Talk:Battles of Barfleur and La Hougue/Archive 1

Archive 1

Who won at Barfleur?

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

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

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

The battle of Barfleur (27-May): was a French victory?:

Tourville with 44 ships of the line started the action (about 10am) and attacked(!!) the Anglo-Dutch of 96. With some luck, a lot of seamanship skill -and the "help" of Ashby(Blue/rear squadron)- Tourville almost crushed Russell squadron but ended with many of his ships heavily damaged.

After towing their ships 4 days, closely hunted and completely exhausted, La Hogue-Cherburg action was the climax-or anticlimax- of the drama.

Many English historians put this two actions together as if they were trying to hide the proper battle-Barfleur- with its aftermath-the attack over La Hogue and Cherburg. The figures of casualities=5000 anglo-dutch to 3000 french, and the ships sunk at Barfleur=2 to none(the Royal Sovereign was totally dismasted as the Soleil Royal), speaks quite clear.

By the way, the famous paintings showing the burning of the Soleil Royal forgot she had no mast, rigging or sails: but art is art and history a very different thing. (2 March 2006)Ruru

I would appreciate sources for the casulty numbers and damage mentioned by the anon editor. I could not fond anything about these details in the references quoted at the end of the article. -- Op. Deo 23:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, here you have some sources -from public libraries encyclopedias:

-British sources:

-Campbell; Lives of the British Admirals; London; 1781

-Clowes, W. L.; The Royal Navy, vol II; London; 1897

-Lediard; The Naval History of England; London; 1731

-French sources:

-Crisenoy; La campagne navale de 1692; Paris; 1865

-Jourdouze; La bataille de La Hogue; Paris; 1899

-Lapeyrouse de Bonfils; Histoire de la Marine Française, vol I; Paris; 1845

-Ronciere,Ch. de la; Histoire de la Marine Française, vol VI; Paris; 1932

-Sue, E.; Histoire de la Marine Française, vol V

-Spanish sources:

-Mahan; Influencia del poder naval en la historia; El Ferrol; 1901.

Unfortunally many British historians try to hide heavy national defeats in a rather chauvinist way (the capture of the Revenge,1591;Beachy Head, 1690; Vernon´s disaster at Cartagena in 1741, etc) calling them tactical draws or similar absurdities making no favor to historical true accounts, a bad heritage from the Victorian age.

I have some battle plans with the movements and disposition of the fleets but I don´t Know how to put them in the web(I´m quite green with computers)

Ru ru (Ruben)

Ruben, Many thanks indeed for the references I shall go and read the 3 British sources you have given. I am not sure if I can find the French and Spanish books, and my French is somewhat rusty and Spanish non-existant! So I shall have to rely on you for an assessment of those sources. I am no expert on this matter but I have read several accounts, including the Captain's log of one of the a British ship's. ( I am not sure if reading a log book is counted as original research and therefore not allowed in Wikipedia -- but at least it is readily available to any one who visits the national Archives just as a book is available in a library!

I do agree that some books present jingoistic views of history. However, in this case I think there are quite reliable historians supporting the general tenor expressed in this article. I put particular trust in Prof N.A.M. Roger who is Professor of Naval History at Exeter University and used to be a research fellow at the National Maritime Museum. His book, the Command of the Ocean, which appears in the article's references is quite clear. He says, "At first the battle went quite well for Tourville in spite of the odds. His fleet was concentrated and was composed largely of big ships, it was handled with great tactical skill......The allied line was exended not to say scattered, and it was sometime before the van and the rear could work round to enveope the French. By evening however, Tourville's situation was desparate, his line was disintergrating, and it was high time to disengage."

If one accepts what this historian says, and then takes account of the damage inflicted on the French fleet (3 major ships had to be beached in a futile efort to save them etc etc, the I think the article correctly calls the combined Barfleur- la Hogue actions an allied victory. In my view Barfleur alone was an allied victory on account the of the damage done to the large French ships which had to be beached, thus exposing them to destruction. However, I am interested in following up your numbers about casulties etc. I think you have to balance the injuries done to sailors on both sides and the the damage to ships and of course the immediate consequences of each.

By the way, if it helps to evaluate Rodger's objectivity, he calls the Beachy Head battle as a French victory!

Your maps sound interesting and would definitely help the article. I have drawn in my note book a scketch map of the ships' dispositions and I could draw it up and put in the article. But if your maps are out of copyright and you are able to scan them, you can upload the file to WP using the menu item Upload File on the left of this page (or click it here). I can then help you insert the image on the page. Please get back to me on my talk page if you need help with this.

-- Op. Deo 08:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

According to the historical fiction book The_Confusion_(novel) the French attacked because they assumed most of the English were supporters of James II, and would quickly surrender/attack the Dutch. How much truth is there to this? (The book describes most of the War of the Grand Alliance pretty accurately despite infusing it with fictional aspects.) 203.218.87.44 12:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Inaccuracies : Re-write?

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

• Numbers : The article gives the French fleet as having 44 ships, and the Allies as 98; Mahan gives 99, which is the number I learned at school, and has a certain symmetry. Aubrey lists 82 Dutch and English ships of the line, ( 26 Dutch with 13 frigates, 6 dispatch vessels (yachts) and 7 fireships, 56 English with 6 scouts, 24 fireships and an unknown number of frigates; there isn’t any combination of these figures that makes 99) He also gives the French fleet as having 11 fireships and a number of frigates, “between 70 and 80 sail “. We need to be comparing like with like, so any ideas? And does anyone know how the total 99 (or 98, or 96) is arrived at?

• Dates : The article gives the dates of the action as 27th May-3rd June, (17th -23rd May Old Style), then gives the date for Barfleur as the 28th with “Russell and Delaval...mopping up" at La Hogue on the 2nd; Mahan has the 29th. for Barfleur, and Aubrey (who uses Old Style throughout ) gives the 19th, with Delavals action at Cherbourg on 21st-22nd, and Rookes actions at La Hogue on the 23rd-24th. It is good practice for this period to give dates in new style with old style in parentheses, but it needs the right dates. Does anyone know the sources for the dates given?

• Losses : The article talks of 2 allied ships lost; does anyone have a source for this? Mahan doesn’t mention any ; Aubrey is clear that no ships were lost from either line during the action . He says both sides reported an explosion during the night, but the French thought it was an English ship, while the English thought it was French; neither fleet reported a loss in the morning.

• The course of the action :-

• • … “ The French sailed downwind onto the 11 ships of the Red squadron, and about 10 am engaged them in battle” Well, no. The Red had 27 ships in 3 divisions, and the White (Dutch) had 26; both engaged the French White and White-and-Blue squadrons from the beginning. Tourville tried to offset his lack of numbers by refusing his van, but Russell was able to counter by with-holding fire and allowing the fleets to close. Tourville was able to bring 2 divisions (6+4) against Russell’s (10) to achieve parity; elsewhere his other 5 divisions were all outnumbered.
  • …“eventually the starboard wing under Ashby managed to get to windward…”; Both Blue squadrons remained uncommitted though most of the action; Ashby didn’t engage until 7pm (8 hours after the battle started). The tactical initiative was taken by Shovell (Russells RA), who broke the French line, about 1pm, to double the fire on Tourvilles Blue-and-White.
  • …The article also refers to the Monmouth at 2 points; Monmouth was with Ashby, so was hardly engaged for most of the action. It seems odd to single this particular ship out for special mention.

• Victory? : On this subject the article is POV on the performance of the French; they “fought with great bravery…and inflicted losses…”: Didn’t the allies do the same? It concludes that Barfleur was a tactically an “impressive French victory”: Does anyone have a source for that ? Surely Barfleur was at best indecisive, whilst Cherbourg and La Hogue were allied victories.

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

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

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

Thanks; I finally got the re-write finished: I hope it's to everyones liking. I also read Jenkins account of the action, which explains some of the things in the article; i should say something about sources, but I'll do it separately.Xyl 54 13:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Re-Write; Sources

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

Ships Involved

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

Conflict name change

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

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

Casualties

I’ve reverted some changes in the infobox.
The ship casualties are from Aubrey; if you want to add dead and wounded also, feel free, but don’t delete the ship details. Xyl 54 (talk) 11:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Result

And "French victory"? Where do you get that from? What grounds do you have to say it was anything more than indecisive? There's already a major discussion on this page about this; have you anything more to say on the subject? Xyl 54 (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Where? From a scholarly work on French naval history published in 2004 (which happens to be 20-30 years more recent than your preferred sources); read the citations instead of reverting them. Moreover, the dead and wounded are precisely what matter in an engagement like this – to say "many ships damaged" on both sides is to say nothing at all, and to revert fully cited changes is evidence of extreme bad faith or naivete. Albrecht (talk) 14:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you read John Lynn, The Wars of Louis XIV pp. 228-231, you'll find "Barfleur-La Hogue" to be an invention of Anglo-Saxon historians; French historiography, quite naturally, speaks of two battles; Barfleur, in which the French acquitted themselves well, and the disastrous action at La Hogue. Of course, considering that not a single French source or point of view was represented in the article, it's no surprise we're making fundamental concessions to the British POV without even knowing it. So I would therefore suggest putting your own house in order before giving me the lesson on neutrality. Albrecht (talk) 14:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I’ve returned this to the status quo ante; if you want to do this by consensus rather than edit warring, then that's where we start. (Have you read this talk page, BTW; most of what I'm saying is here already (See Inaccuracies : Re-write?| above).

• Sources: Aubrey’s book may be 30 years old, but it’s still the definitive work on these actions. If Castex is only offering a one page account in a general work, he’s doing no more than Roger, or Jenkins or Mahan. And he may be recent, but if he gives the strength of the allied fleet as 99 ships of the line, he’s only repeating the figure Mahan gave over a hundred years ago. Also, Aubrey uses both the English and French primary sources; if Castex just uses the French, which he appears to, it’s no better than Jenkins, which is largely translated from the French. Of course the books referred to are in English, this is the English language WP; but if you haven’t read them don’t be making assumptions about their content. And Castex isn’t readily available to me, which is why I asked what he said. (See Re-Write; Sources, above).

1. Reviewing Castex's sources, you could also have mentioned Chroniques de La Hogue, Tome II: "La bataille de La Hogue, récits, études, et réflexions," Versailles, 1992. Rather more than a one-page account, I'm afraid, and still considerably more recent than your rank and file.
2. If you haven't asked me, don't be making assumptions about what I've read. Moreover, you know full well that national bias or slipshod historical training affects the interpretation of sources as well as the sources used, so let's skip this argument.
3. Here's the link for Castex. Google Books' preview contains the pages devoted to Barfleur.

OK, I’m asking; which of the books listed have you read, and which do you feel are "written in a spirit of 19th century national chauvinism"?

• Result:You have cited a source saying it was a French victory; so should I cite a pile of sources saying it was an Allied victory? If both sides claim a victory, it’s a fairly safe bet the result was inconclusive, don’t you think? Which is what the article says. I know the French acquitted themselves well, and the article says that; but that isn’t the same as a French victory, is it? The losses were about even, which is why it’s listed as inconclusive. And it was, strategically, a victory for the Allies; the French aim was to seize the Channel for a Jacobite invasion. That had failed in that by the 14th May; Barfleur clinched it, and Cherbourg and La Hogue were the nails in the coffin. And I know about this “Anglo Saxon bias" idea, which is why the three actions have separate articles; but they didn’t happen in isolation, which why we also need a article on the B+LH for the overview.

1.Lynn is both Anglophone and contemporary, and (as I recall) comes perilously close to chalking up Barfleur for the French. I hope we can agree in good faith to privilege recent scholarship as more reliable. If we accept works written in a spirit of 19th century national chauvinism, I can find you sources listing just about anything as a French victory. But why bother?

“recent scholarship is more reliable”; well, it depends what it says: If it’s just a re-hash of old material, then no. And if it repeats "a national bias in its interpretation of sources then no. And a book written in 2004 can still reflect national chauvinism.

2.That's a rather optimistic and grandiose appreciation of French "strategy." As Lynn has it, Tourville gave battle for the sole purpose of conforming to royal directives. Surely we should evaluate strategy on the basis of the commanders' own realistic goals and appreciations and not on the wishful fantasies of courtiers and bureaucrats at Versailles. And speaking of strategy, it would be nice if, in return, we acknowledged the Anglo-Dutch goal: to destroy the French fleet (which, by any reasonable appreciation of the numbers, should have been almost a foregone conclusion).

“my appreciation of French strategy”: To say Tourville only gave battle because of a royal directive is disingenuous; his actions were part of an invasion plan, which had already failed if the fleets hadn’t fired a shot.

3.Human casualties were not anywhere near even.

But the figures given are the French figures; they may be accurate for the French forces, but they’re only an estimate for the Allies. I need to see if there is a British (or Dutch) source for the Allied figures.

4.No, we don't objectively "need" any such article. It's quite obvious there are hundreds of pairs of battles as intimately linked to each other causally, strategically, etc. without employing a binary formula like B+LH. It's simply the way one nation's historiography has portrayed the actions, for reasons upon which we seem to agree.

The binary formula isn’t a trick: The actions are related in the same way as, say, the Battle of the Java Sea and its sequels; they are part of the same story. Splitting the action, to say "well we lost there, but we won here", also rerflects a nations historiography, n’est ce pas?

• Casualties: If you want human casualties, I already said "go ahead"; what I object to is deleting the Ships lost or damaged; because you’re wrong, that is what is important in a naval battle, and that’s what every other article on a naval battle does. As for “many ships damaged”, most of the ships in this action had some damage; how much would you like to see recorded? The details are in the text, a general statement should be enough for an infobox.

It's important when ships are actually sunk, captured, or damaged beyond repair, or when the damage can be assessed quantifiably. But to report merely that an undefined number of ships were damaged is to state the obvious (I'd like to see a naval battle cause 5,000 casualties without damaging "many ships.") Also, "no ships lost" is a redundancy. If a given battle yields no prisoners of war, you simply omit the figure: you don't add, "none captured."

The point of recording “no ships lost” (which is OK elsewhere BTW) is that in an amateur project like WP a negative doesn’t just mean no ships lost; it can also mean the information isn’t available,(whichisn’t the caser here) or the editor couldn’ t be bothered to put it in ( also not the case) or there is a POV reason for keeping it out (is there?). Anyway there are a number of wrong figures floating around; French sources claim 2 ships sunk, while English sources claim 4 including Gabarets flagship. They are both wrong (see here) but both could be cited. And if you don’t like “many ships damaged” what is the alternative? The only ship damaged beyond repair (probably; she was burned, so we don’t know for sure) was the Soleil Royal; do you want to record 1 ship DBR? There were 5 ships on each side mentioned specifically in the text for damage; do you want 5 ships damaged for each?

• Numbers: At "Barfleur" you’ve given the number of Allied ships of the line as 99; that’s the French estimate. Russells report gives 82 which is the number in the article. They are listed by name; you can count them if you like. And the number of guns is nowhere near the figure Castex gives; again, count them. ::No, I won't count them; I'm prepared to accept your word.

• Sections: You reverted the changes I made to the sections; what’s the objection there?

(reply to comment below) Yes, I haven’t been here for a while, and was tidying up a bit; sorry if it looked suspicious!

Xyl 54 (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This struck me as a classic edit warrior's tactic: pad the controversial edit with a few trivial changes, making it that much more difficult to uncover and revert. In in fact you had no such intent, and simply happened to think of these changes after your revert, then, of course, the blame is mine. But belief seemed to be an act of faith. Albrecht (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at the Castex link; it looks (from memory) similar to what's in Jenkins, but my French isn't brilliant. I need to respond in detail, but I also need to make a trip to the library; if you can bear with me. A bientôt Xyl 54 (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

(Some replies to your comments, above. Xyl 54 (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC))

To sum up, Barfleur is regarded as a "true" naval battle, while La Hogue is seen as some sort of commando action ("coup de main").

At Barfleur, the French Navy is outnumbered 2 to 1, so not being wiped out is is itself a success; as things turn out, the English fail to destroy the French ships, and disengage; attempting to do so, Asby's Blue squadron sails through the French line, in a very vulnerable position, and suffers heavy casualties. Eventually, the French remain in control of the battlefield and lose no ship.

Because it concludes in the French Navy repelling the English and Dutch against all odds, the battle is considered to be a great success, even if the casualties figure would make it look like an indecisive engagement. Rama (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Or we could say “The Allies chased the French fleet around the Normandy coast before running them to ground and destroying them in a highly successful cutting out operation” It really depends on your point of view, doessn’t it? And you seem to be saying it was a French victory because Tourville didn’t get wiped out; that’s an interesting definition of victory, don’t you think? Xyl 54 (talk) 11:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The Location

The French call the battle La Hougue and it took place just off the town now called Saint Vast La Hougue in the Départment de la Manche . This in case anyone should want to go to the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.215.109.52 (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well the French call one of the engagements here "La Hougue"; the other they call "Barfleur", which took place off Cap Barfleur on the Cotentin peninsula. If you want to visit that site you'll need a boat...Xyl 54 (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

(comment)

Why is it okay for people to edit articles of history involving the British armed forces from a victory to indecisive but if someone was to edit an article about the history of the French armed forces you would be a Franco-Probe/sorry loser, liar, ect, its nonsense quite a few of well known victories of England/Britain have been edited to indecisive (most of the editors are from Spain or France) but its a hole new story if their nations victories are edited86.181.82.140 (talk) 04:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It isn't OK. And there's already been a couple of long discussions about the result; if you have any new information, bring it to a new discussion. But unsubstantiated opinion is likely to be deleted. Xyl 54 (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Numbers

( Moved interpolated comment to new thread Xyl 54 (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC) )

"Numbers : The article gives the French fleet as having 44 ships, and the Allies as 98; Mahan gives 99, which is the number I learned at school, and has a certain symmetry. Aubrey lists 82 Dutch and English ships of the line, ( 26 Dutch with 13 frigates, 6 dispatch vessels (yachts) and 7 fireships, 56 English with 6 scouts, 24 fireships and an unknown number of frigates; there isn’t any combination of these figures that makes 99) He also gives the French fleet as having 11 fireships and a number of frigates, “between 70 and 80 sail “. We need to be comparing like with like, so any ideas? And does anyone know how the total 99 (or 98, or 96) is arrived at? ( from section above, posted by Xyl 54 11:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC) "

This is simple. If anyone here would know some naval history, would find many Dutch, English and French sources relating the 99 allied ships. One of it is here: http://books.google.com/books?id=-wNaAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:GENT900000034833&lr=#v=snippet&q=oorlogsvlooten&f=false (page 153 from 1693 year). Another source is "Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series" for the year 1692.Another source with lists of both fleets is De La Ronciere "Histoire de la Marine francaise", vol. 6 (http://www.archive.org/stream/histoiredelamari06laro#page/94/mode/2up page 95). Or this one: William Laird Clowes 'The royal navy, a history from the earliest times to present' vol.2 (http://www.archive.org/stream/royalnavyhistory02clow#page/348/mode/2up page 348). Also, see Johannes Cornelis de Jonge 'Geschiedenis van het Nederlandsche Zeewezen'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.180.29.52 (talk) 10:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

There's some interesting sources you've turned up, there. They'll need some looking at, as (at first glance) they don't agree with each other in their details (the Dutch source gives the French fleet as 56 ships, and the French source gives the English fleet as 97): Did you have any ideas on how to fit the information into the article? Xyl 54 (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)