Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T09:20:49.528Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sailors and Gentlemen of Parade: Some Professional and Technical Problems Concerning the Conduct of Combined Operations in the Eighteenth Century*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Richard Harding
Richard Harding
Affiliation:
Harrow College of Higher Education
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Of all types of military and naval activity, combined operations have had a particular fascination for public and politicians in the English-speaking world. In England, from Drake's raid on Cadiz in 1587 through to actions initiated by Sir Roger Keyes' Combined Operations Head Quarters in 1940, this mode of warfare has offered the romantic and morale-boosting spectacle of a beleaguered nation striking back at a powerful and threatening adversary. To politicians and administrators such operations seemed to present tantalizingly rich results at little cost. From the early part of the sixteenth century, France and Spain were largely immune from decisiveEnglish military action on the continent, but seemed extremely vulnerable on their seaboards and, as their overseas empires grew, in their colonies. A naval squadron with a small seaborne army could inflict damage upon the economy and prestige of these powers out of all proportion to the forces employed. Even when France was able to continue the fight after major colonial defeats, as she did between 1761 and 1763 and after 1809, England was at least enriched by the profits from her seizures. The belief that the navy could be relied upon to defend Britainand carry the war to the enemy received significant support from the great school of naval historians that developed between 1870 and 1914.1 Their works, supplemented by popular histories, and enlisted unsuccessfully by the royal navy in its attempt to resist a reorientation of British strategy between 1905 and 1911, added great weight to the conviction that British strategy traditionally lay in the application of sea power, of which combinedoperations was a major element. Assisted by newsreel and film, the spectacular developments in the power and technology of combined operations since 1941 have ensured continued public interest in this mode of warfare.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , March 1989 , pp. 35 - 55
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Schurman, D. M., The education of a navy (London, 1965)Google Scholar, passim.

2 Molyneux, T. More, Conjunct operations (London, 1759)Google Scholar, passim; Maclntire, J., A military treatise on the discipline of marine forces (London, 1763)Google Scholar, passim.

3 Corbett, J. S. (ed.), Fighting Instructions, 1530–1816 (London, 1905)Google Scholar, passim; England in the Seven Tears War. A study of combined strategy (2 vols., London, 1907), II, 27, 135Google Scholar; Mackay, R. F., Admiral Hauoke (Oxford, 1965), p. 53Google Scholar.

4 Lavery, B., The ship of the line (2 vols., London, 1983), 1, 98–9Google Scholar, 102; Jamieson, A. G., ‘The war in the Leeward Islands, 1775–1783’ (unpublished D.Phil, dissertation, University of Oxford, 1981), pp. 68–71Google Scholar; Syrett, D., ‘The methodology of British amphibious operations during the Seven Years and American Wars’, M[ariner's] M[irror], LVIII (1972), 273–5Google Scholar.

5 Laughton, J. K.. ‘The scientific study of naval history’, J[ourna] [of the] R[oyal] U[nited] S[ervices] I[nstitute], XVIII (1874), 508–10Google Scholar; Columb, P. H., Naval warfare. Its ruling principles and practice historically treated (London, 1891), pp. 116–23Google Scholar, 134–7, 202.

6 Padfield, , The battleship era (London, 1975), chapter 13Google Scholar.

7 Laughton, ‘Scientific study’, p. 508Google Scholar; Laughton, J. K., ‘The study of naval history’, J.R.U.S.I., XL(1896), 795–820Google Scholar; Corbett, , England in the Seven Tears War, 1, v–viGoogle Scholar,; Richmond, H. W., ‘Naval history from the naval officer's point of view’, in Corbett, J. S. and Edwards, H. J. (eds.), The Cambridge naval and military essays series (Cambridge, 1914), pp. 39–54Google Scholar.

8 Corbett, , England in the Seven Tears War, 1, 172, n. 1Google Scholar; Richmond, H. W., The navy in the war of 1739–1748 (3 vols., Cambridge, 1920), 1, xii–xxi; III, 30–2Google Scholar.

9 Vagts, A., Landing operations (Harrisburg, 1946), passimGoogle Scholar; Syrett, . ‘Amphibious operations’, pp. 269–80Google Scholar.

10 Bassctt, W. G.. ‘The Caribbean in international politics, 1670–1707’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of London, 1934), pp. 460–78Google Scholar; Richmond, , Navy in the war, 1, 34–8; III, 34–5Google Scholar.

11 Corbett, , England in the Seven Tears War, i, 181–3; 188Google Scholar; Plumb, J. N., Chatham (London, 1953), p. 81Google Scholar; Ayling, S., The Elder Pitt (London, 1976), p. 230Google Scholar; Brown, P. D., William Pitt, earl of Chatham (London, 1978), p. 183Google Scholar.

12 [Dundas, H.], Facts relative to the conduct of the war in the West Indies… (London, 1796), pp. 10–12Google Scholar.

13 Middleton, R., The bells of victory. The Pitt-Newcastle ministry and the Seven Tears War, 1757–1762 (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 227–32Google Scholar; Morgan, G. W., ‘The impact of the war on the administration of the army, navy and ordnance in Britain, 1739–1754’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Leicester, 1977), passimGoogle Scholar.

14 Corbett, , England in the Seven Tears War, 1, 172Google Scholar, 254, 377–82, 397; II, 219.

15 Wolfe to Rickson, 5 Nov. 1757, in Wilson, B., The life and Utters of James Wolfe (London, 1909), pp. 339–40Google Scholar; Anon., , Thereport of the General Officers… (London. 1758), p. 30Google Scholar; Hitsman, J. M. and Bond, C. C. J., ‘The assault landing at Louisburg, 1758’, C[anadian] H[istorical] R[eview], xxxv (1954). 328Google Scholar.

16 Bligh to Pitt, 7 Aug. 1758, William L. Clements Library (W.L.C.), Shelburne MSS, xxxvi, item 113; Howe to Cleveland, 8 Stpt. 1758, Public Record Office (P.R.O.), Admiralty papers, 1/91, fo. 61.

17 Corbett, , England in the Seven Tears War, 1, 376–7, 381–2Google Scholar; Smelser, M., The campaign for the sugar islands (Chapel Hill, 1955), p.19Google Scholar.

18 Cf., Instructions to Lord Cathcart, 1 July 1740, B. L., Add. MS, 33028, fos. 386–94; Instructions to Major-General Mordaunt, 5 Aug. 1757, P.R.O., Chatham Deposit 30/8/85, fos. 13–18.

19 Bladen to Newcastle, 27 May 1740, P.R.O., CO 318/3, unfoliated.

20 Instructions to Major-General Wolfe, 5 Feb. 1759, in Doughty, A. G. and Parmelee, G. W.. The siege of Quebec (6 vols., Quebec, 1901), vi, 87–90Google Scholar; Instructions to Lord Albemarle, 15 Feb. 1762, in Llavarias, J., Papeles sobre la Toma de la Habanapor los Ingleses en 1762 (Havana, 1948), pp. 73–7Google Scholar.

21 Middleton, , Bells of victory, p. 69Google Scholar.

22 Peters, M., Pitt and popularity. The patriot minister and London opinion during the Seven Tears War (Oxford, 1980), pp. 92–8Google Scholar.

23 Anon, ., The report of the General Officers… pp. 61–2Google Scholar.

24 Anon., , The expedition to Rochefort fully stated and considered (London, 1758), pp. 32–5Google Scholar; The military arguments in a letter to a rt. hon. author (London, 1758), p. 8Google Scholar; The reply of the Country Gentleman to the answer for his military arguments (London, 1758), p. 8Google Scholar. These criticisms came barely a year after the execution of Admiral Byng. The public disquiet over Byng's failure to relieve Minorca was greater than that which followed the disappointment at Rochefort, and the role ofa council of war also featured prominently. See, anon, ., Queries on the minutes of the council of war held at Gibraltar, 4 May last (London, 1757), passimGoogle Scholar.

25 Peters, , Pitt and popularity, p. 94Google Scholar.

26 Fitzmaurice, Lord, Life of William, earl of Shelburne (2 vols., London, 1912), 1, 74Google Scholar.

27 Trevelyan, G. M., England under Queen Anne (3 vols., London, 1930), I, 263Google Scholar; Commodore Walker's journal relating to the expedition to Guadeloupe, 5 March-25 May 1702–3, in Headlam, C. (ed.), Calendar of state papers colonial. 1702–3 (London, 1913), pp. 439–51Google Scholar; Richmond, , Navy in the war, 1, 100–37Google Scholar; Mackay, , Admiral Hawke, pp. 174–8Google Scholar.

28 Creswell, J., Generals and admirals: the story of amphibious command (London, 1952), p. 91Google Scholar.

29 Trelawney to Newcastle, 31 Jan. 1741/2, P.R.O., CO 137/57, fo. 122; Vernon to Newcastle, 11 Feb. 1741/2, P.R.O., SP 42/92, fos. 2–14.

30 Mahan to Long, 10 May 1898 in Allen, G. W., (ed.), The papers of John D. Long, 1897–1904, Massachusetts HistoricalSociety Collections (M.H.S.Col.), LXXVIII (1939), 120Google Scholar.

31 For general remarks about the weakness of corporate responsibility, see Mahan, A. T., The influence of sea power upon history, 1660–1783 (London, 1892 edn). pp. 67–8Google Scholar, 127–8; Fortescue, J. W., A history of the British army (13 vols., London, 1910), II, 67Google Scholar.

32 Warren to Corbett, 16 March 1744/5 in Gwyn, J. (ed.), The royal navy and North America; the Warren papers, 1736–1752 (London, 1973), p. 62Google Scholar.

33 Instructions to Admiral Hawke, 5 Aug. 1757, article 4, P.R.O., WO, 72/4, unfoliated.

34 Instructions to the duke of Marlborough, 20 May 1758, W.L.C., Shelburne MSS, xxxvi, item 11, Instructions to Lieutenant-General Bligh, 18 July 1758, P.R.O., Chatham Deposit, 30/8/55, fo. 64.

35 Instructions to Major-General Hopson, 16 Oct. 1758, P.R.O., CO, 5/215, fos. 31–41.

36 Minutes of the council of war, 17 Jan. 1759, P.R.O., Admiralty papers 1/307, fos. 121–2.

37 Reilly, R., Wolfe of Quebec. The rest to fortune (London, 1960), pp. 271–3Google Scholar.

38 Wentworth to Newcastle, 26 April 1741, P.R.O., CO 5/42, fo. 36; Stacey, G. P., Quebec 1759. The siege and battles (London, 1959), pp. 77, 100Google Scholar.

39 11 June 1740, B.L., Add. M S 28133 (Journal of Sir John Norris), fo. 11; Vernon to Newcastle, 11 Feb. 1741/2, P.R.G., SP 42/92, fos. 2–11; Nelson, to Vincent, St, undated in Southey, R., The life of Nelson(London, 1813), pp. 118Google Scholar.

40 Richmond, , Navy in the war, 1, 113–20Google Scholar; Corbett, , England in the Seven Years War, 1, 201, 286–7Google Scholar.

41 Anon., , ‘The attempt upon Brest, 1694’, in Laughton, J. K. (ed.), The naval miscellany (London, 1910), II, 202–5Google Scholar.

42 Browning, O. (ed.), The journal of Sir George Rooke, Admiral of the Fleet, 1700–1702 (London, 1897), pp. xiii–xivGoogle Scholar.

43 Journal of the descent on the coast of Brittany, 20 Sept, 1746, P.R.O., SP, 42/98, fos. 204–7.

44 Marlborough to Pitt, 6 June 1758, W.L.C., Shelburne MSS, xxxvi, item 35; Bligh to Pitt, 7 Aug. 1758, item 113.

45 Hebbert, F. J., ‘The Belle Isle expedition of 1761’, Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research, LXIV (1986), 86–7Google Scholar.

46 Molyneux, More, Conjunct Operations, p. 211Google Scholar. See also, Anon., , A journal of the campaign on the coast of France (London, 1758), p. 46Google Scholar.

47 List of descents, B.L., Add. MS, 36592 (Whitefoord papers) fos. 17–8; Journal of the expedition to Canada, 25 June to 29 July 1711, 25 June, P.R.O., CO 5/9, fo. 5.

48 Marshall, D. W., ‘The British military engineers, 1741–1783. A study of organisation, social origin and cartography’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1976), pp. 198–244Google Scholar.

49 Pourhiet-Salat, N. Le, La défense des lies bretonnes de I'Atlantique des origines à 1860 (Vincennes, 1983). PP. 236–43Google Scholar.

50 Vernon to Newcastle, 25 July 1740, P.R.O., SP 42/85, fos. 289–91.

51 Hopson to Pitt, 30 jan. 1759, P.R.O., CO IIO/I, fo. 63 and ff.; Rodney to Cleveland, 19 Jan. 1762, CO 166/2, fos. 21–4.

52 Wentworth to Newcastle, 2 June 1741, P.R.O., CO 5/42, fo. 41.

53 Clerk to Ligonier, 15 July 1757, WO 72/4, unfoliated; Examination of the French pilot, Aug. 1757, WO 72/4, unfoliated.

54 Marlborough to the duchess of Marlborough, 12 June 1758, B.L., Add. MS 61667 (Blenheim Papers), unfoliated.

55 Minutes of the council of war, 25 Sept. 1757, P.R.O., WO 72/4, unfoliated.

56 Saunders to Anson, 16 Nov. 1761, in Salmon, E., Life of Admiral Sir Charles Sounders (London, 1914). P. 178Google Scholar.

57 Richmond, , Navy in the war, i, 47–83Google Scholar.

58 Pourhiet-Salat, , Defense des ties brelonnes p. 161Google Scholar.

59 Richmond, , Navy in the war, III, 124Google Scholar.

60 Hawke to Pitt, 30 Sept. 1757, P.R.O., WO 72/4, unfoliated.

61 Dickinson, H. T., ‘The capture of Minorca, 1708’, M. M., LI (1965), 200Google Scholar; Bligh to Pitt, 8 Aug. 1758, W.L.C., Shelburne MSS xxxvi, item 115.

62 Stacey, , Quebec, pp. 161, 169Google Scholar.

63 Jervis to Stephens, 25 March 1794, P.R.O., Admiralty papers, 1/316, unfoliated.

64 Reilly, , Wolfe, p. 226Google Scholar; Monckton to Egremont, 9 Feb. 1762, P.R.O. CO 166/2, fo. 24 and ff.; Admiral Pocock's log, July to Aug. 1762, Admiralty papers, 50/12, unfoliated; abstract of the general return of his majesty's forces under the command of Lieutenant General Lord Albemarle, 23 May 1762, in Syrett, D. (ed.), The siege and capture 0f Havana, 1762 (London, 1970), p. 126Google Scholar.

65 Ryan, A. N., ‘The Copenhagen expedition, 1807’ (unpublished M.A. dissertation, University of Liverpool, 1951), pp. 126–7Google Scholar; Bond, G. C., The grand expedition: the British invasion of Holland, 1809 (Athens, Ga., 1979), pp. 12, 84Google Scholar.

66 Lloyd, A., The scorching of Washington. The war of 1812 (Newton Abbot, no date), pp. 176–7Google Scholar.

67 Vernon to Trelawney, 20 March 1740/1, in Ranft, B. McL., The Vernon papers (London, 1957). P. 194Google Scholar

68 Vernon to Newcastle, 19 May 1742, P.R.O., SP 42/92, fos. 151–6; also the minutes of the general council of war, 4 Sept. 1742, P.R.O., SP 42/92, fos. 265–9.

69 Knowles to Newcastle, 9 July 1746, in Gwyn, , Warren papers, pp. 290–3Google Scholar; Graham, G. S., The Walker expedition to Quebec, 1711 (London, 1953), pp. 137–9Google Scholar.

70 Consultation of captains, 14 June 1745, in Gwyn, , Warren papers, p. 115Google Scholar.

71 Council of flag officers, 4 Sept. 1702, in Browning, , Rooke, p. 192Google Scholar.

72 Commodore Walker's journal, 25 April 1703, in Headlam, , Calendar, p. 448Google Scholar.

73 Ibid. 10 April 1703; Morgan, W. T., ‘The British West Indies during king William’ war (1689–1697), Journal of Modem History, 11 (1930), 378–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

74 Vernon to Cathcart, 7 Nov. 1740, in Ranft, , Vernon papers, pp. 141–2Google Scholar.

75 Wentworth to Newcastle, 31 March 1742, P.R.O., CO 5/42, fos. 207–8.

76 McLarty, R. N., ‘The expedition of Major-General John Vaughan to the Lesser Antilles, 1779–1781’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1951), p. 249Google Scholar.

77 Saunderson, M. W. B., ‘English naval strategy and maritime trade in the Caribbean, 1793–1802’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of London, 1969), pp. 10–63Google Scholar.

78 Glover, R., Britain at bay: defence against Bonaparte (London, 1973), pp. 17–20Google Scholar.

79 Statutes at Large, 22 Geo. II, c. 33, article 22.

80 Gardner to Stephens, 25 May 1793, P.R.O., Admiralty papers 1/316, unfoliated.

81 Pourhict-Salat, , Défense des ties bretonnes, pp. 295–6Google Scholar. Although French coastal fortifications began to change in response to technological developments in artillery in the 1860s, it was not until the replacement of gunpowder as a propellant and burster by new explosives, lik cordite and melinite, in the 1880s and 1890s, that the power of artillery against static positions increased dramatically.

82 Rogers, H. C. B., A history of artillery (Secaucus, 1975), pp. 107, 114Google Scholar; Royle, C., The Egyptian campaigns, 1882–5 (London, 1900, 2nd edn), p. 110Google Scholar.

83 Mackesy, P., War without victory. The downfall of Pitt, 1799–1802 (Oxford, 1984), pp. 61, 67Google Scholar.

84 Pitt's evidence at Mordaunt's court martial, P.R.O., WO, 71/23, fos. 2–6.

85 Bute to Pitt, 25 Sept. 1758, in Sedgwick, R. R.(ed.), ‘Letters from William Pitt to Lord Bute: 1755–1788’ in Pares, R. and Taylor, A. J. P. (eds.), Essays presented to Sir Lewis Marnier (London, 1956), p. 163Google Scholar.

86 Haggie, P., ‘The royal navy and war planning in the Fisher era’, in Kennedy, P., The war plans of the great powers (London, 1979), p. 126Google Scholar.

87 Howard, M., The continental commitment (London, 1972), passimGoogle Scholar. See also, Schurman, D. M., ‘Historians and Britain's imperial strategic stance in 1914’, in Flint, J. E. and Williams, G., Perspectives of empire: essays presented to G. S. Graham (London, 1973), pp. 172–188Google Scholar.