It is not entirely original to note that different kinds of social organisation fit naturally with different kinds of armed force. Aristotle, to look no further back, was clear that ‘light-armed troops and the navy are wholly on the side of democracy’, because the oarsmen of Greek warships were drawn from the poor free citizens, who had nothing to contribute to the war effort but their muscles, whereas the cavalry and infantry were recruited from the well-to-do who could afford horses, armour and weapons. It is worth the historian considering whether such a linkage can be established in later European history. Is it mere coincidence that in the English and Dutch cases naval power was associated with forms of representative government, while the great military powers (France, Prussia, Russia, Austria) were all autocratic monarchies? It is a matter of observation that army officers have traditionally been noblemen or gentlemen, while navies have tended to be run by middle-class professionals on whom the aristocratic concept of honour sat somewhat awkwardly. Is this coincidence, or is it in the nature of a navy to favour constitutional rather than autocratic government? If there is a connection, which is cause and which effect?