.[14] Frigates were involved in fleet battles, often as "repeating frigates". In the smoke and confusion of battle, signals made by the fleet commander, whose flagship might be in the thick of the fighting, might be missed by the other ships of the fleet.[15] Frigates were therefore stationed to windward or leeward of the main line of battle, and had to maintain a clear line of sight to the commander's flagship. Signals from the flagship were then repeated by the frigates, which themselves standing out of the line and clear from the smoke and disorder of battle, could be more easily seen by the other ships of the fleet.[15] If damage or loss of masts prevented the flagship from making clear conventional signals, the repeating frigates could interpret them and hoist their own in the correct manner, passing on the commander's instructions clearly.[15]

For officers in the Royal Navy, a frigate was a desirable posting. Frigates often saw action, which meant a greater chance of glory, promotion, and prize money.

Unlike larger ships that were placed in ordinary, frigates were kept in service in peacetime as a cost-saving measure and to provide experience to frigate captains and officers which would be useful in wartime. Frigates could also carry marines for boarding enemy ships or for operations on shore; in 1832, the frigate USS Potomac landed a party of 282 sailors and Marines ashore in the US Navy's first Sumatran expedition.

Frigates remained a crucial element of navies until the mid-19th century. The first ironclads were classified as "frigates" because of the number of guns they carried. However, terminology changed as iron and steam became the norm, and the role of the frigate was assumed first by the protected cruiser and then by the light cruiser.

Frigates are often the vessel of choice in historical naval novels due to their relative freedom compared to ships of the line (kept for fleet actions) and smaller vessels (generally assigned to a home port and less widely ranging). For example, the Patrick O'Brian Aubrey–Maturin series, C. S. Forester's Horatio Hornblower series and Alexander Kent's Richard Bolitho series. The motion picture Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World features a reconstructed historic frigate, HMS Rose, to depict Aubrey's frigate HMS Surprise.

Geofrrey Parker, The Military Revolution: Military Innovation and the Rise of the West 1500–1800, p. 99

Lavery, Brian (1989). Nelson's Navy: The Ships, Men and Organisation 1793–1815. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press. pp. 49, 298–300. ISBN 978-1-59114-611-7.

Gardiner, Robert (2000) Frigates of the Napoleonic Wars, Chatham Publishing, London.

The Seven Years’ War (1756–63) marked the definite adoption of the term frigate for a class of vessel that was smaller than the three-decked ship of the line but was still capable of considerable firepower. A frigate was a three-masted, fully rigged vessel, with its armament carried on a single gun deck and with additional guns on the poop and forecastle. The number of guns varied between 24 and 56, but 30 to 40 guns were common. Frigates could not stand up to ships of the line in fleet engagements, but, sailing at greater speed, they served as scouts or as escorts protecting merchant convoys from privateers and enemy raiders; they also cruised the seas as merchant raiders themselves. With the transition from sail to steam, the term frigate gradually gave way to cruiser.

Life at Sea in the Royal Navy of the 18th Century

By Andrew Lambert
Last updated 2011-02-17

The enduring notion of Captain Cook's navy is one of blood, sweat and tears. Historian Andrew Lambert went on a modern-day voyage to Australia, on a replica of Cook's ship Endeavour. He argues that the Royal Navy of the 18th century offered a surprisingly decent life for professional sailors.

A life of suffering?

The experience of naval life in the 18th century has often been portrayed as one of suffering in something little more than a floating concentration camp, where an unwilling crew, raised by the press-gang, was systematically beaten, starved and terrorised into doing their duty. Meanwhile disease was ever present. This notion has undoubtedly partly arisen because of Doctor Johnson's famous observation that going to sea was akin to being in prison, with the added danger of drowning.

A diet of salt meat, hard biscuit and sauerkraut was a shock...

Although those of us who served on the Endeavour replica found some elements of this image convincing, we recognized that we should not allow our delicate 21st-century sensibilities to cloud our judgment. Historical research and a deeper understanding of the age provide a different picture.

Our first contact with the alternative world of Captain Cook was the food. A diet of salt meat, hard biscuit and sauerkraut was a shock to us, but our predecessors would have considered it superior to anything available on shore. For them such regular, hot, protein-rich meals, together with a nearly limitless supply of beer, would have been a luxury. Furthermore, every ship's captain knew that food was the primary concern of his crew, so he would have ensured they were well fed, and kept their dinner time sacred, usually allowing the men 90 minutes to deal with their tough rations. They would only be called away from the mess table in an emergency. The lack of rum or beer on our modern voyage left our crew significantly worse off than our predecessors - although less likely to be injured while under the influence.

One of the greatest threats to health on long sea voyages was scurvy...

Food then, as now, was directly related to health. One of the greatest threats to health on long sea voyages was scurvy, a potentially fatal disease cased by a deficiency of vitamin C, normally sourced from fresh fruit and vegetables. However, this was also a common complaint among the poor laborers on land in winter, when fresh food was scarce. Because the Royal Navy needed to operate around the world it made a huge effort to find a cure for scurvy, and on Cook's first voyage many remedies were tried, ranging from the infamous sauerkraut to extract of malt.

Discipline and punishment

Cook's determination to avoid deaths from scurvy, and his success, was a vital step in the creation of the British Empire. So important was the avoidance of the disease that Cook resorted to disciplinary measures to make his men eat their rations. We modern-day adventurers had to take a vitamin pill. Other diseases, such as dysentery and typhus, were avoided through an insistence on keeping the ship, the crew and their clothes clean—this cleanliness became a Royal Navy mania, and kept the sailors very busy. However, there were further medical terrors in store—malaria and yellow fever could decimate crews in tropical climates.

In the modern age, discipline has become conflated with punishment, but in the 18th century it meant organization; good discipline meant that the ship was well ordered, not that the men were soundly flogged. Men were punished, however, if they failed to do their duty, and put the ship and the rest of the crew in danger. Among the worst offenses were falling asleep on duty, refusing to follow orders, or 'unclean behavior' - such as relieving bodily functions inboard, rather than using the rudimentary toilet facilities. All of these offenses threatened the safety of the ship and her crew.

...flogging with the cat-o'-nine-tails and hanging were the major punishments...

Contemporary naval punishments have become legendary, and strike us as inhuman; flogging with the cat-o'-nine-tails and hanging were the major punishments, while the men were occasionally 'started', or encouraged to work, with a blow from the end of a rope. There was no system of imprisonment, or financial penalty, although the rum ration could be stopped. However, we must remember that 18th-century society on shore relied on similar corporal and capital punishment. If anything, naval punishment was less severe, for sailors were a scarce and valuable resource that no captain would waste; also, flogging meant that the punishment was quickly completed, and the man could return to duty. There was no alternative, because the navy was, in all things, a reflection of the society it served.

Formal punishments were always inflicted in public, using consciously theatrical methods to ensure the maximum deterrent effect. The crew would be formed up on deck, with the marines separating the officers from the seamen, while the punishment was carried out according to established custom. Some crimes were handled by the crew—thieves were forced to 'run the gauntlet', allowing their shipmates to strike them with rope ends. This was a highly effective means of deterring a man from committing any fundamental breach of the trust that had to subsist between men who literally depended upon each other for their lives.

Professional sailors

Sailors generally went to sea as boys. By the time they were 16 they could be rated as seamen, and normally served at sea for another ten years, before settling down and taking a shore or local sailing job. The idea of being single, free of responsibilities and well paid would have made a career at sea obviously alluring, but the attractions could also undoubtedly wear off, and only a small percentage of men stayed on at sea, rising to be naval petty officers and merchant shipmasters.

The press-gang would be used in time of war to recruit men to the navy. In wartime the Royal Navy needed another 60,000 men to fit out the fleet, so it would draw in professional seamen from the merchant service, usually by impressment, an age-old right of the Crown to the labor of seafarers. As there were no spare seamen, however, both fleets sometimes needed the additional labor of landlubbers, attracted by the pay and opportunity, or of foreign sailors, who made up a significant proportion of all British crews. Cook had at least three such men on the Endeavour. The resulting dilution of skills was acceptable on large warships, where only 20 per cent of the crew was needed for skilled work aloft. The rest of the work, including the heavy hauling, was done by the 'landmen' or 'waisters' - those who worked in the waist area of the ship.

...their carefree, spendthrift and often riotous adventures led many to see them as simple, careless creatures...

By contrast, the prime seamen, rated as Able or Ordinary, saw themselves as an elite group within a vertically stratified working community. The topmen, who worked on the highest yards, spent much of their day aloft, in the tops, which on a battleship would be spacious areas out of sight of the officers, and far above the inferior members of the crew. They would form their own mess, a group of six to ten men who cooked and ate together, and avoided 'waisters', marines and other deck-bound laborers.

To work aloft was to be among the elite of the 18th-century working class, and this was something that seamen delighted in advertising through their unique and colorful clothes, hairstyles, personal jewelry and—after contact with the Polynesian societies of the South Pacific—tattooing. This distinctive dress also marked them out when on shore, where their carefree, spendthrift and often riotous adventures led many to see them as simple, careless creatures and figures of fun. Yet this was a fundamental mistake. Professional sailors were skilled, daring and resourceful men. Their true worth was known to the state they served, and it was they, more than anything else, that gave Britain command of the sea.

Patronage

The social divisions of the navy were by no means class based. Not all officers were gentlemen. Some, like Cook, rose through the ranks of seaman and master to gain their position, others were admitted as officers despite humble origins. They had to pass formal examinations in all aspects of seamanship, and had to serve at least six years at sea before they could be commissioned as lieutenant, the rank at which Cook commanded the first voyage of the Endeavour. Further promotion to Commander and then Captain was through merit, bravery or patronage; Captains were promoted to Admiral through seniority.

In the 1780s, the Royal Navy began to dramatically increase the size of its fleet  © Patronage was an essential ingredient in the triumph of the 18th-century Royal Navy. It allowed the best officers, those who held the prime commands and won the key battles, to pick their followers. As professional men they chose juniors who would reflect credit on them, and secure them further victories, prize money and profit. Similarly, ambitious young officers sought the patronage of the best Admirals, those who could help them. Cook was brought into the officer corps as an act of patronage by Captain Hugh Palliser, himself an officer of humble origins, to command the first expedition. Cook had escaped his humble background, while Palliser basked in his reflected glory.

For many years it was believed that women were rarely, if ever, allowed on board warships. This, like much else about life in the 18th-century Navy, was a Victorian invention that said more about the values of that time than it did about the realities of the previous century. In fact, large numbers of women went to sea. Usually they were the wives of the petty officers - mature women who played important roles, including those of providing medical treatment and handling ammunition.

Top

Women and children

Not a few children were born on board warships, and some women entered under assumed male identities, although the fact that they were not discovered is very revealing of the low incidence of bathing among the seafarers, either on deck or in the sea. The 18th-century mind preferred homely dirt and the occasional clean shirt to the terrors of cold water or the deep ocean. Those women who were on board officially soon made their presence felt. In 1797 that crusty old martinet Admiral the Earl St Vincent issued an order demanding that they reduce their consumption of water. If not, he proposed sending them all home on the next transport. It is unlikely he gave them the separate bathing rights enjoyed by the female members of our modern-day replica crew.

The 18th-century Royal Navy... won all the great battles at sea, and almost all the wars.

The 18th-century Royal Navy was the most effective fighting force in the world; it won all the great battles at sea, and almost all the wars. It did so because its ships carried well-organized, well-drilled and coherent teams, working to a common cause, bound together by ambition, mutual respect and a shared identity. The crews of British warships handled their sails and fired their guns more quickly than their rivals. The British also kept their ships cleaner, helping to reduce losses to disease. As in all large organizations there were exceptions—bad officers, bad men and bad ships—but such exceptions were rare.

The fleet at sea was supported by the world's largest industrial base, a massive infrastructure of dockyards, food stores and equipment warehouses, all funded by a generous nation that saw its future as dependent on the seas. The voyages of Captain Cook expanded our understanding of those seas, and our ability to travel across them in safety, both because of his superior navigational skills and because of his understanding of disease prevention. His mission was fundamentally practical.

The modern-day replica Endeavour was a happy, efficient ship for most of our long voyage, and it was a privilege to help make that voyage possible, capturing a flavour of the experiences of Captain Cook and his crew.

Top

Find out more

Books

The Ship—Retracing Cook's Endeavour Voyage by Simon Baker (BBC Worldwide, 2002)

War at Sea in the Age of Sail by A D Lambert (Cassell, 2000)

Shipboard Life and Organisation, 1731-1815 edited by B Lavery (Navy Records Society, 1998)

The Wooden World: An Anatomy of the Georgian Navy by NAM Rodger(many editions since 1986, including WW Norton & Co, 1996)

Links

The National Maritime Museum

The Royal Naval Museum

Yes, Privateers Mattered

History is ill-served by a peculiar recent trend to downplay the significance of American privateering in the War of 1812.

When the United States went to war against Britain in June 1812, the U.S. Navy had about 15 warships in commission, including a squadron of three frigates and two sloops-of-war that sailed from New York within an hour of receiving word of the declaration of war. America began the War of 1812 with no privateers ready to sail. Privately owned merchant ships that, in wartime, were armed by their owners and licensed by the government to attack the maritime trade of the enemy, privateers profited by the sale of ships and cargoes they captured. As soon as word of the war arrived, ship owners in the port cities up and down the Atlantic coast raced to get their sleek sloops and schooners to sea in their new predatory role. They found cannon where they could, signed up oversized civilian crews, and sent messengers to Washington to get licenses called letters-of-marque from the federal government. On 26 June 1812, a week after Congress voted for war, it passed a bill allowing privateers, which President James Madison signed the next day.

With their licenses—which would make their captures lawful, not piratical, prizes—and their ships manned and outfitted for war, privateers began to stream out of American ports in July 1812. Observers assumed that privateers, a historical weapon of weaker maritime powers, would be critical to the American war effort. In a 4 August 1812 letter, former President Thomas Jefferson predicted that the Royal Navy would prevail against the U.S. Navy, but “our privateers will eat out the vitals of their commerce.” Jefferson was no great military mind—in the same letter, he infamously predicted that conquering Canada would be a “mere matter of marching”—but he may have been right about the privateers.

A Fad of Omission

Yet many recent historians apparently do not think so. Despite an avalanche of titles published about the War of 1812 in the past few years, little has been written about privateers, and that little tends to depreciate their impact. For instance, privateers are entirely absent from popular works such as Walter Borneman’s 1812: The War that Forged a Nation and from A. J. Langguth’s Union 1812. Nor will privateers be found in J. C. A. Stagg’s excellent The War of 1812: Conflict for a Continent. Despite a title that seems to scream privateers, Stephen Budiansky’s Perilous Fight: America’s Intrepid War with Britain on the High Seas, 1812–1815 hardly mentions them. Alan Taylor’s The Civil War of 1812: American Citizens, British Subjects, Irish Rebels & Indian Allies focuses on the war on the northern frontier and mentions privateers only in terms of the exchange of prisoners of war. Nicole Eustace’s 1812: War and the Passions of Patriotism does not purport to be a military history—it considers the conflict a cultural event and looks at the war in terms of romantic passions—but privateersmen apparently did not stir such passions, because they are not mentioned. In Hacks, Sycophants, Adventurers & Heroes: Madison’s Commanders in the War of 1812, David Fitz-Eng suggests that his “may be the only book one needs on the War of 1812,” but, significantly, he does not mention privateers.

The U.S. Navy began the war with resounding single-ship victories—the Constitution sank the Guerriere, the United States captured the Macedonian, and the Java was blown up after “Old Ironsides” pummeled her into a wreck. In many of the recent books about the War of 1812, those victories receive a great deal of attention. That is not surprising. They stirred America’s pride at a time when the country was reeling from the capture of Detroit and defeats along the border with Canada. Yet the U.S. Navy’s inspiring battles on the high seas did not alter the course of the war. The loss of a few warships did not seriously weaken the Royal Navy. Rather, three other maritime campaigns were significant:

• the battles for control of the lakes (Erie, Ontario, Champlain) that were critical for both sides’ efforts to attack or defend the northern frontier

• the British blockade of the American coast, which slowly strangled the U.S. economy and strained the government’s financial ability to wage war

• America’s privateering campaign against British trade.

‘War of the People’

Privateering was critical for the American war effort. In the three years of the War of 1812, U.S. Navy warships captured about 250 vessels, but American privateers took at least five times that number of British merchant vessels—at least 1,200, but probably as many as 2,000, although no one knows for sure. The privateers burned some of the British merchant ships they captured, ransomed others back to their owners, lost many to recapture by the British navy, and brought home prize ships and goods that sold for millions of dollars.

The privateering business was thoroughly modern and capitalistic, with ownership consortiums to split investment costs and profits or losses, and a group contract to incentivize the crew, who were paid only if their ship made profits. A sophisticated set of laws ensured that the capture was “good prize,” and not fraud or robbery. After the courts determined that a merchant ship was a legitimate capture, auctioneers sold off her cargo of coffee, rum, wine, food, hardware, china, or similar consumer goods, which ultimately were bought and consumed by Americans. Because it involved so many owners and seamen directly, and the American populace indirectly, some earlier historians termed the privateers’ war a “war of the people.” In addition, the government took a large cut of the proceeds off the top as customs duties, which flowed into the Treasury.

As the British blockade began to grind the American economy down, it also largely prevented the U.S. Navy from getting to sea. With the Army’s seasonal campaigns against Canada a failure, the privateers’ war on the enemy was the only way America could strike back at the British Empire. The privateers’ exploits at sea became legendary for their ruses and flair. The psychological effect (and the financial effect) on Liverpool and London merchants as the American privateers made brazen captures in the Irish Sea and the English Channel ultimately may have played a role in curbing British enthusiasm for continuing the war against America—especially after Napoleon, the existential enemy of Britain, abdicated in April 1814.

British Understatement?

Until recently, British historians largely ignored the War of 1812. Now, with many American historians ignoring privateers, some of the recent books by British authors consider American privateers, but only to minimize their significance. In The Challenge: Britain Against America in the Naval War of 1812, for instance, Andrew Lambert acknowledges the impact of privateers in the first months of the war, but asserts that the Royal Navy minimized and ultimately defeated the privateer threat. While he acknowledges that the privateers’ guerre de course resulted in the capture of 7.5 percent of the British merchant fleet, because those losses did not produce an existential threat such as the U-boat campaigns of the world wars, Lambert concludes the privateers were “never significant.” He notes that Lloyd’s (the London insurance consortium) maintained wartime maritime insurance rates in September 1814, and infers that the stability of the insurance rates means that privateers had little effect.

But even if Lambert’s facts about insurance are true, his inference is questionable: The fact that maritime insurance rates could not be reduced by September 1814, five months after Napoleon had abdicated and Britain had returned to peace with France, is an indication of the huge and ongoing damage wrought by the American privateers.

Only in a footnote does Brian Arthur in How Britain Won the War of 1812 acknowledge that Lloyd’s own list of British merchant ships lost to the Americans undercounts the true numbers by nearly 500 vessels. Lloyds, it seems, did not count British ships that were uninsured, and many British merchant vessels sailed without insurance due to what Arthur calls the “high insurance premiums” in effect. Still, Arthur scarcely mentions American privateers. To be fair, his book focuses on the effectiveness of the British blockade of America, not the wider maritime war. Yet he cannot help inferentially making a gibe against privateers when he states that, spread over the three years of the War of 1812, the American guerre de course “loses much of its significance” compared with any year of British overseas trade, which grew in overall tonnage and numbers of ships.

Yet nowhere do Lambert or Arthur recognize that the effect of the privateers’ toll on British trade is not necessarily measured merely by the fact that more ships were built than were captured or burned, or that the home country could maintain her trade links with her possessions overseas. To that extent, the comparison with the existential war against the U-boats, which may be unavoidable for modern British historians, is flawed: The War of 1812 was not a total war, and in fact reached a negotiated conclusion in which domestic public opinion mattered.

Yet most of the books published for the bicentennial of the War of 1812 are oblivious to privateering. Although the analogy is obviously not perfect, writing about the war at sea in the War of 1812 without referring to privateers is like writing about the war at sea in World Wars I or II without referring to U-boats. Despite the critical role of privateers, despite the entrepreneurship and drama in the sort of war they waged, it is surprising that most of the new War of 1812 books by American writers minimize, if not air-brush out, the privateers’ contribution.

Why is that?

Perhaps ignoring the contribution of privateering owes something to the legacy of Alfred Thayer Mahan’s and Theodore Roosevelt’s exaltation of sea power and a professional standing navy in the generations after the Civil War. In contrast to the gleaming warships of the “new steel navy,” the ad hoc, privately owned privateers seemed amateurish and disreputable. Just as the land militia ran before the British in the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, the navalists of the late 19th century characterized privateers as a “sea militia,” and that signaled they were unreliable and prone to running.

Profiteers—But Heroic Nonetheless

Perhaps to the high-toned Americans of the late- Victorian era, there was something unseemly about armed ships sent to sea by entrepreneurs to make money. Yet Americans, of all peoples, should not look askance at the profit motive. From the beginning of the Republic, Americans have been accused of being a mercantile nation; before the War of 1812, the British governing elite regarded Americans as “mere calculators,” who exalted making a dollar over concepts like honor. To the extent that Americans were entrepreneurial and looked at everything in terms of money, it is not surprising that those same Americans in 1812 made privateering almost an art form.

Moreover, in denigrating privateers as mere profiteers, we risk forgetting about the bravery that privateers occasionally exhibited: These cruises were not only about making money. There are stirring stories of stiff combat that, if now barely recalled, are not to be belittled. When they had to fight, privateers stood and fought, as the 40-man crew of the American privateer Prince de Neufchatel proved off Nantucket in October 1814. Then there is the Chasseur, later nicknamed the “Pride of Baltimore,” which captured the Royal Navy schooner St. Lawrence on 26 February 1815 off Havana Harbor after a brief but vicious fight. Following the battle, Thomas Boyle, the captain of the Chasseur, wrote somewhat apologetically to one of her owners, “I should not willingly, perhaps, have sought a contest with a king’s vessel, knowing it is not our object; but my expectations were at first a valuable vessel and a valuable cargo also—when I found myself deceived, the honor of the flag entrusted to my charge was not to be disgraced by flight.”

Perhaps modern historians gloss over the contributions of privateers because it is hard to write about them. Unlike the Navy, which had a secretary of the Navy who controlled the operations of his two dozen ships from an office in Washington, D.C., privateers had no centralized governmental direction. Hundreds of privateers were commissioned during the war. They put to sea when they could avoid or break through the British blockade, and they sailed where their owners or masters thought they could take prizes—off the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, in the chops of the English Channel, in the Arctic Ocean, off Brazil. Privateers had economic incentives suggesting where they should sail, based on British trading patterns, but there was no strategic concept behind their operations.

Privateers sailed from every port from Portland, Maine, to Savannah, Georgia, at different times, for different cruising grounds. Sometimes they achieved spectacular successes, hovering off convoys, burning or seizing straying merchant vessels, but some privateers cruised and captured nothing, others could not get to sea, and still others were caught by British cruisers. In short, it’s a messy narrative, with many stories, hundreds of scarcely known seamen and shipowners, and diverse outcomes.

‘A Critical Aspect...May Be Lost’

Moreover, historians can read and analyze the secretary of the Navy’s orders and correspondence. But because privateers were privately owned, they left behind a scattered record. If their papers still exist, they are scattered around the country in libraries and historical societies and in the dusty attics of descendants. The records of their prizes condemned in the federal courts, although public records, are incomplete and widely dispersed, so that even now, 200 years after the War of 1812, no one has determined with any accuracy the number of captured British merchant ships actually brought home for prize proceedings.

As fewer historians write about privateers, the popular understanding of privateers disappears, and a critical aspect of American maritime history may be lost. Yet according to Andrew Lambert, American privateers captured 1 of every 15 British merchant vessels during the War of 1812. By the last year of the war, privateers were really all the United States could mount as a maritime threat to Britain. Whether their audacious captures and burnings influenced British public opinion or diplomacy are contested issues. But privateers were a critical aspect of war-fighting for the United States in the War of 1812.

Although nations had used privateers for centuries before 1812, privateering became a peculiarly American way of war, an effort from the ground up, decentralized, tied to entrepreneurship and patriotism. Privateering drew on the resources of the civilian world, and without calling upon a beleaguered and insolvent government for funds or direction, privateers allowed the profit-making motive, and the mass of American people, to be harnessed to the war effort.

---

Brian Arthur, How Britain Won the War of 1812: The Royal Navy’s Blockades of the United States, 1812–15 (Suffolk, UK: Boydell Press, 2011).

Walter R. Borneman, 1812: The War that Forged a Nation (New York: HarperCollins, 2005).

Stephen Budiansky, Perilous Fight: America’s Intrepid War with Britain on the High Seas, 1812–1815 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2011).

George Coggeshall, A History of American Privateers and Letters of Marque (New York: C. T. Evans, 1856).

John Philips Cranwell and William Bowers Crane, Men of Marque: A History of Private Armed Vessels Out of Baltimore During the War of 1812 (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1940).

Wade G. Dudley, Splintering the Wooden Wall: The British Blockade of the United States, 1812–1815 (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2002).

Nicole Eustace, 1812: War and the Passions of Patriotism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012).

David Fitz-Eng, Hacks, Sycophants, Adventurers & Heroes: Madison’s Commanders in the War of 1812 (Lanham, MD: Taylor Trade Publishing, 2012).

Fred W. Hopkins Jr., Tom Boyle, Master Privateer (Centreville, MD: Tidewater Publishers, 1976).

Andrew Lambert, The Challenge: Britain Against America in the Naval War of 1812 (London: Faber & Faber, 2012).

A.J. Langguth, Union 1812 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006).

Jon Latimer, 1812: War With America (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2007).

Edgar S. Maclay, A History of American Privateers (New York: D. Appleton, 1899).

John A. McManemin, Privateers of the War of 1812 (Spring Lake, NJ: privately printed, 1992).

J. C. A. Stagg, The War of 1812: Conflict for a Continent (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).

Alan Taylor, The Civil War of 1812: American Citizens, British Subjects, Irish Rebels & Indian Allies (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2010).

@&@&@&@&@&@&@&@&@&@&@&@

JOBS

Quartermaster

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartermaster

In the Royal Navy and Commonwealth navies (Royal Canadian Navy, Royal Australian Navy, Royal New Zealand Navy, South African Navy), the quartermaster is the seaman who is functioning as the helmsman. In harbour, the quartermaster is the senior member of the gangway staff and is responsible for supervising the boatswain's mate and the security of the brow.

Pirate quartermasters

Pirates during the Golden Age of Piracy elevated the rank of quartermaster to much higher powers and responsibilities than it had aboard non-pirate merchant or naval vessels. On pirate ships, the quartermaster was often granted a veto power by a pirate ship's "Articles of Agreement", in order to create an officer who could counterbalance the powers of the pirate captain. Pirate quartermasters, like pirate captains, were usually elected by their crews.

It was often the quartermaster's responsibility to lead the pirate boarding party when boarding another ship. This was usually done from the quarter deck (the place where two ships touched during the boarding attack).

The quartermaster ranked higher than any other officer aboard the ship except the captain himself, and could veto the captain's decisions whenever the ship was not chasing a prize or engaged in battle. The quartermaster also was chiefly responsible for discipline, assessing punishments for crewmen who transgressed the articles. Several quartermasters, notably among them Calico Jack Rackham, became captains after their previous captain was killed or deposed.

Although a minority of pirate scholars dismisses the accepted version of the pirate quartermaster's importance, it is well supported by the extant secondary sources such as Charles Johnson, David Cordingly, and Botting, and overwhelmingly borne out by the primary sources, including Ringrose, Dampier, Snelgrave, Trott, and George Roberts.

Boatswain or Bosun

https://work.chron.com/duties-boatswain-20927.html

A boatswain, also known as a bosun, is the senior crewman of the deck. He is responsible for the ship's hull and all its components, including its rigging, anchors, cables, sails, deck maintenance and small boat operations. The boatswain is designated the warrant officer in the Navy. In the Merchant Marines, he is an unlicensed member of the crew. He is considered the foreman and supervises other crew members of the deck department.

Supervision

The boatswain supervises the deck crew. He determines the work that needs to be done daily and assigns tasks to the crew. The boatswain ensures the standards of the procedures used by the crew are up to quality. Most boatswains are hired based on experience. The job requires promptness and efficiency since deck sailors look to the boatswain for guidance.

Maintenance

The corrosive properties of salt water create a constant need for maintenance. The boatswain oversees maintenance of the deck and above-deck areas, performing daily inspections on the exposed and superstructure ship areas. He assigns duties to deck sailors that range from cleaning and painting the deck. He also executes a preventative maintenance program to ensure the ship and deck equipment are up to standards. For instance, he trains his crew in damage control and ensures the maintenance of the ship's small boats.

Mooring

The boatswain handles the mooring lines, which are the ropes, chains or anchors to fasten the ship when when it is docking. Boatswains ensure the proper mooring lines are used -- different lines are used for different purposes -- and that they are used in the proper order to secure the ship safely. After docking, he sets the gangway and inspects it for safety before allowing the crew to cross.

Other Duties

Boatswains act as the watchman of the ship for the captain or superior officers. He acts as a proxy to the ship captain and other supervisors when communicating with the rest of the crew, ensuring that his superiors are able to carry out their workload without the added problems of the crew. The boatswain ensures the ship is sea-ready, and is a capable boat driver when he needs to carry crew and supplies to and from land. Before ships were navigated by GPS, the boatswain was required to have technical knowledge of how to pinpoint the ship's geographic position and navigate it.

A Boatswain in the Royal Navy in the 1820s. Boatswains were tasked with maintaining discipline and order on board and were tasked with doling out punishment. This was done in front of the whole crew, following a formal hearing where the sailor could speak up in his defense.

#(#(#(#(#(#(#(#(#(#(#(#(#(#(#(#(#(#(#(#(#(#(#(#(

Ship’s purser

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purser

A ship's purser (also purser or pusser)[1] is the person on a ship principally responsible for the handling of money on board. On modern merchant ships, the purser is the officer responsible for all administration (including the ship's cargo and passenger manifests) and supply; frequently the cooks and stewards answer to them as well.

• 5 References

History

The purser joined the warrant officer ranks of the Royal Navy in the early 14th century and existed as a naval rank until 1852. The development of the warrant officer system began in 1040, when five English ports began furnishing warships to King Edward the Confessor in exchange for certain privileges. They also furnished crews whose officers were the Master, Boatswain, Carpenter and Cook. Later these officers were "warranted" by the British Admiralty. Pursers received no pay but were entitled to profits made through their business activities. In the 18th century a purser would buy his warrant for £65 and was required to post sureties totalling £2,100 with the Admiralty.[2] They maintained and sailed the ships and were the standing officers of the navy, staying with the ships in port between voyages as caretakers supervising repairs and refitting.[3]

In charge of supplies such as food and drink, clothing, bedding, candles, the purser was originally known as "the clerk of burser."[3] They would usually charge the supplier a 5% commission for making a purchase and it is recorded they charged a considerable markup when they resold the goods to the crew. The purser was not in charge of pay, but he had to track it closely since the crew had to pay for all their supplies, and it was the purser's job to deduct those expenses from their wages. The purser bought everything (except food and drink) on credit, acting almost as a private merchant. In addition to his official responsibilities, it was customary for the purser to act as a literal private merchant for luxuries such as tobacco and to be the crew's banker.

As a result, the purser could be at risk of losing money and being thrown into debtor's prison; conversely, the crew and officers habitually suspected the purser of making an illicit profit out of his complex dealings. It was the common practice of pursers forging pay tickets to claim wages for "phantom" crew members that led to the Navy's implementation of muster inspection to confirm who worked on a vessel.[2] The position, though unpaid, was very sought after because of the expectation of making a reasonable profit; although there were wealthy pursers, it was from side businesses facilitated by their ships' travels.

&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(&(

Hawsepiper

This photo shows the anchor chain running through a ship's hawsepipe

Hawsepiper is an informal maritime industry term used to refer to a merchant ship’s officer who began his or her career as an unlicensed merchant seaman and did not attend a traditional maritime college/academy to earn the officer license. In the United States, after accumulating enough sea time in a qualified rating, taking required training courses, and completing on-board assessments, the mariner can apply to the United States Coast Guard for a license as a Third Mate or Third Assistant Engineer. If approved the applicant must then pass a comprehensive license examination before being issued the license.

A ship’s hawsepipe is the pipe passing through the bow section of a ship that the anchor chain passes through. Hawsepiper refers to climbing up the hawsepipe, a nautical metaphor for climbing up the ship's rank structure. This is in turn derived from the traditional British Naval usage of "came up through the hawsehole", referring to sailors who first entered the ship as foremast jacks before becoming officers, metaphorically by climbing up the hawser without great honor or respect, rather than being received directly onto the quarterdeck. There is also the phrase, "going down the hawse pipe" which is an officer who cannot find a ship's billet and signs on as an ordinary seaman or wiper. Several merchant seamen's unions offer their membership the required training to help them advance.[1] Similarly, some employers offer financial assistance to pay for the training for their employees. Otherwise, the mariner is responsible for the cost of the required training.

$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%$%

Discipline Aboard Ship

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/andy-murray-commemorates-battle-somme-sport-remembers-campaign.html

By the end of the 18th century, the wooden walls of England, as her Navy was so often called, was comprised of one of the largest fleets of ships ever amassed.

These ships needed a strong, willing, and dedicated crew to man them. This meant discipline and lots of it.

Each ship operated as a semi-independent city, with internal hierarchies, justice, and responsibilities. When a sailor broke one of the laws aboard, his punishment was often swift, brutal, and sometimes even fatal.

The simplest reprimands were often denying privileges and rations. Physical punishments were also very common.

Here are three of the most common corporal punishments dished out by 18th and 19th century Royal Navy Law.

Caning:

Tthe least severe of all, it was usually reserved for boys and Midshipmen. At the time, ship’s boys could range in age from 12-18 years old. They were servants and assisted the older sailors, bringing them food.

They even worked as a “powder monkey”, running gunpowder from the magazine up to their cannon during combat.

Midshipmen, on the other hand, were the most junior officers, tasked with learning the trades of the sailors, as well as leadership and the sciences of navigation, gunnery, and tactics.

A rattan cane, similar to what would be carried by a Boatswain, and used for Caning.
Photo Credit

Usually, they would bend over a cannon, or whatever was closest at hand. They would be whipped with a rattan cane, essentially a thin but stiff piece of reed.

The maximum sentence was 12 strokes, enough to hurt for about two weeks. This could be prescribed either as an immediate punishment, for misbehaving in a minor way or come after a more formal hearing, for more troubling cases.

Henry William Baynton, aged 13 years, 6 months, a Midshipman in the Cleopatra 1780.

Caning certainly was not a pleasant experience, but it was not the worst the Navy had to offer.

Once they reached 18, more severe punishments could be administered, as after that they would be treated as adults.

Caning has never been officially outlawed but decreased in practice during the 20th century.

A Cabin Boy, from 1799. Young boys like this performed many of the simpler tasks on board ship

 

Flogging:

Flogging was by far the most common of the three. While flogging was essentially just whipping the offending individual, in the Navy it took on its own traditions and variations

Flogging by the gangway was used for nearly all noncapital offenses. A grating would be rigged upright, and the sailor would have his shirt removed.

He would then have his wrists lashed to the grate, and the Boatswain would proceed to whip him with a Cat O’ Nine Tails. This was a whip made out of 9 strands, with small knots on the end.

A Boatswain in the Royal Navy in the 1820s. Boatswains were tasked with maintaining discipline and order on board and were tasked with doling out punishment.

This was done in front of the whole crew, following a formal hearing where the sailor could speak up in his defense. It could be used for anything from drunkenness to desertion and was often used preemptively.

Captains would issue a slew of floggings just after leaving port, to encourage the men to behave for the rest of the voyage.

There was also running the gauntlet, usually sentenced for theft from a shipmate. The sailor would have to walk slowly through two lines of his shipmates, who would whip him with small multi-tailed whips.

This allowed the crew to show their solidarity against theft and effectively ostracized the offending individual.  Often it was worse than the physical pain when in the tight-knit crew of a sailing ship.

Finally, there was flogging around the fleet, for the most severe offenses which did not warrant death. A sailor would be brought into port, and flogged on every Royal Navy ship present.

This was often fatal, and sailors could have been whipped dozens of times by the end of it.

Finally outlawed in 1806, flogging as a general practice, though, was not suspended in peacetime until 1881.

Even now, it is still technically not completely removed from possible punishments.

 

Hanging at the yard-arm

The final and obviously most severe punishment was death by hanging at the yard-arm. This was the ultimate punishment for desertion or mutiny against the fleet.

Naval ships could not suffer the possibility of rebellion going unchallenged. The likelihood of death by slow hanging was a real deterrent.

Being a capital punishment, sailors could not be sentenced to hanging without an official Court Martial. Here, they were given an opportunity to plead their case in front of a panel of high-ranking officers. If found guilty, their punishment was gruesome.

Their hands and feet would be bound, to prevent any possibility of escape. Then a noose would be placed around their neck.

That line would run through a tackle, or pulley, hanging from the yard-arm (a large pole going across the mast).

A team of sailors would then solemnly and slowly haul on that line until the sailor’s body was hanging right below the yard-arm.

This was done as a powerful deterrent, and the entire crew was made to watch, and understand what was happening.

The last hanging performed by the Royal Navy was in 1860.

The English were not the only ones to hang by the yardarm, this American ship, the Somerset, is shown with two offenders hanging off of her mainmast in 1842.

The end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century saw some of the most severe punishments from the Royal Navy.

The Navy was larger than it had ever been. The sailors were mostly pressed into service. The Royal Navy needed a way to ensure they would not rebel or refuse their duty.

Corporal punishment was viewed as the only effective deterrent for ill-disciplined sailors and boys.

38-gun Frigate

For the similar Empire: Total War unit, see Fifth Rate.

38-gun Frigate
Appears in	Napoleon:
Belongs to	Most factions
Crew	108
Guns	38 (17 on each side, 2 bow chasers, 2 stern chasers)
Firepower	612
Range	500 (round shot)/350 (chain shot)/150 (grape shot)
Accuracy	55
Reloading skill	35
Hull strength	580
Speed	19 (20)
Maneuverability	Medium
Morale	9
Produced from	Dockyard
Cost	640
Upkeep	160
Turns to Train	5
Unit Cap	None

The 38-gun Frigate, or the 38-gun Fifth Rate for Great Britain is a type of frigate in Napoleon: Total War.

Description

This single-deck vessel carries 18-pounder cannons, giving it a substantial broadside for such a manoeuvrable ship.

This frigate is the largest design of the type, and the relatively heavy 18-pounders it carries balance both firepower and reasonable accuracy. Against another frigate, the 38 is a dangerous opponent, but in close combat against a ship-of-the-line it is outmatched: like all frigates, it has been built for speed, not hull strength. In battle against a powerful enemy the best strategy is to keep out of range, and choose when and where to engage, taking advantage of the fact that the crew can reload the 18-pounders relatively quickly.

Historically, frigates were usually involved in single-ship actions, against other frigates rather than set-piece fleet battles involving ships-of-the-line. In fact, it was seen as ungentlemanly for a ship-of-the-line to fire upon a frigate, unless the frigate fired first. In such a case, the frigate captain had shown that he was ready for a fight that he was unlikely to win. This was not the only quirky rule of naval combat in the period. It was common to “clear for action” and put the captain’s furniture in a ship’s boat that was towed during any fight. It was considered very unsporting for an enemy to shoot at a captain’s private property!

General Information

38-gun Frigates sport more guns and crew than 32-gun Frigates, and have superior firepower. This compensates for their slightly poorer accuracy and reloading skill. Their hulls are also much stronger, though they still succumb quickly to most ships of the line. Despite their larger number of heavier guns, 38-gun frigates have barely poorer speed than 32-gun frigates, allowing them to compete with lighter frigates and other ships. They can effectively harass larger ships if carefully controlled thanks to their longer range and better manueverability. 38-gun frigates are the most powerful ships that can be built from basic dockyards.

For Great Britain, razees are superior in almost every way save cost, range and their more advanced recruitment building. If time and money aren't an issue, there's little reason to field 38-gun frigates in a British fleet. For all other factions, however, 38-gun frigates represent the most powerful and well balanced frigate. They are the heaviest ships to still feature 500 range for round shot; heavier ships have 450 range instead. 

Late in the campaign, 38-gun frigates (and all other frigates) are supplanted by 38-gun Steam Ships, which have superior firepower, hull strength, and speed. However, 38-gun Frigates are still cheaper and available from lower-tier docks, making them superior choices for troop transport and for reasons of accessibility.

Some factions' ship statistics are different from others; differences are listed below (traits that to not differ are not listed). Unlike other ship types, British ships aren't statistically superior to their standard counterparts, and are only slightly cheaper. 

Faction	Accuracy	Speed	Cost
France	65	20	670 SP/790 MP
Great Britain	55	19	640 SP/740 MP
General	55	19	630 SP/760 MP

Napoleon: Total War Ships
Light Ships	Brig • Galley • Sloop
Frigates	24-gun Frigate • 32-gun Frigate • 38-gun Frigate • Carronade Frigate • Razee
Ships of the Line	106-gun Ship-of-the-Line • 122-gun Ship-of-the-Line • 50-gun Ship-of-the-Line • 64-gun Ship-of-the-Line • 74-gun Ship-of-the-Line • 80-gun Ship-of-the-Line • 86-gun Ship-of-the-Line • 98-gun Second Rate • HMS Elephant • Santissima Trinidad
Steam Ships	38-gun Steam Ship • 80-gun Steam Ship • Ironclad • Steam Paddle Frigate
Trade Ships	Dhow (Trade Ship) • Indiaman (Trade Ship) • Merchantmen (Trade Ship)
Support Ships	Bomb Ketch • Rocket Ship

Appears in	Napoleon: Total War
Belongs to	Most factions
Crew	108
Guns	38 (17 on each side, 2 bow chasers, 2 stern chasers)
Firepower	612
Range	500 (round shot)/350 (chain shot)/150 (grape shot)
Accuracy	55
Reloading skill	35
Hull strength	580
Speed	19 (20)
Maneuverability	Medium

Joseph Reinemann, Computer Scientist + Author of Rarely Read Books

Answered Apr 3, 2019 · Author has 8.7k answers and 11.4m answer views

During the Napoleonic wars who had the best designed ships?

Phill Richards, works at Retired

Answered Mar 24 · Author has 76 answers and 59.1k answer views

https://www.quora.com/During-the-Napoleonic-wars-who-had-the-best-designed-ships

Frigates were the ships to be on, if adventure, action, and a sense of glory were your idea of navy life in the age of sail. But not all frigates in the world’s navies were so pleasant to serve aboard. Clearly that honor went to those of the Royal Navy, which reached the zenith of its power during the Napoleonic Wars, from 1793 to 1815. Frigates were the true measure of British sea power, holding the line in peace and leading the fleet in war. Aboard the frigates of the Royal Navy were found the finest officers in the service and men who frequently sought duty aboard, not the “press” (forced recruiting) gangs of the era. Frigate captains were the equivalent of modern-day rock stars to the public, respected for their daring and achievements, sought out for their acquired prize wealth and influence. These were the greatest sailors of their time, wielding the most flexible weapons system of the age.

From Fighting Galleons to Frigates

The sailing vessels that came to be called frigates had their origins in the fighting galleons of the 16th century. By the middle of the 17th century, they had begun to mature, developing the long, narrow lines that would be their trademark. Originally, these were the largest ships (called 4th Rate) not considered fit to stand in a line of battle, but still carrying at least 38 large-bore weapons on their gun decks. While they lacked the firepower, crew, or structure to slug it out in battle with the 1st (90 guns or more with three decks), 2nd (80 to 89 guns with three decks), or 3rd Rates (54 to 79 guns with two decks), they had the rigging (three masts) and speed (over 12 knots in a good wind) to run from such vessels.

On the other hand, 4th Rates could easily maneuver with and outgun the smaller 5th (with 18 to 37 guns, and often oars) and 6th (6 to 17 guns used for courier duty) Rate warships, along with the merchant vessels that were the reason for having a navy in the first place. These early frigates wound up being used for a variety of important tasks, ranging from scouting and reconnaissance ahead of the battle fleet to protecting convoys and commerce raiding on the high seas. Very quickly, navies everywhere began to see the value of frigates, both for their relatively low cost and ease of manning compared with ships of the line. Basically, frigates were fighting ships that could outrun anything that could hurt them and outgun anything that could catch them.

Source: https://warfarehistorynetwork.co...

General consensus is that the French ships were better thanks to being faster and more maneuverable, but there is some reason to doubt the accuracy of such claims.

To start, throughout most of the war the French were struggling to match the numbers of the British, who not only had a numerical advantage in their ships but also had a much larger corps of experienced sailors to draw from. This led to them making a lot of compromises in their shipbuilding, as evidenced by maintenance records which showed an unusually high number of ships being laid up to deal with issues such as hogging, rot, and leakage.

These are notable because they suggest that the ships were in many cases being built with fresh cut timbers rather than ones that had been properly seasoned. The hogging is particularly telling in this regard. Hogging refers to a condition where the bow and stern of a ship begin to droop because of their weight, introducing a curve into the keel of the ship that can fatally compromise a ship's structure and handling.

While most wooden warships will eventually start hogging given time (particularly if they're fitted with fore and aft castles) using unseasoned timbers will accelerate the process to the point where even a new ship will hog very quickly. This is because fresh cut wood contains a lot of moisture, which makes it much more flexible and prone to warp as temperatures shift. By seasoning wood either in a kiln or in a dry environment with plenty of airflow you can bake most of the water content out, which makes it much more rigid and less prone to rotting once it's been sealed.

The problem is that with how dense the wood used for shipbuilding is, seasoning it can take months. The French, simply put, didn't have the time to wait if they hoped to close the gap between them and the British. So they likely skipped most or all of the seasoning and built their ships using green wood knowing full well that they'd have to either rebuild or retire them shortly after the war's conclusion. Not helping things was the fact that most of their designs had very long hulls to accommodate more artillery, which made the hogging even worse.

This raises the question: if the French ships were so prone to these kinds of basic structural issues, where did the idea that they were better made come from?

First, it's impossible to discount the influence that the way navies worked at the time had on how reports were made. Whenever an enemy ship was captured, it was effectively treated as the property of the ship that did the capturing. When the government that ship served took possession of the prize they were basically buying it off of them, awarding prize money based on how valuable the ship was believed to be. From the standpoint of the crew (and especially the officers, who would receive the largest cut) the best thing that could happen would be for their government to decide a ship was worth recommissioning into their own fleet, which would result in the biggest possible prize being awarded. As such it's pretty common to see accounts by flag officers which go out of their way to accentuate the superior skills of their opponents' shipwrights. To be an officer with the kind of income necessary to buy yourself the promotions needed to reach flag rank (yes, that was also a thing) you also had to have at least a little talent as a used car salesman.

Another thing to consider is the fact that British artillery at the time tended to prioritize range and accuracy over stopping power. In principle this is a good idea - particularly if your goal is to try and capture ships rather than sink them. The best way to do that is to demast an enemy ship so as to make it impossible for them to run, then hammer them from outside the range of their own guns until they recognize the fight is hopeless and surrender. But this strategy does tend to make certain assumptions about the accuracy of your gunners and the range of their guns which may have proven slightly optimistic in practice. The hollow shot used by British ships did let them shoot further, but were often too light to do much damage if they hit anywhere other than the rigging. Indeed, the American frigate USS Constitution famously earned her nickname of “Ironsides” after a battle with a British ship where their shot was observed literally bouncing off of Constitution's oak armor.

This meant that a ship which was fast and maneuverable enough to ride out the first few broadsides of a British ship and get in close enough to bring their own guns into play could essentially nullify the primary advantages that the British ships had been built around and shift the momentum to whomever had the bigger guns. And French ships, with their long hulls carrying more guns than was strictly safe, were good at both going fast in a straight line and belching out large quantities of cast iron as they did. Which means that even if they weren't necessarily well constructed vessels, they were built in such a way that they could present a major problem to a British Captain who was a little too used to relying on the range of their guns to fight. And in the early days of the war, there were a lot of relatively green officers and crews throughout the British navy who may have gotten their noses bloodied after making such a mistake.

And finally, it's important to remember that some of the French ships were more French than others. It wasn't uncommon at the time to outsource naval construction to private yards in other countries with dramatically different standards for quality. And some of the outsourcing that took place was to American yards. American shipbuilders at the time were exceptionally good. Most were very familiar with the advanced construction techniques employed by the British, and unlike any European nation at the time they had an effectively infinite supply of high quality oak to work with and plenty of space to process and store seasoned timbers. Add to that ships that were captured from other nations and recommissioned for France, and there were more than a few vessels out there which could be used to give a painful lesson to the Royal Navy about the dangers of complacency.

https://www-labs.iro.umontreal.ca/~vaucher/History/Ships_19thC/

Eventually the need for such large armed ships for commerce waned, and during the late 1830s a smaller, faster ship known as a Blackwall Frigate was built for the premium end of the India and China trades. These frigates were also popular for the Opium trade. They also seem to have started a style: black hull with a white stripe.

https://www.captaincooksociety.com/home/detail/scurvy-how-a-surgeon-a-mariner-and-a-gentleman-solved-the-greatest-medical-mystery-of-the-age-of-sail-bown-stephen-r-2003

James Lind (1716-1794), an Edinburgh surgeon, conducted experiments as surgeon on Salisbury over two months in 1747. His controlled trial, perhaps the first in medical science, selected sailors sick with scurvy who received a common diet but were given different remedies. Lind tested six treatments: cider, elixir of vitriol (sulphuric acid), vinegar, purging by sea water, a medicinal paste (garlic, dried mustard seed, dried radish root, balsam of Peru, and gum myrrh), and oranges and lemons.

Consumption of oranges and lemons was the only productive treatment for two fortunate sailors in the control group. Cider caused some abatement of the disease but insufficient for the seamen to return to active duty. Lind published his 400 page Treatise on Scurvy in 1753. His objections of theories and treatment methods by his contemporaries led to strong criticism from those higher placed in the medical or scientific communities.

Captain James Cook experimented with a variety of alternatives to combat scurvy. Bown writes, Cook used "a regiment regimen of cleanliness, fresh air, and an antiscorbitic diet." The author notes Cook "eagerly embraced" the Admiralty's tactics by stocking on board a range of antiscorbitics such as sauerkraut, wort of malt, carrot marmalade, and concentrated (robs) of orange and lemon juice, among other treatments. He encouraged naturalists who sailed on voyages to identify edible plants to fight scurvy. Fresh vegetables and fruits were added to the ships' food supply (e.g., scurvy grass, wild celery, the Kerguelen Cabbage).

A razee or razée /rəˈziː/[1] is a sailing ship that has been cut down (razeed) to reduce the number of decks. The word is derived from the French vaisseau rasé, meaning a razed (in the sense of shaved down) ship.[2]

Hogging refers to a condition where the bow and stern of a ship begin to droop because of their weight, introducing a curve into the keel of the ship that can fatally compromise a ship's structure and handling, mainly due to not allowing the timbers to cure long enough. Green timbers contain too much water, which causes warping and leaking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_of_the_line_of_the_Royal_Navy

1st Rates

Queen Charlotte 100 (1790) – an accidental fire in 1800 destroyed her and killed 673 of her crew of 859[6]

2nd Rates

Princess Royal 90 (1773) – broken up 1807

Glory 98 (1788) – broken up 1825

3rd Rates

Defiance 64 (1695) – rebuilt 1707

• Swiftsure 66 (1696) – rebuilt 1716 and renamed Revenge

• Thunderer 74 (1783) – broken up 1814

• Diadem 64 (1782) – broken up 1832.

4th Rates

Scipio 64 (1782) – broken up 1798

Nonsuch 64 (1774) – broken up 1802.

Adamant 50 (1780) – broken up 1814

Captured Ships

Courageux 74 (1753, ex-French Courageux, captured 1761) wrecked 1796

Monarca 70 (1756, ex-Spanish Monarca, captured 1780) Sold 1791

What is a knot? What is a nautical mile?

Knots and Nautical miles are good old navy terms. The nautical mile was based on the circumference of the earth at the equator. Since the earth is 360 degrees of longitude around, and degrees are broken into 60 so-called "minutes", that means there are 360 * 60 = 21,600 "minutes" of longitude around the earth. This was taken as the basis for the nautical mile; thus, by definition, 1 minute of longitude at the equator is equal to 1 nautical mile. So the earth is ideally, by definition, 21,600 nautical miles (and 21,600 "minutes" of longitude) in circumference at the equator. If anyone ever asks you how far is it around the earth, you can quickly do the math in your head (360 degrees * 60 minutes per degree) and answer "about 21,600 nautical miles!"

In fact, even modern navigators use the "minute of latitude" on charts to measure distance; this is what you see them doing when they use their compass spreaders while they are hovering over their nautical charts (maps). [For geometrical reasons, we use the minute of latitude on charts to correspond to a nautical mile rather than the minute of longitude. Minutes of longitude shrink as they move away from the equator and towards the poles; minutes of latitude do not shrink. Take a look at a globe with longitude and latitude lines marked on it to understand why.]

Using the definition of a nautical mile for distance at sea, the challenge was to measure speed -- i.e. what is the ship's speed in nautical miles per hour? (By the way, the nautical mile is about 1.15 larger than the "statute" mile used by land lubbers.) Since [speed] = [distance] divided by [time], if we measure a small distance (or length) in a small time we can do the math and figure our speed.

The device that sailors used to make their speed measurement was called the "chip log." Chip as in chip of wood, and log as in to record in a log. The chip was a wedge of wood about 18" in size; it was tied to one end of a rope on a large spool. The rope had knots tied into it about every 47'3" (more about how that was calibrated below).

The wooden chip was thrown overboard at the ship's stern (back end). Because of its wedge shape, it would "grab" the water and start pulling out rope as the ship moved forward at some yet unknown speed. One man would hold the spool of rope as it played out; another man would start a sandglass filled with 30 seconds of sand; and a third man would count the knots as they passed over the stern board. When the 30 seconds of sand expired, the time keeper would call out and the counting of knots would stop.

The faster the ship was sailing, more knots and a longer length of rope were played out. The number of knots in the rope that were counted in 30 seconds, then, was equal to the speed of the ship in nautical miles per hour. A "knot", therefore, is not a nautical mile, it is a nautical mile per hour. Thus 1 knot was equivalent to 1 nautical mile per hour; 5 knots were equivalent to 5 nautical miles per hour; etc. The similar sound of "knot" and "naut" is entirely coincidental.

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#**#*#*#

5 commissioned officers

5 seaman warrant officers

10 civilian warrant officers

10 mates and midshipmen

36 petty officers

84 ordinary and able seamen

47 landmen

17 artisans

14 servant boys

1 marine officer

3 marine NCOs

46 marine privates

@^@^@^@^@^@^@^@^

24 fore topmen divided into starboard and larboard watches Topmen=most skilled seamen with

26 main topmen “ “ “ one landsman to train for each watch

18 mizzen topmen “ “ “ One topman/mast/watch=petty officer

5 commissioned officers Administration of ship

5 seaman warrant officers specialized

10 civilian warrant officers

10 mates and midshipmen

20 forecastle men “ “ “ Most experienced, oldest, least agile

16 waisters “ “ “ Lowest skilled, drudges

80 afterguardsmen “ “ “ least qualified landsmen, 2 ord. seam/watch, most haul/pull

24 idlers No nightwatch > important master of arms, armorer, sailmaker, cook, imp. Service duties

12 servant boys (+1 boy each on mizzen topmen watches)

50 marines (including officer and 3NCOs)

4 boatswain’s mates “ “ “ ensured the discipline (wake up crew and flogged)

6 quartermasters “ “ “ skilled seam. Directed steerage, cargo, ballast

10 gunner’s crew “ “ “ maint. guns, carriages, assist elsewhere

10 carpenter’s crew “ “ “ skilled seam. maint. oakum that sealed the ship

--5 comm. Officers including captain trained by the Royal Navy in seamanship, navigation, gunnery

--5 seaman warrant officers--boatswain, master, etc.

--10 civi. Warrant officers perform certain tasks like purser, surgeon, chaplain

--mid. And mates—overseeing, keeping logs, assisting officers they’re assigned to—av. age 15-20yr.--intermediary for reaching lieutenant

--36 petty officers=different jobs like 1/4master, gunner’s mates, sailmaker, cook. Usually exper. Seaman who has lost a limb in service

--84 ordinary/able seaman—exp., has large naut. Vocab., knows the miles of rigging and where to find it in dark&storm, 20-30 different knots, various kinds of splices

--47 landmen—least exp. From various backgrounds--some served in idlers w/ no nightwatch—if they couldn’t use their old trade, they did menial tasks or were trained to be seamen. Ablest went to be trained as topmen

--17 artisans—not all had special rank—skilled men like sailmakers, armorers, & ropemakers were not seamen and couldn’t be pressed into menial service. Warrants from the Navy board gave them guarantee of status

--servant boys could work as seamen or servants—servants=privileged way to enter Navy & often steppingstone to becoming midshipman.

--marines duty was to defend against and perform boarding exercises in combat, put down mutinies—separated from regular crew

--In battle, 70-80% of crew assigned to guns

--Forecastle and quarterdeck are the captain’s and officers spot to perform ship duties like steering and navigating

--Then gun deck + captain’s cabin + galley

--Then lower or mess deck—crew hammocks shared between watches—eating, relaxing when not on duty—usually no washing or changing clothes + officer ward room + tiny officer cabins

--Bottom deck—orlop deck—storing sails, food, water, clothing, personal possessions, powder, shot, rum (with a permanent marine guard)

$*$*$*$*$*$*$*$*$*$*$*$*$*$*$*$*$*$*$*$*

https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/discover-fish/species-profiles/cetorhinus-maximus/

Basking Shark

Basking Shark. Photo © Jeremy Stafford-Deitsch

Cetorhinus maximus

This slow-moving migratory shark is the second largest fish, growing as long as 40 feet and weighing over 5 tons. It is often sighted swimming close to the surface, huge mouth open, filtering 2,000 tons of seawater per hour over its complicated gills to scoop up zooplankton. Basking sharks are passive and no danger to humans in general, but they are large animals and their skin is extremely rough, so caution is urged during any encounters.

Order – Lamniformes
Family – Cetorhinidae
Genus – Cetorhinus
Species – maximus

Common Names

Basking Shark. Photo © Dan Burton

English language common names include basking shark, bone shark, elephant shark, hoe-mother, shark, and sun-fish. Other names are albafar (Portuguese), an liamhán gréine (Irish), beinhákarl (Icelandic), brugd (Swedish), brugda (Faroese), brugde (Danish), büyük camgöz (Turkish), büyükcamgöz baligi (Turkish), cação-peregrino-argentino (Portuguese), colayo (Spanish), dlugoszpar a. rekin gigantyczny (Polish), éléphant de mer (French), frade (Portuguese), gabdoll (Maltese), gobdoll (Maltese), jättiläishai (Finnish), kalb (Arabic), karish anak (Hebrew), koesterhaai (Afrikaans), k’wet’thenéchte (Salish), mandelhai (German), marrajo ballenato (Spanish), marrajo gigante (Spanish), peixe frade (Portuguese), peixe-carago (Portuguese), peixe-frade (Portuguese), peje vaca (Spanish), pèlerin (French), peregrino (Spanish), peshkagen shtegtar (Albanian), pez elefante (Spanish), pixxitonnu (Maltese), poisson à voiles (French), relengueiro (Portuguese), requin (French), requin pèlerin (French), reremai (Maori, reuzenhaai (Dutch), riesenhai (German), sapounas (Greek), squale géant (French), squale pèlerin (French), squalo elefante (Italian), tiburón canasta (Spanish), tiburón peregrino (Spanish), tubarão frade (Portuguese), and ubazame (Japanese).

Importance to Humans

In the past, basking sharks were hunted worldwide for their oil, meat, fins, and vitamin rich livers. Today, most fishing has ceased except in China and Japan. The fins are sold as the base ingredient for shark fin soup. A “wet” or fresh pair of fins can fetch up to $1,000 in Asian fish markets while dried-processed fins generally sell for $350 per pound. The liver is sold in Japan as an aphrodisiac, a health food, and its oil as a lubricant for cosmetics. From a 4-ton (3629 kg), 27 feet (8.2 m) basking shark, a fisherman will get 1 ton of meat and 100 gallons (380 liters) of oil.

This basking shark carcass, discovered by Japanese fishermen in 1977, was initially believed to be the remains of a pleisiosaur. Photo by Michihiko Yano.

Interestingly, many tales of sea serpents and monsters have originated from sightings of basking sharks cruising single file, snout to tail, near the surface of the water. In addition, the decomposing remains of basking shark carcasses have been brought to the surface by commercial fishing gear and have also been known to wash up on shore. Due to the basking shark’s relatively small skull in comparison to its body length, it seems unbelievable to many people that these carcasses are those of a shark rather than some unknown beast.

More recently, the basking shark has sparked an interest in eco-tourism operations.

Danger to Humans

Basking sharks are not considered dangerous to the passive observer and are generally tolerant of divers and boats. Despite this, its sheer size and power must be respected (there are reports of sharks attacking boats after being harpooned). In addition, contact with its skin should be avoided, as its large dermal denticles have been known to inflict damage on divers and scientists.

Conservation

Basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) underwater. Photo © Dan Burton

As with other sharks, basking sharks are vulnerable to overfishing for several reasons. They have a lengthy maturation time, slow growth rate and a long gestation period. These factors combined with an already depleted population in many areas have prompted many countries to establish laws to protect the basking shark from further exploitation. The following is a list of significant conservation developments over the past ten years.

Geographical Distribution

World distribution map for the basking shark

The basking shark is a coastal-pelagic species found throughout the world’s arctic and temperate waters. In the western Atlantic, it ranges from Newfoundland to Florida and southern Brazil to Argentina and from Iceland and Norway to Senegal, including the parts of the Mediterranean in the eastern Atlantic. It is found off Japan, China and the Koreas as well as western and southern Australia and the coastlines of New Zealand in the western Pacific and from the Gulf of Alaska to the Gulf of California and from Ecuador to Chile in the eastern Pacific.

Habitat

The basking shark is typically seen swimming slowly at the surface, mouth agape in open water near shore. This species is known to enter bays and estuaries as well as venturing offshore. Basking sharks are often seen traveling in pairs and in larger schools of up to a 100 or more. Its common name comes from its habit of ‘sunning’ itself at the surface, back awash with its first dorsal fin fully exposed.

Basking shark at the surface showing exposed tip of snout (far right), 1st dorsal fin and upper lobe of caudal fin. Photo © Jeremy Stafford-Deitsch

Basking sharks are highly migratory. Off the Atlantic coast of North America it appears in the southern part of its range in the spring (North Carolina to New York), shifts northward in the summer (New England and Canada), and disappears in autumn and winter. Off the southwest coast of the United Kingdom in the northeast Atlantic, the basking shark feeds at the surface of coastal waters during the summer. These sharks are absent from November to March, suggesting a migration beyond the continental shelf during the winter months. This is explained by the high zooplankton density (the primary food of the basking shark) that exists in these waters during late spring and early summer. Sightings of groups of individuals of the same size and sex suggest that there is pronounced sexual and population segregation in migrating basking sharks.

Distinguishing Characteristics

Basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus). Illustration courtesy FAO, Species Identification and Biodata

1. Head is nearly encircled with large gill slits

2. Snout is bulbous and conical

3. Mouth is large and subterminal with small hooked teeth

4. Caudal fin lunate with a single keel on the caudal peduncle

Biology

Distinctive Features
The basking shark is one of the most recognizable of all sharks. Its massiveness, extended gill slits that nearly encircle the head and lunate caudal fin together help distinguish it from all other species. It possesses a conical snout and numerous large gill rakers modified for filter feeding. Its enormous mouth extends past the small eyes and contains many small, hooked teeth. The basking shark has a very large liver that accounts for up to 25% of its body weight. The liver is high in squalene, a low-density hydrocarbon that helps give the shark near-neutral buoyancy.

Coloration
Dorsal surface is typically grayish-brown but can range from dark gray to almost black. Ventral surface may be of the same color, slightly paler or nearly white.

(A) Labial, (B) basal and (C) lateral views of basking shark teeth. Images courtesy Compagno (1990) NOAA Tech. Rep. NMFS 90], (D) Enlarged photo of a portion of jaw. Image courtesy Radcliffe (1916) Bull. Bur. Fish. Circ. 822

Dentition
The basking shark possesses hundreds of tiny teeth. Those in the center of the jaws are low and triangular while those on the sides are more conical and slightly recurved. There is typically a wide space on the center of the upper jaw with only scattered teeth.

Size, Age, and Growth
Second only to the whale shark (Rhincodon typus) in size, the basking shark can reach lengths up to 40 feet (12 m). The average adult length is 22-29 feet (6.7-8.8 m). Size at birth is believed to be between 5-6 feet (1.5-1.8 m). The basking shark is an extremely slow-growing species and may grow to 16-20 feet (5-6 m) before becoming mature.

Food Habits
Along with the whale shark and the megamouth shark (Megachasma pelagios), the basking shark is one of three species of large, filter-feeding sharks. However, the basking shark is the only one that relies solely on the passive flow of water through its pharynx by swimming. The basking shark is usually seen swimming with its mouth wide open, taking in a continuous flow of water. The whale shark and megamouth shark assist the process by suction or actively pumping water into their pharynxes. Food is strained from the water by gill rakers located in the gill slits. The basking shark’s gill rakers can strain up to 2000 tons of water per hour. These sharks feed along areas that contain high densities of large zooplankton (i.e., small crustaceans, invertebrate larvae, and fish eggs and larvae). There is a theory that the basking shark feeds on the surface when plankton is abundant, then sheds its gill rakers and hibernates in deeper water during winter. Alternatively, it has been suggested that the basking shark turns to benthic (near bottom) feeding when it loses its gill rakers. It is not known how often it sheds these gill rakers or how rapidly they are replaced.

Zooplankton. Photo courtesy U.S. Geological Survey

Reproduction
Limited information is available on the reproduction of the basking shark. Only one female carrying an embryo has ever been recorded. This shark was said to have given birth to five live young and one stillborn all ranging from 1.5-2 m (4.5-6 ft) in length. The widely accepted theory is that the basking shark is ovoviviparous. The gestation period is 3 years or longer. It is also been proposed that they use a method of embryonic nutrition known as oviphagy, in which an embryo feeds on unfertilized eggs or other embryos within the uterus. It has been estimated that females reach sexual maturity between 12-16 years.

A characteristic feature of the juvenile basking shark is the long, hook-like snout. It is thought that this snout is useful in feeding in the womb and early feeding after birth by increasing water flow through the mouth. The mouth changes its shape and relative length rapidly during the first year after birth.

Predators
Basking sharks have few if any predators, however white sharks have been reported to scavenge on the remains of these sharks.

Sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus). Photo © George Burgess

Parasites
Many people have witnessed individual sharks leaping from the water. This phenomenon is not fully understood but some believe the shark may be trying to rid itself of parasites or commensals such as remoras and especially sea lampreys (Petramyzon marinus), which are often seen attached to the skin of the basking shark. The lamprey cannot cut through the denticle-armored skin, but they may be enough of an irritant to cause a reaction like jumping or rubbing against an object or the bottom to dislodge them. The cookiecutter shark (Isistius brasiliensis) has also been known to attack basking sharks by using its suction cup-like lips and muscular pharynx to bore out plugs of flesh on the outside of the shark.

Taxonomy

Occasionally known as “sunfish” or “sailfish” in certain areas of the world, the basking shark is the only member of the family Cetorhinidae. It was first described by Gunnerus in 1765 from a specimen from Norway and was originally assigned the name Squalus maximus. Synonymous names include Squalus isodus Macri 1819, Squalus elephasLesueur 1822, Squalus rashleighanus Couch 1838, Sqalus cetaceus Gronow 1854, Cetorhinus blainvillei Capello 1869,Selachus pennantii Cornish 1885, Cetorhinus maximus infanuncula Deinse & Adriani 1953 and Cetorhinus maximus normani Siccardi 1961). The currently accepted scientific name is Cetorhinus maximus as assigned by Gunnerus in 1765. The genus name Cetorhinus is derived from the Greek, “ketos” = a marine monster, whale and “rhinos” = nose while the species name maximus is Latin, meaning “great.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midshipman

A midshipman is an officer of the junior-most rank, in the Royal Navy, United States Navy, and many Commonwealth navies. Commonwealth countries which use the rank include Canada (Naval Cadet), Australia, Bangladesh, Namibia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Singapore, Sri Lanka, and Kenya.

In the 17th century, a midshipman was a rating for an experienced seaman, and the word derives from the area aboard a ship, amidships, either where the original rating worked on the ship, or where he was berthed. Beginning in the 18th century, a commissioned officer candidate was rated as a midshipman, and the seaman rating began to slowly die out. By the Napoleonic era (1793–1815), a midshipman was an apprentice officer who had previously served at least three years as a volunteer, officer's servant or able seaman, and was roughly equivalent to a present-day petty officer in rank and responsibilities. After serving at least three years as a midshipman or master's mate, he was eligible to take the examination for lieutenant. Promotion to lieutenant was not automatic, and many midshipmen took positions as master's mates for an increase in pay and responsibility aboard ship. Midshipmen in the United States Navy were trained and served similarly to midshipmen in the Royal Navy, although unlike their counterparts in the Royal Navy, a midshipman was a warrant officer rank until 1912.

During the 19th century, changes in the training of naval officers in both the Royal Navy and the United States Navy led to the replacement of apprenticeship aboard ships with formal schooling in a naval college. Midshipman began to mean an officer cadet at a naval college. Trainees now spent around four years in a college and two years at sea prior to promotion to commissioned officer rank. Between the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries, time at sea declined to less than a year as the entry age was increased from 12 to 18.

Ranks equivalent to midshipman exist in many other navies. Using US midshipman or pre-fleet board UK midshipman as the basis for comparison, the equivalent rank would be a naval cadet in training to become a junior commissioned officer. Using post-fleet board UK midshipman for comparison, the rank would be the most junior commissioned officer in the rank structure, and similar to a US ensign in role and responsibility. In many Romance languages, the literal translation of the local term for "midshipman" into English is "Navy Guard", including the French garde marine, Spanish guardia marina, Portuguese guarda-marinha, and Italian guardiamarina. Today, these ranks all refer to naval cadets, but historically they were selected by the monarchy, and were trained mostly on land as soldiers.

Apprentice officers

Royal Navy (1662–1836)

Origins

Midshipman of the Royal Navy (c. 1799),[1] by Thomas Rowlandson

The rank of midshipman originated during the Tudor and Stuart eras, and originally referred to a post for an experienced seaman promoted from the ordinary deck hands, who worked in between the main and mizzen masts and had more responsibility than an ordinary seaman, but was not a military officer or an officer in training.[2] The first published use of the term midshipman was in 1662.[3] The word derives from an area aboard a ship, amidships, but it refers either to the location where midshipmen worked on the ship,[2] or the location where midshipmen were berthed.[4]

By the 18th century, four types of midshipman existed: midshipman (original rating), midshipman extraordinary, midshipman (apprentice officer), and midshipman ordinary.[5] Some midshipmen were older men, and while most were officer candidates who failed to pass the lieutenant examination or were passed over for promotion, some members of the original rating served, as late as 1822, alongside apprentice officers without themselves aspiring to a commission.[6] By 1794, all midshipmen were considered officer candidates, and the original rating was phased out.[7]

Entry

Midshipman Henry William Baynton aged 13 (1780)

Beginning in 1661, boys who aspired to become officers were sent by their families to serve on ships with a "letter of service" from the crown, and were paid at the same rate as midshipmen.[8] The letter instructed the admirals and captains that the bearer was to be shown "such kindness as you shall judge fit for a gentleman, both in accommodating him in your ship and in furthering his improvement".[9] Their official rating was volunteer-per-order, but they were often known as King's letter boys, to distinguish their higher social class from the original midshipman rating.[8][10]

Beginning in 1677, Royal Navy regulations for promotion to lieutenant required service as a midshipman, and promotion to midshipman required some time at sea.[11] By the Napoleonic era, the regulations required at least three years of services as a midshipman or master's mate and six years of total sea time.[12] Sea time was earned in various ways, most boys served this period at sea in any lower rating,[13] either as a servant of one of the ship's officers, a volunteer, or a seaman.[12]

By the 1730s, the rating volunteer-per-order was phased out and replaced with a system where prospective midshipmen served as servants for officers. For example, a captain was allowed four servants for every 100 men aboard his ship; many of these servants were young men destined to become officers.[14]

In 1729, the Royal Naval Academy in Portsmouth – renamed the Royal Naval College in 1806 – was founded, for 40 students aged between 13 and 16, who would take three years to complete a course of study defined in an illustrated book, and would earn two years of sea time as part of their studies.[5][12] The rating of midshipman-by-order, or midshipman ordinary, was used specifically for graduates of the Royal Naval College, to distinguish them from midshipmen who had served aboard ship, who were paid more.[5] The school was unpopular in the Navy, because officers enjoyed the privilege of having servants and preferred the traditional method of training officers via apprenticeship.[14]

In 1794, officers' servants were abolished and a new class of volunteers called 'volunteer class I' was created for boys between the ages of 11 and 13 who were considered future midshipmen and lived in the gunroom on a ship-of-the-line or with the midshipmen on a frigate or smaller vessel.[14] Volunteers were paid £6 per year.[14] By 1816, the rating of midshipman ordinary was phased out, and all apprentice officers were rated as midshipmen.[5]

Social background and uniform

Portrait of Midshipman John Windham Dalling (c 1800)

In the 18th century Royal Navy, rank and position on board ship was defined by a mix of two hierarchies, an official hierarchy of ranks and a conventionally recognized social divide between gentlemen and non-gentlemen.[15][A 1] Boys aspiring for a commission were often called young gentlemen instead of their substantive rating to distinguish their higher social standing from the ordinary sailors.[9][18] Generally, aboard most warships common seamen berthed in the gundeck, while officers were quartered at the stern. Occasionally, a midshipman would be posted aboard a ship in a lower rating such as able seaman but would eat and sleep with his social equals in the cockpit.[19][A 2]

Approximately 50 percent of midshipmen were the sons of professional men, which included the sons of naval officers, and there were notable sailing families throughout the Age of Sail, such as the Saumarez, Hood, and Parker families. The niceties of preferment and promotion made family connections an obvious advantage for prospective officers. Members of the peerage and landed gentry formed the next largest group, about 27 percent of officers. The numbers were smaller, but similarly, their connections gave them excellent prospects for promotion, and they had a considerable influence on the Royal Navy. A notable member of this group was Prince William, later William IV, who served as a midshipman from 1780–1785. The rest were from commercial or working class backgrounds, and because of the advantages possessed by the nobility and professional sailors, their chances of promotion to lieutenant were slim.[14]

Since most midshipmen were from the gentry or had family connections with sailing ships, many used their connections to have their names placed on a ship's books. The practice, known colloquially as "false muster" was common even though it was technically illegal and frowned upon.[21] This allowed some boys to be promoted to midshipmen, or in some cases lieutenant, without having completed the required amount of time at sea. A notable example was Thomas Cochrane, whose uncle had him entered at the age of five; his name was carried on various ships until he was 18 and received his commission.[12]

When uniforms were introduced in the Navy in 1748, midshipmen started wearing the same uniform as commissioned officers.[22] They also began wearing their traditional badge of rank, a white patch of cloth with a gold button and a twist of white cord on each side of the coat collar.[23] The uniform emphasized that midshipmen were gentlemen and officers under instruction.[22]

Duties and promotion

Further information: Passed midshipman, Master's mate, and Sub-lieutenant

Midshipmen were expected to work on the ship, but were also expected to learn navigation and seamanship. They were expected to have learned already, as able seamen and volunteers, to rig sails, other duties included keeping watch, relaying messages between decks, supervising gun batteries, commanding small boats, and taking command of a sub-division of the ship's company under the supervision of one of the lieutenants. On smaller ships, midshipmen were instructed by a senior master's mate, often a passed midshipman, who taught them mathematics, navigation, and sailing lore. Larger ships would carry a schoolmaster, who was rated as a midshipman but usually was a civilian like the chaplain. Midshipmen were expected to keep detailed navigational logs, which were shown to the captain to assess their progress.[14]

Route to a commission in the Royal Navy, c. 1810[24]

Prior to promotion to lieutenant, a commissioned officer candidate in the Royal Navy had to pass a formal examination. Officially, a prospective lieutenant was at least 19, and was expected to produce proof of his service, which would include certificates from his commanders and journals kept while a midshipman.[25] However, most midshipmen aspired to take the lieutenant examination at age 17 or 18, and the typical age of a midshipman was between 15 and 22.[13] The candidate was summoned before a board of three captains and questioned about seamanship, navigation, and discipline. The board would ask questions such as:

An enemy is observed; give orders for clearing your ship, and make all the necessary preparations for engaging.[25]

Like the board, which might be an ad hoc affair, the actual exam questions were not standardized and their content depended mostly on individual captains. In seamanship, the candidate was expected to be able to splice ropes, reef a sail, work a ship in sailing and shift his tides. In navigation, he was expected to be able to keep a reckoning of the ship's way by plane sailing, to use Mercator projection maps and observation of the sun and stars to determine the course and position of the ship, and to understand the variation of the compass. He was also expected to be qualified to do the duty of an able seaman and midshipman.[25]

Failure usually meant six more months of sea service before the examination could again be attempted. Some men never passed it. Successful completion made the midshipman a 'passed midshipman'.[25] From the 18th century until the second half of the 19th century, a midshipman in the Royal Navy who passed the lieutenant's examination did not automatically receive a commission. Midshipmen with political connections were promoted first, while others would wait their turn on a roster. During wartime, when large numbers of ships and men might be lost in battle, most passed midshipman would be promoted in a year or two, but during peacetime the wait might be so long that the midshipman would eventually be considered too old and lose his chance for a commission.[26]

Passed midshipmen awaiting promotion often elected to become master's mates, a high-ranking petty officer who assisted the master with his duties, served on watch as deputy to the lieutenants, and commanded small boats.[27] A midshipman who became master's mate earned an increase in pay from £2 5s to £3 16s per month but initially reduced his chances at a commission because master's mates, along with masters, were assumed to have a working-class background.[28][29] Over time, however, appointment to master's mate became considered a normal part of the path to a commission; the situation caused some confusion during the last part of the 18th century, when two parallel roles – master's mates trying to become masters, and former midshipmen working toward a commission – held the same title and responsibilities aboard ship.[30]

By the first years of the 19th century, the term 'mate', without the prefix master's, was used for passed midshipmen, to distinguish them from master's mates who had not served as midshipmen. In 1824, the rating of master's assistant replaced master's mate, and mate continued to be used unofficially by passed midshipmen.[28] These changes helped eliminate the confusion caused by the mingling of midshipmen in the navigator's branch.[30] In 1838 a Royal Commission, presided over by the Duke of Wellington, recommended the institution of the rank of mate as an official step between midshipman and lieutenant.[31] In 1861 mate was abolished in favor of sub-lieutenant.[31]

United States Navy (1794–1845)

When Congress created the United States Navy in 1794, midshipman was listed as a rank of warrant officer in the Naval Act of 1794, and they were appointed by the President of the United States.[32] Midshipmen had similar duties and responsibilities as in the Royal Navy, and were typically young men between the age of 14 and 22 in training to become a naval officer. "Passed midshipman" was first used in 1819, and was an official rank of the US Navy.[33]

During the long period of peace between 1815 and 1846 midshipmen had few opportunities for promotion, and their warrants were often obtained via patronage. The poor quality of officer training in the US Navy became visible after the Somers Affair, an alleged mutiny aboard the training ship USS Somers in 1842, and the subsequent execution of midshipman Philip Spencer. Spencer had gained his post aboard the Somers via the influence of his father, United States Secretary of War John C. Spencer.[34]

Cadet officers

Royal Navy from 1836

Further information: Selborne-Fisher scheme

The original Royal Naval College closed in 1837, after which the only method for training midshipmen in the Royal Navy was aboard ships. In 1844 the rank of naval cadet was created, and to qualify as a midshipman a candidate had to be 14 years old, successfully pass an admiralty examination and have two years of service as a naval cadet or three years of service in the Navy.[35] A decline in qualified officers prompted the Navy to order training in a ship at anchor for all cadets, which began in 1857 aboard HMS Illustrious, which was replaced by HMS Britannia in 1859.[36] Britannia was moved to Portland in 1862, and to the present location of the Britannia Royal Naval College, Dartmouth in 1863.[37]

Beginning in the 1840s, the normal entry age for executive officer cadets, those destined to command ships and fleets, was between 12 and 13, and instruction consisted of two years of classroom training, during which time trainees were rated as naval cadets.[38] Cadets who received a first-class passing grade in studies, seamanship and conduct on their final examination could receive a credit for up to a year of sea time, and could be rated as midshipmen immediately after passing out of the college.[38] After passing out of the college, cadets served aboard a special training vessel for one year.[38] Cadets were then rated as midshipmen, and served aboard the fleet another two years. Midshipmen lived in the gunroom, kept watches, and ran the ship's boats. They received instruction in navigation every day. After five total years of training and having reached the age of 19, the midshipmen were eligible to take the examination for lieutenant.[39][40] After passing the examination for lieutenant, midshipmen were commissioned as sub-lieutenants, and were transferred to the Royal Naval College, Greenwich, which opened in 1873 as the 'University of the Navy'.[39]

Midshipmen George Drewry, Wilfred Malleson, and Greg Russell

Beginning in 1903, officer training of military and engineering students was reformed by the Selborne-Fisher scheme, and engineering and executive officer candidates began to enter the Navy in the same way, which was termed 'Common Entry'.[41][A 3] Previously, engineer cadets had been trained separately at the Royal Naval Engineering College, Keyham which was closed in 1910.[41] In 1903 a new preparatory college was opened at the Royal Naval College, Osborne, in part of Queen Victoria's favorite residence but not a favorite of her successor Edward VII who had donated it to the nation in 1902. Training initially consisted of two years at Osborne and two years at Dartmouth as cadets, later four years at Dartmouth, followed by approximately 3 years of sea duty as midshipmen prior to promotion to sub-lieutenant.[39] In 1905, a new building was completed on shore to replace Britannia, which was named Britannia Royal Naval College.[43] In 1913, increasing demand for officers led to recruitment of 18-year-old graduates of public schools, which was called 'Special Entry', and was conducted separately from Selborne scheme cadets.[44] Special entry cadets trained for approximately 6 months prior to service in the fleet as midshipmen.[44] When World War I began in 1914, all the cadets at Dartmouth were quickly mobilized as midshipmen in the Reserve Fleet.[45] During the war, two midshipmen, George Drewry and Wilfred Malleson were awarded the Victoria Cross, the highest award of the British Commonwealth for gallantry, during the Landing at Cape Helles.[46] After World War I ended, opposition to the Selborne-Fisher scheme led to re-segregating executive and engineering officers into separate branches, while common entry and special entry were maintained.[39]

After World War II another series of reforms, influenced by the quality of officers produced by the special entry scheme and other nations' experience with training officer candidates in a university setting, were initiated to increase the quality of officers in the Navy.[8] In 1949 the entry age was increased to 16, and by 1955 the entry age was increased to 18 and entry required a minimum of two A levels.[47] After 1957 midshipmen no longer served in the fleet.[48] In 1972, all cadets became midshipmen when the rank of cadet was abolished.[49]

United States Navy from 1845

Congress formally authorized the establishment of the United States Military Academy in 1802, but it took almost 50 years to approve a similar school for naval officers.[50] One major reason for the delay was that Navy leaders preferred the apprenticeship system, citing famous officers such as Nelson and the captains of the War of 1812 who did not attend a formal naval school.[50] However, after the Somers Affair, officers realized that the system for training officers had to change to be more efficient.[50]

Midshipman Theodorus B. M. Mason of the United States Navy (c. 1868)[51]

George Bancroft, appointed Secretary of the Navy in 1845, decided to work outside of congressional approval and create a new academy for officers.[50] He formed a council led by Commodore Perry to create a new system for training officers, and turned the old Fort Severn at Annapolis into a new institution which would be designated as the United States Naval Academy in 1851.[50] Midshipmen studied at the Academy for four years and trained aboard ships each summer.[52] Midshipman began to mean "passed midshipman" at this time, and a student at the Naval Academy was a cadet midshipman.[33] The rank of ensign was created in 1862, and passed midshipmen were promoted to ensign when vacancies occurred.[33]

Snotty

In Royal Navy slang, a midshipman is sometimes referred to as a "snotty". Two popular stories give origins for the term: the first claims that it arose from a shortage of handkerchiefs among midshipmen, who would consequently use their sleeves to wipe their noses. Prince William, later William IV, is sometimes cited as a notorious example of this practice among midshipmen.[58] The other story claims that the three buttons formerly sewn onto midshipmen's jacket cuffs were placed there to prevent them from wiping their noses on their sleeves.[48][58]

Royal Navy

• A midshipman was a petty officer who could be demoted by the captain, but outranked most other petty officers and lesser warrant officers, such as the Master-at-arms.[16][17]

• Horatio Nelson served as an able seaman aboard the Seahorse,[19] and Peter Heywood served as an able seaman aboard HMS Bounty.[20]

• The scheme included the Royal Marines but they did not participate in the scheme.[42]

• Pre-1956 Royal Navy and Royal Marines warrant officers and commissioned officers from Warrant Rank were senior to midshipmen.[61]

• On entry to the Navy, candidates with 3–4 year degrees enter as acting sub-lieutenants or sub-lieutenants. Medical personnel enter as lieutenants, and chaplains enter as commanders.[70]

• The Navy and Coast Guard abolished the grade of warrant officer (W-1) in 1975.

• The U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps continue to appoint officers to the grade of warrant officer (W-1), as officers, they of course, outrank midshipmen (as well as cadets), who are in training to become officers. The U.S. Air Force no longer uses the warrant officer ranks, the U.S. Public Health Service and U.S. Maritime Service, while authorized warrant officers, have never appointed or commissioned warrant officers, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is not authorized warrant officers.

• Legally, NROTC midshipmen enlist in the Navy Reserve or Marine Corps Reserve for the purpose of being appointed as a midshipman.[93]

• Aspirant: Élève de deuxième année de l'École navale translates to second year student at the Naval Academy.[115]

10. Officer candidates in the Norwegian Navy hold the rank of Kvartermester.[60]

References

1. 
   

• "Ranks in Nelson's Navy". Port Cities London. National Maritime Museum. Retrieved 20 February 2009.

• Penn 1957, pp. 3–4

• "midshipman, n." Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 18 June 2013.

• Morris & Kearns 1998, p. 186

• Lewis 1939, pp. 217–220

• Penn 1957, p. 8

• King 2001, p. 299

• Davies 1991, p. 16

• Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Midshipman". Encyclopædia Britannica. XVIII (11th ed.). New York: Encyclopædia Britannica. p. 423. Retrieved 15 September 2009.

• Penn 1957, pp. 10–11

• Lewis 1939, p. 221

• Lavery 1989, p. 89

• Phillipson 1996, p. 2

• Lavery 1989, p. 90

• Lewis 1939, p. 228

• Lewis 1939, p. 270

• Lavery 1989, p. 270

• Blake & Lawrence 2005, p. 72

• Lewis 1939, p. 267

• "Pitcairn Crew". Pitcairn Island Study Center. 2008. Retrieved 28 April 2010.

• "false muster, n." Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 11 March 2011.

• Lewis 1939, pp. 221–222

• Lavery 1989, p. 108

• Lavery 1989, p. 92

• Lavery 1989, p. 93

• Walker 1938, p. 185

• "Officer ranks in the Royal Navy". Royal Naval Museum. Archived from the original on 11 October 2014. Retrieved 25 April 2009.

• Walker 1938, p. 186

• Lewis 1960, p. 146,197

• Lewis 1939, p. 212,230

• Walker 1938, pp. 188–189

• "Warrant Officer". Naval Historical Center. 2005. Retrieved 11 September 2009.

• Hamersly 1881, p. 496

• Miller 1997, p. 102

• Hautlain, Charles (1844), The New Navy List, London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co., p. 90, retrieved 19 July 2010

• Walker 1938, p. 37

• Walker 1938, p. 39

• Pack 1966, pp. 42–43

• Winton 1995, pp. 267–269

• Hamersly 1881, p. 16

• Penn 1957, pp. 122–124

• Penn 1957, p. 123

• Davies & Grove 1980, p. 12

• Pack 1966, p. 195

• Davies & Grove 1980, p. 14

• Snelling, Stephen (1995), Gallipoli, VCs of the First World War, Stroud: Sutton, p. 29, ISBN 0-7509-0566-2, OCLC 32387181

• Davies & Grove 1980, p. 21

• "M Class – Muster". Royal Navy. Archived from the original on 26 August 2010. Retrieved 17 December 2008.

• Davies & Grove 1980, p. 23

• Miller 1997, p. 103

• "Midshipman Theodorus B. M. Mason". NYPL Digital Gallery. New York Public Library. Retrieved 18 June 2010.

• "A Brief History of the US Naval Academy". United States Navy. Retrieved 7 August 2008.

• "US Naval Academy — Mechanical Engineering Department — History". United States Naval Academy. Retrieved 22 July 2010.

• Hamersly 1881, p. 14

• Commission of ensign to graduates of the Naval Academy at end of four years' course, Pub. Law No. 62-98. 37 Stat. 73 (1912). Retrieved 2009-11-11 from Lexis/Nexis Congressional.

• Saunders, Stephen, ed. (2008). Jane's Fighting Ships 2008–2009 (111 ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-7106-2845-9.

• "National Defence Act (R.S., 1985, c. N-5)". Department of Justice of Canada. Retrieved 1 April 2009.

• Penn 1957, p. ix

• "Uniforms and Badges of Rank". Royal Navy. Archived from the original on 27 January 2009. Retrieved 16 October 2009.

• STANAG 2116: NATO Codes for Grades of Military Personnel. NATO. 13 March 1996.

• Lavery, Brian (1994). Hostilities Only: Training the wartime Royal Navy. Greenwich: National Maritime Museum. p. 150.

• The Navy list. H.M. Stationery Office. 1834. Retrieved 1 January 2011.

• "Royal Navy Uniform Regulations" (PDF). Royal Navy. p. 3. Archived from the original (PDF) on 12 April 2015. Retrieved 1 January 2015.

• "Uniform and Medals:Research guide U1: Uniforms: The National Maritime Museum Collection". National Maritime Museum. Archived from the original on 27 February 2009. Retrieved 6 March 2009.

• "Royal Navy Officer". Royal Navy. Retrieved 16 January 2019.

• "Royal Navy Officer". UCAS. Retrieved 16 January 2019.

• "Initial Officer Training". Royal Navy. Archived from the original on 30 March 2009. Retrieved 6 March 2009.

• "Initial Fleet Time". Royal Navy. Archived from the original on 23 January 2010. Retrieved 19 July 2010.

• "In Service Degree Scheme". Royal Navy. Archived from the original on 24 July 2009. Retrieved 5 June 2009.

• "What It Takes to Become a Naval Officer in Five Easy Steps". Australian Department of Defence. p. 18. Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 March 2009. Retrieved 6 March 2009.

• "Single Service Training". Australian Department of Defence. Archived from the original on 1 February 2009. Retrieved 24 February 2009.

• "The Australian Defence Force Academy – Training at ADFA". Australian Department of Defence. Archived from the original on 8 March 2009. Retrieved 24 February 2009.

• "University of New South Wales". Australian Department of Defence. Archived from the original on 16 February 2009. Retrieved 24 February 2009.

• "RNZN Midshipman Rank Slide". Royal New Zealand Navy. Retrieved 4 March 2009.

• "Defence Act 1990". Parliamentary Counsel Office. Retrieved 12 May 2009. Officer, in relation to the Navy, means a person who is of or above the rank of midshipman.

• "Warfare Officer". Royal New Zealand Navy. Retrieved 13 November 2015.

• "Climbing the Ranks". Royal New Zealand Navy. Archived from the original on 13 November 2009. Retrieved 11 November 2009.

• "Supply Officer". Royal New Zealand Navy. Archived from the original on 7 December 2009. Retrieved 11 November 2009.

• "Tertiary Sponsorship". Royal New Zealand Navy. Archived from the original on 13 November 2009. Retrieved 11 November 2009.

• "Rank Insignia". Department of Defence, Republic of South Africa. Retrieved 19 March 2009.

• "Military Skills Development" (PDF). South African Navy. Retrieved 4 November 2009.

• "Career Progression". South African Navy. Retrieved 19 July 2010.

• "About the Military Academy". University of Stellenbosch. Archived from the original on 16 June 2008. Retrieved 19 March 2009.

• Hiranandani, G M. "21". Transition to Triumph: history of the Indian Navy, 1965–1975. New Delhi: Lancer Publishers. ISBN 1-897829-72-8. OCLC 44603776. Retrieved 17 September 2009.

• "Midshipmen". Indian Navy. Archived from the original on 18 July 2010. Retrieved 11 September 2009.

• "Pakistan Navy Website". Pakistan Navy. Archived from the original on 1 December 2012. Retrieved 30 April 2009.

• Cheema 2003, p. 89

• "Uniform Ranks". Royal Australian Navy. Archived from the original on 24 January 2015. Retrieved 16 January 2015.

• "Officer Accession Programs (Article 6101.1)". United States Navy Uniform Regulations (NAVPERS 15665I). Navy Personnel Command. March 2014. Retrieved 13 November 2015.

• Brackin, William L. (1991). Naval Orientation (NAVEDTRA 12966). United States Navy Naval Education and Training Command. p. 9‑9. Retrieved 13 April 2015.

• "Insignias – Midshipman". Naval History & Heritage Command. Archived from the original on 9 April 2010. Retrieved 14 May 2009.

• "FAQ". U.S. Naval Academy. Retrieved 20 July 2010.

• "Regulations for Officer Development for the Naval Reserve Training Corps" (PDF). United States Navy. 2 July 2007. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 May 2012. Retrieved 26 July 2010.

• "Merchant Marine: Officer Opportunities: Careers and Jobs: Navy Reserve". United States Navy. Archived from the original on 27 December 2010. Retrieved 21 July 2010.

• "USNA Admissions". United States Navy. Retrieved 7 August 2008.

• "US Merchant Marine Academy". US Merchant Marine Academy. Archived from the original on 12 October 2007. Retrieved 9 March 2010.

• "Apply For Nomination". United States Naval Academy. 2009. Retrieved 8 February 2009.

• "USNA Admissions — Steps for Admission — Nominations — Navy And Marine Corps (Active & Reserve)". U.S. Naval Academy. Retrieved 20 July 2010.

• "USNA Admissions — Steps for Admission — Nominations — President". U.S. Naval Academy. Retrieved 20 July 2010.

• "USNA Admissions — Steps for Admission — Nominations — Children of Medal of Honor Awardees". U.S. Naval Academy. Retrieved 20 July 2010.

• "Nominations". US Merchant Marine Academy. Retrieved 19 October 2015.

• "Military Service Requirements". Naval Service Training Command Officer Development. Archived from the original on 22 July 2011. Retrieved 4 June 2009.

• "Academic Education". United States Naval Academy. 2009. Retrieved 8 February 2009.

• "Midshipmen Get Taste Of Life At Sea On USS Philippine Sea | Mayport Mirror". Mayportmirror.jacksonville.com. 15 August 2012. Archived from the original on 18 May 2013. Retrieved 4 December 2012.

• "Career Opportunities". U.S. Naval Academy. Retrieved 19 July 2010.

• "After Graduation". U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. Retrieved 6 June 2013.

• "Obligation Compliance". U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. 11 May 2017. Retrieved 29 April 2018.

• "Voorschrift Koninklijke Marine 003: Uniformen Voor Militairen van de Koninklijke Marine (VKM 003)" (PDF) (in Dutch). Koninklijke Marine. 2008. p. 69. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 July 2011. Retrieved 19 October 2009.

• Petra Schmittberger (4 February 2009). "Offizier Marine" (PDF) (in German). German Federal Armed Forces. p. 12. Retrieved 6 November 2009.

• Lavery 1989, p. 281

• Lavery 1989, p. 284

• Harding 1999, p. 145

• "Historia" (in Spanish). Armada Española. Retrieved 9 April 2009.

• Harding 1999, pp. 229–230

• "le Grand Robert" (in French). Dictionnaires Le Robert. Retrieved 6 April 2009. (Login required)

• "Army Rank and Appointment Insignia". Canadian Department of National Defence. Archived from the original on 20 August 2011. Retrieved 16 March 2009.

• "Les grades de la Marine nationale" (in French). Ministère de la défense. Retrieved 16 January 2015.

• "Uniformen" (PDF) (in German). Deutsche Marine. p. 20. Retrieved 18 March 2009.

• "Gradi" (in Italian). Ministero della Difesa. Archived from the original on 10 March 2009. Retrieved 16 March 2009.

• "Postos" (in Portuguese). Marinha Portuguesa. Archived from the original on 26 May 2009. Retrieved 16 March 2009.

121. "Badges and Emblems" (in Spanish). Armada Española. Retrieved 16 March 2009.

Bibliography

• Blake, Nicholas; Lawrence, Richard (2005), The Illustrated Companion to Nelson's Navy, Stackpole Books, ISBN 0-8117-3275-4, OCLC 70659490

• Cheema, Pervaiz Iqbal (2003), The Armed Forces of Pakistan, New York University Press, ISBN 0-8147-1633-4, OCLC 49959459

• Davies, E. L.; Grove, E. J. (1980), The Royal Naval College Dartmouth: Seventy-five years in Pictures, Portsmouth: Gieves & Hawkes Limited, ISBN 0-85997-462-6

• Davies, J.D. (1991), Gentlemen and Tarpaulins : The Officers and Men of the Restoration Navy, Oxford: Clarendon Press, ISBN 0-19-820263-6

• Hamersly, Lewis (1881), A Naval Encyclopædia, Philadelphia: L. R. Hamersly & Co., OCLC 8514211

• Harding, Richard (1999), Seapower and naval warfare, 1650–1830, Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, ISBN 1-55750-888-7, OCLC 41106614

• King, Dean (2001), A Sea of Words: Lexicon and Companion for Patrick O'Brian's Seafaring Tales, Henry Holt, ISBN 0-8050-6615-2, OCLC 59538604

• Lavery, Brian (1989), Nelson's Navy: The Ships, Men and Organization, Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, ISBN 0-87021-258-3, OCLC 20997619

• Lewis, Michael (1939), England's Sea-Officers, London: George Allen & Unwin, OCLC 1084558

• Lewis, Michael (1960), A Social History of the Navy, London: Ruskin House, OCLC 2832855

• Miller, Nathan (1997), The U.S. Navy: a history (3rd ed.), Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, ISBN 1-55750-595-0, OCLC 37211290

• Morris, James; Kearns, Patricia (1998), Historical Dictionary of the United States Navy, Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, ISBN 0-8108-3406-5, OCLC 37903579

• Pack, S.W.C. (1966), Britannia at Dartmouth, London: Redman, OCLC 957379

• Penn, Geoffrey (1957), Snotty: The Story of the Midshipman, London: Hollis & Carter, OCLC 8317840

• Phillipson, David (1996), Band of Brothers: Boy Seamen in the Royal Navy 1800 – 1956, Stroud: Sutton, ISBN 0-7509-1976-0, OCLC 41959874

• Walker, C.F. (1938), Young Gentlemen: The Story of Midshipmen from the XVIIth Century to the Present Day, London: Longmans, Green, OCLC 2936648

• Winton, John (1995), "Life And Education in a Technically Evolving Navy: 1815–1925", in J.R. Hill (ed.), Oxford Illustrated History of the Royal Navy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-211675-4, OCLC 32237618