Napoleonic Wars navies....

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

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

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

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

"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.

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

The New England merchants were totally against the war

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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 (frégate - Wikipédia)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

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

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.

Click to expand...

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).