Nelson & His World

Margaret,

So far as I know, any particular signal would have been known and ordered by its number. This makes sense on several levels.

Any admiral wanting to send a signal, couldn't possibly have known the meaning of all the signals by heart, certainly not of Popham's Code – even though he may have known a number of the more general ones and taking into account any 'updating' re. the flags used etc., at various times. The ones he might be expected to know are, for example, No 16 (Nelson's favourite) 'Engage the enemy more closely'. What the admiral would do is to consult with the signals officer, who's job it was to be conversant with the actual signals (and of course he was in possession of the actual signal book!) as to the particular signal he wished to send and the signals officer would advise as to the best form in which to send it. (Hence Pasco's suggestions to Nelson regarding the 'England expects' signal before Trafalgar.)

When that had been decided, it was then up to the signals officer and his staff to search out the flags for the signal, which would have been done by number, and prepare them for hoisting. This would have been far quicker and easier than by reading out the meaning of the signal itself, which would not have been practical and in some instances may have been quite long. (There might also have been a gale of wind blowing in which case the shouted word would have been lost.) The number itself would in all probability have also been written in chalk on a slate for all involved to see, so that there were no excuses for mistakes. It was expected that the signals staff would know the majority of the signals by heart, particularly the more important ones, and accuracy and speed would have been important in their execution (particulary the former).

Very likely too, the ordinary seamen selected for the signalling 'team' would probably have been the more literate of those in the ship's crew, but even they might have been confused by some of the wording in the meaning of any particular signal sent. The use of numbers would have obviated this confusion, so that is what they were concentrated on. Another point is that Popham's Telegraphic Code used signals with two, three or four numbers, so the introduction of the actual wording into the equation at the 'practical' end would probably have been taxing in the extreme!

I don’t think it was quite as uncomplicated as Kester implies. Admiralty signal codes were designed to serve a variety of functions. Some signals enabled the issuing of simple orders or the reporting of simple events (like ‘Send a Boat’ or ‘Enemy in sight’). But many were designed to enable the admiral to indicate his instructions in a complex tactical situation in which there were a host of variable like wind strength and direction and the position and course of the enemy. Likewise although the Lord Howe code enabled some 260 numerical groups of signals to be sent (as Kester says, far too many for any commander to learn by heart), they still restricted what an Admiral could actually communicate.
Simple messages were easy to devise by commanders who could have left the signals officer to convert them into numbers. (ie ‘Send “Engage the Enemy More Closely, Mr X” and then leave him to raise no 16.) In the complexities of battle, however, admirals could hardly have operated effectively without having a signal book in their pockets. How else could they decide on (and know that they could convey) such things as
no 34 ‘When, having the wind, the admiral means to pass between the ships in the line for engaging them to leeward to leeward; or being to leeward, to pass between them to obtain the weather gauge.’ or
no 37 ‘For the van, or particular divisions specified, to engage the headmost ships in the enemies’ van, the rear to engage the sternmost of the enemy’s rear, the centre the centre of the enemy.’ or
no 50 ‘To form in line of battle, in open order, to afford room for tacking etc, steering the same course that the admiral does, or by compass signal.’?
In cases like this, the admiral would not only have decided on a manouevre with reference to the signal book, but he would have clearly told the signals officer exactly what number to hoist.
Lord Howe is known to have commanded the preliminaries of the Battle of the Glorious First of June with a signal book in his hand and, when action was eventually joined, famously snapped it shut, saying ‘No more signals: Let’s get on with it’ (or words to that effect.)
These comments do not of course apply to the later Popham code where messages could be spelt out and conversations held.

Brian

May I extend Margaret's question about signals? One reads of the use of 'private signals' such as are mentioned in this quote from another thread 'Friendly Fire.' What exactly were 'private signals'? And how did they differ from signals such as Nos. 16, 34, 37 etc.?


QUOTE:


I mentioned James Scott's 'Recollections of Naval Life' on the 'Oaths' thread. He also quotes an incident of 'almost friendly fire' while he was cruising off Martinique in 1809 in the Pompee (Capt. Cockburn) and came across two frigates. Pompee hoisted private signals but got no reply so it was assumed they were enemy ships. In this instance, Pompee did not fire, which was fortunate as the frigates were the British Cleopatra and a French prize, the Topaze.

It was discovered afterwards why the Pompee got no reply to her signal.

Captain Pechell of the Cleopatra had mislaid the private signals. He'd been looking at them in his cot and instead of putting them back in the box when he'd finished, he stuck them under his pillow. He forgot to take them out in the morning and they were lashed up with his cot. Then, when he needed to refer to them, he couldn't remember what had happened to them....

Anna!

As far as I can recall, 'Private Signals' were used for recognition/identification purposes. As a supplement to the official signal book, commanders of squadrons and fleets allocated specific numbers to identify the ships under their command (possibly also with a form of challenge and reply) so that it could be established whether newly sighted ships were friends or otherwise. The recognition numbers were sometimes changed daily. They also enabled commanders to issue specific orders to individual ships rather than general ones.

Brian

On the question of ordering signals by word or by number, I rather suspect that for some of the simple and common signals, only the most pedantic admiral or captain would order by number. I suspect (but don't know) most would say 'hoist the general signal for dinner' or 'hoist the signal to weigh anchor', rather than 'hoist signal number nn'. Perhaps it would depend on how good the Captain or Admiral was at delegating responsibility. I am familiar with one anecdote of the potential pitfalls (the captain in question had spent the first 11 years of his childhood in Plymouth, and had been at sea virtually ever since, and I imaigine still had a thick Devon accent of the time):

Thanks so much for all this wonderful info, but Tony I think you nailed it for me in that the actual wording used to order signals, and I guess it was different given the situation

cheers everybody !