Trafalgar - A Different View

[Grim DeGrim]

On the advice of Prater, I've picked up another book online. The pre-face has great perspective & appreciation on the actions at Trafalgar:

... There were many fine fellows in the Franco-Spanish Fleet on the 21st of October, 1805, and they did their duty to the utmost of their power. We, for our part, had Nelson, " the greatest sailor since the world began," to lead us ; our captains had wider experience, and our sailors were better trained at the guns than those opposed to them : that made the deciding difference to the fate of the day.

This should be remembered. At Trafalgar the antagonists were hardly a match, in spite of the fact that the Combined Fleet counted six ships more than the British. The enemy were in no condition to give battle, as they themselves knew well and said before they put to sea. The Combined Fleet was made up from two navies, each trained in its own way, and differing markedly in efficiency ; belonging also to nationalities hardly at one in political sympathy. The Combined Franco-Spanish Fleet sailed to fight a decisive battle with their ships for the most part inefficiently equipped...

...All, however, said and done...no French admiral, with such a fleet as Villeneuve had under his orders, not even a Tourville or a SufFren, could have averted defeat at Trafalgar.

That the fortune of war went against France and Spain on that day takes nothing from the heroism and devoted gallantry which so many officers and men on the losing side displayed. One side must get the worst of it in a battle. Nelson himself, we are told, as he approached the enemy that morning, " frequently remarked that they put a good face upon it." Captain Blackwood, who was on the quarter-deck of the " Victory " as the fleets neared one another, drew Nelson's attention to "the handsome way in which the Battle was offered by the Enemy, their apparent determination for a fair trial of strength." " The Enemy," wrote Blackwood also, in a letter home, " awaited the attack of the British with a coolness I was sorry to witness, and they fought in a way that must do them honour." An officer of the " Victory," recording his impressions, says : " They appeared to seek the action with as much confidence as ourselves." Said Collingwood : " It was a severe action; no dodging or manoeuvring. They formed their line with nicety, and waited our attack with great composure, nor did they fire a gun until we were close to them." Collingwood also said : " The enemy's ships were fought with a gallantry highly honourable to their officers." "All our enemies," notes an officer of the "Prince," " fought with the greatest obstinacy."

Quite a tribute, that we often lose sight of, that both sides fought heroically, impressively so that France & Spain knew they were essentially doomed.

Yet for honor and country, they did so - and it was rightly recognized by their adversary.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Grim DeGrim

[Destraex]

Agreed. The only reason Nelson knew he could basically cross the T the way he did was that he knew that the French and Spanish fleets were not up to scratch.

Most had been bottled up in harbour for years and many sailors I would venture had not really even sailed out of port before!

 

Had they had some experience they would have had their ships worked up and crews fit and trim.

 

The British were like the Americans of their day when it came to naval power. There were comparable powers in size enough to challenge, but not really experience and training or quality or equable numbers. The French kept rebuilding but for periods were outnumbered iirc by almost two to one.

 

Compare this to the French Admiral Comte De Grasse who with help (outnumbered two to one iirc) wrested sea power from the British long enough to make the British defeat in America possible. The French drew and even on rare occasion won battles during this period and it is in naval actions time period.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Joseph_Paul_de_Grasse

 

I am thinking of joining the French simply because they are the underdogs and had such impressive technical and impressive ship classes. They had great potential especially without the revolution which kind of ruined the revival that the french navy was having and the army getting all the money from the coffers and priority in most instances.

[Grim DeGrim]

Looking forward to your joining us (see what I did there... Us... France... Auldalliance.enjin.com)

[Iñigo Montoya]

It saddens me deeply that our enemies often remembered and praised our deeds in a way we never did, or do.

 

I'll leave here a name that has been forgotten so frequently. Read about him: Blas de Lezo.

[D. Federico de Gravina y N]

I'll leave here a name that has been forgotten so frequently. Read about him: Blas de Lezo.

Only of a few english persons know about him, many of they, still thinking that Vernom was a great Seaman

Edited March 3, 2015 by RAE_Cmdt.Cavero

[Comandante Gómez]

Blas de Lezo, Cosme Churruca... 

[Bazan]

He didn´t fight in trafalgar, but won at Lepanto

 

Avaro de Bazan  (44 years of service) 1544 - 1588

 

Battle of Muros

Reconquest of the Peñón de Vélez de la Gomera

Relief to the Island of Malta

Battle of Lepanto

War of Succession Portuguese

 

Battle of Ponta Delgada

 

The numbers resulting from the military campaigns of Álvaro de Bazán reaffirm their place of honor among the largest marine who has given Spain:

 

Rendered Islands: 8

Rendered Cities: 2

Rendered Villas: 25

Castles and forts taken: 36

General Captains defeated: 8

Masters of defeated field: 2

Ladies and gentlemen main defeated: 60

French soldiers and sailors rendered: 4759

British soldiers and sailors rendered: 780

Portuguese soldiers and sailors rendered: 6243

 

Christian prisoners released: 1564

Captured real Galeras: 44

Schooners captured: 21

Galleons and sea-going vessels captured: 99

Brigs captured: 27

Caramuzales Turks captured: 7

Tawny Moors captured: 3

Galeasses imprisoned: 1

Captured artillery pieces: 1814.

Defeats: 0

 

 

El fiero turco en Lepanto,

en la Tercera el francés,
y en todo mar el inglés,
tuvieron de verme espanto.
Rey servido y patria honrada
dirán mejor quién he sido
por la cruz de mi apellido
y con la cruz de mi espada

Edited March 4, 2015 by Bazan

[Karnaught]

The "honour and glory" of Trafalgar cost Spanish Crown almost all American colonies killing any effective trade route. But anyway lots of bad political decisions where taken in America before that happened. Maybe was a matter of time it’s sad that Spanish diplomatic service and crown fuck up that much between War of the Pyrenees and the Napoleonic invasion.  Wasting all the efforts made in America since the arrival of the Bourbons in 1700. 

 

Twenty years of desperate fighting in America against your own commoners just to try to establish again the old empire.  XIX century Spain has really sad history. 

Edited April 1, 2015 by Karnaught

[_Alucard_]

Yes, Trafalgar was a turning point for Spain.

In my opinion there are some key points:

- Mistrust: after what happened in Cape Saint Vincent, the Spanish didn't trust in the French, so Napoleon ordered that the ships were mixed (2 french and 1 spanish in the middle). There were tensions between them and that didn't help.

-Way of shoot: the british always shot at the hull in order to inflict as much damage and casualties as they could, but the spanish and french usually shot at sails in order to dismantle the ship and capture her. That's one of the reasons of why they had less than 500 dead.

-Crews: while the british were always at see and well trained and motivated, the allied crews were in harbour (even for years), and some of them  had never been on a ship before. That means you have no experience, no training, and no faith in what you are doing. Some of them were forced to serve in the navy, even prisoners, in order to fill the crews needed to sail a ship. When the battle started, some would use a gun for the first time, so the accuracy they could get was not comparable to the british. They fought the best they could, considering the circumstances.

-Superiority: as a result of breaking the allied line, there was a continuous superiority in ship numbers.We know that in some cases they had to fight against even 7 enemy ships at once, so you can guess the result.

We know as well that some ships at the vanguard of the line kept on sailing getting away of the combat (Dumanoir was the commander there and he didn't obey the orders given from the Boucentaure.... some say that he didn't see the signals) 

Before the combat took place, Gravina (Spanish commander of the rearguard) asked Villenueve to give him permission to act separately and the french answered negatively.

So, the bloody combat was just in the middle of the allied line and the british ships were coming to join the party while the vanguard did nothing. Well, eventually some ships decided on their own to disobey orders and turned into the battle, but it was too late.

For instance, we know what happened to the San Juan Nepomuceno, commanded by Churruca, which had to fight 7 ships. He ordered to nail the flag because he didn't want his ship to be captured.

- Villeneuve's order to tack the line towards Cadiz: this is in my humble opinion, the worst decision he could have taken. Different types of ships, they didn't sail the same way, literally it resulted in a chaos leaving the british the room they needed to brake the line. When Villeneuve gave this order, many of the Spanish officers said that the fleet was doomed and that he didn't know his proffesion. We will never know what would have happened if he hadn't given that order.

- The decision of leaving port itself: the allied fleet was safe at port, and they knew that bad weather was coming, so the british would have to deal with that at sea damaging their ships. We all know that a big storm ocurred after the battle, sinking some of the ships that had received the worst part of the battle. If they had decided to leave port after the storm......well, we will never know.

 

I could write more about this, but as a summary those are important points to me.

I would be pleased if you have more ideas and want to discuss them here.

[mouse of war]

Is the futile expenditure of men's lives an honourable act? 

[_Alucard_]

Why do you ask that?