Honorverse Stewards

Considering the whole series was based on Hornblower and the Age of Sail, I figure there's a multi-tiered system for prize money dispersal like the British Royal Navy had set up.

EVERYBODY on the ship's rolls were entitled to a portion of the prize money right down to the cabin boys and powder monkeys. How much they got was laid out. The captain got a larger share than the officers (who split a percentage), who got a larger share than the warrants, who got a larger share than the NCO's who got a larger share than the crew. If a ship was 'in sight' at the time of surrender, it- and all of its' crew- was due a fair portion of the prize even if they didn't fire a shot. That worked out for or against the ships in combat depending on how things worked out. If a ship came into sight as a fight was ending, they got money for nothing. On the other hand, if a group of ships engaged another group of ships and one ship ended up separated from the group and took a prize with no one in sight, then they could claim all the prize money. That normally wasn't done because it would cause ill will among the captains and crews.

The Admiral in charge of a station also got a cut off the top of any prizes taken by ships acting under his orders. That's why the Caribbean station was such a lucrative posting. All the smugglers, pirates, privateers and national ships in time of war taken by the ships working out of Jamaica put money in the Admiral's pocket. The only exception was when a ship was captured by a vessel working under an independent commission from the Admiralty. The Admiral in charge of the station got nothing from that because they weren't acting under his orders, so the captain and crew got a bigger pot to split up.

Prize money was also split up into different kinds. There was 'head money' paid for captured or killed crew (based on the ship's roll in the captured ship's log) in time of war. There was also 'gun money' for captured guns. Neither one was large amount but it was better than nothing.

Finally, there was money paid for cargo and the ship itself. That's where the big money came from. If a ship was 'bought into service'- retained for use by the Navy- the value of the ship- minus the Crown's share and any Admiral's share- was split up amongst the ships and their crew. If the ship wasn't kept for service, then it may be auctioned off and the proceeds were thrown into the pot. If a merchant vessel was taken, then the cargo was sold off they they split the money, too.

Even under 1800AD RN rules, no. If the orders came direct from the Admiralty, the Captains got the Admiral's share. 3/8 of the total, IOW.

cthia wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:Yeah, based on the brief descriptions of prize money it seems like only people involved in the fight that captured the ship are in the prize pool. (Though that's probably treated broadly enough that if you were involved in a diversionary maneuver in the battle, even if you didn't fire on the enemy, that you'd probably be in the prize pool)

But I'd guess that if your Admiral ordered you to take a detachment to another system that he wouldn't be in the prize pool since he wasn't involved in the fight that led to the capture. So at Hancock both Sarnow (as Admiral in charge of the BC force that fought the running battle) and Yancy Parks (as the Admiral of the battle squadrons that showed up and forced the surrender) should, I'd guess, be in the prize pool. But whichever Admiral Parks reports to back on (presumably) Manticore wouldn't be.

But that's a lot of speculation from a tiny dataset.

Which begs the answer to the question of whether Caparelli, who may be involved in the fight in the planning stages — especially if his sixth sense sensed something and he cut orders for a fleet to proceed to a specific station which led to the capture — would be eligible for a cut.

So would this influence tactics?
Let's get in closer to see if we can cripple our opponent rather than destroy them? It obviously does in piracy, but may not be a good thing in navy combat.

Believe me prize money could amount to a nice chunk of change. IIRC David Farragut who was a middie aboard USS Essex in 1812 received $19,000 in prize money. FYI Essex still holds the record for most ships captured or sunk (38).

Daryl wrote:So would this influence tactics?
Let's get in closer to see if we can cripple our opponent rather than destroy them? It obviously does in piracy, but may not be a good thing in navy combat.

It was supposed to influence tactics; capturing a ship rather than destroying it was to the advantage of the capturing Navy. Not only did you deny the enemy the use of that ship, but you gained a ship without having to spend time building it.

The Royal Navy paid out prize money until the end of World War Two - though by that point it was being pooled and shared out among the entire Navy.

John Prigent wrote:Now you're making me wonder what, if anything, crews get for destroying an enemy ship. I can't remember anything in the books about that. Did Honor and her crew get anything for destroying Sirius in On Basilisk Station?

Cheers, John

Most likely there is some kind of standardised "combat bonus", but of course it´s likely a small fraction of what captures would generate.