Indeed there was. Not however in this case.
Chapter 33 of N. A. M. Rodger’s incredible ( considering my uninterest in this subject ) The Command of the Ocean — A Naval History of Britain, 1649 - 1815 has:
*‘Of a sample of 100 officers who passed their lieutenant’s examination in 1793, at least thirty-eight were not older than twelve when they first went to sea. Four were under eight years old, and the youngest was less than five.’
*
I resent the difficulty of lugging out this cite, and had hoped rather that people would controvert my assertion.
Nobility wasn’t required for officer commissions in the French army (I wouldn’t know for the navy), let alone multiple generations of it, until in fact not long before the revolution, when Louis XV, wanting to offer more opportunities to the lowly and impoverished nobility made it a requirement. So, it didn’t last long.
In fact, a large part (if not most) of the officers weren’t noble but rather came from the bourgeoisie. That there were way too many commoners in the army was a common complaint (adressed by Louis XV, as I said). Above the rank of lieutenant (NCOs could be promoted to lieutenant) all commissions had to be bought.
Nobility could in fact be acquired by military service (individual decision of the king, promotion to generalship or three successive generations being bestowed the order of Saint Louis).
A nitpick, but it was the other way around. The author’s name was Douglas Reeman and he used his real name when writing WWII works. Alexander Kent was the pseudonym he used when he was writing Napoleonic era books.
A point about bathing. In the 18th century people didn’t bathe much or at all. Everyone was pretty smelly and someone who bathed once a week would be considered a bit of a nancy.
At sea, I doubt that anyone washed much, although they did shave. Then as (I think) now, a sailor had to ask permission to grow a beard or he would be in trouble for being unshaven.
When considering the practices of any organisation from 300 years ago, you must put it into the context of the standards of the day. For example, nepotism was common, even normal. Pepys, 100 years earlier, made much of his fortune from backhanders, and owed his advancement as much to influential friends and relatives as his own undoubted ability.
Education was the key. Without enough mathematics to be able to learn navigation, the lower-deck man had very little chance of advancement.
I’m not sure this is right. Pelagics (tuna, mahi mahi, wahoo) I think spread right across the great oceans. I’ve caught fish in the middle of the Atlantic. I think resorting to cannibalism is more likely due to lack of gear than lack of fish.
I doubt all this. It takes a lot of people to fight a sailing ship, and it takes a lot of people to change course and sails when required. However, routine ocean sailing in decent weather is quite calm. You could easily go for days without changing course or sail and battles were very rare. And naval ships had vast numbers of crew. Nets would be out of the question, but there’s no way that storing some hooks and handlines would be a problem.
There are far fewer fish in the deep ocean than over the continental shelf, though - or at least, fewer near the surface. It takes a long time to catch a fish even close to shore. It would take even longer to catch one in the deep ocean.
Not strictly Napoleonic, as it deals mostly with the 18th century, but a very fine book on the Georgian Royal Navy is “The Wooden Walls” by N A M Rodger. (Fontana)
Amongst many other things, it points out that a ship of the line was probably the most technical bit of machinery about, equivalent to something like a B-52 bomber in 1950. Handling it successfully, or even safely, required the skill and co-ordination of a large crew. You wouldn’t get far treating your crew brutally, or appointing officers just because they were aristocrats.
How much changed in the mechanics of a warship between Anson and Nelson?
I’m no expert on rigging, etc, but one significant development was the intorduction of the carronade.
Necropost! But on rereading …
Thanks for the reference! I look forward to reading that. I recall those lines from reading The Lonely Sea and the Sky by Chichester in junior high, but couldn’t have said who wrote them.
Since my earlier posts above I read Two Years Before the Mast - Wikipedia, another great $1 spent on an ebook. That one covers the birth of California as a state, from the eyes of an educated man taking time as a seaman, to recover his eyesight. (Evidently his eyesight recovered; he had a successful law career.)
I am baffled by the idea of sea-going as an opthalmic procedure.
Urban life (particularly to the extent it involves desk jobs) can cause myopia because of constant short range focusing. Getting outside and looking at the horizon is actually good for your vision. I’m not sure it can actually cure anything though.
Perhaps grapeshot radial keratotomy?
Particularly urban life and desk jobs before electric lighting. You’re trying to read in very dim light, a room full of smoke, or both.
Yeah, me too.
I’d be interested if there is any good science that shows that poor eyesight is caused by reading in low light or constantly focusing on close objects. My understanding is that eye doctors said this in the 30’s and 40’s but it’s bunk. Now, it might be true in special cases for people with specific diseases. My guess is the guy just got over it, whatever it was.
The book has an interesting appendix by the author’s son, including the author’s account of visiting the same area 20 years later, to find it completely changed. Nobody mentions the eyesight stuff, other than at the beginning.
One possibility is that he was actually evading some sort of trouble but didn’t want to put that in the book.
I am baffled by 19th century medicine. Bark, steel and bleeding.