Since the 1960s, sociologists have seen ‘Military organisations represent a specific occupational culture which is relatively isolated from society.’ This specific organisational or military culture, as it is now termed, has been largely neglected by historians until the last ten to fifteen years, with the rising of a new, broader analysis of this field of military history. Military identities have also slowly been coming to the fore in recent historical works. This improves our understanding of how military organisations not only develop their own culture, but, even with some conflict, their own identity. It is with this aspect of culture and identity that this book has been most concerned, along with how it was constructed and shaped by internal and external influences. Unfortunately there are very few works looking at the eighteenth-century British Navy, its problems and development of organisational identity. One important aspect that shapes identity is an institution's mission. ‘A mission provides an institution with a common purpose that justifies its existence and claim on resources, as well as the self-worth, rewards, and privileges of its members.’ With the formation of the Marine Corps in 1755 the Admiralty set the mission for the Marines, but left to them their own cultural development. In the past many armies and navies had problems with control over amphibious units like marines, and one reason for this was the units' inherent conflict of identity. The Admiralty's method of tackling this, and other problems of identity, was to clearly define the basic structure of the Marines (officer appointments, official regulations, purpose built barrack, etc.).