3 ms·

Trained and capable seaman were very valuable. It took many years to train someone in the proper functioning of the ship, and given that many raw recruits were

Trained and capable seaman were very valuable. It took many years to train someone in the proper functioning of the ship, and given that many raw recruits were typically whomever was rounded up on the streets of Portsmouth at midnight, the quality of the input varied wildly. I'm fairly confident the British navy had huge difficulty manning their ships properly.

Supermancho 2y ago
> I'm fairly confident the British navy had huge difficulty manning their ships properly. "very valuable" compared to a ship? Not so much. > It took many years to train someone in the proper functioning of the ship I'm not sure where you get this from. Many duties on ships could be successfully crewed by children^. Crew were commonly pressed into service, in lieu of volunteers and proper enlisted (transferred, et al). Debtors looking for debt-forgiveness, were a particularly fruitful source. Slaves were sometimes used. Training was on the job. Operational sailing circa 1800, wasn't particularly sophisticated. It was danger-prone. ^https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1044940/Diary-18th-century-sailor-provides-fascinating-insight-life-decks-Nelsons-navy.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1044940/Diary-18th-...
- hgomersall 2y ago
  Sailing circa 1800 was certainly danger prone, but it was also very sophisticated. Manoeuvring a three mast ship of the line takes multiple synchronised actions involving hundreds of men, at least a significant fraction of whom need to know what they are doing. This is an interesting read on the general question of manning the Royal Navy in the Napoleonic era: https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:a2cf9a3d-daf2-446b-88c8-41a0bd86f10b/files/m05c79fc6f11c37ab16be9f3775df5e7a https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:a2cf9a3d-daf2-446b-88c8-41...
  - Supermancho 2y ago
    > Manoeuvring a three mast ship of the line takes multiple synchronised actions involving hundreds of men, at least a significant fraction of whom need to know what they are doing. They needed to know how to do relatively straightforward tasks (many of which were unpleasant) when directed. Same as any other structured military force or industrial line. It was not sophisticated for the vast majority of sailors. Skills varied to be sure. Debating soft terms like skillful, sophistication, and value will not definitively answer the question of a calculation. We look to other signals, like culture. The culture was such that the ships (including weaponry and anything else worth salvage) were more valuable than manpower by virtue of the historical figure sentiments. I have not seen a compelling contradiction.

Supermancho 2y ago

> I'm fairly confident the British navy had huge difficulty manning their ships properly. "very valuable" compared to a ship? Not so much. > It took many years to train someone in the proper functioning of the ship I'm not sure where you get this from. Many duties on ships could be successfully crewed by children^. Crew were commonly pressed into service, in lieu of volunteers and proper enlisted (transferred, et al). Debtors looking for debt-forgiveness, were a particularly fruitful source. Slaves were sometimes used. Training was on the job. Operational sailing circa 1800, wasn't particularly sophisticated. It was danger-prone. ^https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1044940/Diary-18th-century-sailor-provides-fascinating-insight-life-decks-Nelsons-navy.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1044940/Diary-18th-...

hgomersall 2y ago
Sailing circa 1800 was certainly danger prone, but it was also very sophisticated. Manoeuvring a three mast ship of the line takes multiple synchronised actions involving hundreds of men, at least a significant fraction of whom need to know what they are doing. This is an interesting read on the general question of manning the Royal Navy in the Napoleonic era: https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:a2cf9a3d-daf2-446b-88c8-41a0bd86f10b/files/m05c79fc6f11c37ab16be9f3775df5e7a https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:a2cf9a3d-daf2-446b-88c8-41...
- Supermancho 2y ago
  > Manoeuvring a three mast ship of the line takes multiple synchronised actions involving hundreds of men, at least a significant fraction of whom need to know what they are doing. They needed to know how to do relatively straightforward tasks (many of which were unpleasant) when directed. Same as any other structured military force or industrial line. It was not sophisticated for the vast majority of sailors. Skills varied to be sure. Debating soft terms like skillful, sophistication, and value will not definitively answer the question of a calculation. We look to other signals, like culture. The culture was such that the ships (including weaponry and anything else worth salvage) were more valuable than manpower by virtue of the historical figure sentiments. I have not seen a compelling contradiction.