# Napoleonic Wars navies....



## Lucky13 (Sep 30, 2007)

Who would you say had the best one? Thinking of ships, weapons, sailors...


----------



## mkloby (Sep 30, 2007)

Didn't the RN still rule the waves hands down???


----------



## HoHun (Sep 30, 2007)

Hi Lucky,

>Who would you say had the best one? Thinking of ships, weapons, sailors...

From what I've read, the Royal Navy had the highest level of proficiency, but the French ships were often of high quality as they pioneered scientific approaches to design (opposed to purely artisanal shipbuilding).

In the old boardgame "Wooden Ships Iron Men", the Royal Navy certainly was depicted as more capable ship-per-ship. However, I remember one game where I discovered that the numerical strength of the French could be used to overwhelm the British in a boarding battle  

I assume this was a fluke, or an artifact of the game, but the analogy to the Roman vs. Carthaginian battles with the Romans employing Corvi to fight a boarding battle and thus overcome superior Carthaginian seamanship still gave me food for thought ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Glider (Sep 30, 2007)

It was the British due to training and weaponry. It was considered that the French built the best ships but the equipment and training was below RN standards.


----------



## Erich (Sep 30, 2007)

actually the Danish fleet was marked pretty high up the ranks with the French, ah but whom could beat Brittania ?


----------



## Watanbe (Oct 1, 2007)

Nothing could compare to the Royal Navy. The major opposing fleets to the RN were the French, Spanish, Russian, Dutch and arguably the Danish. 

The French were ill-equipped and poorly trained and in general could not compete with the British in single ship engagements. The French tried there best to avoid conflict with British ships. The British blokaded their fleet in ports anyway so they couldnt access the open sea. 

The Spanish were similar to the French but to a worst extent. While like the French they held numerical superiority over the British their ships were old, poorly maintained and their crews quite poor. 

The Russian probably offered the best opposition to the British, but although strains in diplomatic relations were allies with the British for the most part. Britain needed Russia as a trading partner as it supplied Britain with important flax and timber resources. 

The Netherlands and Danish were fairly similar, both were well organised, equipped and well trained navies. However they featured to few a numbers to make a serious challenge to Britains absolute dominance of the sea. 

Nothing could compare to Britains dominance and I think after a while the French realised this and focused almost entirely on its land armies. Britain relied on its navy for almost everything and was a large part of British society.


----------



## renrich (Oct 1, 2007)

An interesting fact about the navies of the Napoleonic Wars is that the RN had one big advantage over the French and Spanish which has not been pointed out yet in otherwise accurate and informed posts. That big advantage was that the RN spent a great deal more time and money looking after the medical and nutritional needs of the crews of their ships unlike the Frogs and the Dons. Consequently their ships were more likely to be manned fully with healthier sailors than their adversaries. As far as naval architecture was concerned the French had a well deserved reputation although the fledgling US Navy surpassed everyone in the design of their frigates of the Constitution type. They could outfight anything they could not outrun and outrun anything they could not outfight.


----------



## Watanbe (Oct 2, 2007)

Very good post Renrich and spot on. A crew in good health and morale was a very important factor and the British created a spirit that none of the other navies could. 

The US were the only Navy which could really match it with the British, there smaller ships i.e Frigates and Sloops were very well built and the crew fought well. The US were obviously no challenge to British naval superiority and didnt really pose a threat worthy of concern, but they did win a few famous 1v1 battles with British ships, something the European powers could only dream of.


----------



## Watanbe (Oct 2, 2007)

Renrich as i stated in my previous post the British placed a massive emphasis on their Navy, which helped ensure it was well crewed and equipped. While I dont have the figures atm (ill try get them later if people are interested) the British spent a huge proportion of their budget on the Navy compared to the French and Spanish. The Navy was an important part of british society.


----------



## genkideskan (Oct 2, 2007)

A reenacted broadside showes the effect at an battery deck and the lethalety of the wooden fragments.
I have manuals which stated that full load 36 pdr. cast iron ball shots penetrate 1,00 meter of oak wood easiely and stuck 6 meter deep in an earth wall.

Please download the file to your desktop and then open it- directly choose "open" might cause trouble with the media player.


----------



## renrich (Oct 2, 2007)

Thank you Watanbe. I read a book some years ago about the age of fighting sail and it went into great detail about the British efforts at improving the health of their sailors. I believe it was stated that the nutritional and health benefits of the RN even made it easier to furnish crews for the ships as many men did not lead as healthy a life ashore. Also, sometimes the French and Spanish were unable to man all their ships because of a shortage of crew.


----------



## Lucky13 (Oct 2, 2007)

How good were the USN in this period?


----------



## renrich (Oct 2, 2007)

The USN was very small during the Napoleonic Wars. It really did not achieve much growth until the Civil War and was not a world power, naval wise until Teddy Roosevelt's presidency about the turn of the century. In the early 1800s our navy was small but with very high quality frigates and sloops of war.


----------



## HoHun (Oct 2, 2007)

Hi Renrich,

>As far as naval architecture was concerned the French had a well deserved reputation although the fledgling US Navy surpassed everyone in the design of their frigates of the Constitution type. 

Good point, I forgot US Navy in my post. While the US were quantatively not in a position to take on the British ships-of-the-line in equal strength, qualitatively their frigates (and their frigate crews) were superlative.

By the way, does anyone remember the old C-64 game "Broadsides"? It was a real-time one-vs.-one simulation of Napoleonic era naval combat.

An outstanding game, considering the limitations of the medium!

Lemon - Commodore 64, C64 Games, Reviews Music!.

Click on the screenshot with the overhead view to get an enlarged picture ... the battery configuration and status of both broadsides was displayed on the right, with the HMS Victory in the example having already lost a 42-pounder on the starboard side due to taking fire. You can also see the status of the rigging ... a couple of holes in the sails so far, but as the battle went on, you'd see yards and masts come down, with the ship losing speed and manoeuvrability as a result. Cannon and carronades, ball shot, chain shot, double shot, grape shot, fire at hull, rigging or crew, critical hits to masts or steering, visible splashes and hits when a broadside was fired, partial and complete dismasting, design-your-own-ship mode, a variety of ships for historical duels ... I loved that game. Victory vs. Constitution was actually a very well-balanced battle, with the frigate's manoeuvrability and speed making up for its lighter battery ...

Only the boarding mode sucked!

TheLegacy: Game :: BroadSides

Note the fencers locked in a deadly ... game of paper, scissors, stone 

No matter what the odds were, the player who inadvertantly invoked the boarding mode by ramming the opponent would get chewed out thoroughly for as long as the boarding scene lasted - the game couldn't be aborted or continued when a boarding battle had begun!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Watanbe (Oct 2, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> How good were the USN in this period?



As Renrich said, the US Navy had excellent ships and performed very well in small ship vs ship action. They never had the amount of vessels to offer any challenge to the RN. American frigates and sloops achieve a number of excellent victories against the British. 

Another thing the USN didnt have at the time was ships of the line. While largely useless are rarely engagned in fighting these were important in dominating the sea. A powerful fleet led by ships of the line would ensure superiority. The British victory at Trafalgar assured Britain dominance of the sea for a long time. 


Ive got some stats for Britains naval spending from Hornblowers Navy...Life at Sea in the Age of Nelson by Steve Pope...very good book

"Britain spent an average of 30 million pounds per annum on the Navy in the 22 years of war after 1793. This ammounted to 15% of British governments anuual expenditure by 1814. The prussian government only spent a total of some 6 million pounds each year."


----------



## Watanbe (Oct 2, 2007)

from the same source as above

This about naval conflict in war of 1812

"the one really interesting aspect of thie struggle was the battle for local supremacy between British and US Navy light forces- a contest which, intriguingly, the Americans won hands down. Powerful American frigates didnt have it all their own way on the high seas, but light forces on the Great Lakes consistently got the better of comparable British flotillas. Perry's victory on Lake Erie in 1813 was the most comprehensive and famous of several successes, and has was won with a combination of good seamanship and tactical orginality that would mark the US Navy's eventual ascent to World Power status."

Oh god gotta rest my fingers now, enjoy people!! its a good read


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 4, 2007)

As it would happen they are stating to prepare for the bicentenary of the war of 1812 and this is a piece out of the local paper about the battle of Lake Erie
"Throughout the War of 1812, naval superiority was of the utmost importance to the maintenance of supply routes and to the ease of movement of troops and equipment. Not only were the British and the Americans jostling for superiority of shipping on the “high seas” of the Atlantic Ocean but the control of the Great Lakes – most specifically Lake Ontario and Lake Erie – was also of high priority.

The two Naval Commanders who would face off in the Battle of Lake Erie were Captain Robert Barclay for the British and Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry for the U.S. 

In 1813, both sides were suffering from a shortage of men and ships on Lake Erie. The Americans were building two new brigs at Presque Isle and successfully launched them onto the lake on August 2-4. This gave the U.S. forces naval superiority over the British. This necessitated Captain Barclay’s return to port at Amherstburg to complete his own new brig: the Detroit.

The supply situation in Upper Canada had reached a breaking point and Barclay was being pressured to engage the U.S. naval forces on Lake Erie in order to relieve the pressure. In consequence of this, and fully aware of his shortage of men, he decided on September 9, 1813 that the…

“weather conditions would be in his favour so he gamely left Amherstburg in the recently completed Detroit, accompanied by the smaller Queen Charlotte and Lady Prevost and by three armed schooners. The armaments for the Detroit had been lost at York, and in desperation she had been armed with a variety of guns from the ramparts of Fort Malden. Since 17 of these were long guns, they gave her the advantage of being able to fight at a greater range than the American brigs, which only had carronades. Otherwise each of Perry’s brigs possessed a greater armament and he had six schooners to Barclay’s three…Unfortunately for Barclay’s gamble, the wind shifted completely to give the Americans the windward position, or weather guage, and this enabled them to close with their opponents. Barclay opened fire first, around noon, with his long guns…but Perry was able to close with the wind until his carronades could be effective against Detroit. By two o’clock in the afternoon both flagships were badly battered and a seriously wounded Barclay had to be carried below….The remaining British vessels continued an unequal contest for as long as possible, but finally Lady Prevost and the three schooners also surrendered.

The long guns of the American schooners had been engaged throughout, but Perry’s decisive victory was a result of his larger vessels having closed so boldly so that their heavy carronades could inflict the most damage. British and Canadian casualties were 41 killed and 96 wounded…American losses were 27 killed and 96 wounded.”(Hitsman, p.173)

The significance of the Battle of Lake Erie was far reaching for such a small action. This battle effectively ensured American control of Lake Erie for the rest of the War of 1812. The control of Lake Erie during the War was important in that is allowed the U.S. forces to retake Detroit and from there to launch an attack on the British near Chatham, Ontario. This action, know as the Battle of the Thames, which occurred on October 5th, 1813, resulted in the death of the Native Chief Tecumseh. 

Tecumseh’s death would break the Native confederacy and have repercussions for the future inclusion of native issues in the peace Treaty of Ghent. "


----------



## trackend (Oct 5, 2007)

In 1895 the power of naval vessels was demonstrated in the worlds shortest war, The Sultan of Zanzibar declared war on the British. 45 minutes later he surrendered after his armed yacht (The Glasgow) was sunk and his palace had been shot to **** around him.
In the period of the late 18th 19th century the RN had reached its most effectiveness however the arms race became hugely expensive and by 1900 the requisite that the RN should be able to take on any two combined navies in the world was to eventual prove overly costly and although by 1939 it was still the largest navy in the world it had began an inevitable decline.


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 5, 2007)

It's difficult to overstate the importance of the USS Constitution to US history. In the early 19th century, the Brits ruled the waves. It was a tremendous boost in American moral and stature to throttle British ships. The Yanks didn't do too well in land battles of the War of 1812 aside from the Battle of New Orleans, the only bright spot for the good guys were sending the Kings Navy to the murky deep.

Seeing images like this for the Brits must have been tantamount to Americans watching the Space Shuttle explode.

It was very inspiring to walk her decks in Boston!

Britannica Online Encyclopedia
USS Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## renrich (Oct 5, 2007)

Comis, I envy you having been aboard USS Constitution. That is on my list to do along with Gettysburg, Sharpsburg and Manassas. Interestingly the Constitution, since the British had nothing to match her, brought about a ship called a razee where the Brits took a ship of the line, removed the upper deck, making the first gun deck a weather deck and the lower gundeck staying approximated the Constitution. The Constitution was ostensibly a 44 gun frigate but actually usually carried around 50 guns. A two gundeck ship of the line usually carried 74 guns so the Constitution was close in gun power. I don't believe "Old Ironsides" ever fought a ship of the line although she came close to being overhauled one time by several of them during very calm winds.


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 5, 2007)

ren, yes, great experience!.. I bought a piece of "Constitution Oak" during the restoration.

Old Ironsides was never designed for taking on a ship of the line. That would be like the Bismark locking horns with the New Jersey.


Consider adding Vicksburg and Chalmette, LA to your list too.. very cool places..

side note... In Philly, the USS Olympia, Admiral Dewey's flagship resides. It represents a transition time between wooden vessels and modern battleships... A MUST SEE if you're on the East Coast

http://www.spanamwar.com/olympia.htm

.


----------



## Watanbe (Oct 6, 2007)

Ships of the Line were large lumbering battleships built to ensure superiority of the sea. They were only really effective in large scale fleet operations, such as Trafalgar. However a nation could not attempt to destroy Britains superiority unless they defeated its fleet.

The majority of fighting was done by vessels such as frigates and they really were arguably the most important versatile vessels.


----------



## renrich (Oct 8, 2007)

The "ships of the line" were meant to do exactly that, fight in the line of battle so the emphasis was on ruggedness and gun power. Some of the French 74s had pretty good sailing qualities though. None however could match the Constitution as far as sailing qualities and she was actually faster than some British 38 gun frigates that were smaller than she. The British were skeptical about whether the US could build quality warships believing they had no access to good materials. The Constitution's structure was built of live oak and she was sheated with white oak and the ship was immensely strong.


----------



## rogthedodge (Oct 9, 2007)

I can heartily recommend a book about this period if you're keen to read more

Amazon.co.uk: Billy Ruffian: The Bellerophon and the Downfall of Napoleon: Books: David Cordingly

It's a biography of a single ship that was at all the major battles vs. the French and the ship onto which Napoleon surrendered when he lost France. 

Full of fascinating detail about the construction / maintenance of a '74, how the RN was organised run and the officers crew. 

It's well-written too - read it many times.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 11, 2007)

The idea that French and Spanish ships were superior in design to their British counterparts was created in the 18th Century as an excuse by the British naval officers for a defeat. The idea of French supremacy in design also fitted the upper-class admiration of French prestige and glamour. France was, and still is, the fashionable country of world for the high class; which encompasses the officer class of the day. The officer class saw the superior design of French ships as a magnification of their courage and honour when they won, and as I said, an excuse when they lost. It also was a boost in price when they came to sell French and Spanish prizes. So the idea of French and Spanish superiority in design through maths and sciences, instead of tradition, has stuck.

In the century starting from 1714 the French lost more than half their ships (ships of the line and frigates) sunk or captured. From 1793 to 1815, the French built 133 ships of the line and 127 frigates; and lost 112 to enemy action and a further 126 to stress of weather. Hardly the sign of a superior design...

The French ship was not directly comparable to a British ship in any case. The French strategy was different to that of the British who aimed to control the oceans - the French were never aiming to confront the British in open battle. So it would be better to see how well each nations ships did their jobs...

The idea that only the French applied mathematics to their designs is also wrong. The British applied maths to their designs but not in a gentleman philosphers manner but in practical terms so is often ignored. The first French ships to be built solely by mathematics (_Scipion, Hercule_ and _Pluton_) were useless as the maths was all wrong - they forgot the simple problem of skin friction in their hydrodynamic studies. 

Another thing that throws the idea of British inferiority in ship design is the fact that every nation in Europe went to great lengths to spy on British designs. The master shipwright of Brest Blaise Ollivier admired and copied much of the British and Dutch designs... in 1727 the Admirality of Amstderdam hired three English shipwrights to design for them...in 1748 Ensenda of Spain sent Captain Jorge Juan to spy on English design with the words _"His journey will be most useful to us...for in technical matters we are extremely ignorant, and what is worse, without realizing it,"_ English shipwrights became the masters of Cadiz, Havana, Cartagena, Guarinizo and Ferrol. 

The mention of the Danish brings up the idea that they were the technically superior of all European navies ... simply because they took the ideas off everyone else. The only nation that got little influence from outside was that inferior English nation. The major influence was the capture of the Spanish _Princesa_, 70, which took three British seventies six hours to capture and led to 1741 Establishment for heavier armament. 

After the breakout of the Seven Years War, however, Britain turned to the French style of 74-gun two-deckers but were still smaller in tonnage and shorter. They were built for ocean going, built to last, built to cruise and built to fight. They more heavily timbered and fastened - British rig, masts, sails, cordage, blocks, pumps, cables, steering gear and fittings of every kind were superior (and cheaper) than that of the French. 

The French ships were lightly built with poor quality timber and fastened with nails instead of trenails. They were quick off wind but suffered in high seas or high wind. The French ships being light were death traps in close action and due to the poor quality were expensive in maintenance which was a fact enhanced by the poor quality of French dockyards. 

The idea that French ships were faster is wrong anyway; British ships captured French ships time and time again when the conditions favoured the French. It was the coppered and clean hulls of the British vessels that made speed not light weight and (within limits) hull form. 

To credit the French, it was they with their introduction of the 'true' frigate in 1740 and its subsequent capture that overrule the politicians and began the building of British frigates (always overloaded mind you). 

The _Victory_ alone provides a point of proof of British technology being superior to French science - a ship that lasted more than fifty years, kept in constant repair and remaining one of the fastest three-deckers in the world. Nothing a French ship ever achieved...there's more on ships from 1813 onwards diagonal timbering allowing more length without loss of rigidity, knees being replaced with iron plates, vertical topsides instead of tumblehome (cheaper construction, more room and stability), teak built ships in Bombay (expensive, but immune to rot and strong). Chain cables, new anchors, iron water-tanks fitted to the hold to save space and make watering easier. 

And then there's the simple matter of gun designs - the gunlock guns which enabled the fast firing of British ships, the carronade of the Carron Company not matched by the French for twenty years, the new cylinder gunpowder being more explosive reducing powder chargers, the rocket first in action at Boulogne 1806. 

All these things make British ship design superior in my eyes...and next on to the USN !


----------



## mkloby (Oct 11, 2007)

Good information there PD


----------



## plan_D (Oct 11, 2007)

Thank you. And in answer to the initial question; the Royal Navy was the best in the world, in second was the Spanish and third the French. The United States Navy was only just entering the league tables - and it's an interesting time in history. 

Oh, and when war was declared by Britain against France in May 1803 the Royal Navy was outnumbered. When Spain declared war on Britain in December 1804 the Royal Navy was outnumbered even more so - for those that believe numbers were Royal Navys winning factors.


----------



## HoHun (Oct 11, 2007)

Hi Plan D,

>In the century starting from 1714 the French lost more than half their ships (ships of the line and frigates) sunk or captured. From 1793 to 1815, the French built 133 ships of the line and 127 frigates; and lost 112 to enemy action and a further 126 to stress of weather. Hardly the sign of a superior design...

I'd say that by themselves, without any figures for other Navies, thse numbers don't really tell us much 

However, even with comparison figures, it would be hard to conclude anything on the quality of the ships as the quality of the crews is just as important and, I'm afraid, quite inseperably mixed up with design quality in the statistics.

>The idea that only the French applied mathematics to their designs is also wrong. The British applied maths to their designs but not in a gentleman philosphers manner but in practical terms so is often ignored. The first French ships to be built solely by mathematics (_Scipion, Hercule_ and _Pluton_) were useless as the maths was all wrong - they forgot the simple problem of skin friction in their hydrodynamic studies.

That's highly interesting - do you have anything on the actual math that was used at the time? The (few) books I've read on Napoleonic navies hardly had any detail on this topic :-/

>Another thing that throws the idea of British inferiority in ship design is the fact that every nation in Europe went to great lengths to spy on British designs. 

Hm, Hollland 1727 or Spain 1748 might be a different affair than France 1800 - but by saying that, I'm just commenting on the logics of the argument, I certainly lack the background knowledge to offer any opinion of my own.

>The mention of the Danish brings up the idea that they were the technically superior of all European navies ... simply because they took the ideas off everyone else. 

Does it matters where you get the technology from if you end up with the best technology of them all? 

>The French ships being light were death traps in close action and due to the poor quality were expensive in maintenance which was a fact enhanced by the poor quality of French dockyards. 

I remember reading about captured French ships being favoured by British captains over British ships. Would you consider this a myth? 

(My area of expertise actually is WW2 aviation, and the typical myth-to-fact ratio in most books on that topic is about 3:1. I would not be surprised if you'd tell me it's similar for other areas of military history, and that my limited knowledge on the era very likely consists of myths, too 

>the carronade of the Carron Company not matched by the French for twenty years

I remember despairing about the etymology of the term "carronade" ... it's not Latin, it's not Greek, what can it be?!  You can't imagine how glad I was when I finally found a book mentioning the Carron foundry!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 11, 2007)

plan_D said:


> Thank you. And in answer to the initial question; the Royal Navy was the best in the world, in second was the Spanish and third the French. The United States Navy was only just entering the league tables - and it's an interesting time in history.
> .



Yes good info PD.. I believe your assessment is indisputable.

Some interesting "What ifs":
Russia would have been more motivated in Alaska and California. With the right leader, the could have colonized as extensively as the Spanish. 

China's maritime capability was developed further... they had the greatest Navy 400-1500 AD.(estimate) and would have had helluva momentum

.


----------



## Njaco (Oct 11, 2007)

Cosimo, I've been to both Constitution in Boston and USS Olympia in my backyard. Took some photos and will try to post. On the Olympia what impressed me was how small the quarters were!

The RN had the best ships and commanders during that time. Sir Alfred would be proud.


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 11, 2007)

NJ..

please post them... 
Olympia was like something out of a Jules Verne story... elaborate fixtures like brass lamps, door handles and furniture that border on the ornate. I've been on the New Jersey and Missouri too.. they are austere, utilitarian battle wagons. The Olympia by comparison seems more like a over sized yaught. Very cool!

.


----------



## Njaco (Oct 11, 2007)

I'll dig them out and scan them. Cosimo, you've got something on the West coast thats similar to whats at Penn's Landing in Philly. When I was in SF near Fisherman's Wharf I went on a sub and I believe a clipper ship that was anchored and open for tours. Cool stuff.


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 11, 2007)

Yeah the sub is very nice USS Pampanito. 
Maritime Park Association - USS Pampanito Home Page

The west coast has a few significant naval vessels but the east has us beat!

The west: Aircraft carriers in Alamedia(Hornet) and San Diego(Midway), Queen Mary, a couple subs, liberty ships and a couple clipper ships

U have the nautilus, Hunley, Olympia, Constitution, Wydah museum, USS North Carolina, USS saratoga, and a ton of others


this is a very interesting site.. Historic Naval Ships Visitors Guide

,


----------



## Njaco (Oct 11, 2007)

I know what you mean. A relative of mine invented the sub, Simon Lake, and its up at the sub museum in Mystic, Conn. Must be a few good ones on your side, what with Wash and Ore. having major seaports.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 11, 2007)

We are pretty sparse for warships up north I've got a Tribal Class destroyer about 30 miles away HMCS Haida last year. I went looking for it one day and being a great nav decided why would I need to consult a map but found out today I was on the wrong side of the bay


----------



## Watanbe (Oct 12, 2007)

Hey PbFoot you class the Spanish Navy ahead of the French Navy and the Russian Navy. It is obvious that the Royal Navy is miles ahead of everyone else. The stats on the Spanish Navy tell a different story to its actual capabilities and so do the French to a lesser extent.

I agree with your summary on ship designs.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 12, 2007)

Watanbe said:


> Hey PbFoot you class the Spanish Navy ahead of the French Navy and the Russian Navy. It is obvious that the Royal Navy is miles ahead of everyone else. The stats on the Spanish Navy tell a different story to its actual capabilities and so do the French to a lesser extent.
> 
> I agree with your summary on ship designs.


I think you meant Plan d my knowledge of things in the water is pretty much limited to the canoe


----------



## plan_D (Oct 12, 2007)

HoHun;

_"I'd say that by themselves, without any figures for other Navies, thse numbers don't really tell us much 

However, even with comparison figures, it would be hard to conclude anything on the quality of the ships as the quality of the crews is just as important and, I'm afraid, quite inseperably mixed up with design quality in the statistics."_

The numbers show us that the French design wasn't as supreme as some histories like to point out. The abilities of a navy as a whole do not rest in ship design, especially not in the 18th Century, you are right. 

For a navy, and ships, to be successful it would need an administration, logistical support, good dockyards, good health, good crew, good leadership then good ships. During Napoleons reign, the French Navy had none of that.

_"That's highly interesting - do you have anything on the actual math that was used at the time? The (few) books I've read on Napoleonic navies hardly had any detail on this topic"_

The information I have is mostly on the split between pure maths and mixed maths. Pure maths was the 'philosophers' maths or gentleman maths; it was calculus, algebra and geometry for those that had no trade. Those that practised these methods were considered far superior to those that practised 'mixed' maths which was that of the tradesman. Mixed maths was practical maths discovered with experience. 
The French had the _Académie Royale des Sciences_ which was filled with philosphers and gentlemen which were 'obviously' always in their right to correct the errors of a mere shipwright. The French also studied hydrodynamics and hydrostatics; the hydrodynamic studies ignored skin friction as I said before making the studies useless. 

That's practically all I've got. I must correct an earlier statement, the initial maths designed ships were actually inadequate because of the stability calculations made. 

_"Hm, Hollland 1727 or Spain 1748 might be a different affair than France 1800 - but by saying that, I'm just commenting on the logics of the argument, I certainly lack the background knowledge to offer any opinion of my own."_

I did mention a France spying mission also; Blaise Ollivier the master shipwright of Brest. He was very impressed with British design methods and copied many. In any case, Amsterdam (It was not Holland, don't make that mistake) 1727 and Spain 1748 were just examples. 

_"Does it matters where you get the technology from if you end up with the best technology of them all?"_

No, it certainly does not. I wasn't attacking Denmark because it acquired its information from other nations. I believe it was Osander that stated the greatest leaders learn from others. 

_"I remember reading about captured French ships being favoured by British captains over British ships. Would you consider this a myth?"_

The Royal Navy was made up of many prizes from France; it was a sign of victory to be using your opponents ships against him. Even today there are vessels in the Royal Navy with the name _Louis XIV_. 

You must be aware that once the Royal Navy acquired its prizes it completely changed them to British standards. They were re-fitted and strengthed so essentially were no longer French ships. 

I wouldn't be surprised if it was simple misinterpretation of British admirals prefering to fight under a French prize simply because of the 'victory' status.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 12, 2007)

Watanbe;

The Spanish ship design and crew training was superior to that of the French for the job that Spain was trying to achieve. Their numbers were similar in 1790 while Spanish numbers fell down as the Great Wars went on. The geographical situation was more favourable for France in a war against Britain though. 

Russias numbers alone make them incomparable to the Spanish and French navies - and the battles in the Baltic Sea were quite a different story from the Atlantic, Caribbean and Indian Ocean. But I have to admit my information on the Russian Navy is not a mass, at best.

*War of 1812*

There's a thread dedicated to this war so I'll just keep this to naval matters. 

When war was declared in June the British believed it was a mistake and all British officers was ordered on to the defensive. When Sir John Warren was sent to the North American he was told to negociate and blockade with the few ships that Britain would spare from the 'real' war against Napoleon. When he arrived he didn't see the need to interuppt the American trade as most of it was trading on British account anyway, the grain was still going from the U.S to Wellingtons army in Portugal. President Madison attempted to stop this by putting an embargo on U.S trade to Britain but the trade just became smuggling and the United States lost out on the Custom revenues. 

The Royal Navy simply stayed on station and put no effort against New England which was supplying the Royal Navy and Canadian port of Halifax with everything they needed. Madison seemed to believe victory would be had in Canada but this proved to be wrong when Hull surrendered to the British on 16th August at Detroit. On the 19th August the _Constitution_ captured the British 18-pounder _Guerriére_. By the end of the year two more 18-pounders had been captured the _Macedonian_ by the _United States_ and the _Java_ by the _Constitution_. 

The actions of 1812 caused shock in the admirality. However, it's hardly surprising that 24-pounders were defeating 18-pounders in one on one combat. The British strategy of combat (and thus high in training) was to close with the enemy and use heavy fire to destroy their opponent. However, when meeting a stronger opponent the Royal Navy instructed captains to either run or fire from long-range to disable masts and sails to enable an escape. The _Macedonian_ and _Guerriére_ attempted this but as it was against British tradition it seemed to be a clumsy action; added to the fact that the Ordnance Board no longer issued dismantling shot which would have been vital in a long-range gunnery match. The US Navy still used dismantling shot to great effect. 

In 1813, the U.S victories at sea continued with minor brig-sloop actions in the West Indies. The victory of the US ship-sloop _Hornet_ over the British brig-sloop _Peacock_ is said to have been down to the wild firing of the _Peacock_ because of a lack of practice. As the West Indies had not seen much action by 1812 it seems reasonable to assume that the British men-of-war had lost their talent in gunnery. As all practically equal one-on-one actions though it's down to individual skill and luck rather than the ability of the navy as a whole. 

The captain of the _Shannon_ was one British officer who saw the need for long-range gunnery drill against the United States Navy. His victory over the USS _Chesapeake_ in June 1813 was fought at close range, however...which made it vital to keep crews trained at all distances. The U.S became confident (maybe over-confident) because of their victories in 1812 and 1813, but in fact these victories had little affect on the war or the Royal Navy as a whole. Nevertheless Britain found a need to revise their strategy for war against the U.S in 1813. 

The US ship design was not superior to the British as it was much the same. The British and French had similar ships to the three large U.S frigates which were design to defeat the 18-pounders of Algiers. To counteract the successes of the U.S the British cut-down seventy-fours to become 'super-frigates' with 36-pounder main batteries and 42-pounder carronades, the first being the _Majestic_ which entered U.S waters in 1814 and captured _President_ soon afterwards. 

I'll continue later...


----------



## fer-de-lance (Oct 12, 2007)

No doubt the RN had the best battleline - but the US Navy had the best frigates ... albeit just three of them. 

The US Navy had Joshua Humphreys to thank for its excellent Constitution class "frigate" (pocket battleship) design. The design philosophy was to have a ship that could out-run everything it can't fight and out-fight everything it cannot out-run.

To out-gun contemporary 18 pdr gun frigates, the Constitution mounted 24 pdr. Her hull was built to ship of the line specifications but had the hull lines (length-to-beam ratio) of a fast frigate. But, there were serious technical challenges to overcome in order make such a design work.

Length of the hull for ships of the period was limited by the longitudinal strength of the keel. Ships-of-the-line have beamier hulls and multiple decks that increases strength, thus reducing the tendency for the keel to bend and cause "hogging". However, beamier hull adds drag and extra decks add weight - all conspiring against a higher sailing speed.

Humphreys borrowed an idea from the barn roof designs of the Pennsylvania Dutch to spread the loads along the keel. (Takes a keen eye and prepared mind to notice the similarities between the long roof and ship's hull ... ) That led to the "diagonal riders" fitted to the keel of the Constitution class which played a significant role in making their keels strong enough to do what it needed to do.

Interestingly, over the years, the USS Constitution her diagonal riders had rotted and had to be removed. Since that time, even though she no longer carried the same load and did not have to endure the pitching and pounding of head seas, the Constitution's keel progressively developed, ... yes, you guessed it ..., "hogging". 

The solution? 

Restoring the "diagonal riders" which are retained to this day ... 

Joshua Humphreys would have been proud ... 

Humphreys also had the benefit of better materials in the form of "Live Oak" (Quercus virginiana; 881 kg/m^3) which had significantly higher density than the English white oak (Quercus alba; 737 kg/m^3) but that's another story ...


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 12, 2007)

I hope to go aboard the HMS Victory someday. Thankfully it survived WW2.

HMS Victory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
HMS-Victory - Home


.


----------



## renrich (Oct 12, 2007)

Re materials for Constitution, the futtocks were live oak coming from an island off the coast of Georgia. I can't remember how close they were spaced but they were very close together and were sheathed in white oak which was quite thick also so it is no wonder she was called "Old Ironsides"


----------



## HoHun (Oct 12, 2007)

Hi Plan D,

>The numbers show us that the French design wasn't as supreme as some histories like to point out. The abilities of a navy as a whole do not rest in ship design, especially not in the 18th Century, you are right.

I'd guess the French would not have ruled the seas with British ships either, so who did does not reflect ship quality with sufficient accuracy :-/

>The French also studied hydrodynamics and hydrostatics; the hydrodynamic studies ignored skin friction as I said before making the studies useless. 

Hm, I know that windmills were studied by scientists for centuries without any understanding of aerodynamics, but they got results from using simplified calculations with correction factors for effects they didn't understand. I'm not sure you'd have to fail for ignoring a single factor ...

>I must correct an earlier statement, the initial maths designed ships were actually inadequate because of the stability calculations made.

That sounds more serious  Is it possible to date the "initial" phase?

>I did mention a France spying mission also; Blaise Ollivier the master shipwright of Brest. 

I couldn't comment on that as I didn't knew the date 

>Amsterdam (It was not Holland, don't make that mistake) 

It wasn't? Not that I was aware of that before I looked it up, but I have now gained the impression that Amsterdam in 1727 was part of the province of Holland in the Republiek der Zeven Verenigde Provinciën, a country that commonly appears to have been called "Holland" for its most influential province even in the 18th century. But that's "shaky" knowledge, I might have misinterpreted what I read.

>1727 and Spain 1748 were just examples.

I see. Perhaps I over-estimated the effect of development over time because I'm mostly reading about 20th century history, where a couple of years could bring great changes in the technological balance.

>You must be aware that once the Royal Navy acquired its prizes it completely changed them to British standards. They were re-fitted and strengthed so essentially were no longer French ships. 

Ah, that would of course change the significance of the prizes! Still, if the hull shape was preserved, this still might be interpreted as an appreciation of French hydrodynamics 

(Wouldn't strenghtening them to British standards increase the weight considerably? Hm, maybe it just reduced the useful load, which probaly was not that much of a concern of a ship of the line.)

>I wouldn't be surprised if it was simple misinterpretation of British admirals prefering to fight under a French prize simply because of the 'victory' status.

Hehe, very good point 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Oct 12, 2007)

Hi Plan D,

>added to the fact that the Ordnance Board no longer issued dismantling shot which would have been vital in a long-range gunnery match. The US Navy still used dismantling shot to great effect. 

Dismantling shot is chain shot, I'd guess?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## fer-de-lance (Oct 12, 2007)

> The US ship design was not superior to the British as it was much the same. The British and French had similar ships to the three large U.S frigates which were design to defeat the 18-pounders of Algiers. To counteract the successes of the U.S the British cut-down seventy-fours to become 'super-frigates' with 36-pounder main batteries and 42-pounder carronades, the first being the Majestic which entered U.S waters in 1814 and captured President soon afterwards.



Check the records and you will find that the razée HMS Majestic never got within range of USS President - even though the US frigate had a bent keel from a grounding the night before. When the wind picked up, the President showed the Majestic a clear pair of heels. The Majestic never really got into the fight after that.

Razées had a major disadvantage, being "cut down" from ships-of-the-line, their lowest tire of gun ports sit lower ~1.93m from the water-line, compared to 2.44m on the Constitutions. 

That meant that the Constitutions can keep their lower gun ports safely open in higher sea states than the razées. If you can't open your gun ports, it wouldn't matter if you have 36 pdr and the other guy has 24 pdr ... 

It was HMS Endymion a 40-gun 24 pdr frigate and two 38-gun 18 pdr frigates HMS Pomone and HMS Tenedos that finally caught up with the American frigate. The Endymion did most of the damage but Capt. Decateur of the President was able to to disable her with dismantling shot. Most of the Endymion's sails were torn from her masts and she lost the top of her foremast. Unable to maneuvre the Endymion was at the mercy of the President. Decateur could have positioned the President to rake the Endymion at will until she struck. Problem was, the Pomone and Tenedos were pressing close behind and Decateur had to leave in a hurry.

Later that night, the two 38's caught up with the President and Decateur hoisted a light to signal he was surrendering. Some, including Teddy Roosevelt had criticized Decateur for giving in too tamely. What these critics often forgot was that the President's crew must have been exhausted after having worked feverishly first to free their ship after she was aground (in a snow storm), dumped stores to lighten their ship, then fought one enemy after another ... all in the cold of January.

The President was too damaged to be kept in service after her capture. The Royal Navy had an exact copy made, gave her the same name and deployed her on the America Station ... No doubt, to taunt the Yankees.

The Royal Navy did start construction of five 24 pdr frigates based on the design of the Endymion (herself a copy of a French prize) when war appeared imminent with the U.S. However, to get they into service quickly, softwoods were used in construction. Two were built using fir (density 530g/m^3) and three using pitch pine (density 520g/m^3). Experience showed that these softwoods did not stand up to heavy shot as well as oak - tending to shatter with disastrous results for the crew.

The other two 1,500t, 50 gun 24 pdr "super frigates", HMS Newcastle and HMS Leander, were also constructed from pitch pine. Both of these "super frigates" were involved in the pursuit of USS Constitution after the American had captured HMS Cyane and Levant. The Consitution out-paced both to make good her escape - only the former HMS Levant was re-captured ... even then the RN squadron had to violate Portuguese neutrality to do it ...

So you'd have to forgive me for not agreeing with your assessment about the Constitution class compared to contemporary British frigates. Yes, the RN had the right strategy to counter quality with numbers (served them well also in WWII) but no, their frigate designs were not on par with those designed by the great Joshua Humphreys.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 13, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> I hope to go aboard the HMS Victory someday. Thankfully it survived WW2.
> 
> HMS Victory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> HMS-Victory - Home
> ...



I will have to find my pics. I went aboard her on my visit to Portsmouth back in 1997.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 13, 2007)

_"To out-gun contemporary 18 pdr gun frigates, the Constitution mounted 24 pdr. Her hull was built to ship of the line specifications but had the hull lines (length-to-beam ratio) of a fast frigate. But, there were serious technical challenges to overcome in order make such a design work."_

This idea that U.S frigates were superior to British ones all comes from the early one-on-one conflicts. It's easy to use these victories as a point of superiority but the fact of the matter is the U.S frigates simply out-gunned the British in these early conflicts. 

_"Length of the hull for ships of the period was limited by the longitudinal strength of the keel. Ships-of-the-line have beamier hulls and multiple decks that increases strength, thus reducing the tendency for the keel to bend and cause "hogging". However, beamier hull adds drag and extra decks add weight - all conspiring against a higher sailing speed.

Humphreys borrowed an idea from the barn roof designs of the Pennsylvania Dutch to spread the loads along the keel. (Takes a keen eye and prepared mind to notice the similarities between the long roof and ship's hull ... ) That led to the "diagonal riders" fitted to the keel of the Constitution class which played a significant role in making their keels strong enough to do what it needed to do."_

When exactly did Humphreys 'borrow' this idea? I'm sure you've heard of Gabriel Snodgrass, Robert Seppings and John Brent all well known due to diagonal riders and iron fittings. The British warships were getting strengthened with diagonal riders around 1795.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 13, 2007)

_"I'd guess the French would not have ruled the seas with British ships either, so who did does not reflect ship quality with sufficient accuracy."_

The French were never aiming to rule the seas; British ship designs would have not been useful for their needs. The French would have needed to change the structure of their navy, their training, orginisation and discipline. 

I don't believe I used the British victories as an explanation for the French inferiority. 

_"That sounds more serious Is it possible to date the "initial" phase?"_

I'm sure it is, somewhere, but I haven't got it. 


_"It wasn't? Not that I was aware of that before I looked it up, but I have now gained the impression that Amsterdam in 1727 was part of the province of Holland in the Republiek der Zeven Verenigde Provinciën, a country that commonly appears to have been called "Holland" for its most influential province even in the 18th century. But that's "shaky" knowledge, I might have misinterpreted what I read."_

I thought you meant Holland, as in todays English sense of Holland as a nation. As back then it was the Dutch Republic with Zealand, Rotterdam, Holland etc. Rotterdam and Zealand did not follow Amsterdams examples. The modern Netherlands (Holland) was, really, created by Britain after the Great Wars. 

_"Ah, that would of course change the significance of the prizes! Still, if the hull shape was preserved, this still might be interpreted as an appreciation of French hydrodynamics"_

I don't see how you can get that idea. Britain used as many prizes as it could get its hands on. The hull shape of the French ships made them no faster than the British coppered and clean vessels. French hydrodynamic studies were all wrong and in any case not all French ships were designed using pure mathematics. 

_"Wouldn't strenghtening them to British standards increase the weight considerably? Hm, maybe it just reduced the useful load, which probaly was not that much of a concern of a ship of the line."_

Strengthening would have made them heavier - Britain liked to over-load their ships. But it stopped them falling apart.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 13, 2007)

_"Check the records and you will find that the razée HMS Majestic never got within range of USS President - even though the US frigate had a bent keel from a grounding the night before. When the wind picked up, the President showed the Majestic a clear pair of heels. The Majestic never really got into the fight after that."_

Excuse the mistake; the _Majestic_ was the initial leader of the pursuit but the _Endymion_ over-took you are right. 

_"So you'd have to forgive me for not agreeing with your assessment about the Constitution class compared to contemporary British frigates. Yes, the RN had the right strategy to counter quality with numbers (served them well also in WWII) but no, their frigate designs were not on par with those designed by the great Joshua Humphreys."_

I don't quite understand; you say the US ships were superior and seem to be basing it all on one-on-one combats. As you know combat between similar ships is all down to individual skill and luck. 

The US designs as a whole were only good captial ships for a small navy. They were able to create shocks when out-gunning smaller vessels, but generally France and Britain had no need for a slow cruising ship that cost almost as much as a ship-of-the-line. The design of a ship is only good if it fits its purpose. 

The hastily built 'super-frigates' were easily comparable to the U.S designs; they were simply built out of the wrong material. And the British were too busy with the French Navy to send out 1st and 2nd rate ships to deal with the US frigates. The US 24-pdrs were good ships, but they weren't for the same job as the British 18-pdrs.


----------



## HoHun (Oct 13, 2007)

Hi Plan D,

>>"Ah, that would of course change the significance of the prizes! Still, if the hull shape was preserved, this still might be interpreted as an appreciation of French hydrodynamics"

>I don't see how you can get that idea. Britain used as many prizes as it could get its hands on. 

Hm, retrospectively, I don't see it either. I guess I implied the British used prize ships only if they were of high quality, which seems to be incorrect.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Oct 13, 2007)

Hi Fer-de-lance,

>The Royal Navy did start construction of five 24 pdr frigates based on the design of the Endymion (herself a copy of a French prize) 

Hm, would you say this speaks for the quality of the French design? (I could also imagine it simply was the quickest way to get a 24-pounder frigate into service.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## plan_D (Oct 14, 2007)

No nation at that time made exact copies; I don't know the ins and outs of the _Endymion_ I have to admit, but it wouldn't have been an exact copy of a French prize. There would have been some ideas taken from the prize.


----------



## HoHun (Oct 14, 2007)

Hi Plan D,

>No nation at that time made exact copies; I don't know the ins and outs of the _Endymion_ I have to admit, but it wouldn't have been an exact copy of a French prize. There would have been some ideas taken from the prize.

Makes sense - if they modified prizes as standard procedure, they wouldn't have copied them unmodified either.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## fer-de-lance (Oct 17, 2007)

> I don't quite understand; you say the US ships were superior and seem to be basing it all on one-on-one combats. As you know combat between similar ships is all down to individual skill and luck.



That is no doubt that skill and luck were important. But the basis of my argument was that the Consitution class was not "similar" to the contemporary RN frigates. They were superior. You said yourself that they out-gunned any 18 pdr frigate ... but they could also maneuvre well enough to keep up with them.

The only contest where an 18 pdr frigate came close to coming out ahead was when expert handling by Lambert put HMS Java in position to rake the USS Consitution from astern. Nevertheless, the Constitution withstood the pounding and got her (behind) out of the way (even though her wheel was shot away). After that, better American gunnery decided the issue. (Shooting away the Java's bowsprit and jib pretty much decided the issue as it denied the British frigate the ability to match and counter the maneuvres of the American frigate). What it boiled down to was that even good ship handling by Lambert could not compensate for the technological superiority of the USS Constitution. (The Constitution did have a more experienced crew).

We've already discussed how the Constitution class were also "superior" in speed to the bigger and better armed RN ships such as the razée (HMS Majestic, Saturn and Goliath) as well as the large 1,500t HMS Leander and Newcastle.

The RN took the right approach by going after the big American frigates with whole squadrons. However, the tying down of RN patrol resources almost certainly resulted in the US privateers having amuch easier time. Compared to US Navy warships, US privateers captured many more British merchant ships during the War of 1812.



> When exactly did Humphreys 'borrow' this idea? I'm sure you've heard of Gabriel Snodgrass, Robert Seppings and John Brent all well known due to diagonal riders and iron fittings. The British warships were getting strengthened with diagonal riders around 1795.



Yes, I have heard of Seppings et al - I hope to visit HMS Unicorn at Dundee and HMS Tricomalee at Hartlepool and see the ironmongery ... one of these days.

However, if you get the chance to see the USS Constitution at Charlestown, you will see that Humphreys' "diagonal rider" were very different from the British bracing: 



> Diagonal Riders. Made of laminated white oak, 12 x 24 inches in cross section and approximately 34 feet long. Restored in the hold, a total of twelve diagonals, six per side, three sweeping forward, three sweeping aft, with the two midbody ones butted against each other at the keelson. The diagonals are spaced a distance of two beams apart and follow the curve of the hull along the ceiling plank. They are chocked at the keelson and are cut with a bird's mouth into the overhead lower deck beams. Being bolted every two feet through the bottom plank with one and one-eighth inch copper bolts, the diagonal rider becomes the unifying member joining hull sections together, stiffening the hull and resisting the forces which cause hogging.



BTW, construction of the Constitution class was authorized in 1794.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 17, 2007)

_"The only contest where an 18 pdr frigate came close to coming out ahead was when expert handling by Lambert put HMS Java in position to rake the USS Consitution from astern. Nevertheless, the Constitution withstood the pounding and got her (behind) out of the way (even though her wheel was shot away). After that, better American gunnery decided the issue. (Shooting away the Java's bowsprit and jib pretty much decided the issue as it denied the British frigate the ability to match and counter the maneuvres of the American frigate). What it boiled down to was that even good ship handling by Lambert could not compensate for the technological superiority of the USS Constitution. (The Constitution did have a more experienced crew)."_

I'm sorry, but American gunnery did not decide the issue in that battle - as it wasn't so obviously superior, as you claim. The British tactic of leaving fire until close and obliterating the enemy worked well against all European navies. Lambert made a mistake when he chose this tactic against the _Constitution_. The 42-pdr frigate was obviously going to gain an advantage in the slugging match that Lambert aimed for. 

The shots were close in the _Java_ vs. _Constitution_ combat so American gunnery was found to be no more superior than British gunnery. The only actions in which British gunnery was brought to question was the long-range duels, where British training had almost ceased to exist. The _Shannon_ captain made good that downfall with practice in all areas of gunnery for his crew. 

The jib-boom, mizzenmast and bowspirit collapsed when the _Java_ attempted to board the _Constitution_. The American gunnery had only damaged them all. 

_Constitution_ won against _Java_ simply because of the disparity of force. The _Macedonian_ made the right (and Royal Navy approved) choice of shooting high at long-range to make good her escape against a more powerful enemy - it's only sensible. Because of a lack of training and no dismantling shot, the _Macedonian_ tactic was left with no back-up from its crew and gun power. 

The US big-three were the capital ships of the U.S Navy - hardly comparable to the capital ships of the Royal Navy. The Royal Navy 18-pdrs were not meant to open combat against larger ships, but patrol, raid and recon. 

_"The RN took the right approach by going after the big American frigates with whole squadrons. However, the tying down of RN patrol resources almost certainly resulted in the US privateers having amuch easier time. Compared to US Navy warships, US privateers captured many more British merchant ships during the War of 1812."_

Warren did not have the ships to block all the northern U.S ports; that's the only reason U.S privateers made it out into the ocean; and this was only in 1812. In the entirety of the war it's estimated 1,175 merchantmen were captured and 373 were recaptured. The British insurance rates in the West Indies rose by 30%, with a third rebate for convoy. Overall, however, British marine insurance rates in 1813-1814 were no different than those in 1810-1811. 

By the summer of 1813 the U.S Navy had no chance. The Royal Navy had closed and almost water-tight seal around the North American ports. The last U.S warship of any size at sea was the _Essex_ which hunted whalers.

The big-three of the USN were an irritant more than anything, as was the whole War of 1812 for Britain. The real war was against Napoleon, even with that the Royal Navy reduced U.S exports from $45 million in 1811 to $7 million in 1814, and increase Boston insurance rates to 75%. 

_"BTW, construction of the Constitution class was authorized in 1794."_

East India Merchantmen were fitted before then, but British being British it took the military a while to realise its potential.


----------



## renrich (Oct 17, 2007)

Plan D, It looks as if you referred to the "Constitution" as a "42 lbr" frigate. The "Constitution" never mounted any 42 lbrs. She was armed with 32 lb carronades on the spar deck and 24 lbdrs on the gun deck. Someone earlier stated that the British no longer carried dismantling shot which was a disadvantage at long range. A study of ballistics tells me that dismantling shot would mainly be a short range weapon. Standard cannon balls would have a much longer range than chain shot used for damaging rigging. Standard tactics during the Napoleonic wars were that the French fired on the up roll to damage the rigging where the British were more likely to batter the hull with their gunfire.


----------



## fer-de-lance (Oct 18, 2007)

Plan D, regarding superiority in gunnery, it is a matter of definitions. The Constitution vs Java engagement was decided by "weight of fire" but that wasn't simply a function of the size of long guns and carronades. Given the rudimentary nature of gun aiming in the period, it wasn't really practical to achieve "superiority" through being able to hit your opponent more frequently at long range. Rather it was achieving higher rate of fire and being able to fire at the correct moment for the appropriate ammunition (dismantling shot for rigging vs round shot for the hull).

The obvious Napoleonic War parallel was the undisputed "superiority" of British line infantry musketry compared to the French. With smooth bore muskets, "superiority" was not achieved with individual marksmenship. Rather, it was achieved through higher "weight" of fire by:

1. using two rank formation (thin red line) compared to three by the French and 

2. achieving a higher rate of fire (better training, frequent musketry drill).

Daily gun drills were held on the Constitution. The use of lead cartridges also improved the rate of fire. In contrast, prior to the action with the Constitution, Lambert was only able to have his gun crews fire six salvos during one firing drill.

The Constitution was able to keep up a superior rate of fire during the action against the Java - even before the British frigate suffered damage to its guns. She was also hitting the target where it mattered. As mentioned earlier, one of the critical blows was delivered when the Constitution shot away the bowsprit and jib of the Java, severely curtailing her ability to maneuvre. This was done using dismantling shot, fired at the right moment in the roll to ensure they went up rather than down into the hull. 

I think we all agree that, Broke's attention to gunnery training and tactics (assigning division of guns to shoot at the wheel and jib) played an important role in the victory of HMS Shannon over USS Chesapeake. The greater number of shots landed (54 18pdr and 32pdr round shots vs 25; 306 grape shot vs 119 plus 14 bar) and where they landed (shot away the jib and decimated those manning the wheel) could be considered "superiority" in gunnery. 

In particular, deliberately targeting the jib and shooting it away using mainly grape shot took superior skill. Broke and the gun crews of the HMS Shannon deserve credit for this superior performance. On the same token, shouldn't Bainbridge's gun crews deserve the same credit for superior performance in shooting away the jib on the Java with dismantling shot ... ?



> Warren did not have the ships to block all the northern U.S ports; that's the only reason U.S privateers made it out into the ocean; and this was only in 1812.



It would be inaccurate to characterize the blockade after 1812 as being effective in keeping US privateers from getting to sea and taking a substantial toll on British merchant ships. According to "Sea Power and Its Relations to the War of 1812" Mahan, 639 British vessels were captured between September, 1813 and September, 1814. The vast majority by privateers. In contrast, the Niles Register quoted by Mahan listed 411 captures of British ships (including warships) from the beginning of the War until May 1813.

Actually, some of the most famous US privateer actions occurred in 1814 and 1815.

The Prince of Neufchâtel from New York made her successful raids on the English Channel shipping in 1814 capturing or sinking 20 merchant ships. (She rounded out her successful European voyage in September, 1814 by repulsing boarding attempts by the crew of HMS Endymion in boats. One boat was sunk, another captured and the XO of the Endymion was amongst the 28 killed. To add insult to injury, 28 others were taken prisoner.)

The Kemp and Chasseur from Baltimore also had successful commerce raiding cruises in late 1814 and 1815 - the period not covered by the figures quotes by Mahan. The Kemp took 4 merchant ships laden with coffee and sugar from a convoy in the West Indies and got them back to port (after giving a frigate the slip). the Chasseur took 18 prizes in British waters and then captured HM Schooner St Lawrence of Havana well after the Treaty of Ghent had been ratified.

There was also the action of the General Armstrong in the Azores in September, 1814. Her crew held off two attempts by boarding parties from HMS Plantagenet, Rota and Carnation to capture her. The action caused numerous British casualties and delayed the ships in joining the flotilla supporting the attack on New Orleans.



> In the entirety of the war it's estimated 1,175 merchantmen were captured and 373 were recaptured. The British insurance rates in the West Indies rose by 30%, with a third rebate for convoy. Overall, however, British marine insurance rates in 1813-1814 were no different than those in 1810-1811.



Interesting note about the insurance rates - and the rebate for convoy. 



> By the summer of 1813 the U.S Navy had no chance. The Royal Navy had closed and almost water-tight seal around the North American ports. The last U.S warship of any size at sea was the Essex which hunted whalers.



Well, Stewart got the Constitution out to sea twice. Once in early 1814, taking only 4 prizes but causing much consternation (and, no doubt, additional expense) in the West Indies as evidenced by captured dispatches. During a second sortie beginning in December, 1814, Stewart fought a brillant action capturing both HMS Cyane and Levant in February 1815. 



> ... even with that the Royal Navy reduced U.S exports from $45 million in 1811 to $7 million in 1814, and increase Boston insurance rates to 75%.



$45 million seems high, can you give a reference to that figure.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 18, 2007)

_"Plan D, It looks as if you referred to the "Constitution" as a "42 lbr" frigate. The "Constitution" never mounted any 42 lbrs. She was armed with 32 lb carronades on the spar deck and 24 lbdrs on the gun deck."_ 

I apologise, mistake of typing or my brain went numb. 

_"Someone earlier stated that the British no longer carried dismantling shot which was a disadvantage at long range. A study of ballistics tells me that dismantling shot would mainly be a short range weapon."_

The British tactic against stronger ships was to fire high and destroy the enemies ability to give chase, then escape. The lack of dismantling shot made this tactic difficult, at best. The disadvantage British gunners had at long range was the lack of training in long range gunnery. 

_"Standard tactics during the Napoleonic wars were that the French fired on the up roll to damage the rigging where the British were more likely to batter the hull with their gunfire."_

That was the standard tactic for the British, to get close and batter the hull. But as I've said, in the case of being out-gunned Royal Navy captains were told to evade or fire upon the rigging and then evade. 

_"Plan D, regarding superiority in gunnery, it is a matter of definitions. The Constitution vs Java engagement was decided by "weight of fire" but that wasn't simply a function of the size of long guns and carronades. Given the rudimentary nature of gun aiming in the period, it wasn't really practical to achieve "superiority" through being able to hit your opponent more frequently at long range. Rather it was achieving higher rate of fire and being able to fire at the correct moment for the appropriate ammunition (dismantling shot for rigging vs round shot for the hull)."_

I think largely the disparity of force led to the defeat of the _Java_. The British gunners kept a high rate of fire but there was no option for the correct ammo; as I've said Royal Navy vessels were no longer issued dismantling shot. 

_"The Constitution was able to keep up a superior rate of fire during the action against the Java - even before the British frigate suffered damage to its guns. She was also hitting the target where it mattered. As mentioned earlier, one of the critical blows was delivered when the Constitution shot away the bowsprit and jib of the Java, severely curtailing her ability to maneuvre. This was done using dismantling shot, fired at the right moment in the roll to ensure they went up rather than down into the hull."_

The _Java_ shooting away the wheel of the _Constitution_ would say something about accurate fire. But the fact of the matter is, in those days it was all about weight of fire in one general area. 
I have read the _Java_ action and it's my understanding that the jib and bowspirit were not shot away by the _Constitution_ - they were damaged. The jib only collapsed when the _Java_ attempted to board and made contact. 

With the dismantling shot, I can only say the Royal Navy weren't issued it anymore. I assume some still may have had stocks left over. The USN used it to great effect, it's a fault of the Ordnance Board rather a success of the USN. 

Don't get me wrong, the _Constitution_ crew was experienced and well trained. But I would credit the victory as a fault of the _Java_ for closing and the weight of the _Constitution_ broadside compared to the _Java_.

_"It would be inaccurate to characterize the blockade after 1812 as being effective in keeping US privateers from getting to sea and taking a substantial toll on British merchant ships. According to "Sea Power and Its Relations to the War of 1812" Mahan, 639 British vessels were captured between September, 1813 and September, 1814. The vast majority by privateers. In contrast, the Niles Register quoted by Mahan listed 411 captures of British ships (including warships) from the beginning of the War until May 1813."_

Obviously the British blockade couldn't stop everything, and many were out to sea before the British blockade closed. I would rather say the US ability to impede the British fell off after the summer of 1813. The privateers were the largest problem, and always had been in European wars. But British trade kept rising during the War of 1812, so overall, American privateering while an irritant had no real effect. 
More British vessels were sailing through American waters, the waters were richer for U.S privateers - but they had less impact. Plus the high losses of U.S privateers during the war says something about the risks they ran. 

_"Well, Stewart got the Constitution out to sea twice. Once in early 1814, taking only 4 prizes but causing much consternation (and, no doubt, additional expense) in the West Indies as evidenced by captured dispatches. During a second sortie beginning in December, 1814, Stewart fought a brillant action capturing both HMS Cyane and Levant in February 1815."_

I forgot about the capture of the _Cyane_ and _Levant_. Well, the _Constitution_ was the last warship of any size at sea! As the others had all gone, with the _Essex_ being caught by _Phoebe_, _President_ being captured when triyng to run blockade and _United States_ held up by Royal Navy blockade until the end of the war. 

_"$45 million seems high, can you give a reference to that figure."_

I can. _The Command of the Ocean_ - pg.571 - N.A.M Rodger. He refers to Faye Kerts _Fortunes of War_.


----------



## renrich (Oct 18, 2007)

Plan D, Much of my "knowledge" about ships and tactics of the navies during the Napoleonic Wars come from reading every one of C S Forester's Hornblower books, some more than once. Lovely books. One of my favorites though was about WW2, "The Ship" which I believe was taken from the Battle of Sirte. Wish I could find it and read it again.


----------



## fer-de-lance (Oct 19, 2007)

USS Constitution was largest but not the only US Navy ship at sea in 1815. The sloops of war USS Peacock and Hornet, along with US Schooner Tom Bowline also had successful cruises . 

USS Hornet captured HMS Penguin in March, 1815 and then, in what must be the most monumental ship identification error, attacked HMS Cornwallis, a 74, thinking she was a large merchantman! The Hornet got away by jettisoning boats, guns, stores etc.

USS Peacock captured the East India Company cruiser Nautilus in the final naval action of the War of 1812 near Selat Sunda. The British brig had gotten word that the war was over but the Americans hadn't. (Hunting was good in those waters, Peacock only took three prizes but they were big ones with valuable cargos).

USS Constitution and USS United States were by no means the only large US Navy ships remaining. There were also USS Constellation 38 blockaded at Norfolk, and USS Macedonian. The former RN frigate was holed up with her erstwhile captor, the USS United States, in the Thames ... the one in Connecticut.

Far from being a spent force, the US Navy actually had a very active construction program underway with plans to break the blockade when the War of 1812 ended. New warships were under construction in Portsmouth, Boston, Philadelphia and Baltimore. Furthest along was USS Guerrière 44, launched in 1814 and fitting out in Philadelphia in 1815. 

What was needed to overcome the blockading force were battleships. USS Independence 74 was launched at Charlestown in 1814. Although not yet ready to sail, she had received her 32pdr long guns and shared harbor defense duties with USS Constitution. 

Like their smaller cousins, the US 74's were more powerful than their Rate. Records are not precise but they may have been based on a 1799 design by none other than Joshua Humphreys. They were over 190ft long (longer than a Second Rate) and carried 30 32-pdr long guns in their lower gun deck, 32 medium 32-pdr in the middle gun deck and 20+ 42-pdr carronades on the upper deck. (Had to be said that the Independence had some problems due to ill-advised modifications that Commodore Bainbridge insisted on making during her construction).

USS Washington 74, was also launched in 1814 ... at Portsmouth Navy Yard (that's in NEW Hampshire). Had the war dragged on into the winter of 1815, there could have been simultaneous break out attempts by two US battleships, possibly during bad weather. Once at sea, the two supported by USS Constitution from Boston, would likely have forced the RN blockading force off their stations. That would, in turn, spring loose others including the new USS Guerrière in Philadelphia, USS Java from Baltimore, USS United States and Macdeonian from up the Thames, as well as possibly USS Constellation from Norfolk.

With all these big US frigates out at sea in a pack, even the large convoys escorted by RN frigates would be at risk.

The third 74 (out of 4 authorized by Congress in 1813), USS Franklin, wasn't quite ready in late 1815.

The War of 1812 taught the US the folly of neglect by the Jefferson Administration and the importance of battleships. More 74's were authorized in 1816 and the US Navy was on its way to becoming a Sea Power.

Oh, BTW, HMS President has been described in UK accounts as a "precise copy" of the captured US frigate. As was pointed out earlier, almost all other copies of the period were merely adaptations based on the lines of the captured ship. (That would include HMS Endymion, "copied" based on the French Pomone) . However, HMS President was an exception and ... sincerest form of flattery to the American Master; Joshua Humphreys.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 19, 2007)

_"USS Constitution was largest but not the only US Navy ship at sea in 1815. The sloops of war USS Peacock and Hornet, along with US Schooner Tom Bowline also had successful cruises . 

USS Hornet captured HMS Penguin in March, 1815 and then, in what must be the most monumental ship identification error, attacked HMS Cornwallis, a 74, thinking she was a large merchantman! The Hornet got away by jettisoning boats, guns, stores etc.

USS Peacock captured the East India Company cruiser Nautilus in the final naval action of the War of 1812 near Selat Sunda. The British brig had gotten word that the war was over but the Americans hadn't. (Hunting was good in those waters, Peacock only took three prizes but they were big ones with valuable cargos).

USS Constitution and USS United States were by no means the only large US Navy ships remaining. There were also USS Constellation 38 blockaded at Norfolk, and USS Macedonian. The former RN frigate was holed up with her erstwhile captor, the USS United States, in the Thames ... the one in Connecticut."_

I recognise your knowledge on the U.S side is greater than mine, but don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the U.S Navy was all closed in; it wasn't all over. But after the summer of 1813 the USN had few chances for a success with impact. Those large ships that remained were not in open ocean, and until they were - they were useless. 

_"What was needed to overcome the blockading force were battleships. USS Independence 74 was launched at Charlestown in 1814. Although not yet ready to sail, she had received her 32pdr long guns and shared harbor defense duties with USS Constitution. 

Like their smaller cousins, the US 74's were more powerful than their Rate. Records are not precise but they may have been based on a 1799 design by none other than Joshua Humphreys. They were over 190ft long (longer than a Second Rate) and carried 30 32-pdr long guns in their lower gun deck, 32 medium 32-pdr in the middle gun deck and 20+ 42-pdr carronades on the upper deck. (Had to be said that the Independence had some problems due to ill-advised modifications that Commodore Bainbridge insisted on making during her construction).

USS Washington 74, was also launched in 1814 ... at Portsmouth Navy Yard (that's in NEW Hampshire). Had the war dragged on into the winter of 1815, there could have been simultaneous break out attempts by two US battleships, possibly during bad weather. Once at sea, the two supported by USS Constitution from Boston, would likely have forced the RN blockading force off their stations. That would, in turn, spring loose others including the new USS Guerrière in Philadelphia, USS Java from Baltimore, USS United States and Macdeonian from up the Thames, as well as possibly USS Constellation from Norfolk."_

With all that it's getting into the realms of 'what if' - and then we can start bringing into the equation a loss of Napoleon and the Royal Navy shifting focus to the troublesome U.S. I think we all recognise the USN only had success because the Royal Navy had bigger fish to fry in Europe. 

I'm sorry but the _Constitution_ would have probably never made it to the annals of history if the Royal Navy had deployed ships of the line against the US. And if the war had continued the Royal Navy may have come over in force; in 1810 England had 152 ships of the line, the U.S had a small enough navy to be able to name every brig and sloop. 

_"Oh, BTW, HMS President has been described in UK accounts as a "precise copy" of the captured US frigate. As was pointed out earlier, almost all other copies of the period were merely adaptations based on the lines of the captured ship. (That would include HMS Endymion, "copied" based on the French Pomone) . However, HMS President was an exception and ... sincerest form of flattery to the American Master; Joshua Humphreys."_

I'd like to know more about this; the only information I have on the HMS _President_ is that it was just the USS _President_ fitted to British standard and broken up in 1818. The next HMS _President_ was launched in 1829 as a 52-gun fifth rate.


----------



## renrich (Oct 19, 2007)

Enjoy your posts fer de lance. Plan D, It seems that the RN during the period we are discussing was always short of frigates.


----------



## fer-de-lance (Oct 19, 2007)

> Those large ships that remained were not in open ocean, and until they were - they were useless.



Yes, precisely the point of the US Navy needing to build their own ships-of-the-line.

There is no doubt about the size of the Royal Navy battle fleet at the time AND their superior training and battle tactics. However, I am sure you can see the parallel with later events where a superior battle fleet was not able to deal effectively with commerce raiders. 

While I indulged in a little "what-if" - that's exactly what staff officers and planners did and still do. There was a blockade and a navy had to plan to deal with it. The US Navy building program at the time was designed to break through the small number of RN ships on blockade station at the time.

So what-if there wasn't Napoleon to worry about in Europe? It wasn't practical for the US Navy to plan for battle fleet action at that time ... but they made a start in 1816.

Nevertheless, having a battle fleet at your doorstep probably wouldn't have made a difference with the Constitution. The same weather conditions that kept one ship-of-the-line off blockade would also have kept a battle fleet away, allowing the Constitution to get to sea. Once out at sea, it would have been futile to try and catch her with ships-of-the-line. (The RN got it about right with 2-3 frigates backed by a ship-of-the-line or a razee on blockade station - almost as effective and much more economical.)

What the RN needed and got were specialized ships - fast and armed with 24pdr like the 40-gun ships based on the Endymion and the 1,500t frigates e.g. Leander and Newcastle. 

It is hard not to point out the parallel with commerce raiders of later periods. The answer to the German cruisers in WWI was not the Grand Fleet. It was the battle cruiser - out-gun the traditional cruiser while being fast enough to catch it. 

Even more extreme would be the situation in WWII with the U-boat threat needing specialized ASW escorts, e.g. Flower class corvettes, Castle, Loch class frigates (and CVE) to effectively deal with it.



> I'd like to know more about this; the only information I have on the HMS President is that it was just the USS President fitted to British standard and broken up in 1818. The next HMS President was launched in 1829 as a 52-gun fifth rate.



Source: Robert Gardiner Editor (and author of Chapter "Capture of the President") in "The Naval War of 1812", publ. 1998, Chatham Publishing, ISBN 1 84067 3605

The HMS President launched in 1824 was referred to as a "precise" copy of the US frigate.


----------



## fer-de-lance (Oct 19, 2007)

renrich said:


> Enjoy your posts fer de lance. Plan D, It seems that the RN during the period we are discussing was always short of frigates.



Thanks.

"Were I to die this moment, want of frigates would be found engraved on my heart!"

- Lord Nelson


----------



## plan_D (Oct 21, 2007)

If there were no Napoleon, I don't see the War of 1812 lasting as long. Britain would have had the weight of Wellingtons army and a much larger squadron in North America. 

The _Constitution_ would have been an irritant to the Royal Navy in North America. It's only obvious that an increased naval presence in the North American waters would have reduced the success of the United States Navy. I grant you that ships can be blown off station, close blockade is a very dangerous operation - but any escape attempt would be met by larger squadrons of frigates as well. 

I don't know the Royal Navy North American station in 1812 - but in 1804 they had 1 fifty, 2 frigates and 2 sloops. In Newfoundland there was 1 fifty, 3 frigates, 1 sloop and 3 schooners. 

Total frigates in comission in 1804 - 125. 

Renrich, you couldn't be more correct. The Royal Navy never built enough frigates - when Nelson ( April 1798 ) hunted for the French fleet sailing from Toulon, he had three frigates and three ships-of-the-line to search the Med. In May he did get a reinforcement of ten ships of the line, but no frigates. 

fer-de-lance's quote couldn't say it better.


----------



## mkloby (Oct 21, 2007)

plan_D said:


> If there were no Napoleon, I don't see the War of 1812 lasting as long. Britain would have had the weight of Wellingtons army and a much larger squadron in North America.



Sorry off topic - but isn't that the damn truth. You pricks were burning DC and beating us all over the place. Thank God you were actively engaged elsewhere.


----------



## fer-de-lance (Oct 21, 2007)

Well, If there were no Napoleon, I don't see why there would be a War of 1812 in the first place; no _Casus belli_. Without the Napoleonic War, there would not have been British and French interference with U.S. merchant ships and the animosity leading to the Jefferson Embargo Act of 1807. With no French naval threat, the Royal Navy would not have been forced to press US sailors to fill their ranks ... 

At the same time, without the threat of Napoleon in Europe keeping Britain occupied, "greedy pricks" on this side of the Atlantic wouldn't have been tempted to invade Canada ...

Actually, what I'd really like to know is, why one sporting a Crab squadron insignia i.e. XI(F) would be defending the Senior Service so _vigorously_ ?


----------



## plan_D (Oct 22, 2007)

We were beating the U.S all over the place, but somehow it's managed to become a victory in the United States. It's like Britain calling Dunkirk a victory. 

The burning of D.C was embarassment for the U.S; the Royal Navy sailed inland a distance equal to Antwerp and stayed in enemy terrority (with 5000 men) for nine days without worthwhile resistance. The troops even dined in the White House; a meal left behind by the fleeing Madison. 

_"Well, If there were no Napoleon, I don't see why there would be a War of 1812 in the first place; no Casus belli."_

Of course, but if we're speaking 'what-ifs' you can make up a reason for war. 

_"would not have been British and French interference with U.S. merchant ships and the animosity leading to the Jefferson Embargo Act of 1807. With no French naval threat, the Royal Navy would not have been forced to press US sailors to fill their ranks ... "_

That seems to be put forward as the major reason for the war of 1812 these days. All European naval practice was to reclaim their subjects from foreign vessels in times of war, Britain was following practice. The problem with the U.S was that American law stated nationality was gained by residence, not by birth as believed by Europeans. Who was American in U.S law, was British in British law. 
The difficulty increased when Jefferson and Madison refused to issue citizenship documents and simply claimed all those serving in U.S ships were U.S citizens. This claim was unsustainable in both U.S and European laws. 
Madison made it impossible for Britian to negociate, as nearly half the American deep-sea merchant fleet (about 9000 men) were British. The Royal Navy was only doing what Europe had been rightly doing for centuries. 

The British Whig government was friendly to the U.S in 1807. And I believe an agreement was met but Jefferson never took it to congress. In total around 6,500 U.S 'citizens' are said to have been impressed with 3,800 being released. It seems for Madison the impressment was of little concern, it merely showed British reliance on the U.S at the time. 

The Jefferson Embargo Act of 1807 did more to harm the New England merchants than the British economy. In fact, most of them just ignored it and sailed from Canada instead. 

_"At the same time, without the threat of Napoleon in Europe keeping Britain occupied, "greedy pricks" on this side of the Atlantic wouldn't have been tempted to invade Canada ..."_

Taking Canada was the real reason, Jefferson and Madison believed they held a knife to the British throat and Canada could easily be overrun. Jefferson and Madison were both francophiles and believed that in 1812 Napoleon was on his way to a close victory; they simply wanted on the winning side. 

_'Providence has placed their richest and most defenceless possessions at our door,'_ - Jefferson. 

_"Actually, what I'd really like to know is, why one sporting a Crab squadron insignia i.e. XI(F) would be defending the Senior Service so vigorously ?"_

Because there was no Royal Air Force in 1812.  

My dad was in 11 Sqdn. with the Lightning.


----------



## fer-de-lance (Oct 22, 2007)

Agreed with most of what you said in the nether part of your post but this ...



> We were beating the U.S all over the place, but somehow it's managed to become a victory in the United States. It's like Britain calling Dunkirk a victory.



Are we forgeting the Battles of Lake Erie and Lake Champlain? Champlain, also known as the Battle of Plattsburg Bay was pretty decisive both in terms of all British ships engaged being captured and in thwarting a counter invasion from Canada. Might be freshwater, but a naval action nonetheless. 

It is always useful to remind our mule-minding brethren (and sisters) of who bailed them out of the pickle they got us into due to their bungled attempt to seize the _"richest and most defenceless possessions at our door"_ ... Especially around this time of year ... (Army-Navy football match coming up ... eh, the _gridiron_ kind.)

The battles in the Great Lakes were perhaps of greater strategic importance than the Washington-Baltimore campaign. The capture of Washington DC was more for prestige rather than strategic purposes. Baltimore was the important prize and, of course, we all knew how that ended ... Loss of the British commanding general (Robert Ross at the battle of North Point) and the gain of a National Anthem (poem written near Fort McHenry later set to the tune of an English drinking song).

Must be said that the Maryland militia acquited themselves rather well against the well-trained and disciplined British landing force (consisting of 4 foot regiments and Royal Marines). The 5th Maryland Regiment stood up to repeated assaults and bombardment by the British regulars, inflicting some 300 casualties before falling back to the Baltimore defensive works in good order. It was hit-and-run guerilla tactics leading up to the battle that resulted in the death of Gen. Ross, shot while on his horse. Some claimed it was sniper's rifle ball but others suggest that it was "buck and ball" from a militiaman's smoothbore musket. The "buck-and-ball" was originally promoted by George Washington himself. Adding buck shot to the ball in the load significantly increased the probability of achieving a damaging hit for each time the smoothbore musket is fired. As for the "hit-and-run", they were tried and true tactics from previous conflicts in America.

Far be it for me to deingrate the efforts of the U.S. Army ... it should be remembered that they had a final show down with Wellington's Pennisular Campaign veterans at New Orleans. The British orbat included regiments which had served in the Peninsular War, including the the 7th Royal Fusiliers, 27th, the 40th, 43rd, 44th, 85th Footand the 95th rifles. There was also the 93rd Sutherland Highlanders, veterans of fighting at the Cape of Good Hope. 

Yet, these Peninsular War veterans came out second best at New Orleans with a very lob-sided butcher's bill. Perhaps the Iron Duke would have been a better match for Andrew Jackson but then we'd be in the realm of "what-if's" once again ...

Aggregate of the above is hardly a good parallel to "calling Dunkirk a victory" wouldn't you say?


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 22, 2007)

As for lopsided victories in the war of 1812 lets not forget the crushing defeat of the US who although they outnumbered by the Brits and the Militia were beaten badly at Fort Detroit and Queenston Heights . I cannot understand how any army with numerical superiority could lose the heights which is 160 feet high and a very steep grade


----------



## renrich (Oct 22, 2007)

Was it "Lundy's Lane" where the British commander cried, "Those are regulars, by God," referring to the American troops, or was it some other US victory?


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 22, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> As for lopsided victories in the war of 1812 lets not forget the crushing defeat of the US who although they outnumbered by the Brits and the Militia were beaten badly at Fort Detroit and Queenston Heights . I cannot understand how any army with numerical superiority could lose the heights which is 160 feet high and a very steep grade




Lets try it again... just for old time sake! Lets see who wins Fort Detroit and Queenston Heights this time!


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 22, 2007)

renrich said:


> Was it "Lundy's Lane" where the British commander cried, "Those are regulars, by God," referring to the American troops, or was it some other US victory?


Who held Lundys Lane after the battle


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 22, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> Lets try it again... just for old time sake! Lets see who wins Fort Detroit and Queenston Heights this time!


same result we'll just use the new weapon Table dances and beer the same weapon still used every Fri and Sat night 
I'm not sure if you guys are awre of this but in Erie Pa they have the USS Niagara Perrys ship it comes by every summer to make port calls , I've never stopped and looked as like everything it'll be back next year. 
Its my understanding that some of the structure is of the original vessel
U.S. Brig Niagara


----------



## renrich (Oct 22, 2007)

The same people who were routed by American riflemen at Black Rock and repulsed at Fort Erie.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 22, 2007)

You forgot Chippawa in reality though you were not very successful in your attempts to take Canada. There is a walking tour of the battlefield on Lundys Lane this Sunday if able i'll walk over and check it out. 
The area is now starting to ready itself for the 200th aniversary of the war of 1812 
The other pic is of Fort Erie


----------



## Njaco (Oct 22, 2007)

Here's the extent of my naval knowledge....

Yesterday was the 210th anniversary of the commissioning of the _USS Constitution_. Just had to throw that in this thread. I'll go away now.


----------



## renrich (Oct 22, 2007)

War of 1812 was an interesting war but not as interesting to me as the French and Indian War, also known as the Seven Years War. No doubt the American Armies were not, on the whole, very effective or well led during the 1812 War. Not nearly as effective as our Navy. However our army became a little better trained and better led as the war progressed and when the war ended the US had some very good officers to rely on later and of course British arrogance alongside of Jackson's fiery leadership led to the debacle near New Orleans. I am getting my coaching from my 2 volume "West Point Atlas Of American Wars." This tome is not very complimentary of American generalship during the 1812 war.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 22, 2007)

Little bit of 7 years war happened Ft Niagara .If you can find it down south there are 2 books written by a gent called Pierre Berton one is called Flames Across the Border and the other is the Invasion Of Canada . One of his thoughts is that if there had been no war Canada would have become American good reads not at all dry


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 22, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> One of his thoughts is that if there had been no war Canada would have become American good reads not at all dry



Then RUSH would be an American band!

.


----------



## Njaco (Oct 22, 2007)

and Paris Hilton would be Canadian!


----------



## plan_D (Oct 23, 2007)

Plattsburg and New Orleans were too late in the war to have an effect; Madison already knew the reality of his situation. Britain soundly defeated the U.S in the War of 1812 - it's only obvious, since the stars and stripes aren't flying above Canada. 

_"It is always useful to remind our mule-minding brethren (and sisters) of who bailed them out of the pickle they got us into due to their bungled attempt to seize the "richest and most defenceless possessions at our door" ... Especially around this time of year ... (Army-Navy football match coming up ... eh, the gridiron kind.)"_

Interesting to note that Jefferson thought the navy as a 'pillar of corruption'. 

The best thing about the War of 1812 was the ending; it proved that two nations can actually sort out a lasting peace - it's still lasted to this day.


----------



## renrich (Oct 23, 2007)

Reading an interesting book entitled "Seizing Destiny" about the US and it's expansion from sea to sea. Not always complimentary of the methods and motives of our leaders but it makes me realise that many leaders in the US in the 1700s always felt that Canada should be included in the US. Probably a good thing it worked out as it did.


----------



## mkloby (Oct 23, 2007)

plan_D said:


> Plattsburg and New Orleans were too late in the war to have an effect; Madison already knew the reality of his situation. Britain soundly defeated the U.S in the War of 1812 - it's only obvious, since the stars and stripes aren't flying above Canada.
> 
> _"It is always useful to remind our mule-minding brethren (and sisters) of who bailed them out of the pickle they got us into due to their bungled attempt to seize the "richest and most defenceless possessions at our door" ... Especially around this time of year ... (Army-Navy football match coming up ... eh, the gridiron kind.)"_
> 
> ...



Ultimately "victory" must be based upon acheivement of political goals - which obviously war seeks to do. This is separate from being victorious militarily. Although it is true that elements within the US did support taking Canada, the seizure was not the political objective for the US entering the conflict (even though a disastrous campaign was launched), so I don't see how you can judge THAT as the defining item of the conflict. It is true that the British did emerge victorious in the majority of the conflicts. Ghent ultimately proved that there was no political victory for either side.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 23, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Ultimately "victory" must be based upon acheivement of political goals - which obviously war seeks to do. This is separate from being victorious militarily. Although it is true that elements within the US did support taking Canada, the seizure was not the political objective for the US entering the conflict (even though a disastrous campaign was launched), so I don't see how you can judge THAT as the defining item of the conflict. It is true that the British did emerge victorious in the majority of the conflicts. Ghent ultimately proved that there was no political victory for either side.


the fact was your goal was the invasion of Canada and Thomas Jefferson said it was merely a "a matter of marching " as America had a population of 8 million against 300000 sounds like a loss to me. pleasev remember that in that in the place they invaded in 1812 there were a maximun of 1100 regulars the balance were miltia and native


----------



## fer-de-lance (Oct 23, 2007)

> Plattsburg and New Orleans were too late in the war to have an effect;



Sure they had an effect ... The War didn't just end when the Canadian invasion was halted. Yes, the US objectives were not met and the war was essentially lost but it could have been a lot worse.

If the Battle of Lake Champlain was lost, there would have been a Canadian/British invasion into New York. The U.S. Navy saved the bacon in that instance.

The battle of New Orleans was fought after the Treaty of Ghent was signed but the campaign was ongoing since December 1814 when Cochrane landed Pakenham's troops near the mouth of the Missisippi. One could not anticipate the Treaty of Ghent being signed and there was much for the Americans to lose had the British captured New Orleans. 

A successful defense was critical for preventing further economic losses. (New Orleans store houses were full of goods like cotton and sugar thta couldn't be shipped overseas due to the blockade). Thrashing the Peninsular War veterans was just a bonus. 

Lord Cochrane and his fleet made things really tough for the Americans along the Atlantic seaboard. However, the defenders of Baltimore did almost everything right. The entrance to the harbor was blocked with sunken ships and obstacles, preventing the heavy ships like HMS _Tonnant_ from getting in to use her heavy guns while Fort McHenry held out against the bombardment. Even with five specialized "bomb vessels" armed with large 10-inch mortars and a vessel armed with Congreve rockets, the British just could not do enough damage to the stout fortifications; the limit of the technology of the period.

Lord Cochrane was aggressive but certainly not foolhardy. He almost certainly knew that, during the Revolutionary War, the Royal Navy had lost a ship-of-the-line, HMS _Augusta_ 64, to the Americans. HMS _Augusta_ was trying to fight their way up the Delaware River to attack Philadelphia in October, 1777 when she ran aground trying to get past a line of obstacles between Hog Island and the American fort at Red Bank. Gun fire from American shore batteries and gunboats set her alight and she blew up. HMS _Merlin_ 18, was also lost in this action.

It was probably successes like these that motivated Jefferson to do away with the ocean-going navy and focus instead on building small gunboats for coastal defense. But the US was a maritime nation with the need for ocean-going warships to protect merchant ships in far off waters like the Mediterranean. That was why building of the _Constitution_ class was authorized in the Naval Act of 1794.

Since someone mentioned the USS _Niagara_, it should be mentioned that the US Navy gained a significant advantage with a clever move prior to the Battle of Lake Erie. Some 150 experienced officers and men from USS _Constitution_ were transferred to the Lake Erie Squadron while the big frigate was in refit in Charlestown.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 24, 2007)

_"Ultimately "victory" must be based upon acheivement of political goals - which obviously war seeks to do. This is separate from being victorious militarily. Although it is true that elements within the US did support taking Canada, the seizure was not the political objective for the US entering the conflict (even though a disastrous campaign was launched), so I don't see how you can judge THAT as the defining item of the conflict. It is true that the British did emerge victorious in the majority of the conflicts. Ghent ultimately proved that there was no political victory for either side."_

mkloby, the capture of Canada was the sole reason for the War of 1812. It's a common thing today for America to deny this and use the impressment of U.S sailors as the cause. As I've said previously, the U.S had no chance of upholding that argument in any law system (American or European). 
The U.S did not issue official citizenship documents to its merchant crews and since most were ex-British, then in British law they were British and up for the taking. 

Jefferson and Madison made it impossible for the British to negociate when they claimed all men on U.S ships were U.S citizens. Jefferson was offered an agreement by the British in 1807 - but it wasn't taken to congress; I wonder why? 
Madison didn't care about the ship-owners who were mostly Federalists; those same people who refered to him as a Jacobin. 

Madison believed Napoleon was going to take victory in 1812; he was going to be on the winning side. Seizing Canada was the sole objective of that war for the U.S, mkloby. 

In June 1812, Britain believed it had meet all the grievances of the United States. The British government believed it was a mistake when the U.S declared war; especially since the British government had called for an end to the impressment of seaman on U.S ships (which is still had as the issue today). 

The British objective was to avoid using a vast amount of resources on an irritant like the U.S; France was the real enemy. 

_"Sure they had an effect ... The War didn't just end when the Canadian invasion was halted. Yes, the US objectives were not met and the war was essentially lost but it could have been a lot worse."_

If Britain had have marched into New York or the Ohio Valley; the war might have been over a little bit sooner. But whatever Britain may have taken, it would all be handed back. By 1815, Britain realised that true wealth comes from a trading network. Britian had no interest in regaining American colonies as it was making more money from the U.S if it was kept a seperate nation.

All Britian was trying to do in 1814 and 1815 was to finish off Napoleon; Cochrane and Cockburn were simply in the U.S to drive home the reality of the situation for Madison. 

Honestly, is it believed that if the war had continued the U.S would have been able to hold up continuing British offensives, and increasing pressure? Once Napoleon was defeated the Royal Navy was open for the U.S and yet more troops were available for the U.S - if Britain had some motive for the War of 1812 they would have continued. 

Plattsburg simply held up the British Army in Canada for a while, and New Orleans gave the U.S some moral victory. Even before Washington was burnt to the ground; Madison knew it was over.


----------



## mkloby (Oct 24, 2007)

PD - your argument is logical, but are there any sources to back this up (or are you going off of conjecture)? That line of thinking seems much more common throughout Britain and Canada, and mind you it enables them to declare victory in the war, not to mention guys like PB to puff their chests up . It's acknowledged that there were members of Congress that pushed for seizing Canada - but they were not the majority. Also, if you read the text of President Madison's message to Congress 1 JUN 1812, you won't even find Canada mentioned - it instead focuses on impressment and commerce.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 24, 2007)

How can the reasons be denied; when both Jefferson and Madison make it blatantly obvious that Canada is the objective. The impressment was not a matter of concern for Madison - but they were a 'good' reason to go to war, good enough maybe for Congress to back his actions. 

 Britain declares a victory for one reason, and one reason only - they won. Britain was not trying to achieve anything in that war but scratch the itch that was the U.S. - all the British government wanted was for the U.S to shut up while they dealt with France. If the U.S government truly had concerns the British government was open for discussion; the unofficial citizenship documents were even sometimes accepted just to keep the U.S quiet. 

How can you honestly believe that the U.S wasn't aiming for Canada? It's only denied now because the U.S doesn't like to admit it lost. There's no evidence of Britain attempting anything but defending Canada and making Madison realise he was an idiot to start something.

It'd have probably been better if Britain continued and dismembered the U.S - then this bizarre myth couldn't have been continued. 

Britain was victorious because they achieved everything they wanted to achieve, and the U.S.A achieved nothing from their efforts. Britain had already halted impressment of U.S 'citizens' on merchant vessels. And since Britain was the U.S largest trading partner - I hardly see economy as a reason to declare war on them.


----------



## mkloby (Oct 24, 2007)

PD - that's what is on the record from Madison's speech. You say that Jefferson and Madison made it blatantly clear that Canada was the objective - but please supply some backing for that statement. As I said, his speech to Congress mentioned only impressment and british interference with American trade. Those were the issues being discussed in American gov't, not the conquering of Canada - unless you can show otherwise.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 24, 2007)

I'm quite shocked you believe that Madison wasn't holding back some truths in his speech to Congress. 

Jefferson, _"Providence has placed their richest and most defenceless possessions at our door,"_ Really gives away his intentions. Especially after he refused to send an agreement between the Whig government and American diplomats concerning impressment to congress in 1807. I have also stated that Britain abandoned impressment from U.S ships before the war started. Britain even disavowed the admiral of HMS _Leopard_ in 1807 for firing upon USS _Chesapeake_ when he wanted to claim British deserters. 

I can only assume Madison continued this chain of thought. As it's obvious that there was no effect on American trade, most of it was heading for Wellingtons Peninsular Army, Canada or Britain itself. Napoleon wasn't a particular fan of the U.S trading with Britain because it was a breach of his Continental system. 
The New England traders continued trading with Britain throughout all the American governments embargos, and the war itself. Madisons claim that trading was a reason for war can only be seen as an outright lie. 

The 'War Hawks' of congress obviously found it appropriate to discuss Canada as part of the war. 

Madison's speech means nothing - politicians have this habit of lying and persuading. Seriously, any war that started because of impressment would have led the U.S to build a larger navy to halt this; but the U.S government only comissioned enough money to keep deep sea ships in service for a few months to escort returning vessels. The fight in Canada was obviously the place to win the war, and take the prize.


----------



## mkloby (Oct 24, 2007)

Good debate PD. I think you're dead on regarding several items.

I'm not saying politicians do not lie. In fact, it is a profession with a firm foundation resting upon thievery and dishonesty. However, that Jefferson quote from Notes on Virginia, I believe, is taken out of context if you read the whole of the text. A paragraph before that Jefferson goes on about peaceful relations and free trade being paramount. He goes on to say add that only a fraction of a European powers' forces would be available for a conflict with the US, so building military comparable to that of European powers is a waste of energy. The fact that believe seizing Canada would be a "mere matter of marching" at the outbreak of hostilities also does not necessarily mean that was the aim of his government. However, Thomas Jefferson was not in gov't at that time.

Even from reading current Canadian gov't material - they seem absolutely convinced that the United States' major cause for the war was taking Canada. Aside from few individuals in Congress, they have no backing for this assertion. While some wanted Canada for fishing, trapping, and other economic reasons, others wanted to seize Canada to remove the British. Don't forget that many believed that the British were supporting natives opposing American expansion. There is as much proof of this as there is of your assertion, however.

From well documented accounts regarding the impressment issue - I think you're right on in your assessment, although I believe there was still much bad blood left over regarding the issue.

I don't understand your claim of British infringement of American trade a lie as a cause for war. Did not the British conduct a blockade, especially by the Orders in Council of 1807? Historians identify this as a major cause for war. In fact, didn't the British also reverse course and end this policy about the same time war was being declared by the US?

Claiming that taking Canada was the cause of hostilities and saying Canada was the "place to win the war and take the prize" are two separate statements, and do not mean exactly the same thing.


----------



## fer-de-lance (Oct 25, 2007)

> If Britain had have marched into New York or the Ohio Valley; the war might have been over a little bit sooner. But whatever Britain may have taken, it would all be handed back. By 1815, Britain realised that true wealth comes from a trading network. Britian had no interest in regaining American colonies as it was making more money from the U.S if it was kept a seperate nation



Agree with the final two sentences ... but the first two!? Are we falling into the same trap as Madison's thinking about Canada being a walk-over?

History is also not on the side of the British Army having a successful campaign in New York - remembering Oriskany and Saratoga in a past conflict. 

I think one of the lessons of these wars is that trying to fight in the backyard of a motivated local population / militia is not easy. 

Canadian fencibles / militia knew their terrain - were motivated and fought well ... the same would have applied to the US forces in New York ... Vermont. 



> Plattsburg simply held up the British Army in Canada for a while,



Prevost's British regulars being forced to pull back precipitously to Canada was pretty darned decisive. There was a simple reason, no Lake Champlain fleet - no supplies.

Even if Downie had defeated MacDonough on the lake, the land victory was by no means assured. Repeated attempts by Prevost's British regulars to cross the Saranac River had been repulsed by a small force of US regulars. Lt Col Willington of the Buffs being killed in the process. 

Prevost's efforts in building fortifications around Plattsburgh were also frustrated by American use of red-hot shot and night raids. Downie's ships would have stood up even less well to such treatment by American guns. In that sense, a British victory on the lake was needed to assure the supply route to continue the land campaign but would not necessarily contribute to the land battle.

This British threat to New York also got Vermont into the war - that state had been against the war from the start and refused to send troops until their own territory was threatened. During the battle at Pike's Ford near Plattaburgh the Vermont militia ambushed and destroyed a company of the 76th Foot.

Thus, the land battle was going badly against Prevost before news of the September 11(!) naval action on the lake reached him. When it did, it became a rout, the retreating British left behind large quantities of supplies and their wounded.




> Honestly, is it believed that if the war had continued the U.S would have been able to hold up continuing British offensives, and increasing pressure?



Well, it was after Napoleon was exiled in mid 1814 that the attacks were made on Washington, Baltimore (August), Plattsburgh (September) and New Orleans (December).

It is perhaps trivializing these campaigns too much to say they were merely to convince Madison that the war was lost and he should negotiate. 

At the negotiations in Ghent, the British had made territorial demands, particularly in the Great Lakes. That puts into serious doubt the assumption that "whatever Britain may have taken, it would all be handed back" had the British won at Plattsburgh / Lake Champlain.

The demands on the Great Lakes were only rebuffed by the news of the overwhelming US victory at Plattsburgh / Lake Champlain and the raising of the siege at Baltimore. Otherwise, the US would not have been able to secure a return to "_status quo ante bellum_".

Winston Churchill even referred to Lake Champlain as the "decisive battle" of the War of 1812.

Could the British had sent more troops and continued the offense and pressure on the US?

Perhaps, perhaps not. The defeat of the Peninsular War veterans at New Orleans in particular showed just how dangerous the Americans were on their own ground. A quarter of the British force (2,000+ out of 8,000) was killed, captured or wounded.

The fact that the experienced Peninsular War regiments were in America (and some of them badly mauled) meant that they were not available in Europe for the Hundred Days in 1815 which started 11 days after the US Congress ratified the Treaty of Ghent in Feb. 1815. 

Had more troops been sent, might Napoleon have succeeded in his return from Elba ... the Iron Duke notwithstanding? (After all, he called Waterloo a "close run thing" ...)

It was good that everyone came to their senses in the end - just in the nick of time ... (for Christmas and the Hundred Days).


----------



## plan_D (Oct 25, 2007)

_"While some wanted Canada for fishing, trapping, and other economic reasons, others wanted to seize Canada to remove the British. Don't forget that many believed that the British were supporting natives opposing American expansion. There is as much proof of this as there is of your assertion, however."_

The natives, and their land, were a problem and it is true that Britain were in allegiance with them. If the U.S were after the natives, it's only sensible to assume that the American government would take their land - since it happened everywhere else. 

_"I don't understand your claim of British infringement of American trade a lie as a cause for war. Did not the British conduct a blockade, especially by the Orders in Council of 1807? Historians identify this as a major cause for war. In fact, didn't the British also reverse course and end this policy about the same time war was being declared by the US?"_

The Orders of Council were a reaction to Napoleon's Continental System that disallowed all trading with Great Britain. Britain blockaded all French owned ports and removed neutrality from the oceans; making all ships trade with one or the other party at war. 
President Jefferson did not like Britain's behaviour on this matter but the fact remains that it had no effect on the New England ship-owners who traded with Britain anyway. The U.S ship-owners and merchants were benefitting from the war with inflated prices; the only action of 1807 that hurt U.S trade was Jefferson's Embargo act. 

If the Orders of Council were a major reason for the war. Why didn't the U.S declare war on France whose Continental system attempted to block U.S trading with Great Britain?

_"In fact, didn't the British also reverse course and end this policy about the same time war was being declared by the US?"_

As Napoleons Continental System began to collapse and Britain's economy began to dwindle both sides had to change. Britain abandoned the Navigation Act and allowed all vessels (not just British) to trade for Britain. The Orders of Council 1809 moved away from blockade and, instead, regulated trade. All ships, no matter the owner or nationality, were welcomed to Britain and allowed to trade as long as they came in under British convoy. This was no concern to merchants who enjoyed the protection of British convoy, and the high wartime rates.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 25, 2007)

_"Agree with the final two sentences ... but the first two!? Are we falling into the same trap as Madison's thinking about Canada being a walk-over?

History is also not on the side of the British Army having a successful campaign in New York - remembering Oriskany and Saratoga in a past conflict. 

I think one of the lessons of these wars is that trying to fight in the backyard of a motivated local population / militia is not easy. 

Canadian fencibles / militia knew their terrain - were motivated and fought well ... the same would have applied to the US forces in New York ... Vermont."_

You are right and it must be added that the British Army had not proven themselves well in combat until 1814 - 1815. I must make it clear though that I did say it could have been made shorter, not would. 
Not all of the United States were willing to fight for the government, especially those in New England - who were getting hurt by Madison's bizarre embargos on trade. 

_"Could the British had sent more troops and continued the offense and pressure on the US?

Perhaps, perhaps not. The defeat of the Peninsular War veterans at New Orleans in particular showed just how dangerous the Americans were on their own ground. A quarter of the British force (2,000+ out of 8,000) was killed, captured or wounded.

The fact that the experienced Peninsular War regiments were in America (and some of them badly mauled) meant that they were not available in Europe for the Hundred Days in 1815 which started 11 days after the US Congress ratified the Treaty of Ghent in Feb. 1815. 

Had more troops been sent, might Napoleon have succeeded in his return from Elba ... the Iron Duke notwithstanding? (After all, he called Waterloo a "close run thing" ...)"_

The numbers say it all, really. It's said that New Orleans was a large defeat for Britain, but 2,000 + really is a small number when you take into account the numbers that were fielded against France. During the Napoleonic Wars Britain put 150,000 men in the field and paid for 425,000 more to be deployed by Russia, Austria and Prussia. The East India Company alone had an army of 180,000 in India by 1818, and a tax revenue of £18 million. The U.S didn't have the numbers to hold up a British assault on a grand scale; and there's no question of halting the Royal Navy.

The Allies would have not faced Napoleon at Waterloo but given Napoleons arrogance and inability to contain himself; he would have driven himself into defeat again eventually.

_"At the negotiations in Ghent, the British had made territorial demands, particularly in the Great Lakes. That puts into serious doubt the assumption that "whatever Britain may have taken, it would all be handed back" had the British won at Plattsburgh / Lake Champlain.

The demands on the Great Lakes were only rebuffed by the news of the overwhelming US victory at Plattsburgh / Lake Champlain and the raising of the siege at Baltimore. Otherwise, the US would not have been able to secure a return to "status quo ante bellum"."_

If Britain seriously wanted to keep any of the U.S - they would have continued the war. The British claim on the area around the Great Lakes seems sensible enough; a strategic option to prevent future invasion. It still remains that Britain would not have dismembered the U.S or taken great tracts of land from them, it had no interest in an Empire - as long as it maintained trade. 

The fact that it constantly handed land back to France and other European powers after wars is proof of this. All of the Dutch land in the Pacific, for example, was given to them by the British.


----------



## renrich (Oct 30, 2007)

The British were unwilling to wait until the results of the New Orleans campaign were in before concluding the Treaty of Ghent. The Americans were, which meant they were sanguine about those results. However the earlier peace treaties with the Indians pulled off by the US which negated the British efforts to establish an Indian Protectorate below the Great Lakes to act as a buffer between the US and Canada and then the stinging defeats at Lake Champlain and Plattsburg plus the defeat at Fort Erie and at Baltimore dashed any hopes the British had that the Americans would give in easily. That along with war weariness and growing social unrest at home and concerns about political instability on the continent led the British to give up any hopes of gaining new territory in America. The Treaty of Ghent essentially declared the War of 1812 a draw. The New Orleans battle punctuated the end of the war with a debacle for the British. By anyone's judgment a battle where 5500 troops suffer 2057 KIA is a disaster especially when the British troops were regulars whereas the Americans were a scratch group at best. It did prove one thing however, no continental army using conventional tactics will succeed against American riflemen behind field fortifications.


----------



## mkloby (Oct 30, 2007)

Interesting debate, PD - I'm pretty much unable to spend time here making coherent posts lately, as I'm going to be homeless in 7 days


----------



## plan_D (Oct 31, 2007)

_"The British were unwilling to wait until the results of the New Orleans campaign were in before concluding the Treaty of Ghent. The Americans were, which meant they were sanguine about those results. However the earlier peace treaties with the Indians pulled off by the US which negated the British efforts to establish an Indian Protectorate below the Great Lakes to act as a buffer between the US and Canada and then the stinging defeats at Lake Champlain and Plattsburg plus the defeat at Fort Erie and at Baltimore dashed any hopes the British had that the Americans would give in easily. That along with war weariness and growing social unrest at home and concerns about political instability on the continent led the British to give up any hopes of gaining new territory in America."_

The British government was uninterested in American terrority; the truth of the whole matter is that in 1812-1815, Britain was concerned with Napoleon and the rising national debt from paying for Wellington's Army and, then, Russias, Austrias and Prussias. 

_"The Treaty of Ghent essentially declared the War of 1812 a draw."_

How? British war aims were the defence of Canada - they achieved that; so it's a British victory. It seems to me that American history makes out as if the War of 1812 was important and tries to make people believe that the U.S stood up to Britain - when in reality Britain was just trying to shut Madison up because he was being a pain in the ar*e.

_"By anyone's judgment a battle where 5500 troops suffer 2057 KIA is a disaster especially when the British troops were regulars whereas the Americans were a scratch group at best."_

That's a bad loss rate but given the fact that 5500 men was hardly a force worth mentioning when hundreds of thousands were being deployed in Europe; it's all a pointless boast. 

In fact, I cannot quite believe that the U.S believes that Britain signed a peace because America inflicted some kind of damage to the British military. It was only British prestige that was bruised ...the military machine was massive and would have crushed America if the same effort against Napoleon was used.
5,000 men was a mere raiding party... by European standards. 

_"It did prove one thing however, no continental army using conventional tactics will succeed against American riflemen behind field fortifications."_

Oh yeah, because Continental armies were useless against American riflemen...


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 31, 2007)

I believe New Orleans was a blip on the screen the natives there were sure to put up a tough fight as many were Acadians (Cajuns) who were booted out of Eastern Canada by the Brits in the 1760's and I'm sure they weren't looking forward for another move so they would fight


----------



## renrich (Oct 31, 2007)

To me, the 1812 War was a useless and unfortunate war. To the extent it gave the US a certain amount of self respect and self confidence about it's ability to defend it's own soil, both on land and sea, it was a positive. It also laid to rest finally any ideas of the land hungry faction in the US that had designs on Canada. It also made the frontier safer because of the treaties extracted from the Indians and because Britain finally quit encouraging the tribes to attack the Americans. Probably the greatest gain for the US was that it was a step toward making the European powers realise that the US was a permanent fixture in the western hemisphere. It was not long after the Treaty of Ghent that Britain proposed that a joint declaration between themselves and the US be made that they would not tolerate any more meddling in the western hemishere by the European powers. One will remember that President Monroe turned down that proposal and issued his own declaration. Most of Jackson's troops at NO were militia from Tenn., Ga., KY and the other Southern regions. Of course Lafittes men helped out also. Knowing Cajuns pretty well, I doubt many on them contributed.


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 31, 2007)

The Acadians were good enough for Stonewall Jackson in Shenandoah as the the 6th 7th and 8th Louisiana regt according to my sources they were his shock troops there


----------



## renrich (Oct 31, 2007)

Troops from Louisiana gave good service in The War of Northern Aggression but do you have any evidence that they were Cajuns?


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 31, 2007)

I'm not vouching for the accuracy as I know little of the US civil war
Acadians in Gray


----------



## renrich (Oct 31, 2007)

Thanks PB, very interesting material. I counted those who died as a result of combat and it came to about 23 and those that died of disease came to about 50. Interestingly, that ratio of twice as many dying of illness as of wounds received in combat is exactly the ratio of both armies Confederate and Union. There was one unit however that reversed that ratio. The Texas Brigade, one of the Texas units in the war and the only one that served with the Army of Northern Virginia, had three regiments, the 1st, 4th, and 5th Texas. They enlisted about 4000 men and about 1000 died. However their ratio was reversed, twice as many died of wounds received in combat as from disease. Go figure. At any rate your material about the Cajuns in the war was interesting but you can see it was a relatively small number and they saw most of their action in what was called the west. In other words not in Virginia. Thanks again.


----------



## mkloby (Oct 31, 2007)

plan_D said:


> _"The Treaty of Ghent essentially declared the War of 1812 a draw."_
> 
> How? British war aims were the defence of Canada - they achieved that; so it's a British victory. It seems to me that American history makes out as if the War of 1812 was important and tries to make people believe that the U.S stood up to Britain - when in reality Britain was just trying to shut Madison up because he was being a pain in the ar*e.



Kinda a tail chase now. Obviously judging a victor would depend upon each nations' goals. If you believe that the primary US goal was seizing Canada, and the British goal was simply defending that territory - then it was a smashing success for Britain, especially since it drew minimal resources from their more pressing matters. This is a common and well documented viewpoint regarding the war in both Canada and the UK - from what I can read (including gov't websites and such).

I believe this explanation for the cause of the war is too simplistic. While I agree that impressment was a moot point by 1812, it was still a potent political tool, as evidenced by Madison's speech to Congress. I disagree that the Orders of Counsel were unrelated. Madison also spoke of the trade in his address. The same work of Jefferson that you quoted earlier also goes on and on about free trade, which was a dearly held concept. Britain interfered with this ability. And yes - it is recognized that the emargo act was incredibly unpopular, and made New Englanders furious. That, however, does not change the principle behind Britain's actions.

A little bit of cultural bias in the way each nation views the causes and outcome of the conflict - you bet. Is there anything wrong with that - not at all. We probably won't see eye to eye on the matter, and that's perfectly fine. Still, it makes for good debate. In the end, the British and Americans were able to lay the foundation for an enduring special relationship that lasts still to this day.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 1, 2007)

_"Probably the greatest gain for the US was that it was a step toward making the European powers realise that the US was a permanent fixture in the western hemisphere."_

Britain had already recognised the U.S as a friend before the War of 1812 because of the increased trade it was getting. The U.S did not need a war to plant its position firmly, it just needed strong trade and Britain was getting that. 

The War of 1812 did nothing to British thoughts toward America - the years before 1812 are filled with Britain trying to keep America happy because the government enjoyed an easy trading partner and potential friend. 

The only thing the War of 1812 has done is allow misinformed Americans to say they beat Britain in it. 

_" Madison also spoke of the trade in his address. The same work of Jefferson that you quoted earlier also goes on and on about free trade, which was a dearly held concept. Britain interfered with this ability. And yes - it is recognized that the emargo act was incredibly unpopular, and made New Englanders furious."_

You're talking about the Orders of Council 1807, it all changed with the Orders of Council 1809 which opened trade to all world parties. Britain was bringing U.S ships under convoy and America was enjoying high war-time rates...why would you, seriously, complain about that? 

The French were doing the same to U.S shipping and attempting to block it from trading with Britain - a block on free trade. The U.S had as much reason to go to war with France as it did with Britain , but it chose Britain because Canada was for the taking. 

The war proved that civilised society can talk about things instead of going to war, but it's unfortunate to note that Britain was already prepared to talk things through before the war.


----------



## mkloby (Nov 1, 2007)

plan_D said:


> You're talking about the Orders of Council 1807, it all changed with the Orders of Council 1809 which opened trade to all world parties. Britain was bringing U.S ships under convoy and America was enjoying high war-time rates...why would you, seriously, complain about that?


I do not agree that Britain was innocent in this affair. Her actions did not only insult the US. In 1807, Denmark, another neutral, was attacked for refusing British requests to turn over her fleet. Prior to the Orders of Council of 1809, the British actually issued licenses to allow trade that was barred in 1807. US trade with Britain was also heavily taxed, which was a major complaint of the US.

From accounts I have read, the Orders of 1809 did not open trade to all parties. Trade with France and her territories was still prohibited. It did permit a trade route to the Baltic countries, and duties on US goods sent to Britain were reduced. Britain refused to rescind their policy from 1807. Again, Britain was still interfering with the American "right" of free trade (as Americans saw it). British interference with American trade was considered unacceptable, although the British had good reason to do so because of their own interests. James Monroe said "the most feeble and vulnerable of all powers…will insult us, encroach on our rights, and plunder us if they can do it with impunity." As many sources show, the US would not let Britain dictate US policy. It was NOT about Canada.



plan_D said:


> The French were doing the same to U.S shipping and attempting to block it from trading with Britain - a block on free trade. The U.S had as much reason to go to war with France as it did with Britain , but it chose Britain because Canada was for the taking.



French policy never had any effect of the US trade comparable to British policy. Also - resisting the British was a major issue, as they had been a colony only several decades prior.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 1, 2007)

All of what you just said has declared the War of 1812 as being a matter of principal; which brings France into the equation. The New England merchants did not have a problem with British 'restrictions' - and it was they who were affected by any change in ocean policy.

The issue with Denmark has *nothing* to do with America, so it's not worth mentioning in this. However, the British acted to protect the seas from Napoleon who would have used the Danish fleet against them.

America was 'insulted' so it started a war, that doesn't wash - especially since France would have been 'insulting' as well.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 1, 2007)

The New England merchants were totally against the war


----------



## renrich (Nov 1, 2007)

Perhaps Britain's attitude toward the US was little changed by the 1812 War but the other European powers such as France and Spain could not help but see the US in a different light. The US's further territory acquisitions were aided by the fact that other nations began to realise that the US's bellicosity was not just sham.


----------



## mkloby (Nov 1, 2007)

PD - I am sure that no measure of agrument can persuade you!

It took years of British insults towards America to get the the point where the US would declare war. You are right in that Denmark has nothing to do with US/Britain. Dropped. I'd like to point out that in April of 1811 the French rescinded the Berlin and Milan decrees with the St Cloud Decree. The situation with the French had not degenerated into that of with the British. The British also followed the French and withdrew Orders in Council of 1809 just before the US declared war on them. I don't believe that if the British had done this months before, allowing time for word to reach the US, that war would have been declared by America.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 2, 2007)

We will have to agree to disagree.

However, Britain was attempting to meet all of America's grievances - any insults were certainly not intentional. All I've read indicates that Jefferson and Madison were both making negociations nigh impossible. In 1807, an agreement was reached but Jefferson refused to take it to congress - it makes me wonder what that agreement was. Madison refused to issue official documents to merchant crews and declared all those in U.S ships as U.S citizens - that's just looking for an excuse to go to war. 

America had every oppurtunity to sue for equal peace from 1812 to 1815 ... Britain thought it was a mistake for the first year.


----------



## Njaco (Nov 7, 2007)

Somewhat alittle off the current posts but keeping with the thread, how accuarte was the movie "Master and Commander"? I've seen a few sailing movies, "Bounty" and "Moby Dick" but I was impressed with the portrayal of the life aboard ship in the early 1800s.


----------



## renrich (Nov 7, 2007)

Being an "authority" on Napoleonic War navies because I read all of the "Hornblower" books. I enjoyed "Master and Commander" and also thought it was authentic. The movie, "Captain Horatio Hornblower" with Gregory Peck was also good, I thought.


----------



## Njaco (Nov 19, 2007)

found this to be interesting.

from "Military History Magazines' Great Battles" by John Hoyt Williams.

"Wooden or not, a 'ship of the line' in Sir Horatio Nelson's day was a fearsome, virtually unsinkable dreadnaught under those picturesque, billowing sails.

Backbone of the fighting fleets in his era, huge ships like Nelson's 74-gun _'Vanguard' _at Aboukir Bay, had just about used up all the wood in England's Royal Forests by 1790 - the _'Vanguard' _alone consumed 2,000, century-old oak trees in its construction, or a quarter-million cubic feet of oak hard as rock. Other woods, such as massive elms providing the keel or giant New England pines horied into shape as the stout masts, raised the price of these ships to heroic sums.

One result was a critical lumber shortage dictating that enemy ships should be captured rather than sunk outright. Another was wooden "armour" 3 feet thick in places, but with the disadvantage of lethal slintering in close action against the enemy.

By late 18th century, the basic ship of the line for the British, and many others, was the '74' - the British did have heavier ships, true, the _'Victory' _and _'Royal Sovereign' _of Trafalgar fame, for instance, (both 100 guns), and the Spanish could boast their hulking _'Santissima __Trinidad' _(142 guns), but increasingly the 74 was becoming the all-purpose warship of the day.

The British categorized their "unsinkable" but distinctly _burnable _ships of the line by the number of cannon carried aboard. Thus, First and Second Rates, both boasting 3 gundecks, carried 100 or more or 90 to 99 cannon, respectfully. Third Rates, comprising about 85% of Britain's battlefleet, carried 64 to 84 big guns, plus a belching ship-masher called the Cannonade.

When it came to vessels like the _'Vanguard'_, third-rate was entirely decpetive as classification, of course. Here was a ship so heavy in firepower, actually, that it required a crew of 600 and only one-sixth of that number was needed for routine, sea-going duties. The rest were on-board to man the guns - 28 32-pounders on the lower gundeck; 30 24-pounders on the upper gundeck; 14 12-pounders on the quarterdeck and 2 more 12-pounders on the forecastle.

With the bigger guns weighing as much as 5,500 pounds each, that means the _'Vanguard' _carried 363,000 pounds or 181.5 tons, of naval cannon, excluding the weight of their heavy, wheeled carriages of wood. The term "pounder" in reference to the cannon of course reflects the weight of their shot.

Then, too, by 1790, there were the awesome, short-range Cannonades, which rendered a 74 no longer a 74, so drastically did they improve the firepower, or throw-weight, of any large ship.

A major innovation of 18th-century naval warfare, the Cannonade was invented by General Robert Melville in 1774, with fond hopes for its use by the Army. In 4 years, though, the gun was being produced for shipboard use by the Carron Ironworks Company in Scotland. Its prototype, also known as "the Smasher", the Cannonade soon was standard as supplimental ordinance for Royal Navy ships, often 12 of them for a 74 like the _'Vanguard'_.

Short in barrel, light but giant in bore (68-pounders were common by 1790), the Cannonade hurled immense projectiles into the close-range enemy with awesome effect, yet needed only 5.5 pounds of powder to do the job. Extremely accurate at close range, the Cannonade flung a low-velocity, high density ball that could shatter a ship's hull and shower the opponent's crowded deck with deadly splinters. At 200 yards or less, however, the Cannonades often were double even triple-shotted or stuffed with bags of loose musket balls for shotgun effect.

Mounted on forecastle and quarterdeck, the Cannonades caused the majority of casualties in battles such as Trafalgar or Aboukir Bay. At Trafalgar, in fact, Nelson's _'Victory' _fired its Cannonades across the decks of the French _'Bucentaure' _from about 200 feet, each gun loaded with a 68-pound ball ad a wooden keg containing 500 musket balls. From that one devastating volley, the French flagship never recovered, its upperdeck gun crews slaughtered in their tracks and no wonder."


----------



## renrich (Nov 21, 2007)

Yes, those ships of the line were engineering marvels when you considered what their mission was. They could go to sea for months at a time with everything needed for a crew of 600 men. They could sail any where there was wind. The weight of ordnance carried was massive. By the way those were carronades. I suspect that most of the design work was carried out not mathematically but by rule of thumb.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 22, 2007)

They were _carronades_ named after the Carron Company that produced them. Massively effective cannons at short range and ideal for the Royal Navy strategy of holding until close.

The ship-of-the-line would only be kept at sea for months with the correct provisions and a good replenishment system. The British truly grasped the idea of replenishment during its many blockades of Brest in the 18th Century. 

Ships were designed using 'mixed mathematics' [mostly] as I stated in a previous posting. 'Mixed mathematics' is the applied maths of a tradesman (Banker, navigators etc.) rather than using 'pure mathematics' which is theory rather than practical. There are ship design drawings with many sums written alongside - so it wasn't guess work. 

As I did mention the French did build the _Scipion_, _Hercule_ and _Pluton_ using stability calculations but the maths was wrong. The ships were too tender to carry sail and their stowage had to be replaced with ballasts. 

The use of pure mathematics in ship design was happening in 18th Century France but it wasn't all the French tried to make it up to be. 

If you're interested:

The _Scipion_, _Hercule_ and _Pluton_ were all seventy-fours built at Rochefort in 1778. The _Scipion_ was captured by the Royal Navy in 1793 and sunk after an explosion in the same year, she had taken part in the American war and saw action at the Battle of Chesapeake Bay. The _Hercule_ was present at the Battle of Chesapeake Bay (Battle of the Virginia Capes) and was later razéed to a fifty-frigate. The _Pluton_ also saw action during the American War at Martinique (1780), Fort Royal (1781), Chesapeake (1781), St. Kitts, (1782), and the Saintes (1782). She was renamed in 1797 and broken up in 1805.


----------



## HoHun (Nov 22, 2007)

Hi Plan D,

>The _Scipion_, _Hercule_ and _Pluton_ were all seventy-fours built at Rochefort in 1778. 

By the way, the French are building a replica of an 18th century frigate in one of the historic dry docks at Rochefort. Interestingly, the reconstruction of the Hermione relied on plans drawn and archived by the British after they had captured her sister ship, the Concorde. (I just learned that from googling and believe it makes an interesting postscript to our earlier discussion of prizes!)

I visited Rochefort and the Hermione a couple of years back - quite impressive! Bad timing for photographs, though - the ship's hull was pretty much complete, so no way to get a sectional shot, and it fitted into the protective tent so tighly so you couldn't get a perspective shot either. The walkways took you around the ship at several level in very close proximity to the hull, so it was a great experience anyway.

These pictures here give a better impression than my own:

LHermione, the frigate of enlightenment

Hermione (frÃ©gate - WikipÃ©dia)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Njaco (Nov 24, 2007)

You are correct! They are carronades not cannonades! This is what I get when I don't wear my glasses!


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Nov 24, 2007)

HoHun said:


> By the way, the French are building a replica of an 18th century frigate in one of the historic dry docks at Rochefort. Interestingly, the reconstruction of the Hermione relied on plans drawn and archived by the British after they had captured her sister ship, the Concorde. (I just learned that from googling and believe it makes an interesting postscript to our earlier discussion of prizes!)
> 
> I visited Rochefort and the Hermione a couple of years back - quite impressive! Bad timing for photographs, though - the ship's hull was pretty much complete, so no way to get a sectional shot, and it fitted into the protective tent so tighly so you couldn't get a perspective shot either. The walkways took you around the ship at several level in very close proximity to the hull, so it was a great experience anyway.



If I'm not mistaken, this is the ship that brought the Marquis de Lafayette to the colonies in his endeavor to help the colonists. I visited the construction site as well 3 years ago during a visit with relatives. The area is very interesting with a lot of historical buildings relating to the maritime heritage of the region. 

There was a heated debate as to it's arnament, with historians wanting to put real cannons on her, but officials are most likely to prevail in placing false cannons made of aluminum, so there is no breach of international maritime laws as she voyages into international seas. (there are plans to sail her to the US).


----------



## magnocain (Dec 9, 2007)

I would say that the french had the better naval snipers


----------

