Home
Portal
Search
Latest images
Register
Log in
Thanks for the tip. I was able to pick up the first book for US$4 on amazon.
5 posters
18th Century Warship remains
Deacon- Emperor
- Number of posts : 1859
Age : 60
Location : Portland OR, USA
Reputation : 44
Registration date : 2010-04-13
Thanks for the tip. I was able to pick up the first book for US$4 on amazon.
Guest- Guest
Thanks Stuart, it sounds an interesting book on the Spanish navy. I’m not sure quite how Spain could follow a middle way on design without adopting either the English or French tactical positions. In a battle you either fight from windward (preferred by the English) or from leeward (preferred by the French) and build ships to take advantage of the tactics you intend to use, so if the Spanish did indeed find a compromise over this it would be interesting to find out what it is.
By the time of Napoleon, the Spanish navy was more a liability to the French than a help as each time a ship put to sea it was easily captured by the English.
I think you were a little unkind about the Four Days Battle in 1666. Louis had not betrayed his Dutch allies and the French fleet did not take part in the battle. Most of the French fleet was in the Mediterranean fighting the Barbary Corsairs, defending both French and UDP shipping. The most successful French admiral at the time was Chevalier Paul, a former officer of the navy of the Knights of St.John, who unfortunately lacked the social rank to impress his fellow officers which was a major disadvantage at the time. So it was no the case that Louis didn’t want to risk his fleet: UDP didn’t need French help to defeat the English. There is also the suggestion from some sources that Louis was trying to act as peacemaker between England and UDP. From a purely naval viewpoint he was reluctant to see William too dominant, but also didn’t want to see William weak relative to the Spanish Netherlands as there was always the risk that Spain would launch an attack against UDP to regain the lands it lost in 1581. The optimal result from the French perspective was to keep England and UDP in a stand-off. In this, of course, he completely failed, with the Dutch scoring heavy victories over the English, the famous Raid on the Medway, and the collapse of English morale.
You are right that the French fleet at the time was very weak. Much of Richelieu’s fleet had been left to rot during the years of the Fronde and Colbert had only just started the rebuilding, constructing new ports and shipyards, factories and training crews/officers. One of the best books on the French Navy is A History of the French Navy by E.H.Jenkins ISBN 0356-04196-4 which is hard to find, but draws on several French sources which have not been translated into English and are widely ignored by non-French historians.
Things were not much better for the French Navy in the 3rd Anglo-Dutch War where they were allied with the English. At the Battle of Solebay the French contingent of the joint Anglo-French fleet was heavily criticised by English captains for not engaging the Dutch fleet aggressively enough. This battle demonstrates the difference in tactics and design of ships. The English expected the French to fight as they did, whereas the French were content to cripple rather than destroy the Dutch fleet thereby preventing another raid on the Medway. The same happened a year later at the Battle of Schooneveld which was a further setback for Anglo-French naval co-operation. Solebay was not a bad result given the Anglo-French fleets were surprised by the appearance of the Dutch and deployed in different formations to meet the challenge. It is perhaps worth being reminded that during this period England’s main enemy was UDP, not France, and so it is not inevitable that France and England should always be on opposite sides.
By the time of Napoleon, the Spanish navy was more a liability to the French than a help as each time a ship put to sea it was easily captured by the English.
I think you were a little unkind about the Four Days Battle in 1666. Louis had not betrayed his Dutch allies and the French fleet did not take part in the battle. Most of the French fleet was in the Mediterranean fighting the Barbary Corsairs, defending both French and UDP shipping. The most successful French admiral at the time was Chevalier Paul, a former officer of the navy of the Knights of St.John, who unfortunately lacked the social rank to impress his fellow officers which was a major disadvantage at the time. So it was no the case that Louis didn’t want to risk his fleet: UDP didn’t need French help to defeat the English. There is also the suggestion from some sources that Louis was trying to act as peacemaker between England and UDP. From a purely naval viewpoint he was reluctant to see William too dominant, but also didn’t want to see William weak relative to the Spanish Netherlands as there was always the risk that Spain would launch an attack against UDP to regain the lands it lost in 1581. The optimal result from the French perspective was to keep England and UDP in a stand-off. In this, of course, he completely failed, with the Dutch scoring heavy victories over the English, the famous Raid on the Medway, and the collapse of English morale.
You are right that the French fleet at the time was very weak. Much of Richelieu’s fleet had been left to rot during the years of the Fronde and Colbert had only just started the rebuilding, constructing new ports and shipyards, factories and training crews/officers. One of the best books on the French Navy is A History of the French Navy by E.H.Jenkins ISBN 0356-04196-4 which is hard to find, but draws on several French sources which have not been translated into English and are widely ignored by non-French historians.
Things were not much better for the French Navy in the 3rd Anglo-Dutch War where they were allied with the English. At the Battle of Solebay the French contingent of the joint Anglo-French fleet was heavily criticised by English captains for not engaging the Dutch fleet aggressively enough. This battle demonstrates the difference in tactics and design of ships. The English expected the French to fight as they did, whereas the French were content to cripple rather than destroy the Dutch fleet thereby preventing another raid on the Medway. The same happened a year later at the Battle of Schooneveld which was a further setback for Anglo-French naval co-operation. Solebay was not a bad result given the Anglo-French fleets were surprised by the appearance of the Dutch and deployed in different formations to meet the challenge. It is perhaps worth being reminded that during this period England’s main enemy was UDP, not France, and so it is not inevitable that France and England should always be on opposite sides.
J Flower- Emperor
- Number of posts : 1239
Age : 53
Location : Paderborn, Germany
Reputation : 17
Registration date : 2012-02-16
In hte first Anglo Dutch Wars both sides were still reliant on converting Merchantmen to fill the Battle Fleet, It was a problem for both sides they could either fight or Trade.
Dutch were also of a similar mind to the English of get in close, & fight they were handicapped by not being able to increase the size of there ships, in a similar way to the other Nations. Geographicall they were also at a disadvantage with regards to a war with England.
France also initially had the problem that it was first & foremost a land animal, It was able to build amazing ships, better than anyone else. The fleet was also able to expand to a point where for a short period it even acheived the Naval superiority that was required to launch it's attack on England. but indesision in High command stole the chance away from them.
English ships were normally built to stay at sea for long periods, most were expected to manage at least six months, there are like so many things in Ship design factors that do not match up, ships were required to be good sailers, Speed undersail, seaworthy, well provisioned, able to carry sufficent armament. Some of these have a direct impact on others.
another interesting development was the use of soft timber to build ships it was even admitted at the time that it was a stopgap measure, the ships lives were short, as wear & tear simply destroyes the timbers, Britain built a few Frigates in htis manner, Russia went so far as to Build SOL. They were not a great success.
Sweden also kept the Galley alive, along with Russia in hte Great Northern War both sides employed them in large numbers. Sweden crewed them with soldiers so that they took on an amphibious transport role, going so far as to developing the bow cannon that could be unloaded onto land to act as artillery support. Maybe an interesting experiment for the game?
Dutch were also of a similar mind to the English of get in close, & fight they were handicapped by not being able to increase the size of there ships, in a similar way to the other Nations. Geographicall they were also at a disadvantage with regards to a war with England.
France also initially had the problem that it was first & foremost a land animal, It was able to build amazing ships, better than anyone else. The fleet was also able to expand to a point where for a short period it even acheived the Naval superiority that was required to launch it's attack on England. but indesision in High command stole the chance away from them.
English ships were normally built to stay at sea for long periods, most were expected to manage at least six months, there are like so many things in Ship design factors that do not match up, ships were required to be good sailers, Speed undersail, seaworthy, well provisioned, able to carry sufficent armament. Some of these have a direct impact on others.
another interesting development was the use of soft timber to build ships it was even admitted at the time that it was a stopgap measure, the ships lives were short, as wear & tear simply destroyes the timbers, Britain built a few Frigates in htis manner, Russia went so far as to Build SOL. They were not a great success.
Sweden also kept the Galley alive, along with Russia in hte Great Northern War both sides employed them in large numbers. Sweden crewed them with soldiers so that they took on an amphibious transport role, going so far as to developing the bow cannon that could be unloaded onto land to act as artillery support. Maybe an interesting experiment for the game?
Stuart Bailey- Emperor of Europe
- Number of posts : 2568
Age : 61
Location : Somewhere East of Bristol & West of Bath
Reputation : 58
Registration date : 2012-01-29
Ref the C18 Bourbon Spanish Navy and how their designs compared to the in general long thin French design school - which gives greater speed and the short and fat English designs which favoured a sable gunnery platform and robustness - Spanish Ships tended to be Long like the French but also wider than a French design for the same class.
Basically Spanish ships esp if built in Havanna from hardwoods tended to be very good ships. Indeed the Royal Navy would sooner "buy in" Spanish prizes than French ones for their own use. The problem for the Bourbon Spanish Navy was not its ships but crewing them a problem actually made worse by building such large ships since these then needed very large crews. The Santa Ana class for instance had 850 men and 40 officers while the Santisma Trinidad had a crew of 1100.
Of the 1163 man crew of the Spanish Flag Ship at Trafalgar almost half were troops rather than trained sailors.
However what really wrecked Spanish Sea Power in the age of Sail was not its defeats at the hands of the English but the French Invasion of 1808-1814.
Turning to the 2nd Anglo-Dutch War the real danger for the English in this conflict and the thing which really messed up their planning was the 1662 mutual defence pact Louis had signed with the Dutch. Odd bedfellows a Catholic Monarch and a Protestant Republic the English knew the French Kings regretted the agreement almost before the ink was dry and his main objective was to bring the Dutch into a land war he was planning against the Spanish Netherlands. Charles II took pains to make sure the Dutch declared war first which gave Louis a pretext to evade his obligations by claiming that the Dutch were legally the aggressors.
Unfortunately, for English the Battle of Lowestoft 3 June 1665 while a clear English Victory did not end the war and Conrad van Beuningen the UDP envoy was given extra time to convince Louis that he should help his ally in 1666. Dodgy information about the French Fleets movements ressulted in Prince Rupert and a large part of the English Fleet going off on a Wild Goose Chase and missing the first three days of the 4 day battle a key reason for the English defeat 1-4 June 1666.
A fact proved in August when the English finally got better information on the French Fleet........still in Lisbon and proceeded to Engage the Dutch again this time with a full strength fleet battered them in the St James Day Fight and proceeded to raid the Vlie 9-10 August 1666 burning over 150 Dutch Merchant Ships.
Unfortunately, by then dodgy Stuart Finances not helped by the Great Plague and the Fire of London ment Charles was going bankrupt and unable to send out a fleet in 1667 had to make peace. He gambled and was proved correct that Louis invasion of Flanders would force a Dutch re-think and a reasonable peace (The Treaty of Breda July 21 1667). But before then England and its Navy suffered its greatest humiliation.........The Dutch Raid on the Medway which destroyed some of Charles II best ships laid up and unmanned because he could not pay to man and supply them.
Prior to peace with the Dutch Charles also came to a secret agreement with Louis that while they would remain at War (due to Louis treaty obligations) Louis would keep his fleet at home in 1667 and press the Dutch to make peace with England. In exchange Charles would recognize French domination of the southern Netherlands.
In the event the French Invasion (launched without a declaration of war) bogged down in sieges of Spanish Fortresses. Louis blamed the Dutch for his less than total victory and proceeded to Ally with Charles II against them for the 3rd Anglo-Dutch War. At sea the Dutch actually did better than in the first two wars fighting the combined Anglo-French Fleets to a draw in 4 great battles 1672-1673 but the French land invasion inflicted huge suffering in the UDP which brought down the Republican Govt of the De Witts and the restoration of the House of Orange. William of Orange seems to have held a real personal loathing for Louis ........who had after all attempted to wipe out his Country and its partly from Williams Propaganda and these later events that the story of Louis betrayal of the Dutch in the 2nd Anglo-Dutch War arises. Partly to cover up what Louis clearly considered to the the Dutch betrayal of their alliance in 1668 and ruining his attempt to take all Flanders.
Dutch evidence for what they considered Louis treacherous chicanery was provided by his letters to De Witt saying that Beauforts Fleet was on its way to join them when it was actually in Lisbon awaiting (the delayed) arrival of the Beauforts neice the Queen of Portugal who had to be protected from a irrate Spanish Fleet which due to a oddity of treaties could have blown a French Noblewoman know Queen of Portugal out of the water without starting a war.
Though to be Fair to the French Beaufort did try and join with the Dutch in the Sept of 1666 & lost the new 60 Gun Rubis when 7 missing French ships blundered into the White Squadron but it could have been a lot worse if Beaufort had not got De Ruyters message to turn back.
And from Louis point of view what looked to the Dutch as an out right lie was to Louis a simple security measure which actually helped them.
Louis having a very low opinion of Dutch security was not going to inform his ally were his fledgling fleet actually was since the English would probably find out as well.
Louis concern for the new French Fleet and its weakness in the 1660's was graphically shown to be correct the next year when Sir John Harman with 13 Ships found a small French Fleet 24 ships at Martinique and destroyed it with only two French Ships getting away.
It seems that Louis fleet was very weak in the 1650's & 1660s then improved to a remarkable extent in up to the 1690's after which it went into sharp decline starved of funds/recuits etc due to priority being given to the Army.
Guest- Guest
J Flower wrote:
Sweden also kept the Galley alive, along with Russia in hte Great Northern War both sides employed them in large numbers. Sweden crewed them with soldiers so that they took on an amphibious transport role, going so far as to developing the bow cannon that could be unloaded onto land to act as artillery support. Maybe an interesting experiment for the game?
...so, will the Prussian Yacht Club have a specialised gallery section soon?
Though I do find the use of galleys in the Baltic interesting, as well as the use of gunboats.
Stuart Bailey- Emperor of Europe
- Number of posts : 2568
Age : 61
Location : Somewhere East of Bristol & West of Bath
Reputation : 58
Registration date : 2012-01-29
Surely if its got oars it will have to be the Prussian Rowing Club?
Guest- Guest
Stuart Bailey wrote:Surely if its got oars it will have to be the Prussian Rowing Club?
Now that could liven up the boat race, couple of galleys..
Guest- Guest
Stuart Bailey wrote:William of Orange seems to have held a real personal loathing for Louis ... who had after all attempted to wipe out his Country and its partly from William's Propaganda and these later events that the story of Louis betrayal of the Dutch in the 2nd Anglo-Dutch War arises. Partly to cover up what Louis clearly considered to the the Dutch betrayal of their alliance in 1668 and ruining his attempt to take all Flanders. It seems that Louis fleet was very weak in the 1650s & 1660s then improved to a remarkable extent in up to the 1690s after which it went into sharp decline starved of funds/recruits etc due to priority being given to the Army.
Thank you Stuart for that entertaining summary. It is, as you recognise, largely based on William’s propaganda and you will not be surprised that the French view those same events rather differently. It is no secret that William and Louis hated each other, but as you recognise in the 2nd Anglo-Dutch War, UDP declared war on England which Louis was under no obligation to support. It was not in Louis’ interest to pick a fight with Charles II who was in the process of secretly converting to Catholicism and was friendly towards France. However, Louis did honour his obligation to support William by the actions in the Mediterranean. Protecting the Queen of Portugal from an irate Spanish fleet was a perfectly legitimate use of the French fleet which clearly took priority over previous orders.
In comparing the capability and performance of fleets of this period there are several factors which should be remembered. Ships were much smaller, so what is classed as a HFrg in LGDR would be a large lineship in 1640. France had to learn how to build larger and balanced ships and before Colbert was way behind in naval technology. This is why I have stressed so much in earlier posts the need to view French ship design not simply in terms of short/fat vs long/thin which is very over simplified. Spain certainly preferred larger, stronger ships, reflecting their earlier heritage of building galleons, but their design was not well balanced and that was their weakness. Adding more soldiers did not help the smooth running of their ships and they suffered from these basic problems long before Napoleon invaded. Given how the English preferred strength in the hull it is not surprising that they would use Spanish vessels made from tropical hardwood, but it was the strength which interested them rather than the overall design. France had no history of building such ships as the Spanish and the English had, so invested first in learning the principles of ship design, developing tactics and then designing ships accordingly to fit its philosophy of how ships could be used.
Richelieu’s navy was mainly comprised of galleys as it was based in the Mediterranean. Crews had to learn how to operate a sailing ship efficiently, which is very different from a galley. Officers had to stop squabbling over precedence and learn to work with their social inferiors. These lessons took a long time to sink in. When Mazarin had robbed France and was ousted by the Fronde, Richelieu’s navy had been reduced to 30 ships of which only 3 had more than 60 guns. The depots and arsenals were empty. Despite this in 1655 Vendôme supported by Chevalier Paul defeated 12 Spanish ships off Barcelona with 9 French ones. Unfortunately the French ships were so undersupplied they could not establish any kind of blockade or pursue the defeated Spaniards. Another lesson had to be learned!
By 1662 the fleet had been reduced to 20 ships most of which were beyond repair and 6 decrepit galleys. The naval budget of 7,000,000 livres had been reduced to 300,000 which was insufficient to maintain the harbours let alone arsenals and storehouses. It was Colbert who recognised that a navy was essential to protect France’s colonies and convinced Louis to resource it properly. So the fleet was rebuilt from scratch to the latest designs, new ports and factories were built to support that fleet so that by 1683 his navy was 117 SoL (though some of these were a little on the small side to be rated as such) and 30 galleys. That was a huge change in priorities and fleet composition and the French navy really came of age. Louis was heavily involved and had a miniature fleet on the Grand Canal at Versailles. It was Louis’ support which helped Colbert solve the differences between officers and impressed on all of them the need to follow orders. Just how much of a problem this was for the French officers can be seen in the orders given to Admiral d’Estrées in 1672 in preparation for the battle of Solebay. Most of the orders were concerned with which ship should salute other ships in the fleet rather than how they should be used. Despite this DuQuesne blamed d’Estrées for failing to signal correctly and both officers tried to cover up their inability to work together by blaming a new signalling book issued by the Duke of York for confusion. Louis was not impressed and disciplined the officers after the battle. Had DuQuesne pursued the retreating Dutch fleet then an inconclusive battle would have been a stunning Anglo-French victory.
The French did slowly learn and DuQuesne destroyed a Spanish-Dutch fleet at Palermo in 1676 which secured French supremacy in the Mediterrean until the end of the Franco-Dutch War. By 1690 and the Battle of Beachy Head, the French navy had reached its peak, defeating the Anglo-Dutch fleet which lost 11 SoL. No French ships were lost. France took control of the Channel from the English. The English Admiral Torrington who had advised against the battle was dismissed from the service.
The French held their superiority until the battles of Barfleur and La Hogue in 1692. At Barfleur 82 Anglo-Dutch SoL ambushed 44 French SoL. Despite being heavily outnumbered, the French fought off the combined fleet, but with a change in the weather were obliged to beach several of their ships at La Hogue to save the crews. The English claim La Hogue as a victory, but France disputes that suggestion: is it really a victory to set fire to beached ships? Within a year France had built new ships and had experienced crews to put on them. France claims Barfleur as a victory with some justification, though I tend to share the view of English historians that it was a strategic defeat as France didn't view victories merely in terms of the number of ships destroyed, but in whether the fleet achieved its objectives. In the case of Barfleur, clearly the French fleet failed to achieve its objectives! Both sides agreed though that the French showed superb courage, fighting ability and teamwork, demonstrating that their fleet was the best in the world at that date.
During the War of the Spanish Succession, Stuart is right that Louis’ priorities were for the army rather than the navy. This was partly because he thought he need not maintain the navy at its previous levels because ship numbers would be boosted by the allied Spanish fleet. He appointed Jérome Pontchartrain to succeed his father as Minister of Marine who was very unpopular in the service and misled Louis over the state of the Spanish fleet which by 1699 had almost ceased to exist. Consequently French resources were redirected towards commerce raiding and new tactics developed for this purpose rather than concentrating on large battle fleets. The French navy did suffer at Vigo when 25 Anglo-Dutch SoL ambushed a convoy protected by 15 French SoL. They destroyed the convoy, but failed to capture the treasure as most of it had already been offloaded. In terms of number of ships lost this is clearly an English victory, but if we are being consistent, it was a strategic defeat. The French battlefleets spent the rest of the war protecting their own ports rather than fighting major actions. Meanwhile the Dunkirkers captured over 1,600 English and Dutch ships with cargoes valued at over £30,000,000. That in itself is a major achievement which demonstrates the superior design and handling of French ships, their tactics and ability of officers and crews. So by 1715 the French navy was hardly a spent force and the naval tradition of France had been well founded.
In comparing the capability and performance of fleets of this period there are several factors which should be remembered. Ships were much smaller, so what is classed as a HFrg in LGDR would be a large lineship in 1640. France had to learn how to build larger and balanced ships and before Colbert was way behind in naval technology. This is why I have stressed so much in earlier posts the need to view French ship design not simply in terms of short/fat vs long/thin which is very over simplified. Spain certainly preferred larger, stronger ships, reflecting their earlier heritage of building galleons, but their design was not well balanced and that was their weakness. Adding more soldiers did not help the smooth running of their ships and they suffered from these basic problems long before Napoleon invaded. Given how the English preferred strength in the hull it is not surprising that they would use Spanish vessels made from tropical hardwood, but it was the strength which interested them rather than the overall design. France had no history of building such ships as the Spanish and the English had, so invested first in learning the principles of ship design, developing tactics and then designing ships accordingly to fit its philosophy of how ships could be used.
Richelieu’s navy was mainly comprised of galleys as it was based in the Mediterranean. Crews had to learn how to operate a sailing ship efficiently, which is very different from a galley. Officers had to stop squabbling over precedence and learn to work with their social inferiors. These lessons took a long time to sink in. When Mazarin had robbed France and was ousted by the Fronde, Richelieu’s navy had been reduced to 30 ships of which only 3 had more than 60 guns. The depots and arsenals were empty. Despite this in 1655 Vendôme supported by Chevalier Paul defeated 12 Spanish ships off Barcelona with 9 French ones. Unfortunately the French ships were so undersupplied they could not establish any kind of blockade or pursue the defeated Spaniards. Another lesson had to be learned!
By 1662 the fleet had been reduced to 20 ships most of which were beyond repair and 6 decrepit galleys. The naval budget of 7,000,000 livres had been reduced to 300,000 which was insufficient to maintain the harbours let alone arsenals and storehouses. It was Colbert who recognised that a navy was essential to protect France’s colonies and convinced Louis to resource it properly. So the fleet was rebuilt from scratch to the latest designs, new ports and factories were built to support that fleet so that by 1683 his navy was 117 SoL (though some of these were a little on the small side to be rated as such) and 30 galleys. That was a huge change in priorities and fleet composition and the French navy really came of age. Louis was heavily involved and had a miniature fleet on the Grand Canal at Versailles. It was Louis’ support which helped Colbert solve the differences between officers and impressed on all of them the need to follow orders. Just how much of a problem this was for the French officers can be seen in the orders given to Admiral d’Estrées in 1672 in preparation for the battle of Solebay. Most of the orders were concerned with which ship should salute other ships in the fleet rather than how they should be used. Despite this DuQuesne blamed d’Estrées for failing to signal correctly and both officers tried to cover up their inability to work together by blaming a new signalling book issued by the Duke of York for confusion. Louis was not impressed and disciplined the officers after the battle. Had DuQuesne pursued the retreating Dutch fleet then an inconclusive battle would have been a stunning Anglo-French victory.
The French did slowly learn and DuQuesne destroyed a Spanish-Dutch fleet at Palermo in 1676 which secured French supremacy in the Mediterrean until the end of the Franco-Dutch War. By 1690 and the Battle of Beachy Head, the French navy had reached its peak, defeating the Anglo-Dutch fleet which lost 11 SoL. No French ships were lost. France took control of the Channel from the English. The English Admiral Torrington who had advised against the battle was dismissed from the service.
The French held their superiority until the battles of Barfleur and La Hogue in 1692. At Barfleur 82 Anglo-Dutch SoL ambushed 44 French SoL. Despite being heavily outnumbered, the French fought off the combined fleet, but with a change in the weather were obliged to beach several of their ships at La Hogue to save the crews. The English claim La Hogue as a victory, but France disputes that suggestion: is it really a victory to set fire to beached ships? Within a year France had built new ships and had experienced crews to put on them. France claims Barfleur as a victory with some justification, though I tend to share the view of English historians that it was a strategic defeat as France didn't view victories merely in terms of the number of ships destroyed, but in whether the fleet achieved its objectives. In the case of Barfleur, clearly the French fleet failed to achieve its objectives! Both sides agreed though that the French showed superb courage, fighting ability and teamwork, demonstrating that their fleet was the best in the world at that date.
During the War of the Spanish Succession, Stuart is right that Louis’ priorities were for the army rather than the navy. This was partly because he thought he need not maintain the navy at its previous levels because ship numbers would be boosted by the allied Spanish fleet. He appointed Jérome Pontchartrain to succeed his father as Minister of Marine who was very unpopular in the service and misled Louis over the state of the Spanish fleet which by 1699 had almost ceased to exist. Consequently French resources were redirected towards commerce raiding and new tactics developed for this purpose rather than concentrating on large battle fleets. The French navy did suffer at Vigo when 25 Anglo-Dutch SoL ambushed a convoy protected by 15 French SoL. They destroyed the convoy, but failed to capture the treasure as most of it had already been offloaded. In terms of number of ships lost this is clearly an English victory, but if we are being consistent, it was a strategic defeat. The French battlefleets spent the rest of the war protecting their own ports rather than fighting major actions. Meanwhile the Dunkirkers captured over 1,600 English and Dutch ships with cargoes valued at over £30,000,000. That in itself is a major achievement which demonstrates the superior design and handling of French ships, their tactics and ability of officers and crews. So by 1715 the French navy was hardly a spent force and the naval tradition of France had been well founded.
J Flower- Emperor
- Number of posts : 1239
Age : 53
Location : Paderborn, Germany
Reputation : 17
Registration date : 2012-02-16
Galleys & Gun Boats remained in vouge in the Med & Baltic due the prevaling conditions there, one problem was however the crewing, in the Med it was solved by some states with the use of slaves as rowers. In the Baltic Sweden actually Split it's Navy into two, having need for an inner Navy, mainly to deal with the logistical train. When the ships laid up for the night then a camp was constructed to house the crews. Another problem for Galley crews is they are more exposed to the weather.
In Reply to Jason, the Prussian yacht club is at the cutting edge of naval technology, once we solve the problem of staying afloat then........
In Reply to Jason, the Prussian yacht club is at the cutting edge of naval technology, once we solve the problem of staying afloat then........
Stuart Bailey- Emperor of Europe
- Number of posts : 2568
Age : 61
Location : Somewhere East of Bristol & West of Bath
Reputation : 58
Registration date : 2012-01-29
My experience of sailing (well motor sailing) in the Baltic is that normal conditions is that its as flat as a pan cake with no wind.
Perhaps this is why the Swedes continued to row if they wanted to get anywhere in a hurry and the Prussians can not cope with strange things like waves and strong winds once they get out of their Baltic boating lake?
The Med is another enclosed Sea but seems to have rather more wind than the Baltic apart from the fact that Galleys could be beached and so land troops and cannon on hostile shores a lot easier than sailing ships I assume the survival of the Galley was linked to the fact that the Med Fleets had always used Galleys.
A refection of this in Glory du Roi is that many fleets start with Galleys. Players do not raise any more but keep existing ones often as glorified tugs/supply ships for those really annoying months of "calm" which always seem to arrive at the same time as you army/fleet needs to be resupplied.
Final advantage if people really annoy you sending them to the galleys is an acceptable alternative to hanging them. If Kingmakers Prussian hero really messes up and gets sent to the Prussian Rowing Club I really hope he has the ability to swim.
Perhaps this is why the Swedes continued to row if they wanted to get anywhere in a hurry and the Prussians can not cope with strange things like waves and strong winds once they get out of their Baltic boating lake?
The Med is another enclosed Sea but seems to have rather more wind than the Baltic apart from the fact that Galleys could be beached and so land troops and cannon on hostile shores a lot easier than sailing ships I assume the survival of the Galley was linked to the fact that the Med Fleets had always used Galleys.
A refection of this in Glory du Roi is that many fleets start with Galleys. Players do not raise any more but keep existing ones often as glorified tugs/supply ships for those really annoying months of "calm" which always seem to arrive at the same time as you army/fleet needs to be resupplied.
Final advantage if people really annoy you sending them to the galleys is an acceptable alternative to hanging them. If Kingmakers Prussian hero really messes up and gets sent to the Prussian Rowing Club I really hope he has the ability to swim.
Stuart Bailey- Emperor of Europe
- Number of posts : 2568
Age : 61
Location : Somewhere East of Bristol & West of Bath
Reputation : 58
Registration date : 2012-01-29
Reading accounts of the battles of the Anglo-Dutch naval wars and the later naval battles of the War of the League of Augsburgs and the war of the Spanish Succession what I note is how evenly matched the sides were unlike latter wain the Napoleonic period when the English Navy was markedly better than its French and Spanish rivals.
In fights between Fleets what often matters is not the speed and ability to manover of the best ships but that of the slowest sailors and all fleets included numerious ex prizes and ships from other sources.
Basically, in our period the side which showed up with the most ships/guns won or at least did not suffer too badly. Basically the English defeated the Dutch when they had more guns ie The Gabbard, Lowestoft and lost when they divided their fleet before the 4 day battle.
At Beachy Head Admiral de Tourville with 75 Ships defeated Torrington's Anglo-Dutch Fleet with 59. While at Barfleur De Tourville only had 44 Men of War and 38 Fireboats (3,240 Guns)..........the Toulon fleets failed to join him due to unfavourable winds..........and got battered by Torrington with 99 Men of War & 38 fireboats (6,736 guns).
What is noticeable about many of these battles is that Admirals gave battle when badly outnumbered either to protect a convoy or because of the need to uphold their and their Kings honour would not allow them to cut and run. Certainly this is very true of Albemarle at the 4 day battle, Blake at Dungeness, Torrington and Tourville at Barfleur were otherwise prudent Admirals threw themselves at a clearly superior foe mainly on a point of honour.
The only commander of the period who (in the 3 Anglo Dutch War ....not earlier) who seems to have been able to hit a superior foe by surprize, do real damage and then break off before his fleet suffered crippling damage being the great Dutch Admiral Du Ruyter. French & English Admirals may have been able to do this as well but they lacked the political and public faith the Dutch had in Du Ruyter and would have probably got hammered with charges of Cowardice etc.
A big advantage to the French and huge disadvantage to the Dutch (less so the English but still noticeable) was that the French did not really need their overseas trade - unless it was a really long war and they exhusted supplies of naval material from the Baltic - while the Dutch and English Fleets always had to look to protect important convoys. Which could leave the main fleets stripped of key units for example before Beachy Head.
Failure to protect important convoys could also be a disaster ie June 27-28 1693 De Tourville hits the Dutch Smyra Convoy defeats the Rooke Escorts and takes nearly 100 out of 400 Merchantmen.
However while this made the Navy vital to the Anglo-Dutch for Louis it was clearly of senondary importance. After Beachy Head he ignored recommendations to exploit the victory either by an invasion of Ireland or by pressing for control of the Channel in favour of operations in Savoy, Spain and Flanders - while the English & Dutch Navies frantically reequiped after Beachy Head. Louis, Verban, 100,000 French Troops were taking Mons & Namur watched by most of the French Court.
In the War of the Spanish Succession it was even worse after Naval Battles at Malaga (which secured the Capture of Gibraltar by English Marines lead by Prince George of Hesse Darmstadt) and Marbella the French gave up command of the Sea to the Anglo-Dutch & turned to Commerce raiding. The neglected main French Fleet blockaded in Toulon by Shovell was finally scuttled to prevent capture. In the event Marshal Tesse arrived with veterans of Almanza and saved the great French Naval Base........greatly helped by the Duke of Savoy's refusal to co-operate with Eugene.......so the French Navy rather shot itself in the foot.
One really has to wonder about the Duke of Savoy as well a man who's diplomacy was so slippery he makes Louis XiV, William of Orange, The Elector of Bavaria and even RJC look like like boreing and worthy citizens. Surely Jason should give Savoy a try?
In fights between Fleets what often matters is not the speed and ability to manover of the best ships but that of the slowest sailors and all fleets included numerious ex prizes and ships from other sources.
Basically, in our period the side which showed up with the most ships/guns won or at least did not suffer too badly. Basically the English defeated the Dutch when they had more guns ie The Gabbard, Lowestoft and lost when they divided their fleet before the 4 day battle.
At Beachy Head Admiral de Tourville with 75 Ships defeated Torrington's Anglo-Dutch Fleet with 59. While at Barfleur De Tourville only had 44 Men of War and 38 Fireboats (3,240 Guns)..........the Toulon fleets failed to join him due to unfavourable winds..........and got battered by Torrington with 99 Men of War & 38 fireboats (6,736 guns).
What is noticeable about many of these battles is that Admirals gave battle when badly outnumbered either to protect a convoy or because of the need to uphold their and their Kings honour would not allow them to cut and run. Certainly this is very true of Albemarle at the 4 day battle, Blake at Dungeness, Torrington and Tourville at Barfleur were otherwise prudent Admirals threw themselves at a clearly superior foe mainly on a point of honour.
The only commander of the period who (in the 3 Anglo Dutch War ....not earlier) who seems to have been able to hit a superior foe by surprize, do real damage and then break off before his fleet suffered crippling damage being the great Dutch Admiral Du Ruyter. French & English Admirals may have been able to do this as well but they lacked the political and public faith the Dutch had in Du Ruyter and would have probably got hammered with charges of Cowardice etc.
A big advantage to the French and huge disadvantage to the Dutch (less so the English but still noticeable) was that the French did not really need their overseas trade - unless it was a really long war and they exhusted supplies of naval material from the Baltic - while the Dutch and English Fleets always had to look to protect important convoys. Which could leave the main fleets stripped of key units for example before Beachy Head.
Failure to protect important convoys could also be a disaster ie June 27-28 1693 De Tourville hits the Dutch Smyra Convoy defeats the Rooke Escorts and takes nearly 100 out of 400 Merchantmen.
However while this made the Navy vital to the Anglo-Dutch for Louis it was clearly of senondary importance. After Beachy Head he ignored recommendations to exploit the victory either by an invasion of Ireland or by pressing for control of the Channel in favour of operations in Savoy, Spain and Flanders - while the English & Dutch Navies frantically reequiped after Beachy Head. Louis, Verban, 100,000 French Troops were taking Mons & Namur watched by most of the French Court.
In the War of the Spanish Succession it was even worse after Naval Battles at Malaga (which secured the Capture of Gibraltar by English Marines lead by Prince George of Hesse Darmstadt) and Marbella the French gave up command of the Sea to the Anglo-Dutch & turned to Commerce raiding. The neglected main French Fleet blockaded in Toulon by Shovell was finally scuttled to prevent capture. In the event Marshal Tesse arrived with veterans of Almanza and saved the great French Naval Base........greatly helped by the Duke of Savoy's refusal to co-operate with Eugene.......so the French Navy rather shot itself in the foot.
One really has to wonder about the Duke of Savoy as well a man who's diplomacy was so slippery he makes Louis XiV, William of Orange, The Elector of Bavaria and even RJC look like like boreing and worthy citizens. Surely Jason should give Savoy a try?
Guest- Guest
Thanks Stuart, interesting point on the Baltic/Med sailing conditions...though I like building fleets in-game, I'm afraid I'm a bit like Nelson in real life, prone to seasickness
*off to build some rowing clubs*
*off to build some rowing clubs*
Stuart Bailey wrote:My experience of sailing (well motor sailing) in the Baltic is that normal conditions is that its as flat as a pan cake with no wind.
Perhaps this is why the Swedes continued to row if they wanted to get anywhere in a hurry and the Prussians can not cope with strange things like waves and strong winds once they get out of their Baltic boating lake?
The Med is another enclosed Sea but seems to have rather more wind than the Baltic apart from the fact that Galleys could be beached and so land troops and cannon on hostile shores a lot easier than sailing ships I assume the survival of the Galley was linked to the fact that the Med Fleets had always used Galleys.
A refection of this in Glory du Roi is that many fleets start with Galleys. Players do not raise any more but keep existing ones often as glorified tugs/supply ships for those really annoying months of "calm" which always seem to arrive at the same time as you army/fleet needs to be resupplied.
Final advantage if people really annoy you sending them to the galleys is an acceptable alternative to hanging them. If Kingmakers Prussian hero really messes up and gets sent to the Prussian Rowing Club I really hope he has the ability to swim.
J Flower- Emperor
- Number of posts : 1239
Age : 53
Location : Paderborn, Germany
Reputation : 17
Registration date : 2012-02-16
Jason was that a rowing club or a rowing tub, I sometimes have a job to tell the difference. Probably why my Naval assets do so badly. I upgunned a batch of Corvettes. As soon as they left the Baltic Sound they sank in a storm.
Galleys are Cheaper & quicker to build, historically they declined in nubers towards the end of the C18th, so Stuarts observation htat players don't build them & let numbers dwindle is represenative of Historical fact.
Sweden & Russia did however buck the trend some what at least historically, with large numbers emplyed in The Great northern War.
Another uses for Galleys & Gun boats are with the Customs & Revenue to keep down smuggling, also to guard ports & harbours.
They are still useful, maybe just a little neglected as they are not as fashionable as the big sailing ships.
Galleys are Cheaper & quicker to build, historically they declined in nubers towards the end of the C18th, so Stuarts observation htat players don't build them & let numbers dwindle is represenative of Historical fact.
Sweden & Russia did however buck the trend some what at least historically, with large numbers emplyed in The Great northern War.
Another uses for Galleys & Gun boats are with the Customs & Revenue to keep down smuggling, also to guard ports & harbours.
They are still useful, maybe just a little neglected as they are not as fashionable as the big sailing ships.
Guest- Guest
I think knowing my fleets, tubs is more appropriate...unless of course it is a Chinese fleet in which case it is "invincible and all-powerful"
I was reading the wikipedia article on galleys, I don't know how accurate it is but it says the Russians used galleys as late as the Crimean War, if so that is a bit surprisingly late (to me at least).
I was reading the wikipedia article on galleys, I don't know how accurate it is but it says the Russians used galleys as late as the Crimean War, if so that is a bit surprisingly late (to me at least).
J Flower- Emperor
- Number of posts : 1239
Age : 53
Location : Paderborn, Germany
Reputation : 17
Registration date : 2012-02-16
Not really to surprising when you think of the prevaling sea conditions in the region, plus the main threat up until then had been Turkey, so there was probably not much need to invest too heavily in a sailing ship fleet for the region.
Somhting that players tend to neglect is the use of gun boats & galleys as river craft, many of the inland waterways had not been tamed by man at this time rivers could be very wide, the Rhein was over a mile ( 1.6km) wide in places, making it a major obstacle. Galleys were used since Roman times to patrol it.
Somhting that players tend to neglect is the use of gun boats & galleys as river craft, many of the inland waterways had not been tamed by man at this time rivers could be very wide, the Rhein was over a mile ( 1.6km) wide in places, making it a major obstacle. Galleys were used since Roman times to patrol it.
Guest- Guest
That is a good point on rivers, it is something I do think we ought to do more. perhaps a few gunboats on the Rhine, slowing down a crossing?
J Flower- Emperor
- Number of posts : 1239
Age : 53
Location : Paderborn, Germany
Reputation : 17
Registration date : 2012-02-16
There is also hte posability of using the rivers to power mills, floating mills were also a feature of the era. I don't know if we would need a tech advance for that or maybe, it is a part of every day life.
Guest- Guest
I have to be honest, I had not heard of floating mills (or ship mills) before so had to go off and google them. An interesting design 
J Flower- Emperor
- Number of posts : 1239
Age : 53
Location : Paderborn, Germany
Reputation : 17
Registration date : 2012-02-16
I know hte Austrians tried to use them as a sort of fireship to break one of Napoleons Pontoon Bridges
J Flower- Emperor
- Number of posts : 1239
Age : 53
Location : Paderborn, Germany
Reputation : 17
Registration date : 2012-02-16
There is a working one in Minden Germany in an open air museum there, looks wike a cross between a paddle steamer & someoes garden shed. Apparently they went out of fashion when river traffic increased, as they were then seen as a hinderance to keeping the water ways free.
The advantage of them was they could run constantly, had agreat deal of power, & could be moved to where they were most needed at the time.
The advantage of them was they could run constantly, had agreat deal of power, & could be moved to where they were most needed at the time.
Guest- Guest
That does sound an interesting mill, I wonder by they never got used seemingly in England.
Thinking on gunboats-given the limited nations who use them, it took make naval developments by nations such as Russia and Prussia more two-way when seeking aid from France or England (you teach me how to build SoL/East Indiamen, I teach you to build gunboats).
Thinking on gunboats-given the limited nations who use them, it took make naval developments by nations such as Russia and Prussia more two-way when seeking aid from France or England (you teach me how to build SoL/East Indiamen, I teach you to build gunboats).
J Flower- Emperor
- Number of posts : 1239
Age : 53
Location : Paderborn, Germany
Reputation : 17
Registration date : 2012-02-16
I can fully understand Russia & the other Baltic states not wanting to share there boat building secrets. If they did everyone would be building gunboats.
Guest- Guest
True true but could be a useful bargaining tool to the other nations to do a deal to get them to teach nations like Russia how to build things like SoL, EIM, etc.
|
|
|