Hi Vesper,
Welcome to the forum. Whilst not going so far as to call your 'opposition' a troll, I would suggest that his somewhat glib interpretation is rather oversimplifying the case. Nothing is ever that straightforward and certainly nothing in history is. We could probably go into this in detail, and PC has offered some inciteful information, but to provide some answers to your questions:
1) Not true. To be at sea in most navies, you had at least to have a modicum of training, and ability improved through experience and actually 'doing the job'. The French were actually at sea for quite long periods of time, fought in some successful actions and were by no means an enemy to be taken lightly. The same went for the Spanish. Partly why the French navy suffered during the Napoloeonic period, was that their officer corps had been decimated by the Revolution - many of its aristocratic, but very competent, officers going to the guillotine. (If you look at the French navy before this period, you will see that the Royal Navy was beaten on many occasions, by officers such as De Grasse.) However some aristocrats did remain, such as Villeneuve, although he was later to lose his life in debatable circumstances. This meant that many officers were now drawn from the echelons of 'the citizenry', which meant that many did not have the experience of their predecessors, but were still expected to perform miracles. I would suggest that the French Navy's main problem was Napolean himself. Being an army officer, he had no understanding of the sea or ships and thought he could order fleets about as if they were on land! Ditto with his poor Admirals! It is worth pointing out that some French captains trained their crews very well, as witness the crew of Captain Lucas of the Redoutable. He trained them in small arms use and the ability to throw grenades. It was from his ship that men managed to board the Victory at one point during the battle, even if only temporarily, to which point Anna has already alluded.
As to Trafalgar not being a great victory, nothing could be farther than the truth. It was probably not as great as the Nile, but it did remove the French threat for some time in that all the French fleet were either captured on the day or later, some sinking in the gale afterwards. However new French ships were being constructed soon after. Trafalgar is also seen to be, for good or ill and depending on your viewpoint, the basis for the expansion of the British Empire.
2) Not true either. Both French and Spanish ships were well built and certainly well designed, so much so that when they were captured they were not only popular with their British officers and crews, but their design (as has been said) was often copied in new British ships. It is also worth commenting that the French had a school of naval architecture some years before there was one in England.
3) Perhaps some reason for for thinking that, but it needs to be qualified. It is probably true to say that French cannon themselves were not as well cast as their British counterparts and that they burst more often. If you are thinking in terms of rate of fire, it is often said that the British could fire three times as fast as French gunners. I think it is much more likely to have been nearer two, but the British also had gunlocks fitted to their cannon earlier than the French (who continued to use the older linstock or slowmatch) and also used lighter guns. The British lower deck gun at this period became standardised as the 32 pdr, whereas the French often persisted with the 36 pdr or heavier. Ok, on the face of it, the French had a heavier gun which naturally fired a heavier shot, but it was also more difficult to manouver - and was probably partly responsible for the slower rate of fire.
4) Probably true, although this also need more explanation. A serious French invasion was probably out of the question and for many reasons. As I mentioned Napoleon was no sailor and didn't understand the vagaries of wind and tide. His various invasion plans were too complicated and practically involved sailing around half the world, wearing out the ships and their crews in the process, all to no real purpose. The RN was certainly on high alert and up to the job of blockading the French coast and watching for the approach of any French fleet into the Channel, so I doubt they would have gotten very far. There is also the fact that the English Channel is one of the most difficult areas in which to sail, (I've done it) with its constantly changing tides and currants. So, what the RN didn't accomplish the Channel probably would have! Just before Trafalgar, Napoleon abandoned his invasion plans, partly for the above reasons, and moved his 'Army of England' across Europe to attack the Austrians, thus removing the immediate theat. However, as mentioned, his fleet was destroyed at Trafalgar, which would have made it even more unlikely for an invasion to later succeed – should he by then still have wanted to.
As to Nelson's being a 'war criminal', I hardly think you would expect any of us on this site to agree with that comment! Our 'Commander-in-Chief', Anna, has put it very well - therefore I don't think I can add anything to what she has already said. In passing, my apologies for this explantation being so long, but I would suggest your online friend read a few more books about Nelson and his navy and gain more of an insight into the realities of the time!
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
