Privately Owned Warships After ACW

Delta Force

Banned
The American Civil War was the last war in which privately owned warships played a major role. However, the prohibition of privateering under the 1856 Declaration of Paris, combined with the new technologies (ironclading and steam propulsion) and expense of new warships made the practice essentially vanish after the war. Would it have been possible for privateering to have continued without the 1856 Declaration, or were the ships simply too expensive and conflicts requiring their usage too rare for something like a privately owned navy to exist?
 
The American Civil War was the last war in which privately owned warships played a major role. However, the prohibition of privateering under the 1856 Declaration of Paris, combined with the new technologies (ironclading and steam propulsion) and expense of new warships made the practice essentially vanish after the war. Would it have been possible for privateering to have continued without the 1856 Declaration, or were the ships simply too expensive and conflicts requiring their usage too rare for something like a privately owned navy to exist?

Any war in which commerce raiding at sea is useful, privateering is. But the expense is getting higher and higher.
 
Do the Somalia pirate flotillas with 'mother-ships' and various cobbled together attendant ships of present day count?

And for that matter, does the suicide ship that crippled one of the US Navy's most advanced war-ships in Aden harbour count as well.

If so, then privately owned war-ships are still alive and well in OTL.
 
Do the Somalia pirate flotillas with 'mother-ships' and various cobbled together attendant ships of present day count?

And for that matter, does the suicide ship that crippled one of the US Navy's most advanced war-ships in Aden harbour count as well.

If so, then privately owned war-ships are still alive and well in OTL.
None of these are "real" warships.

With or without the Declaration of Paris, the fact is that the great naval powers objected to privateers whom they considered little more than pirates. Moreover they clamped down on any neutral who was prepared to supply a privateer. Like running a slaver, having a letter of marque became obsolete as a commercial activity. The only reason why the Somali pirates are still in business is that no one has gone and cleaned them out the way the Romans did the Cilicians and the Europeans their Barbary cousins.
 

Delta Force

Banned
I mean ships that were designed and built (or at least modified) for military purposes. For example, sloops and cruisers.
 

Flubber

Banned
Out of left field here but what if the British East India company and/or Dutch East India company manage to keep their trading, administrative, and political monopolies past the 1860s? At their height, both maintained their own military forces including warships.

You'd have corporate owned warships, not quite privately own ones.
 
Not so sure about the Dutch East India Company, but IOTL the British East India Company had a harder and harder time keeping its head above water financially as time went on. OTL the British government had to bail them out of certain bankruptcy multiple times. Even if it hadn't been nationalized, at some point or another it would have just gone bankrupt, and the Crown would repossess its assets, i.e., India.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
I have read other source indicating that the paying of prize bounties was legal through WW1 or WW2 depending on the source, and it was not popular with the various nations, so it did not happen, or did not happen much. I see a couple of paths to privately owned warships. Warships like the Lusitania were designed so they could take guns. The UK had fears the Germans kept guns in the hulls of all there merchant ships for easy conversion. So it is not too much of a stretch for a nation like Germany to keep the guns in the hulls of a ship. Or like in my TL, keep the guns in overseas ports like I did in my TL - Kamerun. These are offensive ships that were owned by private people prewar. Probably technically become government ships in war time on owner ship. There are other similar types actions one could have taken. A lesser nation with merchant ships converted. I would not be surprised if ships like the German sail powered merchant raider in WW1 meets your criteria.

Now to ships built to be warships. Lets start small. I can easily see some colonial company building gunboats at their own expense. I doubt anyone gets worked up over some 3" gun boat in a colony, especially if on interior lake or river. I would not be surprised if this happened IOTL. So it would not be a stretch to see some 105 mm 3X2 destroyers defending some port, especially if pirates were an issue.

Now you may want a real cruiser or bigger. These are a lot harder. The USA had a tradition of privately raised land units (rough riders), so if we have a leader like TR and and some support, I can almost see the "Rough Rider" cruiser assigned to Gitmo as a PR stunt for Teddy running for VP. Or some other leader. We certainly have men like Rockefeller or Vanderbuilts who could afford to build one. It does seem like a bit of a stretch, but we can find parallels in history. Zeppelins were largely driven by private individuals with money, so for example, if a son of Mr. Rockefeller bought Holland electric and had political ambitions, I can see them building a few gasoline submarines to jump start the market. Maybe even sending a few to the Manila to show how capable they are.

Now if you want something like Germany/USA have more than 10 privately held cruiser or larger ships, this is a hard one to see.
 

Flubber

Banned
Not so sure about the Dutch East India Company, but IOTL the British East India Company had a harder and harder time keeping its head above water financially as time went on.


Part of the EIC's financial difficulties was the result of losing it's trading monopoly while it's spending on administration and political control increased.

When you remember that some of those administrative and political costs were mandated by the governments back in the UK, you start to realize that the UK was setting the EIC up to fail.
 
The problem is that the death knell of privately owned ships was primarily caused by the comparatively immense cost of steel hulls and the futility of wooden hulls as tools of war as technology improved. In short, privately affordable privately owned warships became technologically obsolete and states gained a monopoly, as they did eventually in regards to the most powerful (and costly) weapons of all stripes.

Perhaps some libertarian fantasy worlds, where private individual remains as wealthy as states throughout the modern era, would ensure that high end weapons and private armies remain viable, but it seems like a stretch to me. Such a world would be inherently at odds with a society of laws, and likely to devolve into warlordism.
 

Meerkat92

Banned
The problem is that the death knell of privately owned ships was primarily caused by the comparatively immense cost of steel hulls and the futility of wooden hulls as tools of war as technology improved. In short, privately affordable privately owned warships became technologically obsolete and states gained a monopoly, as they did eventually in regards to the most powerful (and costly) weapons of all stripes.

Pretty much. Combat effective warships are way, way more expensive now than they were in the days of sail. Governments, with more resources to bring to bear than individuals, can afford it better. This, dear friends, is what we call "economics of scale".

Perhaps some libertarian fantasy worlds, where private individual remains as wealthy as states throughout the modern era, would ensure that high end weapons and private armies remain viable, but it seems like a stretch to me. Such a world would be inherently at odds with a society of laws, and likely to devolve into warlordism.

You're assuming that such individuals would not be bound by laws, but I see your point. On the other hand, what are OTL nations but just the mellowed-out old warlords that have been around so long that nobody cares anymore? :p
 
Laws are only as binding as far as the state is able to enforce them.

Do you really want to give me a speeding ticket if I have a battleship in harbor and a squadron of F-35s? ;)

One of the main pillars of modern societies appears to be that everyone (or almost) understands that if they challenge the State or it's laws by force, they'll have to live as fugitives or avoid getting caught. Nobody anymore thinks "I'll just fight them openly and win". Its just not an option. That wasn't true a few centuries ago. It really changes the whole equation.
 

Meerkat92

Banned
Laws are only as binding as far as the state is able to enforce them.

Do you really want to give me a speeding ticket if I have a battleship in harbor and a squadron of F-35s? ;)

If you've somehow managed to buy yourself a battleship and F-35s, you're not gonna be stupid enough to blow some podunk traffic cop to ash over a speeding ticket, now are you? I mean, what a waste! :D

One of the main pillars of modern societies appears to be that everyone (or almost) understands that if they challenge the State or it's laws by force, they'll have to live as fugitives or avoid getting caught. Nobody anymore thinks "I'll just fight them openly and win". Its just not an option. That wasn't true a few centuries ago. It really changes the whole equation.

You're new, so maybe you don't know this yet, but I tend to make jokes about this type of thing a lot. Don't take it too seriously. ;)

Oh, and welcome aboard, too! :)
 
One of the main pillars of modern societies appears to be that everyone (or almost) understands that if they challenge the State or it's laws by force, they'll have to live as fugitives or avoid getting caught. Nobody anymore thinks "I'll just fight them openly and win". Its just not an option. That wasn't true a few centuries ago. It really changes the whole equation.
It depends which State you are challenging. The rebels in Syria and Libya aren't/didn't do too badly. Neither did some of anti-government forces in Iraq and the Congo.

Of course armies unlike navies and air forces need not be capital intensive. That is what makes the difference and why privately owned warships are not very common.
 
One thing to remember about the Lusitania and her sister Mauretania was that while they were owned by Cunard lines, their construction was financed by the British government; the idea was to keep Cunard competitive with the American owned White Star Lines. In exchange for subsidizing the ships, Cunard agreed to design the ships so they could be converted to Merchant Cruisers in times of war.

The simple fact is that during the industrial era, most "private" warships would be financed and supported by governments; the expense would be way beyond what private investment could provide.
 
The simple fact is that during the industrial era, most "private" warships would be financed and supported by governments; the expense would be way beyond what private investment could provide.
Supported, yes because if a shipyard in your country builds pirates some great power is going to want a word with you as well as possibly damages for any merchant ship they take. Financed only because the government wants fittings on the vessel that have no commercial use such as sites for gun mountings and reinforced bulkheads. If you were buying a pirate, sorry privateer as an investment strategy you would pay for them yourself just as you pay for weapons for security guards.
 
Would it have been possible for privateering to have continued without the 1856 Declaration, or were the ships simply too expensive and conflicts requiring their usage too rare for something like a privately owned navy to exist?
Didn't the US not sign up to or not ratify the part about privateers? I seem to recall reading somewhile back some people floating the idea of issuing them to private companies as a way to combat the problem of piracy off Somalia.
 
The US was not a signatory to the 1856 declaration, and the reason it was an issue during the ACW was the position of the CSA as not being a "state" therefore the status of its warships, like the Alabama & others was in limbo (pirates? privateers? naval vessels?) but in spite of some rhetoric the USA never prosecuted CSA naval personnel as illegal "pirates".

In theory one could buy older warships, and "modernize" them but depending on the age etc this is very expensive and you still have a second class ship. AMC's (armed merchant cruisers) such as the Brits used for convoy protection (or WWI Q-ships), or the German raiders of WWI & II could only deal with a real warship through luck &/or surprise. Furthermore the merchant raiders of WWI & II were mostly in to sinking captures, sometimes looting them of useful stuff but almost never taking prizes. A privately owned warship (privateer) only makes money if they capture (not sink) ships AND can sail the prizes to a port where ship & cargo can be sold or ransomed.

In addition to the expenses other posters have mentioned & the issues with a government allowing private warships to be built in local yards (and btw most armor & big guns come from either government owned or managed facilities) a huge issue is crew. In the days of sail you could take a competent bunch of merchant seamen, put them on a privateer and train them to operate the guns well enough to capture merchant vessels pretty quickly. The time an effort it takes to train even a 1900 warship crew, the skills needed etc. mean if you want a vessel ready for use you have to have it built and crewed at least a year before you can send it out. This, obviously, means a huge expense paying the crew during training, as well as paying enough qualified instructors (to say nothing of fuel, ammo, etc expended during training).

Privateering is all about profit, and by the late 19th century there wasn't any.
 
Top