Introduction

During the eighteenth century Sweden was mostly at peace. The severe setbacks and losses experienced in the Great Nordic War (1700-1720) had once again reduced Sweden to a small nation on the northern fringes of Europe. New social forces started to influence its development and the economy, especially trade, began to expand. However, the military continued to be a major social force even during peacetime. Professor Gunnar Artéus has described the eighteenth century as a period of thorough militarization of society. The different branches of the armed forces employed more than ten per cent of the adult male population of Sweden (including Finland), and a major part of state expenditure went on military needs. The role of the armed forces in society during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries has recently been the object of new research, underlining social and economic aspects rather than military. From this point of view the eighteenth-century Swedish Navy offers interesting possibilities for research. Naval personnel could sell their navigational skills on an international labour market, combining a career in the navy with work abroad or in the merchant marine. The aim of this article is to discover aggregated trends and tendencies in the careers of naval personnel during the eighteenth century by using naval merit lists delivered by them to the Admiralty.

ii. Sweden's naval merit lists

In 1732 the Swedish government laid down formal rules for merit lists for persons in naval service. The reason given for this action was the Admiralty's ambition to appoint the most capable and deserving persons to available positions. About two decades later, in 1754, it was decreed that all personnel should submit a merit list every three years. At the same time regulations were made for how to formally construct a list. It was to comprise ‘one column with dates for previous assignments, and a broader column with dates and short descriptions of the character of former assignments’. Merit lists or similar accounts were also needed in order to be entitled to pension funds. The Swedish Admiralty had already specified rules for the creation of a retirement fund for navy personnel (Amiralitets krigsmannakassan) in 1642 whereby part of the annual salary was to be paid into the fund by navy personnel.

The command hierarchy of a ship-of-the-line in the eighteenth century has been widely written about within recent naval historiography. However, one area that has been largely overlooked is the conflict, in relation to their place in the ship's hierarchy, between the British Marine Corps officers and their Royal Navy counterparts and their eventual acceptance. The conflict reinforces the perception of the growing authority and centralization of command by the Admiralty. From the very start of the new marine divisions in 1755, the Admiralty constructed the new command structure in such a way as to integrate the marines, yet divide them from the navy. This new command structure would create friction between the marines and navy, especially among the officer ranks. One area of contention that existed between marine and naval officers was with regard to the marine officers' social backgrounds. These social conflicts existed as a result of the majority of marine officers coming from a substantially lower class than their naval counterparts. This created hostility within the ship's wardroom, even though the marine officers had the right to sit in the wardroom because of their commissions. To cure this problem, the marine officers developed three methods by which to integrate themselves into the command hierarchy via their amphibious operational roles. The first stage of this development was to use external influences, such as army commanders, to exert influence on their naval commanders to help marines in amphibious and command matters.