"Britain didn’t “rule the waves” after the battle of ..." Topic

…Trafalgar, says historian Sam Willis

"The battle of Trafalgar is today remembered as "one of the greatest naval clashes in history" – but how much does this claim stand up to scrutiny?

In his article ‘Trafalgar: a futile victory?‘ – available in the August issue of BBC History Magazine – historian Sam Willis argues that Trafalgar was not defined by the strength of the British navy, but instead by the death of its greatest naval hero: Horatio Nelson…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Hardly surprising from the BBC History (sic) magazine. So if Nelson hadn't been killed, Trafalgar would have had no significance and would have disappeared, uncommemorated, into the mists of time? Absolute twaddle – it really is a dreadful magazine that peddles simplistic, tabloid history.

Got to agree with you. I do not understand the trend towards running down and denigrating historical events we celebrate.

I really do hope that this article does not evidence a desire on the part of Willis to follow the egotistical path of Sumida in trying to re-write naval history in his own image.

B

The whole point of that battle was to blunt the Franco-Spanish invasion of Britain…

Nelson completed that task with gusto – at the cost of his own life! Nuff said…

I guess Mr. Willis would consider Waterloo just a simple skirmish.

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Send Mr Willis to the Tower!!!

Even this avowed Francophile says Willis has pushed that particular envelope off the table, across the floor, and out the door.

Trafalgar was brilliant, succeeded in its mission, and ultimately gave a lot of London pigeons a place to sit.

It was an incredible naval victory, that can't be denied. However, if Britain really did rule the waves after Trafalgar, as we are all led to believe, one does wonder why Britain was still petrified that Napoleon would capture the Danish fleet at Copenhagen two years later. So much so that they sent a massive naval and military force to intimidate and threaten, at the time, a neutral nation. And they even resorted to using terror tactics against civilians, so desperate where they to steal the Danish fleet. And they turned a neutral nation into an enemy. Makes you think, eh?

Good points my friend…

Amicalement
Armand

The Danes had been pressured into pledging their fleet to the service of the French. The Royal Navy bombarded Copenhagen, seizing the Danish fleet, and assured use of the sea lanes in the North Sea and Baltic Sea for the British merchant fleet. A consequence of the attack was that Denmark did join the war on the side of France, but without a fleet it had little to offer.

"petrified" – I think not. Prudent is probably more accurate – unless you have a complete loathing of all things British.

To state that Trafalgar wasn't a British naval victory is a pretty poor historical appraisal. Sadly, this "historian" wants to get noticed. The state of historical studies in Britain is pretty poor at the moment:

link

The way to "rule the waves" is to make sure that there isn't another fleet *on* the waves to challenge you.

Considering that there was no way to do that at the time…

Building and maintaining a larger fleet was how it was done.

They did rules the waves for quite some time AFTER the Napoleonic wars were over – not during those wars.

"not during those wars" And who exactly stopped the British doing whatever they wanted at sea during the Napoleonic Wars – or indeed for the next 100+ years afterwards?

There were still strong naval forces in France and Spain after Trafalgar. Britain still had to maintain a blockade and/or chase privateers after the battle.

There were several other significant sea battles fought after Trafalgar as well.

Once that war was over, Britain had proven it could control the seas quite well and was not challenged (in any significant way) until World War I. Nearly a century.

Of course, some have pointed out that the Royal Navy didn't perform anywhere near as well in WWI has it should have – probably due to a bit of complacency from so many years of little actual practice in a real shooting war…

"could control the seas quite well"
God help the rest of the planet if they could have done it a little better than "quite well".

It should be noted that the French Navy was not destroyed at Trafalgar-the Toulon fleet was lost there. There were also French fleets stationed at Brest and Cherbourg. Napleon rebuilt the Toulon fleet and a new one at Antwerp. The latter was the British target for the failed Walcheren expedition in 1809.

"Napleon rebuilt the Toulon fleet and a new one at Antwerp." The triumph of hope over experience?

Whatever problems the French navy had, and most of them can be attributed to a lack of leadership in the admirals, their existence still caused Great Britain problems, such as the necessity of keeping up a continuous blockade of the French naval bases.

Agree!.

Amicalement
Armand

Mr Astrolabe

The British were the ones that 'pressured' the Danes by sending a massive naval and land force to try and intimidate them to hand over their fleet. Britain did not care if it was a neutral country because they were desperate to get hold of the Danish fleet, a fleet that wasn't even seaworthy at the time. LOL

No, the British bombarded the civilian areas because the Danish military failed to be intimidated by the British bullying and show of force. Their terror tactics worked, of course, as we all know.

In terms of what the Danes had to offer without their stolen fleet, they were still a threat, especially to merchant ships being attacked and captured by their gunboats and also British warships being attacked and captured by the Danes.

ConnaughtRanger

'Prudent'! Really? If Napoleon and the French had threatened the Danes and stolen their fleet by force I can't see you or anyone else calling it 'Prudent'. LOL

And please, suggesting that someone must hate everything British for stating anything negative about the British, in this case, some of the actions of the British during the Napoleonic wars, is a very poor and feeble excuse. One must learn to accept the negatives caused by all nations, including those caused by this great nation throughout its history. Try taking the blinkers off now and again.

A consequence of the attack was that Denmark did join the war on the side of France, but without a fleet it had little to offer.

The Danes fielded an auxiliary corps which supported Davout at Hamburg in 1813-1814. By all accounts the Danes did well and they were initially commanded by Johann Ewald who had been an excellent Jager officer in the American War of the Revolution and left a valuable memoir.

Ewald was refused promotion in the Hessian service by an ungrateful monarch and then offered his services to Denmark, where he became a general. He also wrote a book on light troops which is also excellent.

The Danes and Davout also experimented with rockets during their partnership in Hamburg. The Danes were punished by the Congress in Vienna which acquiesced with Bernadotte's snatching of Norway from Denmark in 1814.

The Danes were attacked twice by Great Britain for the same reason-their fleet-in 1801 and 1807. And the terror bombardment of Copenhagen in 1807 was deliberate.