Talk:History of the Royal Navy (after 1707)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First comments[edit]

At 23K, this is already a lengthy article, and I found that it was simply impossible to mention every notable battle and person; just "name-dropping" of wars, trends, and milestones filled it up the space. 20th century could use some more detail and/or links to other articles with more depth, while the early stuff is a little longer because there is little material elsewhere. There could also be more on changes to sailors' lives. We have plenty of pics to reuse, each section should have one or two. Stan 19:43, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It does not seem particularly long to me. After all it has section breaks, etc.--Toddy1 18:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence "and despite being at war since September 2001 the United Kingdom's forces suffered further savage cuts in 2004" does not really come from a neutral POV.

Britain is not "at war" in the traditional sense - it has been engaged in military action in Afghanistan and Iraq (as well as other places). The term "savage cuts" is no doubt the view of many, others would consider them prudent and yet others insufficient.

I'd suggest: "the strength of the Royal Navy was reduced further in 2004". Some detail on the nature of the cuts would be useful, as would a table of naval strength against time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard p auckland (talk • contribs) 21:18, 14 December 2004 (UTC)


Elizabethan Era[edit]

The section of the RN during reign of Elizabeth I is rather abbreviated and lacking of historical context. Please expand on it.--Charles A 13:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talk • contribs)

The author omits much of the RN history during it's Elizabethan era. See the following:

"In the late 16th century the Spanish Empire, at the time Europe's superpower and the leading naval power of the 16th century, threatened England with invasion to restore Catholicism in England. Francis Drake attacked Cadiz and A Coruña to delay the attack. The Spanish Armada set finally sail in 1588 to enforce Spain's dominance over the English Channel and transport troops from the Spanish Netherlands to England. The Spanish plan failed due to maladministration, logistical errors, blocking actions by the Dutch, bad weather, and the significant defeat by the English at the naval Battle of Gravelines. However, the bungled Drake-Norris Expedition of 1589 and the more successful raid by Lord Howard in 1596 prevented further invasion plans from occurring. A blockade of the Spanish coast was undertaken by John Hawkins and Martin Frobisher in 1590. Under the reign of Elizabeth I England raided Spain's ports and attacked Spanish ships crossing the Atlantic Ocean, capturing much treasure."

The above paragraph is misleading. The fact of the matter is that Queen Elizabeth's privateers did not capture as much treasure as UK historians would like us to believe. The rebuilt Spanish Navy after the 1589 defeat of Drake and Norreys gradually won the upper hand in the naval war. Which is why the Spanish Navy was able to transport almost three times as much precious metals from the new world to Spain despite effort by English privateers and naval forces attempts to forcibly seize it. Spanish naval forces won most of the battles in the Caribbean as as witnessed by the fact that no territory was lost and Francis Drake's last naval battle ended in defeat, which included his death off the coast of Panama. I ask the author this. If Hawkins and Frobisher "blockade" of the Spanish coast were so successful, as he seems to imply, how were the Spanish able to ship almost 3 times as much gold and silver? This sounds like pretty hokey tale to me. Its no small wonder that Elizabeth's successor, King James I, sued for peace and signed the treaty of London in 1604 that was mostly on Spanish terms. --Charles A 05:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio-62 (talk • contribs)

Blue, red and white squadrons[edit]

There should be something here about the three squadrons of the Royal Navy prior to the 1864 reorganization. AndyL 04:47, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Battleship section[edit]

"Both naval construction and naval strategizing became intense, prompted by the development of torpedoes and submarines, which challenged traditional ideas about the power of battleships. At the same time the Dreadnought committed to the "big gun" concept and caused a shift in thinking around the world, giving Britain the undisputed lead. Another innovative (though ultimately unsuccessful) concept was the battlecruiser, fast and light but still hard-hitting."

I would have to disagree with this point. The invention of the dreadnought made most other battleships pretty much useless. Britain had 1 dreadnought, the others zero. BUT, a lead of one ship is not an undisputable lead, as other nations can quickly catch up. It would, in fact, have been harder for the others to catch up if the dreadnought had not been invented, as they'd have to build much more ships to do this (not just ten, twenty, but possibly a hundred). Anyone agree on changing that sentence a bit...? --HJV 01:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The invention of the dreadnought made most other battleships pretty much useless." Not really. In general Wikipedia articles contain a lot of unreferenced opinion. Things could be improved a lot by justifying statements with quotes and facts, and footnotes quoting sources.

Perhaps "useless" in line of battle but were used for shore support at the Dardenelles and the opening shots of the Second World War were fired by German pre Dtreadnoughts. HMS CAnopus took part in the Battle of the Falkland Isles in 1914.

206.165.217.125 (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naval construction[edit]

I have just stumbled across this in old Times articles - no idea where to put it, but it might be worth noting somewhere for future reference. Shimgray | talk | 23:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1937 construction programme: 3x battleships (King George V class), 2x aircraft carriers, 5x 8,000 ton cruisers, 2x 5,300 ton cruisers, 16x destroyers ("repeat J type"), 7x submarines ("Patrol type"), 3x escort vessels, 4x minesweepers, 3x patrol vessels, various small vessels.

1933 construction programme: 4x cruisers (various types), 9x destroyers, 3x submarines, 1x coastal sloop, various small vessels

1930 construction programme: 3x 6in cruisers, 9x destroyers, 3x submarines, 4x sloops, 1x netlayer.

1927 construction programme: 3x cruisers, 9x destroyers, 6x submarines, 2x minesweepers. (Two cruisers were later cancelled; the third was Exeter.)

Why not create some tables and charts showing strength or programmes over that time?--Toddy1 18:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

removed " and the capture of Louisbourg in North America " from Austrian Succession. That was a colonial expedition. RN was 1758 Shimgray | talk | 23:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)?[reply]

ROYAL NAVY AUXILLARY SERVICE

I've seen that name mentioned on the RN talk page, exactly what was/is that and how was it different from the RFA or RNVR.

207.159.196.253 18:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merger[edit]

I have added in a lot of information from the main article Royal Navy because of the merger concerns. The article on the main royal naval page should have a summary and not a full-blown history. As such i have prepared a summary in one of my sandboxes found here. Everyone is welcome to edit it if they feel it neccessary. I will move it onto the main page in the next few days. If there is any aspect i have missed please add it in here. Thanks Woodym555 16:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good at first glance. But aware of vandalism such as this being added. THis user has added this about 4 or 5 times already, and will probably continue. - BillCJ 17:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will watch out, have seen it added a few times. I will warn him on his talk page that it is not constructive and against consensus. Thanks for the heads-up. Woodym555 18:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A useful figure[edit]

Thought I'd drop a fact here at the talkpage since I didn't know where to include it in the article; in 1797 the Victualling Board estimated the cost for supplying 110,000 men during the following year to be £2,758,268,1.10.1/2.

Source: Macdonald, Janet W. (2004) Feeding Nelson's Navy: The True Story of Food at Sea in the Georgian era ISBN 1-86176-233-X (p. 46).

Peter Isotalo 18:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent Navy[edit]

Could someone please enlighten me as to what this means,

"A permanent Naval Service did not exist until the mid 17th century"?

I was under the impression that a standing navy existed as far back as Henry VIII. Does this refer to the administrative branch?

Linking Articles[edit]

Pax Britannica, 1815–1895[edit]

This section is linked to Cyprian Bridge Aatomic1 08:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dalriada[edit]

"In 680 every 20 households had to supply 2 ships with 14 oars". What is the source for this ? The Anglo-Saxon Navy in about 1009 or possibly before this were founded on a similar system, but on the basis of one ship per 300 hides or households, admittedly of 60-80 oars, but this imposed quite a high burden and the figure of Dalriada at 2 ships per 20 seems excessive.Streona (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for sources. Most of that information was added today. If the sources are not forthcoming, I will revert. Woody (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
cross posted to User talk:Adresia
Does anyone else think that the page is getting a bit top-heavy. Whilst the information is useful, I think it is placing undue emphasis on the Anglo-Saxon and pre-saxon periods, where actually there wasn't a Navy. The page is already getting long and I think some of the information above the "The beginnings of an organised navy, 1485–1642" and particularly the "Norman" should be trimmed. Perhaps we could have some split off pages per WP:SUMMARY. Woody (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

School children were always taught that Alfred the Great was the founder of the R.N. but nothing more. It seems as though there was a standing Navy from Alfred to 1066, a period of nearly 200 years, but seems to be forgotten on the principle that history - or rather "History"-starts in 1066. Therefore the amount written (admittedly mostly by me)is, I suggest proportionate. Streona (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I will see how it goes when I turn my copyedit/reference eyes on them]]. (Might be a while before that happens though). Woody (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source for the statement is page 20 of "Maritime history of Britain and Ireland" by Ian Friel. Adresia (talk) 10:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RN Capability[edit]

In the introduction it says that the RN is "the second largest and most powerful in the world". What is the source of this statement? Unfortunately it is unlikely to be true, more's the pity. How "size" is measured is difficult and measurement of "power" must be impossible. Adresia (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Navy in the 19th Century Pacific[edit]

I was surprised to see only two uses of the word "Pacific" on the page, both relating to 20th Century events. the reason I'm surprised is because of the vital role the Royal Navy played out of the Esquimalt naval base near Victoria, British Columbia; I've just been sourcing various actions taken by British ships and officers and it's a long roster (see List of Royal Navy ships in the Pacific Northwest. I came to this page hoping to find out if the Pacific station was mentioned (i.e. Esquimalt) and maybe somewthing about various cmomanders (e.g. Admiral Joseph Denman, post commander 1864-1868 I think, and commander of the HMS Sutlej during the "punitive expedition" to Clayoquot Sound in the sake of the Kingfisher incident; there's a host of similar events, and some are tied into naval actions elsewhere, esp. during hte Crimean War and teh Siege of Vladivostok (or was it Petropavlovsk?) when Victoria/Esquimalt was used as a redoubt; the infrastructre spending on the Esquimalt shipyard/drydock and also on an important RN hospital there underscores the Pacific Squadron's relevance (that goes to a US Navy page, not an RN one - if there's an RN Pacific Squadron page please advise). Anyway I note there are iswsues with the current length of this page; might I suggest it be broken up eithr by ocean or time period; History of the Royal Navy in the Pacific seems pretty much a whole article, and could/would include the WWI/WWII stuff.Skookum1 (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pity about the 17th Century...[edit]

Very odd that there is no info here about the Anglo-Dutch naval wars of the 17th century...Colin4C (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm seems a whole section was deleted in March by a vandal. I have restored it. Colin4C (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ear Jenkin´s war[edit]

I think the article must be increased with this information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Jenkins%27_Ear —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.7.165.94 (talk) 12:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link to the war, and a brief note about what it entailed, but it was quite limited in a strategic sense, and soon became caught up in the more significant War of the Austrian Succession, so doesn't seem to warrant much more space in this general overview. Benea (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sections[edit]

I've re-jigged the "Development of the English Navy" sections a bit; I think they might divide up better this way. I've also re-arranged the paragraphs in the "Expansion..." section; they were all out of chronological order. I hope everyone's OK with that? Xyl 54 (talk) 13:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split article?[edit]

The division between the Scottish and English Navies was broken up recently: I’ve put it back, because it’s a fair point; there wasn’t a Royal Navy before the 17th Century, and the two previous navies were separate bodies.
Also, the article is fairly long, and Scottish Navy already has its own article, so
I suggest
Moving the content prior to 1660 to "History of the English Navy" or somesuch, and leaving a summary here; Also, expanding the Scottish Navy section a bit ( 2 sentences is just sad!). Opinions? Xyl 54 (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Sub-section logic[edit]

I've restored logic of subsections, via inferior grading of nested sets thus:

sub-sub section[edit]

sub-sub-sub section[edit]

Similar scale sub-sections do not follow wikipedia or any other logic. In a book divided into chapters, chapter two is not a sub-section of chapter one. The same logic applies to the wikipedia. Colin4C (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technology[edit]

With reference to the recent BBC TV series on the Royal Navy by historian Dan Snow: should this section contain information about RN dockyards development of manufacturing techniques, and their influence on the synergistic acceleration of the industrial revolution that gave Britain a significant economic and military advantage over France in the Napoleonic wars? See Portsmouth Block Mills

Also American system of manufacturing, English system of manufacturing, Americans seem to have rewritten history claiming that all pre-Ford innovation of reproducibility of parts, manufacturing, and even the division of labour were American innovations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.119.112.90 (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo Saxons[edit]

I'm aware of the section labelled Dalriada but don't really recognise the name. I have a translation of the Anglo-Saxon chronicles ISBN 0333488814 which are the main source for the period and note the article appears to contain errors. Please advise if you have sources which disagree. I won't expand it -except perhaps to give a little more weight to events of 851 and to make sure dates and people are correct. JRPG (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I need to rearrange the item about "Alfred's Naval victory" There is a clear Anglo Saxon chronicals source which I can give, but there is also uncited but probably correct local information in the same sentence. It needs to be separated so the source is clear and we do need everything to be cited. JRPG (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that a lot of this section seems identical to http://www.museumstuff.com/learn/topics/History_of_the_Royal_Navy::sub::Earliest_Origins_550-1603, which both acknowledges Wikipedia and claims copyright.
Even if it isn't a breech of copyright, this source fails WP:circular and should be replaced. JRPG (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC) I have been unable to find anything that suggests Sandwich was "the main naval base" so I have removed it. This source is "BBC approved," well written and will do if all else fails but is not really authoritive. It suggests Brading not Bembridge. The same battle is described under Alfred the Great. There is no reason why these can't be made identical.JRPG (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned daughter article?[edit]

I've stumbled across Victorian Royal Navy, which seems to have been an attempt to split out the 19th-century history. However, it almost entirely consists of quotes from secondary sources and there's substantially more content here - is there any benefit to having it seperate, or should it be redirected here? Shimgray | talk | 17:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with redirect. I don't see any necessity trying to merge the content in, as most of it seems pointy, and is unctited in places. - BilCat (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No objections after a couple of days, so done! Shimgray | talk | 12:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish section?[edit]

Why is there a pretty large section on the early modern Scottish navy in this article? Before 1707, the Royal Navy was the fleet of England, not Scotland. Scotland and England were very much independent states at this time. So what on earth does Scottish naval activity have to do with the history of the Royal Navy? It seems about as relevant as describing medieval Irish naval ventures.

Peter Isotalo 21:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of the Royal Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of the Royal Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed split[edit]

This article is 136kb of readable prose currently. Wikipedia:Splitting indicates articles over 100 "Almost certainly should be divided". I would propose that the article is split to History of the Royal Navy (before 1703) and (after 1703)- the act of union, and the merger of the English and Scots navies. This division would be roughly halfway. --ERAGON (talk) 10:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I understand you point about the length of the article but have several concerns. This would be a significant piece of work which would need extensive work on the incoming links to disambiguate them to the right section of the article. Also some work would need to be done on other features such as referencing and tables (e.g. English navy/Royal Navy timeline and battles). But I would not oppose if this idea gains support. Dormskirk (talk) 11:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to do this, though the 413 linking articles will be a pain. I just realised the date is 1707, not 1703 for the act of union. I was probably getting muddled with the 1603 union of the crowns.--ERAGON (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a further observation: the article on the COVID-19 pandemic is 334kb and the article on Donald Trump is 477kb. They are both slow to load and there are ongoing discussions about splitting but there is no consensus on either. It looks as if problems tend to emerge at about 200kb. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this article should hopefully be easier to split than a vast sprawling issue like the pandemic. While this is going on, I also note that the Royal Navy page has an elaborate history section which could probably be boiled down to a couple of key paragraphs and a link to the dedicated history articles post-split; it would be good for us to go through there and check for any content which doesn't exist here. I've already picked up on the Henrican founding of the "Navy Royal" from that article, which is now in the lead section here.--ERAGON (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would be good to ensure that anything in the Royal Navy article also appears here. In recent years other editors have tended to focus on the expanding the Royal Navy article and have ignored this one. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The main article looks good with a trimmed down history section. I agree that a split is needed and the Act of Union would be a good place to do it. That should avoid arguments about the Royal Scots Navy as well. Woody (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I'll start by tweaking this article so that we have a natural division between sections, and get round to the split later. --ERAGON (talk) 12:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The split is complete; the new article is History of the Royal Navy (before 1707), while this article has been renamed to History of the Royal Navy (after 1707). A quick glance down the list of incoming links revealed that the majority are modern subjects that referred to post 1707 events, so not too much trouble. I've edited a few of those that were clearly pre 1707 articles such as London (1656 English ship). I've tweaked a few templates as well to account for the changes.--ERAGON (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Well done! Dormskirk (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!--ERAGON (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Old Royal Navy history section[edit]

The voluminous history section of the Royal Navy page was thoroughly cut down a few weeks ago, and I've just finished merging all of that material into the two proper History of the Royal Navy articles. In many cases, the old history section was more detailed than the dedicated history page which was somewhat crazy! It's all in now in any case, and I've also added some bits here and there. It's a good thing we split the page; right now the "before 1707" page is 83kb of text, and the "after 1707" page is 115kb. The latter is a little long, but I think it's fine for now. --ERAGON (talk) 01:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! Dormskirk (talk) 09:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, looks much better now across all three articles. The length looks fine to me. Woody (talk) 10:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_Royal_Navy_(after_1707)&oldid=1202734687"