For most of history Navy been parts of the army which fought at sea. The Athenians were one of the best naval powers, yet they did not to my knowledge consider the Navy a separate service and AFAIK the crews were soldiers who had been sent to sea. The Romans were mostly sans a maritime tradition, and while they managed to defeat great nautical powers like Carthage and Egypt at sea, it was a case of the legions serving at sea (yes I know they did have career professionals in the Naval service as well), Marcus Agrippa, a general was in command at Actim for instance.
When did this change.When did Navies become separate forces in their own right rather than an adjunct of the land forces.
In medieval times (although I’m not an expert on that) except for a standing guard, most armies were conscripted off your vassals as needed. Most armies cosnisted of a horde that brought its own weapons. At the end of hunting season, the army wenthome. Often, they were paid in spoils of war.
A navy, OTOH, was not something that was thrown together each summer as needed. Ships wer very expensive, and ships designed for fighting were designed diferent than merchant ships. They required constant maintenance and a trained crew. (Several threads and other sources have discussed than most galley ships were manned by paid crew, not slaves.) The officers certainly needed to have that combination of loyalty and skill required to run a navy.
Most medieval campaigns were land campaigns, and at most the navy might serve as troop transporters; although the shape of northern Europe and size of vessels meant that most land campaigns it was not as useful to use troop transport for a large army.
So essentially, the standing navy and the musterable army were two completely different animals.
There are two issues here. Firstly, until relatively recently, ships tried to not stray far from land. Secondly, and again until relatively recently, ships lacked anti-ship weaponry that had a decent range. Naval combat consisted of ramming the opponent and creating a hole below the waterline or forcing ships together so the crews could fight it out. And any ship that was rammed would try to keep itself joined so that the crew could try to take over the ship that rammed it.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it was the English. Not only was England the first major nation where the navy was considered more important than the army, for several centuries the English navy was the more professional force; the army was kept relatively small, weak and amateurish to prevent internal conflict. It makes sense that other nations saw the success of the British naval model, and took steps to make their own navies more independent, professional forces.
There’s a reason why they call it the Royal Navy. The British navy was raised, trained, and paid directly by the king in order to effect foreign military policy. The armies tended to be organized on an ad-hoc basis from feudal regiments loyal to various aristocrats. This didn’t really change until the New Model Army established during the English Civil War, but that was disbanded fairly quickly. The NMA doctrines did significantly inspire British officials when they began building professional national armies in later decades, though.
This wiki article claims China had a navy (with “Admirals”) beginning around 1132, suggesting an organisation distinct from an army, even if a General/Field Marshall outranks an Admiral.
Guess only:
When gunpowder changed the nature of war at sea.
Before gunpowder, you had ramming, followed up by boarding, using the same (or similar) hand to hand fighting a group of guys on land might use.
Cannons began to get more range and accuracy, requiring more specialised training to fight (and sail) the ship. Soldiers (marines) were still carried, but eventually the cannon began to be seen as the primary weapon of a ship. There is safety in numbers, and handling groups of ships in line of battle also became a more specialised skill.
Even so, up to WW1 the Royal Navy was larger and much better funded than the army, and had much stricter standards - the army may have sold officer’s ranks, but the navy never did.
The British navy was as notorious as the army for commissioning and promoting well-connected aristocrats. OTOH, I recall it was a constant battle for those who cared about the navy to maintain their standards for officers in the face of pressure to ignore the need for qualifications. So, yes, they were much better than the Army, but that did not mean much…
In the British Army, an aristocrat could purchase a command of a regiment if he (or more likely Daddy) was willing to pay. While the Navy did promote aristocrats, their promotion was at least based upon seniority and (in theory) merit.
There’s also a bit of a difference. An aristocrat could without trouble fund and raise a regiment of a thousand infantrymen, which in largely would be expected to live off the land when deployed and often weren’t issued much more than basic arms (uniforms were a relatively late innovation).
Funding a ship on the other hand is a different issue. A ship needs to be purpose built several years before hostilities commence, 50-100 cannons of similar calibers have to be molded and the crew has to be trained in seamanship and gunnery. While some seamen could be impressed from civilan merchants and fisherman, most would have to be trained.
Likewise, members of the same infantry regiment can well be put to use when not active, farming or in artisan jobs. Arms and cannon can be safely stored with minimal attention needed. By comparison, a man-of-war needs constant maintenance even when sitting at dock, and serves no possible purpose during peace time other than as a floating baracks.
So simply put, a ship is a pretty hefty investment in comparison to an infantry regiment, which is why the Admiralty built and maintained them.
Commanding an infantry regiment is at its essence waiving a sword and pointing in the right direction. While hardly adept command, the regiment at least won’t march itself off a cliff if improperly commanded. Naval officers on the other hand required several years of training in seamanship, mathematics and navigation, not to mention gunnery. Hence the Admiralty required competent officers to command their ships, lest they run their very expensive ships up on the rocks, with capital punishment as a possible outcome of negligence.
This is true. It often carried soldiers, and given the nature of ancient combat they might end up fighting on land or sea as marines, but Athenian navies were principally composed of citizens too poor to own (very expensive) bronze armor or shields or weapons.
