This is an archive of past discussions about Battle of Trafalgar. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The graphic showing the order of battle at the moment the Royal Sovereign broke the line would be significantly improved by an indication of the wind direction, since that was critical to the development of the battle and the decisions made by the commanders. Sailboatd2 (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
It's already there in a way with the labeling of the British columns "Weather" and "Lee," but it would be more professional to have it explicitly drawn. It would be great to have also geographic maps of the ship movements before the battle as well as additional maps of the later action of the battle—for the more visual among us. JKeck (talk) 08:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
POV Problems?
This article reads like a Children's Encyclopaedia. It needs some heavy editing.
Seconded. Not a subject I know much about though. -- Tarquin
The language used in this article is too emotional. The text is too enthusiastic in describing the naval strategy. Please consider rewriting. --Jiang 08:38, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Better rewrite?
Someone should re-write this with more attention to detail and history. In fact, the precedent for Nelson's battle plan at Trafalgar was the battle between Rodney and de Grasse off Iles des Saintes near Martinique in 1780. Rodney had 36 ships-of-the-line and de Grasse 33. The battle opened as usual maneauvering in parallel lines, but when deGrasse ordered a reversal in direction of his entire line, it was not well carried out and gaps appeared. Rodney, seeing the opportunity, ordered a 90-degree turn and movement into the gaps. The British effectively crossed the T of the French fleet in several places. Eventually all the French fleet surrendered or were sunk. The French lost 6,000 men.
Note also - Jervis at Cape St. Vincent 1797 sailed his smaller fleet through the Spanish fleet with the intention of dividing out a segment of the enemy fleet for closer attention. Jervis did intend to keep the ships in order by tacking in succession, after passing through the Spanish fleet. Nelson, who was fourth from the end of the British line, in "Captain" wore his ship out of line, in a questionable, but fortunate, interpretation of orders and headed off a portion of the fleeing Spanish. Jervis certainly did not maintain a line parallel with his opponents.
Also - it was Jervis' reform of the British Fleet in the 1790s that led to the high-quality of crews and much higher level of performance that allowed the melee tactics of Trafalgar to succeed. The British Royal Navy had lost only one battle since 1690, so it didn't begin an era of British Naval Supremacy, it merely continued it. -- Anon
Hello Anon!
Quick note; be bold when updating pages. If there is someting wrong with the article then please fix it. Don't be shy. :) --mav
"The British Royal Navy had lost only one battle since 1690, so it didn't begin an era of British Naval Supremacy, it merely continued it." That's far from true. British Navy has lost a LOT of battles since 1690. Being one the Battle of Cartagena (1741)
It be meant to mean it hadnt lost set peice battles like trafalgar, they did however lose several engagements in small battles.
Among others, they lost the Battle of Cartagena de Indias. Being the latter one of the worst defeats for the British Navy ever... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.44.155 (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Striking one's colours
What does "strike their colours" mean? they sunk? -- Nojer2 23:24, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"Striking your colours" means taking down your national flag from the mast. It was a sign that the ship was surrendering and would offer no further resistance. Dabbler 00:14, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
question - when a captain surrendered his ship, how long did it take all sailors on the ship to find out and stop firing their guns? Fairly noisy in those battles. Did they send messengers below deck to yell at everyone?SpookyMulder12:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I hate to edit without an account, but the answer is simple. For the most part, a ship wouldn't surrender in a major engagement until it was boarded and taken. A ship that's had a great deal of damage to its rigging or many of its cannons dismounted can still try and limp off, even if it's lost its masts it's got a shot at it. It wouldn't be until another ship laid along side it and sent men over to take it. Though occasionally ships would surrender without a fight if presented with a foe they stood no chance of defeating, in that case firing wouldn't even begin. In the unlikely even that a ship would want to surrender while still unboarded, and with its crews still at its guns, then yes I suppose an officer would have to go down into the hold to stop the firing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.109.158 (talk) 09:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
foremost naval power
After the battle, the Royal Navy remained unchallenged as the world's foremost naval power until the rise of Imperial Germany prior to the First World War, 100 years later.
The German Imperial navy fleet was never in a position to beat the Royal Navy, which is why they did not break out of their home waters. I would like to alter this sentence, but I am not sure what to put in its place, possibly the the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, but when did the U.S. Navy reach parity with the Royal Navy? -- Philip Baird Shearer19:37, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
You are correct, the High Seas Fleet didn't "beat" the Royal Navy, but it did "challenge" it. Jutland was the first major naval battle since Trafalgar (although there were some other battles, like Navarino, but no major challenges).--JW180519:46, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
But I agree that no-one challenged the full might of the Royal Navy until the High Seas Fleet, although the bits of the Royal Navy that happened to be in any one place were challenged from time to time (1812, or the Battle of Cape St Vincent, for example). -- ALoan(Talk)14:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
"no-one challenged the full might of the Royal Navy until the High Seas Fleet": This is not exactly correct: Under Napoleon III and the beginning of the 3rd Republic, the French Navy produced very modern armoured steam ships that were quite ahead of the time, and made the fleets of the time completely obsolete; the proeminent example is the Gloire, which was a revolution comparable to what the Dreadnought' would be later.
So technically, the Royal Navy did have a match at the time. However, France and England had more civilised ways of resolving their differences at this time. Rama14:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Touché. Fortunately, since Britain was forced into uncivilised measures to sort out Napoleon III's step-grandfather/uncle, the French haven't challenged the British (at least, not in the sense of going toe-to-toe ;)
The Imperial German Navy was the first navy capable of doing enough damage to the Royal Navy to cripple it: the German plan was to build enough warships that if Britain engaged them directly they could lose too much of their fleet and become open to attack by another nation, it was critical to Britain to maintain naval superiority. They signed it away with the washington treaty, where they agreed to a 1 to 1 parity in battleships with the US.
None of those large battles involved Britain. The first battle Britain lost after Trafalgar was Coronel in 1914. That's where the 100 years comes from. Actually 109 years. What battles was Britain in since 1805? Well several in the Napoleonic wars including Lissa (1811) and 2 in 1807, and then Navarino (1827), the one against the Portuguese I suppose (1833) and Obligado (1845, only small), the first opium wars (1840s) and several bombardments (1816, 1840, 1854/55 and 1882).
"naval supremacy that Britain had established during the 18th century"
Along the 18th century Royal Navy experienced a great transformation from state sponsored piracy (two previous centuries) to become a real "war navy". Of course one of the biggest and most powerful in Europe along with the Dutch, Spanish and French but in any case dominant or "unchallenged" as it was during the 19th century. Just check out "Jenkins Ear War" "Blas de Lezo" "Anson expedition" "Batle of Toulon" "Cape Spartel" "American Independence War". It wasnt untill the row of victories Cape San Vicente-Finisterre-Trafalgar that the Royal Navy proved its supremacy (courtesy of admirals Cordova and Villeneuve)
Téméraire
I am really sorry, I just realised that Téméraire apparently shouldn't have the French diacritics when referring to the HMS Temeraire; I though that she was a French-built prize or something like this... didn't mean anything by this, in any case. My apologies. Rama17:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Nothing to be sorry for, the original Téméraire was a captured French ship and probably should have been written with accents except English writing doesn't use them. The subsequent Temeraires were named with the anglicised French name as part of the psychological warfare of the day. A ship with an "enemy name" indicated that you had been successful in battle and taken the prize. Even when the ship was destroyed, often a new ship was given the captured name. The French fleet at Trafalgar included a Berwick and a Swiftsure, neither of them very French names! Dabbler18:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I've seen the Temeraire written with accents in many books...
there was two swiftsures at Trafalgar a royal navy 3rd rate and the french 1st rate which was then recaptured and and renamed HMS Irresistible.Corustar01:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
High school celebration
Interesting, but one high school's event is not important enough for the article, so moving here:
"The 200th anniversary of the battle will also be celebrated by [Nelson High School] in Burlington, Ontario, Canada on October 21, 2005. Students and staff will use facts from Lord Nelson's life and the Battle of Trafalgar in different classes. Civics classes will focus on Nelson's leadership style, Physics classes will examine flight trajectories of cannonballs, history classes will investigate the battle plans and the politics leading up to the battle. Principal Gary Grocker will arrive in full "Nelson" attire, with our Vice Principal Virginia Hureau bedecked as Lady Hamilton."
If Wikipedia is so smart, does it know that at the Battle of Trafalgar, Nelson required the doctors to keep their knives warmed up so that sailors wouldn't have to suffer (as he had) the extra shock of having something amputated with a cold knife? - Ward Bush
Sidebar!
Attitude, attitude! No information resource is any "smarter" than the knowledge that human beings contribute to it. Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is always growing because information is always being added to it. That's what it's all about. There's nothing to be gained by making snide remarks about what Wikipedia doesn't have yet. The smart thing to do would be for you to add the knowledge you claim to have to the main article, where it can be subjected to examination by others like yourself. JackofOz00:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
The warm knifes where all because he had his own arm removed with a cold knife and he felt a warm knife would be better i know this information exists but dont ask me to quote it right nowCorustar01:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Those Pesky Frenchies!
Apparently French teaching of Napoleonic era wars and battles conveniently glosses over the entire episode: a few years ago The Nelson Society discovered the following reference to the battle in a French history schoolbook: "...a minor battle with little consequence for history".
This is what the American Historian Dupuy said "[Trafalgar] was the most decisive major naval victory - tactically and strategically - of history" Raymond Palmer15:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
And why not the Drake-Norris fiasco of 1589? (supremacy of Spain in the western hemisphere for more than two centuries) Or Lepanto 1571? (Christendoom against Islam9 What about Cartagena de Indias, 1741? (the biggest ever defeat of a fleet in World History considering casualties and tonnage of ships) Even bigger than that of Midway (1942)...
In my humble opinion, this article is now a little too long.
Now that the 200th anniversary has passed, I propose that we cut this article in the following ways:
Remove the order of battle. The separate Trafalgar order of battle page is excellent and it's a shame to supersede it with a summary on the main page.
Move details of the Trafalgar campaign to a new article on that topic, particularly some of the details under 'West Indies' that are equally relevant to the Battle of Cape Finisterre (1805). (Like the Hundred Days article on the Waterloo campaign).
Greetings. Apologies that my previous Grand Turk image was deleted. I was able to go through all my other images, re-licencing in line with Wikipedia policy. However re-licencing the image on this page was not appropriate as it is on the cover of my book. However I am happy to make this new picture available, if you feel it fits into the page. . Once again apologies for any confusion I caused by misunderstanding Wikipedia licence policy. Best wishes, Des Kilfeather Desk110:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I really don't understand why we need a picture of the Grand Turk on this page. All it did was stand in for a ship in a re-enactment 200 years after the event. It is not typical of the size of the ships that fought, it isn't even a design from the period. Dabbler11:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
What do you think of including a small section on the comparison between Trafalgar and Noryang Point? They were both won by undefeated commanders(Yi Sunsin for Noryang Point), who were both killed by a bullet in the middle of the battle, and were disastrous to the losing party (as in Japan not even thinking of sea-borne imperialism for another three hundred years). The only difference seems to be the two hundred year gap between them. Just a suggestion. --TcDohl22:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I doubt that anyone in either fleet had ever heard of any battle at Noryang Point, so any similarities would be in the nature of a coincidence and would belong to the category of Original Research. Dabbler14:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Undefeated comanders???????? Horatio Nelson????? Check out Tenerife 1796. Call me naive but i think an encyclopedia is not a place for false myths and petty nationalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.103.2.80 (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Was wondering if it was worth mentioning the only person to serve both at Trafalgar and Waterloo? Don Miguel Ricardo Maria Juan de la Mata Domingo Vincente Ferre Alava de Esquivel (mercifully known as Miguel de Alava) served on the Spanish flagship, the Principe de Asturias at Trafalgar. For Waterloo, he was the Spanish ambassador to the Netherlands, and was at Wellington's side during the battle (having previously been Wellington's Spanish liaison officer during the Peninsular War). I was considering adding it to the bit about Sharpe's Trafalgar, for a couple of reasons - Sharpe became the 2nd, albeit fictional) person to serve at both; and I found the details in the Historical Notes at the end of the Sharpe's Trafalgar novel. Decided not to be bold this time, but to seek the consensus of other editors. Carre13:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Besides which, he wasn't the only person to serve at both battles. Nicholas Best in his book Trafalgar mentions at least two British midshipmen who transferred to the army and fought at Waterloo, one as a Colour Sergeant. He also mentions Major Antoine Drouot, a French artillery officer, who served on the French fleet at Trafalgar, then went on to survive the retreat from Moscow and then Waterloo.
Also in the Battle of Cartagena de Indias (1741) the Brittish used a few thousands of black slaves in the front row —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.103.3.49 (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Please explain how you can be sure when all that the reference says is "it has been estimated that hundreds of men of African origin made up the numbers in the fleet at Trafalgar" Its an estimate, so they may or may not have been black. Unless you can be more specific with a reference, then it has to include the element of uncertainty. Dabbler18:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The opening sentence seems odd. Do the Spanish really refer to the _battle_ as Cabo Trafalgar? If the point is only that they refer to the cape in Spanish, it seems a thing to be removed from -- or clarified on -- the battle's page.Czrisher20:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
In Spanish this battle is known as The Battle of Trafalgar ("Batalla de Trafalgar"), "cabo Trafalgar" is the geographical place, the cape. But you can find the term "La Batalla del cabo de Trafalgar" in Spanish History books, studies and encyclopedias.--Ruben11:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Last survivors of Trafalgar
Since this is arguably one of the most famous/pivotal naval battles in history, would it be too out of line to include a couple of sentences on the last-surviving combatants of the battle on each side? Granted, I have only one source for this; Noel Kynaston Gaskell who wrote quite a bit on the Napoleonic Wars in the early 20th Century.
For what it's worth the last Briton was Colonel James Fynmore, Royal Marines who died at Peckham on 15 April, 1887 aged 93. He had served on Africa where his father commanded the Marine detachment. The last Frenchman was Louis André Manuel Cartigny who died at Hyères on 21 March, 1892 aged 100. The last Spaniard was Gaspar Costela Vasquez, who died aged 104 in April, 1892 at San Fernando, Cadiz.
Kynaston pointed this out to The Times on Trafalgar Day, 1915, and ended by writing "It is not improbable, therefore, that one or two verterans of the Great War of today may survive till the 21st Century." I do apologise if this has been brought up before. --Harlsbottom (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Casualties
The casualties for the British are ridiculously low. Are you sure the number is bias?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.204.222 (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2008
It is not bias, the British casualties are well documented as none of the ships were lost or destroyed and the crew muster lists survive with notation of the fate of each individual. The French and Spanish casualties are potentially less accurate as some of their ships and log books were destroyed. However, it was British practice to fire at close range and rapidly the hulls of the enemy ships, causing many more casualties than the French practice of firing at longer range into the rigging to disable the enemy and allow it to be captured. For additional details of this difference in tactics you could read N.A.M. Rodger "The Command of the Ocean" pages 540-541. Dabbler (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Order of Battle
The order of battle was recently added by User:BlackJack, and reinstated by him after I removed it as redundant to Trafalgar order of battle and casualties. His justification was 'This article needs a complete list of the ships within it. Why should readers have to skip to another article to find out the names of the ships?' This argument has merit, but high quality articles, once they get particularly long regularly move this information off into dedicated pages, viz Glorious First of June and Order of battle at the Glorious First of June, and Battle of Tory Island and Order of battle at the Battle of Tory Island. The article Battle of Trafalgar seems quite long enough already without the list, many of the ships are discussed in context, and a far more comprehensive and useful alternative is readily available, even if it requires skipping to another article. I don't feel desperately strongly about this or intend to edit war over it, but I'd like some more opinions, especially as at the moment the list needs formatting to remove some inaccuracies (eg the smaller British ships were not part of the weather column, and if anything should be listed in 'other ships' with Africa). Benea (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
There are other articles about naval battles that have a "ships involved" section: e.g., Battle of Copenhagen (1807). This article did not inform the reader of all the ships involved and it should do so for completeness. We should not have readers seeking key information in another article; which is not the same as placing additional information about the ships in another article such as Trafalgar order of battle and casualties. Furthermore, this article is not long and it can take a lot more content.
The list I've included is not the order of battle. The ships are sorted alphabetically within number of guns. I used the columns to break the list up a bit. According to a battle plan I have studied, the Pickle and Entreprenante were moreorless tagged onto the weather column although they played no real part in the battle. However, if you think they should be in "other ships" then fine. You could place the small French ships in a similar sub-section too as some of those were outriders to the east of the main fleet.
May I suggest for the future that removal of a whole section is something that should be discussed first? And I apologise for not seeing your additional edit which was deleted when I reverted. BlackJack | talk page18:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Ships like frigates, brigs and sloops were almost never involved in a battle with ships of the line, because they would be destroyed in a single broadside (see the fate of the French frigate Sérieuse at the Battle of the Nile); so Pickle etc. were present but not "involved" in the battle. They certainly did not stand in the lines of battle.
Having discussed the article further with a subject expert, I think a shorter summary is preferable and should be placed immediately after the battle section. My friend's view is that this article must include a full list of combatants and other vessels for completeness. He was amused to see mention of ships that were present at the 200th anniversary and no mention at all of some ships that were present in 1805! By the way, re frigates, the Euryalus for one did play a significant part in the battle and was at some risk when it assisted the Royal Sovereign. I should add that my friend, who used to teach modern history, thinks this is on the whole a very good article that just needs some tightening up of detail with a few more citations. BlackJack | talk page06:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm grateful to your friend's assessment, but the idea that a full order of battle (which a list of the ships participating qualifies as, not dependant on how they are arranged) is necessary for completeness is not one that is held up by common practice here on wikipedia. We have two featured articles on contemporary naval battles that specifically move the order of battle into separate articles. If there was the feeling that these articles were incomplete without containing the order of battle then they would not have been promoted without it. If we were intent on moving the article up through the quality stages, this is the sort of information that would probably be taken out again. With the frigates and smaller ships you are right to say they did play an important part in the battle, rescuing survivors from the water, landing prize crews and taking damaged and dismasted ships in tow after the battle. Euryalus was taking Royal Sovereign in tow when she came under fire, having the towline shot away. But they did not stand in the line of battle, but were unattached, moving freely in between as their captains saw fit. Most modern diagrams of the battle omit the smaller ships to concentrate on the ships-of-the-line, which were the only ones doing the fighting. To be honest I'm happy to see each ship mentioned, but would rather it was talked about in context rather than just as a list. Would you object if I worked up a section like that, which mentioned all the ships by name, but did so as prose? Benea (talk) 07:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Benea; this article should follow the general standard for other wikipedia battle articles by having a short summary of the order of battle, but the complete order should reside in another article (for an example of a mature article, see: Battle of Jutland)
. I don't feel that the article should be broken up by lists, especially when this information is already provided one short click away, I feel that the list is grossly untidy, however well-intentioned, and I feel that the picture of the battle already in the article (see right) tells the story much better than 1000 words ever could. Shem (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I changed the ship discussion to a list today not realising that this had been an issue in the past. The present format is not acceptable as far as I am concerned. The purpose of a sentence is to be read, and prose lists with more than five or so items are unreadable. I always try to use the rule that after reading a sentence, it should be possible to recall it. If a sentence lists 20 items, then that is impossible. If there is to be a list of the ships, then it needs to be in a vertical list, or perhaps a table. This makes the information far easier to access. However it is not a good solution because it is unatractive and breaks up the article. I liked the way it was done in the Battle of Jutland article, as recomended by Benea. In that article only gives the name of one ship, (a seaplane tender), yet it works very well.58.170.81.31 (talk) 13:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Black british sailors
I re-added this small section.It's not really trivia. I think that is worthy of note, especially for black people in contemporary Britain. Please discus if you feel the need to delete it. Thanks. SmokeyTheCat •TALK•22:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the statement because it was uncited. The link you gave to the BBC site did not work. Please find one that actually gives some backing for this. Dabbler (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
You working link does not include any statement even as speculation that there were hundreds of black sailors. I am well aware that there were black sailors in the Navy and that some of them were at Trafalgar. I just want to have a cited fact in the article not a fsctoidal speculation. I will rewrite your addition to reflect what the article actually says. Dabbler (talk) 12:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, fair point. I heard the 'hundreds' figure in program on TV which I cannot trace at present. The same programme said -if I recall- that 20-25% of the Britsh sailors at the battle were black. I will try and find that fact when I have more time. SmokeyTheCat •TALK•19:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
20-25% is a very high figure! And I have to agree that this is a snippet of information with no real relevance to the battle. Perhaps it might fit better as a general statement in an article on the Royal Navy of this period in general, since there would be black sailors at Finisterre, the Nile, Copenhagen, etc and likely any engagement fought by the navy. Why is Trafalgar any different? I don't see the need for its own section either, especially one with such a misleading header. It doesn't offer a 'black British' perspective on the battle, it just adds a piece of information that happens to be about black sailors. As to the proportions of sailors at Trafalgar, taking the Victory as an example, of the 823 men aboard her only 72 were not British nationals, a total of 9%. Benea (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, the header is misleading. I couldn't think of anything else to call it. Can you please Benea? It's not really trivia. But I still think that the information is worthy of inclusion if only for black people to know that they have been contributing to Britain for hundreds of years. And Trafalgar has a great symbolic importance for Britain so I think that the information should be here but feel free to add it to other articles if you like Benea. I am open to reason. SmokeyTheCat •TALK•13:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
If I was black, id feel more insulted that it was even mentioned in the article. Of course black men fought at Trafalger! Africans have served with British regiments and the Royal Navy ever since the 17th century. We don't need to make special mention of it for every battle.
Well, unknown editor, you may know this - that black British sailors have fought in every naval battle since the 17th century - but I don't think that is common knowledge. I didn't know that before now. After all slavery wasn't abolished in the British Empire until 1807. Also, I don't think it is mentioned anywhere else on Wiki (where would it be? Perhaps there should a special page stating this? Ideas?) but I will leave this article alone for now. SmokeyTheCat •TALK•07:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Not all black people in the British Empire were slaves, and any slave who arrived in Britain was automatically freed following the judgement of Lord Mansfield in the case of James Somersett in 1772. It was said that "The air of England is too pure for a slave to breathe". One of the disputes between the British and the Americans was that black slaves who got on board a Royal Navy ship were automatically given freedom (and usually volunteered to serve in the navy). Dabbler (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
See pages 158-161 of The Wooden World by NAM Roger, which discusses black sailors in the mid-18th Century Royal Navy. The Navy was non-racist - its records do not distinguish crewmen on grounds of colour. Races seem to have been treated equally by the Navy of that date.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Consequences Section
I was wondering if it might be appropriate to add, in the list of monuments to Nelson, the Trafalgar Square and Nelson Statue in Bridgetown Barbados? I believe it was created and the statue erected some time before the one in London. This may be something you have already discussed, but I could not find it. Thanks for your consideration. Helmswolf (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
French Navy officers have not been called "sir" ever since ?
Well, French people never called their officers "sir", which is English... French officers are usually called "mon Capitaine" ("my captain"), "mon Général", etc. EXCEPT in the Navy, where indeed a captain is addressed just as "Capitaine", not "mon Capitaine" - they use to explain it with something like "dans la Royale, il n'y a pas de mon capitaine et mon général, seulement mon Dieu et mon cul" (in the French navy there is no such thing as "my captain" and "my general", just "my God" and "my ass") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.2.203.217 (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
It seems that some digging will have to be done, not only to back the statement up with a citation, but even to figure out what statement can be made. Perhaps whoever added this can have a better-thought-out retry. For now, I'm removing your statement, sir. TypoBoy (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Consequences
Consequences were much larger than a few monuments of Nelson. Spain lost priviledged position in america. Britain had suddenly enough and unchallenged power to build its empire in america, india and africa without opposition. Almirant Villeneuve was assasinated (probably by Napoleon orders) after he returned to Frace. It is very probable that this was a kind of punishment for Villeneuves' dissaster. Napoleon was unable to succesfully decline english naval power, so he tried to conquer the whole of europe, and he eventually failed. This battle had probably the most important consequences of recent history, I can't believe it only talks about nelsons' monuments 212.170.181.26 (talk) 10:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Questioning French intelligence
Wondering how Wikipedia's neutrality is affected by calling the French "Stupid"? Not sure who added this, but the entire of the second paragraph in origins needs a rewrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.227.56 (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Consequences
I don't understand that the most important consequence of Trafalgar is not mentioned in this article. I'm talking about the Peninsular War or "Guerra de la independencia española". Thinking about this war without the battle of Trafalgar seems very difficult, as the most important military historians has recognized (see J. F. C. Fuller). And the defeat of Napoleon without the Peninsular War was nearly impossible —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.39.218.10 (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Despite the WP:BRD cycle, Pietje96 (talk·contribs) has again removed Gravina from the infobox field, on the grounds that he [Gravina] was a subordinate of Villeneuve. This is undoubtedly true, but even if there was any prohibition against including significant subordinates in the infobox (and there categorically is not - Template:Infobox military conflict 'For battles, this should include army commanders (and other officers as necessary)'), there would be sound reasons for including Gravina. Villeneuve was the commander in chief of the overall combined fleet, but it was a fleet made up of two distinct elements and fighting under two flags. Villeneuve, as commander of the French fleet commanded the French warships, while Gravina commanded the Spanish. Both elements of the fleet were then under Villeneuve's overall direction. The treatment of the two commanders here is similar to say how the Battle of the Bulge appears, or perhaps the Battle of Okinawa, with the division between army and navy commanders, and several subordinates listed who had command of different component units in the battle. Pietje96, if you want to remove Gravina, please gain consensus, as at the moment you lack it. Benea (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Which ships commanded Gravina? maybe the rear? which ships? Admiral Gravina was a simple subordinate of Villeneuve, the french who led the entire combined fleet. Gravina had no capacity of manouver. There is no argumentable reason to include him on the commander list. In the other hand the addition of Collingwood to the list of commanders would be more reasonable, as he really commanded the british fleet after the death of Nelson and led the other column of british ships. By the way the Battle of Okinawa or the Battle of the Bulge are not naval engagements of the XIX Cent. Pietje96 (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Pietje96, read WP:BRD. Get consensus BEFORE continuing to revert to make this controversial change, or this is headed straight for an edit war. You have made no real attempt to address my points. Gravina commanded the ships fighting under the Spanish flag in his capacity as commander in chief of the Spanish Navy, in his capacity of commander of the Spanish ships making up the fleet. These are the 'ships commanded Gravina' (if you want to know specifically which ones read Trafalgar order of battle and casualties). Why are you overriding the guidelines of Template:Infobox military conflict? The point that the Bulge and Okinawa are not ' naval engagements of the XIX Cent.' is also irrelevant, this is how battles are treated across wikipedia, there isn't a need to develop specific practices based on time periods. Benea (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The Spanish navy at Trafalgar was subjected to the orders of the French admiral Villeneuve, what bit of it you don't understand? Villeneuve placed Gravina (a simple subordinate of Villeneuve) in charge of a division of ships with instructions to operate independently. This does not mean that gravina had the commandment of the spanish fleet, in fact the spanish van was led by other spanish admiral, Ignacio de Alava aboard the Santa Ana. Pietje96 (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I've applied page protection for three days to cool off the edit war that seemed to be underway. All editors are reminded that tit-for-tat reverting is specifically against Wikipedia policy. Although the three revert rule is a bright line and crossing it will almost always result in blocks (with very few exceptions), performing fewer that three reverts per day can still attract a block if the investigating admin feels editors are violating the spirit of the edit warring policy. The second purpose of the page protection is to allow editors here to come to consensus about the content under dispute without worrying about what's happening on the article. Perhaps I can offer the following advice:
Pietje96, Benea is correct in saying that once you were reverted the first time you should have begun discussion here rather than continuing to revert the article. If you're seeking to change established practice, the onus is on you to convince the other article editors why your version is better. If a consensus is reached that supports your edits, fine. If not, you should be prepared to accept the verdict of other editors and leave that content alone.
Everyone else, please note that reverting edits which are against consensus is not an exception to 3RR; repeated reversions can still lead you into difficulties even if consensus is on your side. However, editors that tendentiously edit against consensus will be deemed to be edit warring and will be sanctioned appropriately. If discussion here (or other dispute resolution) fails to resolve things, disruption resumes, and you can point to a consensus against the changes, please drop me a note or make a report to WP:ANI. Hope this helps, EyeSerenetalk17:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
(ec) And why, Pietje, even if that were true, does that mean he should not be listed in the infobox? Where are the guidelines which say that ONLY one of the commanders of a force in a battle must be listed? Sources that say Gravina WAS the commander of the Spanish fleet:
Stilwell, The Trafalgar Companion - Page 111: '...Admiral Gravina, commander of the Spanish component of the combined fleet...'
Fraser, The Enemy at Trafalgar - Page 409: 'Admiral Gravina, the mortally wounded Spanish Commander-in-Chief...'
The Mariner's Mirror - Page 326: '...Admiral Gravina, the commander of the Spanish fleet at Trafalgar.'
Harbron, Trafalgar and the Spanish Navy - Page 132: '...Gravina as Spanish commander-in-chief...'
Schom, Trafalgar: Countdown to Battle - Page 310: '... Vice-Admiral Pierre Villeneuve, commander of Admiral Gravina, commander of the Spanish the Combined Franco-Spanish fleet at Trafalgar.'
Churchill, History of the English Speaking Peoples - Volume 5 - Page 2550: 'Gravina, commander of the Spanish squadrons of the Combined Fleet...'
Wilson and Callo, Who's Who in Naval History - Page 123: 'Gravina, Federico (1756-1806) Spanish: vice-almirante. He was the commander of the Spanish part of the combined fleet at Trafalgar (15 out of 33 ships)'
Bennet, The Battle of Trafalgar - Page 101: 'Nelson's other opponent was the commander of the Spanish ships which joined with Villeneuve's. Frederico Carlos Gravina was born...'
In fact, during the battle, Gravina was only commander of the squadron of observation. The vanguard (2nd squadron) was commanded by the Lieutenant General Ignacio Maria de Alava, the center (1st squadron) was commanded by the commander in chief Pierre de Villeneuve, and the rear (3rd squadron) was led by Dumanoir. See Historia del combate naval de Trafalgar: precedida de la del renacimiento de la marina española durante el siglo XVIII, by José Ferrer de Couto, p. 126-127 --ElBufon (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Let's be clear here. The Battle of Trafalgar is fought between the British fleet and the combined Franco-Spanish fleet (not a purely French fleet) and this extended to the command structure. The Franco-Spanish fleet was made up of 15 Spanish ships, under the Spanish commander Admiral Gravina; and 25 French ships (18 of which are ships of the line) under the French commander, Vice-Admiral Villeneuve. Villeneuve is the commander in chief of this combined or coalition force, and the fleet as a combined entity, including the Spanish component, is ultimately under his orders. In preparation for the battle Villeneuve divides the commands between his senior ranking officers, Dumanoir is to command the rear, Alava the van, and he himself will command the centre (the traditional place for the commander in chief of a fleet in a battle). Gravina is given command of an additional squadron consisting, like the rest of the squadrons, of both French and Spanish ships. This squadron was to remain out of the line of battle during the opening stages of the engagement, until the main thrust of the British fleet became clear, at which point Gravina was to use his judgement at how best to use his ships to counter the threat, and concentrate his forces against the British. In the battle itself this plan is foiled when in the confused manoeuvrings Gravina's squadron becomes entangled with Dumanouir's squadron in the rear, and enters the general melee one by one. Addressing some of Pietje's comments:
'The Spanish navy at Trafalgar was subjected to the orders of the French admiral Villeneuve, what bit of it you don't understand?' - I have never stated otherwise as this is of course correct. Again Pietje I have to ask why this fact precludes listing Gravina in the infobox? Please make an effort to answer this time, you have evaded this question from the very start.
'Villeneuve placed Gravina (a simple subordinate of Villeneuve) in charge of a division of ships with instructions to operate independently. This does not mean that gravina had the commandment of the spanish fleet, in fact the spanish van was led by other spanish admiral, Ignacio de Alava aboard the Santa Ana.' - you are confusing the command of a fleet with command of individual squadrons in a battle. I have listed a tiny sample of the sources that explicitly state that Gravina was in command of the Spanish fleet. These were ships of the Spanish Navy, crewed by the Spanish, commanded by Spanish officers, fighting under the Spanish flag and commanded by the Spanish Admiral Gravina. This fleet made up nearly half of the combined fleet at Trafalgar, and the Spanish through Gravina followed the commander in chief, i.e. Villeneuve's, orders.
Recapping, the command structure runs from Villeneuve as commander in chief of the combined fleet at the top; to Gravina and Villeneuve as commanders of the Spanish and French fleets respectively that made up the combined fleet; to the commanders of the squadrons, Villeneuve (centre), Alava (van), Gravina (observation), Dumanoir (rear); to the ranking officers in each squadron (the commodores and senior captains); and then to the captains of the individual ships. Given that the Combined Franco-Spanish fleet was made up of parts of the French and Spanish fleets, it is more than reasonable that the commanders of the French and Spanish fleets be listed, that is to say Villeneuve and Gravina. Given that the guidelines agree that subordinate members of coalitions can be listed in these infoboxes, Pietje's insistence that only the top commander of a coalition force can be listed here is baffling, counter to guidelines, and without basis in wikipractice. Benea (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
In his capacity as Spanish force commander Gravina reported to the Spanish ministry of marine. As Spanish force commander he cooperated with with the French force commander, Villeneuve. Wearing his other hat as a squadron commander, he also reported to the Allied fleet CinC, Villeneuve. The various units of the Spanish component of the Allied fleet at Trafalgar reported both to their squadron commanders, and to the Spanish force commander.--20.133.0.13 (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes I quite agree that this is a correct assessment. In the run up to and during the battle Gravina is in a co-operative role in his capacity as commander of the Spanish component with Villeneuve in his capacity of the French component; and he is in a subordinate role to Villeneuve in Villeneuve's capacity as commander in chief of the combined Franco-Spanish force. But this is an aside to the real issue here, Gravina's inclusion in the infobox. You'll notice that Peter de la Billière is listed along with other coalition commanders in the infobox for the Gulf War. Benea (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Undated entries added to archive
old comments
Although I have added a lot of links to this monster, it is hardly limited to the Battle of Trafalgar but is general survey of French-British relations. To be sure it puts the Battle in context. But where would all this history rightly go? To French-English rivalry?
User:Fredbauder
It ought to go into Napoleonic Wars. But it needs some heavy editing for NPOV.
Why is the 200th anniversary being celebrated in June and not October? adamsan 28 June 2005 14:23 (UTC)
You ever been to Portsmouth in October? It's wet and cold. The queen might get poorly, so it's held in the middle of June, when it's not really warm but certainly less wet and cold. Dunc|☺ 28 June 2005 14:30 (UTC)
Achille/Achilles
I have changed the link for HMS Achilles to HMS Achille (1798) which I believe is correct. The original link branched to HMS Achilles, which contains no ship of the right vintage to have been at Trafalgar; and on the main Trafalgar_order_of_battle page the link was to HMS Achilles (1778) on which page it even says that it is certainly not the ship which fought at Trafalgar.
'Achille' was proper spelling for the time; it's only in the modern usage that the S has been added, and the Achille was present at the battle(It was part of admiral Collingwood's division)
Picture of Temeraire firing on Redoubtable
I editted the caption for this last night, but someone changed it back. The picture is widely held to be the HMS Temeraire firing on the shattered Redoubtable, despite the stern clearly reading Sandwich.
The HMS Sandwich was actually a hulk in port in 1805, hence why people believe it to be the Temeraire and the unidentified ship would be the Redoubtable. Proper inspection of the French ship shows that it's the Bucentaure, not the Redoubtable, and the Sandwich fits the description and movements of the Temeraire. I editted this but someone changed it back?
WARNING! THIS IS LEFT UNCLEAR! THE ARTICLES ON Redoutable AND 74-gun ship HAVE THE SAME PICTURE AND CLAIM THAT THE FRENCH SBIP IS THE REDOUTABLE. IF ANYONE KNOWS FOR SURE I ASK HIM TO CORRECT WHICHEVER CLAIM IS WRONG.
. Once again apologies for any confusion I caused by misunderstanding Wikipedia licence policy. Best wishes, Des Kilfeather Desk1 10:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
