Fighting at Sea in the Eighteenth Century

Just wondering if anyone has read this book and whether it is worth getting.

https://www.abebooks.co.uk/products/isbn/9781843833673?cm_sp=bdp-_-ISBN13-_-PLP

Russian navy needs help not to sink from foreign mariners but the Tsar only wants the best

The most useful and interesting book I have found on this topic is "Naval Warfare in the Age of Sail - The Evolution of Fighting Tactics 1650-1815" by Brian Tunstall ISBN 0-7858-1426-4, published in 1990.

https://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=30308531345&searchurl=kn%3Dnaval%2Bwarfare%2Btunstall%26sortby%3D17&cm_sp=snippet-_-srp1-_-title3

It is very comprehensive and is really divided into 3 parts:
1. the development of tactics/signals and how tactics became a science (c.1650-1750).
2. the 7 Year's War through to American Independence where new systems were tested
3. Napoleonic warfare

The book you refer to was written in 2008 based on Willis' PhD thesis. The summary is "Our understanding of warfare at sea in the eighteenth century has always been divorced from the practical realities of fighting at sea under sail; our knowledge of tactics is largely based upon the ideas of contemporary theorists [rather than practitioners] who knew little of the realities of sailing warfare, and our knowledge of command is similarly flawed. In this book the author presents new evidence from contemporary sources that overturns many old assumptions and introduces a host of new ideas. In a series of thematic chapters, following the rough chronology of a sea fight from initial contact to damage repair, the author offers a dramatic interpretation of fighting at sea in the eighteenth century, and explains in greater depth than ever before how and why sea battles (including Trafalgar) were won and lost in the great Age of Sail. He explains in detail how two ships or fleets identified each other to be enemies; how and why they manoeuvred for battle; how a commander communicated his ideas, and how and why his subordinates acted in the way that they did. SAM WILLIS has lectured at Bristol University and at the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich. He is also the author of Fighting Ships, 1750-1850(Quercus)."

It slightly concerns me that the first sentence of the summary seems to ignore Tunstall's book which is very practical and well researched! Willis' other books tend to concentrate more on the later (Napoleonic) period than the early development (which to me is more interesting and more relevant to LGDR), so it may not be quite so useful as Tunstall.

It might also depend on whether you like his style: Willis also makes historical TV series which aren't really to my taste. One which was on recently was Britain's Outlaws: Highwaymen, Pirates and Rogues which I found was a bit disappointing: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06qn3lr Of course allowance may have to be made for BBC editorial oversight, but I do sometimes wonder what a future historian would select from 2019 as representative of the time we live in - and how we might view their choice?

Thanks Papa, much appreciated. Think I'll try Tunstall and go from there.

Part of me wonders which interpretation/s Richard uses for TGOK, whenever I read something. I was lucky enough to study ancient and medieval history at A level and uni and TGOK is the main way I encourage myself to read around 18th Century.

You and I have similar wonderings around how history will remember our contemporary history.

No problem, Marshall.

Another, possibly cheaper, option could be The Line of Battle: The Sailing Warship 1650-1840 by Robert Gardiner ISBN 0-85177-954-9, issued as part of the Conway's History of the Ship series. Originally written in 1992, a cheaper paperback came out in 2004. For this reason it will probably be the cheaper and more easily found of the 3.

I use this with Tunstall because it approaches the same material in a slightly different way.

Gardiner uses smaller self-contained chapters and looks at the development of the main different types of ship in the period, before then moving on to more detailed analysis of component parts. His 'ship' chapters are:
1. The Ship of the Line
2. The Frigate
3. Sloop of War, Corvette and Brig
4. The Fore and Aft-rigged Warship
5. Fireships and Bomb Vessels
6. The Oared Warship
7. Support Craft

He then looks specifically at:
8. Design and Construction
9. Rigs and Rigging
10. Ship's Fittings
11. Guns and Gunnery
12. Ship Decoration
13. Seamanship
14. Naval Tactics

Interestingly in his bibliography he only cites Tunstall in the 'Naval Tactics' section which he describes as "A monumental survey (even edited to half its manuscript length) based almost entirely on study of primary sources - fighting instructions, signal books and logs. Regarded by Tunstall as the completion of Corbett's work, but an original and enlightening study in its own right."

As you will have probably picked up elsewhere, I am very interested in ship design/development in the period! What is written in the books does not always translate directly into game rules, but the game does give a lot of flexibility in ship types.


I can't judge which of the 3 titles will be most use for you as Russia because it really does depend what Russia's strategic purpose for needing a fleet are. As an example, this from the start of the Design&Construction chapter of Gardiner:

"The navy of the United Provinces in the mid-seventeenth century was intended to protect and encourage the country's immense foreign trade, and initially comprised relatively small warships, and a high proportion of armed merchantmen, which were able to deal with pirates and small local squadrons. These vessels were at a disadvantage in action against the genuine battlefleets of England and France, and so larger ships were built (including a few 3-deckers), but it is noteworthy that the Netherlands reverted to its small-ships policy for most of the eighteenth century when an English alliance freed her from a battlefleet threat. By contrast Cromwellian England began with small fast 'frigates' suitable for hunting down Royalist privateers, but soon traded speed for gunpowder when faced with the Dutch, who made little attempt to evade battle unless grossly outnumbered.

The rationale for the sudden development of French naval power has always been something of a mystery, but the very large size of its ships suggests an attempt to wrest command of the sea from the existing naval powers by means of superior quality if not quantity (an attitude perhaps reflected in the extensive programme of very large 3-deckers, the most powerful ships of their day). By the end of the War of the Spanish Succession (1713), England was established as the leading naval power and thereafter France gave up any concerted attempt to compete in numbers. She developed a doctrine of the use of naval power which emphasised the primacy of the mission; this allowed an admiral to refuse battle if it would jeopardise the task for which he had been sent to sea, and this tended to favour speed over gunpowder in warship design. This also encouraged the traditional French concern for individual quality (most obviously manifested in large size for any given Rate), in complete contrast to the British who believed that sea control depended first and foremost on numbers, and always preferred the smallest, and hence cheapest, individual unit (the highest practical firepower-to-tonnage ratio was regarded as the most cost-effective).

Not only the relative size but also the type of vessel reflected national priorities. Spain, for example, when rebuilding her navy after the War of Succession, opted for the 60-gun ship as a standard type. Spain's empire was still the most far-flung of her day and she needed ships of great range and staying power, which would be large enough to operate independently and embody considerable firepower on distant stations, but small enough to possess good all-round sailing and seakeeping qualities; they were not really battlefleet units but more akin to large cruisers, for colonial policing and showing the flag. Naturally, radical changes to national policy and strategy usually produced new types of ship - the English cruisers of the 1690s developed in response to the novel difficulties of war with France, for example - but the relationship is not always so obvious: the introduction into the Royal Navy of both the 74-gun ship and the frigate in the late 1740s is probably a reaction to the improved seakeeping required by the new strategy of the Western Squadron, with its emphasis on all-weather blockade. However, it should be remembered that technological innovation was relatively slow in the age of sail, so the apparent leaps forward in design were little more than steps in a process of gradual, if constant, improvement."

Gardiner's chapter-based approach is ideal if you want to learn how to build a particular class of ship. I'm not going to do it a disservice by suggesting you can probably dip in and out of it more easily than Tunstall - it is simply the different way it is written. I like both.


I don't know what game you play Russia in, although since it isn't G7 I guess I'm free to give some general suggestions. Russia faces both a challenge and an opportunity to build a fleet in 1700. The positive is that you will not be constrained by inheriting an unsuitable startup fleet and trying to work around that. The negative is that you need to take the strategic decision of whether you want Russia to concentrate on the Baltic or the Black Sea before you try to design your idea fleet. This is because the potential enemies you face in each location are very different.

In the Baltic, you are more likely to be facing Sweden - good, solid ships based on French design, but Sweden cannot replace losses easily. You could therefore build large numbers of frigates and swamp/capture Swedish lineships, instead of trying to build lineships yourself. I don't think Russia can build SoL without outside help in 1700, and given the problems of the Russian Navy in G7, you may find that if you did challenge Sweden with your new SoL, they were captured which would strengthen your enemy. In Napoleonic times the Royal Navy would rejoice when badly crewed/supplied Spanish/French ships left port because they knew how easy it was to capture them. The other problem you face in the Baltic is the lack of decent ports, especially those which are not ice-bound during some part of the year. Any attempt to build a navy in the Baltic should include sufficient icebreakers to keep your chosen port open. It is also probably a good idea to issue your sailors with warm winter clothing, since even hardy Russians will freeze on board ships at that latitude. Snow and ice caused serious difficulties not just for the crews, but how the ship sailed, changing the weight distribution and how sails/rigging worked. It was bad enough to climb up to change sail in fine weather, but trying to grip anything in a biting wind with ice on the ropes and then trying to get warm below deck afterwards was almost impossible. You couldn't light a fire by your hammock on a wooden ship, so the gunports had to be closed to provide some protection against the wind. You could put sails up to try and stop the wind which inevitably got through, but without adequate air circulation conditions were rather smelly and disease was a problem. Light was provided by a few candles if you were lucky, otherwise it was dark, permanently damp and cold. The last thing crews wanted was a battle in those kinds of conditions. Warm clothing would help, but you can't climb rigging in a greatcoat or work the guns at normal combat speed.

In the Black Sea, you are more likely to be facing the Ottomans - not so advanced ships, much less standardisation, with more support craft and galleys. Some may use slave crews. Ottoman gunpowder was better quality, and of course rather than needing warm winter clothing, supplies tend to go off in warmer climates. Coppering your ships might help, but it is expensive. The Ottoman advantage is flexibility which makes it hard to plan a fleet to oppose them. SoL would almost certainly be more use in this theatre, but also smaller, specialised auxiliary ships and galleys. Geography also works against Russia since the Ottomans have Constantinople and can effectively bottle up your fleet in the Black Sea. This won't be so much of a problem if your purpose is defensive, but if you are trying to protect traders sailing from southern Russia, it is very hard.

There is a 3rd theatre you might like to experiment with: the Caspian Sea. Here cruisers are king, so (once you have icebreakers built to keep the port open all year round - how else are you going to keep your ships in supply?) you can build up a fleet relatively quickly. You will need to defeat the Caspian Sea pirates (who tended to be in the southern (Persian) zone, but once you have done that you should be able to protect your merchant ships and dominate sea-trade. Then integrate it in to Russia's river network with barges and gunboats. In the Caspian Sea you will at least be safe from either Swedes or Ottomans and a small navy will pay for itself through increased trade income. You can then experiment with ship design/improvements in the Caspian and build a naval tradition. This will give you time to get SoL technology from another power if you want to expand your Black Sea fleet, or to gain experience in cruiser tactics if you want to expand your Baltic fleet.


Russia isn't the only country which has to consider how to protect multiple coastlines, but the differences of climate and enemies make it a very difficult challenge. Good luck!

Willis does reference Tunstall's work in his and I think using both together is quite effective...at least when being a curator of maritime history in Scotland and asking counterparts at National Maritime Museum that was their advice to me. Willis' work is "revisionist" (in the positive sense of the world) so it is quite different in feel to Tunstall but Tunstall was of a different age and when you think he died in 1970, it's quite reasonable that the two books should be different in feel, approach and content. Willis also has that maritime archaeology knowledge that simply didn't exist in Tunstall's day.

Personally, I like Willis' presenting style, though it is similar to my own so I might be bias. Having said that, his TV series are mixed. I didn't mind the Outlaws one too much (though I preferred Vic Reeves earlier similar series) and his recent one on the Maritime Silk Road is extremely good as was his older one on shipwrecks, his one on the development of weapons (sword, musket and machine gun) was rather poor, not sure why he was fronting it as it was outside his specialist field.

Jason2 wrote:Willis does reference Tunstall's work in his and I think using both together is quite effective...at least when being a curator of maritime history in Scotland and asking counterparts at National Maritime Museum that was their advice to me. Willis' work is "revisionist" (in the positive sense of the world) so it is quite different in feel to Tunstall but Tunstall was of a different age and when you think he died in 1970, it's quite reasonable that the two books should be different in feel, approach and content. Willis also has that maritime archaeology knowledge that simply didn't exist in Tunstall's day.

That's interesting - the edition of Tunstall I have is edited by Nicholas Tracy. Its major omission is an up to date reading list or bibliography, but since it relies heavily on primary sources perhaps this is understandable. That even today it is still recommended by your colleagues must say something about its scholarship. Personally I found it well written and fairly easy to read for the non specialist.

I accept the point about maritime archaeology, but whenever I hear the word 'revisionist' an alarm goes off. I may be doing Willis an unintentional disservice - modern scholarship is often of a high standard, it is just that they tend to be marketed as revolutionary which I struggle with. Maritime archaeology may well provide new evidence and methods of analysis - I especially like lifesize reconstructions of older ships so that practical experiments in handling and seaworthiness along with living/fighting conditions can be considered. But what proportion of the scientific findings ends up supporting the traditional history compared to the revisionist, and is that proportion really revolutionary? Jason2 can probably answer this much better than I can, but I suspect that the proportion is rather small. Yes, there may be additional factors/hurdles which sailors had to overcome, but overcome them they did: battles were still won by the ships recorded in Tunstall and science has nothing to say about broader strategy and naval philosophy. Although historical propaganda may present a positive slant on a near disaster, this had minimal impact on the internal findings of navy boards and reports of battles. Royal Naval officers knew that it was in their own interests and those of the service that problems were identified and solved. If this didn't happen then disaster usually followed rather quickly. Any officer who lost his ship faced an automatic inquiry, usually a courts martial, whereas there was much more understanding of army officers who lost a battle. I suspect that naval papers were generally higher quality than army reports - armies can scatter and men run away, but if a ship sinks, the men sink with it.

I certainly agree that using multiple books to get a different perspective is helpful. Perhaps I'll see if Willis is in the library, though, just in case I find the style less offputting than the TV series.

Jason2 wrote:Personally, I like Willis' presenting style, though it is similar to my own so I might be bias. Having said that, his TV series are mixed. I didn't mind the Outlaws one too much (though I preferred Vic Reeves earlier similar series) and his recent one on the Maritime Silk Road is extremely good as was his older one on shipwrecks, his one on the development of weapons (sword, musket and machine gun) was rather poor, not sure why he was fronting it as it was outside his specialist field.

Now you mention it I think I did see the one on weapons as well, but didn't associate it with the name. I don't remember the Maritime Silk Road one or the Shipwreck one, but will look out for them. It must be difficult to make historical TV series because the subjects must be capable of being visual or at least sustain interest without trivializing it or resorting to the more lurid or sensational aspects. A good series should make you want to learn more and ask questions, but neither the Outlaw one nor the Weapons one did for me.

Don't worry Papa, I am usually suspect of the phrase "revisionist" in historical terms, had too many encounters with those who use it as a way to deny certain matters that cannot be denied.  However with Willis', it's in the pure (is that the right word?) sense-looking again at previously accepted facts, looking at the source material again, linking that in with the latest findings and seeing if we need to modify what we previously thought.  It's where the latest scientific technologies can come in very useful, they can reveal the design details that perhaps put a different light on the written record.  To give an out-of-period example, I don't know if you follow the debates around the construction and the loss of the Titanic and the theory that a misunderstanding about the composition of icebergs contributed to its loss (short version, they didn't realise icebergs weren't pure ice but had a lot of impurities in them that actually caused more damage when a ship and a berg met, pure ice would puncture a hull, ice with impurities would create a long gash in it).  Problem is
1) it takes a lot of time to build up the evidence and get it accepted by academics
2) it then takes decades to get the general public to accept what they were told at school might be wrong and they need to update their understanding of the past.  A good example of this is the concept of the Iron Age "hillfort", there is a lot of evidence now that these were not primarily military installations and has been for 30 years...but in the general perception...

With presenting, I think it comes down to the style that appeals to you.  I am a big fan of Bettany Hughes and Neil Oliver (and Tony Robinson), whereas certain other presenters you will see on TV a lot...not so much.
On Willis', his Maritime Silk Road might only have been on the National Geographical channel now I think about it but if you ever get the chance, it is worth watching.  It talks about the idea of a watery silk road in general terms,  it also talks a lot about Zheng He but combines that with the contemporary maritime trade and naval security situation ,  There is a fascinating piece on comparing anti-piracy patrols by the modern Singapore Navy and the piracy threat in Zheng He's time,  I think a lot of that would apply just as much to the 18th Century.  I am a big fan of history programmes that show their contemporary connections

Competently agree on the need for TV programmes to make you think in regards history; completely useless for our period but the recentish BBC one on prehistoric Orkney fronted by Neil Oliver was excellent for that.  Maybe a more useful example is Dan Snow's series from a few years back on the Royal Navy; one episode focuses on the Late Stuart/early Williamite Navy and how both James and William wanted big prestige warships but ignored the need for smaller vessels to counter Barbary raids on the West Country

Jason2 wrote:Don't worry Papa, I am usually suspect of the phrase "revisionist" in historical terms, had too many encounters with those who use it as a way to deny certain matters that cannot be denied.  However with Willis', it's in the pure (is that the right word?) sense-looking again at previously accepted facts, looking at the source material again, linking that in with the latest findings and seeing if we need to modify what we previously thought.  It's where the latest scientific technologies can come in very useful, they can reveal the design details that perhaps put a different light on the written record.  To give an out-of-period example, I don't know if you follow the debates around the construction and the loss of the Titanic and the theory that a misunderstanding about the composition of icebergs contributed to its loss (short version, they didn't realise icebergs weren't pure ice but had a lot of impurities in them that actually caused more damage when a ship and a berg met, pure ice would puncture a hull, ice with impurities would create a long gash in it).  Problem is
1) it takes a lot of time to build up the evidence and get it accepted by academics
2) it then takes decades to get the general public to accept what they were told at school might be wrong and they need to update their understanding of the past.  A good example of this is the concept of the Iron Age "hillfort", there is a lot of evidence now that these were not primarily military installations and has been for 30 years...but in the general perception...

Fair enough - even a self-confessed stick-in-the-mud like me can see the value in a genuinely neutral attempt to reassess existing source material in the light of the latest findings.

I'm afraid once you get into the age of steam, my interest in ships evaporates - the tactics completely change.

I didn't know of the Titanic example, but I can see the parallel.

Academic perception ... hmmm ... I suppose as disciplines become more specialised it does become harder to change commonly accepted narratives, and then of course there is academic jealousy! As for what is taught in schools, I'm not convinced history is taught in any meaningful way - I remember one conversation I had with an otherwise intelligent student who 'knew' history because she had top grades after studying the Vikings, Henry 8th and Hitler - apparently nothing of any importance happened between these dates. But then I've long subscribed to the Yes Minster description that schools are not there to keep children off the streets, but teachers!

With hillforts it isn't really my thing, but it is quite a good example. There is no doubt that hilltops are easier to defend, but also visual symbols of power. Later nobles would often build fancy houses on the opposite hill to their neighbours as a means to irritate or show off their wealth. So I can see that it is possible this happened in earlier times. But even when evidence can be found that a site is not ideal for defence, it would have some defensive value and consequently it is rather difficult to definitively prove that the primary purpose for building it was not defensive. Both are possible/probable and in earlier, less well documented periods, there is more scope for re-evaluation.

Jason2 wrote:With presenting, I think it comes down to the style that appeals to you.  I am a big fan of Bettany Hughes and Neil Oliver (and Tony Robinson), whereas certain other presenters you will see on TV a lot...not so much.
On Willis', his Maritime Silk Road might only have been on the National Geographical channel now I think about it but if you ever get the chance, it is worth watching.  It talks about the idea of a watery silk road in general terms,  it also talks a lot about Zheng He but combines that with the contemporary maritime trade and naval security situation ,  There is a fascinating piece on comparing anti-piracy patrols by the modern Singapore Navy and the piracy threat in Zheng He's time,  I think a lot of that would apply just as much to the 18th Century.  I am a big fan of history programmes that show their contemporary connections.

Completely agree on the need for TV programmes to make you think in regards history; completely useless for our period but the recentish BBC one on prehistoric Orkney fronted by Neil Oliver was excellent for that.  Maybe a more useful example is Dan Snow's series from a few years back on the Royal Navy; one episode focuses on the Late Stuart/early Williamite Navy and how both James and William wanted big prestige warships but ignored the need for smaller vessels to counter Barbary raids on the West Country

For me it is a mixture of subject and presenter - a bad presenter can irritate and ruin an interesting subject, but I find a good presenter doesn't really do much for me if it isn't an interesting subject. I wouldn't normally avoid a program just because of the presenter, but I might not persevere with it.

I don't mind contemporary connections provided they aren't pushed too far, but what I really dislike is where they find parallels in situations yet ignore the difference in belief/motivation of the historical figures or try to use history to promote a modern political agenda.

I will look out for Maritime Silk Road and the Dan Snow series on the Royal Navy (only have free TV and that under protest) - I might have seen part of the Dan Snow series, but can't remember anything about it. I wouldn't have thought of watching the Neil Oliver one on prehistoric Orkney (again, the kind of subject which doesn't really appeal), but I did enjoy Coast which I think he presented a few sections of. Coast doesn't try to be a history program, but it does mix history with science and items of local interest so it usually wants to make me find out a bit more.

Just got the book by Gardiner .. a tenner from eBay. Lots of them still available and similarly priced .

Mike wrote:Just got the book by Gardiner .. a tenner from eBay.  Lots of them still available and similarly priced .

Just got one thanks Mike

Also reading Willis from my local library. Seems like he has a common sense approach.

Oops sent it twice

Was it Empire of the Sea with Dan Snow ? His dad and he did a good one about the Armada too . Battlefield Britain I think . If Papa Smurf can wind up his Windows 98 he might be able to find the BBC I player on the information super highway ..the interweb . I think there are regularly showings of these

Not currently available on BBC IPlayer - A few short clips are though https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000402h

Haha .. Papa Clement .. I have a 5 year old , Papa Smurf comes up in my conversations more often as the predictive text predicted !!

Windows 98 ... now you're talking Mike.  I knew where I was with that, and if it broke I could always fiddle around in DOS.  But things like I-players, I-phones, and predictive text are totally beyond me.  My old phone was really good - it had an aerial that I could unscrew and then I didn't get a signal, but could still use it as a clock.  Unfortunately they stopped making batteries for it so I had to upgrade.  I tried to find a phone which didn't have text messages on it, but failed - the closest I could find to my old phone was one without a camera on it so at least I'm spared that 'innovation'.

Anyway, glad you all liked the books I suggested.  Bin the electrons and go back to good old fashioned paper- it's the future!

Yes , well I ordered the book .. Don't know if it is any good . Hope there are pictures( wink ) .
I'm a bit like Papa Clement , I have 3 phones though . One I use as my tablet with no SIM . One unsmart phone I use as an alarm clock and one unsmart mobile phone that i carry around with me . My mobile bill is £10 every six months .
I got a book about pirate ships from Osprey I think it is . Plenty of pictures . Some interesting things to fire from a cannon pictured too .

Not disappointed . Plenty of pictures . Was wanting a bit more on oar ships under the section given over to them but found plenty of stuff tucked away in other chapters about them .