Nelson & His World

It is well known that St Vincent considered Troubridge a better seaman than Nelson and, according to Edgar Vincent, he

QUOTE:

'never spoke of Troubridge other than in superlatives, 'capable of commanding the fleet of England' (something he would never allow Nelson')

I wonder if anyone can explain - and I hope the question won't seem ridiculous - exactly what is meant by 'a better seaman'?

Does it mean an ability to 'read' the sea, to predict wind and weather? I gather Nelson was good at this and assiduously kept a sea journal of his observations.

Does it mean an ability actually to handle a ship, or give orders to others when in command? Except for one occasion I recall when Nelson became irritated at 'missing stays', is there any evidence that he was not in the top bracket?

There was the storm in which Vanguard was almost lost, but Berry was the captain and presumably he, not Nelson, responsible for any failures of seamanship, if any, on that occasion.

Which brings me to a further question. Exactly how are the necessary tasks allotted when a ship is at sea? Obviously, the captain has overall responsibility but who, for example, is responsible for navigation? Also, many complex and inter-related tasks will need to be carried out to complete a manouvre, often in circumstances of danger or difficulty. Just how was this organised and how were tasks delegated?

You asked:
"I wonder if anyone can explain - and I hope the question won't seem ridiculous - exactly what is meant by 'a better seaman'? "

I would understand the term to indicate someone who is acknowledged by others to be particularly skilled - I am sure that in every profession or trade, people may recognise that someone may be relied upon to do a good job - perhaps better than you could yourself. This does not indicate that others are incapable, merely that some are masters of their trade.

..To carry the argument further, the term 'seaman' and 'seamanship' could be taken to cover a wide aspect. Admiral Smyth in 'The Sailors Word Book' describes seamanship as being "The noble, practical art of rigging and working a ship, and performing with effect all her various evolutions at sea". He also states that the term 'seaman' would not usually be applied to any unless known to be "...pre-eminent in every duty of the well paced tar; one never issues a command which he is not competent to execute himself"

The duties of "common seamanship" according to Smyth, are being able to "rig, steer, reef, furl, take the lead".

The Oxford Book of the Sea definition takes it wider, and states that Seamanship means the "art of taking a ship from one place to another". This covers every aspect of the management of a ship, from navigation to the maintenance and use of boats, her gear, anchors & cables, rigging; it covers the knowledge of handling hawsers and ropes; blocks and tackles; knotting and splicing; it embraces knowledge of the weather and dealing with storms.

You also asked: "Exactly how are the necessary tasks allotted when a ship is at sea? Obviously, the captain has overall responsibility but who, for example, is responsible for navigation? Also, many complex and inter-related tasks will need to be carried out to complete a manouvre, often in circumstances of danger or difficulty. Just how was this organised and how were tasks delegated?"

All the officers of a ship would have been allocated duties, most were common throughout the fleet, so - the First Lieutenant, or executive officer, was usually seen as the man who actually 'ran' the ship on a day to day basis ( ... he still does). As one writer put it he "... ought to know everything, see everything and have to do with everything that is to be known, seen or done in the ship..."

If on a large ship, and several Lieutenants were carried, all would be given 'stations' or parts of ship to administer, along with the responsibility of the welfare of all the men who worked that part of ship.

The Master was responsible for the navigation of the ship and also the handling of the ship in action.


How were seamanship tasks organised - with precision usually. Careful sets of orders were drawn up, detailing precisely who should go where, and do what. Examination of the surviving Captains Orders show these details - for example in Captain Rotherhams commonplace book, he notes that a 24 gun ship required 101 men (from a crew of 127) to reef and furl sails - 80 percent of her crew. On the other hand a 100 gun 1st rate needed 248 men (out of 650) - about 38 percent. Tacking and wearing depended on the amount of sail carried, and could be done 'by the watch' but often required all hands.

The Station Bill allocated the duties of the men when carrying out evolutions on board, in the same way that the Watch and Quarter Bill would detail a position for every man in action.

Brian Lavery's "Shipboard Life & Organisation 1731 - 1815" published by the Navy Record Society in 1998 reproduces some of these, along with the Captains Order Book for the frigate Amazon, drawn up by Captain Edward Riou. So, taking just one example from Riou, for "Tacking", he states that this needs: "The main topmen of both watches, to be to windward at the main topsail brace and main sheet, which latter is to be got aft as fast as the yard swings, excepting the first division of either watch, acording to its being either starboard or larboard, is to let go and stick out the starboard or larboard main sheet and set up the backstays"

Thank you, Philonauticus. Right on the button, as usual!

Regarding the storm off Hyeres bay, when Berry was HN 's flag captain, I think it is worth remembering that it was Berry's first command as Post captain, and that the more experienced Ball and Saumarez were quicker to react to what was a potentially disastrous situation - in fact it was Ball's endeavours that enabled Vanguard to be towed into San Pietro, and refusal to abandon her that incurred HN's gratitude, which of course would have cemented the bond of friendship between them...Perhaps Berry was just unlucky and too inexperienced, but Berry was from Norwich - a fellow Norfolk man, and HN did prefer his east Anglians after all! - t

Interesting point, Tay. It's clear Nelson was very fond of Berry - like Nelson, he had an almost lunatic courage - Edgar Vincent writes marvellously of Berry at Cape St Vincent darting along the narrow bowsprit and into the Spanish ship's mizzen chains - but did he ever choose him as his flag captain after the Vanguard disaster? I'm hazy about the detail but I wonder whether I'm right in feeling that while Berry was undoubtedly brave as a lion, he was not regarded as a great seaman, perhaps too rash and impetuous in temperament?

Tycho,

Brave Berry might have been, and Nelson had some regard as a fellow Norfolk man, but he would seem to have been lacking somewhat in his awareness as a seamen.

Regarding the dismasting of the Vanguard, the ship would appear to have been overcanvassed in the conditions, a situation Berry should have been conversant with, hence the ease with which the masts went overboard. My reading is that the ship should have at the least been down to reefed topsails and other preperations should have been made. I am sure more experienced seamen on board might have baulked at the ship's state, such as the bosun - but of course could not say anything! It would seem strange that Nelson himself didn't step in, but then he probably didn't consider it his job then, being an admiral and as such not in command of the actual ship.

As to Nelson's own seamanship abilities, I don't think there is much doubt that he had a great deal. One remembers the occasion in 1795 in the Mediterranean where he was in command of the 'Agamemnon' and harrassing the French 'Ca Ira' which was under tow. He followed behind her, continually going about from one tack to the other and firing alternate broadsides at his bigger opponent's stern, in order not to be one the receiving end of the Frenchman's heavier broadsides. Then again about a year later, in the same ship, he chased some French frigates into the rocky waters off Quiberon and was only forced to call it off because of the dangerous situation.

I don't know about you, but I would regard both of those incidents as seamanship of the highest order and there are other examples of his prowess. I can understand Nelson's being irritated at 'missing stays', during the process of going about from one tack to another. The manouevre is missed, for one reason or another, which at the least stops the ship, at the worst putting her 'in irons' or head to wind and not being able to pay off readily on either tack. This can happen to anyone, even experienced seamen, and I have sailed in more modern square riggers where this has happened.

Kester

As an occasional leisure sailor (who has never been near a square rigger), I have always found that in a tight situation, a good way get out of irons in a hurry is to use that nice powerful diesel engine to bring the bows round! Although I would have to add that the situation is invariably the result of handing over the helm to another crew member!

But I think that when an admiral such as St Vincent judges the seamanship of one of his captains, he is judging his ability to get the best out of his ship, which obviously includes his ability to command others to execute his intentions. He will base his judgement on how well the ship maintains its position in the line, how promptly his signals are obeyed, whether the ship carries the right amount of sail, how well the captain keeps his ship out of danger, etc., etc.. No doubt his judgement will also be based on damage reports - sails blown out, broken spars, sprung masts, damaged bowsprits, etc.. St Vincent was a hard taskmaster; when blockading Brest he ordered that all captains must always be on deck when their ship tacked or wore, whether day or night - no doubt so that he could judge their seamanship without them trying to blame whichever lieutenant might have been in charge at the time.

Maintaining the line could be a trial, particularly at night. While blockading Cartagena, the Minotaur was constantly reducing and increasing sail, being placed 'like a pig on string' between the Prince which 'sailed like a haystack' and the Spartiate which sailed 'like a witch', the sailors declaring she was built of stolen wood, as she always sailed best at night.

It is perhaps not surprising how many collisions there were, particularly when entering and leaving port.

Regarding the Vanguard, I feel certain that Nelson would have spoken to Berry had he believed the ship to be in danger. Wounding Berry's pride would have been the last of his concerns. When Nelson wrote to his wife about the storm, he regarded the Vanguard's fate as a salutory check on his own vanity, although perhaps he was enjoying feeling magnanimous in shouldering his captain's responsibility. At a later date he actually wrote to Fanny that he did not want Berry as his flag captain because he was quite happy with Hardy, who looked after so many of the things that he would have to worry about if Berry was captain.

Or a nice bow thruster, Tony, I'm sure Nelson would have liked one of those!

The proceedure for tacking was, and is, reasonably complex but quite easily mastered with practice. The main thing is that everyone has to know their job, and the time to do it, to make the operation work successfully. One of the most important points, before the tack is even made, is to steer the ship off the wind, ie. away from it, to pick up speed. This is so as the ship will have enough 'way' on to go through the wind onto the other tack.

I won't go through all the details here but the idea is to spin the ship on her axis, by putting wind pressure on the stern of the ship and taking it off the bows, by easing the headsails on the bowsprit and hauling the spanker, the fore and aft sail on the mizzen, to windward. Then at the right moment, the main and mizzen yards are braced onto the other tack first, followed by the fore yards. These latter and the headsails were initially used to push the bows round.

That's it in a nutshell and in a modern square rigger, but ships like the Victory would have been similar. Oh, did I mention that usually the ship goes astern at one point!

Kester

As well as Hardy's reported view that Nelson 'was no seaman', quoted in the Hardy thread, Edward Codrington also stated the same. While comparing Pellew with Nelson, he said:
'Lord Nelson, on the contrary, was no seaman; even in the earlier stages of the profession his genius had soared higher, and all his energies were turned to becoming a great commander. He had probably been always occupied in planning manoeuvres and modes of attack with a fleet — while it is equally probable that at the time Lord Exmouth was appointed to a command, the subject of the management of a fleet had never engaged his attention. Lord Exmouth was not liked by his fleet, and Lord Nelson was adored by his; he never met with a distressed sailor without assisting him with his purse, or attention, or advice; nor did he ever neglect to encourage merit; he was easy of access, and his manner was particularly agreeable and kind. No man was ever afraid of displeasing him, but everybody was afraid of not pleasing him.' (From: 'Memoir of the Life of Admiral Sir Edward Codrington', 1873)

Mahan in his 'Life of Nelson' says:
'It is doubtful, indeed, whether Nelson ever possessed in a high degree the delicate knack of handling a ship with the utmost dexterity and precision. He certainly had not the reputation for doing so.'
Mahan then goes on to quote Codrington.