Talk:Battle of Trafalgar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Battle of Trafalgar is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.


Contents

[edit] old comments

Although I have added a lot of links to this monster, it is hardly limited to the Battle of Trafalgar but is general survey of French-British relations. To be sure it puts the Battle in context. But where would all this history rightly go? To French-English rivalry? User:Fredbauder

It ought to go into Napoleonic Wars. But it needs some heavy editing for NPOV.
Moved text over to Napoleonic Wars.

[edit] POV Problems?

This article reads like a Children's Encyclopaedia. It needs some heavy editing.

Seconded. Not a subject I know much about though. -- Tarquin
The language used in this article is too emotional. The text is too enthusiastic in describing the naval strategy. Please consider rewriting. --Jiang 08:38, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Better rewrite?

Someone should re-write this with more attention to detail and history. In fact, the precedent for Nelson's battle plan at Trafalgar was the battle between Rodney and de Grasse off Iles des Saintes near Martinique in 1780. Rodney had 36 ships-of-the-line and de Grasse 33. The battle opened as usual maneauvering in parallel lines, but when deGrasse ordered a reversal in direction of his entire line, it was not well carried out and gaps appeared. Rodney, seeing the opportunity, ordered a 90-degree turn and movement into the gaps. The British effectively crossed the T of the French fleet in several places. Eventually all the French fleet surrendered or were sunk. The French lost 6,000 men.

Note also - Jervis at Cape St. Vincent 1797 sailed his smaller fleet through the Spanish fleet with the intention of dividing out a segment of the enemy fleet for closer attention. Jervis did intend to keep the ships in order by tacking in succession, after passing through the Spanish fleet. Nelson, who was fourth from the end of the British line, in "Captain" wore his ship out of line, in a questionable, but fortunate, interpretation of orders and headed off a portion of the fleeing Spanish. Jervis certainly did not maintain a line parallel with his opponents.

Also - it was Jervis' reform of the British Fleet in the 1790s that led to the high-quality of crews and much higher level of performance that allowed the melee tactics of Trafalgar to succeed. The British Royal Navy had lost only one battle since 1690, so it didn't begin an era of British Naval Supremacy, it merely continued it. -- Anon

Hello Anon!
Quick note; be bold when updating pages. If there is someting wrong with the article then please fix it. Don't be shy. :) --mav

"The British Royal Navy had lost only one battle since 1690, so it didn't begin an era of British Naval Supremacy, it merely continued it." That's far from true. British Navy has lost a LOT of battles since 1690. Being one the Battle of Cartagena (1741)

It be meant to mean it hadnt lost set peice battles like trafalgar, they did however lose several engagements in small battles.

[edit] Striking one's colours

What does "strike their colours" mean? they sunk? -- Nojer2 23:24, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Striking your colours" means taking down your national flag from the mast. It was a sign that the ship was surrendering and would offer no further resistance. Dabbler 00:14, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
question - when a captain surrendered his ship, how long did it take all sailors on the ship to find out and stop firing their guns? Fairly noisy in those battles. Did they send messengers below deck to yell at everyone?SpookyMulder 12:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I hate to edit without an account, but the answer is simple. For the most part, a ship wouldn't surrender in a major engagement until it was boarded and taken. A ship that's had a great deal of damage to it's rigging or many of it's cannons dismounted can still try and limp off, even if it's lost it's masts it's got a shot at it. It wouldn't be until another ship laid along side it and sent men over to take it. Though occasionally ships would surrender without a fight if presented with a foe they stood no chance of defeating, in that case firing wouldn't even begin. In the unlikely even that a ship would want to surrender while still unboarded, and with it's crews still at it's guns, then yes I suppose an officer would have to go down into the hold to stop the firing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.109.158 (talk) 09:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 200th anniversary celebrations

Why is the 200th anniversary being celebrated in June and not October? adamsan 28 June 2005 14:23 (UTC)

You ever been to Portsmouth in October? It's wet and cold. The queen might get poorly, so it's held in the middle of June, when it's not really warm but certainly less wet and cold. Dunc|☺ 28 June 2005 14:30 (UTC)

[edit] foremost naval power

After the battle, the Royal Navy remained unchallenged as the world's foremost naval power until the rise of Imperial Germany prior to the First World War, 100 years later.

The German Imperial navy fleet was never in a position to beat the Royal Navy, which is why they did not break out of their home waters. I would like to alter this sentence, but I am not sure what to put in its place, possibly the the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, but when did the U.S. Navy reach parity with the Royal Navy? -- Philip Baird Shearer 19:37, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

You are correct, the High Seas Fleet didn't "beat" the Royal Navy, but it did "challenge" it. Jutland was the first major naval battle since Trafalgar (although there were some other battles, like Navarino, but no major challenges).--JW1805 19:46, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
"Jutland was the first major naval battle since Trafalgar"? Depending on how you define "major", there are plenty of naval battles after 1805 in List of naval battles: in addition to the Battle of Navarino, what about the Battle of Lemnos, Battle of Sinop, Battle of Santiago de Cuba, Battle of Tsushima, Naval Battle of Lemnos (which should surely be merged with Battle of Lemnos (1912))? More accurate would be "Jutland was the first major fleet action involving the Royal Navy since Trafalgar."
But I agree that no-one challenged the full might of the Royal Navy until the High Seas Fleet, although the bits of the Royal Navy that happened to be in any one place were challenged from time to time (1812, or the Battle of Cape St Vincent, for example). -- ALoan (Talk) 14:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
"no-one challenged the full might of the Royal Navy until the High Seas Fleet": This is not exactly correct: Under Napoleon III and the beginning of the 3rd Republic, the French Navy produced very modern armoured steam ships that were quite ahead of the time, and made the fleets of the time completely obsolete; the proeminent example is the Gloire, which was a revolution comparable to what the Dreadnought' would be later.
So technically, the Royal Navy did have a match at the time. However, France and England had more civilised ways of resolving their differences at this time. Rama 14:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Touché. Fortunately, since Britain was forced into uncivilised measures to sort out Napoleon III's step-grandfather/uncle, the French haven't challenged the British (at least, not in the sense of going toe-to-toe ;)
In any event, HMS Warrior and HMS Black Prince soon caught up. Good thing we didn't upset the French in 1859-1860. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The Imperial German Navy was the first navy capable of doing enough damage to the Royal Navy to cripple it: the German plan was to build enough warships that if Britain engaged them directly they could lose too much of their fleet and become open to attack by another nation, it was critical to Britain to maintain naval superiority. They signed it away with the washington treaty, where they agreed to a 1 to 1 parity in battleships with the US.

None of those large battles involved Britain. The first battle Britain lost after Trafalgar was Coronel in 1914. That's where the 100 years comes from. Actually 109 years. What battles was Britain in since 1805? Well several in the Napoleonic wars including Lissa (1811) and 2 in 1807, and then Navarino (1827), the one against the Portuguese I suppose (1833) and Obligado (1845, only small), the first opium wars (1840s) and several bombardments (1816, 1840, 1854/55 and 1882).

SpookyMulder 12:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


"naval supremacy that Britain had established during the 18th century"

Along the 18th century Royal Navy experienced a great transformation from state sponsored piracy (two previous centuries) to become a real "war navy". Of course one of the biggest and most powerful in Europe along with the Dutch, Spanish and French but in any case dominant or "unchallenged" as it was during the 19th century. Just check out "Jenkins Ear War" "Blas de Lezo" "Anson expedition" "Batle of Toulon" "Cape Spartel" "American Independence War". It wasnt untill the row of victories Cape San Vicente-Finisterre-Trafalgar that the Royal Navy proved its supremacy (courtesy of admirals Cordova and Villeneuve)

[edit] Téméraire

I am really sorry, I just realised that Téméraire apparently shouldn't have the French diacritics when referring to the HMS Temeraire; I though that she was a French-built prize or something like this... didn't mean anything by this, in any case. My apologies. Rama 17:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Nothing to be sorry for, the original Téméraire was a captured French ship and probably should have been written with accents except English writing doesn't use them. The subsequent Temeraires were named with the anglicised French name as part of the psychological warfare of the day. A ship with an "enemy name" indicated that you had been successful in battle and taken the prize. Even when the ship was destroyed, often a new ship was given the captured name. The French fleet at Trafalgar included a Berwick and a Swiftsure, neither of them very French names! Dabbler 18:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I've seen the Temeraire written with accents in many books...

there was two swiftsures at Trafalgar a royal navy 3rd rate and the french 1st rate which was then recaptured and and renamed HMS Irresistible.Corustar 01:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Achille/Achilles

I have changed the link for HMS Achilles to HMS Achille (1798) which I believe is correct. The original link branched to HMS Achilles, which contains no ship of the right vintage to have been at Trafalgar; and on the main Trafalgar_order_of_battle page the link was to HMS Achilles (1778) on which page it even says that it is certainly not the ship which fought at Trafalgar.

'Achille' was proper spelling for the time; it's only in the modern usage that the S has been added, and the Achille was present at the battle(It was part of admiral Collingwood's division)

[edit] High school celebration

Interesting, but one high school's event is not important enough for the article, so moving here:

"The 200th anniversary of the battle will also be celebrated by [Nelson High School] in Burlington, Ontario, Canada on October 21, 2005. Students and staff will use facts from Lord Nelson's life and the Battle of Trafalgar in different classes. Civics classes will focus on Nelson's leadership style, Physics classes will examine flight trajectories of cannonballs, history classes will investigate the battle plans and the politics leading up to the battle. Principal Gary Grocker will arrive in full "Nelson" attire, with our Vice Principal Virginia Hureau bedecked as Lady Hamilton."

Stan 03:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Happy 200th Birthday, Battle of Trafalgar

Happy 200th Birthday, Battle of Trafalgar. JackofOz 08:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Warm Knives

If Wikipedia is so smart, does it know that at the Battle of Trafalgar, Nelson required the doctors to keep their knives warmed up so that sailors wouldn't have to suffer (as he had) the extra shock of having something amputated with a cold knife? - Ward Bush

Sidebar!

Attitude, attitude! No information resource is any "smarter" than the knowledge that human beings contribute to it. Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is always growing because information is always being added to it. That's what it's all about. There's nothing to be gained by making snide remarks about what Wikipedia doesn't have yet. The smart thing to do would be for you to add the knowledge you claim to have to the main article, where it can be subjected to examination by others like yourself. JackofOz 00:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BBC website

This article is being linked to from the front page of the BBC website today [1]. Good exposure, but potential for an influx of vandals. --Daniel Lawrence 09:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The warm knifes where all because he had his own arm removed with a cold knife and he felt a warm knife would be better i know this information exists but dont ask me to quote it right nowCorustar 01:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Those Pesky Frenchies!

Apparently French teaching of Napoleonic era wars and battles conveniently glosses over the entire episode: a few years ago The Nelson Society discovered the following reference to the battle in a French history schoolbook: "...a minor battle with little consequence for history".

This is what the American Historian Dupuy said "[Trafalgar] was the most decisive major naval victory - tactically and strategically - of history" Raymond Palmer 15:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

And why not the Drake-Norris fiasco of 1589? (supremacy of Spain in the western hemisphere for more than two centuries) Or Lepanto 1571? (Christendoom against Islam9 What about Cartagena de Indias, 1741? (the biggest ever defeat of a fleet in World History considering casualties and tonnage of ships) Even bigger than that of Midway (1942)...

Does any of these names ring a bell for you? By the way, do you consider apropiate the word "pesky" in a enciclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.103.2.80 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of Temeraire firing on Redoubtable

I editted the caption for this last night, but someone changed it back. The picture is widely held to be the HMS Temeraire firing on the shattered Redoubtable, despite the stern clearly reading Sandwich.

The HMS Sandwich was actually a hulk in port in 1805, hence why people believe it to be the Temeraire and the unidentified ship would be the Redoubtable. Proper inspection of the French ship shows that it's the Bucentaure, not the Redoubtable, and the Sandwich fits the description and movements of the Temeraire. I editted this but someone changed it back?

WARNING! THIS IS LEFT UNCLEAR! THE ARTICLES ON Redoutable AND 74-gun ship HAVE THE SAME PICTURE AND CLAIM THAT THE FRENCH SBIP IS THE REDOUTABLE. IF ANYONE KNOWS FOR SURE I ASK HIM TO CORRECT WHICHEVER CLAIM IS WRONG.

[edit] Article length

In my humble opinion, this article is now a little too long. Now that the 200th anniversary has passed, I propose that we cut this article in the following ways:

That would create more space to add details of the battle itself. JimmyTheOne 00:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Nobody objected, so I've now done the first two of these. JimmyTheOne 22:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broken image link

"Nelson is shot on the quarter deck of Victory" is a blank box. Can anyone fix it?

Tyrenius 07:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Grand Turk Image

Greetings. Apologies that my previous Grand Turk image was deleted. I was able to go through all my other images, re-licencing in line with Wikipedia policy. However re-licencing the image on this page was not appropriate as it is on the cover of my book. However I am happy to make this new picture available, if you feel it fits into the page. Image:GrandTurk.jpg. Once again apologies for any confusion I caused by misunderstanding Wikipedia licence policy. Best wishes, Des Kilfeather Desk1 10:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand why we need a picture of the Grand Turk on this page. All it did was stand in for a ship in a re-enactment 200 years after the event. It is not typical of the size of the ships that fought, it isn't even a design from the period. Dabbler 11:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] under a cloud?

What does the phrase "under a cloud" mean? Is this some sort of slang? Please revise. RabidDeity 07:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a standard English metaphor, not a slang term and perfectly grammatical but perhaps not Simple English. Dabbler 13:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eerie similarity to Battle of Noryang Point?

What do you think of including a small section on the comparison between Trafalgar and Noryang Point? They were both won by undefeated commanders(Yi Sunsin for Noryang Point), who were both killed by a bullet in the middle of the battle, and were disastrous to the losing party (as in Japan not even thinking of sea-borne imperialism for another three hundred years). The only difference seems to be the two hundred year gap between them. Just a suggestion. --TcDohl 22:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that anyone in either fleet had ever heard of any battle at Noryang Point, so any similarities would be in the nature of a coincidence and would belong to the category of Original Research. Dabbler 14:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Undefeated comanders???????? Horatio Nelson????? Check out Tenerife 1796. Call me naive but i think an encyclopedia is not a place for false myths and petty nationalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.103.2.80 (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The "undefeated" comment is on a Talk page as part of a posting, it is not in the encyclopedia article. Dabbler (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bit of trivia

Was wondering if it was worth mentioning the only person to serve both at Trafalgar and Waterloo? Don Miguel Ricardo Maria Juan de la Mata Domingo Vincente Ferre Alava de Esquivel (mercifully known as Miguel de Alava) served on the Spanish flagship, the Principe de Asturias at Trafalgar. For Waterloo, he was the Spanish ambassador to the Netherlands, and was at Wellington's side during the battle (having previously been Wellington's Spanish liaison officer during the Peninsular War). I was considering adding it to the bit about Sharpe's Trafalgar, for a couple of reasons - Sharpe became the 2nd, albeit fictional) person to serve at both; and I found the details in the Historical Notes at the end of the Sharpe's Trafalgar novel. Decided not to be bold this time, but to seek the consensus of other editors. Carre 13:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, it would be best on the Don Miguel Ricardo Maria Juan de la Mata Domingo Vincente Ferre Alava de Esquivel or Miguel de Alava page, but not here or Battle of Waterloo as his presence does not seem to have affected either battle significantly. Dabbler 14:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
OK - it's already in the Miguel de Alava article; I won't add it in this one. See - sometimes it pays not to be bold ;) Carre 15:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Besides which, he wasn't the only person to serve at both battles. Nicholas Best in his book Trafalgar mentions at least two British midshipmen who transferred to the army and fought at Waterloo, one as a Colour Sergeant. He also mentions Major Antoine Drouot, a French artillery officer, who served on the French fleet at Trafalgar, then went on to survive the retreat from Moscow and then Waterloo.

I added the trivia about the black British sailors. SmokeyTheCat 15:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

  • A little known fact is that 25% of the British sailors at Trafalgar were black. Freed slaves.
Thanks, but this is so little known that verification from a reliable source is needed: please cite your source ... dave souza, talk 16:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Also in the Battle of Cartagena de Indias (1741) the Brittish used a few thousands of black slaves in the front row —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.103.3.49 (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This was mentioned in a BBC program on the 200th anniversarySmokeyTheCat 10:14, 7 February 2007 I have amended this. "Many hundreds" http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2005/10/07/kurt_blackhistorymonth_feature.shtml

Please don't change the sentence to "may have been black". What may have been is not a fact at all.SmokeyTheCat 17:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC) SmokeyTheCat 10:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how you can be sure when all that the reference says is "it has been estimated that hundreds of men of African origin made up the numbers in the fleet at Trafalgar" Its an estimate, so they may or may not have been black. Unless you can be more specific with a reference, then it has to include the element of uncertainty. Dabbler 18:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay I accept your wording. The point is made.SmokeyTheCat 15:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Translation

The opening sentence seems odd. Do the Spanish really refer to the _battle_ as Cabo Trafalgar? If the point is only that they refer to the cape in Spanish, it seems a thing to be removed from -- or clarified on -- the battle's page.Czrisher 20:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

In Spanish this battle is known as The Battle of Trafalgar ("Batalla de Trafalgar"), "cabo Trafalgar" is the geographical place, the cape. But you can find the term "La Batalla del cabo de Trafalgar" in Spanish History books, studies and encyclopedias.--Ruben 11:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Trafalgar pan.JPG

Image:Trafalgar pan.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last survivors of Trafalgar

Since this is arguably one of the most famous/pivotal naval battles in history, would it be too out of line to include a couple of sentences on the last-surviving combatants of the battle on each side? Granted, I have only one source for this; Noel Kynaston Gaskell who wrote quite a bit on the Napoleonic Wars in the early 20th Century.

For what it's worth the last Briton was Colonel James Fynmore, Royal Marines who died at Peckham on 15 April, 1887 aged 93. He had served on Africa where his father commanded the Marine detachment. The last Frenchman was Louis André Manuel Cartigny who died at Hyères on 21 March, 1892 aged 100. The last Spaniard was Gaspar Costela Vasquez, who died aged 104 in April, 1892 at San Fernando, Cadiz.

Kynaston pointed this out to The Times on Trafalgar Day, 1915, and ended by writing "It is not improbable, therefore, that one or two verterans of the Great War of today may survive till the 21st Century." I do apologise if this has been brought up before. --Harlsbottom (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Casualties

The casualties for the British are ridiculously low. Are you sure the number is bias? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.204.222 (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2008

It is not bias, the British casualties are well documented as none of the ships were lost or destroyed and the crew muster lists survive with notation of the fate of each individual. The French and Spanish casualties are potentially less accurate as some of their ships and log books were destroyed. However, it was British practice to fire at close range and rapidly the hulls of the enemy ships, causing many more casualties than the French practice of firing at longer range into the rigging to disable the enemy and allow it to be captured. For additional details of this difference in tactics you could read N.A.M. Rodger "The Command of the Ocean" pages 540-541. Dabbler (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)