HN Reader

> Compensation: In addition to huge prizes—capturing a merchant vessel could make a captain wealthy for life—there was a wage system where officers were oversupplied and naval officers that weren’t at sea were kept at half pay. The unemployment pool that resulted from this efficiency wage made it easier to discipline officers by moving them back to the captains list. (Allen argues that a fixed-wage system would have led to adverse selection since captains on half pay weren’t permanently employees of the navy but would reject commissions that weren’t remunerative.)

I reread this three times and I can’t make heads or tails of what it’s supposed to mean. There is an oversupply of officers. They are kept at half pay. This affords opportunities to discipline officers. This is presumably because there are others willing to take his place, but all that is referenced is a captain’s list. Is this the list of officers on half-pay?

I genuinely can’t even understand the argument being made in brackets.

I'm currently reading a book about the American Revolution and it mentions the adoption of "coppering" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_sheathing

That seems like a significant technological advantage that the British Navy had over their adversaries, probably not specific to battle, but definitely for reliability and length of service, reduced maintenance, etc.

Substack link: https://arjunpanickssery.substack.com/p/explaining-british-n...

What I missed in the piece is a description on how they did against the Dutch. Both Spanish and French were more ‘land type’ armies, as a Dutchmen I remember in the history wé were taught that the Dutch punched above their weight on sea warefare.

Indeed, if I had to wager, I would assume that the English against the Portuguese or the Dutch would do worse then against the Spanish or French, given the same firepower/size of ships etc. (For the record, did not check ‘the mighty internet’ whether my gut feelings are supported by facts) (Edit: but -> both)

If you're seriously interested in this topic, I'd suggest https://www.youtube.com/user/Drachinifel

Upside: He's a professional British naval historian, and knows this subject extremely well.

Downside: That I recall, he's never produced a video that concentrates on answering the "why was the Royal Navy so dominant..." question. Instead, he's covered the subject in bit and pieces across a huge number of videos.

There is also the theory that the British just had more practice at gunnery and sailhandling while blockading the French/Spanish in the various ports.

Relevant, also the original meaning of "Copper Bottomed Promise". https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/copper-bottomed.html

The more history I read the more I think the British have an unreasonable amount of plot armor

While the "weather gage" and heeling does have an effect on cannon range, the more important issue is that the upwind ships (that have the weather gage) thus have more maneuverability, and can more easily pursue a ship trying to flee downwind. Of course, one could always: "Never mind manoeuvres, go straight at 'em”

There was also just a basic matter of competence among the commissioned officers. The British Royal Navy was at least somewhat more of a meritocracy than most of their adversaries. While there was a certain level of nepotism and corruption, even aristocrats and sons of admirals generally needed some level of experience and seamanship in order to earn a promotion to lieutenant. And it was totally possible for a talented enlisted sailor to earn an officer's commission (although there was some luck involved).

APRIL 1805

NAPOLEON IS MASTER OF EUROPE.

ONLY THE BRITISH FLEET STANDS BEFORE HIM.

OCEANS ARE NOW BATTLEFIELDS.