I bet the French Hate this date in History

MJH wrote:

mkeatingss wrote:    That's a very good point. In Nelson's day control of the seas determined whether Britain could be invaded, or not. 135 years later control of the air was the determining factor. Luckily, a man named Mallory stepped into Nelson's place, and accomplished the same outcome.     Let us not, forget our heroes. Individual men who determined the course of history. Proving,  that, one person CAN make a difference.   Mike K.   Keith Park who won the day but received scant recognition at the time for their achievement.

http://www.sirkeithpark.com/image_library.aspx

i agree the germans probably wouldn't have sailed down to bombard the french coast. you're right, no need to tempt the british. i think the germans would have taken paris and forced the french to surrender without the BEF.

i agree the french missed an opportunity to destroy both german corps.

Lisle Rose in POWER AT SEA vol 1 makes athe arguement the high seas fleet could have successfully sunk the BEF, albeit with HEAVY loses. end result, the british rule the waves anf the germans own the continent.

waynec wrote:

think of how the french felt 01aug1914. they agree (no treaty or pact) to keep their fleet in the med so the british can concentrate in the north sea and protect the channel and the french coast. germany declares war on france and the british can't decide whether to join the fight. questions: what if the british had not declared war on germany? what if the high seas fleet sails down to bombard the french coast? what would the british government do? sounds like a harry turtledove series.

If Britain doesn't join the fight, I doubt German fleet would go out of its way to tempt the British to join by sailing down the French coast.

Had the British not joined, the German offensive towards Paris would probably still have failed.  But the Germans would probably have been able to stay entrenched much closer to Paris than was historically the case, and would probably have won the war with another thrust at Paris in 1915.

On the other hand, had the British expeditionary force acted with more vigor and decision during the French counter offensive in September, 1914,  Both Von Kluck and Von Bulow's corps could have been destroyed before they could have retreated, and German ability to establish a solid defensive front in the west would have been compromised, wavering neutrals like Italy would probably pile on and Germany could have been physically defeated by 1916.

sfcmac wrote:

What does any of this have to do with Mac Arthur's return to the Phillipeans on Oct 20th 1944?

or the battles of samar and surigao strait in 25oct44?

GeorgeW wrote:

It may be difficult for non Europeans to quite understand the relationship between the British and the French who have been watching each other with a certain mistrust across that narrow strip of water for many hundreds of years.

think of how the french felt 01aug1914. they agree (no treaty or pact) to keep their fleet in the med so the british can concentrate in the north sea and protect the channel and the french coast. germany declares war on france and the british can't decide whether to join the fight.

questions: what if the british had not declared war on germany? what if the high seas fleet sails down to bombard the french coast? what would the british government do? sounds like a harry turtledove series.

mkeatingss wrote:

That's a very good point. In Nelson's day control of the seas determined whether Britain could be invaded, or not. 135 years later control of the air was the determining factor. Luckily, a man named Mallory stepped into Nelson's place, and accomplished the same outcome.     Let us not, forget our heroes. Individual men who determined the course of history. Proving,  that, one person CAN make a difference.   Mike K.

Is this a reference to Trafford Leigh-Mallory?  If so the praise is misplaced - had the amibitious and self-opinionated TLM had his way the world could be a very different place.  It was Hugh Dowding and his deputy Keith Park who won the day but received scant recognition at the time for their achievement.

This was more to do with a family power struggle rather than any national interest by the 'French.' as it would be understood today.

Put simply when Edward the Confessor died there was a power struggle for the English throne. There had been close ties between Edward and Normandy, although the English saxons weren't too keen.

Both Harrold and William Duke of Normandy, (or William the Bastard as we like to call him), had claims on the throne, William got the backing of the Pope, who excommunicated Harrold, and the rest as they say is history.

I fear we are straying a long way from ship modelling  now unless you accept the posts on the Revell Viking ship as a tenuous link - both Harrold and William were having trouble with Norsemen.

It may be difficult for non Europeans to quite understand the relationship between the British and the French who have been watching each other with a certain mistrust across that narrow strip of water for many hundreds of years.

The French are a very proud people, some might say arrogant, and they have a long National memory.

Leaving aside Trafalgar, Waterloo, and Agincourt, they are still bristling about Crecy(1346) and Poitiers (1348) Will they forgive and forget, I somehow doubt it.

Still in one respect they have the upper hand, Napoleon's grand continental system has come to pass, and we are all part now of that set up whether we like it or not.

 (In writing this please accept that my tongue is firmly in my cheek)

bondoman wrote:

Jon_a_its wrote: There is a huge hill at Waterloo, made after the event by the french, complete with requisite imposing memorial..... nowhere does it say the French lost? The Lion Hill was built by the Dutch in 1820, to mark the spot where William, Prince of Orange, was wounded. As you know the Dutch were allies with England. Most certainly the French didn't build anything at Waterloo, as it's in Belgium, which was part of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands until 1830. I've never been there, and Wellington himself roundly criticized the memorial as "ruining his battlefield", but as it is in a country on the winning side, it's impossible to imagine that the french defeat is anything other than described in detail. And post-Napoleanic French history plainly sees the outcome of the battle as a disaster.

I think there is probably a very real consensus here. As a British citizen, and stuent of British maritime history, one often neglects the importance of the Spanish involvement in Trafalgar- and in reality we cannot over emphasise it- either in terms of the renewed war in the Peninulsa, or the socio-economic revolution that took place in the South American colonies.

With such a wide-ranging discussion I think we have actually served to demonstrate just how wide-ranging the impact of the battle was. Whilst not wanting to risk proposing a false dichotomy, there seems to be two major impacts- the impact on the grand political discourse, and (for me the more lasting an vital) impact on modern economic history.

Cheers chaps- a very interesting discussion!

Will 

Yup, I think Kapudan Effendi has struck on some very real points!  And to expand upon his theme, the destruction of the Spanish fleet at Trafalgar also ensured that never again would the French have either sufficient naval forces, or 'safe' passage to combine forces (Mediterranean and Northern) to either attempt a Channel crossing, or retry another attempt on the Levant.  It also allowed British forces to subsequently settle in for the Penninsular war when the Spanish realigned with Britain after being invaded by France (the French were attempting to secure the Spanish and Portuguese ports to allow safe passage for her Northern and Southern fleets, as well as obtain access to the Atlantic, which was denied to them by the overwhelming British blockade made possible by Nelson's victory at Trafalgar).  This opened a 'second front' which combined with the Russian resistance and eventual victory in the East, ensured the eventual destruction of Napoleonic France....

So you see, while it is easy to say Trafalgar had little immediate effect (from the French view!), in terms of longer term consequences, it is hard to over-emphasise its importance!

Chuck Fan wrote:

Actually,   it really wasn't such a big deal for the French.      By the time Trafalgar had occurred, Napoleon's focus had already shifted from the Britain to central Europe, and the Grande Armee had already evacuated its positions along the English channel and had wheeled around and marched towards into Germany and Austria.    In other words even if the French had gained control of the channel there would be no troops available to cross. There is also no real likelihood of the French actually gaining control of the channel at a later date.   The disparity in fighting efficiency between the English and the allied fleet is such Trafalgar merely put a period at the end of a sentence that is drawing naturally to a close by itself.   In a few words, Trafalgar had no immediate strategic impact and almost no historic impact.    The French knew it, and they at the same time had far bigger fish to fry In 2 month, Napoleon and Grande Armee would reach Austerlitz, and there against 2 to 1 odds would utterly crush a combined Russo-Austrian army to cement French hegemony over central Europe.    The central European campaign, which was going on at the same time as Trafalgar,  was strategically a far greater and more decisive victory for France than even Trafalgar was for UK.  For the French,   Trafalgar was just a setback on a front which had itself receeded into secondary significance.   Trafalgar changed nothing for the French. When Napoleon learned of the French defeat at Trafalgar, he was not much effected.  Ships come and ships go, French power continues to increase.   When William Pitt, the British prime minister, learned of the Russo-Austrian defeat at Austerlitz 2 month later, he ordered that all maps of Europe in the foreign office rolled up and put into storage, and died shortly after out of despair.   This should tell you something about the relative significance of Trafalgar and Austerlitz.  If one must find a English strategic naval victory to rival Napoleon's Austerlitz, then one must look to the battle of Nile.    Had Trafalgar not occurred, odds are today's world would still be much as it is.    Had Nelson not won the battle of Nile, then Napoleon would have toppled the Ottoman empire, marched into India.   A contigous French land empire rivaling the size of the Mongol Empire, stretching from the English Channel to the bay of Bangal would probably result, and 1.3 billion people in India would trace their heritage to French colonial influence rather then those of the British, and 19th century would have seen French supremacy rather then English.

Well, I must challenge this view as a history student working especially on Ottoman Empire and maritime history.

"Toppling Ottoman empire" is an oft told intention however as it is said: "easier to say than to do". I heartily recommend a look into Professor Virginia H. Aksan's latest work (and also the most definitive book ever written on the subject) "Ottoman Wars 1700-1870: An Empire Besieged". It does an excellent job in bursting popular bubbles about the 18th century Ottoman State, Army and Society. The "Sick man of Europe" was far more resilient than most people believe and had access to vast sources of manpower and war material along with a remarkable ability to regroup and reorganise in dire times. Furthermore, invasion of Egypt was an irreconciliable upset in the balance of power at levant for Russia, who forged an alliance with OE at ligtning speed, an unprecedented event in Russian diplomacy. Even if the French mediterranean fleet would not get destroyed at Nile, French armies would get buried in the wilderness of Syria and Arabia in case they tried to reach India, or again get disintigrated in Anatolian steppe in case they tried to march into Constantinople. And of course they would be facing combined armies of OE and Russia which should possess the advantage of interior lines. In short,it would be an earlier "retreat from russia".

By contrast, Trafalgar had two decisive results, one is more abstract second is more concrete. The abstract result was the complete destruction of French will to ever challenge British superiority on the sea again. After Trafalgar, French navy almost lost its position as an autonomous arm of service and increasingly became an extension of army in european waters, while privateering became the main French strategy in open sea. The old but gold argument comparing Trafalgar with the Battle of Britain is completely right at least on this aspect (think of the decline of Luftwaffe's status after BoB) The more concrete and the world affecting result was the physical destruction of Spanish Navy of course. Britain cut the only chord which tied the Spanish Crown into its South American possessions. With the removal of that Damocles Sword hanging on their head, Latin American elites already disaffected by the mercantilism and centralist policies of Bourbons finally relinquished all their doubts about a quest for independence. Therefore, it's not a coincidence that more than one scholars start the real contemporary history of Latin America with Trafalgar.

Just my two cents.

Jon_a_its wrote:

There is a huge hill at Waterloo, made after the event by the french, complete with requisite imposing memorial..... nowhere does it say the French lost?

I've never been there, and Wellington himself roundly criticized the memorial as "ruining his battlefield", but as it is in a country on the winning side, it's impossible to imagine that the french defeat is anything other than described in detail.

And post-Napoleanic French history plainly sees the outcome of the battle as a disaster.

If you guys love the French way with military history, then you'll get a kick out of this;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyckQQWIJ0I

bondoman wrote:

Probably the Spanish too. I personally think that the value of the outcome of the battle was not that big a deal .

Interesting point, for a start the French media never conceded a defeat- whereas the loss of Nelson was a huuge propoganda coup for the French. Indeed, When told he had captured fourteen or fifteen vessels a dying Nelson said with resignation, 'I had bargained for twenty'.

In the following months the Royal Navy never really interpreted the action (and the 'follow-up' of Strachan's action that tidied up some loose ends!) as a particularly decisive victory. Napoleon was still ordering new ships at an alarming rate,  blockades therefore had to be kept up- and increased. The fact that there  were few fleet actions after 1805 was not explained by the capture of a relatively small number of ships at Trafalgar, but rather a sustained and increased blockade of French fleets. 

To touch on a point wonderfully made above, in the winter of 1805 the English did not know that the threat of French invasion had actually passed by the time of Trafalgar; A passing marked by Napoleon's march to the East and Austerlitz. Trafalgar did not immediately assuage this threat- it was not until much later in the war that the public felt safe from invasion. 

Domination of the seas was the ultimate obective of the Royal Navy, and by definition this meant domination of merchant shipping and world trade. Given the menace of the French privateer, and the single-Frigate, it was obvious that this latter campaign would still be in contention for years to come. In the years after Trafalgar the Royal Navy expanded and developed., perhaps even over-expanded!

 I believe Trafalgar was a significant battle- in that it marked the end of what was before fought like an eighteenth-century war (and arguably a seventeenth-century war!), but it placed a whole new importance on the art of economic warfare. Or, to be melo-dramatic- Nineteenth century warfare was born!

We did beat the bloody French though......

sorry for the rant!

Will 

p.s- Chuck Fan, I entirely agree with your point regarding the Nile

Actually,   it really wasn't such a big deal for the French.      By the time Trafalgar had occurred, Napoleon's focus had already shifted from the Britain to central Europe, and the Grande Armee had already evacuated its positions along the English channel and had wheeled around and marched towards into Germany and Austria.    In other words even if the French had gained control of the channel there would be no troops available to cross.

There is also no real likelihood of the French actually gaining control of the channel at a later date.   The disparity in fighting efficiency between the English and the allied fleet is such Trafalgar merely put a period at the end of a sentence that is drawing naturally to a close by itself.   In a few words, Trafalgar had no immediate strategic impact and almost no historic impact.    The French knew it, and they at the same time had far bigger fish to fry

In 2 month, Napoleon and Grande Armee would reach Austerlitz, and there against 2 to 1 odds would utterly crush a combined Russo-Austrian army to cement French hegemony over central Europe.    The central European campaign, which was going on at the same time as Trafalgar,  was strategically a far greater and more decisive victory for France than even Trafalgar was for UK.  For the French,   Trafalgar was just a setback on a front which had itself receeded into secondary significance.   Trafalgar changed nothing for the French.

When Napoleon learned of the French defeat at Trafalgar, he was not much effected.  Ships come and ships go, French power continues to increase.   When William Pitt, the British prime minister, learned of the Russo-Austrian defeat at Austerlitz 2 month later, he ordered that all maps of Europe in the foreign office rolled up and put into storage, and died shortly after out of despair.   This should tell you something about the relative significance of Trafalgar and Austerlitz.

 If one must find a English strategic naval victory to rival Napoleon's Austerlitz, then one must look to the battle of Nile.    Had Trafalgar not occurred, odds are today's world would still be much as it is.    Had Nelson not won the battle of Nile, then Napoleon would have toppled the Ottoman empire, marched into India.   A contigous French land empire rivaling the size of the Mongol Empire, stretching from the English Channel to the bay of Bangal would probably result, and 1.3 billion people in India would trace their heritage to French colonial influence rather then those of the British, and 19th century would have seen French supremacy rather then English.

   That's a very good point. In Nelson's day control of the seas determined whether Britain could be invaded, or not. 135 years later control of the air was the determining factor. Luckily, a man named Mallory stepped into Nelson's place, and accomplished the same outcome.

    Let us not, forget our heroes. Individual men who determined the course of history. Proving,  that, one person CAN make a difference.

Mike K.

It may well have been a 'big deal' had The French gained control of the Channel to allow the invasion barges to cross, the destruction of the combined French and Spanish Fleets put paid to that idea.

This was not some game, there was real fear in England of a French invasion, the loss of life in the French and Spanish fleets was enormous, and the loss of Nelson sent a shock wave through the Nation.

Some 135 years later history was repeated only this time the conflict took place in the skies, but fortunately the outcome was the same.