This is an extremely basic (and to anyone with military know-how, probably simple-minded) question, but I’ve often been curious. I know that in the 'States, the Marine Corps is distinct from the Army, and there’s a bit of a rivalry between the two services. But why are they distinct?
Here’s what I think I know. Marines were originally soldiers trained to fight on board ships in the days when boarding and occupying enemy vessels was a reasonable strategy. In that role, it seems just as reasonable that they could fall under either Army or Navy hierarchies. Today, I think their role is more in amphibious landings and deployment from ships.
My question is this: if they’re primarily infantry, why aren’t they simply special units of the Army, the way armoured units are? Or, if they’re primarily deployed from ships, why aren’t they special units of the Navy?
Not exactly. Since 1947, the Marine Corps has been an independent and co-equal military service, but they are organized in the civilian Department of the Navy, along with the Navy itself. In other words, the Commandant of the Marine Corps and the Chief of Naval Operations both report to the Secretary of the Navy. And that guy reports to the Secretary of Defense and the President.
Prior to that, they were organized under Navy leadership, for the reasons Speaker mentions.
I suspect and would argue that its part of the French influence from the American Revolution. French Infantry was basically divided into (and I will spell this badly I am sure) Troops du Terre and Troops de la Marine depending on where they were intended to fight. For the most part the “Terre” stayed around Europe and received their pay from horseback and the “Marines” got their pay via boat. Both were basically infantry but were trained in seperate theater tactics and had different tables of organization.
Our early “army” was seen as national defense but in our national boundries and bordering countries such as during the War of 1812. The “marines” took the fight elsewhere such as Tripoli.
The concept of Marines goes back at least to the glory days of the Britsh Navy. Ostensably, their purpose was to take part in boarding actions, but for the most part they were there to suppress mutinies and keep the sailors away from the rum
The United States had a Marine Corp during the Civil War, but the blunt truth is that the Marines in those days were just security guards who watched the ships while they were in port. They didn’t do much during the Civil War because they would have been obliterated in any sort of meaningful combat.
I don’t know when the Maries were transformed into a crack fighting force, but it was some time after the Civil War.
There are still Marines on ships. There will be as long as there are Navy ships.fleet Marines do security on ships as well as other ship board actions. Expeditionary Marines still have an emphasis on landings with many amphibious vehicles. They are designed to take a beachhead and keep it with internal forces until follow on forces can arrive. The Marines have a separate job from the army although there is some overlap. The idea that they are an elite fighting force is PR and I would put up any top army unit against them.
It happened between WWI and WWII. Mostly in the late '30s early '40s.
In the wake of WWI both the Navy and the Army had formally recommended that the Marines be transferred to the Army and be eliminated. The remaining shipboard and base security would be handled by sailors. And all other functions would be absorbed by the Army. That never happened, but by the early '30s the Marines were reduced down to around 15,000 men.
General Lejeune concluded that the Marines needed a new mission or they would be eliminated entirely. He needed a mission that would be difficult to accomplish, that would require specialized doctrine, that didn’t exist yet, and that could ideally fall under the Navy’s realm of influence. Otherwise the Army could just come along and assume that role as well. With those requirements one mission comes immediately to mind, amphibious assault.
The process of turning the marines into an amphibious assault force, and then fighting a war basically turned the marines into the corps we know today.
The US Marines were originally organised as a land defense force for US ports actually, a quite distinct role from British Marines who were ship-borne soldiers.
There have been several attempts to integrate them with the Army or Navy over the years, all failures (obviously). I think it was Truman who growled in frustration one day “the Marines have a better propaganda department than Stalin!”. So I guess the answer to the OP is, they won the bureaucratic battles every time they came up.
Cite, please! This observation flies in the face of every history I’ve read about the formation of the Marines, including histories that were clearly not written by the Marines themselves.
And which ports? If you’re right, there should be some record that Marines were involved in defending a colonial port. I don’t think there is such a record. To the extent that land forces fought the British over ports, it was always the Continental Army: Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Charleston, and New London come to mind immediately.
Just the opposite seems to be true. Maj. Nicolas led the Continental Marines on some amphibious raids in the Caribbean against British outposts, and Marines served on ships.
In short, the Continental Marines were organized to serve aboard ships in the Continental Navy, just as Royal Marines served on Royal Navy ships, Dutch Marines served on Royal Dutch Navy ships, French Marines, well, you get the picture.
Separate “marine” forces, in short, were common in all European navies.
The simple answer to the OP’s question is “for historical reasons”, followed by “every time somebody has tried to change it, the Marines have bitched like mad.”
Total nonsense. The early Marines may not have been quite as good as the later ones, but they were one of the best forces in the world well before WWI.
When the Germans in WWI first encountered the Marines, they were absolutely stunned to find themselves facing fire from ordinary rifles that began to kill at 800 yards. No regular army in the world had that kind of marksmanship.
I think your post answers itself. since the marine corps straddles two services in its mission (Army + Navy) it is much easier to keep it as a distinct command entity. However, the Marine Corps is also under the Dept of the Navy in our Government, and it shares JAG lawyers, Chaplains, and Med personnel with the Navy.
Underline mine: if that was the case, every other country which has marines would have them separate, or at least most would. That’s not the case AFAIK.
The Marine Corps was certainly small at the time, but Marines stormed the engine house at Harpers Ferry, Va. and captured John Brown and his insurgents in 1859. They fought at First Bull Run and in several amphibious campaigns during the Civil War, including at Hatteras Inlet and Ft. Fisher, as well as river warfare and on the high seas. They were in the thick of the fighting, and some even won the Medal of Honor.
It could be said that the Marines found that mission not to strengthen the national defense, but mostly for their own survival.
There’s a “serious joke” that the USMC predates the USA due to the dates of their official founding. Joke because they know they serve to protect our Constitution, but serious because many believe they’re more American than anybody.
