Talk:Battle of the Basque Roads

Rewrite

There doesn't appear to be a lot of activity on this page, but I am planning to substantially rewrite this article in my userspace over the coming week or so, with better sourcing and more detailed information both on the battle and the court-martial which followed it. I also plan to put together a detailed order of battle. If any one has any questions or comments, you know where to find me.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Who broke the boom?

The article says that both the explosion vessels and HMS Mediator broke the boom. This was a bone of contention at Gambier's court-martial; I wonder what modern sources say? Pinkbeast (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Casualties and losses

Shouldn't the fireships be listed on the British side here? -165.234.252.11 (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I would do this myself just based off what's in the article, but I think it's a little unclear how many fireships were lost. It says there was one attack by the two explosion ships, followed by a wave of twenty fireships, but it also says Cochrane had twenty-one fireships and some explosion ships (were these in addition to the 21 fireships? created by modifying 2 of his allotted fireships? either way, the fireship count is off by 1). I suppose since both claims have been unsourced for 10 years I should probably just look for a book about the battle. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think fireships are losses. They are weapons.--Ykraps (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but I think they're a little more significant than just weapons. More important than my opinion, though, is that it's weird that they're listed with all of the ships going into the battle, but not as losses. Taking a quick look at some other articles on fireship battles, they generally aren't included in either list, but the box for the battle of Chesma article has 4 fireships listed as going in and 4 fireships listed as not coming out. This article could go either way, I suppose. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of the Basque Roads. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050427190140/http://www.nmm.ac.uk:80/server/show/conWebDoc.11329/setPaginate/No to http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/conWebDoc.11329/setPaginate/No#page2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Rewrite

Two years ago I promised to rewrite this article (see above). Real life got in the way and I took a two year hiatus from Wikipedia. Now that things have settled down a bit, temporarily at least, I decided to come back and finish off what I started. I notice there has been no major activity on this article since December 2015, and much of it is in a poor state, so I hope no one will object - if you have any problems with what I've done, please send a message my way and we'll talk it out.

I have worked up a new version of the article in my userspace, and I will copy and paste it straight into the article, but for the record a history of the edits that went into it can be found at the redirect User:jackyd101/Battle of Basque Roads. As the article was getting long, I have also created two spin-off articles: one on the spectacular trial of Gambier entitled Court-martial of James, Lord Gambier and the Order of battle at the Battle of the Basque Roads which lists the ships, commanders and casualties in an accessible format. I also rewrote the article on the smaller associated action, the Battle of Les Sables-d'Olonne. Its been a pleasure to put all this together over the last few weeks and I welcome any comments or corrections.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Just a note, I had to leave off a few unreferenced stray points that I could not locate reliable sources for. If anyone wants to put them back, please use a source to do so. --Jackyd101 (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of the Basque Roads/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Display name 99 (talk · contribs) 21:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm starting this review now. I should finish writing my initial comments within 2-3 days.

Thank you for the review. I will respond to your points below. So that you are aware, the template for this article (and all my military articles) is Battle of the Nile, which I wrote nearly ten years ago and has been a Featured Article ever since. It has been subject to rigorous examination, and I use it as a model here and elsewhere.

General

• I've never seen military time in any article on Wikipedia before. I think this should be changed. Display name 99 (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Its quite common in most military articles and was used in Battle of the Nile as mentioned above.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Lead

• This lead contains 4 paragraphs, which is the ideal number. However, they altogether make the lead a bit too long. I suggest a bit of trimming. Display name 99 (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• I think the lede is the appropriate length for an article of this size.

I'd say it's probably slightly over. But it's not ridiculously so. I'll let it go. Display name 99 (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• "that it pitted a hastily-assembled squadron of small and unorthodox British Royal Navy warships against the main strength of the French Atlantic Fleet, the circumstances dictated by the cramped, shallow coastal waters in which the battle was fought." Vague. Not seeing the connection between the makeup of the opposing seats and the topography of the region. Also not seeing how anything is unusual. Display name 99 (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Hopefully reading the full article would have explained this? The topography meant that Gambier could not have just sailed his main fleet into the anchorage while the French were in good order. This was why a squadron of experimental and unusual vessels (bomb ships, fireships, heavy brigs and floating bombs) had to be used int the initial attack. This was a highly unorthodox battle.

I'm just not seeing what is meant by "circumstances." Did the topography force the British fleet to be hastily assembled? Display name 99 (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Not the fleet obviously, but certainly the inshore squadron that did the bulk of the fighting. This force was not permanently assigned to Gambier's fleet, but was gathered from a variety of places, including a number of ships fitted out specifically for the circumstances of the battle. These circumstances were directly dictated by topography.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• "The battle is also notorious for its political aftermath in both Britain and France." How about actually saying what the political aftermath was? Display name 99 (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Because its complex and the lead was already on the long side. You can read all about it in the main body of the article.

Yes, but maybe say that it "caused controversy" or something like that, which is at least a little more specific than the sentence already in the article. Display name 99 (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• I think notorious covers this, but I've added "controversial" just to be sure.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Background

• The several-sentence biography of Gambier strikes me as unnecessary. I know that it's common practice in scholarly works to say a few things about a character who is being introduced. However, Wikipedia has far more limited space, so that is not really necessary. Also, the reader can click on the hyperlink to get the idea. Display name 99 (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• I think its crucial. The battle could and should have ended with the annihilation of the French fleet. That it did not was entirely due to the hesitation and vacillation of Gambier. Gambier was no coward, but he was petty, bitter and hypocritically moralistic. Acknowledging this character is essential to understanding the battle which followed.

Willaumez's cruise

• What was the reason for the invasion of Martinique? Display name 99 (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• That is something which I think is beyond the scope of the article, but fortunately here is one I prepared earlier: Invasion of Martinique (1809)

Mulgrave's imperative

• Fix the "Citation needed" template in note A. Display name 99 (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• Maybe add just a few words about what a radical was. Display name 99 (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• I think I do. The very next clause is that he "advocated parliamentary reform", which is what Radicals did.

Sorry, missed that. Display name 99 (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Paget, who had lost touch with the French," I'm not sure what is meant here by the words "lost touch." Is it a common British use of the phrase that I don't know about, or should new wording be chosen? Display name 99 (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• It is common British usage for "lost sight of", but since its not clear I have changed it to "lost sight of".

That's all for now. More in a little while. Display name 99 (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• I've read through "The night attack" section. It looks good. Display name 99 (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Let me know when you've finished and I'll work on it in one go. Best--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Cochrane's plan

• Did all of the stuff described in the first paragraph happen on April 3? I'm not entirely clear. Display name 99 (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• No it took a week or so. I've clarified in the article.

• "His preparations complete, Cochrane ordered the attack for the evening of 11 April, although Gambier argued against it, saying "if you choose to rush to self-destruction that is your own affair . . . but it is my duty to take care of the lives of others, and I will not place the crews of the fireships in palpable danger". Cochrane was furious and after a bitter argument Gambier relented and gave permission for the attack to go ahead." Display name 99 (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)It seems as though he had already allowed the attack to continue-"that is your own affair"-but only that he thought it was a bad idea. Display name 99 (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• This is a piece of naval minutiae which I didn't make explicit, but basically Cochrane was not under Gambier's command - Cochrane bore orders direct from the Lord of Admiralty which superseded Gambier, to the latter's fury. Gambier outranked Cochrane, but could not give him orders directly. Cochrane however required the support of the resources of Gambier's fleet to put together the weapons he intended to use in the attack - Gambier was obigated to help him, but the orders did not state to what extent and Gambier could and did withhold support he deemed unnecessary. Here Gambier was acknowledging the obligation while threatening to limit the support Cochrane could expect. I've rephrased slightly to make that clearer.

Aftermath

• I think a sentence or two should be added describing where the two forces went from there or what the next major battle was. Display name 99 (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• At the end of the "Cochrane withdraws" section I discuss Gambier's subsequent movements.
• In aftermath I discuss the maintenance of the blockade and that this was the last major French naval operation of the war - there were no further battles on this scale.

Historical assessment

• This section seems a bit short, and focusing mainly on the failings of the British commanders. Can there be some more information added here, including assessments of French efforts and the overall significance of the battle? Display name 99 (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Other than already discussed in the Aftermath section the battle had no further significance. You make a good point about assessment of the French actions in the battle (and note there is discussion of the courts-martial in France), but I don't remember seeing much on this. I'll have a look and see what I can dig out.

I've added some commentary on the blame which was attributed to the French commanders.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Notes

• There seems to be some sort of error here with wiki markup. Please take a look. Display name 99 (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Jackyd101, my review is complete. I'm sorry it took so long-I've been busy the past week. Please see my comments above. Display name 99 (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Display name 99 Hi, I've revised some things in the article and left comments above for everything else - there is one point I'm going to do a bit of research and come back on. Many thanks for the review.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I've gone through striking some comments and responding to others. I should be able to look back within a day or two. Display name 99 (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Jackyd101, I've gone through the comments once more. Only a few things left. Display name 99 (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Think I've covered them all. Many thanks for the review, it was thorough.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks good. I'll pass it. Display name 99 (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

transitive / intransitive verbs

This article appears to use a few verbs in a 'non-British' way. The verb 'protest' is intransitive and needs to be followed by 'for' or 'against'. I know you quite often see people trying to use it in a transitive way but this is not standard British English. Even worse is 'resign the Navy' - I have never heard anyone say anything similar to that - it needs to be 'resign from the navy' Briandaugherty (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Citing

"blazing fireships drifted randomly across the anchorage, some passing amid the great hulls of the French line. Shells from Aetna and thousands of rockets burst amid the confusion as the forts and all ships fired their guns at threats real and imagined; "a scene . . . peculiarly awful and sublime." According to whom ? Who is Woodman citing ? Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

That line is cited to James, not Woodman, and is verbatim from James' book, The Naval History of Great Britain, Volume V, 1808–1811. The semtence, "The Aix Road was now a scene of 'sublime horror'" is cited to Woodman and that is a direct quote from Woodman's book, The Sea Warriors.--Ykraps (talk) 17:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)