"Marines vs Naval Landing Parties" Topic

I've read/heard about intances where Naval Landing Parties were deployed ashore & accompanied an expedition inland. So during the Victorian timeframe (but for any major power, not just Britian) what were the differences in purpose & use of Marines vs Naval Landing Parties.

Thanks

Marines were a separate organization from the Sailors. In most cases they had nothing to do with the handling or maintenance of the ship. Essentially they were there as a professional soldier generally following a separate chain of command that culminated with the senior marine officer answering only to the Captain of the ship.

Sea men received some weapons training but nothing like the marines. The marines were the 'heavies' if you will.

A naval landing party might or might not contain marines.

mjc

Thanks. So it sounds like sailors would really only be deployed in ad hoc or desperate circumstances. While, if there was the plan to deploy troops, marines would be sent instead?

Sailors were often deployed, per plan, in this period to man guns for land campaigns. They were deployed in ad hoc units as infantry, but this may have been more from a perspective of getting into the action along with their sister service, than an act of desperation. In other words, ad hoc units, but not ad hoc deployments. (And they certainly could be used for the later, also.)

Rick

No, formal naval parties were sent with various expeditions – including the invasion of Zululand, the Abysinninan expedition and the earier New Zealand Wars. I guess the navy merely supplied another source of trained manpower available in theatre. They would often include artillery or (later) machine gun batteries, but also supplied 'infantry' detachments who were, indeed, noted for their elan.

Come to think of it, I wonder if Naval Brigades were more common on expeditions than Marine detachments? I'm not sure how often the marines would be stripped off the ships and formed into units to take part in extended ground operations. Could someone enlighten me?

Thanks all for your info. So if a European power was planning to send an expedition to an overseas land, it sounds like the decision to send Marines or a Naval detachment might solely come down to who ever was available?

The British Naval Brigades included Marines. Mid-century the Royal Marine Light Infantry were formed, their job was to act as skirmishers for Naval Brigades.

With not a whole lot going on in the way of major sea warfare for the Victorian RN, the use of their manpower as Naval Brigades for deployment in colonial conflicts was a common occurrence in the period.

Of course, a Naval Brigade deployed en masse to a colonial troublespot is a quite different thing to temporary landing party from a ship (but that would also probably include both sailors and marines).

Note that most European powers did not have a separate Marine Corps. They simply used armed sailors. Even the German See Battalionen were more on the order of base security forces and were not normally present aboard ship.

So only British and American Naval Brigades would have a Marine component.

The Austro-Hungarian Empire did not have marines, but did utilize the 87th Infantry Regiment (based out of Pola) for overseas expeditions.

Rob

Sailors were useful as gunners and capable of executing a lot of tasks on land that were derived from their shipboard work. The were almost like sappers---block, tackle, rope. I believe that there was a cutlass drill in those days, too.

One thing, though. Sailors & Marines were considered "short-legged" in that they were not used to a lot of marching.

The link from Condottier is very useful for present day. I would like to see such a list for 1890. We know Britain had both Marines and naval landing parties. The latter often from smaller ships without Marines, and also to man navy ordinance brought ashore. The USA typically put Marines ashore, but also sailors, at Vera Cruz for example, and in Morocco, if the Wind and the Lion is accurate.

France had naval landers, but the Marine force was infantry in the Colonial Department. Did it have ship board marines too. Japan had only sailors. Italy seems to have only naval landers. What about Germany, were there ship board marines, its seems in China, at least, there were only sailors and army. Russia seems not to have shipboard Marines but does have troops called Marines, dating back to Napoleonic times.

Is there a definitive list of countries with their naval projection forces?

Is this the main thrust of your question?: "So if a European power was planning to send an expedition to an overseas land, it sounds like the decision to send Marines or a Naval detachment might solely come down to who ever was available?"

In an emergency, yes, provided that the country *had* a separate Marine unit. If it's planned, they'd embark regular soldiers, as Kaltzberger notes. Naval Brigades were employed usually because the power had ships in the region, and warships of the period had large complements -- they could spare some sailors.

Quid Veritas writes: "Marines were a separate organization from the Sailors…Sea men received some weapons training but nothing like the marines. The marines were the 'heavies' if you will."

The marines often served as the "police of the fleet," supervising punishment of the sailors. It's also worth noting that, at least in the Maori Wars, the sailors were thought to be *especially excellent* at what we now call CQB, since they were used to using pistols and cutlasses to repel boarders.

Thanks all for the great info. Very helpful. Sounds like I need to figure out who makes the French Troupes de Marines for the late 1800s.