Wysza Szkoa Jzykw Obcych w Poznaniu

Katedra Jzyka Angielskiego

Agata Skotnicka

British Royal Navy

and Its Indivisible Mastery of Seas
during Napoleonic Wars

Praca licencjacka
napisana pod kierunkiem
mgr Dominiki Ruszkowskiej-Buchowskiej
i dr Tomasza Skireckiego

Pozna 2005
CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................4
CHAPTER 1
The ones that manned Royal Navy
1.1. Quota Men, volunteers and pressed seamen. ..........................................................6
1.2. Ratings and duties. ..................................................................................................9
1.3. A sailor his appearance, and everyday life in a ship-of-war..............................12
CHAPTER 2
Royal Navy and its leadership
2.1. Admiralty. .............................................................................................................15
2.2. Captain. .................................................................................................................16
2.3. Mutinies. ...............................................................................................................18
2.4. Outstanding leadership. ........................................................................................20
2.4.1. Old Cuddy ................................................................................................20
2.4.2. Lord Nelson. ................................................................................................21
CHAPTER 3
Wooden Walls of the Royal Navy
3.1. Design. ..................................................................................................................24
3.2. Ship rating.............................................................................................................25
3.3. Abandoned project. ...............................................................................................27
CHAPTER 4
British Royal Navy in action
4.1. Battle of the Quiberon Bay (20.11.1758). ............................................................28
4.2. American War of Independence (1775-1783). .....................................................30
4.3. Battle of Cape St. Vincent (14.02.1797)...............................................................31
4.4. Battle of the Nile (1-2.08.1798)............................................................................33
4.5. Blockade (1803-1805). .........................................................................................35
4.6. Great Pursuit. ........................................................................................................36
4.7. Battle of Trafalgar (21.10.1805). ..........................................................................39
CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................42
REFERENCES...................................................................................................................44

2
 The tidal current runs to and fro in its unceasing
service, crowded with memories of men and ships it
had borne to the rest of home or to the battles of the
sea. It had known and served all the men of whom the
nation is proud, from Sir Francis Drake to Sir John
Franklin, knights all, titled and untitled--the great
knights-errant of the sea. It had borne all the ships
whose names are like jewels flashing in the night of
time, from the Golden Hind returning with her rotund
flanks full of treasure, to be visited by the Queen's
Highness and thus pass out of the gigantic tale, to the
Erebus and Terror, bound on other conquests-- and
that never returned. It had known the ships and the
men. They had sailed from Deptford, from Greenwich,
from Erith-- the adventurers and the settlers;
kings' ships and the ships of men on 'Change; captains,
admirals, the dark "interlopers" of the Eastern trade,
and the commissioned "generals" of East India fleets.
Hunters for gold or pursuers of fame, they all had gone
out on that stream, bearing the sword, and often the
torch, messengers of the might within the land, bearers
of a spark from the sacred fire. What greatness had not
floated on the ebb of that river into the mystery of
an unknown earth! . . .
The dreams of men, the seed of commonwealths,
the germs of empires.
Joseph Conrad, Heart of Darkness (the description of Thames).

3
 INTRODUCTION

The idea of creating the naval force in Great Britain appeared in the 9th century
when there was a need to defend the country from the Vikings. In the beginning, the fleet
was rather humble and nothing indicated its future supremacy. During the times of great
geographical discoveries, it was one of the fleets financed by monarchs and supplementing
privateering (see: Dyskant 2003: 22). It was king Henry V, who established a navy which
consisted of 30 ships with the flag-ship Trinite Royale around the year 1416 while the
merchant fleet consisted then of at least 250 ships. As Dyskant further asserts, the serious
development and extension of the royal fleet started during the reign of Elisabeth I, owing
to the money from piracy. Wealthy overseas Spanish properties allured such British
privateers as captain Francis Drake or Thomas Cavendish, supported by the monarchy. The
British Royal Navy had an opportunity to prove its might in 1588. The Spanish king Philip
II decided to start a crusade and invade the proud and disobedient Albion using his great
fleet known as Armada Invincible or La Felicissima. It consisted of 128 vessels
(among them only 75 war ships) with 8,050 sailors, 2,088 oarsmen, 18,973 soldiers, over
1,545 noble volunteers and about 300 priests to converse Britain back to the true faith.
Queen Elizabeth I had 197 vessels, (but only 34 of them were war ships and the rest - just
armed merchant ships), the crews of 15,925 sailors and 1,540 soldiers. The British fleet
was faster, better equipped, and easier to manoeuvre. The tactics were different too the
Spanish artillery had an additional function and everything was to be decided in a hand-to-
hand fight, while British ships had orders to destroy the enemy from the distance, and so
were they equipped (see: Dyskant 2003: 25-28). The great victory over the Spanish
Armada was the beginning of the Royal Navys superiority. Constant naval struggles with
countries like Holland or France let the Britons train and improve their fleet, though it had
to endure a period of regression due to the lack of suitable financial support. Later, in the
times of Oliver Cromwell, the fleet was organised, enlarged, classified into the ships-of-
the-line, frigates, and light vessels - lion whelps, and a systematic naval education
started. What improved as well, was discipline and leadership (see: Dyskant 2003: 29).
Afterwards, the British Navy was constantly improving its vessels, tactics, organisation
and armament, and growing into power, since as an insular nation, the Britons could feel
relatively safe as long as the shores were guarded appropriately.
When Napoleon Bonaparte appeared on the European political scene, and aspired to
defeat the British Empire, it was again the Royal Navy that frustrated his daring and not

4
entirely unjustified projects. In all probability, having much time after being exiled, this
eminent military leader was wondering why the British Wooden Walls were so strong
and invincible. Bonaparte was certainly not the only one who contemplated this
phenomenon. Yet, after looking closer at the structure, composition, and organisation of
the British Royal Navy along with the history of the world itself, some conclusions may be
driven, and some assumptions of the basis of Albions mastery of the seas may be made.
Of course, the Napoleonic Wars did not finish in 1805, after the battle of Trafalgar, but one
can stop at this apogee of the British navys supremacy, and still have enough data to
consider.

5
 CHAPTER 1
The ones that manned Royal Navy

They are sure to walk firm, where all other Creatures tumble.
Ned Ward (Rediker 1987: 11)

Seamen have always dwelt on the fringes of settled society. The Greeks hesitated
whether to count them among the living or the dead, and 18th century Englishmen were not
much better informed (Rodger 1988: 15). However, it appears interesting to look closer at
this anonymous and indistinguishable mass of people who made the sailing vessels live.
Unfortunately, apart from officers, seamen did not write many memoirs or letters home,
either due to being illiterate or thinking that nobody would be interested; for that reason,
not much is known about their perception of the life in ships-of-war. The officers vision of
ordinary seamen was often prejudiced and incomplete, so the right picture of them is not
easy to recall. According to Howarth, a true portrait lies somewhere between the Jolly
Jack Tars, brave, patriotic and devil-may-care and the victims of a cruel system, press-
ganged, starved, flogged and ill-treated to the verge of mutiny (1969: 25). However hard
it is to create a psychological sketch of an ordinary sailor in the service of the Royal Navy
during Napoleonic Wars, some facts and recordings may help to imagine one.

1.1. Quota Men, volunteers and pressed seamen

Less than half of the seamen had been forced to the Navy by press-gangs, the rest
were either volunteers or quota men. Pope explains that the Quota Acts were introduced
in 1795 by the Prime Minister Pitt, and stated that every county, depending on its
population and number of seaports, was obliged to appoint a quota of men that would join
the Navy, (2004: 104). Seldom did it happen that there were enough volunteers, so
magistrates were shortening the convicts sentences, providing they would volunteer. For
many of them this alternative appeared to be equally painful, if not even worse. This was
a damned hard life, full of toil and strife as an old song says (Rediker 1987: 14) a real
prison with an extra opportunity to drown. The Quota System thus appears to have been
flooding the Navy with scoundrels, yet, what was even worse, it often brought typhus
from city jails to healthy ships (see: Pope 2004: 105).
The strength of the Navy, its nucleus, was its volunteers; not for nothing came the
expression: Better one volunteer than three pressed men (Pope 2004: 93). However, it
was far from being easy to allure sailors to join the Royal Navy. Howarth says that if

6
someone decided to start a life at sea, he usually preferred the merchant navy because of
the better pay, or privateers, where the chance of capturing enemy merchant ships and
winning prize-money was greater than in the Royal Navy; when a British ship captured the
enemys vessel during the wartime, the Admiralty bought it from the crew and the prize-
money was divided among the men, (1969: 28). In theory, the whole value of a captured
ship was distributed to the admiral commanding the station, and the officers and men of the
ship that captured it. The proportions were often varied by Acts of Parliament, and the
seamens share was small. Sometimes, a single happy fight could make a captain rich for
the rest of his life, and give each of his seamen about enough cash to get drunk on. But
still, prize-money was the dream of every man, and indeed it was the basis of most of the
navys tactics (Howarth 1969: 31). The responsibility for manning his ship lied on the
captain. According to Pope, some captains needed not to worry, for their successful
reputation provided them with eager volunteers to join, (2004: 93). Less fortunate captains
often resorted to interesting and tempting advertisements, like the poster () put by Lord
Cochrane, wanting men for the 36-gun Pallas frigate. It was headed God Save the King,
followed by Doublons. Spanish Dollarbag consigned to Boney, and began: My lads, the
rest of the GALLEONS with the TREASURE from LE PLATA are waiting half-loaded in
CARTAGENA (Pope 2004: 93). The captains who anyhow did not manage to persuade
sailors to join their ships of war could always rely on the Impress Service, for whom the
seamen did not have to be educated, or men who wanted to go to sea; they needed to have
all their limbs and most of their wits (Pope 2004: 93).
The system of naval press groups was not unheard of as early as in the time of
feudalism; long before England had a standing Navy (see: Pope 2004: 97). A constantly
growing need for maritime rivalry with France and Spain along with the colonial
expansion maintained the significance of the Impress Service. According to Dyskant,
an average press-gang was led by a press-master, and consisted of a captain, two
lieutenants, four midshipmen and twenty soldiers, who were searching the coastal towns or
boarding the incoming merchant vessels and forcing men between 18 and 55 to join the
Royal Navy (2003: 129). Indeed, the merchant navy provided a good source of qualified
seamen for the press-gangs, who could capture any man they needed, apart from officers
and apprentices, as long as there were enough people left to navigate the ship. The tactics
of resistance varied widely. Seamen waged portside riots; turned over press boats full of
recruits, inflicted upon themselves disabilities, such as burning a wound with vitriol to
make it look like scurvy; and feigned every manner of paralysis, idiocy and fits (Rediker

7
1987: 33). However, forcing men to join the Navy directly was not the only tactic adopted
by the Impress Service. Pope reveals, that a recruiting officer was always in possession of
the Kings Shilling and if he managed to convey the coin into the hands of
an unsuspecting civilian, the latter was automatically claimed to have accepted the Kings
pay for joining the Navy, no matter how resistant might he appear, (2004: 96-97). There
were many ways of relocating the shilling, one of which was dropping it into a potential
victims beer, so that the man accepted it while grasping his tankard. A wise landlord,
not anxious to see his customers hauled of to fight the Kings enemies in distant parts,
provided glass-bottomed tankards, so that the wary drinker could peer into it to see if
a shilling was lurking at the bottom, ready to change him from a toper to a trooper as the
recruiting sergeants hand tapped his shoulder (Pope 2004: 97). What characterised
a good recruitment officer, apart from cunning and rapidity, was an exceptional, alert eye
which helped him to notice and distinguish immediately any man using the sea, that is the
impeccable candidate for the Royal Navy. Pope gives evidence of that shrewdness by
disclosing a story of Robert Hay, who served in the Navy for 8 years and deserted after his
ship was wrecked in a storm in the Plymouth Harbour (2004: 117-119). To avoid
impressments, he bought a long coat, breeches and other garment that would alter his
appearance into more land-like (sailors wore trousers with wide bottoms, easily rolled up
while working on board; only officers wore breeches). Despite all those efforts, Hay was
stopped by a press-gang in London and was not able to deceive the officer that he had
nothing in common with ships. The palms of his hands showed he was used to hard work
and were perhaps a little discoloured with tar (Pope 2004: 119). It happened, that
ordinary people were eager to help the Impress Service and informed them (usually for a
pound of reward) whenever they noticed a man that seemed to have used the sea. This
was called a game of hunt-the-sailor, which involved keeping a weather eye open for a
man wearing trousers or looking uncomfortable in breeches and coat, a man who walked
with a roll and seemed to have blisters on his heels through being unused to wearing
shoes (Pope 2004: 124). Nevertheless, the Impress Service was nothing of a liked
institution. If the Royal Navy was not facing an extremely urgent need of seamen, press-
gangs were prone to corruption, which saved many civilians from serving the Crown. If
bribery did not work, furious families of the newly pressed men, or simply dissatisfied
citizens could even attack a press-gang, as one of its members, Spavens, described:
Several hundreds of old men, women and boys flocked after us, well provided with
stones, and brickbats, and commenced a general attack; but not wishing to hurt them, we

8
fired our pistols over their heads, in order to deter them from further outrage; but the
women proved very daring, and followed us down to low water mark, being almost up to
the knees in mud (Pope 2004: 128).
Describing age and nationality of ordinary sailors, Howarth gives some data of the
crew of Victory - Admiral Nelsons ship-of-war; the average age was 22 and there were not
many men above 40 (1969: 25). They were preponderantly English: 452 Englishmen, 74
Irish, 72 Scots, 24 Welshmen, 28 Americans and 53 assorted foreigners men from almost
every country in Europe, including France, and from India, Africa and the Caribbean.

1.2. Ratings and duties

Once signed on to the ships book, a man was given a rating according to his
experience. As stated in http://www.napoleonicguide.com, people who had never served in
a ship before were classified as landsmen, those with limited practice were ordinary
seamen and experienced sailors were known as able seamen who had an opportunity to get
promotion to higher posts. Pope depicts that there were several Petty or Warrant Officers
on a ship-of-the-line in the end of the 18th century (2004: 83-87). For instance, mast
captain, gunners mates, quartermaster, master-at-arms (the ships chief of police,
exercising seamen with pistols and muskets), or carpenter. Also the bosun had a significant
role (he was in charge of actual rigging, cables, anchors, sails and boats. Together with his
mates, he assisted the watch and was responsible for keeping the ship working with as little
confusion as possible. His mates, called the Spithead Nightingales passed the orders to
the accompaniment of the shrill notes of the bosuns call, wrongly named on shore as
a bosuns whistle (see: Pope 2004: 84-85). The ships master navigated the ship,
controlled how the rigging was set up and supervised placing the ballast appropriately if
there was too much load on the bow, the ship would be difficult to handle, and if the stern
was overweight, the vessel would sail slower. Cooper, sail-maker, gunner (a king of the
powder room who could destroy the ship in a minute), chaplain (only on the largest ships)
and surgeon were also present in the ship of war (see: Pope 2004: 83-87 and
http://www.napoleonicguide.com/navy_crews.htm).
As far as officers are concerned, midshipmen helped the lieutenants in controlling
over the crew and occasionally could take command of small boats or prizes, as it is further
described in http://www.napoleonicguide.com. Lieutenants the backbone of a vessels
command structure - could expect a regular half-pay income in case of being put in
reserve by the Admiralty and depending on the rating of a ship, there could be up to six of

9
them on board. Their tasks were to command small boats, gun divisions in battle, or
oversee a watch and lead dangerous boarding. Commander was the next rank from
lieutenant he was a captain with all privileges and obligations but lacked only an official
title (see: http://www.napoleonguide.com/navy_crews.htm). The captain in a ship, as the
absolute ruler, was responsible for the crew, their number, interests, readiness for service,
and for the vessel itself. His promotion to an admiral was somewhat automatic and
depended upon seniority that was based on the date of commission. If he stayed alive long
enough, he passed three stages of rear-admiral, three stages of vice-admiral and two of
admiral, therefore As one naval officer commented, Death is the life of promotion
(Pope 2004: 79). A commodore was a captain nominated temporarily to take charge of
a detached naval squadron. An admiral if went to the sea, his flagship was usually that of
the fleets junior captain (http://www.napoleonicguide.com).
On the word of Howarth, about two-thirds of the crew were watchkeepers (1969:
30). There were ships that, kept three, but most vessels kept two watches, and that meant
four hours on and four hours off. The rest of the seamen were called idlers who could
sleep all night and work during the day (among them the mentioned earlier Petty Officers).
These were clerks of the officers, stewards, servants, cooks, sail-makers, rope-makers,
coopers, tailors, carpenters, signalmen, barbers, signalmen or gunners. The decks were
never quiet and still. The watchkeepers were woken up about 4 a.m. with traditional curses
and shouts of the bosuns mates; the capstan, the weighty soaked anchor cables, the pumps
or the guns had to be manned as well as the sails, the wheel and rigging on the upper deck.
The look-outs - the seamen observing the horizon with telescopes (known as bring em
near), whose place has been taken by modern radars, had to be cautious and awake,
therefore they were hailed every fifteen minutes by the officer of the watch especially at
night (see: Pope 2004: 191). Those sailors who were lucky enough to have finished the
watch, were clambering up the hammocks not dressing off to save time and be ready to
fight anytime at night. If it was raining, the beddings seldom had a chance to dry as well as
their owners, because the only source of warmth was the galley. It, in turn, was never lit
until daylight because in wartime every one of the Kings ships at sea met the dawn at
quarters, ready in case daylight revealed an enemy ship in sight. The galley fire had to be
out because of the danger of fire from random shot and the risk of explosions if there was
gunpowder on deck (Pope 2004: 192). One of the sacred sailors traditions was scrubbing
and holystoning the decks. Usually the upper deck was scrubbed every morning, and
holystoned twice a week; the lower decks were not cleaned that often. Pope illustrates a

10
holystone as a block of Portland stone the size of a large pillow, which was pulled back
and forth by two men along the deck covered with sand and water, so that the planking was
scoured like with sandpaper (although very effective, it could not be used too often, for the
wooden planks were wearing down), (2004: 167). Wherever there was no place for a large
holystone, a sailor worked a stone the size of a family Bible and scoured the deck on his
knees. Before the dawn the boatswains mates blew to lash up all hammocks that next were
stored in nets along the bulwarks on the upper deck to let the fresh air operate on them and
to serve as a kind of protection from splinters and musketry during the battle. Comfort and
solitude were seldom to be found in a ship with a crew of 700 men. The vessels were built
to function as war machines, and the primary aim of seamen serving the Crown was to be
ready as fast as possible to confront the enemy and be able to defeat them (see: Howarth
1969: 30). That is why British commanders were so devoted to constant practicing and
preparing their ships to battle in the blink of an eye.
An efficient ship could always be cleared in six minutes, to provide a place for working the
guns along with removing everything that could produce splinters the gunports opened,
powder brought up from the magazines and shot from the lockers, the guns loaded and run out
and ready to fire. And in that process any personal property lying around would certainly have
gone through the ports and into the sea. Men learnt to be tidy, and if they had private
possessions, they learnt not to value them too highly (Howarth 1969: 30). Pope claims, that
Any of the Kings ships at sea was run by the watch: with the chance of an enemy sail
coming over the horizon any moment of the day or night, minutes counted in carrying out most
orders concerning sail handling and preparing for action. Starting with the topmen on deck,
they would be up the ratlines and out on the main royal yards in one minute, with thirty
seconds allowed for casting off the gaskets, the canvas strips holding the sail in a great roll
against the yard. Most ships could set all sail in from four to six minutes (2004: 198).
Working high in the rigging in bad weather ended for many sailors with falling because of
the rolling of the ship and strong winds; Pope says, that a few decades after the Napoleonic
Wars finished, one Mediterranean fleet ship had one casualty a month (2004: 198).
On Sundays the captain conducted detailed inspections, and the divine service, if
the ship lacked the chaplain, or read the thirty-six Articles of War. Singing was the part of
the service that the seamen liked the most. Many good captains regarded the mens
singing as the best barometer available happy and contented men sang hymns with gusto;
sulky or bullied men put little life into it (Pope 2004: 196). Also a close observation of the
mess books recordings helped a captain to notice problems among his sailors. There were
mess groups of six or eight men eating and living close to one another, and every man
could change his mess at the beginning of the month, which was written down in the book.
If men changed frequently () it indicated an unhappy ship, unless it was the same man

11
changing each time, in which case the mess book provided a list of the ships
troublemakers men who were unpopular with their own shipmates (Pope 2004: 159).
A ship-of-war could be sailed with a tenth of the number of men that in fact the
crew was comprised of. The rest was indispensable only in the case of a battle to serve the
guns, resist boarders or act as them, take care of the wounded, fix urgent damages, serve
the pumps if the hull was leaking, and yet sail the ship (see: Howarth 1969: 31). The Royal
Marines (called by sailors the royal jollies while all the other embarked soldiers were
dubbed tame jollies) in Nelsons times were an important part of each war ships crew
a ship-of-the-line had a squad of 125 of them. On the word of Dyskant, at the end of the
18th century the Marines were divided to the Royal Marine Light Infantry (RMLI), and
Royal Marine Artillery (RMA) that helped to serve the ships artillery the carronade
(2003: 129-130). The role of RMLI was more complex during the battle they took part in
boarding, watched the crew not to abandon positions, and their snipers hidden aloft were
focusing on particularly important targets, otherwise, the soldiers were securing the vessels
while stationing in harbours and anchorages. They could also act as a landing-party or
simply help commanding the ship punish the mutineers and make sure that the crew
observe the rules. The Marines in general were armed with rifles with bayonets, cutlasses
or choppers sometimes but their uniforms differed. RMLI wore red frock coats with black
cuffs and collars, white trousers, gaiters, black shoes and hats. The RMA uniforms
consisted of green or blue frock coats with red collars and cuffs, stripped white and blue
trousers, black hats and shoes (see: Dyskant 2003: 229).

1.3. A sailor his appearance, and everyday life in a ship-of-war

Ordinary seamen were easy to recognise due to their outer look, way of moving and
talking. Their language was a mixture of technical forms, swearing, unusual syntax and
pronunciation. The clothing of ordinary seamen was highly distinctive and practical.
Nothing of sophistication could be noticed in it. Years of harsh seamen life and the
necessity of frequent sails repairs trained the men to operate needle and thread. Therefore
sailors were often capable of sewing clothes for themselves and so they did if they had to.
As Rediker describes, the trousers of a seaman were wide, ample and sack-like, cut a bit
over the ankle, which allowed tucking them quickly and being immediately ready to
holystone the deck for instance (1987: 11). The fabric used for seamans trousers had to be
durable and provide protection against cold together with piercing wetness. A heavy,
rough, sometimes tarred nap assured this protection. A sailor wore also a checked or

12
stripped shirt, a jacket and stockings. To protect the head he wore a cap, but due to severe
weather conditions, this piece of garment was often reported to have gone with the wind.
Shoes were quite unpopular among ordinary seamen if it was not cold. Bare feet were
flexible and more convenient while walking on an unstable deck, or high above it,
swinging in the rigging. Only the gunpowder storage had to be entered barefoot or wearing
special flannel boots (see: Pope 2004: 60), so as not to cause a spark.
Rediker states that a sailors body carried many traces of his long-lasting struggle
with difficulties found in a ship at sea (1987: 12). A weather-beaten, prematurely wrinkled
face was one of the mildest evidence of them. Hands and soles were covered with splinters,
and coarse owing to constant work with thick ship ropes, and necessity of climbing them
up and sliding down. The service in a ship-of-war marked people with various scars and
injuries as burnings, shootings or wounds. Apart from them, some sailors had their
forearms or other parts of body covered with tattoos. Those drawings were made by
pricking the skin, and rubbing in a pigment was it the ink or gunpowder. All the signs
made sailors recognisable much to the delight of the press gangs that combed the port
towns in search of seamen to serve the Crown (see: Rediker 1987: 12).
According to Howarth, the junior officers and the senior ratings lived on the orlop
deck - the lowest deck above the hold, while the lower gun deck was occupied by almost
all the rest of the crew (1969: 29). Sailors used to sleep in hammocks hung fourteen inches
apart, but naturally it seldom happened that more than half of the crew could sleep at the
same time, and thus the resting ones could occupy extra space. The decks were dark, stuffy
and damp, for the light and fresh air were coming only through the gratings or gun ports
opened during the battle or practice. Otherwise sailors had to live by candles and lanterns.
Admirals and captains had obviously different conditions on a ship. Their furnished,
decorated, bright and stylish cabins designed with elegance and taste, were of a great
contrast to the gun decks (see: Howarth 1969: 34). Meals were eaten on the same deck at
mess-tables slung from the beams above. The food that was served to officers on ships-of-
war differed greatly from the one consumed by the crew only shortly after supply.
Admirals breakfast could consist then of tea, hot rolls, toast and cold tongue, dinner - of
three courses, fruits for desert, coffee, liqueurs and finest wine and after 8 p.m. a rummer
of punch with a cake or biscuits (see: Howarth 1969: 35). If a ship had to sail for about
three months, the rations salt beef and biscuits, were alike for everyone. What is more,
the contractors who supplied the Navy with provisions were often dishonest and sold less
meat pieces than was agreed; unfortunately, the casks with food were shut before the ships

13
purser could check whether everything was satisfactory. The meat was very often not
fresh, or soft, but very salty, which enabled to store it longer (see: Pope 2004: 89). Seamen
got also beer, salt pork, pease, and oatmeal at least twice a week, not to mention
sauerkraut, which was scorned for its smell, but valued as a protection against scurvy (see:
Pope 2004: 150-151, 160). A vivid and evocative description of inconveniences on a ship
blockading Brest was given by Bernard Coleridge, who was 11 at that time:
Indeed we live on beef which has been ten or eleven years in corn and on biscuit which quite
makes your throat cold in eating it owing to the maggots which are very cold when you eat
them, like calves-foot jelly or blomonge being very fat indeed. () We drink water of the
colour of the bark of a pear-tree with plenty of little maggots and weavils in it and wine which
is exactly like bullocks blood and sawdust mixed together (Howarth 1969: 21).
Seamen sometimes got cheese as well, and after some time it was becoming so hard
that it could be used to produce buttons (see: Pope 2004: 155). Till 1740 British seamen
were given 1 pint of pure Jamaican rum as an antidote for everything (young boys were
given half of it), nevertheless, this generosity appeared to be too tempting and caused huge
problem of drunkenness. Admiral Edward Vernon, the commander of the North Sea Fleet
in 1740s, fought furiously with this disease of his men and ordered to dilute rum with a
quart of water and then distribute it twice a day. Vernon was known as Old Grogram
(due to grogram - the fabric of his trousers), and so the new drink associated with him got
the name grog and had not changed till 1824 (see: Dyskant 2003: 50).
In the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, which lasted with a short break for
twenty-two years, the Royal Navy lost 1,875 killed in the six major and four minor battles
fought by its fleets and four by its squadrons, compared with more than 72,000 who died
from disease or accident on board and another 13,600 who died in ships lost by accident or
weather (Pope 2004: 131). In 1799, out of the 646 Royal Navy ships in service only about
400 were proud of surgeons, and the rest had surgeons mates. Weighty loads carrying
could distort seamans figure or cause various illnesses including hernia very little
understood by surgeons. Scurvy, generated by the lack of vitamins in a seamans poor diet,
was one of the major threat in ships-of-war along with rheumatism, dysentery, typhus,
various inflammations or yellow fever (see: Pope 2004: 131-137). The crowded, badly
warmed and aired ship was an ideal environment for an epidemic. The 18th century
medicine was far from being precise, and much treating was based on observations and
common sense rather than on research. For instance, it was observed that onions or lemon
juice protected from scurvy and smelling the land air in the tropics was unhealthy, but
nothing was known about vitamins nor about mosquitoes that were the source of disease.

14
 CHAPTER 2
Royal Navy and its leadership

The captain had to be father and confessor, judge and jury, to his men.
Pope (2004: 62)

And yet, in all these circumstances, something like a miracle was achieved. The fleet was
manned by thousands and thousands of ignorant uneducated men. Half of them had no wish to
be where they were. Perhaps a sixth were beggars and convicts. They were herded in
a confinement worse than prison with nothing constructive to do. And they became the most
excellent navy the world had ever seen. Partly this was done by iron-hard discipline. But
discipline could not have been enough. There had to be leadership too, and the leadership was
brilliant (Howarth 1969: 32).
Ordinary seamen - the real flesh and bones of the Royal Navy, but such body
would never function appropriately without a good head. Considering the probable reasons
of the Royal Navys indisputable invincibleness in the time of Napoleonic Wars, it is
inconceivable not to mention its leaders.

2.1. Admiralty
The organised and coherent work of the British Royal Navy would not be possible,
if it had not been for one, centralised, supervising institution the Admiralty, located in
London. Pope describes that many decisions were made by the Board of Admiralty, though
all its members rarely met together (2004: 22-24). Important questions were usually
discussed by four members, for many documents of a great magnitude required at least
three signatures, but the every-day matters were generally decided by the First Lord (often
a politician), or the senior or first professional lord, a naval officer, working with the
Board Secretary. The latter also supervised the movement of the Royal Navy ships
on home and foreign stations and gave any necessary orders to the admirals, captains and
commanding officers of ships on service. His other tasks included distributing seamen and
marines, equipping all ships, and promotions. The second professional lord would deal with all
the documentation of the Navy Board, the Transport, Victualling, Sick and Hurt Boards and
Greenwich Hospital, while the third professional lord () would with the First Lords
approval deal with the promotion of commission and warrant officers who were without
ships because of shipwreck or seniority (Pope 2004: 24-25).
There were also the civil lords and clerks who assisted the Board, and were
responsible for the Admiralty funds or distribution of the correspondence, for instance.
Yet, the Admiralty was not free from corruption and frauds Pope gives examples of men
who had sinecures in Jamaica, Barbados, and other distant places along with Admiralty in
London at one time; spending their lives in England, they received their full pay (2004:
27). To imagine the dimension of irregularities, it is essential to mention Henry Dundas;

15
 In 1801, a few weeks before Pitt resigned, the Right Honourable Henry Dundas, Member of
Parliament for Edinburgh City, Secretary of State for the War Department, Chancellor of the
University of St Andrews, a Lord of Trade and Plantations, First Commissioner for the Affairs
of India, Lord Privy Seal in Scotland, Governor of the Bank of Scotland (salary undisclosed),
an Elder Brother of Trinity House, Treasurer of the Navy, and holder of various other posts,
including that of President of the Society for the Relief of Ruptured Poor, was officially paid
a total of 11,000 a year from public funds for political offices. To give and idea of how much
this was in those days, he could have used the money to buy himself a new 32-guns frigate
each year. What was even worse, Dundas, later Lord Melville, had an influence over Pitt
which was almost disastrous; most of the catastrophic expeditions embarked upon the Army
and Navy began in Dundass head, the ideas brewed and stewed by drink (Pope 2004:
252,260).
Apart from corruption, communication was one of the Admiraltys main problems,
for it could take months to deliver urgent orders to some remote station somewhere in the
Caribbean or the Indian Ocean (see: Pope 2004: 30-31). To avoid being captured by the
enemy or lost in a storm, the letters were sent in several copies carried by different ships,
however, the situation could change utterly before the dispatch reached its destination. The
communication in Britain was not that difficult, for there were many telegraph-towers built
along the way from London to major harbours. Observing one another, the signal-officers
passed the instructions in either direction, and the signal-towers location (by the sea)
enabled them to receive messages from passing ships as well. Pope claims also that It was
the boast in Plymouth that a short message could be sent to the Admiralty and a reply
received in fifteen minutes (2004: 30-31).

2.2. Captain
As Dyskant describes, since Cromwells time, the British fleet had been
traditionally divided into three squadrons named after colours of flags they were allotted
the White (the vanguard), the Red (the central guard), and the Blue (the rearguard) (2003:
49). Each squadron was split into three divisions, commanded by an admiral, a vice
admiral and a rear admiral. In the 18th century the Admiralty started to allocate some
squads created if there was a need of a special mission. Later, the squads were established
for good and ascribed particular harbours to station in. Those large squadrons, called The
Fleets, were given names after their place of stationing - The Mediterranean Fleet with
the base in Gibraltar, The Channel Fleet with the base in Spithead, and The Northern
Fleet, stationing in Yarmouth (see: Dyskant 2003: 49-50). Those divisions together with
the vast size of Royal Navy itself required a great number of commanding officers.
An average naval captain belonged to the gentry, and he was usually a country
squire from the south of England, not an aristocrat, for they went into the army. As

16
Howarth writes, people from lower classes could become boatswains, masters-at-arms or
eventually ships masters (1969: 36-37). Seldom did it happen that someone from the
lower class managed to reach a commanding post, but if he did, it was not an easy task.
The crew preferred to be commanded by a gentleman and despised captains of lower
origin. The crew of one frigate protested against their captains cruelty: and one of their
complaints was that he was the son of a barber (Howarth 1969: 37). To start a trip up the
ladder of ranks in the Navy, a boy had to win a captains patronage. That enabled the
continuation of an exclusive British tradition and maintained the dominance of the
southern squires in the Royal Navy. Consequently, some officers serving the Crown were
utterly inappropriate men to do it, and only their relatives or friends influence enabled
them to keep the position, no matter what their skills were. It may appear somewhat unfair,
yet It is pointless speculating what would have happened had Nelson not eventually
received rapid promotion, so that he was in position to win his three great and decisive
battles, the Nile, Copenhagen and Trafalgar (for more details see: Chapter 4), but without
the influence of his uncle it is unlikely that he would ever become a captain, and without
the influence of Earl St Vincent () he would never had been given the command of the
ships that led to the victory at the Nile (Pope 2004: 29).
Becoming a captain meant being responsible for the whole ship her men, work
and organisation. It also meant loneliness;
Unless he invited officers which he could not do too frequently he ate every meal alone;
when he walked the quarterdeck, the officers and men left the windward side clear for him. He
was the captain; no one joked with him, no one chatted, always there was an invisible wall
between him and his officers, a wall which represented discipline but one that shut out the
captain. It was a wall which vanished the moment a captain tried to make himself popular,
currying favour among his subordinates. From then on he was no longer the captain; he was an
object of derision among the men he was supposed to lead (Pope 2004: 63).
The specific kind of loneliness in a ship together with several hundreds of men gave
grounds to various alterations in character. Pope further describes that captains often
abused alcohol, became introverts, religious fanatics, or were dominated by obsessions of
various kind from wanting the deck to be scrubbed six times a day, (or having eccentric
ideas like one captain of the Harlequin frigate had his boats crew dressed as harlequins
Pope (2004: 164)) to keeping a tyrannical discipline which ended in sadism.
A captain at sea was a king of his domain, and did very much as he pleased. ()
There were happy ships and ships where life was hell (Howarth 1969: 33). Keeping all the
crew in obedience was virtually impossible without an iron-hard discipline. Weekly

17
reminded rules and threats of severe punishments were to prevent seamen from
insubordination, but the intensity and dimension of penalties depended on the captain.
A well known constituent of the masters authority was the cat of nine tails a whip of
nine cords each of 46 cm with three knots, bound to a piece of rope as a handle. According
to Dyskant (2003: 146, and Rediker 1987: 212), flogging was the most popular punishment
for all minor offences, beginning with drunkenness, using the wrong cloth to make a sail,
loosing an oar, irregular steering or sleeping on a watch, and finishing on not saluting
an officer, or robbing his mates. A captain was allowed to order ultimately 12 lashes on
bare back, but this was often disobeyed though only the court martial could impose more.
It was believed that a good seaman could stand 4 dozens of lashes, without harm to his
health. More serious offences such as cowardice, mutiny, desertion, hitting an officer,
refusing to execute an order for the second time, sodomy, murder of a shipmate,
blasphemy or even firing a cannon too soon were usually punished with death. That was
done by hanging from the yardarm, dragging under the keel of a ship, drowning or other
gruesome rituals. Sometimes the death penalty could be changed to the so called flogging
round the fleet described by Dyskant (2003: 147). The accused man was bound to the
grating stuck vertically on a pinnace and taken from one ship of a squadron to another,
getting there a part of the punishment meted out theoretically 12 lashes. A doctor or
surgeon sitting in the boat decided whether the man would survive further thrashing or not.
Whole crews had to observe the beatings and marines drummers beat the Rogues
March. If the convict happened to survive the flogging, the surgeon bathed his wounds
with rum and sea water and directed him to the hospital. It was more frequent, however,
that the flogging ended in death of the offender (Dyskant 2003: 147).

2.3. Mutinies
The iron-hard discipline, captains cruelty, insincerity, and frauds or any other
problems together with total helplessness of ordinary seamen caused humiliation,
frustration and occasionally drove to suicidal thoughts and attempts. The captains power
was not unlimited, for the vice-admiralty courts occasionally punished a brutal master. But
the largely unchecked nature of the captains legal powers cannot be denied (Rediker
1987: 213). Despite severe law and the irrefutable death penalty for rebellion, mutinies
happened. Two of the most famous were the mutiny at Spithead (16.04 15.05.1797) and
at the Nore (12.05-13.06.1797) (see: www.napoleonicguide.com.uk). The first was caused
by the Admiraltys constant disregard for the sailors humiliating conditions and low

18
wages. After two weeks of negotiations, the seamen handled themselves peacefully and
avoided reprisal. Better living conditions and pay rise were granted to them, which
possibly appeared to be a good sign for other dissatisfied, feeling forlorn and often
desperate sailors. The mutiny at the Nore led by a former officer Richard Parker, was much
more serious, involving 24 ships-of-the-line. The rebels murdered some loathed officers
and threatened blockading London along with starving it, and there were even projects of
sailing to French harbours which meant betrayal.
Here are Eight Articles of Demand presented to Admiral Buckner by the Nore mutineers.
It should be noted that the Admiralty received them and immediately rejected them. The
official reply being "All that could reasonably be expected by the seamen and marines has
already been granted them. Their Lordships cannot accede any further requests."
Article 1
That every indulgence granted to the fleet at Portsmouth (Spithead) be granted to His Majesty's
subjects serving in the Fleet at the Nore and places adjacent.
Article 2
That every man, upon a ship's coming into harbour (a certain number at a time so as not to
injure the ship's duty) to go and see their friends and families; a convenient time to be allowed
to each man.
Article 3
That all ships before they go to sea shall be paid all arrears of wages down to six months,
according to the old rules.
Article 4
That no officer that has been turned down by any of His Majesty's ships shall be employed in
the same ship again without consent of the ship's company.
Article 5
That when any of His Majesty's ships shall be paid, that may have been some time in
commission, if there are any pressed men on board, that may not be in the regular course of
payment, they shall receive two months advance to furnish them with necessaries.
Article 6
That an indemnification be made any men who have run and may now be in His Majesty's
naval service and that they not be liable to be taken up as deserters.
Article 7
That a more equal distribution be made of prize money to the crews of His Majesty's ships and
vessels of war.
Article 8
That the articles of war, as now enforced, require various alterations, several of which to be
expunged therefore; and if more moderate ones were held forth to seamen in general, it would
be the means of taking off that terror and prejudice against His Majesty's service, on that
account frequently imbibed by seamen from entering voluntarily into service.
The Committee of Delegates of the whole fleet assembled in council on board HMS Sandwich
have unanimously agreed that they will not deliver up their charge until the appearance of
some of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to ratify the same.

Given on board HMS Sandwich by the delegates of the fleet, 20 May, 1797.
(www.napoleonicguide.com.uk)
Deprived of food and water supplies, the mutineers had finally to renounce. After
a short trial, Parker and his leading co-conspirators were hanged for piracy and treason.
Other major offenders were either imprisoned or flogged. However, those events served as
a warning and a lesson for the Admiralty and were not easily forgotten, and the
commanders that were at sea in 1805 were different from their inconsiderate and despotic
precursors who sparked the mutinies. They were still autocrats, but on the whole they

19
were thoughtful for their people. None of the active admirals would have tolerated the
tyranny of the generation before them. They had tyrants powers and most of them used
them wisely, and so they were doubly strong (Howarth 1969: 38). The Spithead and Nore
mutineers demands and claims that the sailors were ready to die for, seem now to be
derisorily humble. As a matter of fact, the rioters did not want the punishments to be
abandoned, or laws of the navy changed. They simply protested against unfair use of them.

2.4. Outstanding leadership

There were hundreds of commanders in the Royal Navy brutal, unfair,
unscrupulous, and insensitive or calm, conscientious and understanding. It is unachievable
to examine all those personalities. Nonetheless, there were two distinctive, remarkable, and
diverse leaders whose individualities it is worth to study a bit closer; Admiral Cuthbert
Collingwood (see: Fig.1.) and Admiral Horatio Nelson (see: Fig.2.).

Fig. 1. Cuthbert Collingwood Fig. 2. Horatio Nelson

2.4.1. Old Cuddy

Cuthbert Collingwood was a strange kind of man to be an admiral. He was
conscientious, capable, shrewd and unquestionably brave: as a strategist he always seemed
to know better than anyone else what the French intended to do. But he was also scholarly,
pedantic, puritan and dour at the age of 55, a fatherly or even grandfatherly figure in the
fleet. He made a good admiral, but he might have made a better bishop (Howarth 1969:
57). As Howarth further describes, Admiral Collingwood started his sea odyssey at the age
of 11 and for forty-four years he had spent only six ashore. It was not that he wanted to;
on the contrary, he was married and had two daughters and always longed to go home and
become a normal family man. Only an overpowering sense of duty kept him sailing
(Howarth 1969: 57). Being a strict and austere commander, Collingwood was respected by
his seamen, as stated by Howarth, for his just character did not approve any kind of
humiliation. Only as being a young captain, did he order physical punishments to teach his
sailors obedience, responsibility, temperance and honesty. Later, he changed his onboard
tactics and replaced flogging with severe discipline, including watering the offenders grog
or imposing extra duties along with endless moral lectures. Collingwood admitted I
cannot for the life of me comprehend the religion of an officer who could pray all one day

20
and flog his men all the next (Howarth 1969: 58). His academic character and practices
contributed to mental torment of the sailors who would often prefer a dozen lashes to one
look of disgruntlement. When he was out of earshot, young midshipmen sometimes
laughed at him, but always half in awe and half in affection; one of them () remembered
that they called him Old Cuddy (Howarth 1969: 59). Harsh discipline and strictness
combined with endless trainings gave in the end astonishing results. As stated by Dyskant,
Collingwoods flagship Royal Sovereign at the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805 fired
a broadside in every 1 minute and 10 seconds, while the other British vessels on the
average needed 1 minute 40 seconds, not to mention the Spanish fleet, for instance, who
needed as much as 5 minutes (2003: 243, 286). In other words, Old Cuddy was over four
times faster than the enemy (Pope claims that his artillery recorded even three broadsides
in 90 seconds (2004: 199)). Nonetheless, to serve under Collingwoods orders was far from
being a pleasant and unchallenging task.
Admiral Collingwood was a loner (his favourite comrade onboard was a dog named
Bounce) of sombre attitude to life and vast sense of responsibility. The captains who joined
him while blockading French harbours in 1793 were surprised not to be invited to the
flagship. What is more, they were deterred from visiting one another, and deprived from
any opportunity of amusement. They felt resentful. Brest and Toulon had been boring
enough, but this was more frustrating. () Collingwood was absorbed in the details of
administration, and the importance of keeping watch on the French, and he had no time for
sociable frivolity (Howarth 1969: 62). Loneliness, exhausting routine of hundreds of days
alike, no access to friends seen in hailing distance and nearly no perspective of any
improvement could evoke resignation and depression. Captain Codrington, wrote to his
wife that there was very little content both among the officers and the crews. For charitys
sake, send us Lord Nelson, oh ye men of power! (Howarth 1969: 64).

2.4.2. Lord Nelson

Horatio Nelson being a small, narrow-chested, fretful child with a whining
voice (Pope 2004: 63) informed his family, living in Norfolk, that he wanted to become a
naval officer. Taking into account all the harshness of the life at sea, and the boys weak
health, Nelsons uncle Captain Suckling was rather sceptical about it. He even wrote a
letter to his family, saying that such a fragile boy must have caused lots of troubles if they
punished him with such a cruel future. Using his black, English sense of humour, Suckling
joked even that maybe a gunshot would tear his head off during a first naval battle, and

21
there would be no problem anymore (see: Hibbert 2001: 17-18). The uncle however took
care of Horatio, whose naval adventure began at the age of 12. If there was any obligatory
medical examination for midshipmen, Nelson would probably be the last to pass it. Prone
to seasickness and not strong enough to resist many illnesses as malaria for instance, the
young officer spent many days recovering from them, below the deck. On the other hand,
he was extremely lively, and showed great courage, proved during a polar expedition that
he participated in at the age of 15. According to Hibbert, while his ship was immobilised
by floes, Nelson with another midshipman went ashore to hunt a polar bear (2001: 22-23).
At dawn, the captain noticed the two boys attacking a huge animal, and immediately
ordered them to come back. Yet, Nelson did not react to it and continued his attack, which
could have tragic consequences, for the ammunition finished. He however stayed calm and
ensured his terrified companion that he would kill the animal, using the butt-end of his
musket, and bring the bears fur to his father. Fortunately, Captain Lutwige ordered to fire
a gun, which scared the bear and saved the midshipmen (see: Hibbert 2001: 23). It was
only one of many times when Nelson disregarded orders, and surprisingly, these were the
events that granted him with fame which he loved so much (for more details see: Chapter
4). Gaining experience in naval tactics, and learning to live at sea, Nelson gradually
promoted, to start his real career along with Napoleon. As Howarth claims, Nelson became
a legend among the British sailors (1969: 77); his passionate devotion to England, courage,
and naval skills together with The bravery, clear thinking, understanding, and the sudden
unpremeditated kindness (Howarth 1969: 70) stunned ordinary seamen, and made them
love him. There were many stories of Nelsons supportive responses to peoples needs,
circling around the fleet, as the one of his lieutenants Pasco. The Admiral found him
once, looking annoyed, and asked of the purpose; it appeared that the boatswain
responsible for loading the mailbags, had forgotten to put Pascos letter to his wife there,
and the ship carrying the mail was already under full sail, some distance off. Nelson
ordered to hoist a signal and bring her back. Who knows that he may not fall in action
tomorrow? And the ship returned, and hove to while a boat was launched to carry the
single letter (Howarth 1969: 78). Such stories made the men having a vast fondness for
Nelson, for he was able to balance discipline and kindness, setting a high standard for any
other admiral. Men adored him, () and in fighting under him, every man thought
himself sure of success (Howarth 1969: 79). There was also his unquestioning
assumption that any captain and crew of a British ship-of-the-line would fight and beat
whatever enemy ship they met. From the victories in the past, all the captains had

22
confidence in Nelson: the confidence he showed in them made them also confident of
themselves and of each other (Howarth 1969: 74). Preparing to a major battle (that
appeared to be the one at Trafalgar), Nelson invented a revolutionary plan (for more details
see: Chapter 4), which he revealed to his captains, having them dine with him in his
flagship Victory. Howarth calls it a blend of authority and friendship which made all
those commanders accept it utterly (1969: 74). Admiral himself wrote, that it was like an
electric shock. Some shed tears, all approved It was new, - it was singular it was
simple! and, from admirals downwards, it was repeated It must succeed, if ever they
will allow us to get at them! You are, my Lord, surrounded by friends whom you inspire
with confidence (Howarth 1969: 71). Although his men indisputably adored him, Nelson
was a controversial figure mainly for his boyish vanity, and, despite being already married,
his scandalous love affair with Lady Emma Hamilton. The British government did not
approve the admirals personal life to a great extent; writing his testament before Trafalgar,
Nelson asked Britain to take care of his beloved (Emma and their daughter Horatia),
since he staked his own life to defend the country. His motherland however ignored
Nelsons last will, and refused Emma any pension after his death, which condemned her to
living in poverty, and finally die in shame, after escaping from prison where she was
sentenced for debts (see: Dyskant 2003: 326).
Admiral Nelsons death at Trafalgar in 1805 shaded this glorious victory over
France and Spain, and the whole nation was overwhelmed with sorrow. His seamen were
reported to have fought like devils, and after his death, cried like children (see: Hibbert
2001: 361).

23
 CHAPTER 3
Wooden Walls of the Royal Navy

Wherever we want to go, we'll go. That's what a ship is, you know.
It's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs but
what a ship is... what the Black Pearl really is... is freedom.
Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow, in Pirates of the Caribbean.

3.1. Design
While being on leave or half-pay, Captain Cuthbert Collingwood loved walking
over the Northumberland hills with his dog, Bounce, and a pocketful of acorns. As Pope
claims, Collingwood dropped them wherever he saw an appropriate place (2004: 35).
Some of the oaks he planted are probably still growing ready to be cut to build ships of
the line at a time when nuclear submarines are patrolling the seas, because Collingwoods
purpose was to make sure that the Navy would never want for oaks to build fighting ships
upon which the countrys safety depended (Pope 2004: 35). His forethought was not
unfounded, let alone, when the war with France was on the verge of breaking out, the
shortage of oaks presented a serious danger for Great Britain. The amount of timber
suitable for building ships of war, diminished in six major British forests from 234,000
loads in 1608 to 50,000 in 1783 (a load was 50 cubic feet, and 8 loads - 10 tons). The
woods could then give birth to only 25 or 30 ships-of-the-line. By 1791 the annual
consumption for merchant shipping only had risen to 167,000 loads, while the Royal Navy
faced a demand of 218,000 loads for repairs and new constructions (see: Pope 2004: 36).
The country started to be combed in search for suitable timber, for British oak was claimed
to be the finest and hardly prone to rot, and due to severe shortages, help from abroad was
needed. British shipbuilders valued greatly Italian oak, so called compass-timber, from
the Adriatic shores, because it grew with curves perfectly suitable for the rounded frames
of ships. Apart from that, beams from Gdask and Holstein were bought, whilst American
and Canadian oak was never highly regarded by the reason of its vulnerability to rot (see:
Pope 2004: 36). After having the wooden hull built, the ship needed her masts to be fitted,
yards crossed, guns, shots and powder, sails canvas and rigging hung, and sheeting put to
the bottom of the hull in the dry dock. Pinnaces, anchors, cables, galleys, coal and wood
used for cooking, provisions and clothing sold by the purser together with a variety of
other cargo had to be stored in a ship of war going to her sea voyage. Troublesome as it
might be for the British to provide shipyards with appropriate materials to build the vessels

24
of war, it was not the only difficulty. The British ships were well built and strong and
their men fought bravely, but one skill eluded the Navy Board the ability to design fast
and weatherly ships. Most of the best ships in the Royal Navy in this war were those
captured from the French or Spanish, or copied from them. However, the important thing
was that the Admiralty was well aware of the deficiencies of its own designers, and their
attitude was simple enough fast ships were needed, whether captured or copied (Pope
2004: 46). Relatively odd may it appear that the British Empire, over whom the sun did not
set at the time, was unable to design a line-of-battle-ship, evoking envy among the
enemies. What is more, the invincible sea masters shamelessly copied their opponents and
appeared to be more skilful in taking advantage of those designs. The British naval success
seems to be even more astounding, having considered the facts given by Pope, namely that
ship designers had scarcely any knowledge of hydrodynamic or many natural laws so
obvious today, and their accomplishments were to a great extent based only on experience
(2004: 47). It was observed, for instance, that a fat, squat hull could carry more than a
slim one, but it would sail slower and would not go to windward so well. The slim hull
would go to windward better, but would heel more in a given wind, making problems for
the men at the guns and would not be able to carry so much sail () In other words:
Speed meant a narrow hull; stability meant a beamy one; weatherliness in this case the
ability to carry sail in a high wind and get to windward meant beam and draught for
stability, and slimness for windward ability (Pope 2004:47). Facing all those mismatching
verities along with the Admiraltys requirements of the number of guns and amount of
provisions to be carried by the vessel staying afloat for several months, the ship designer
must have been a virtuoso of compromise.

3.2. Ship rating

The term ship-of-the-line appeared in the 17th century, taking its name from the
tactics, according to which squadrons were ordered to form a track battle-array, and each
vessel was to keep in a line behind her flagship, repeating her manoeuvres (Dyskant 2003:
30). Sailing in such an order, the commanders tried to keep the enemy on the lee side, for
the gun smoke disturbed him then, and his board stayed higher, more prone to severe
damages (the lower the shot hole was made, the deeper it would be after changing course.
Consequently, higher water pressure caused a quicker and more dangerous leek). After
breaking the enemys line, sailors armed with pistols, cutlasses, axes or pikes changed in
boarders and jumped onto the opponents ship to fight hand-to-hand (Dyskant 2003: 31).

25
This type of naval tactics caused essential changes in designs of line-of-battle-ships, which
in the 18th century hardly reminded their prototype the galleon. As Pope (2004: 45) and
Dyskant (2003: 33) claim, the cannons of a ship-of-the-line (placed along the boards)
needed to be placed closer to the axis, otherwise her stability would be endangered. This
gave rise to the so called tumble-home a name given to the rounded sides, so that
a section sliced from the Bellerophon (a 74-gun ship-of-war built in 1786, to whom
Napoleon Bonaparte surrendered himself in July 1815 see: Pope 2004: 36) would look
like a wineglass, the tumble-home being the inward curve of the upper part (Pope 2004:
45). Dyskant adds that the stern was given an oval shape, and the ships ornamentation was
very much limited. The bottom of the hull was covered with leather and later lead
sheeting, to prevent it from sea crustaceans, damaging the wooden planks. Due to the
electrolysis effect, the iron cover had to be abandoned (even if its presence contributed to
higher velocity of the ship, released from sea plants and various shellfish, decelerating her
movements), for the rivets of the hull corroded in the touch with the sheeting and water.
Admiral Nelson had his ships boards painted yellow, white and black while the decks of
ships-of-war were traditionally painted red, not to make the blood, covering the planks
during the battle, so much visible (see: Pope 2004: 40). The alterations applied also to sails
their total size increased to 3,000m2, partly owing to new type of sails triangular jibs,
improving ships manoeuvrability and raised maximal velocity to 14 knots.
The British Royal Navy divided their ships of war into categories according to
number of guns carried (see: Tab.1).
Ship Rating Guns Crew Marines Decks Tons
First 100-112 900 100-112 3 2500
Second 90-98 750 90-98 3 2200
Third 64-84 650 64-84 2 1750
Fourth 50-54 420 50-54 2 1100
Fifth 44 300 44 2 900
Sixth 20-30 200 20-30
Sloops 24-30 125 24-30
Tab. 1. Ship rating (http://www.napoleonguide.com/navy_rnratings.htm)
The first and second rates were often used as flagships and they stood in the main
line of a battle, together with third-rates, comprising the majority of fleets. The fourth-rate
ships on one hand were too weak to serve in a line (they would need at least 74 guns in
1805), so they did so only in an emergency, and on the other hand, they were too ungainly
to serve as frigates, so the number of 50-gunners was not large in the Royal Navy. The idea
of the frigate appeared in the mid 18th century as a vessel to protect merchant shipping and

26
serve as a fleet scout (see: http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/navy.htm). Those swift vessels,
called The eyes of the fleet were built in a great number to patrol and observe the
enemys moves like vigilant sniffer-dogs. Still, their deficit was bitterly complained about
by British commanders: All my ill-fortune, hitherto, has proceeded from the want of
frigates (http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/navy.htm) admitted Nelson while searching for
the French fleet before the Battle of the Nile in 1798. Among smaller ships serving the
Navy there were: brigs, schooners, cutters (6-14 guns, 25-50 men), Luggers, and other
Royal Navy vessels of an auxiliary status such as guard ships, store ships, prison ships,
receiving ships, hospital ships, floating batteries, powder magazines or slop ships, as stated
in http://www.pbenyon.plus.com/Naval.html.

3.3. Abandoned project

According to Dyskant (2003: 187-191) there was one man, who could utterly
change the history of Britain and France, if only he had been listened to. Robert Fulton
an American ship constructor and inventor designed a copper, armed submarine Nautilus
in 1797, using the projects of his precursor Bushnell (for more details see: Chapter 4).
However, the Royal Navy, accustomed to an open-space fight was not interested in such
a device; neither were the French, who rejected Nautilus as being a cruel and non-
humanitarian kind of weapon. Furthermore, the British Admiralty rejected another Fultons
submarine - Torpedo, approved by Prime Minister Pitt as a brilliant weapon to destroy
Napoleons landing-fleet in 1804. The Admiralty claimed that if Britain had used such
a vehicle, other countries would have followed her, developed the submarine and
consequently the British mastery of the seas would have finished (Dyskant 2003: 228).
Amazingly enough, in 1803 Fulton wanted to sell his another project a prototype of
a steamer that was again disregarded by Bonaparte, who claimed that such vehicles would
never be useful in the naval warfare. Napoleons traditionalism frustrated Fulton, and
maintained French inferiority to the Royal Navy; while the British ships-of-the-line were
immobilised by the lack of the wind in the Channel, Fultons steamer reached the speed of
4,5 knots, going up the river Seine (see: Dyskant 2003: 191).

27
 CHAPTER 4
British Royal Navy in action

Alone among the European powers, England had no need of big standing army.
"Whereas any European power has to support a vast army first of all,
we in this fortunate (...) relieved by our insular position of a double burden
may turn our individual undivided efforts and attention to the fleet."
- Winston Churchill to House of Commons.

"If it had not been for you English, I should have been Emperor of the East;
but wherever there is water to float a ship, we are sure to find you in our way."
- Napoleon in 1815. (http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/navy.htm)

At the moment of Admiral Horatio Nelsons death and the British naval victory at
Trafalgar in 1805, the period of Napoleonic Wars was far from being completed. As
a matter of fact, this glorious triumph that confirmed Great Britains dominance on the sea,
did not much harm to the Emperor Bonaparte who was prevailing on land, and only several
weeks later defeated Russian and Austrian armies at Austerlitz (see: Trevelyan 1987: 424).
Furthermore, Britain though safe from the threat of the French invasion, started to suffer
economically from Napoleons indirect vengeance, namely the Continental Blockade
which closed the European market for British goods in 1806. Dyskant reveals that the
British government, in turn, forbade neutral countries merchant ships to trade with France
and its allies, whose ports were blocked by the Royal Navy (2003: 330-348). A long
struggle, mutual economic extenuation and constant political confusion started to expire
along with Napoleons defeat in Russia (1812-1813), and finally perished in 1815, when
Bonaparte surrendered himself to the British ship-of-the-line Bellerophon (see: Dyskant
2003: 356). Nevertheless, while considering the British naval supremacy over any other
country during the Napoleonic Wars, the Battle of Trafalgar appears to be the undisputable
masterpiece and the climax of the Royal Navy strength, perfect to conclude the discussion
with. Therefore, it will be within the scope of this chapter to analyse briefly the major and
most significant naval battles along with their historical background from some time before
the Napoleonic Wars period up to the year of 1805.

4.1. Battle of the Quiberon Bay (20.11.1758)

The fact that Great Britain is located so near, and nonetheless had always remained
beyond the reach of French dominance, frustrated French leaders who repeatedly dreamt of
taming the proud Albion. A few decades before Napoleon Bonaparte dared try to subdue
Britain, king Louis XV aspired to do it during the Seven Years War (1756-1763).
According to Dyskant, the second half of the 18th century brought a vast improvement in

28
training and organisation of the Royal Navy (2003: 17-22). In 1759, France decided to
invade Britain. One French corps was to land by the Clyde rivers mouth, and the second
near London in the county of Essex. The squads of fleet were to conduct misleading
operations in Ireland, Antilles and on the English Channel to belie the Britons. Having
learnt about the French preparations, the Royal Navy reacted immediately and rear-admiral
George Rodney attacked the harbour of Havre in July 1758, destroying ships there, that
were to transport the landing troops to Essex. In August Admiral Edward Boscawen
defeated at Lagos the French squadron appointed to strike Antilles, and Admiral Edward
Hawke blocked Brest with the main forces of French admiral Conflans selected to conduct
deceptive operation on the Channel and escort the transport vessels of the second landing
corps (see: Dyskant 2003: 19). Admiral Conflans had troubles with his crews decimated
the year before by the epidemic of typhus, scurvy and smallpox, but the Royal Navy was
not left trouble-free either. As Dyskant further describes, the autumn storms impeded the
blockade, pushing Hawkes ships as far as to the Torbay, which enabled Conflans with his
21 ships-of-the-line and 4 frigates to leave Brest. On November 19th, the French fleet
reached the Quiberon Bay and the next day the belated admiral Hawke with his 23 line-of-
battle-ships managed to approach him. The weather was gruesome and the French fleet
sailed to a narrow and rocky part of the Quiberon. The dangerous storm and low pitch of
clouds, obscuring the basin bristled with treacherous coastal islands were thought to secure
Conflans from the British pursuit. Yet, Hawke was the last to be deterred by those
navigation obstacles. Furthermore, he abandoned the line battle-array and ordered his fleet
to follow the enemy, saying that wherever the Frenchmen could pass, there was enough
space for the Britons as well (see: Dyskant 2003: 21). Admiral Conflanss fleet sailed to
leeward and due to high waves were unable to open the lowest gun ports, which
considerably limited their fire power (one French line-of-battle-ship attacked by two
British ships tried opening them. Consequently, the vessel was flooded with water,
overturned and sank with the commander and most of the crew). Dyskant claims that eight
French ships pushed by the storm (or more likely seized with panic) withdrew to the
fortified Isle of Aix and then hid in the mouth of the river Charente (2003: 20-21). The
battle lasted till the dusk when the French flagship Soleil Royale ran aground and was
destroyed by her own crew in order not to be captured by the Britons. Admiral Conflans
was left ashore and his remaining ships dispersed. The total losses of France were 7 ships-
of-the-line; either destroyed or surrendered while Hawke proved his superiority, loosing
only 50 men (his two vessels Essex and Resolution, were wrecked by the storm).

29
 4.2. American War of Independence (1775-1783)
The Seven Years War (1756-1763) caused harsh damage to the French fleet and
the government decided to introduce radical modifications. On the word of Dyskant, the
French fleet was enlarged to 39 vessels, and the French shipyards and arsenals of Brest,
Toulon, Rochefort and Marseille were either renewed or rebuilt, (2003: 59-68). The fleets
administration was reorganised as well, and the purchase of Corsica in 1767 gave France
an important strategic base in the Mediterranean. In 1775 the American colonies began
their War of Independence, asking France for military support against Great Britain.
Dyskant asserts that apart from standard sailing ships, the Royal Navy had to face
American Turtle the first submarine, constructed in 1773-6 by Bushnell (2003: 62-64). It
was an oak, egg-shaped conveyance secured by iron hoops and sealed with tar. Turtle was
driven by one person who pumped water in or out of the ballast casks whether to
submerge or surface, and run the vehicle with pedals that turned two propellers. The
submarines velocity could reach 3 knots (about 5,5 km/h). Turtle carried enough air to
stay under water for 30 minutes and was armed with a powder mine with a clock fuse,
which was attached under the attacked ships hull. However, in September 1776 sergeant
Lee who drove Turtle did not manage to fix the bomb under the Vice Admiral Howes
frigate Eagle, and after being noticed, he had to escape (Dyskant 2003:63). His next
attempts also ended in failure; the cautious Britons sank a boat together with Turtle, towed
by it to the spot where it was to submerge. The submarine was retrieved, repaired and
afterwards (driven by Bushnell himself), attacked the Cerberus frigate with a new sea-
bomb (supposedly a torpedo prototype) that anyhow missed the target, frightening the
frigates crew only. To avoid being chased after another unsuccessful attack, Bushnell
dropped many floating casks which the Britons took for bombs and shot this became
known as the day of fighting the barrels (see: Dyskant 2003: 64). Despite failing, Turtle is
noteworthy as probably the first attempt to fight large ships using submarine.
In February 1778 France signed a treaty with the American insurgents and adjured
Britain to withdraw her army from the colonies, recognising their independence, which
was ignored completely. The war with France was inevitable. What is more, in 1779 and
1780 Spain and the Netherlands joined it as well, partly to help the American colonies, and
partly to regain their own European lands lost to the Britons. As Dyskant further remarks,
17 years after the Seven Years War the reformed French fleet consisted of 68 ships-of-war
and 80 frigates or other vessels whose construction was strong, and artillery very well
trained (2003: 65). Spain had 56 mostly new line-of-battle-ships and 70 smaller ones with

30
considerably well trained crews. Holland having 16 big, 16 smaller ships, and lacking the
crews, embodied nothing of a great danger, and was able only to defend its shores. The
Royal Navy was proud of 77 ships-of-the-line, next 50 in reserve or under construction,
and about 140 other naval vessels with very well trained crews (see: Dyskant 2003: 65).
The War of American Independence ended as a war of Britain against half of the world. The
Bourbon family compact of France and Spain fought her by sea and land as of old: the French
ships under Suffren seriously endangered her communication with India; Russia, Prussia,
Holland and the Scandinavian Powers united their diplomatic and naval forces in the armed
neutrality of the North to defend the rights of neutrals against the Mistress of the Sea. In
Ireland, for the first and last time in history, Protestants and Catholics united to overthrow the
system by which their common interests were sacrificed to England. In the hour of need, to
which her fools had brought her, Britain was saved by her heroes (Trevelyan 1987: 407).
Dyskant reveals that France and Spain decided to invade the British Isles in 1779,
which ended in failure due to the stormy weather and epidemic of typhus, scurvy and
smallpox among the French (2003: 66). Moreover, the British Admiral Rodney defeated
the Spaniards twice off Cape Finisterre and St. Vincent. Nevertheless, the apparently
everlasting British fortune halted in September 1781, depriving the Britons of a flagship
and 60 transport vessels; the Rear Admiral Graves lost the dominance over the
Cheasepeake Bay to the French Vice Admiral de Grasse whose ships manoeuvred and
sailed better. Therefore, the British forces in Yorktown were deprived of their supplies and
had to surrender on 19th October 1781. Consequently, Britain lost the American colonies in
1783. Still, The Royal Navy was occupied by constant French and Spanish attacks.
Although the British were victorious at the Caribbean (Admiral Rodney won the battle at
Les Saintes in April 1782), the French commander Suffren embodied a serious danger on
the Indian Ocean. It is difficult to speculate how his unsolved struggles with Vice Admiral
Hughes would have finished if it had not been for French commanders disloyalty and the
armistice of 1783 (see: Dyskant 2003: 72-74).
To conclude, the French navy appeared to be a powerful and dangerous enemy for
the Britons who lost about 2500 merchant vessels (75% of which were sank by the French)
while the allied lost about 1000. Having noticed such a resilient and rapidly developing
threat, the British policy had to focus on intruding the French navys precarious prosperity
per fas et nefas that is by all means (see: Dyskant 2003:75). Astoundingly, it was
France herself that helped Britain to achieve this objective.

4.3. Battle of Cape St. Vincent (14.02.1797)

In 1789 France quivered with a giant and violent upheaval the gory Revolution,
which was to influence the whole Europes future extensively. Dyskant claims, that the

31
officers of the French navy very often had come from the upper classes, which became an
aim of the revolutionary outrage (2003: 76-77). At first, the admirals and officers were
forced to resign from the service, and around the year 1892, they were executed frequently.
Thus, the Revolution contributed to a vast chaos in the fleet, by allowing only 25% of the
old corps of officers to maintain their posts. The vacant positions were filled with non-
aristocratic merchant navy officers (lacking the military schooling) or army officers (that
were deficient in the basic naval training). Consequently, the precise machine of skilled
officers and artillerists, commanding the ships and men with experience in a disciplined
manner, collapsed along with the former French naval strength (see: Dyskant 2003: 77).
On 1st February 1793, the war between Great Britain and France was declared. Two
days earlier, Horatio Nelson became a commander of the 64-gun HMS Agamemnon (since
1789-90 the Royal Navy has preceded the names of her ships with an abbreviation of
His/Her Majesty Ship). He sailed south, to join the Vice Admiral Hoods Mediterranean
Fleet, having no problem with manning his vessel, for eager sailors volunteered quickly,
having heard that it was good to serve under Nelson (see: Dyskant 2003: 129). Next year,
he was ordered to capture Corsica. This conquest cost him however a painful loss during
the siege of Calvi, some rock slivers caused by French gunshot injured Nelsons face, and
the sight of his right eye was lost due to insufficiency of the 18th century medicine.
Bonaparte conducting his campaign, forced the Royal Navy to leave Italian harbours. The
Britons had to abandon Corsica as well, for Spain joined the war as a French ally in
October 1796; the combined fleets (over 40 ships) would present too strong danger for the
time being. While Admiral Jervis, who replaced Hood (see: Hibbert 2001: 394-395), was
stationing in Portugal, Nelson commanded a squad of two frigates to evacuate British
garrison on Elbe. Dyskant asserts that on his way back, he passed the Spanish squadron in
Cadiz unnoticed, owing to thick fog, and informed Jervis about Spanish preparations
(2003: 136). Admiral Cordoba in his flagship Santisima Trinidad, with 27 ships-of-the-
line, 10 frigates and 1 brig, proceeded in the direction of Brest the port of concentration
of the two allied fleets. His squad sailed in two groups (the western 19 ships, and the
eastern 8 ships). In spite of being outnumbered, the Mediterranean Fleet (15 line-of-
battle ships, 4 frigates and 2 smaller vessels) decided to force the enemy to return. Having
formed the line battle-array on the 14th February 1797 at Cape St. Vincent, Admiral Jervis
sailed between the two groups of the Spanish squad and the battle began.
The British artillery shot 3 broadsides every 5 minutes (Collinwoods HMS
Excellent was even faster) while the Spanish needed the same time for only one broadside.

32
Therefore, 1248 British guns shot 1,5 times more missiles than the 2300 Spanish ones (see:
Dyskant 2003:137). The eastern group of Rear Admiral Morena was quickly dispersed, and
the Royal Navy attacked Admiral Cordoba, commanding the other part of the squad. His
group however was pushed by the wind to the back of the British column, and further to
Morena, who turned back to join the other group as soon as he noticed that it was possible.
The Spanish fleet would continue its journey to Brest if it had not been for Nelsons
vigilance and disobedience. In defiance of the Fighting Instructions his HMS Captain
left the column, and followed by 3 ships (including Collingwoods Excellent), sailed
North-West to cross the course of Cordoba. Admiral Jervis understood Nelsons move and
supported him, but Captain (74 guns) had been severely damaged in the fire of 600
Spanish guns before she reached the enemy. After a long cannonade, two Spanish vessels
San Nicolas (80 guns) and San Jose (112 guns) collided and stopped, since their rigging
tangled. Nelson swiftly attacked them by boarding San Nicolas with his marines and
sailors, and then through her board, he captured San Jose as well. This type of boarding
became known in the Royal Navy as Nelsons patent bridge for capturing enemies of first
rate ships(Dyskant 2003:138-139). Collingwood seized other two ships and the battle was
finished at dusk. Cordoba withdrew to Cadiz, having lost 1,000 men, while the British lost
300, and Jervis immediately blockaded this harbour. Owing to Nelsons glorious
nonconformity the Battle of St. Vincent was a landmark in British naval tactics. Jervis was
honoured with a title of Earl St. Vincent and Nelson, whom the Admiral forgave breaking
the rules, was given the Order of the Bath and the promotion to Rear Admiral.

4.4. Battle of the Nile (1-2.08.1798)

On the word of Dyskant, in 1797 the British Navy also experienced the two,
mentioned before mutinies; at Spithead and Nore, furthermore, Nelson was crippled again
(2003: 150). While attacking Tenerife, he was shot with a musket bullet in the right elbow;
on 27th July the surgeon Eshelby had to amputate Nelsons right arm. Next year after
recovery, Nelson was appointed to the Mediterranean Fleet to prevent the French ships
from leaving Toulon. However, a huge storm dispersed his ships and damaged the flagship
Vanguard. In the meantime, the French fleet left Toulon and sailed to Malta, but Nelsons
frigates-the eyes of the fleet withdrew to Gibraltar during the storm, so he was deprived
of their recognition. I have again to deeply regret my want of frigates, to which I shall
ever attribute my ignorance of the situation of the French fleet (http://www.wtj.com)
wrote Nelson to Admiral the Earl of St. Vincent. Consequently, he had to use intuition and

33
guess where the French might have been; because of contrary winds, their course to the
Atlantic was impossible (which was confirmed by a merchant vessel met on the way
Dyskant writes, that her crew admitted that the French squadron was seen in Egypt), (2003:
155). The French Admiral Bruyes anchored his ships (their starboards were directed to the
open sea) at the Aboukir peninsular in a line long for 3 km, parted from land by shallow
water and reefs. What is more, one-third of his crews were ashore, collecting provisions, an
taking care of the sick. French ships were unprepared for battle; guns of their ports were
brought on land, but not even set to a battery. Bruyes thought Nelson would not sail onto
the shallow, unknown basin to attack him, and especially not at dusk. But he did not know
Nelson. Unexpectedly, the British squad hit the front of the French column, taking it from
both sides. Although HMS Culloden ran aground due to the shallow water, a few other
line-of-battle-ships managed to carefully approach the enemy from the left side (where
there were no guns!) and Nelson with other 6 vessels sailed to the right side. A vehement
cannonade began at 6.30 p.m. on the 1st of August 1798 and lasted till midnight, finishing
with glorious victory of Nelson, (who was severely wounded in head) though the French
starboard guns caused much damage to the British squad. French commander Villeneuve
and his 5 vessels anchored further did not attack Nelson, but escaped. Napoleon Bonaparte
left ashore was separated from his motherland and lost the army treasury on the deck of
Orient that blew up at 10 p.m. France lost 11 line-of-battle ships and 2 frigates; 1,700 men
were killed, 500 wounded and 2000 surrendered, while the British had 288 dead, 727
wounded (including Nelson) and some of their ships were harshly damaged (see: Dyskant
2003: 158).
This triumph made Horatio Nelson a national hero; British press compared the
Battle of the Nile to the victory over the Spanish Armada. A Latin anagram HONOR EST
A NILO (honour is from the Nile) was composed from the letters of his name along with
the fourth stanza of the British anthem God Save the King that glorified Nelson. He was
rewarded generously and became known all over Europe, though his mistress Lady
Emma Hamilton, was not approved and infuriated his wife Fanny (Dyskant 2003: 179).
In 1801 Nelson, promoted to Vice Admiral, joined Parkers squadron and sailed to the
Baltic Sea, earlier fighting at Copenhagen, because the Danes refused to pass the Royal
Navy. Again Nelson disobeyed orders when Parker raised the signal Leave off action,
after several hours of cannonade and much loss on both sides. Liposki depicts Nelsons
famous reaction to the signal from the flagship he raised the telescope to his blind eye
and said to his officers that he saw no signal at all (2004: 447). The Battle of Copenhagen

34
(9.04.1801) ended in British victory and Nelsons insubordination was forgiven once
again, not to mention his reward the title of Viscount. Next year, on the 25th of March the
Treaty of Amiens stopped the war, though not for long.

4.5. Blockade (1803-1805)

According to Dyskant, the time of armistice was used by Napoleon to regulate
home affairs and organise a new French army whose main aim would be to invade Great
Britain (2003: 192). Napoleon claimed that three days of foggy weather would be enough
for him to become the master of London, the British Parliament and English Bank. All he
needed was to transport the huge army via the English Channel. Some ideas of the French
engineers or pseudo-scientists how to achieve this goal were astonishing (see: Dyskant
2003: 200-201); Mathieu suggested digging a tunnel under La Manche which would be
aired by ventilation manholes protruding above the water, and Thilorier proposed
transporting the army by air, using huge balloons (each of whom would carry 3,000
soldiers). Other projects included using Fultons steamers or glass, bell-shaped caissons
towed by boats, and the most inventive one crossing the Channel on dolphins backs (the
idea of Quatremere-Disjouval, who wanted the trained dolphins to carry a saddle, reins and
two casks filled with air, which would prevent them from submerging). Some technical
difficulties caused that even the Prinets plan of floating fortresses huge armed rafts of
size 400x175m was abandoned as well (Dyskant 2003: 201).
In anticipation of such an invasion, a string of small round forts known as Martello towers was
set up along the southern and East Anglian coasts, and Pitt ordered the digging of a defensive
ditch, the Royal Military Canal, across the vulnerable expanse of Romney Marsh. Napoleon
assembled a fleet of rafts and barges, some carrying strange devices like windmills to drive
them, and an army of ninety thousand waited at Boulogne for embarkation orders. As with the
Spanish Armada, what was needed was a fleet strong enough to cover the passage of these
troops across the Channel. Let us be masters of the straits for six hours, declared Napoleon,
and we shall be masters of the world. His Admiral, Villeneuve, was ordered to lure the
British fleet out to the Wet Indies and then shake it off and hurry back to Boulogne (Burke
1985: 199-200).
Dyskant reveals that in 1803, the Flotilla of the Year X consisted of 1,310 landing vessels
that could transport 80,000 infantry, 12,000 cavalry and 4,000 artillery at one time (2003
:203). This fleet was scattered in harbours round the coast of France, and later round the
coast of Spain in Toulon and Cartagena in the Mediterranean, and Cadiz, Vigo, Ferrol
Rochefort and Brest in the Atlantic. If they had put to sea, they might have combined in a
single fleet that was strong enough to force its way up Channel (Howarth 1969: 20).

35
 The war was restarted on May 15th, 1803 and the Royal Navys main task was to
blockade the enemys harbours in order not to release their ships and let them threaten the
British shores. The blockade, called the Long Watch(Dyskant 2003: 199) was exhausting
and demanded excellent sailing abilities. Nelson blockaded Toulon, Gardner-Rochefort,
Pellew circled at the Bay of Biscay and Keith patrolled the Northern Sea harbours.
Howarth (1969: 38) claims that the blockade of Brest commanded by Cornwallis was very
difficult, due to the Isle of Ushant: Mariners must exercise the greatest caution () This
island is surrounded by dangers; rocks are numerous and some lie far from the land; fogs
and thick weather are not uncommon; the tidal streams are strong, and the extent of their
influence seaward undetermined (Howarth 1969: 38). However hard and perilous might it
be, the Britons had to sail close enough to observe Brest.
By modern standards their ships were unhandy, slow to go about and slow to windward; and
probably no modern mariners would dare to explain exactly how they were able to stand off
and on, estimating the tidal streams and currents, night and day, summer and winter, constantly
solving the problems of navigation and ship-handling and this not merely in one ship, but in a
whole fleet of them. The achievement astonished the French, who looked out every morning
and saw the sails still there, and it is still as astonishing now (Howarth 1969: 38-39).
Ironically, the only opportunity for the exhausted British crews to relax and return
to Plymouth were the westerly gales which thwarted the French to leave the harbour. In
turn, Nelsons situation in the Mediterranean was difficult, not due to weather, but because
the nearest ports under the British control (Malta and Gibraltar) were located 600-700
miles away from Toulon. Therefore his fleet had to be self-sufficient in curing their sick
and getting provisions. While the Northern squads strived only for keeping the enemy in
harbours, Nelsons dream, according to Howarth, was to provoke the French to leave
Toulon and fight them.

4.6. Great Pursuit

Napoleon planned to disturb the Royal Navy, blockading his harbours, which
would enable the landing-army to cross the Channel. French Admirals Villeneuve,
Ganteaume and Missiessy were supposed to sail to the Caribbean and conduct actions that
would force the British Admiralty to send there at least 30 ships-of-the-line. According to
Dyskant, the French squads would then avoid the battle, return to Europe, defeating the
blockade forces in El Ferrol, and anchor in Rochefort. In December 1804 the British Long
Watch had to be enlarged to blockade Spanish harbours, for this country declared war to
Britain as well (2003: 211-212). Admiral Horatio Nelson did not know Napoleons plan
and all he wanted was an open battle; he was withdrawing his squadron blockading

36
Toulon, leaving only frigates, to give the enemy an impression that he left his position. In
his anxiety to lure the French out, he had set his net too loosely (Howarth 1969: 49).
Admiral Villeneuve and his squadron left Toulon on March 30th 1805, followed by
Nelsons two frigates which, however, after some time had to return, in order to report to
their commander, and lost the enemy from sight. The British spies in France managed to
reveal Bonapartes plans about the fleet, however the information did not reach Toulon on
time and Admiral Nelson could only guess where Villeneuve had sailed. Howarth claims,
that Nelsons intuition failed him, and he lost over a month, sailing blindly, searching for
the enemy in the Mediterranean, until on May 10th he received the information that the
French had sailed to the West Indies (1969: 49). According to the orders from the
Admiralty, Nelsons squad was supposed to escort two convoys on their way to Russia, yet
the Admiral (as one might suppose, having considered his character and the urge of a
battle) ignored the instructions and followed Villeneuve. Admiral Ganteaume was unable
to escape from Brest unseen, so Napoleons original plan of combining his fleet in the
Caribbean failed (see: Howarth 1969: 49-50). Instead, the Emperor sent Villeneuve orders
to intercept the British colonies in the West Indies, return to Europe a month later, release
Spanish ships anchoring off Ferrol and sail to Brest, to help Ganteaume. Napoleon strongly
believed it was achievable as long as Nelson was searching for them in the Mediterranean.
This was a madly ambitious scheme that only revealed the Emperors ignorance of naval
limits (Howarth 1969: 50). Villeneuve, according to this scheme, was expected to fight a
major battle against the forewarned Royal Navy off Brest, after double crossing of the
Atlantic and month-lasting struggles in the West Indies. In his thorough loyalty to France,
he began to fulfil Napoleons wishes, Nelson, however, was that time on his way to the
Indies (see: Dyskant 2003: 217). After capturing a small British island, the French Admiral
learnt about the pursuit, and decided to return to Europe, avoiding the British fleet.
History blamed him for not waiting for Ganteaume, and for being afraid of Nelson, and so
did many men in his fleet who did not know his orders (Howarth 1969: 51).
Consequently, Nelson, disappointed not to find Villeneuve in the Caribbean, returned to
Europe as well and went ashore in Gibraltar for the first time after 727 days onboard (see:
Dyskant 2003: 219). In the meantime, a brig Curieux from his squadron, on her way to
England, noticed the French fleet sailing in the direction of the Biscay Bay, escaped the
chase and reported to the Admiralty. Therefore, appropriate orders could be given and on
22nd July, two British squads of Sir Robert Calder approached the French off the Cape
Finisterre. As Dyskant further claims, the battle fought in fog was however inconclusive,

37
because neither side wanted to risk their impaired vessels; yet it halted the French and
Napoleon did not found his 38 ships (combined with Ganteaumes would give a fleet of 66
vessels) in Boulogne when he arrived. Instead, Villeneuve sailed to Cadiz, where the Royal
Navy blockaded him soon afterwards. Napoleon was furious when his admirals failed him;
his brave plan of invasion failed as well, and the Emperor dissolved the landing-army,
switching his interest to land to Russia and Austria in particular (see: Dyskant 2003:
222). When Napoleon had to abandon his plan, he said he had never meant to do it
anyway, it had only been a feint. This was the kind of prop to their self-esteem that only
small children or dictators use with any hope of being believed (Howarth 1969: 45).
Admiral Villeneuve was an unfortunate man to fight for an Emperor who was a
soldier, not a sailor; whose orders to his navy sometimes overstepped the mark: knowing
too little of the sea, the genius faltered, and he demanded what was really impossible
(Howarth 1969: 83). What is more, the allied Spaniards with excellent ships, but untrained
men, were proud of having a longer naval tradition, and resented the French command. As
far as Villeneuves own fleet is concerned, it was utterly different from Nelsons: In his
own fleet, there was no band of brothers: he lacked the personality or the conviction to
create one. Some of his captains were efficient, some seemed to be loyal to him, and some
were utterly discouraged by the endless demoralising need to avoid a battle. It was a fleet
at war within itself (Howarth 1969: 86). It was not that Villeneuve was afraid of Nelson,
as many people accused him, not being familiar with the reality. The French Admiral was a
realist he knew that his fleet, being blocked for so many months, lacked the training at an
open sea, while the British spent the time on constant exercise. The voyage across the
Atlantic did not train the French fleet, but showed only its numerous weaknesses;
Villeneuves ships returned impaired and the crews sick. Nelson, who experienced the
very same journey, had come back as fit as ever, and was still at sea, still eagerly waiting
outside his harbour like a cat outside a mousehole (Howarth 1969: 85). Nonetheless,
Napoleon received volumes of libel that blackened Villeneuves character, written by his
companion general Lauriston, whom Howarth describes as a soldier, who insisted on
telling Villeneuve what to do at sea, and endlessly criticised his tactics (1969: 98). Accused
of cowardice, incompetence, indecision and overwhelming fear of Nelson, the Admiral
was a true victim of his times. He sincerely wanted to fulfil Bonapartes unrealistic orders,
and strived to do it. Unfortunately, he himself was not enough.
The series of adversities at sea made Napoleon sick of the navy; when the
Minister of Marine wanted to defend Villeneuve, the Emperor replied: Until you have

38
thought of something convincing to say, () kindly do not mention to me this humiliating
affair, or remind me of that cowardly person (Howarth 1969: 93). Directing his total
interest to the land, Bonaparte reduced his navy to the means of transport of the army, and
ordered the Admiral to leave Cadiz and sail for the Mediterranean. It was the voyage that
finished off Trafalgar, and annihilated any former strength of the French navy, instead of
giving Villeneuve a chance to regain Napoleons confidence.

4.7. Battle of Trafalgar (21.10.1805)

Howarth claims, that leaving Cadiz in the evening of October 20th 1805, the
combined French and Spanish fleet consisted of 33 line-of-battle-ships, while the British
Royal Navy present in this area had 27 of them (1969: 9). Villeneuves frigates, hidden
among larger vessels, did not observe the Royal Navy, for they lacked a night-signalling
system. The squad of Captain Blackwoods frigates, on the other hand, traced every move
of the French and signalled constantly, using lights and flares. The combined fleet sailed
blindly, was confused, and discouraged by Blackwoods coordinated recognition, not to
mention the overpowering fear evoked by Nelsons probable closeness. They had the
uneasy feeling of being seen without being able to see (Howarth 1969: 121). According to
Dyskant, Nelsons squad was remarked by one French vessel, but the message passed
orally from ship to ship, reached Admiral Villeneuve about two hours later (2003: 261-
262). After midnight, Captain Blackwood experienced a fretful time when clouds shaded
the sky and made the darkness even closer then he lost the enemy from sight. Certainly
this was a situation to make any seaman anxious to be alone in the dark in shifting winds
off a lee shore, among a hostile, invisible and vastly more powerful fleet. But the anxiety
he remembered was only that the enemy might have escaped him (Howarth 1969: 110).
However, he managed to follow the combined fleet and the dawn revealed a total chaos
among them the column was stretching for several miles, the vessels sailed slowly for the
fear of collision, and sometimes parallel to one another. The Britons greeted the sight with
excitement; the battle, looked forward so eagerly, was imminent (see: Howarth 1969: 125).
On the word of Howarth, facing a danger of the major encounter, along with
passing by the English Gibraltar and batteries ashore, commanding a fleet of differently
trained or untrained men, Villeneuve decided to return to Cadiz hastily (1969: 129). This
was the time for Nelson to react as he had planned before. The realisation of the plan,
discussed earlier with his captains, appeared however considerably different from the
original; the Royal Navy was supposed to break the enemys line in three points, fighting

39
abreast. Howarth claims that the reality proved different, since both fleets were smaller
than Nelson had forethought (1969: 132-133). It would be rather difficult to fight a naval
(or any other) battle according to strictly planned guidelines, because a commander can
seldom predict all the enemys behaviour and make them cooperate. Nelson knew, that
sailing north or southwards, the ships would have a beam swell, which makes aiming the
hardest test of naval artillery. Moreover, the French (apart from having slow-matches at
their guns, while the British used flint-locks, enabling almost instantaneous fire) had
a habit of aiming high at the rigging and masts (probably to avoid pursuit), whereas the
Royal Navy aimed at the wood; to shoot at the hull () could put the enemys guns and
gunners out of action, but it seldom wrecked the ship beyond repair (Howarth 1969: 133).
These different tactics illustrate both fleets attitudes to the fight the British acted as
aggressors, whilst the French preferred a defensive policy. Having considered all those
circumstances, Admiral Nelson ordered to attack the enemy ahead at 11.40 a.m. on
October 21st in two groups (one commanded by himself in a flagship Victory, the other by
Collingwood in the Royal Sovereign) and hoisted the famous signal: England expects that
every man will do his duty (http://www.napoleonguide.com). The sailors in his squad
knew the empty sleeve from Teneriffe, the blind eye from Calvi, the scar on his forehead
from the Battle of the Nile such honourable souvenirs belonged more often to seamen
than to admirals. And they knew the stories of the signal of recall he refused to see at
Copenhagen, and of the two Spanish ships he boarded in person at the Battle of Cape St.
Vincent. They believed he was a man to lead them into danger, not to send them
(Howarth 1969: 77-78). All the British commanders understood Nelsons movement and
followed. We scrambled into battle as best we could, one officer wrote, each man to
take his bird. He was only a lieutenant, and tactics were not his business, but his phrase
reflected the general eagerness (Howarth 1969: 130). The Spanish reaction to
Villeneuves order to sail back to Cadiz was far from approving: The fleet is doomed. The
French admiral does not know his business. He has compromised us all (Howarth 1969:
135). Villeneuve was however the only one who foresaw Nelsons plan and knew what to
expect. At the same time, having not a slightest doubt of victory, Nelson was discussing
with his officers the number of the prize-ships that it would be pleasurable to capture, and
he insisted on twenty. The Royal Navy, approaching the enemys left boards (ports),
managed to break the column in two points, being constantly shot at. Soon afterwards, the
artillery struggle changed into more one-to-one fight, blurred by the gun-smoke. Victory
experienced particularly severe attack of at least four French line-of-battle-ships, one of

40
whom, the Redoutable appeared to be the most hurtful. Admiral Nelson, with the typical
for him disregard of the danger, refused to cover his gleaming orders and stars with a coat,
and it was one of the Captain Lucass men hidden high in the rigging of Redoutable, who
noticed them among the flashes of fire and gun-smoke. About 13.30, a bullet from his gun
tore the air, and Nelson fell on the deck with his spine overshot (see: Dyskant 2003: 278-
279). He was then giving his last orders, lying wounded and paralysed below the deck, as
the battle continued. As mentioned before, the excellently trained, faster, and considerably
better motivated British crews overwhelmed the enemy despite being outnumbered. The
news about Nelsons wound had not reached the whole fleet swiftly, but where it
approached, the devoted seamen fought even more relentlessly in a sense of grief and
despair for their beloved Admiral. One by one were the French and Spanish vessels
surrendering, under the outrageous and determined British attack, and Villeneuve had to
surrender as well. Loosing his strengths minute by minute, Nelson congratulated his men
on the brilliant victory, and even complained slightly that they intercepted only 15 prize-
ships. He died at 16.30. About 17.45, the French Achille exploded, as a result of sudden
fire in the gunpowder storage, which actually was a strong accent, finishing the Battle of
Trafalgar (see: Dyskant 2993: 304). The Royal Navy had 1,690 men killed, or wounded,
while the French and Spanish fleets: 4,500-7,000 men (see: http://web2.airmail.net
/napoleon/navy.htm)
After Nelsons death, Admiral Collingwood took the commandment of the severely
impaired fleet, together with the prizes (the rest of the combined fleet escaped to Cadiz or
to the Mediterranean). What came afterwards, was a huge storm, lasting four days. The
British vessels, dispersed by it, were losing eye-contact, and the crews, occupied by saving
themselves, had to abandon with heavy hearts most of the prizes 11 of them sank shortly
afterwards, and 3 escaped to Cadiz (see: Dyskant 2003: 304). Although Trafalgar proved
the British mastery over any other navy (they did not loose a single vessel), the storm
proved their complete defencelessness against the forces of nature. The news of the
glorious triumph reached England and overpowered the people with a severe and long-
lasting mourn after Admiral Horatio Nelson.

41
 CONCLUSIONS

The British Royal Navy during the time of Napoleonic Wars presented a very
complex organization; coordinated, and at the same time torn with difficulties. It is
unbelievable how the crews, ill-fed, pressed and separated from their families for years,
managed to overcome severe conditions together with frequent discontent. Moreover, even
the terrifying data of repeated illnesses onboard and mass mortality of seamen did not stop
the Royal Navy on its way towards the mastery of the seas. Devastating corruption of the
Admiralty, and the custom of selective patronage, promoting mostly the men from the
South to high posts (Nelson, coming from Norfolk, was unusual, and Collingwood, who
came from Northumberland, was always an outsider (Howarth 1969: 37)), could not have
contributed to the British naval strength. Neither could the fact, that the British ship-
designs were inferior to the French or the Spanish. The English traditionalism that was a
cause of rejection of innovative systems, as Fultons submarine, or a steamer, might have
triggered immeasurable harm to the whole nation. Fortunately, Bonaparte did not
appreciate them either, which cancelled his projects of invading Great Britain. The Royal
Navy was in possession of crews better trained, and skilled in maritime labour. The history
itself supported the Britons by depriving the French navy of its leading officers, during the
gory Revolution of 1789. At the same time, the presence of such leaders as Admiral
Nelson, could grant the British dominance over any other fleets in those times.
The fact that the Royal Navy was forced to act as the defender of its homeland
against the French aggressors, and that it was so reliable, confirmed the national
confidence. That deep-rooted pride must have been the first cause of the astonishing
efflorescence of naval power and skill (). Before the war against France, the navy had its
evil days, when its reputation was low. But for years before Trafalgar, it alone had been in
contact with the enemy, when the army was land-bound at home. It had won some famous
victories, and it could be seen to be the countrys first defence, so it had risen high in the
esteem of English people (Howarth 1969: 37).
Now, two centuries after the last great naval battle of the British sailing ships, their
long-lasting mastery of the seas along with the perfectly fulfilled duty of maintaining Great
Britain safe from invasions, are not forgotten. Admiral Horatio Nelson still watches his
country from his column, high above the Trafalgar Square in London, ready to be the first
one to notice the enemy approaching. Researchers still investigate and elaborate on the

42
British Royal Navys dominance in the past, and the fiction does not remain silent either;
the adventures and lives of such officers as Jack Aubrey (by P. OBrian), or Horatio
Hornblower (by C.S. Forester), spent in the Royal Navy in Nelsons times, present
a perfect opportunity for an ordinary reader to learn much about the naval reality of that
period. Although such a view (see: Fig.3.), as observed by people on the Cape Trafalgar on
October 21st 200 years ago, will be seen never again, and the romantic, semi-legendary
position of the sailing navies will never return, it is beyond doubt, that there will always be
hearts to whom the times and naval heroes will signify something more than only a closed
past period of history.

Fig.3. Ships-of-war

43
 REFERENCES

Burke, John
1985 An Illustrated History of England. New Edition. London: Book Club
Associates.
Dyskant, Jzef W.
2003 Trafalgar 1805. Warszawa: Dom Wydawniczy Bellona.
Hibbert, Christopher
2001 Nelson. Warszawa: PWN.
Howarth, David
1969 Trafalgar. The Nelson Touch. London: Collins.
Liposki, Wojciech
2004 Dzieje Kultury Brytyjskiej. Warszawa: PWN.
McDowall, David
1991 An Illustrated History of Britain. Harlow: Longman.
Pope, Dudley
2004 Life in Nelson's Navy. London: Chatham Publishing.
Rediker, Marcus
1987 Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea. Merchant Seamen, Pirates, and
the Anglo-American Maritime World, 1700-1750. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Rodger, N. A. M.
1988 The Wooden World An Anatomy of the Georgian Navy. London: Fontana
Press.
Trevelyan, G.M.
1987 A Shortened History of England. London: Penguin Books.

Internet Sources:
1. http://www.napoleonicguide.com, entered - 12.05.2005
2. http://www.pbenyon.plus.com/Naval.html, entered - 22.04.2005
3. http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/navy.htm, entered - 17.04.2005
4. http://www.wtj.com/archives/nelson/1798_07b.htm, entered - 08.05.2005

Sources of Figures:
Fig. 1. Admiral Cuthbert Collingwood in
http://www.napoleonicguide.com/navy_topsail.htm
Fig. 2. Admiral Horatio Nelson in
http://www.napoleonicguide.com/navy_topsail.htm
Fig. 3. Ships-of-war in http://www.napoleonguide.com/pd_16.htm
Tab. 1. Ships Rating in http://www.napoleonguide.com/navy_rnratings.htm

44