←back to thread

97 points surprisetalk | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0.273s | source
Show context
roter ◴[] No.44005946[source]
There is also the theory that the British just had more practice at gunnery and sailhandling while blockading the French/Spanish in the various ports.
replies(3): >>44006168 #>>44006719 #>>44007197 #
1. wagwangbosy ◴[] No.44007197[source]
The french navy had been super formidable throughout the 17th and 18th centuries. I don't really get how they folded so quickly to the UK.
replies(2): >>44009603 #>>44009874 #
2. bell-cot ◴[] No.44009603[source]
France ditched most of its senior naval officers late in the 18th century, for the "crime" of being loyal to the prior regime: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution
replies(1): >>44009941 #
3. nradov ◴[] No.44009874[source]
After the French revolution, their government executed or dismissed many of their best officers. They often came from the aristocracy or had royalist loyalties and were thus politically suspect. Replacement officers were often appointed purely based on revolutionary ideology with little attention paid to experience or competence. At times the government was also just short of cash and supplies needed to keep the navy running.
4. zardo ◴[] No.44009941[source]
The French army purged old loyalists and replaced them with young officers, but wound up more capable, not less.
replies(1): >>44010376 #
5. mncharity ◴[] No.44010376{3}[source]
Copilot contrasts the army's extensive battlefield promotions, broad and rapid, versus the navy's leadership funnel narrowed and slowed by specialized skills and more limited opportunities to develop and demonstrate them.