Talk:Battles of Barfleur and La Hogue

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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] Who won at Barfleur?

There seems to me to be an incompatibility between the description on the engagement on 27 May at Barfleur, which reads to me as if the French fleet got the upper hand, and the final sentence which says that the British celebrated two victories, presumably meaning they regarded Barfleur as a victory.

There only source given during the editing of this article was given by User:SpookyMulder. I think the reference may be to a book by E.H.Jenkins, which I will try and consult. Later edits have changed the sense considerably but are without indications of sources. My web search so far has mostly found mirrors of the WP article. Does anyone have access to some works by authoritative naval historians, French, British and Dutch, which could help resolve the issues and generally improve this article? Op. Deo 07:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have now added some details of the battle which I took from my notes from Captain Robinson's Log Book which I studied last summer at Kew. I have provisionally removed the previous details about the the first day's encounter as they do not appear to be consistent with Baker's account. However, I should emphasise that I have only looked at one captain's log. A thorough overview needs to be found from someone who has published thev results of a study of all the contemporary accounts. I will try and look at Jenkins's book later today. Op. Deo 10:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC) -- Edits completed, I conclude the French fought bravely but lost! -- Op. Deo 23:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


The battle of Barfleur (27-May) was a French victory:
Tourville with 44 ships of the line started the action (about 10am) and attacked(!!) the Anglo-Dutch of 96. With some luck, a lot of seamanship skill -and the "help" of Ashby(Blue/rear squadron)- Tourville almost crushed Russell squadron but ended with many of his ships heavily damaged.
After towing their ships 4 days, closely hunted and completely exhausted, La Hogue-Cherburg action was the climax-or anticlimax- of the drama.
Many English historians put this two actions together as if they were trying to hide the proper battle-Barfleur- with its aftermath-the attack over La Hogue and Cherburg. The figures of casualities=5000 anglo-dutch to 3000 french, and the ships sunk at Barfleur=2 to none(the Royal Sovereign was totally dismasted as the Soleil Royal), speaks quite clear.
By the way, the famous paintings showing the burning of the Soleil Royal forgot she had no mast, rigging or sails: but art is art and history a very different thing. (2 March 2006)Ruru
I would appreciate sources for the casulty numbers and damage mentioned by the anon editor. I could not fond anything about these details in the references quoted at the end of the article. -- Op. Deo 23:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


OK, here you have some sources -from public libraries encyclopedias:
-British sources:
-Campbell; Lives of the British Admirals; London; 1781
-Clowes, W. L.; The Royal Navy, vol II; London; 1897
-Lediard; The Naval History of England; London; 1731
-French sources:
-Crisenoy; La campagne navale de 1692; Paris; 1865
-Jourdouze; La bataille de La Hogue; Paris; 1899
-Lapeyrouse de Bonfils; Histoire de la Marine Française, vol I; Paris; 1845
-Ronciere,Ch. de la; Histoire de la Marine Française, vol VI; Paris; 1932
-Sue, E.; Histoire de la Marine Française, vol V
-Spanish sources:
-Mahan; Influencia del poder naval en la historia; El Ferrol; 1901.
Unfortunally many British historians try to hide heavy national defeats in a rather chauvinist way (the capture of the Revenge,1591;Beachy Head, 1690; Vernon´s disaster at Cartagena in 1741, etc) calling them tactical draws or similar absurdities making no favor to historical true accounts, a bad heritage from the Victorian age.
I have some battle plans with the movements and disposition of the fleets but I don´t Know how to put them in the web(I´m quite green with computers)
Ru ru (Ruben)
Ruben, Many thanks indeed for the references I shall go and read the 3 British sources you have given. I am not sure if I can find the French and Spanish books, and my French is somewhat rusty and Spanish non-existant! So I shall have to rely on you for an assessment of those sources. I am no expert on this matter but I have read several accounts, including the Captain's log of one of the a British ship's. ( I am not sure if reading a log book is counted as original research and therefore not allowed in Wikipedia -- but at least it is readily available to any one who visits the national Archives just as a book is available in a library!
I do agree that some books present jingoistic views of history. However, in this case I think there are quite reliable historians supporting the general tenor expressed in this article. I put particular trust in Prof N.A.M. Roger who is Professor of Naval History at Exeter University and used to be a research fellow at the National Maritime Museum. His book, the Command of the Ocean, which appears in the article's references is quite clear. He says, "At first the battle went quite well for Tourville in spite of the odds. His fleet was concentrated and was composed largely of big ships, it was handled with great tactical skill......The allied line was exended not to say scattered, and it was sometime before the van and the rear could work round to enveope the French. By evening however, Tourville's situation was desparate, his line was disintergrating, and it was high time to disengage."
If one accepts what this historian says, and then takes account of the damage inflicted on the French fleet (3 major ships had to be beached in a futile efort to save them etc etc, the I think the article correctly calls the combined Barfleur- la Hogue actions an allied victory. In my view Barfleur alone was an allied victory on account the of the damage done to the large French ships which had to be beached, thus exposing them to destruction. However, I am interested in following up your numbers about casulties etc. I think you have to balance the injuries done to sailors on both sides and the the damage to ships and of course the immediate consequences of each.
By the way, if it helps to evaluate Rodger's objectivity, he calls the Beachy Head battle as a French victory!
Your maps sound interesting and would definitely help the article. I have drawn in my note book a scketch map of the ships' dispositions and I could draw it up and put in the article. But if your maps are out of copyright and you are able to scan them, you can upload the file to WP using the menu item Upload File on the left of this page (or click it here). I can then help you insert the image on the page. Please get back to me on my talk page if you need help with this.
-- Op. Deo 08:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
According to the historical fiction book The_Confusion_(novel) the French attacked because they assumed most of the English were supporters of James II, and would quickly surrender/attack the Dutch. How much truth is there to this? (The book describes most of the War of the Grand Alliance pretty accurately despite infusing it with fictional aspects.) 203.218.87.44 12:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Inaccuracies : Re-write?

I’ve just re-read Philip Aubrey’s book on this battle (which seems to be the only comprehensive work on the subject; at least, it’s the only one listed in the British Library catalogue). It has a wealth of information, but there are a number of points where the article and the book are at variance, so I don’t feel I can just expand the article as it is. I think it needs to be largely re-written, so I wish to canvass opinions on this, as I’m mindful that a lot of people have already done work on it. I’d like to raise a number of problems that need resolving :-

  • Numbers : The article gives the French fleet as having 44 ships, and the Allies as 98; Mahan gives 99, which is the number I learned at school, and has a certain symmetry. Aubrey lists 82 Dutch and English ships of the line, ( 26 Dutch with 13 frigates, 6 dispatch vessels (yachts) and 7 fireships, 56 English with 6 scouts, 24 fireships and an unknown number of frigates; there isn’t any combination of these figures that makes 99) He also gives the French fleet as having 11 fireships and a number of frigates, “between 70 and 80 sail “. We need to be comparing like with like, so any ideas? And does anyone know how the total 99 (or 98, or 96) is arrived at?
  • Dates : The article gives the dates of the action as 27th May-3rd June, (17th -23rd May Old Style), then gives the date for Barfleur as the 28th with “Russell and Delaval...mopping up" at La Hogue on the 2nd; Mahan has the 29th. for Barfleur, and Aubrey (who uses Old Style throughout ) gives the 19th, with Delavals action at Cherbourg on 21st-22nd, and Rookes actions at La Hogue on the 23rd-24th. It is good practice for this period to give dates in new style with old style in parentheses, but it needs the right dates. Does anyone know the sources for the dates given?
  • Losses : The article talks of 2 allied ships lost; does anyone have a source for this? Mahan doesn’t mention any ; Aubrey is clear that no ships were lost from either line during the action . He says both sides reported an explosion during the night, but the French thought it was an English ship, while the English thought it was French; neither fleet reported a loss in the morning.
  • The course of the action :-
    • … “ The French sailed downwind onto the 11 ships of the Red squadron, and about 10 am engaged them in battle” Well, no. The Red had 27 ships in 3 divisions, and the White (Dutch) had 26; both engaged the French White and White-and-Blue squadrons from the beginning. Tourville tried to offset his lack of numbers by refusing his van, but Russell was able to counter by with-holding fire and allowing the fleets to close. Tourville was able to bring 2 divisions (6+4) against Russell’s (10) to achieve parity; elsewhere his other 5 divisions were all outnumbered.
    • …“eventually the starboard wing under Ashby managed to get to windward…”; Both Blue squadrons remained uncommitted though most of the action; Ashby didn’t engage until 7pm (8 hours after the battle started). The tactical initiative was taken by Shovell (Russells RA), who broke the French line, about 1pm, to double the fire on Tourvilles Blue-and-White.
    • …The article also refers to the Monmouth at 2 points; Monmouth was with Ashby, so was hardly engaged for most of the action. It seems odd to single this particular ship out for special mention.
  • Victory? : On this subject the article is POV on the performance of the French; they “fought with great bravery…and inflicted losses…”: Didn’t the allies do the same? It concludes that Barfleur was a tactically an “impressive French victory”: Does anyone have a source for that ? Surely Barfleur was at best indecisive, whilst Cherbourg and La Hogue were allied victories.


  • Lists : I suggest the arrangement of the list of ships needs changing; I have a list of the 80 odd allied ships, but in this format it would take up pages and pages. I would suggest the format used for some other actions of the period, such as for Suffrens actions in the Indian Ocean. Also, I’d be inclined to do separate lists for each action, as not all the ships from either fleet were engaged at Cherbourg or La Hogue.

Comments? Xyl 54 11:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Your comments are very helpful, and I very much hope you will work on improving the article. I was not aware of Aubrey's book when I did some editing a year ago. I mainly used Rodgers and to get something of a French perspective I used Jenkins. It did appear to me wrong what some editors here claim i.e. that the French won Barfleur and I did not find anything to confirm that in the books I consulted. Undoubtedly the French bravely attacked a portion of a superior force. The Allies took time to make there numbers effective and the tide and weather intervened to end the initial Barfleur action. Some editors claim this to be a French tactical victory, but my reading of the authors is that they tried to flee and where only partially successul suffering signicant losses at La Hogue and at other places where damaged vessels were beached. I was responsible for adding the information about the Monmouth, which I happened to have some prior notes from her log, but I agree this is rather peripheral, although it did provide me with some information to add to the rather brief accounts in the books which I had read. I dont have the detailed noted I made from the books to hand at present. Why dont you go ahead and introduce material from Aubrey. Op. Deo 20:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks; I finally got the re-write finished: I hope it's to everyones liking. I also read Jenkins account of the action, which explains some of the things in the article; i should say something about sources, but I'll do it separately.Xyl 54 13:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-Write; Sources

I've just done the re-write of this article; as some things are different I thought I'd better say something about that. The main source I've used is Philip Aubreys book; it differs from Jenkins account, which the original article relied on, but I've prefered Aubrey, for the following reasons.
1) Aubreys book is specific to this subject, while Jenkins, Roger, and Mahan are general works, without seeking to be so specific.
2) Aubrey lists the contemporary accounts, one English, one French, as primary sources; other books on the subject are more second-hand. Jenkins doesn't include even the french account as a source, while Aubrey listed Jenkins and Mahan in his bibliography.
3) Some of the discrepancies are due to lack of detail; for instance, Jenkins credits Ashby with breaking the french line, while Aubrey says it was Shovell, with Ashby not joining the action till the end. The greater detail is that Shovell was joined by Carter, Ashby's vice-admiral. So the Blue squadron was involved in breaking the line, but Ashby himself wasn't.
4)Jenkins gives allied losses as 2 ships; Aubrey says there were none. This is a product of using the French estimate of allied losses, rather than the actual ship lists. As a counter-example,the English estimate of French losses after Barfleur, based on intelligence from french captives, and the allied reports, was 5 ships lost, 4 being burned and one, Gabarets flagship, blown up. Aubrey reports this, together with the lists that show, in fact, none of the ships from either line were lost.
5)I had too much detail to fit comfortably into one article, so I've split it into an overview (this), and subsidiary articles on the various actions.
I hope people find this useful. Xyl 54 14:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ships Involved

I found the following changes to details of some of the Dutch ships of Almondes squadron in the Ship list: They may well be correct, but I’ve changed them back as they were un-sourced (so they can’t be checked) and anonymous ( so they can’t be discussed ).
The names in the original version were as in the sources quoted; if there is a better source, then fine, list it and change them back ( I’m trying not to be precious about this ), but that would be a better way to proceed, as at the moment it looks like the changes were on a whim.
Original : changed to :-
Medenblick 50 to Medemblick 64
Princes 92 to Prinses Maria 92
Veluw 64 to Veluwe 64
Maegt van Doort 64 to Maagd van Doordrecht 64
Captaen Generael 84 to Admiraal Generaal 84
Zeven Provincien 76 to Zeven Provincien 86
All returned to original.
Can I also ask that changes be made under a username, then things can be discussed directly, without creating a lot of work.Xyl 54 07:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict name change

The conflict name has been changed from War of the Grand Aliance to Nine years War. There should be a discussion about this here; if no-one can come up with an explanation I will change it back. Xyl 54 (talk) 09:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, done; no case for change. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)