Historical Question - Was Mutiny Ever Justifiable?

[Galant]

The missus and I are working our way through some old favorite TV shows and we're currently enjoying the Horatio Hornblower mini series.

In the episode 'The Mutiny' the senior officers are faced with a situation where their Captain has shown what they believe to be repeated signs of poor mental health. Eventually, they're faced with the Captain's I'll judgement risking the ship and crew and they persuade the reluctant doctor to pronounce the Captain unsuitable for command.

Longer story short, the senior officers face possible hanging for mutiny.

The episode obviously tries to make this as tricky situation as possible, weighing the moral considerations and responsiblities towards the ship and crew of the officers against the supreme importance of the naval order and the chain of command. The viewers know the officers have a case, but the law, and the navy, might see it differently.

It got me wondering how accurate any of this was. How freely did the navy enact the death penalty on mutineers? Would such a conundrum be possible in reality? Or if it mutiny was dealt with in that way, could mutiny ever be justified, would the law ever come down on the side of senior officers in such a position?

Any history buffs or or sailors got any insight on this?

[Ttaskmaster]

Mutiny can never be justified... precisely because if it is mutiny, it is not justifiable.

Mutiny means a combination between two or more persons subject to service law, or between persons two at least of whom are subject to service law—

(a) to overthrow or resist lawful authority in Her Majesty's forces or any forces co-operating therewith or in any part of any of the said forces,
(b) to disobey such authority in such circumstances as to make the disobedience subversive of discipline, or with the object of avoiding any duty or service against, or in connection with operations against, the enemy, or
(c) to impede the performance of any duty or service in Her Majesty's forces or in any forces co-operating therewith or in any part of any of the said forces.

So by that definition, it is possible to undertake certain actions under certain conditions that do not subvert discipline or avoid your duty. You can overthrow or resist UNlawful authority, as well.

So if your Captain goes nuts and orders you to shoot the Admiral, for example, that is not lawful and you may resist/overthrow him.

HOWEVER... This is the military and there are proper ways for doing things.
You'll likely find that you, the lowly scum-of-the-earth deckswab cannot just go up to Captain Nutjob and shoot him. He must be properly relieved of command by his First Officer, or someone in similar authority, in accordance with procedures...


I really loved that series. Even have a ship in Elite named The Hornblower!
Bit of a shame they ended it just as HH was getting his captaincy. I wonder if they'd be able to do a new series today - I don't know how old HH was as Captain, but Ioan Gruffudd still looks fantastic and I believe he'd jump at reprising the role. He was exceedingly good!!

[kompukare]

Justified does not mean legal. Although a mutiny is likely to have many causes, the navy had a very terrible reputation for press-ganging:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressment
So would anyone deny for example a child soldier enslaved into war in East Africa the right to kill their officers? The navy didn't start with kids of 5-7 but still enslaved seamen could easily justify rebelling.

Anyway, since this was done with the full co-operation of the state, it was never illegal, just as slavery was not illegal in the Confederate states. Doesn't make it justified.

[Ttaskmaster]

Justified does not mean legal.

Since the crime of mutiny is... well, a crime... then yes it does, especially being quite a specific crime that kind-of both encompasses and spills over into other offenses. If what you do is technically not a crime in itself, then it's possible to still consider it mutiny, for example.

Furthermore, the OP specifically asked about the Navy law aspect of it, so again it does mean legal in this instance.

So would anyone deny for example a child soldier enslaved into war in East Africa the right to kill their officers?

It could be argued that no-one has the right to take the life of another, which is equally arguable against the possible exception of ending intractable suffering.

Moral justification is subjective, though and every mutineer thinks they are justified in their actions... as much as every man in Shawshank is innocent. This is why we have to rely on legal justification.

[Galant]

Thanks for the replies.

How about we go beyond the theory of protocol and look at the specific scenario in the movie/episode?

4 senior officers believe the Captain unfit for command but the doctor won't pronounce him so unequivocally. The Captain's actions clearly threaten the safety of the ship and crew.

A Captain is clearly allowed to be a poor Captain, and you can't have officers or crew second-guessing the Captain based on how they think things should be done. So even risk to the ship and crew doesn't seem to be enough allow the officers to take over. Not without the doctor's say-so.

In the episode the doctor eventually relents in the heat of battle, but states afterwards that it was under duress (albeit the duress of the mad Captain threatening the life of Hornblower - and then in the next episode, during the hearing, claims it was only in the heat of battle.)

Might the word of the doctor be enough for the officers to be cleared of wrong doing, even if half-hearted?

Is anyone aware of any historical cases where the RN had to deal with officers removing their Captain from command?

I supposed that's not the sort of thing the Navy would want publicised, so perhaps even expecting such records might be too much?

[hb904460]

Sounds a bit Crimson Tide to me....

[wazzickle]

People seem to think, for some reason, that legal -> moral, where it should be moral -> legal. Whether something is legal or not should be fairly low down on your list of considerations.

If you have good reason to believe your superior officer is not acting in the interests of the lives of your crewmen, or countrymen, of course you should be considering mutiny.

Then again, I don't do particularly well when it comes to the chain of command, following orders without a good reason, so I may not be the best person to ask.

[Ttaskmaster]

Is anyone aware of any historical cases where the RN had to deal with officers removing their Captain from command?

I spoke with a few guys who know a lot more about such things than me...

The consensus is that ONLY the doctor could pronounce the captain as unfit, and then most typically through injury, illness or similar - You cannot command from bed.

Their understanding is that it is not for the officers to make the call on whether a captain is fit to command. The Admiralty has already found him fit. They may try and bring charges against him afterward, once the ship has docked, but that again will be judged as Mutiny unless proven otherwise and would need evidence from someone senior to that captain to even have a hope of succeeding.

But none know of any case where the subordinates' cases were upheld. They were all ruled as mutiny, which is why Hornblower et al were SO keen on the doctor's ruling in that episode.

If you have good reason to believe your superior officer is not acting in the interests of the lives of your crewmen, or countrymen, of course you should be considering mutiny.

If you have concrete grounds upon which to base this accusation upon, then yes, such as when you *know* an order is unlawful.
If it's just morality, then you're out of luck. Your commanders typically know far more of the bigger picture than you, so you're in no position to judge and that's why they're in command instead of you.
Outside of that, your best bet is to carry out the order (perhaps even log an objection) and then, at your earliest opportunity, enquire about the issue with your commander's superiors... if it's unlawful, thn great. If it is, then you just learned something extra.

Back in Hornblower's time, your captain was your better, in rank, station, social class and every other way - You just are not deemed fit to judge him, or even question him. Simple as. Only his superiors may do that.
Now a superior officer removing a captain... I bet that happened more often than you'd think.

Then again, I don't do particularly well when it comes to the chain of command, following orders without a good reason, so I may not be the best person to ask.

Quite often there IS a good reason and you'll know it... but where you don't know, there is not always the time to sit down and discuss every little detail in depth with everyone present, answer questions, make an action plan and enquire if there are any questions... Things need to happen now.

[wazzickle]

Quite often there IS a good reason and you'll know it... but where you don't know, there is not always the time to sit down and discuss every little detail in depth with everyone present, answer questions, make an action plan and enquire if there are any questions... Things need to happen now.

Right, but that license to do quite a large range of things without scrutiny - especially far out at sea and with no rapid means of communication with the command structure, and especially when it comes to the sorts of people who attract power (i.e. power-hungry maniacs and psychopaths) is very dangerous, with the only sort of check being loyalty and training. Imagine if the mods here had free reign and no-one held them to account, it would be bedlam.

[peterb]

Right, but that license to do quite a large range of things without scrutiny - especially far out at sea and with no rapid means of communication with the command structure, and especially when it comes to the sorts of people who attract power (i.e. power-hungry maniacs and psychopaths) is very dangerous, with the only sort of check being loyalty and training. Imagine if the mods here had free reign and no-one held them to account, it would be bedlam.

Except that senior commanders are not self selecting, they were (and are) subject to scrutiny and only those deemed suitable for command were selected. I suspect in Hornblower's era (remembering that the books are historical fiction) there was some degree of patronage, but even that wouldn't protect the truly incompetent.

Commanding officers are given a lot of room for individual action (depending on the operation) but are constrained by rules of engagement, international law etc. But they need that degree of freedom for those situations where communications aren't (or weren't) possible.

[wazzickle]

Except that senior commanders are not self selecting

They don't have to be. CEOs, politicians, other positions of power are not self-selecting either, psychopaths don't even just get through the selection processes, they tend to thrive.

[peterb]

A true traditional psychopath would not last very long in the armed services, where self discipline as as important as imposed discipline. That may not have been true in previous eras of course, but then psychology was not a recognised medical discipline.

[kompukare]

They don't have to be. CEOs, politicians, other positions of power are not self-selecting either, psychopaths don't even just get through the selection processes, they tend to thrive.

Never mind psychopaths though.
Corporation and the way share-based companies work, practically that most CEOs are at least sociopaths. Of a company truly wants to be ethical (at least to a point) rather paying lip-service, it almost be definition has to he a co-op, privately-held, or held by a charity otherwise for any ethical behaviour which costs money the shareholders can and will sue.
Important note: this has nothing really to do with capitalisms either. Just that capitalism is nowadays understood to be shareholder corporate capitalism. The same sociopathical behaviour also encourages immense short-termism which often hurts long-term shareholders (plus of course short-termism ultimate hurts far more than shareholder with the wider environment often being the biggest loser).

[Ttaskmaster]

Right, but that license to do quite a large range of things without scrutiny - especially far out at sea and with no rapid means of communication with the command structure, and especially when it comes to the sorts of people who attract power (i.e. power-hungry maniacs and psychopaths) is very dangerous, with the only sort of check being loyalty and training. Imagine if the mods here had free reign and no-one held them to account, it would be bedlam.

They have rapid communication - It's called a radio.
They have scrutiny - Plenty of oversight committes, war crimes trials and all manner of things, in fact.

As far as loyalty to and training in the laws of proper conduct go, you'll find plenty of people out there in the world with far less rigourous conditioning are still able to do things in accordance with the rules - Drivers, for instance.

In this modern world, an officer can be brought to account for his actions far swifter than ever before.
Furthermore, you'll find it's always the 'people person' that makes the best officer. Power hungry psychopathic maniacs are quite the anachronism and somewhat fictionalised. The likes of Kilgore and Kurtz don't really make it through military training... despite whatever you might hear about the RSM!

However, the military is NOT the Civil Service, either. You typically don't have time for appraisal meetings, peer review meetings and silly stuff like that... especially when facing incoming fire.

[wazzickle]

I were talking bout ere old days of 'oratio 'ornblower, matey

[peterb]

I were talking bout ere old days of 'oratio 'ornblower, matey

Bearing in mind that Hornblower is a fictional character..

But yes, I suspect life was pretty harsh in the 18th century. There are plenty of records of mutiny and desertion because of both living conditions harsh treatment. Until the discovery that scurvy was prevented by drinking lemon or lime juice, the risk was always present, other diseases were also a risk and food preservation methods were largely confined to salting or pickling.

Surgery was largely limited to sewing up wounds or amputation (without anaesthetics) and the risk of infection and gangrene was yet another risk without ant-biotics.

Punishment was summary and general corporal. So not a particularly pleasant life - but I guess for some, more pleasant than working the land as a serf or peasant.

The two great mutinies that did bring about in a change in working and living conditions were the Spithead and More mutinies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spithe..._Nore_mutinies