
"Did Nelson learn his tricks from the Russians??" Topic
14 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Age of Sail Message Board
Areas of InterestRenaissance 18th Century Napoleonic 19th Century
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article An unusual addition for your Age of Sail fleets.
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Book Review
|
SBminisguy | 12 Aug 2009 1:40 p.m. PST |
Nelson's smashing victory at the Nile had an historical precedent. He was not the first Admiral to face a foe anchored inshore, protected by shore batteries and shorelines. While one cannot claim his strategy at the Nile was entirely copied from another, it is likely that he was aware of similar strategies being used before – notably, the Russian victory at Cape Kaliakra. The Battle of Cape Kaliakra, August 11 1791, was the final naval battle of the Russo-Turkish War of 1787-1792. It took place by Cape Kaliakra off the coast of northern Bulgaria in the Black Sea. While it was tactically indecisive and neither side suffered the loss of a ship (though hundreds of sailors lost their lives), the battle was a strategic win for Russia, forcing the Ottomans to retreat, paving the way for Russian troop landings and spurring the Ottomans to accept an armistice. Admiral Ushakov set sail from Sevastopol with 15 battleships, intent on seeking out and defeating the Ottoman fleet in the Black Sea. He found them anchored in two lines (18 battleships) in the lee of Cape Kaliakra, protected by shore batteries. Ushakov had the choice of sailing inshore of the anchored Turks, or losing the weathergauage and standing away from the Cape. He chose to attack inshore. He formed his fleet in three columns with the goal of doubling *both* lines of Ottoman ships. The Turks were stunned at his maneuver, and Algerine Admiral Said Ali, realizing his fleet of Algerine battleships would be doubled, unsupported by the remainder of the Ottoman fleet, cut his cables and made a break for open ocean before Ushakov could finish his maneuver. Nelson, in his experience years later, was successful in his attempt to double the French line at Abukir Bay. So much of our discussion about the Age of Sail is wrapped up in the Anglo-French experience that we forget the other nations of the day who contested each other for control of the sea lanes -- Russia, the Ottomans, Sweden, the Italian states, etc., all fought actions at sea that in their own theatre of war were every bit as decisive as Trafalgar and The Nile. These experiences *must* have influenced other naval leaders when considering their battle plans. So one wonders if Cape Kaliakra and other sea battles came up during Nelson's deliberations before The Nile
References from: TMP link |
Quebecnordiques | 12 Aug 2009 2:50 p.m. PST |
Tankisti, that is a very interesting question you raise there
|
Shagnasty  | 12 Aug 2009 8:23 p.m. PST |
|
Scutatus | 13 Aug 2009 3:12 a.m. PST |
"MUST" have influenced other naval leaders? Really? If they weren't directly involved, how much would the other nations have actually learnt about these actions, beyond "Russia fought Sweden and won"? How much of that information would have filtered down to a command based on politics, wealth and aristocracy rather than talent and knowledge? And if they heard about these battles at all, in how much detail? SOME specific leaders who actually gave a damn and weren't too far up their own noses, too incompetent or posted too much over seas MAY have been influenced a little by one or two particular engagements, assuming they bothered to read and talk about them – assuming they could get hold of such information to read about it in the first place. Information just wasn't as readily available as it is now, especially to naval commanders. So there is no MUST about it. Quite the contrary in fact. Nelson may have been influenced, it is not impossible; that is if he had taken the time and trouble to find out about these actions in detail, assuming such detail even existed or was available. But this is debatable, questionable at best. |
SBminisguy | 13 Aug 2009 8:03 a.m. PST |
"So there is no MUST about it. Quite the contrary in fact." Really? Why wouldn't they have been?? Don't modern military commanders hear about and read about campaigns fought by others? Haven't military leaders through history looked for examples of successful, innovative tactics? In fact, wasn't there a Classical movement during the period which saw a huge outburst of activity in classical history, coinciding with an uptick in interest in knowledge from other cultures as Britain's empire continued to expand in reach? More to the point, there were British nationals working for and traveling in Russia. For example, Samuel Bentham, a respected mechanical engineer and naval architect, was employed by Catherine to assist in modernizing the Russian Navy and even commanded Russian troops in the 1781 campaign against the Ottomans. He later ended up as the General of Naval Works of the Royal Dockyards and designed ships for the British Navy. He kept in contact with his Russian friends and colleagues, wrote frequently about Russia, and returned there through a diplomatic post in 1805. But
nobody read the words of the man who was in charge of the British naval works
link See, what you're basically arguing is that military leaders of Nelson's day were such aristocratic dolts that they couldn't look past the Sherry on their table, and that further, they didn't travel, never met with nor spoke with foreign envoys or individuals and were ignoramuses about the broader world. So did Ushakov's strategies influence Nelson? No direct evidence. But I would be as surprised to find out that Nelson was disinterested in the experiences of other nations and leaders as I would be to find out that Patton actually had never read Guderian's works on combined arms and armored warfare. |
Quebecnordiques | 14 Aug 2009 1:48 a.m. PST |
I'm no expert on this theme, would that I were, but one has to admit the potential for debate is tremendous. Tanksisti's final two paragraphs in his last posting should be the perfect food for thought for this uneventful August! |
Scutatus | 14 Aug 2009 6:16 a.m. PST |
The problem you have is comparing modern unbigotted, well trained, well educated professional 20th and 21st century military commanders who enjoy(ed) rapid or instant access to any information they require(d), to 18th/19th century aristocratic fops with political aspirations and a superiority complex, who got their command primarily because they were wealthy with title. There wasn't much in the way of military schools back then, one had to learn his profession almost entirely on the job so to speak. Some did of course take care to learn their craft well – and by first hand experience actually became competent commanders. But many others weren't, yet were still given rank and command. And competent or not, learning by experience isn't the same as reading how others did it – or learning anything from the accounts if one actually did bother. I would not try to claim that events on the other side of Europe were absolutely not discussed and debated over the dinner table in high society. It possibly did make for interesting entertainment. But scoring points over the roast pheasant, just for the amusement of it, isn't the same as actually analysing, being influenced and learning lessons. In theory the best commanders knew the merit of learning the lessons of Caesar, Alexander, Frederick etc. But how many actually bothered to read their offerings, and how many of those who did learnt anything by the experience, we have no way of knowing. Perhaps those with command did get to hear of a battle fought in the Black Sea, that employed radical innovative tactics never before seen. But then again, it may well have been over looked as a non event and barely discussed at all. Even if it was talked about, how much detail would there be in the telling, how much accuracy in the word of mouth gossip and how many would actually have the imagination, intellect, ability or sheer open mindednesss to grasp its significance and employ the lessons? Judging by the largely stagnant unimaginative tactics and apalling blundering that were so common in the period, I would suggest not as many did learn lessons as should have done. It is interesting to note that the preoccupation with all things Franco-British, to the detriment of almost all else, is nothing new. Indeed, back then it appears to have been far far worse, what with bigotry, a superior attitude and Imperialist arrogance being very much in vogue. Not to mention, of course, a preoccupation with more pressing concerns like the British-French-Spanish hostility. And then there was the bigotry, which would have been another hurdle to taking note of events, beyond a cruel put down jest or two. If "it doesn't concern us so it doesn't matter" or indeed "they are only (enter as applicable) so THEY don't matter" were attitudes commonly found, how likely is it that anyone would be influenced by such events? Or even take much notice of them? There may well have been a few who actually took note and were influenced, open to new possibilites. But truly great commanders such as Nelson (be he influenced or not) were exceptional. Meaning unusual, not the norm. If there was influence, few seem to have managed to employ the lessons very well. So I would suggest such influence was relatively rare, if it happened at all. But I grant we have little way of actually knowing. Indeed, an interesting subject for debate. |
Mallen | 14 Aug 2009 6:40 a.m. PST |
FWIW, the British naval officer corps weren't all that aristocratic, as a rule. Much more of a middle-class service, albeit one in which patronage and connections certainly mattered. |
Scutatus | 14 Aug 2009 6:45 a.m. PST |
I am no expert but I am under the impression that the Officers of the Royal Navy were primarily gentry with connections. Starting as boys they rose through the ranks, eventually to command level. Middle class might do, but upper class was better – and seemed to do better, not through ability but through said connections. A middle class lifer might eventually make Captain, but if you weren't aristocratic, and lacked political position, leverage or wealth, the rank of Commodore or Admiral would have been very difficult to reach. There were exceptions, but they were just that, exceptional. |
SBminisguy | 14 Aug 2009 7:34 a.m. PST |
Yes, Royal Navy officers were gentry who leveraged position and patronage to advance, but it was also the only thing approaching a meritocracy that Britain had -- at the end of the day, either you could handle a ship, handle a squadron and handle your officers and men under tough circumstances or you couldn't and your career would be limited. "Judging by the largely stagnant unimaginative tactics and apalling blundering that were so common in the period, I would suggest not as many did learn lessons as should have done." No, not really, I consider this to be more a result from politics and the limits of technology than anything else. Ships were limited in their abilities -- in speed, range, communications, and fought best in Line. So the Line of Battle became the doctrine, but this was reinforced by politics. Admiral Byng, for example, was executed for political purposes, and even though he'd adhered to standard doctrine he was blamed for breaking the very doctrine that limited his ability to better engage the French. So what officer, except a very bold and well connected one like Nelson, wanted to risk Byng's fate?? Surely had Nelson's gamble at The Nile failed, he may have suffered the loss of his career and perhaps his life. Perhaps I'm overly influenced by the professionalism and outstanding education of most of our current military officers, but I just find it impossible to believe that anyone who takes their craft seriously would not attempt to be as informed as possible. I see no reason why someone 200 years ago during an explosion of scientific inquiry and knowledge, and at the cusp of the industrial revolution, would have been any different in that sense. |
Quebecnordiques | 14 Aug 2009 4:24 p.m. PST |
Ok Tankisti, after reading "Perhaps I'm overly influenced by the professionalism and outstanding education of most of our current military officers" just hold it right there
..let it go
;-) |
SBminisguy | 15 Aug 2009 7:42 a.m. PST |
Well, the officers I know are highly educated, curious folk. And this particular battle was so important to the Russians that they commissioned a series of official paintings. In any event, thanks for engaging on a nice speculative topic. |
Chouan | 21 Aug 2009 2:03 a.m. PST |
Actually, the Royal Navy was almost exclusively middle class. There were scions of the nobility in the Navy, the future King William IV, for example, but these were very rare. Afterall, one would have a far more secure career as an aristocrat in the army, where birth and status were far more important, and where you didn't have to be any good at anything to progress. Some successful RN officers were ennobled, which rather distorts the picture, but most were, at best, gentry. Of Nelson's Admirals and Captains at Trafalgar, Collingwood, Hardy, Bayntun, Pellew, Bullen, Berry, Pilford, Mansfield, Rotheram, Hargood, Duff, Hennah, Cooke, Cumby, Morris, Moorsom, Redmill, Rutherfurd, Conn, Stockham, Grindall (promoted from the ranks), Dundas, Prowse (promoted from the ranks), Lapenotiere, and Young, would all be classed as of middle or even working class origins. So, out of 38 commanding officers, 25 are of moderate means. Of the others, only 4 were of aristocratic families, and only one actually a lord himself, the others being described as of a wealthy background. These were, of course, the successful Captains. |
Last Hussar | 05 Sep 2009 6:33 p.m. PST |
"
our naval tactics are antiquated. We know nothing but how to place ourselves in a line, and that is just what the enemy wants." Villeneuve Aug 1805. Though he would have had closer experience of Nelson than Nelson would have had of Russia, Villeneuve recognised the change in tactics evolving. Military Commissions are almost a worldwide club, with officers sometimes being closer to the 'enemy' than to their political masters- remember the rebels in AWI incomprehension at the French General leanding Cornwallis money to buy them dinner together. Officers tend to talk shop with each other, and embassies have military attaches, who go home and discuss things with freinds. Even if he didn't know the details, Nelson may well have been away of the tactic, and worked out what he believed may have happened. |
|