American Reacts to Battle of Trafalgar | Kings and Generals

[@SoGal_YT]

Thanks for watching! Like and subscribe if you enjoyed this video 👍🏻 Follow me on social media: Instagram: instagram.com/sogal.yt/ Twitter: twitter.com/SoGal_YT

[@jolan_tru]

The Holy Roman Empire is an interesting thing to study, but keep in mind, it was not Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. It was very misleadingly named.

[@AndrewD8Red]

Olde Timey ships were arranged into "Rates" which modern ships aren't. A modern frigate describes a specific function rather than a weight-class. A frigate could be anywhere between a second-rate and fifth-rate ship-of-the-line, which means they were big, probably having up to 60 cannons. Battle formations were arranged into literal lines of ships; because ships had 90% of their guns on their port and starboard sides (known as the broadsides) a line of ships could bring the heaviest amount of firepower possible to bear. 1st Rate Ships Of The Line like Nelson's flagship, HMS Victory, had over a hundred heavy guns and 800+ crew. Lineships include barques, plated brigs, corvettes, plated pinnace and other ships with funny names, too. They typically had large holds, but also powerful guns and a compliment of marines. Frigates weren't intended to haul cargo, they were strictly warships.

[@AndrewD8Red]

The French couldn't invade the British Isles because they would have been defeated quite handily by both the Royal Navy at sea and the Army on land; as the UK is quite small, armies could respond to any landing quicker than a large country could. Invading France would have also been a dangerous prospect, as the French army was massive, well equipped and well-trained. The best way to damage a global Empire is strangle other finances by cutting off the financial input from their colonies. Britain would commit huge resources to protect its valuable Caribbean colonies, likewise the French would do the same.

[@AndrewD8Red]

Sorry for rambling, but this is one of my favourite periods of history!

[@AndrewD8Red]

Ships had a few different types of cannon; Smaller ones that fired 12lb cannon balls, they were stationed on the higher decks and could fire shotgun-like grapeshot to kill off crewmembers on deck in large quantities. The larger 24lb cannon fired heavy cannonballs to blast into the hull of their enemies and kill crewmen inside with massive arrow-like splinters. The bigger 32lb cannons blasted big holes along the waterline of their enemies, hopefully to fill them with enough water to put them out of action.

[@connorward2400]

The flag ship of the battle, HMS Victory is still around serving as a museum ship. Its the oldest commissioned war ship in the world.

[@bowe3west254]

I have two paternal ancestors, a pair of brothers, who served on HMS Victory during the battle of the Nile and Trafalgar as Navigation officers.

[@keithorbell8946]

Flagship of the Royal Navy.

[@theradgegadgie6352]

@@bowe3west254 Navigation officers? What exactly is that? It's not a term I've ever come across before. No officer on a Ship Of The Line had sole responsibility for navigation, did they?

[@martynadams2011]

HMS Victory is now a museum in dry dock in Portsmouth - worth a visit so you get the idea of scale and the horror they must have been to serve on.

[@bowe3west254]

@@theradgegadgie6352 I'm not qualified to answer you on this one. I know they both served on Victory as officers i've seen the records and I have portrait of each of them one in full Navy get up the other as a civvy as he went on to be headmaster of highgate school. I know that there primary duty was navigation but the title of navigation officer is just one I put together off the cuff in my comment. I'm sure they would have conducted any officers duties that were expected of them. If you know about naval officers of the period feel free to tell me what you know about it as I have a fairly vague understanding of it.

[@pandanemi-0239]

Germany is a geographical term more than a political one back then. Germany at this point is made out outs of hundreds of small German states, kingdoms and what not, the two largest German states Prussia and Austria would fight in a future war to see who would unite Germany under the Prussian way or the Austrian Way

[@remo27]

@Becker OMG YES! Bismarck has a plan. Bismarck ALWAYS has a plan... :)

[@mangalores-x_x]

An oversimplification. The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation was a political entity (essentially a merging of the Regnum Teutonicum with the Imperial Instiutions as Italy left the empire and the kingdom of Bohemia became a personal fiefdom of the Habsburgs), it just had weak central power and German states like Austria and Prussia who gained territory outside of it essentially gained full autonomy (being the emperor in case of Austria helped) via those regions. That is why the Prussian royal title was "King in Prussia"(only) because they were vassals in the HRE which was their actual core lands (Berlin is not Prussian, they are Brandenburgians, ethnically Saxon, as were essentially the core of what is called Prussia). Within the HRE only the emperor could have bestowed a royal title on them. The HRE was on the way to closer centralization like France or England in the 16th century, but the Thirty Years War and the split between Protestants and Catholics put an end to it and large autonomy was meant to prevent a new regligious civil war. However what people often do not know, the HRE did have a mutual defense pact and army organization, taxation, a common legal system and political institutions under which those hundreds of German states operated. E.g. the term "Lower Saxony" of the modern German state actually appeared as a reformation of the Imperial Circles which were administrative units to organize the German states within a specific region for mustering the Imperial Levy and raising imperial taxes. Only central authority was weak and strong states like Prussia could ignore it. You could compare the state of the HRE to that of France during the 100 Years War. England's success in that war largely depended on the large French duchies of Brittany, Burgundy and others essentially operating as independent states and preferring a far away English king or their own bid for the crown over that of a French king in Paris. There is a full continuation of a German political entity encompassing what was considered the German lands (whose princes met in their separate diets from the Italians) from the Middle Ages, the HRE, the Rhine Federation, the German Confederation and finally the 2nd German empire. 1871 just constitutes the first time of establishing a _centralized_ German nation state when the entities before were decentralized with less power given to the "federal" level.

[@nickbrough8335]

Austria (Austria-Hungaria) was always part of the Holy Roman empire and then the Austro-Hungarian empire. Austria never formed part of German unification under Bismarck's leadership in 1870. As the wealth of Germany increased, Austro-Hungarian empire became a close ally of Germany in the 1910s.

[@byronofrothdale]

@@nickbrough8335 Austria and Bohemia were imperial territories, to be precise. The rest of the Austro Hungarian Empire were subjected on a personal basis.

[@alexspareone3872]

You can buy pieces of it on E Bay.

[@Buster-oj4tc]

Signalling in the days of sail was done by signal flags raised on the masts. Fleet commanders issued orders to the other vessels in this way. Nelson's tactic of cutting through the enemy line instead of sailing parallel and engaging in a fire fight was decisive. Although this meant they were under fire as they approached and could not retaliate, once they were in between the French/Spanish vessels they were able to fire into the bows and stern of the enemy vessels. Their shot passed through the whole ship from end to end, through every deck, creating absolute carnage. This is why the French/Spanish casualty figures were so enormous in comparison to the British.

[@danielreeves959]

It's also a tactical point the British liked to get in close and gut the enemy ships with rapid gunfire immobilising the crew and ship. The franco-spanish liked to destroy the rigging then board their enemy the problem with that is it still leaves a big ship full of big guns and grumpy sailers

[@davidcritchley8424]

So the rest of the line could see the signal flags cutters and sloops sailed parallel to the battle line to relay the signals

[@leekent3587]

Its all the same or similiar tactic the British Redcoats used throughout history too, even up to the victorian period, letting the enemy get almost ontop of you until the last second and then letting all hell break loose with syncronized volley fire!, it is why the British Army & Navy were so well disciplined. :)

[@ftumschk]

Nelson's passing was extremely moving. As recounted by ship's surgeon, William Beatty, and others who were there at the time, it went pretty much like this: _Nelson then told Captain Hardy, "he felt that in a few minutes he should be no more;" adding in a low tone, "Don't throw me overboard, Hardy." The Captain answered: "Oh! no, certainly not." - "Then," replied His Lordship, "you know what to do: and," continued he, "take care of my dear Lady Hamilton, Hardy; take care of poor Lady Hamilton. Kiss me, Hardy." The Captain now knelt down, and kissed his cheek; when His Lordship said, "Now I am satisfied. Thank God, I have done my duty." Captain Hardy stood for a minute or two in silent contemplation: he then knelt down again, and kissed His Lordship’s forehead. His Lordship said: "Who is that?" The Captain answered: "It is Hardy;" to which His Lordship replied, "God bless you, Hardy!" After this affecting scene Captain Hardy withdrew, and returned to the quarter-deck, having spent about eight minutes in this his last interview with his dying friend._ (William Beatty: The Death of Lord Nelson)

[@jonnybb]

Cuthbert Collingwood is mentioned far too little when it comes to the battle of Trafalgar, gets his ship first into battle and survives it.

[@mikesaunders4775]

Yes, its a bit like the 'Matthews' cup final of 1953, when Stan Mortensen scored a hat trick, but Stanley Matthews got all the glory.

[@TLChivz]

Yes and given that Nelson is wounded quite early into the full battle it was Colllingwood that effectively won the Victory - though it Was Nelson's tactics that allowed it.

[@nickbrough8335]

Collingwood was very well known at the time (I think) and there are quite a few buildings names after him.

[@chrisangus7078]

The royal navy recognise Collingwood's as a good admiral. Jyst Nelson has a very good public personer

[@danielreeves959]

Theres a massive statue of Collingwood on the Tyne near Newcastle looking put to sea. He didn't really have any impact on the battle from a commanding sense it wasn't until late in the day he could be signaled to tell him about nelson. The royal sovereign's casualties are extremely light I think it's about 25 dead.

[@overthewebb]

The ships used a flag system to communicate back then.

[@gaylewalton1342]

The system of flags is semaphore

[@robertslater215]

@@gaylewalton1342 Yes, same as old style railway signals.

[@maltronics]

and it was more efficient than a mobile phone with no signal

[@mehercle100]

@@gaylewalton1342 No . Not semaphore . en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_maritime_signal_flags

[@mehercle100]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England_expects_that_every_man_will_do_his_duty

[@dawnhauton7543]

I love the fact you are actually looking at all aspects of each war. You are an inspiration to everyone who wants to know history! Well done young lady. From an English , 60ish female who loves history!

[@MrDKPoole]

Although wrong on almost every count (I don't know, I'm not sure, I don't understand) - as RN veteran I can tell you this is total crap

[@carlhartwell7978]

@@MrDKPoole You're offering no correction and hardly helping by just pissing all over someone who CLEARLY want's to learn. If you heard something that was wrong, all you needed to do was politely offer a correction. But you decided to belittle instead, nice one. Actually you did make an OP of your own... _The number of times you said 'I don't know' and 'I don't understand' etc etc make me wonder why you are even making such a video - you are monumentally ignorant of true facts and fail to grasp any iota of actual history. There are so many total misconceptions in this video that I fail to understand why I watched it except an army veteran asked me (a Navy veteran) to view and notify anyone who thought any part of this was true that they were mistaken - @youTube please ban this charlatan_ Now, as far as the last sentence is concerned, I honestly don't know if you're referring to the video she's reacting to, or her reaction itself, of course if it was the former, perhaps you ought to criticize the original instead. But she's clearly not trying to teach anyone Sir, she's clearly trying to learn. And most, not you clearly, understand and are _on board_ with that. @KZbin doesn't need to do anything but support her, because she's not a charlatan (by which you imply she's an expert, which she's NEVER claimed). You sound like a really _nice_ guy. I sincerely thank you for your service Sir, but stick to that because you seem to know little about civility. Or maybe you just don't like Americans I don't know.

[@connoroneill9406]

2:37 “I studied Latin, so I don’t really know the Romance languages” ......................................um, who’s gonna tell her?

[@timothymartin5538]

That's exactly my reaction

[@cambs0181]

After that four years of Trump I have just grown use to Americans saying such things.

[@kendalton8752]

This girl is so out of her League, perhaps she should study how to clean windows.

[@ananarosea]

right. so. this is embarrassing... latin is the foundation of the latin languages which later turned into the romance languages. people who have studied latin often find themselves confused with romance languages because the pronounciation rules are different here but similair there and all alike. saying "i know english because i studied anglo saxon" is the same as saying "i know russian because i studied zulu" or "i know romance languages because i studied latin".

[@connoroneill9406]

@@ananaroseayou can’t compare Russian and Zulu to Spanish and Italian. It’s called a joke, chill out. I know the languages are different, I speak French but not a word of Spanish.

[@colinharbinson8284]

Watch the film 'Master and commander' you will see how a captured ship is delt with.

[@Rschaltegger]

Yeah...only thing is...In the Novel...Aubrey didn`t chase a Frenchy...but a US ship...but the producers felt a Brit can`t fight a US ship and be the Hero

[@colinharbinson8284]

@@Rschaltegger yes that's true.

[@brickbat44]

Watch Hornblower

[@simonebye8789]

@@brickbat44 love Hornblower

[@brickbat44]

@@simonebye8789 Based on thomas Cochrane

[@nikolaasp2968]

1:25 Basically, during 23 years, from 1792 to 1815, the European monarchies allied 7 times in an attempt to defeat Revolutionary France and reestablish the monarchy in France, their alliances are called coalitions. The first two coalitions were against the newly established French Republic (It was during these two coalitions that Napoleon became famous as an officer when he was only in his twenties), the next 5 coalitions were against Napoleon who had taken power. It was only during the last coalition of 1815 that the great European powers finally succeeded in defeating Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo. They had beaten Napoleon a first time during the penultimate coalition and restored the monarchy in France by putting Louis XVIII in power (the brother of the king of France Louis XVI that the revolutionaries had beheaded precisely to prevent him from being returned to power) . Napoleon had been sent into exile on an island in the Mediterranean, but he had managed to escape after a year to return to France. In just a month he had succeeded in reconquering France by rallying the population behind him, reconstituting an army, and pushing King Louis XVIII to run away. After Napoleon was ultimately defeated during the Waterloo campaign against 12 powers, the victorious monarchies organized a huge congress in Vienna where all the nobility of Europe gathered. They celebrated their victory over Napoleon and redraw the borders of Europe by redistributing the territories and re-establishing the monarchies. The redistributions carried out by the victors during the Congress of Vienna will have serious consequences, they will be the ferment of the liberal revolts which will shake all of Europe during the rest of the 19th century, and create the conditions for World War I. The Congress of Vienna will put King Louis XVIII back in power in France, France will thus remain a monarchy for 33 years before a new revolution (the revolution of 1848) brings down the king and re-establishes a new Republic. As for Napoleon, he will be exiled for good on the island of St Helena in the middle of the Atlantic at 1,210 mi from Africa, where he will die 6 years after his arrival at 52 years old. In all during these 7 coalitions, France faced about 17 belligerent, each coalition being composed of around 5 to 12 powers. Great Britain was the only power to take part in all 7 coalitions.

[@nickbrough8335]

and the UK paid for much of the cost of deploying the armies (leading to the invention of income tax). The second republic only lasted a few years until power of usurped by the president and France became a dictatorship under Napoleon's nephew (Napoleon III).

[@Maddie-ol5oc]

Yep. Everyone upvote this so she sees it

[@mariacornwallis1602]

What are you talkng about, 12 powers at Waterloo????? The British knocked the stuffing out of the french army and the Prussians came and finished them off... The french soldiers that tried to escape back to france were hunted down by the prussians and no mercy was shown .... That makes two powers, what were the other ten powers please???? And do not say the Belgians, Dutch and Hanovarians as they were a handful of amateurs embedded into the British army... It's like saying that the german army relied on the Italians in North Africa.

[@Kagato100]

Broadside is the side of a ship, and where most of the cannon were located, so engaging broadside allowed the ships to bring the majority of the cannon to bear

[@stephenbarrett8861]

About 50% of the cannon.

[@mgytitanic1912]

@@stephenbarrett8861 More like 95%. Some ships had a few bow and stern chaser to protect those vulnerable spots, but they were small 9 pounders for the most part. The heavy artillery was all facing outwards from the port and starboard sides.

[@stephenbarrett8861]

@@mgytitanic1912 but you could on fire at a specific ship from one side at a time, hence ‘a broadside’ being about 50% of the guns.

[@mgytitanic1912]

@@stephenbarrett8861 Except at trafalgar 100% were used by the British as they split the French line

[@ceebs23]

@@mgytitanic1912 Victory it was a pair of 68 pounder carronades that could be pointed forwards or sideways. It's suggested that one of these guns cleared the main gun deck of one of the French ship it was facing with two shots from the rear of the Ship, the first, a cannon ball that smashed open the glass rear and the internal cabin wall. the second a single canister round which was in through the hole already created and was an equivalent weight of musket balls so up to 750 of them in a single shot which basically shredded the entire crew on that deck

[@vik2897]

Nelsons flagship HMS Victory still survives to this day moored in Portsmouth harbour .

[@threestepssideways1202]

And it is a magnificent day out. So to anyone reading this, if you ever get the opportunity to go and see it, treat yourself.

[@lordchappington6724]

Not only does it survive it’s still an active as the Flagship of the First Sea Lord.

[@DropdudeJohn]

HMS Victory is still in the Royal Navy making it the oldest serving warship today

[@stuartfitch7093]

Yes it's the oldest commissioned warship in the world. It can technically still be sent out to fight for the Royal navy if needed.

[@DropdudeJohn]

@@stuartfitch7093 I think it would sink straight away.

[@darrena5384]

Their is a famous place in London called Trafalgar Square as a tribute of the Battle of Trafalgar. In the middle is something called ‘Nelson’s Column’ which is a large plinth with a statue of nelson on top, and at each part of the square are Bronze lions, 4 in total called the Trafalgar Square lions. They are made from the French cannons from the ships we captured during the battle and then we melted the cannons down and made those lions so when people go there, and you touch those lions you’re actually touching the cannons of the French ships during that battle. Pretty cool.

[@cideryeti7957]

A note about the Lion statues they are modelled on Barbery Lions an extinct species of Lion.

[@alanshave8010]

And Nelson is looking toward Portsmouth, or Pompey from where i come from.

[@ethelmini]

Not really, Nelson's Column wasn't erected (phnarr) until 35 years later. But it was paid for by public subscription. The lions were added even later.

[@danielkrcmar5395]

Nelson is looking down the Mall, on the top of each street lightis a model of a different ship from his fleet so he is actually watching over his fleet for all of time.

[@darrena5384]

@@ethelmini that literally has absolutely no relevance at all. When the column was erected is irrelevant, same with the lions. It’s still exactly what I said it is.

[@spindizzy64]

Nelson was famously a sufferer of sea-sickness, he would be affected even by the gentlest motion such as in harbour. There is a story that when he was shot he was on the poop deck taking the air to alleviate his condition or possibly even having a gentle puke. A sniper saw him and thought 'bloody hell that's an Admiral' and got him. Whatever the truth of that story one of the first to come to his aid was a Royal Marine Sergeant. Nelson's blood spilled on the buttons of his tunic and the Sergeant vowed never to clean his buttons again. To this day Royal Marines in the rank of Sergeant have buttons made of gold.

[@Fetch26291]

He also, by the time of the battle, had previously lost an eye and an arm.

[@SuperHeatherMorris]

Just a minor point, Nelson was shot on the quarter deck, not the poop deck.

[@aeneas6458]

Nelson was on deck long before action commenced. He was wearing all his military decorations, so stood out like a sore thumb - deliberately so, as he wanted the sailors on HMS Victory to see their Admiral, and be encouraged by his presence. The sharpshooter in the fighting top of Redoutable undoubtedly picked Nelson out as a prime target and deliberately aimed at him. The rest is history.

[@MichaelHill-we7vt]

The sharpshooters were snipers, who went aloft to the tops of the masts on platforms called fighting tops, where they fired down on to the decks of the enemy ships looking for the enemy's officers in noticeable uniforms to kill them, in order to disrupt the enemy's chain of command. Nelson was walking on the upper deck of HMS Victory in his finest uniform with all his medals and decorations, so that all his men could see him, and know that he was right there, with them in the front line, the thick of the battle, sharing their danger and inspiring them with his courage. He made a fine target for an enemy sharpshooter, and he paid for his courage with his life......................

[@TimeyWimeyLimey]

If ever you visit Portsmouth on the south coast, HMS Victory is still there at the naval base. Pay to get in and you can go aboard and see the decks of cannons, the finery of where Nelson lived and worked and the place just outside of the surgeon's workplace where he died.

[@mohammedfarhan4000]

I definitely recommend visiting the historic dock yard in Portsmouth and paying to visit HMS victory... you also have the remains of the Mary Rose which is fascinating, it was king Henry the 8th's flag ship and was sunk in in the 16th century.

[@antigov7839]

I’ve been it’s so good

[@Scoobydcs]

16:20 that formation is considered suicidal, its called crossing the T. The british sailed straight towards the french which means they couldnt fire at them because the guns are all (or mostly) in the sides of the ships. But the french could fire full broadsides with every ship at the british. The thing is though nelson knew the french line wasnt formed properly and he also knew they couldnt shoot for shit lol the move was hugely brsve and incredibly risky. When the british got into the enemy lines they now had clear sshots at point blank rsnge aisnt the french and spaniish ships, firing cann straight down the length of the shops is DEVESTATING which is why they lost so many men!

[@lukesmith1003]

perfect example of how having faith in your army is sometimes just enough.

[@DrumsTheWord]

When it comes to communicating between ships, flags were used representing letters. It's crazy to think, but it might have taken several minutes for a commander to relay the message via a sequences of flags sent up a pole. Captains of ships were also expected to use their common sense if no message was relayed. They would also discuss together the plan before a great battle so that the overall plan was understood.

[@peterdrewer2574]

The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman nor an empire. - Voltaire.

[@ItzDylanM]

Pretty much 😂

[@andrewcomerford9411]

Holy - the Pope gave it to Charlemagne to make him go away. Roman - the Romans had been terrified to go near the place. Empire - No two member states could agree on ANYTHING. Think present-day Germany in area, but no central unifying power. Ships of the time would use flag signals - the commander would hoist a message, which would be relayed from ship to ship. The broadside is exactly what you think - the long sides of the ship where the guns are. Naval guns of the time were muzzle-loading cannon, on small-wheeled carriages, calibrated in the weight of shot they fired, ranged on the decks with light guns on the top deck, and heavier ones as you descend.

[@robertlamb4518]

The most devastating tactic was to somehow cross your opponent either across their bow or even better the stern.The shot would be able to fly down the whole length of the ship causing devastation....and the enemy could not reply at that stage..That's why the battles up to then had evolved into. ships being ranged up against each other in a parallel line.Both sides wanted to avoid being crossed...Nelson's "touch" was to risk being shot at with broadsides unable to reply until he crossed the french and spanish ships..but the suffering was worth it .The first broadsides down the lengths of the two ships he crossed did enormous damage...it explains the death toll..Incidentally the effect was worse because when fighting all the internal partitions and doors etc were cleared away...they cleared the decks..Nelson Lso knew that the better trained crews he had could fire at double the rate of the opposition.You ask all the right questions and are inspiringly enthusiastic.

[@BlyatimirPootin]

Good knowledge. I think the term used when a ship was able to fire down the length of the enemy vessel is raking.

[@tonylayfield8750]

Indeed... if one could manoeuvre ones sail powered warship such that it went across the stern of ones opponent, that then provided one with the opportunity to fire ones guns into the unprotected stern (i.e. the rear end) of ones opponent ship, i.e. to fire into the unprotected stern of your opponents ship as each of your guns came to bare, i.e. fire when in-line as you glided past its stern. Putting that firepower into some perspective, that's potentially 50 guns, per side, firing cannon balls with weights as follows (for HMS Victory): - 12 pounders on the Quarter deck (6 guns per side) - 12 pounders on the Upper deck (15 guns per side) - 24 pounders on the Middle deck (14 guns per side) - 32 pounders on the Gun deck (15 guns per side) With potentially the majority of those being fired straight into the internals (and people therein) of ones opponent ship... the resulting carnage within the opponents vessel would make a charnel house look tame.

[@danielreeves959]

@@tonylayfield8750 the other thing to consider is the glass at the stern as opposed to the seasoned oak around the rest of the ship

[@tonylayfield8750]

@@danielreeves959, precisely! Why shoot your cannonballs against several inches (or even feet) of oak when - with some careful planning & manoeuvring - you can fire said cannonballs directly into the innards of a ship through its relatively unprotected stern.

[@danielreeves959]

And if you hit a cannon it would be unseated and crush the people around it much easier to hit the longer side

[@briangibson6527]

You must visit the Flagship HMS Victory, I've been on it loads of times, and never fails to make me so proud to be British.

[@billpalmer2381]

me too

[@postie48]

One of the things about visiting HMS Victory is the opportunity to see a front line Battleship of the early 19th Century and almost adjacent a 'battleship' (technically a frigate) of the mid 19th century - the difference is astounding!

[@tomwh1993]

@@billpalmer2381 Question. Would visiting a preserved slave ship make you ashamed to be British?

[@tomwh1993]

@@postie48 HMS Warrior isn't it? I remember the guy showing us around was a lot friendlier/engaging than the Victory guy. Think they get less attention

[@postie48]

@@tomwh1993 Yes Warrior (I am not sure she is entitled to the HMS) is moored nearbye - having seen both on the same day I was just 'gobsmacked' 50 years between them (on active service) but about 100 years between 'design'.

[@f0rth3l0v30fchr15t]

Time for a sing song, then. *clears throat* Come cheer up, my lads! 'tis to glory we steer!

[@jolan_tru]

I only hear that song in Captain Picard's voice.

[@keithorbell8946]

Quick March of the Royal Navy, I always see the Field Gun Race in my head when I hear Hearts of Oak.

[@Tarantio1983]

@@jolan_tru for me, it's always in the voice of Major Harry Price ... Closely followed by a Lancastrian voice shouting "Gi'it t' t' frog bastards, Lads"! Because that's soldiering, if not down right Sharpe-ing!

[@SoGal_YT]

@@jolan_tru I was about to comment this exact thing, lol. All I could picture is him in Ten Forward singing.

[@russellmassey9324]

@@Tarantio1983 I think you will find that's a Yorkshire voice shouting. Lt Sharpe's second will be callinbg upon you shortly...

[@gordonfrickers5592]

Surrender? A funny for you... The biggest ship at Trafalgar was the 140 gun 4 deck Spanish 'Santissima Trinidad'. All the British ships wanted to take her. At one point in the battle, by then much damaged, she was confronted by the smallest British ship of the line, HMS Africa, 64 guns, Captain Digby. Thinking she has surrendered Digby sent men to 'take her as a prize'. When the prize crew arrived on the main deck they were most courteously told the Santissima Trinidad had not surrendered and escorted back to their boat. Post Script, eventually reduced to a floating wreck having been most bravely defended, the Santissima Trinidad did surrender only to sink into a watery grave in a storm a few days later, sad to say, taking many of her wounded men & women with her. How do I know this stuff? I was Official Artist to HMS Victory during the years preparing for the Trafalgar 200 anniversary. During that time I had unique access to leading experts and normally closed archives in England, France and Spain. My story & paintings are on my marine website under 'Nelson & Trafalgar', discover, profit, enjoy 😀⚓

[@grahamfox7568]

Also if you ever visit Britain put HMS Victory on the sites to visit, to see Nelsons Flagship in all her glory and stand almost on the very spot he died is truly awe inspiring. Your literally standing on the spot that shaped the world for the next 140 years or so after the battle of Trafalgar.

[@brianberry1931]

It was the practice for “sharpshooters” to position themselves high in the rigging so that they could shoot down onto enemy ships. Nelson was an easy target for them. During the battle he was on deck, in full uniform with his decorations. He was rallying his crews so was readily identifiable as the officer in charge. It is likely that he was deliberately targeted.

[@nickbrough8335]

There would also be small cannons which would fire grape shot to kill and wound the crew.

[@The_Greedy_Orphan]

Well sharpshooters aimed for officers, so Nelson would've been easy to identify on deck.

[@danielreeves959]

Ironically Nelson was scornful of them and wouldn't allow them in his ships he thought their impact negligible which it was and too likely to set the sails on fire

[@andreabianchi6156]

Concerning your sharpshooter question, if I remember correctly (I'm Italian so if any Brit wants to jump in and correct me I'd really appreciate) Lord Nelson was somewhat of a peacock so to speak (rightly so imo) , he liked to show off his medals and honours so the French sharpshooter recognized him by the amount of medals and the splendour of his uniform. That's why he took a shot

[@adamflohr5166]

All British Generals and Admirals where peacocks this was mainly for moral because if the men saw the commander acting like normal during all of the chaos of battle they would be more likely to carry on fighting instead of surrendering if the commander had been killed/ wounded. Im sure most commander at the time would have done the same but i have only really researched the British commanders

[@andreabianchi6156]

@@adamflohr5166 I think so aswell. I mean just by looking at Napoleon's Marshals uniforms you get that feeling

[@nickbrough8335]

Their primary aim would to shoot at any officer. Most of the crew would not have been wearing what we could call a uniform so all officers would stand out in their uniforms and hats.

[@willmunda403]

It is typical in war to shoot the commanders in the heat of battle. Nelson would echo the ethos of the British Navy that was not to show cowardice hence you would demonstrate to your crew not afraid of the enemy.

[@timmo491]

He was a peacock but never ran away.

[@raymartin7172]

"did the French sharpshooter deliberately fire on Nelson?" Absolutely. NELSON insisted on standing on his quarterdeck in full dress uniform, including his jewels and medals. He would have been very conspicuous. Some historians have suggested that he wanted to be martyred, but I couldn't possibly comment.

[@arjanrijvers562]

HMS Victory was also under fire and commanders of the age would often stand proudly and conspicuously on deck to inspire their men to hold under fire

[@ceebs23]

Because the French and Spanish navy had been Blockaded in port for a long period of time, their gunnery skills had rather degraded, (as results in the battle show) the captain of the Redoutable as something to do had his ships marines intensively practice shooting from up in the masts, so at least they were doing something. It was by sheer chance that Nelsons ship chose to go between his and the next in line

[@keithrose6931]

Nelson had a child and a woman he loved so martyrdom would have been far from his mind .

[@billydonaldson6483]

Napoleon thought he could fight sea battles as he did land battles. He had army leaders in charge of tactics. Frigates were the eyes and ears of the navy, they were smaller and faster than a ship of the line such as HMS Victory. In the days when communications were rudimentary by today’s standards they could keep an eye on enemy movements, communications was largely by the use of flags. The Frigates therefore could inform the commander of the fleet on what the enemy was doing. Frigates tend to have an anti-submarine role these days. The French had their eyes on India and British trade with the Caribbean. Sugar was a hugely lucrative commodity in those days and Britain had a monopoly on a lot of that trade.

[@billydonaldson6483]

Nelson’s captain, Thomas Hardy advised him not to wear his medals on deck during the battle. Nelson replied that he had won these awards as the result of battles and if it was his fate to die in battle then so be it. His dying words to Hardy are believed to have been ‘Kismet (fate) Hardy’, often thought to have been ‘Kiss me Hardy’.

[@peterlloyd8313]

The crew of Victory at trafalgar was mainly British. But did have other nationals including three Americans.

[@billydonaldson6483]

The Battle of the Nile is also one of Nelsons famous victories. He destroyed a French fleet here and prevented Napoleon’s threat to India. His intention was to capture Egypt as a first step towards threatening India.

[@derekstill6086]

The Battle of the Nile was fought in Aboukir Bay, Egypt and the only ship that escaped was Villeneuve's, who later led the French ships of the Allied fleet at Trafalgar. Gravina was the Spanish admiral in command of the Spanish ships.

[@ianpark1805]

One of the most famous - and best loved - paintings by J M W Turner is ‘The Fighting Temeraire’ which shows the ship from the Battle of Trafalgar being towed to its final days in a breakers yard. Nelson’s flagship, HMS Victory fared better and is still moored in Portsmouth as a tourist attraction. There’s an old Spike Milligan joke about the raised plaque on the deck that says ‘Nelson fell here’ - “I’m not surprised, I did too!”

[@shoutyman9922]

Just came across your comment. I have a print of this picture in my study. The picture was meant to be ironic: the Temeraire is being towed to the breaker's yard by a steam tug.

[@ianpark1805]

@@shoutyman9922 Ironic? Maybe. Turner was fascinated with the coming of the age of steam - I see this as something of ‘old gives way to knew’ painting. The painting is one that seems to have formed a great affection within the British public and it’s one painting the majority of Brits can name if they are shown it.

[@SuperDancingdevil]

It might interest you to know that there were 23 Americans who served in The Royal Navy during The Battle of Trafalgar.

[@nickbrough8335]

A lot of the US Navy crews at the time would also be English or have previously served in the Royal Navy. IF your interested Royal Navy ships were actually crewed on a very multinational basis at the time. Some of the non-commissioned crew (the Master and other roles) could also bring their wives on board. Although it was strictly not allowed, some Captains would ship their Mistresses with them.

[@zaftra]

@@nickbrough8335 There was also black crew.

[@philipbrackpool2220]

It's been said as soon as any escaped slave set foot on a royal navy ship he was free and had the chance to serve and advance through the ranks, not bad for a so called racist country.

[@zaftra]

@@philipbrackpool2220 yup, no slavery in the uk, but not many would be able to get here

[@paulmasterson386]

@@zaftra the Royal Navy actively recruited escaped slaves in the Caribbean; most navy officers loathed and despised slavery, the battle against slavery is one of the navy’s proudest battle honours. As long as an ex slave stayed on his ship until it reached England he was safe.

[@japple4310]

Ships communicated by using flags, called signal flags, each flag representing a different command. Actually Nelson was blind in one eye and during the Battle of Copenhagen in 1801, he was signaled to retreat from the battle because of additional enemy ships and he held the telescope to his blind eye and said "I see no ships!" He went on to win the battle!

[@alex-E7WHU]

Turned a blind eye.👍

[@Lotsielots]

Vice Admiral Lord Nelson was one of a kind. A true Norfolk, English and British hero. Brilliant tactical knowledge and awareness, great naval experience and true bravery.

[@serfranke5744]

I'm not sure if there is an easy answer to the question what the HRE (Holy Roman Empire) was. Oversimplified you could say it was a relic from the Middle Ages. Back in those times, many countries in Europe had a feudal system, which means that the ruler could not directly control all parts of his realm (due to lack of modern means of communication for example) but had to delegate his power. Local lords were as his vassals allowed to rule (and tax) their lands but had to swear allegiance to the king (which sometimes did not work as smoothly as intended). While in countries like England and France the Kings were, over the course of centuries, able to concentrate more power and to create more centralized kingdoms (though the English king still had to share his power with nobles and later even a parliament), things in the center of Europe took a different turn. The local lords (and other political entities like city-states) were able to not only keep their power but even were able to gain more autonomy from the central authority over the course of centuries. This was even furthered by the fact that the title of Holy Roman Emperor was not inherited (like the title of a king)- the Emperor was elected by the princes of the Empire (a small, exclusive group of seven princes, called the Electoral Princes, to be more exact). So, in order to gain and keep support of the different members of the Empire, the Emperor was not able to take steps to increase the central authority. By the end of the XVIIIth century (the dawn of the Coalition an Napoleonic Wars), the HRE was more of a federation of member states of all sizes (from larger territories like Austria and Prussia to tiny city-states like Hamburg or Nuremberg) that even were allowed to make their own foreign policy. The Empire was overburdened with bureaucracy and its administrational bodies worked awfully slowly. It didn't have an own standing army. In case an "Imperial War" was declared, the different members were to send different-sized contingents that were combined with contingents of other members into units that had hardly if at all trained and fought together before. The name "Holy Roman Empire" was given to that whole mess because its rulers saw themselves as the legitimate successors of the ancient Roman Empire (in the beginning officially, later on only formally). In the early centuries it even included parts of Northern Italy but those, like Switzerland and the Netherlands, broke away in the XVth to XVIIth centuries. EDIT: Btw, between 1792 and 1815 there were seven Wars of Coalition in total in Europe, plus the Peninsula War and the Invasion of Russia, which are regarded as separate conflicts. These coalitions were usually organized (and payed for) by Britain and aimed against France. France also had allies in most of these wars but they were minor allies and vassal-states and no equals, so the term "Coalition" in those years usually refers to France's enemies. Quite the journey that lies ahead of you there...

[@niennariel2905]

In France, when someone do a bad thing by behind and without said anything, we call that a "coup de Trafalgar".

[@DMG00111-p]

Now that IS interesting!

[@sirderam1]

In English, "A stab in the back." ??

[@pwitney1]

Communication was by flags. Short sentences could be spelt out, but they mainly relied on codes where a couple of flags said a useful naval phrase.

[@thorfinn_jorstinnsonr]

"How did they communicate?" The fleet flagships gave orders from ship to ship using their many signal flags. "What is a Broadside?" The Broadside is the Starboard and Larboard (Right and Left) sides of a vessel. I absolutely love indulging in Naval Combat in the Age of Sail. It is such an interesting topic. If you ever get the chance, I highly recommend diving into this area of history; and if you have anymore questions about the topic, I would be very happy to answer them for you.

[@curropataqui]

One would expect that the Spanish and French versions of that battle would be given as well to have a broader picture of it, as well as the insides..., crews composition, ships condition at that time, number os ships having entered the battle ...., etc etc Just a few details, Dumanoir s squad (first 5-6 ships of the combined battle line, never entered combat)..., Villeneuve s ability to deal with battles of this size was nil. He was there because of being obedient to Napoleon, not because his naval abilities....., Same with Spanish King Carlos IV, who sent his men to a sure defeat and death..., he just cared about keeping his trone with Napoleon s support. Most of Spanish ship s could barely keep afloat already when sailing from Cadiz, they had not received repairs/modernisation/entertainement for years, they had been repainted the week before to appear as being in good shape and filled with rascals/thieves from prisons who had never been on board of a war ship, thus the battle was lost before sailing from Cadiz. The official crews rejected to get on board as they were owed seven last pays. As an example, the Santísima Trinidad alone (largets and most powerful warship of all that participated in the battle, equipped with 140 canons), had captured dozens of British ship s just a very few years ago, having her professional sailors on board. All in all, Nelson, who just a few yars ago had been defeated, wounded and surrendered in Tenerife (he lost his arm then), was very lucky to fight and get his "glory" against a fleet that was more intended for dismantling and get into scrap than to hold any battle. These facts prove the difference in number of casualties and ships captures.

[@adrianmcgachie]

I grew up living near Portsmouth, in the UK (Hampshire) which has obvious strong connections with Nelson and still homes HMS Victory to this day. We were very lucky in junior school. We had a teacher who was passionate to teach us about Trafalgar and we'd make ships out of cardboard and name them after the fleets ships, and in the playground he would get us to walk through a re-enactment of what happened that day. Great fun and learning! We also learnt to sing sea shanties, great fun too! xx

[@mep1990]

Responding to a few of your questions. 1. Categories of ships. The ship of the line was a broad category that included ships with anything from 50 to more than 100 guns, usually distributed in 2 or 3 decks. Those were the biggest, sturdiest and most powerful ships in a fleet, but they were also slower and less maneouverable than smaller ships. They were used usually in large groups and when it comes to large naval battles they were the main actors. The most powerful ship of the line of the age of sail was the Spanish "Santísima Trinidad" with up to 140 guns in 4 decks, but she was painfully slow and clumsy and she definately underperformed in the battle of Trafalgar. The frigate of this time was the next bigger category, after the ships of the line, with anything from 22 to 48 guns usually in a single deck, but some of the more powerful ones had 2 decks. The frigates were much faster and maneuverable than the ships of the line, while still holding quite some power, and it was very common for frigates to be used alone as commerce raiders, pirate hunters, in escort missions or in any other mission that did not require the power of a whole fleet of ships of the line. As part of a larger fleet with ships of the line, the frigates were usually used as scouts, even though a bold captain could still try to outmanouver the bigger enemy ships and do some limited damage to them (but the sturdiness of the ship of the line made it almost impossible for a frigate to beat it on a one on one basis, even with the perfect manouvers). The brigs, schooners and cutters were different types of smaller and less armed ships. 2. General overview of naval tactics: Yes, you are right, ships of this time carried cannons as their main ship-to-ship weapons and the crew carried muskets, pistols, swords (cutlasses), axes and pikes for boarding actions. All of the ships of this time had almost all of tehir guns on the sides, and could only fire in the general diirection of that side (though aiming was still very important), although some ships had also a couple of smaller, long-range guns on the front, but most of the firepower was locked to the sides (called broadsides). Because of this, the standard tactics in large fleet battles was to do battle in lines: that way you had the most guns pointing towards the enemy. It was common for the two fleets to sail in parallel lines and exchange fire while perhaps slowly closing the distance (the closer the distance, the more effective the cannons were). When the fight came to a very close distance, it usually became a series of duels between individual ships, and some manouvers could be attempted, such as boarding or trying to get your ship to fire on the rear of the enemy ship, which was structurally the weakest part of the ships. One thing you have to understand is that sailing ships can't go straight against the wind (although you can sail against the wind at a 45º angle more or less) and that the ships of this era were faster and more maneouverable when sailing with the wind, meaning that in naval battles, the side that was coming from the direction of the wind had an advantage. Wind direction was probably the reason why the second frensh-spanish line had such a hard time doing anything useful. On the other hand, Nelson's strategy in this battle was only possible bacause he had the wind in his favor, but it was still a very risky move: the idea was that his two lines would go straight to two pints in the enemy line and once he got there he would have a lot of ships in those concentrated points and could concentrate the firepower in a small portion of the enemy fleet, but of course, by going straight into the enemy line his ships would be fired upon without being able to fire back... In the end it went extremely well for him, but it could have also gone terribly wrong. 3. Communication and orders between ships: The main method of communication and giving orders between ships in a fleet was signals with flags: there's a whole flag alphabet, with each flag representing a letter,, so you could write whole messages with the right combination of flags. But the most common orders or those that were planend in advance had much simpler flag signals, that were agreed on on a case-to-case basis. I wouldn't be surprised if at night there were also light signals used, like the morse code.

[@christophersmith8316]

The advantage of wind is a bit more complex - if the wind is at your back, you can more easily attack the enemy but retreating is hard. If the wind is coming to you, you can more easily retire if the battle goes against you. Aggressive navies like the English preferred to be with the wind, French the reverse.

[@mep1990]

@@christophersmith8316 Interesting points, I agree it is a bit more ccmplex, but I disagree with everything else. I've done quite a bit of competitive sailing and sailing upwind or downwind isn't strictly benefficial neither to a boat that's chasing nor to the boat being chased. Because you can't sail upwind in a straight line, it gives chances to try different paths and strategies, which depending on the circumstances could benefit either the pursuer or the pursued, while sailing downwind is more of a skill and technique difference (both boats being equal). That is because, fleeing is a situation where you go roughly in the same direction than the boat you are fleeing from, negating any advantages in wind direction. Actually, if your sailing strategy turns out better than the opponent's, than fleeing upwind would be easier than fleeing downwind. Then again, we have to consider that not all ships are equal. Generally, smaller, less armed ships would be faster (though not always), and the types of rig (the disposition and types of sails in a shp) can certainly give an advantage when sailing upwind or downwind (generally speaking, square rig in that time was better for going downwind and fore and aft rig gave advantages to going upwind). Also, the maintenance of the ships and the skill of the captain and sailors could make a big difference in terms of speed. Let's think about two scenarios where you would try to flee the battle. The first one is you are clearly outmatched and you don't want to even start the battle. In that case, you'd want to keep your distance or increase it and maybe at night change course and slip away unseen. In this case, it's pretty clear: you are being chased in the same direction that you are fleeing, which nullifies any advantage that's there purely due to sailing upwind or downwind (going upwind you can at least try to take the initiative and make a strategic gamble). However, if you are clearly outmatched, chances are that your ship is faster, which gives you an advantage when fleeing, regardless of the wind direction. The other situation where you'd want to flee is if you initially were confident enough to engage in a battle, but you end up wanting to disengage, either because you are loosing or because you have other reasons to not continue the battle. If you are loosing, it is very likely that many of your ships have sustained damage, and almost any damage you take, in one way or another, could negatively impact your speed, meaning that you'd generally be at a disadvantag when fleeing (obviously, there's planty of exceptions, it depends on the kind of damage you and the opponent have taken). There's only one very slight advantage in a specific case: when you are part of a fleet that is fighting a battle, but you are not directly engaged, if you decide to flee while the enemy fleet is busy fighting the rest of your fleet, it could be benefficial to flee downwind to put as much distance between you and the enemy WHILE they are busy with the rest of your fleet, but you only keep that advantage while noone is chasing you. Having said that, that's a slight advantage at best and there may be way more important considerations on choosing a direction to flee (for example, nearby friendly ports). But in the end, while it is always good to have a clear way of retreat, if you are engaging in the battle, being upwind from the enemy would be always be an advantage, because you are deciding the pace of the battle, and even if you are not agressive in your strategy, that is still an advantage (you can keep your distance better if you are upwind from the enemy). Preferring to fight a battle in disadvantage just because you mighht have a slight advantage when fleeing with a small part of your fleet is just stupid. Also, I wouldn't say the British navy at this time was more agressive than the french. In Trafalgar, Nelson took an agressive approach as a gamble, but most of the times, the british admirals were just as conservative in their strategies as the french. There were individual captains that could be more agressive in both sides, generally commanding smaller ships, like frigates, but in big navy battles, most admirals, either french or british used conservative strategies.

[@alganhar1]

The Rating system changed over time, but for the RN at the time of Trafalgar it was as follows: First Rate, 100+ Guns, 3 decks Second Rate 80 - 98 guns, 3 decks Third Rate: 64 - 80 guns, 2 decks Fourth Rate: 50 - 60 guns, 2 decks (The Royal Navy only had 10 of these left in 1814, compared to 108 Third Rates) 5th Rate: 32 - 44 guns 6th Rate: 20 - 28 guns (though there were multiple categories of Sixth Rates. Anything smaller was not 'rated'. Guns also refers only to carriage mounted main artillery on the gun decks, and not to smaller pieces such as swivel guns etc. As for Ships of the Line being slower and less maneuverable than small ships, less maneuverable yes, slower? Often only slightly. HMS Victory at her height was only a knot slower than most 6th rates, though she was considered very fast for a First Rate.

[@mep1990]

@@alganhar1 I am well aware of the rating system in the Royal Navy, I just chose to omit the information for simplicity. Do we agree though that 5th and most 6th rates would be considered frigates and some of the bigger 5th rates could have 2 decks? I agree on that a smaller ship is not necessarily faster than a bigger ship, you have to take into consideration many things, such as maintenance and crew skill, and the design of the ship itself. But generally speaking, I think it would still be easier to find a frigate which would be faster than a big ship of the line than the other way around (less weight, less displacement).

[@pwitney1]

A coalition is just a group that has gathered for a common purpose. You see them in politics when parties join forces to beat the majority party. There have also been coalitions in modern wars, for example NATO coalition forces.

[@SoGal_YT]

Right, but I didn't know specifically what the 2nd and 3rd coalition was referring to in context of the Napoleonic Wars.

[@seomi4657]

@@SoGal_YT new coalitions against France and Napoleon were made

[@connoroneill9406]

@@SoGal_YT you gotta remember tho too, Napoleon came round 2ce!

[@remo27]

He should have said "He was moving into what is NOW called Germany..." Anyway, remember this battle is going to be the battle of Austerlitz. So if Napoleon got defeated at sea, its partly made up for by this great victory. As said before: The Whale and the Elephant.

[@sandaledbee5174]

Well Germany was a geographical term for where all the Germans lived so it still works

[@mangalores-x_x]

Regnum Teutonicum. German princes and fiefdoms knew that they were Germans and the Bohemian and Italian princes insisted they were absolutely NOT. By that time the HRE was merged with the Regnum Teutonicum which is why the German kingdom is largely forgotten as an independent kingdom within the Holy Roman Empire besides the Kingdom of the Romans and the Kingdom of Bohemia. Austria fought Napoleon as the empire so imperial levies from the other German states were obligated to join them and did, which is why Napoleon dismantled the HRE. It certainly was weak in central authority aka the Austrian emperors could only rule via their power, but just because a state or nation has a weak central government does not mean it does not exist. There is a reason why Luther translating the Bible into German was a big deal for a specific region in Europe in particular and in actuality it was an internal issue within the empire and particularly among the German princedoms

[@fraso7331]

Question regarding broadside and communication (17:10): Nearly all cannons stoud on the both long sides of the ships. All cannons of one side were a broadside. When fired together it was also called a broadside. They used signal flags to communicate.

[@brynwise3629]

The ships at the time communicated using patterned flags, the crew were expected to know what the flags meant. Broadside is the left or right (port or starboard) where the bulk of the cannons were.

[@My-Name-Isnt-Important]

The Song Heart of Oak is a great song about English sea power and it's military. It was written before England's fight with Napoleon, but was created to celebrate the English's victory over France during the Seven Years War. Thought people might find that interesting, if they're getting into military history. Plus, it's just a really great song too, especially when playing it loudly thumbing your nose at French Canadians, since the song celebrates the Battle of the Plains of Abraham that took place outside Quebec, and several other battles won during the year of 1759.

[@TukikoTroy]

Well, looks like I'm late to the party and your questions have been well and truly answered. Instead then, a little piece of naval trivia. In the UK, you can often hear young children being called 'nippers'. This comes from the age of sail when it was the practice to take young boys to sea from around the age of nine or ten. This was because it took a long time in those days to train a seaman in all the tasks required to sail, fight and maintain a ship. The term 'nipper' came from the manoeuvre of raising the ship's anchor. A loop of cable (thick rope) connected two capstans together like a belt around two wheels. When the capstans were turned the anchor cable was attached to this loop at one end and the anchor cable was pulled along by the loop and unattached at the other end when the anchor cable would then go down a hole and be coiled. These ties, or 'nips' were attached by the ships boys who then ran along besides 'their' nip to untie it again to allow the anchor cable to go down the hole. This process of 'nipping' the anchor cable to the moving loop was carried out by 'nippers' and the name came ashore and went into common parlance to describe a child. Hope that made sense lol.

[@SoGal_YT]

Wow, I didn't know they trained kids.

[@danielreeves959]

A midshipman (trainee officer) was considered old if they started their training at 14 it wasn't unusual with some aristocratic naval families to be signed up as a baby to start growing a young officers seniority

[@butnooneshome]

@@danielreeves959 I believe that's what Nelson himself did at age 13 ...

[@EnorMouseUK]

@@SoGal_YT On 'Ships of the Line' aka battleships, there were also 'powder monkeys', young boys whose job it was to fetch powder from the magazines (below the waterline) and provide it to the gunners on the gun decks. To reduce the risk of any sparks or fire reaching the magazines, the 'tunnels' that the 'powder monkeys' used for this task were made as small as practical, which was why small boys were needed.

[@carolineb3527]

@@SoGal_YT My father joined the Royal Navy in 1912 when he was 15; his rank was "Boy". He trained as a Signalman; his job was to communicate with other ships using flags run up the "lines" (ropes/hawsers) run up the mast. He kept the flags in good repair and, if necessary, made new ones. He also signalled between ships using signal lamps - this involved using flashes of light based on Morse Code. Signal lamps are still used at sea, usually when electronic signals could be intercepted or would betray the ships' position. My father served at Gallipoli, the Battle of Jutland, and, after the Russian Revolution, was a member of a British Expeditionary Force sent to rescue various White Russians. After WWI he served in many British "theatres of war", including Palestine. He retired from the Navy in 1937 as a Chief Yeoman of Signals; one of his last postings was to serve on HMS Victory, by then in dry dock in Portsmouth. In 1950, they filmed part of a Gregory Peck movie "Captain Horatio Hornblower" on HMS Victory. Some of the film extras were actually trainee sailors based on the Victory - one of them was my brother.

[@BlameThande]

"Ships of the line (of battle)" were the big ships that fought the set-piece battles in groups, while frigates and brigs were smaller ships that operated independently (the term frigate is still used with a slightly different meaning). One thing the video passed over is that standard tactics at the time were for each ship of the line to pair up with an enemy one and give it broadside for broadside in close-quarter cannon fire, i.e. battles turned into your line passing the enemy line in parallel and one-on-one fights. Nelson revolutionised things, just as Napoleon did on land, by having his forces attack at right angles instead so he could concentrate his forces while most of the enemy ships were not able to engage (as you noted the second Franco-Spanish line couldn't get involved). This only worked because the British crews were better trained to coordinate their actions, making use of flag signals. If you can find a video that goes into this similar to the one about land warfare in the Napoleonic era you may find it interesting.

[@EnorMouseUK]

@SoGal @Blame Thande Napoleon's tactic of attacking as a column worked fine until he came up against the British 'Thin Red Line'. Although a Napoleonic column was intended to smash into the enemy on a very narrow front with overwhelming force, particularly when in close combat, it did mean that only the men on the front and sides of the column could fire their muskets at the enemy. The ones deeper into the column were blocked by their comrades. By forming a 'Thin Red Line' the British infantry could have all their men fire on the column. Given their training, the British could maintain a high rate of fire and potentially decimate a column before it could get close enough to become effective. Nelson's and Napoleon's tactics were not as similar as you imply. Much of the reason for Nelson's success was that the tactic of 'crossing the line' was new and as such the French and Spanish fleets did not know how to respond during the crucial initial engagement.

[@trevor9934]

One of my family members were in the British Navy for over 10 generations, and one of those ancestors was Captain Hardy, with whom Nelson served in the middle east and in whose arms he died at Trafalgar. I was the first person not to service in the RN, as we moved to NZ, and in fact ended up in the army. My ancestors are still spinning in their graves...

[@Iced-Rockin-Man]

It's by no means certain, but there's a good chance that my family s also descended from Captain Hardy....who knows, we could be distant cousins!

[@trevor9934]

@@Iced-Rockin-Man That is possible. The Hardy family expanded to many different directions! My surname is still Hardy.

[@Dke721]

When I was in the Army we had this saying, 'Amateurs discuss strategy and tactics, Professionals discuss logistics'. What this means is that fighting battles is only possible when you have the money, stores, and equipment to fight battles. The French were trying to assert control in the Caribbean for two reasons. First to attack English colonies (a major pillar of the economy), and Second to shore up or restore their own colonies. The Royal Navy of course had opposite objectives.

[@threestepssideways1202]

The Holy Roman Empire broadly speaking consisted of the multitude of small German states at the time, parts of modern Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Czechia, Slovakia and Poland. It also at points controlled parts of other countries (at least in the sense of the modern borders) including France.

[@dadjokes8963]

it was also neither holy, Roman or an empire

[@ralphdurner617]

@@dadjokes8963 Well, in the early days the German king had to be crowned Emperor by the Pope, so somehow it fits.

[@mehercle100]

@@ralphdurner617 King of Germany and King of the Romans were titles that went with the Imperial Crown in the Middle Ages .

[@ralphdurner617]

@@mehercle100 Technically yes, I agree. The 'King of Germany' was elected, then he went to Rome to become Emperor, which later became automatic. But since the popes have invented the whole 'Roman Empire' thing, in the beginning they tried at least to use the coronation as a bargaining chip towards the new king. Of course latest in the 16th century, when the pope no longer was involved, and even earlier, when he no longer could refuse, this all became just traditional rethoric.

[@ralphdurner617]

For the sake of not getting further of topic: Just wanted to say that at Napoleons time the starting quote was true of course, although you don't take this from a Frenchman :). But you could argue that at its foundation it wasn't completely made up.

[@bobsmodellingmayhem8632]

Hello SoGal, I can answer some of the questions that you asked in your video. A ship of the line is basically a primary warship, battleships. They are known as rates, first to sixth rate and their rate is usually based on the number of cannons. HMS Victory is a First rate ship of the line, she still exists and can be seen and visited in Portsmouth. Brigs are a two mast ship, HMS Interceptor (played by Lady Washington) in Pirates of the Caribbean is a brig. Frigates are medium sized warships, the USS Constitution is a Frigate. Ship to ship communication was done with flags in a code. A broadside is where a ship can bring all its main armament to bare on the enemy. I quite liked this video and will continue to watch your channel.

[@halcroj]

There's a wonderful and elegiac painting in the National Gallery of HMS Temeraire (that fought alongside and saved HMS Victory) It's by William Turner and it's titled "The Fighting Temeraire being towed to her last berth to be broken up" and is regularly voted the nation's favourite painting in the UK. Because of her role in the battle she became famous in the UK and the painting carries on her fame well beyond the time when it would normally have died out. Captured ships were often transferred into the use of the capturing navy. Collingwood's HMS Belleisle, and HMS Temeraire were both originally French ships. Ships of the line usually had 90+ guns (Temeraire had 98, Victory 104) in three decks or tiers. The heaviest guns (yes cannon) were on the lowest deck where the hull was strongest and thickest, the lightest guns on top, on the open upper deck. They could be aimed by nudging the rear end over a bit with a spike, but only slightly. The big guns were much to heavy to move much. The advantage to the British fleet crossing into the Spanish/French line rather than fighting alongside them, is that by crossing the stern of the enemy ships, cannonballs would fire through the end of the ship which was the weakest part of the hull, and fire the whole way through the body of the ship wrecking guns and killing crew in the process. In a battle mind you, most sailors died from splinters knocked off the hull by cannonballs either. Death was either immediate, by sepsis, or by shock if limbs had to be amputated. The Napoleonic wars contributed to a large amount of limbless beggers in Britain. For a picture of the painting of the Temeraire and a little about it see hero-magazine.com/article/179436/the-fighting-temeraire-william-turner-tate/

[@ceebs23]

Whenever I'm in London and end up in Trafalgar Square, I end up in the Turner Gallery, looking at that, although it's Rain, Steam and Speed - The Great Western Railway that is my preferred destination

[@ajvanmarle]

Simplified: Ship of the line = battleship Frigate = cruiser Brique = Frigate but with two masts instead of three. Also, a lovely understatement at 12:30. 'The British sank some Spanish vessels.' That was the Spanish silver fleet coming out of America. 21:00 Yes. They found the man who shot him, later, and he deliberately aimed at Nelson.

[@pwitney1]

In sailing ships, the direction of the wind is vital. The ships hanging out to the right of the battle were downwind and unable to get back up to the fight in time. (The wind was from the North-West)

[@SoGal_YT]

Ah, interesting.

[@nickbrough8335]

It's a bit more complex that that. The advantage of having the wind was it allowed you to chose when and where to attack which gave you control of the potential battle. Being downwind didn't actually hinder you too much in practice. other than you didnt have tactical control over any engagement. A smaller force would always seek to escape. The subsequent chase could take days to close the distance between the fleets.

[@pwitney1]

@@nickbrough8335 True, but in this battle the van tried to beat back up to the fight, couldn’t make it, then chose to turn and run.

[@ethelmini]

@@SoGal_YT This is the main point I wondered if you'd got. It'll also be why they followed one another all the way to the Caribbean. If you caught up with a ship you could literally "take the wind from its sails", stealing its ability to manoeuvre. That meant ships running with the wind had to keep spaced out. There'd be no chance of joining an engagement upwind, while a pursuing fleet could quickly close & position itself to the best advantage on any ship they caught up with. Fast, lightly armed, ships only needed to inflict enough damage on a more heavily armed, but slower, ship to render it slow enough to be caught by the rest of the chasing fleet. Another point that the vid didn't bring up is the Royal Navy had a big technical advantage thanks to the marine chronometer. Basically a watch that worked at sea so they knew the time, could use it to plot their longitude and so fix position at sea to rendezvous. It made those blockades possible as supply ships could find the warships without returning to port or sailing in sight of an enemy coast.

[@postie48]

@@ethelmini I appreciate this is a 'naval' video. But the question came up why make a lot of effort to defend/attack the West Indies. The answer is SUGAR, 'cos that earned massive amounts of money for economies and powerful individuals. Also Europe was on a sugar kick - not having sugar (this was before beet sugar, and maybe bee hives - not sure) so sugar came from the West Indies. If I could also just remind that ships at this time were both slow and wind dependent, and the Atlantic winds are complex. It takes a lot of time to tack a ship-of-the-line i.e. a three decked battleship. The poor performance of the French and Spanish ships was really down to low skill levels. They could, and did, build great ships. But Officers and men (and tactics) were all pretty rusty due to the blockade. The British were at sea and practiced ship-handling and shooting (with gunpowder) so could deliver more accurate and faster shooting.

[@Kagato100]

Ship of the line is a warship, usually with at least two decks of guns, and built for combat with other warships

[@davidsmall2944]

Wrong there were different types of ships of the line, Battleships were mainly ships that Carrie 90+ guns normally over 3 decks. Victory for example was a 1st rat 104+ guns !! The French and Spanish were again different!!

[@charlestaylor3027]

@@davidsmall2944 The common thing about Ships of the Line were they formed the battle line. Frigates were fast but still heavily armed and often worked alone or in small groups.

[@markhamstra1083]

While there were different sizes and ratings of ships of the line, their defining characteristic was that they were designed and operated to fight in coordinated fleet-on-fleet combat using “line of battle” formations. Frigates, on the other hand, were more like pirate ships in that they typically operated alone and engaged in one-on-one battles with the intent of capturing other ships, raiding commerce, etc. Sometimes frigates operated in small groups or joined larger fleets, but more typically they were a ship on which a commander could operate with autonomy and seek individual glory and quite a lot of personal gain from taking prize ships. Modern frigates are specialized for anti-submarine warfare and convoy escort duties.

[@majicjon]

If you are interested in this period I highly recommend the "Hornblower" series of films.

[@nealshore212]

Second vote for Hornblower. Sharpe series for land

[@frankanderson5012]

I definitely wouldn’t recommend Hornblower (or Sharpe). Fun to watch but little to do with reality and meant just to entertain.

[@jamesfitzgerald1021]

@@frankanderson5012 they are both historical adventure fiction so a lot of liberties were taken but i think they got a lot of things right. Hornblower himself was based on the exploits of a real maverick captain. A somewhat crazy Scot called Thomas Cochrane who Boney himself called the wolf of the sea. His exploits are fantastically real and elements are used by the series and the book and subsequent film of Master and Commander.

[@gordonfrickers5592]

Your question on communication is a good one and answered on my website, see the painting and texts relating to the ship with the unlikely name of HMS Pickle; its all about a great race and communication. In particular see and read about "I Have Urgent Dispatches" named for the communication H M Schooner Pickle was flying. An aside, the British could communicate in 1805, over 3000 words and phrases by flags.

[@oliversherman2414]

I love your channel keep up the great stuff!!

[@colinratford416]

When Nelson eventually died he was placed in a casket called a “Leaguer” which was then filled with Brandy to preserve his body. The Leaguer was the largest casket on board and was topped up at various intervals on the way back to port. His body was extremely well preserved.

[@B-A-L]

There's a story that on the way home the casket was constantly raided by the crew and was practically empty of brandy when they returned and gave rise to the expression 'Tapping the admiral'.

[@colinratford416]

@@B-A-L Hello, can you please give more details on where you learnt about your posting please? Regards Colin

[@B-A-L]

@@colinratford416 I remember learning it during my history lessons when I was a child but there's various references to it on the internet.

[@colinratford416]

@@B-A-L Interesting as I’ve never come across such. As the “Leaguer” would needed to have been air tight and sealed for his body to have been so well preserved. I’ll explore more, thank you.

[@davidsanderson55]

British navy was never challenged again until battle of Jutland in 1916 that is 111 yrs.

[@philbirch3452]

It's called the Royal Navy

[@davidsanderson55]

@@philbirch3452 why? Thought it was just called pusser.

[@philbirch3452]

@@davidsanderson55 you obviously need a history lesson.

[@davidsanderson55]

@@philbirch3452 so you all up on the pusser then.u obviously did more time than me , you a fifth pricker then? I just did enough for pension. Had you done more than a dog watch u would know many people outside Uk refer to RN As British Navy. Oh to be so perfect 👌

[@davidsanderson55]

@@philbirch3452 think not having spent 25 years in Navy, but as I said most non Navy orientated, or British people call it the British Navy. It’s only us brits that refer to it as the Royal Navy, as the Canadian, New Zealand, Australian and Dutch , Swedes, etc have a Royal Navy. Even heard admirals of foreign navies referring to us as the British Royal Navy.her majesty’s Royal Canadian Navy,Her Majesty’s Royal Australian Navy , Got the idea.And as this site is run by a yank she would not know the difference.As an ex member of the afore mentioned service I would and do refer to it as the Pusser, or Andrew. Awaiting your apology.Always work on the theory that, your audience, or students do not know until you tell them. Then tell them and tell them again that you have told them. That is Lesson one in the theory of teaching. By the way you do know that the Royal Navy uses this title as it is accepted to be the First, national Navy, but I am sure you already knew this.being such a history buff.

[@hughfranklin4002]

SoGal there is a video on KZbin that shows you what a broadside from the Victory would have been like. HMS Victory is still commission in the Royal navy and she carries the first sea lords pennant making her a flag ship. Admiral Lord Nelson is our greatest hero and his ship holds a special place in the hearts of the British.

[@reggriffiths5769]

Most of your questions have been answered, but I can add a little more. From the earliest days of warfare, all armies carried a flag or banner to announce who they were - to both allies and enemy. These flags were also rallying points in the midst of battle. In both America and the UK for example, the bearer (the man who carries the flag) is known as the Ensign, which may also be his rank, especially in the navy. In the army the bearer is usually the Colour Sergeant or other NCO. For communication purposes, flags became very useful, and every sailor aspiring to become an officer, had to know what each flag and combination of flags meant. Where there were land battles, it wasn't possible to carry all the necessary flags, so the means of communication between troops and commanders was developed with only two flags held in different positions by one man. This was known as Semiphore, and was used on both land and sea - a system still in use today, although very much outdated. Even when Morse Code was invented, its use was superseded by radio, but the flag itself has never been outdated. When you see Coats of Arms today, these came about from those medieval knights' flags flown on the field of battle, and are often referred-to as Heraldry. A herald is simply another name for a messenger, as in the hymn "Hark, the Herald Angels sing" delivering a message. So, "The Colours," flags, flagships, ensigns, semiphore and heraldry all come from the flag and its varied purposes..

[@joemaloney1019]

Fleet commands were done with hoisted signal flags that were relayed by smaller vessels such as frigates, corvettes and cutters to the other ships of the line (battleships)of the fleet. Broadsides are volley fire from the ships side. Sharpshooters were in a ships rigging so they can shoot down upon the enemy ship. Their targets were officers and helmsmen and gun captains etc. to disrupt the enemy command and control.

[@johnbrownbridge873]

French,Italian and Spanish all have Latin roots ,surprised you didn't know that. Villeneuve is pronounced like Veelnerve.

[@benlr6700]

Villeneuve is pronounced like "ville nuv" (with a "u" sound like the word fun). It means literaly "a brand new city"

[@MrEsphoenix]

If you're interested in learning more about the ships at the time this is a great video about the royal navy's flagship HMS Victory, with footage of it in it's current state: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fGnYlYVsfd6lbJI It's a bit long, but well worth a watch, as it explains a lot of what things where like back then on ships, and why the British ships where a cut above the rest.

[@petersymonds4975]

Hi. love your vlog's. We have an old joke about Nelson. In one of his battles Hardy is reputed to have said. “Admiral, there are 50 Spanish galleons on our port side and 50 French to the starboard. Shall I get your red jacket so the crew won't see if your hit?” Nelson replies, “No, Hardy fetch my brown trousers!”

[@aw6936]

It's probably apocryphal, but in the film on the Dam Busters, Barnes Wallis says he got the idea for the "bouncing bomb" from Nelson, who found he got more destructive power from his volleys if he pitched them just short of the enemy ships - "he might have got the French flagship with a yorker.:" (Cricketing reference.)

[@danielkrcmar5395]

@@aw6936 That tactic was actually first used against the Spanish Armada.

[@gordonfrickers5592]

I discovered much that is not in the regular histories; wot? how could I do that? I was Official Artist to HMS Victory during the run up to the Trafalgar 200 anniversary. My research, equipped and aided with a letter of introduction from the then Captain of HMS Victory (Mike Cheshire) opened many archives not normally available and took me to many places in Britain, France and Spain. In my opinion some of the French & Spanish fought as courageously as is humanly possible but never really stood a chance and they knew that before the battle. For what I think is the most accurate account of the battle I recommend on KZbin "The Battle of Trafalgar - Admiral Horatio Nelson (Part 4)" by Drachinifel. Not only because it includes 7 of my paintings as illustrations but because Drachs used much of my unique research with my copyright permission.

[@markchip1]

Naval communication was done by signal flags, where individual flags could represent a phrase, a word or even separate letters/characters. The command ship was thus known as the "flagship" for being the source of orders for the fleet. Other ships would either see or relay the signals to others.

[@maxmoore3472]

Lord Nelson , pulled a manoeuvre called crossing the T , An American Admerral did the same in battle of Leyta gulf against the Japanese, destroying a complete battle group ,

[@markhamstra1083]

No, Nelson did the opposite - he initially placed himself in the disadvantaged position where the French and Spanish fleet had crossed Nelson’s T. By sailing his ships directly at and perpendicular to the French-Spanish line, that line of enemy ships could all fire broadsides at Nelson while his lead ships could only fire their few bow guns. It is only because Nelson attacked so aggressively and unconventionally that his ships managed to penetrate the enemy line and were able to position themselves to fire raking shots at close range.

[@maxmoore3472]

@@markhamstra1083 Ho I was taught wrong at school then , thankyou for correct me then , I will read up ..

[@hihosilveraway59]

@@markhamstra1083 yes and estimated, correctly that the poorer enemy gunners would not do too much damage whilst closing before his own position became advantageous

[@perryedwards4746]

makes me laugh how you (American's) don't see yourself as colonists... like a sort of blind out... really really odd

[@JM-ji9kx]

America has never really had any colonies in the traditional sense of the word. America as a country was born by rebelling against its colonial masters. It then expanded towards the Pacific, but that wasn't colonization. It was annexation through conquest and land purchases. If that counts as colonization then every country ever is guilty of the same thing. Territories like the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam and most other US overseas territories were former Spanish colonies and taken as war spoils following victory in the Spanish-American War. America never set out to "colonize" these places and they have always enjoyed relative autonomy, unlike when they were Spanish colonies. I can't think of what else could be considered as "American colonialism" or my favorite, "American Imperialism". Name another country who would have fought the entire Pacific War and then let Japan retain it's independence.

[@stevetaylor8698]

@@JM-ji9kx I think you might find that the UK had rather a long spat with Germany and indeed Japan, and took no spoils of war, certainly no land.

[@Davey-Boyd]

@@JM-ji9kx What about Hawaii? Didn't the USA overthrow the legitimate government to take the country over? Not a confrontational question, just wondering how it took place as I thought Hawaii was colonized by force. Best wishes.

[@colinharbinson8284]

@@JM-ji9kx By definition Americans colonized a large part of their own continent, the West and south west, including New Mexico, that is 'settled in the lands of others and took control of.,'

[@cloverite]

@@JM-ji9kx anyone not native could be classed as a colonist, America doesn’t need colonies because it is one and unless all land is handed back to the native population it remains one.

[@chrisbovington9607]

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE make the last Napoleon reaction the amazing, classic masterpiece of a film: Waterloo (1970).

[@SoGal_YT]

Interesting idea...I'll see what I can do :)

[@MrDanJB85]

As others have indicated at the time the terms (line of battle) ship, frigate, brig, schooner and cutter refer to broadly to different sizes of ship; the details get quite complicated as it also described the sail plan (for example ships and frigates have three masts, whilst a brigs has two) and the rank of the officer in command. Line of battle ships were subdivided into 'rates' with first being the most powerful (hence the expression 'first rate' is sometimes used to describe something that is of the best quality) The main way of communicating was with signal flags - a series of flags with different patterns and colours would be 'bent' onto a rope and hoisted up so it could be seen through telescopes; the flag combinations could be decoded with a signal book. The order being communicated takes effect when the flags are hauled /down/ (so the recieving ships have had time to read it and then a whole fleet can act together the moment its pulled back down. At night a more limited range of signals using fireworks of different colours were used. (Line of) battleships later evolved to use turrets (from the American Civil War onward) - whilst that increased the range of angles a ship could take even today most ships don't quite manage 360 degrees. Presenting the broadside (the longest side of the ship, allowing the maximum number of guns to point at the enemy) was still an important thing into world war 2 - the big gun battleships used in that war were basically the final evolution of the type of warship used at Trafalgar. World war 2 was the last time 'battleships' (ships focused on guns and armour) fought oneanother and their role was replaced by aircraft carriers, destroyers and so on through the second half of the 20th century (the first Gulf War was the last war in which a battleship served). Navies still practice sailing in formation, but for different reasons. The sharp shooter almost certainly knew who he was shooting at. They would know which ship the Admiral was on as at the time a 'Flag ship' litterally had a flag to indicate that an admiral was aboard (which is why Admirals are sometimes called 'flag officers' even today). Nelson insisted on wearing his uniform with all its gold lace and decorations (including several large stars from his memberships in various orders of knights etc) so would have been very clear which officer was Nelson. To surrender at sea (at that time) you would 'strike your colours' - when a ship lowers its ensign (its main national flag at the back of the ship) it is indicating that it has surrenderd. If the ships flag had been shot away, they would sometimes pause hostilities to ask the other ship if they intended to surrender. This was also sometimes done on land, which is part of the meaning behind the line 'our flag was still there' in The Star Spangled Banner (its not just that the British haven't gotten in to take it down, its also that the American commander hasn't struck their colours to surrender the fort). Once a ship has surrendered a prize crew is then sent onboard to take control and bring it to a friendly port - prize crews were small, so the original crews did sometimes retake their ships.

[@simonbeaird7436]

To give some idea of the firepower these ships carried, HMS Victory was a 104 gun 1st rate ship of the line with three gun decks. The lowest deck carried 15 32 pounder cannon on each broadside (pounder refers to the weight of the cannon ball. 32 pounds is about 15 kilograms). The middle deck had 14 24 pounder cannon on each broadside and the upper deck had 15 12 pounder cannon on each side. There were 12 more 12 pounders carried on the quarterdeck at the stern of the ship (some firing on the broadside but at least 2 firing astern). There were 2 more 12 pounders carried on the forecastle at the bow of the ship together with 2 68 pounder guns firing ahead. But Victory was an exceptionally large ship for the time. Most of the ships at Trafalgar were smaller 3rd rate ships carrying 74 guns such as HMS Belleisle. She had two gun decks with 14 36 pounders and 15 18 pounders on each broadside, plus 16 8 pounders on the quarterdeck and 4 36 pounders on the forcastle. The French and Spanish ships had similar weapons.

[@CovfefeDotard]

After you are done with napoleon series I recommend you watch Historia Civilis and watch his Roman history playlist

[@connorward2400]

Historia Civilis is a good channel I just wish he uploaded more regularly. His video on Roman politics are the finest on the subject.

[@Kagato100]

Brigs were ships that were designed specifically for speed and manoeuvrability

[@Danlows1]

And the ships of the line are also know as man’o’war.

[@SoGal_YT]

Is there a modern day equivalent?

[@Kagato100]

@@SoGal_YT Closest is probably a corvette or an offshore patrol vessel (OPV)

[@richardharris6313]

@@SoGal_YT I think the nearest ship equivalent to a ship of the line would be a destroyer, or battleship (back in the 40's).

[@colindebourg3884]

I think that Brig was short for Brigantine.

[@ryklatortuga4146]

"Ahh-harr! You have a woman's hand, milord! I'll wager these dainty pinkies never weighed anchor in a storm. "- Lord Nelson

[@MultiChuckleberry]

I rather think that is a quote from Blackadder not Nelson. Don't confuse the lady. She is doing really well. If you get her into Blackadder we will have one Hell of a time explaining WTF is going on.

[@keithtaylor5156]

@@MultiChuckleberry Lol. Nice reply.

[@andywilliams7323]

To fully explain your question at 13:35 why they sailed to and fought in the Caribean? Some background: Once ships were out in the Atlantic. They would often be spread 100's - 1000's of miles apart from each other. They had no way of communicating with each other. No way of knowing where each other was. What precise routes each was taking. Or what each of their condition was. The journey to the Caribbean would take 4-8 weeks depending on: The ship's size & capability. The crew's skill & health. The amount of food & medical supplies. The sea & weather conditions. Each ship had limited food & medical supplies. Plus the crews could only spend a limited time at sea before they'd become too fatigued & succumb to illness. Britian, The Netherlands, France & Spain each had multiple colonies in the Caribbean. These provided bases: For ships to repair & resupply. For crews to rest. & for the ships to receive fresh orders. The Caribbean was vital to each country. Along with providing a base for its ships on the other side of the Atlantic. It was also the biggest supply of wealth to each country's empire. Mostly through the slave trade & sugar. Consequently, naval engagements there were frequent. Each Country taking whatever opportunities it could to disrupt its enemy's ability to operate & generate wealth in the Caribbean. One of the reasons France & Spain needed to break out from Britain's Naval blockade. Was because it was severely limiting France's & Spain's access to, & control of their Caribbean colonies. & the wealth generated from them. Napolean had to sell Lousiana to the USA. Because France was running out of money. Because Britain's naval blockade was preventing France from controlling & getting wealth from its revolting Caribbean colonies, such as Hati. With that background established. Due to the blockade. Napoleon's ships were in poor condition, with low supplies of food & ammunition & poor crew fitness. They weren't in a condition to fight. So they took the opportunity to sneak out of Spain any way they could & run like hell. This meant they broke out scattered & far apart. Thus, it was impossible for them all to rendezvous in the open Atlantic. Plus they weren't in a condition to do so. Therefore, the Caribbean was the only logical place they could successfully rendezvous into a formation, assess their conditions, re-supply, and repair, before returning to Europe in a better fighting condition to break out the rest of Napolean's beleaguered ships from France. Britain pursued them across the Atlantic to the Caribbean with the hope of taking out some - many of the French & Spanish ships before they could successfully re-group, resupply & return to Europe. Hoping to prevent a big naval battle on the European side of the Atlantic from ever having to take place. But that was not to be. & The Battle of Trafalgar resulted.

[@SoGal_YT]

Thanks!

[@johngardiner6800]

When ships fought sailing parallel to each other it was in the line of battle (hence ships of the line) we get the term battleship the largest ships afloat right up to the second world war, but with modern missiles, ships no longer need to be this large.

[@kevindean9503]

As for the Louisiana purchase, the same thing happened with Alaska the Russians didn't what to lose it to the British/Canadians so they sold it to the USA. Af for the French and Spanish fleets going to the Caribbean, they had to rendezvous somewhere and they could do it in European waters because of the Royal Navy. It was the pre-mobile phones equivalent of meeting under the train station clock at 1pm As for communications, They using flags. You could spell words out or use flags with specific meanings, for example, Nelson wanted to say England Confides (confides having a slightly different meaning back then) the flag officer suggested expects because he has a single flag meaning expects A broadside is the side of the ship. A broadside is also the term meaning to fire all of your cannons from one or other sides of the ship. And there are different cannons on board depending on the rating of the ship and where on the ship they are located As for the surrender, the British had the weather gauge (meaning the wind was in their favour) so they had control of the engagement. Moreover, the main tactic was to "cross the T" (your broadside and the enemies bow would cross in a T shape so you could fire all of your guns will they could only fire their bow chasers) The next day was a disaster for the British as they got caught in a massive storm and many of the ships sunk

[@LordInter]

The coalition wars are a way of splitting up the Napoleon wars, using who he was fighting against who were normally in a coalition/alliance of countries. The Holy Roman Empire was part of what became Germany after it all split up then joined up, its said to of been what was left of the Western Roman empire after the Roman Empire split. Guessing where the fleets were, they were all over the place, this is 3 (English, Spainish and French) large global empires All the ships are ships of different size, a ship of the line, one that could sail in the battle line, was the largest, best and most expensive with a 1st being the largest of the ships of the line and 6th being the smallest. The "proxy wars" in the colonies were financial and strategic, its like all the fighting in North Africa between the British Empire and Nazis They did and still do communicate via flags or flashed lights and line of sight, it also helped how well trained the crew were, how fast and organised they would see/notice the message and perform the maneuver Broadside is the broadest, largest side where all the guns are The gunnery difference between these and (for example) ww1 or 2 battleships were armour and turrets then nowadays we have missiles..... In reality the second line did turn in to help but the British were much better trained, more experienced and mostly hadnt just chopped the heads off most of the admirals who knew how to sail :p Hope this helps, i typed while you spoke, we have a pretty big statue in the middle of London to celebrate this too :p

[@reecedignan8365]

In addition British gunner besides being better trained than that of the Spanish and French also had a technological edge over there peers too with the string system. What is this? Well at the time, cannon were required to be fire by touching off the powder leading from the top of the gun to the bag inside. They would use a fire stick to do this. For ship crews this meant that one would have to aim the cannon through the open gun port first and then move to the side and light the cannon. This meant that if cannons aim was off or a slight change in wave made the cannons aim into the air or water, this could not be seen before the guns were touched off and fired. So the British invented simple but also very advanced for its time system where they had a flint attached to a string and striker. The striker would be set at the top of the funnel and the flint attached to a small pully string that when pulled would spark the gun and let it fire. Why was this a major invention. For one it allowed British crews to remain safer when firing as they could be at any distance from the gun as long as the sting could be pulled. Another was that it allowed for British gunners to remain behind the gun even up to the point of fire, which allowed them the greatest amount of time to wait and fire and to make the adjustments required in aiming. A third was that it also meant that the fire stick wasn’t required. So if the man holding it was killed and the stick either broken, lost or so on, the gun could still be fired as long as someone was there to pull the string.

[@LordInter]

@@reecedignan8365 tbh on that point I wrote am essay and deleted it, if "our girl" wants to learn more about naval history there's loads about on how the Royal Navy (or more the British empire) ruled the seas as well as they did.

[@michaels640]

You might be interested in a series of novels by Patrick O’Bryan; these cover the naval history in stories that really make you feel you are there, with a great dry sense of humour. They are SO good! The first is Master and Commander.

[@anoldfogeysfun]

Or she could even go with the series of 20-24 (I can't remember the full amount off-hand now, although I do have them) novels by Alexander Kent (A.K.A. Douglas Reeman) - which charts the history in sail of one Richard Bolitho, moving all the way up from Midshipman to Admiral, and to his title of Sir Richard . . . the latter few books are more about his nephew Adam who had risen from Midshipman to Captain before his uncles death . . .

[@daredemontriple6]

The principal form of communication was via signal flags. These are often seen flown ceremonially on modern warships too. Most countries had their own codes to prevent an order being interpreted by the enemy. Usually there is a flag for every letter, but in the interest of relaying messages quickly a list of the most useful words would have their own code. In the case of the Royal navy's system at Trafalgar "England" for example was represented by 3 flags in a specific sequence. The Broadside is exactly what it sounds like, the broad side of a ship as apposed to the fore or aft which is narrow. Additionally you may hear the term broadside used to describe an attack "They gave them a full broadside" or "By using a rolling broadside". This relates to the ships's armament being almost entirely mounted in the sides. A full broadside means all the guns on that side were fired, a rolling broadside is a tactical variation of this whereby the guns are fired like a mexican wave. That brings us to the armament. They were indeed cannons. The size and number varied from ship to ship. The Royal navy classed it's ships and all others based on this. A 1st rate ship of the line had 100+ guns, a 2nd rate 80-98, a 3rd rate 64-80, and so on with the smallest being a 6th rate (predominantly Frigates) with ~24 guns. HMS Victory (1st rate), Nelson's flagship and still in commission based in Portsmouth, has 104 guns. The majority of the ships at Trafalgar were 2nd and 3rd rate, with only a select few 1st rates. Guns were usually measured by the weight of the shot they fired however they might have added descriptors to separate two different guns that fired the same shot (such as a "Long nine" which refers to a 9 pounder gun that has an exceptionally long barrel. These guns were usually made of brass not iron and were issued in pairs to royal navy frigates, their use being to cripple ships they were chasing from long range). In the case of Victory, she carried 30 32 pounders on her Gundeck, 28 24 pounders on her Middle Gundeck, 30 12 pounders on her Upper Gundeck, 12 12 pounders on her Quarterdeck, and 2 12 pounders on her Forecastle. In addition she carried 2 Carronades on her forecastle. Carronades are essentially giant mortars designed to deal vast damage to ships at close range. Victory's Carronades fired shot that weighed 68 pounds (31kg)!

[@stevehartley7504]

Broadside is the long (broadside) of the ship. Communication was by meetings before sailing and aboard the ships where captains would meet aboard the flagship. There was also flag signals and semaphore. A guy with flag in each hand and a set type of signal to indicate a letter

[@danielstocker2443]

You can still see HMS victory in Portsmouth and she's still apart of the fleet

[@scottlincoln9660]

Watch the 'Hornblower' series and all will become apparent! Great shows as well. Love your content!!

[@petersmith4423]

The Franco-Spanish ships in the rear were unable to catch up with the main battle because of the light wind that was blowing that afternoon.

[@Naeron66]

A Ship of the line was basically the main type of big warship of the period. It would have multiple masts and decks with varying numbers of guns on each side. Total cannon on a ship of the line varies between about 70 and 140 in that time period. It was meant to fight and survive in the "line of battle", ships would deploy in one or more lines and follow the lead ship into battle firing on enemy ships as they came into the ship's field of fire. Frigates were smaller ships with fewer guns, around 30-40 was common, they were designed more as independent commands and for scouting and escort duties. They were faster than ships of the line and could usually avoid action with larger ships that out gunned them, Schooners, Cutters, Sloops and Brigs were much smaller, generally classed as "unrated" they had a small number of lighter guns, depending on their size anywhere from a handful up to about 20.

[@joshthomas-moore2656]

To answer your question on sginal yes they were close together and would send up a serise of flags to give an order, certian ships would then put up the same flags to act as a relay to ships further way from the flagship.

[@TheJim9191]

I would highly advise watching the movie Master and Commander. Not only does it give you a good idea of Napoleonic naval combat, it's also just a really good film :)

[@johnlewis9158]

In the book the film master and Commander is based on it is actually a American ship that is being pursued

[@gillcawthorn7572]

I totally agree ,this film shows in close-up the necessary manoevres to get the ships into position to have effective fire power, also the status of Marines who were part of the crew ,for the purposes of close combat fighting. There is also an excellent book by N.Rodger called ` The Wooden Wall` ,which gives details of how the British Navy was crewed and operated in Georgian times.

[@theghostoftom]

Navies of the time communicated during the day via flags and night by lanterns.

[@simondickinson2154]

The one thing that keeps repeating itself throughout history is that you don’t pick a fight with the Brits.

[@teslaasmr9375]

*On sea

[@BlackHawk2b]

@@teslaasmr9375 Yep, easy when you don't need an army

[@MonkeyMagick]

And the consistency with which the French surrender. They should just have a white flag.

[@teslaasmr9375]

​@@MonkeyMagick Don't talk when you are an ignorant plz... France has the most victories in the history just ahead of U-K (which has surrendered more times btw but as you only know WW2 i guess you never heard of it). I also guess you don't mock Russia for surrender during WW1, right ? There is only WW2, Trafalgar and maybe Waterloo in your mind, i'm right ? France is the biggest country in Western Europe and there for more than a thousand years, in the heart of a continent of wars surrounded by former great powers and you think it managed to survive and expand by surrendering ? Use your brain, watch a map and read History.

[@zaftra]

@@teslaasmr9375 LOL So Britain won three wars/ battles? ok.

[@stevetheduck1425]

Something barely mentioned in this vid is that the wind was extremely low that day and became even lower; the British ships were seen at dawn, and it was noon before the fleets met, both having all the time in the world to prepare. The formations seen in the vid are those the ships were in at the time of their meeting engagement, not those they held when they became aware of each other. A 'T' shape of two fleets meeting would not exist until the very moment of engagement if they had any way on (movement under sail independent of currents, tide and drift). Also all ships present were in the fight at one time or another, but only the ones carrying Admirals and being captured by the Admiral's ships have good records of their actions in the mostly much later accounts.

[@johnduggan218]

A ship of the line is a three decked ship with guns on each deck on either side ( 40 to 50 cannons on each side ). Firing all the cannon on one side in unison is called the broadside . A ship of the line was the battleship of it age . HMS Victory - Nelson’s Flagship is preserved in Portsmouth naval base.

[@arjanrijvers562]

Germany, or the Germanies was geographical term long before it was a state, like how America was a geographical term before the birth of the United States of America. The state covering modern day Germany and a bit besides was the Holy Roman Empire, a loose confederation which included Prussia and Austria and literally hundreds of smaller realms as constituent and mostly independent parts. This is a decent video on the HRE: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eWmplWqIiLN-ZtU The coalitions were subsequent alliances of European states uniting to defeat revolutionary France (1st and 2nd) and Napoleonic France (4th-7th). Basically each time the plans of the allies fell through, each time they got beat by the French, or when a short peace was made one coalition ends, only for them to give it another try latter in a different configuration. It was mostly Britain masterminding these coalitions because they don't like it when one power gains control over the continent, and they had lots of trade money to spend on subsidizing the war efforts of allies. It really says a lot about France at this time that it takes most of the rest of Europe 7 tries to keep them in check. What Germany was to Europe in the 20th century, France was during most of the centuries before that. When you are ending this series and the numerous detours it takes you on, you might be interested to see something on the Dutch revolt and the Dutch golden age, lots of connections with US history.

[@davidsmall2944]

It's called economy Britain had large plantations in the West Indies which produced large income for the UK !!

[@butIwantpewee]

The next time you're in the mood for a movie I would highly recommend Master and Commander. It's set during the Napoleonic wars on a ship of the line and while it isn't a true story it is quite authentic, so will help to give you a feel of what it must have been like to serve in the navy back then. It's also just a great movie. Other than that, thanks for the upload and all that jazz!

[@AcidEric01]

I was just going to suggest the same thing.

[@martinsinfield42]

Same here. This film (movie) is an excellent representation of war at sea during this period.

[@markhamstra1083]

HMS Surprise in _Master and Commander_ is not a ship of the line. She is a frigate, and the whole story is about frigate command. There is no way that a ship of the line or her commander would ever be allowed to go on such individual adventures. The role of a ship of the line was to operate in a fleet, not to go off sailing the world alone according to her master’s prerogative.

[@thoso1973]

@@markhamstra1083 Yes, frigates were usually one deck of guns only, lightly armored and fast. Another famous ship from the era was the HMS Bounty, an armed merchant ship much smaller than ship of the lines and frigates.

[@SB-sj4uz]

More based on Thomas Cockrane than anyone else but a great film none the less.

[@tSp289]

Answering how they communicated: they used signal bunting (small coloured flags on a rope) suspended from the rigging. Each flag had a meaning, and they could be strung together to form a message. Ships might fire a cannon to get the others' attention, then raise the bunting, which would be passed along the line.

[@algorithmplusltd]

Cutters were usually the smallest commissioned ships in the fleet. Developed from craft used by English smugglers, these single-masted vessels were built for speed. They were employed as patrol boats and dispatch carriers. Schooners, two masted fore- and aft-rigged vessels were used for similar purposes.

[@elconocido1994]

Napoleon is also the indirect responsible for the latin american movements of independence from Spain

[@Tarantio1983]

Partly so was a British naval office, Lord Thomas Alexander Cochran ("The Fighting Cochran")! He served in the British Navy at this time, harried French forces in the Western Mediterranean... but no matter his successes at bringing back French ships as booty, the admiralty just had it in for him. So he buggered of to Chile, liberated that ... the Chileans stiffed him for his pay so he ransacked a ship hauling captured Spanish loot headed to the new Chilean govt and took only what was owed him and his crew. Went to Panama, same thing happened there. So he went to Brazil and helped the Son of the Portuguese king liberate Brazil from Portugal and set up a democracy, he finally got paid with out a fuss. Then retired from the naval life, and took up his seat in Parliament...as he was an MP for most of his life, except where the admiralty implicated him in the South Sea Bubble (by giving John Blunt a reduced sentence to accuse Cochran of being mastermind alongside Blunt and Sir Robert Harley) - Damn you, Walpole... you are such a crooked knave you could walk sideways through a corkscrew and never touch the metal!

[@jimfiggerty833]

Thomas Cochrane was more pertinent.

[@jasonbourne4426]

@@Tarantio1983 also involved with Simon Bolivar in Venezuela I believe ?

[@Tarantio1983]

@@jasonbourne4426 yes, Cochran got involved in that too ... and yet again got stiffed for his wages, and yet again took his pay of a gold ship!

[@Tarantio1983]

@@jimfiggerty833 The Fighting Cochran actually went there and fought to liberate these places, including Haiti. Whereas, Boney sent troops to subdue the Haitian revolution - as he feared losing their sugar crops and the money earned by selling this. But he was also fearful that if the coloured Haitians gained equality with the whites then the same might happen in other French holdings such as North Africa, Vietnam, Siam (now Thailand), etc.