In 1755, naval infantry were shifted from the British Army to Admiralty control.

Which political, logistical or technological discovery was responsible?

Member in the Civ4 suggestions forum came up with the idea of Imperialism, and my opinion is that this would be an advanced form of Nationalism thus calling for a fork in the Civ3 technology tree at:

Nationalism (Riflemen) --> Imperialism (Marines) --> [dead end?]

Do you agree with this assessment, and is there historical evidence to support it?

:cool:

In 1755, naval infantry were shifted from the British Army to Admiralty control.

Which political, logistical or technological discovery was responsible?



looking around I found the only reason I could find was that previous marine units were not permament, they were raised and disbanded war by war. In 1755 the need for a perm unit because on the continuious wars with France led to a perm marine force and it under control of the high admiral. So not tech for sure but a political decision.

the Lisbon earthquake :p ??

looking around I found the only reason I could find was that previous marine units were not permament, they were raised and disbanded war by war. In 1755 the need for a perm unit because on the continuious wars with France led to a perm marine force and it under control of the high admiral. So not tech for sure but a political decision.
Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not seem to support your observation about dispanding. Wikipedia makes it sound as though Royal Marines existed (under other names) as permanent units prior to 1755.

Wikipedia makes these units sound as though they are all the same thing, just name changes:

Duke of York and Albany's Maritime Regiment of Foot (1664),
Admiral's Regiment,
His Majesty's Marine Forces (1755) : transferred to the Admiralty,
Royal Marines (1805),
Royal Marine Light Infantry,
Corps of Royal Marines (current day),

The political decision must have resulted from a fairly important political argument. That political realisation may be what is being sought ;)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not seem to support your observation about dispanding. Wikipedia makes it sound as though Royal Marines existed (under other names) as permanent units prior to 1755.

Wikipedia makes these units sound as though they are all the same thing, just name changes:

Duke of York and Albany's Maritime Regiment of Foot (1664),
Admiral's Regiment,
His Majesty's Marine Forces (1755) : transferred to the Admiralty,
Royal Marines (1805),
Royal Marine Light Infantry,
Corps of Royal Marines (current day),

The political decision must have resulted from a fairly important political argument. That political realisation may be what is being sought ;)

What you wrote is word for word off EVERY web site on the royal marines ( I was amazed to find no differances from site to site )
I got mine from WWW.Britishmarines.org/history.htm

it stated in a preface what I wrote, if its true or not I do not know

Alright, they were made permanent & transferred to the Admiralty in 1755 :)

I cannot find the Admiral responsible for making this decision, or arguing the requirement for permanent marines (aka The Grand Divisions) :sad:

Afaik, First Lord of the Admiralty is the most senior rank and a logical place to start looking for the man who created permanent Marines.

First Lord of the Admiralty John Montagu was dismissed by the king in 1751
First Lord of the Admiralty George Anson was appointed in 1757 : is this an error on wikipedia?

Who was the decision maker in 1755? It is possible that George Anson was responsible (but this is speculation).

He had one notable experience in which he led eight ships, but only the Centaur reached it's destination. George Anson suffered 66% loss of crew, was unable to achieve his mission objectives, but went on to circumnavigate the world which resulted in difficulties with China. Perhaps he experienced something on this exhaustive venture that made him perceive a need for permament marines? :confused:

Everything here is speculation at the moment, but I am determined to the find man responsible... and from his breifings/reports/letters, discover his reasoning... :cool:

1755 is aslo the beginning of the french & Indian wars ( 7 years war ) in which the english opened very badly--a shake up or reorganizing of the military?

There may have been a shakeup, but who made the decisions? The Seven Year war is, imho, not relevant because permanent marines were established prior to the outbreak of war. Even if that gap can be counted in months, the decision maker could not have seen the future. My suspicion is that the onset of a new war is more a coincidence than design.

I am not entirely sure the 1755 Order-in-Council event is the most important year because officially 1664 (by order of the Privy Council) is the year when the need for marines rose. Even if they were not permanent, the requirement (and argument) was laid down.

Early regiments demonstrated their intent to fulfil the traditional role of marines in 1704 at Gibraltar. 1704 was possibly the first large scale amphibious assault, but more recent Royal Marine amphibious assaults in 1915 are used as the case study to argue the need to maintain a USMC.

The cause and effects are like spaghetti at the moment. Need some primary source evidence...

What I know for sure is that the need for marines was "discovered" some time before 1915. There is strong possibility that the British did not discover it: Naval infantry go way back! I am hoping that the Admiralty will indentify it's source of inspiration, and expose the truth about when non-specialised naval infantry became marines.

US Navy identified the Royal Marines as their source of inspiration..

Some minor success has uncovered evidence that George Anson was indeed a decision maker for the time in question:

George Anson (1697—1762) was the most experienced sailor of his age. He circumnavigated the globe in HMS Centurion between 1740 and 1744. He was First Lord of the Admiralty from 1751 to 1756 and from 1757 to 1762. During this time he was largely responsible for building a more professional navy, introducing reforms to the dockyards, updating the Articles of War — which details the professional codes and expectations of the Navy — and starting the Corps of Marines .

I was right about one thing! :cool:

I may have been right about his inspiration aswell! :cool:


On 20 June 1743, Anson captured a superior Spanish galleon due to its being heavily laden with merchandise and its crew, being three times the number on Centurion, were untrained in armed combat. Anson returned to Spithead on the 15th June 1744 with £500,000 of treasure. Anson was promoted to Rear Admiral in acknowledgement of his good service and good fortune.


How about that for his inspiration? :D

that'd definatly make you think having fully trained soldiers on board is a good idea. Shame i didnt see this thread earlier because I could've been a smart arse and told you :D

George Anson climbs the rankings in my list of historic heroes :cool:

But I am still troubled. If he was the man that made Marines a professional unit type, what Discovery should a civilisation make to unlock them?

Marines existed a long time before 1755 but not as professionals which is why I have homed in on this particular event.

Anson was circumnavigating the world when he made his discovery. Should it be bundled with Megallan's Voyage even though earlier circumnavigators failed to implement the same changes?

Why not just called it "Reorganisation of the Marines" or something? Boring but servicable...

George Anson also updated the Articles of War. Would telling a porky by making out that he wrote the one and only edition of AoW be too direspectful to history?

I think he added Marines and Naval professionalism as a whole to AoW.