|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 9, 2015 15:30:23 GMT
The problem when looking at the aspects of the navy relating to the men, from impressment to living conditions, is that the navy was often used to discuss social issues in Britain without actually saying anything was wrong with Britain itself. For example those opposed to capital punishment often used (or mildly fantasized) examples of punishments used at sea. They ignored the fact that naval floggings were rarer and less harsh than floggings in the army. If you look at the complaints made during the Spithead mutiny neither flogging or the impress service are mentioned. In fact the basic complaints were about wages (which had not been changed in a century), food (which was not only reasonable but in the navies best interest and something they considered of vital importance anyway) and lack of respect from a handful of named officers in the fleet (off the top of my head about a dozen, if that, out of roughly a hundred officers in the fleet). Sailors seem to have considered the impress service as an occupational hazard, and been more angered when they were taken from merchant ships before they got to shore and could pick up their wages or go see their families. There were cases of landsmen being picked up, but when the navy found out about this they released the individual as soon as they could. As I said they were only allowed to take those who 'made a living of the sea', and the legality of that was questionable to start with. If they kept landsmen the navy itself could be taken to court for kidnapping, and they more or less treated it as such while understanding that mistakes did happen. not to mention having to house and feed someone who, if not useless, was the likely to be next best thing. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 12, 2015 8:44:18 GMT
Part Myth, Part truth, you decide.....
The usual trick, if I get this right, was the Navy would get the sailors drunk, "press the kings shilling into their hands" and they found themselves on ship .....
This is the myth where the name "press gang" came from, pressing the kings shilling into the hand of the victim, so getting drunk in port was always hazardous...
As for who could be pressed, "Vagabonds", or anyone who could be seen as a Vagrant, petty criminals could be given the option to volunteer...
And inbound merchant ships were often targeted.
There is a lot more myth than truth..... mainly due to the fact the truth was often kept secret.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 12, 2015 10:06:13 GMT
In order; Not in the Navy, and not if the press gang wanted to avoid being lynched or thrown into jail for kidnapping. That was more a trick that was allegedly done by the army.
There was the option of petty criminals to be sentenced (or given the option) of serving in the Navy. However the Navy was able to get the concession that they had the final say. In practice this meant that they rarely accepted anyone who wasn't in jail for smuggling (since smugglers were good seamen). Petty criminals were NOT wanted on ships, as this usually meant thieves and thievery on ships was the fastest way to shatter the morale of a ships crew. Even by the start of the 1800's, when Captains were looking for ways to punish sailors without resorting to flogging or at least limiting it even more than it was anyway. Thievery was the one crime that you would not only get flogged for, but flogged as heavily as the Captain thought he could get away with - which considering the opinion of everyone on board was probably a bit more than was officially logged.
Inbound merchant ships were indeed targeted. Outbound ships were protected. Impressment from ships was preferred over impressment on land, since you knew that you were getting sailors who had been trained to some degree and the only place they could run was to land...which wasn't possible if you were several miles out and the ships boats hadn't been lowered into the water. (It took several minutes to launch a ships boat for a Navy ship under ideal conditions.)
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Aug 12, 2015 10:56:11 GMT
It is also worth mentioning that as well as Naval recruitment the British Army was desperate for men and there were various acts of Parliment allowing criminals and those who had no work to be pressed into that service.
I wonder if the stories of the Kings Shilling comes more from Army recruitment rather than Naval practises.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 12, 2015 19:51:33 GMT
I strongly suspect that it was the army, since you only got your 'Kings Shilling' in the Navy if you volunteered for service.
In the UK there is a type of flagon that has a clear glass base, legend has it this was because recruiters would drop a shilling into a flagon of ale. Then when you finished the drink it would slide down, touch your lips and they would claim you'd taken the Kings Shilling (signed up). The glass base however allowed the careful drinker to see if anyone had dropped a coin into his drink; Keep in mind that we are talking about dark ales served in wooden or leather tankards here.
The interesting thing is that, and I might well be wrong here, all the glass bottomed tankards I've run across are to be found in inland areas. Not coastal areas where the seamen would be found.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 13, 2015 0:27:42 GMT
all the glass bottom tankards I have run across are modern,and I have heard a few rumors of what the purpose of the glass was, but I haven't seen any that were actually old - are there old ones over there, or could this be a myth?
|
|
