British Maritime Video Library on YouTube

[7eat51]

The Mutiny Aboard HMAV Bounty 1789: http://youtu.be/ERROkthuADc

Horatio Nelson at Toulon & Corsica 1793-4: http://youtu.be/RsllluhI0i0

The Battle of The Glorious First of June 1794: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZj_a...XvAOxHDEtZ1GTu

The HMS Hermione Mutiny 1797: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahzXT...BvTxNVd4JOdzbs

Admiral Nelson & The Battle of Santa Cruz 1797: http://youtu.be/fSgyBFtB90c

Horatio Nelson & The Battle of Cape St Vincent 1797: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-2bN...69ax0QA8Q7yFfQ

The Battle of Camperdown 1797: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORjlC...vthpJRxRZVXypv

Admiral Nelson & The Battle of the Nile 1798: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzJcD...6tHsxkR3j35BSd

Admiral Nelson & The Battle of Copenhagen 1801: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6AU6...Ewexu6ZvFc0Zs_

Long Chase & Calders Action 1805: http://youtu.be/pXB_XksSGXU

Trafalgar & The Death of Nelson 1805: http://youtu.be/-KdYhiNZS_w

Horatio Nelson (1758-1805) Part One: http://youtu.be/-jb33w_elP8

Horatio Nelson (1758-1805) Part Two: http://youtu.be/aMcEE_RUZaA

Horatio Nelson (1758-1805) Part Three: http://youtu.be/rezADbMBgK8

Horatio Nelson (1758-1805) Part Four: http://youtu.be/cYHXCpFdAGA

[Naharaht]

Nelson seems to dominate this archive.

[David Manley]

Nelson seems to dominate this archive.

He has a good agent

[7eat51]

Nelson seems to dominate this archive.

He seems to dominate British naval history of the period.

[David Manley]

He seems to dominate British naval history of the period.

He seems to dominate naval history of the period. period

[csadn]

He seems to dominate naval history of the period. period

Does rather go quiet after 1805, tho'.... >;)

[David Manley]

Opposition stopped turning up :)

[Gunner]

Eric, thanks for taking the time to put this together. I haven't watched them all yet, but I will.

[7eat51]

Does rather go quiet after 1805, tho'.... >;)

In deed, but not in spirit.

Eric, thanks for taking the time to put this together. I haven't watched them all yet, but I will.

You are more than welcome, Ed.

[csadn]

Opposition stopped turning up :)

Ships-of-the-line, maybe -- as Eric's been showing, the frigates and smaller ships were more-than-willing... and more-than-able. >;)

[Gunner]

Ships-of-the-line, maybe -- as Eric's been showing, the frigates and smaller ships were more-than-willing... and more-than-able. >;)

The French frigates might have been more than willing, but not more than able.
1793 to 1815 the British lost 17 frigates to the French and recaptured 9 of them. The French lost 229 frigates.

[tmon]

It easier to recapture ships when you have the ports blockaded.

The French frigates might have been more than willing, but not more than able.
1793 to 1815 the British lost 17 frigates to the French and recaptured 9 of them. The French lost 229 frigates.

[tmon]

The basic problem the French Navy had during this period of time was the loss of experienced officers due to the Revolution. This caused the first naval battles to go badly and then their fleet ended up blockaded in port where their crew go no training while the British crews got plenty of training.

The French frigates might have been more than willing, but not more than able.
1793 to 1815 the British lost 17 frigates to the French and recaptured 9 of them. The French lost 229 frigates.

[Gunner]

The basic problem the French Navy had during this period of time was the loss of experienced officers due to the Revolution. This caused the first naval battles to go badly and then their fleet ended up blockaded in port where their crew go no training while the British crews got plenty of training.

There is no doubt that the French navy suffered due to the loss of experienced officers. But from what I have read their navy only left port to protect conveys or on specific missions even during peace, whereas the British always had squadrons at sea while training their men. I guess that's the reason the Brits lost more men to the sea and disease than they did from the French navy.

[Comte de Brueys]

The British fought their battle mainly on the sea, in peacetimes they reduced there active ships and personel, too.

Sailing ships only for training, is something you wouldn't find in in the 18th and early 19th century.

Many factors lead to this unbalanced rate between the Napoleonic aera Royal Navy and for example the Napoleonic French navy, but it is not only the aspect, that the British "train always and often" and their lazy opponent never left their harbours.

Here are a few, for example:

1. Enough money for ships & crews
2. Trading empire that needs protection
3. Island nation
4. No cleanup from aristocrat navy officers
5. No focus on the army
6. Supremacy since the defeat of Spain and Netherlands
7. Higher morale and aggressiveness on sea
8. Good training
9. sometimes lousy opponents*
10. etc.

* I don't know why but the Britsh ship losses in the Mediterranean Sea in WW II come to my mind.
I guess the RN lost more ships because of Italian sea mines, then in combat with the Italian Navy.

[Gunner]

No mention was made of Training Ships. Only of training their men. Gunnery practice etc.

[Comte de Brueys]

Indeed, Ed.

...

Sailing ships only for training, is something you wouldn't find in in the 18th and early 19th century.

Due to my non native English speaking this sentence should be:

To sail ships only for training...





I wrote something about "training ships" in another thread.

[Gunner]

Indeed, Ed.



Due to my non native English speaking this sentence should be:

To sail ships only for training...





I wrote something about "training ships" in another thread.

And I read your comments with interest.

[Comte de Brueys]

Encouraging words for a lonsome French 1st rate Capitaine anchoring in the blockaded harbour of Toulon.



À votre santé, compagnon.

:g&t:

[Gunner]

Encouraging words for a lonsome French 1st rate Capitaine anchoring in the blockaded harbour of Toulon.



À votre santé, compagnon.

:g&t:

May a Fair Wind and fog help you slip out into the Mediterranean.

[csadn]

Many factors lead to this unbalanced rate between the Napoleonic aera Royal Navy and for example the Napoleonic French navy, but it is not only the aspect, that the British "train always and often" and their lazy opponent never left their harbours.

You forgot "positional advantage": There's only three exits to the Atlantic from most of Europe in the period -- North Sea; English Channel; Straits of Gibraltar -- and the British controlled all three. "They are guarding all the doors; they are holding all the keys." (And when a fourth was created -- Suez -- who controlled most of the lands and waters around it?) Getting out of port under sail was hard enough (IIRC: It took the Combined Fleet the better part of *two days* just to get out of Cadiz); getting out unobserved didn't bear thinking about.

So the Continentals spent too much time in port, and their skills wasted away -- "ships and seamen rot in harbor".

(One alt-history I played a long time ago: The French Republic managed to develop and build steam-powered frigates and SoLs, so they were not as dependent on weather as the British; being able to get out of harbor more-or-less when they felt like it made it much easier to get sailors practical experience, and thus the crew-quality issues weren't there.)

[Comte de Brueys]

The French prooved a few times, that they could break the blockade.

...and maybe the ships rot a little bit in the harbours after the Revolution, but not the men, because the French had always a lack of crew members.

When the Frech fleet left Toulon for Egypt in 1799 their ships had only 75% - 80% of the needed crewmen on each ship.



I can't deny that the Spanish & French ships of the line prefer mostly to stay in the harbours during the Napoleonic Wars.

We know what happened at Abukir & Trafalgar when they left the harbour.



But I don't like to generalize always and reducing the action of this historical episode (we're talking about 25 years 1789 - 1815) only in a sentence.

It's easy to judge 200 years later, but I honour and respect the French navy of the Napoleonic aera, that they fought the mighty Royal Navy with all the handicaps.

I'm shure a French frigate or French ship of the line wasn't the easiest prey for RN ships.

:g&t:

[Gunner]

Many French verse English naval battles I have read about shows the French taking horrific losses before striking. Makes me wonder if other nations including the British would have fared better if taking similar losses.

[csadn]

The French prooved a few times, that they could break the blockade.

[nod] The wind blows the same for everyone -- so when it's blowing into the harbor, the blockaders can get in close, bit it doesn't matter because the blockaded can't get out anyway; and when it's blowing out, the blockaded can get out, and the blockaders are forced further away, making it that much easier to get out.... :)

...and maybe the ships rot a little bit in the harbours after the Revolution, but not the men, because the French had always a lack of crew members.

When the Frech fleet left Toulon for Egypt in 1799 their ships had only 75% - 80% of the needed crewmen on each ship.

A large part of that problem was Boney himself, pillaging the manpower base for the Army

We know what happened at Abukir & Trafalgar when they left the harbour.

At Abukir, they never even made it out of the harbor.... ;)

I'm shure a French frigate or French ship of the line wasn't the easiest prey for RN ships.

I have noticed from the historical reports elseforum: If the battle goes much beyond two broadsides, it's usually far-closer-run than the overall stats show. It would appear most of Britain's successes came from ships which were surrendered without firing a shot, or after making only token resistance. This leads one to wonder if the naval campaign was not an example of what Napoleon said about "Morale is to physical as three is to one".