Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Midshipman

Midshipman

2009 review here here

I'm submitting this article for a Peer review prior to resubmitting it as a FA candidate. The main FA problem was some copyright concerns with some of the text, which I've fixed. However, I also took the time to expand a lot of the text sections, and reorganized some of the content.

All comments are welcome, however I would like some comments specifically regarding the following sections, which may need some copyediting prior another round of FAC.

Thanks for your assistance! Kirk (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Harley

Comments It's no reflection on you, Kirk, but the section on the Royal Navy from 1858 is appalling, and I suspect it's the shoddy work of the authors involved.

To wit:

“

The original Royal Naval College closed in 1836, after which the only method for training midshipman in the Royal Navy was aboard ships. The closure precipitated a decline in qualified officers, prompting an 1856 Navy commission to recommend the opening of a school called The Royal Naval College to train officers. The school was officially founded in 1858 in Portsmouth; the wooden hulk HMS Britannia was selected as a training ship, and instruction of cadets started on January 1, 1859.[35] The Britannia was moved to Portland in 1862, and to the present location of the school in Dartmouth in 1863.[36]

”

This is rather irrelevant: from 1840 to 1859 to become a Midshipman, the subject of the article, one had to be 14 years old, have two years' service as a Naval Cadet or three years' other service in the Navy. For detail's sake, instruction in harbour for officer cadets began in the Illustrious in 1857.

“

The normal entry age for officer candidates was 13, and instruction consisted of two years of classroom training, during which time trainees were rated as cadets, followed by a year aboard a special training vessel. Cadets were then rated as midshipmen, and served aboard the fleet another two years.[37] Midshipmen lived in the gunroom, kept watches, and ran the ship's boats.[37] They received instruction in navigation every day.[37] After five total years of training and having reached the age of 19, the midshipmen were eligible to take the examination for lieutenant.[37][38] After passing the examination for lieutenant, midshipmen were commissioned as sub-lieutenants, and were transferred to the Royal Naval College, Greenwich, which opened in 1873 as the 'University of the Navy'.[37]

”

Depending on how well a Naval Cadet did in Britannia assisted his rating as Midshipman. Good studying and behaviour meant one could become gain 12 months sea time and be rated as Midshipman immediately on leaving the training ship. Otherwise, cadets had to be examined once they went to sea.

“

Beginning in 1903, officer training of military and engineering officers was reformed by the Selborne-Fisher scheme.[39] At the same time, a new facility was built at Dartmouth to replace the HMS Britannia, and a new preparatory school was opened at Royal Naval College, Osborne to give cadets a traditional public school education initially consisting of two years at Osborne and two years at Dartmouth as cadets, later four years at Dartmouth, followed by approximately 3 years of sea duty as midshipmen prior to promotion to sub-lieutenant.[37] After World War I, opposition to the scheme led to re-segregating the executive and engineering branches, the Royal Naval Engineering College, Keyham was reopened and Osborne was closed, but single entry was maintained.[37]

During the years at sea, many midshipmen forgot what they had learned as cadets and when they entered Greenwich they were very poor students.[37] Also, while superficially similar to public schools like Eton, the Royal Naval College accepted a higher percentage of applicants, imposed harsher discipline and demanded less academically of its cadets.[40] During this period, naval officer education in the US and other countries took candidates at 18, and trained them in a university setting, while the UK preferred to enter candidates as early as possible and preferred practical skills over academic training.[41] After World War II, officer training was reformed: in 1949 entry age was increased to 16, later in 1955 to 18, and after 1957 midshipmen no longer served in the fleet.

”

The Selborne scheme also included Royal Marines. The "new facility at Dartmouth" had been in preparation since the 1890s, i.e. long before the scheme was even contemplated. No one could possibly say Osborne gave cadets a "traditional public school education"; they lived in glorified huts and among other things their education contained a massive amount of engineering, all before the age of 15. The Royal Naval College, Keyham had already re-opened in 1914. After 1913 there was no such thing as "single entry" as starting that year a considerable number of 18 year olds joined the Royal Navy as "Special Entry" cadets. After 6 months training in a cruiser they went straight to the fleet as Midshipmen.

What this section needs is to explain what the requirements were to become a Midshipman and how those requirements changed. Cut out all the dubious opinions of historians and stick to the bare facts. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 19:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments; the final point was why I wanted this section peer reviewed.

Your first point is good, if there was some kind of reference how you know this information (I can recheck my sources) but I don't remember reading that before.

Any Navy List from the period ought to contain the relevant regulations. It's where my information comes from, anyway.

I try to avoid the hyper-specific details but perhaps midshipmen promotions are more important than I thought; I think I can find the source details about how midshipmen were promoted sooner/later. If you have a credible source, let me know.

Right, the Selborne scheme did include the Royal Marines, but it was almost immediately dropped. Multiple sources talk about single entry being the only thing from the Selborne scheme which was maintained; whatever that meant to the authors in question since there were always a gazillion ways to 'enter'. The Osborne comment is interesting, if you have a source - their parents paid tuition for their kids to study enginneering in huts for 2 years! Kirk (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Marder the scheme lasted, such as it was, three years before the Royal Marines were exempted, although looking through the Parliamentary Papers of the time that seems unlikely. To put Osborne in perspective, the class rooms and mess hall were in the Royal Stables, the Captain lived in the former Osborne estate police station, and ten years later (1914) the Admiralty admitted that most structures had been erected "in the form of temporary structures of the bungalow type." The King wanted rid of the place, and Fisher, desirous of starting the Selborne scheme ashore while Dartmouth was finished and modified, obliged him.

I recall reading somewhere that the RM were dropped after only a single cadet chose the Royal Marines. Kirk (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My sources are:

Numerous parliamentary papers, Navy Lists and The Times newspaper.

Davies, E. L.; Grove, E. J. (1980). The Royal Naval College Dartmouth: Seventy-five years in Pictures. Portsmouth: Gieves & Hawkes Limited. ISBN 0-85997-462-6.

Pack, Captain S.W.C. (1966). Britannia at Dartmouth. London: Alvin Redman.

Partridge, Michael (1999). The Royal Naval College Osborne: A History, 1903–1921. London: Sutton Publishing Limited. ISBN 0-7509-1969-8. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 14:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, thanks! Kirk (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]