Jump to content

Talk:HMS Victory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.135.88.186 (talk) at 09:19, 1 September 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Restoration date

"in 1928 King George V was able to unveil a tablet celebrating the completion of the work, which still continues." - how can the work be said to have been completed in 1928 if it's still underway three-quarters of a century later? This sentence could do with being made a bit clearer (though not by me, as I don't have the requisite knowledge!). Loganberry 11:45, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A 250 year old wooden hulled ship requires constant attention. The plaque commemorates the completion of a major restoration but things do not stand still. For instance the ropes of the rigging will not last 75 years and the ship will require ongoing regular painting. Although the sentence may appear self contradictory in reality its true and should stand. Restoration work on the ship will never be finished for more than a day or two. --LiamE 11:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One could rephrase to clarify that one restoration project was completed 1928, but that a number of additional projects have been undertaken since then. Stan 20:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Signal School

In 1889 HMS Victory was fitted up as a Naval School of Telegraphy, which became the School of Signalling - this school was moved ashore in the early 1900's, but surely it merits a mention?? (Further details can be found on the Royal Naval Communications Association website [1]) Jaycey 23:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll insert it then! Jaycey 13:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toro island?

Victory was passing the island of Toro on April 4, 1805, when HMS Phoebe brought the news that the French fleet under Pierre-Charles Villeneuve had escaped from Toulon.'

Is this a reference to Bocas del Toro? - Eric 11:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HMS VICTORY II

Does anybody know exactly what hms victory II was during world war I. Was it a training ship in Portsmouth? It has shown up on my great grandfather's wwI navy records.

Have a look at this page - http://www.gwpda.org/naval/rnshore.htm - I think it might probably help you. Jaycey 14:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Media Appearances

This noteworthy ship has not only been remarkable at sea. A section on its media appearances should be added, one that I know of affirmatively, its appearance as "HMS Battledore" in the Miss Marple movie "Murder Ahoy" (1964). Maybe other major media usage of the ship have occurred over time. Unfortunately, it was not used for the also noteworthy Hornblower TV series.--80.145.199.218 00:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'd need considerably more than one appearance to warrent a specific section. Also, I wouldn't say this was the place for it anyway. A page titled 'HMS Victory in Popular Culture' could be created if we could gather enough references. It'd save cluttering up the article, and fit with already existing pages, eg. Stonehenge in popular culture. Benea 01:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it was the Victory in "Murder Ahoy" then it was missing at least two gun decks as viewed from shore. If you are referring to the interior scenes, they were either taken inside an iron/steel ship or from a set. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.64.31 (talk) 13:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edited Ship Infobox: Marines

I removed the word "aloft" in the Ship Infobox from the sentence "Marines armed with muskets aloft". While I am not sure about Victory's fighting methods pre-1805, this was definitely not the case at Trafalgar. Lord Nelson was opposed to employing men with hand weapons in the rigg, for fear of fire (among other reasons). Moreover, he was of opinion that the taking out of officers (what these men should do and what happened to himself at Trafalgar) could not have a decisive influence on the general outcome of a fight once the ships were within musket shot at all. With that, he was right, and Trafalgar is an example: Nelson's influence and guidance was over half an hour after the Victory entered close combat, and yet the battle was won. Orders not given before the first broadside was fired could hardly influence (let alone determine) the outcome. --Kauko56 (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about Nelson's aversion to sharpshooters, mainly because of the risk of fire in the sails. Unfortunately for Nelson, Jean Jacques Étienne Lucas of the Redoutable thought differently and had especially drilled squads of crack sharpshooters to target the officers of the enemy ships. As to the influence of officers, the case is probably not so clear cut. The overall strategic plan of the battle had been decided before hand, Nelson's officers were encouraged to take their own initiative anyway and once battle was joined, Nelson's personal influence only really extended to directing the fighting of the Victory, though that was mainly Hardy's work. Nelson's death didn't really affect the outcome. But targeting officers could deprive a ship of leadership at crucial moments, weaken resolve, cause hesitation. But the overall effect of this eventually turned out to be slight. Cooke of the Bellerophon and Duffy of the Mars were killed in the battle but their ships went on to hold their own as command devolved, fortunately to capable subordinates. Nelson was therefore probably right in the final analysis. Benea (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Admirals

This part of the article has been bugging me for a long time. A pretty big chunk of the article is taken up by a long list of admirals who have hoisted their flag in Victory. While this is definitely useful information, I can't help but feel it would be much better, both for itself as a resource, and for the Victory article, if it were given its own page and merely linked to from within this article. Martocticvs (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been bold and made the admiral list table collapsible. Martocticvs (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the new 2SL details to this list.Halifax55 (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson / Trafalgar

The end of this section indicates Redoutable's boarding attempt was repelled by small arms fire, but all other related Wiki entries for the battle indicate it was in fact prevented by the intervention of another British ship, and that Victory's crew had been forced belowdecks by French grenades. 198.103.221.51 (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas, captain of the Redoutable reported how "...more than two hundred grenades were thrown on board the Victory with the utmost success...Midshipman Yon and four seamen sprang on board the Victory by means of the anchor and informed us that there was not a soul on her decks..." But as Lucas was preparing to give the order to board "... the three decker..." [Eliab Harvey's 98-gun Temeraire] "... ran foul of the Redoubtable to starboard and overwhelmed us with the point blank fire of all her guns". Despite the claim that 'there was not a soul on her decks', there were continued exchanges of small arms fire throughout the engagement, but by the point of the boarding attempt, there were few defenders left on deck, and a successful boarding attempt could have been made, were it not for Harvey's arrival. Benea (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

News article: The HMS Victory, Famed Shipwreck, Is Found

This article is about a previous HMS Victory so it should have its own page (Fdsdh1 (talk) 10:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Small point

This ship is featured in the game Empire total war- should this be included somewhere??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.153.207 (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is too small a point to be included in this article, perhaps the article on Empire: Total War would be a good place? Dabbler (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes relating HMS Victory to USS Constitution

Couldn't help but notice that a note at the beginning of the USS Constitution article references her relationship with HMS Victory, so thought that a similar note should be added to this article. Neither is really needed as the text later down in both explains their relationship, but both notes should either be there or both be eliminated. Jmdeur (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I added the note to Constitution was to try and cut down on the number of reverts necessary from people not understanding the difference and adding Victory into the lead of Constitution. This revert problem probably doesn't effect this article as much as it did Constitution. I've noticed that a lot of work has been done to this article since the last time I saw it. Looks nice! --Brad (talk) 00:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


speaking of Constitution, which is older, Vicotory or Constitution? because both ships articles claim the respective ship is oldest Commisioned war ship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.204.217 (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victory is older by several decades, and as the article states, is the oldest commissioned warship in the world. Constitution is still afloat, while Victory is drydocked, making Constitution the oldest commissioned warship afloat, though not the oldest commissioned warship in the world. I think both articles make this distinction pretty clear in the notes. Benea (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Fact is that HMS Victory is the oldest commissioned warship in the world. If someone is confused by this, i.e. believes that USS Constitution is older, he or she should look up the facts about USS Constitution in the article about USS Constitution, because that's where this information belongs. Whatever USS Constitution is should not be subject of the article on HMS Victory, but the one about Constitution. This article is about Victory

If there is a need to make Constitution "oldest" by introducing some qualifier like "afloat" or "with only one gundeck" - which in this sense serves the same purpose - fine, but this information surely hasn't got anything to do with HMS Victory.

In order to reduce "rogue editing" by people who are convinced they are right "Note 1" in this article surely makes sense though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.216.244.67 (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. USS Constitution is a featured article and it makes the distinction with a simple footnote. I see no reason for this article to make any further clarification. A simple footnote is more than sufficient.--Ykraps (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I enjoy an imperious and high handed approach to our readers as the next person - and personally I believe I should be able to use terms like heuristic-holistic approach, and ultranationalist populism based around a palingenetic mythos - this doesn't really help provide a clear understanding to our readers, which is really the whole purpose of the project. It is a large counter factual to many people reading this, and vice a versa on the Constitution page, so having some explanation there rather than forcing a break in reading for them to go down to the note section does us no harm and helps the readability. There is little reason to remove it that I can think of other than some misguided jingoism. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I would suggest that if there is any jingoism, it is on behalf of the Americans who appear to want the "oldest" commissioned warship in the world so badly, they need to add some mis-leading and unremarkable qualifier. This in turn has apparently caused some confusion which could just as easily be dealt with in the Constitution's article. I personally don't believe this to be the case however. Stating Victory is the oldest commissioned warship is a fact that doesn't need an explanation or an apology, but if you think it does, then a footnote should suffice. As I said above, it is the way the Constitution article has chosen to deal with it and that is a Featured article. Or are you suggesting this article is better?--Ykraps (talk) 06:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't really a very good argument, is it? Or are you saying the absence of that text is what makes it FA? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - and personally I'd have the corresponding text on Constitution. There isn't an apology (not sure how one could read the existing text in such a way), just a clarification that helps avoid breaking up the flow of someone's reading the article and also signposts another interesting ship while doing so. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying that Constitution has made Featured article despite the absence of multiple and over-explanatory explanations, and I see no good reason why we should deviate from that example, particularly as it is not this article that needs to explain itself. Furthermore, I don't believe this confusion is as widespread as some editors claim it to be.--Ykraps (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is humorous to see that this discussion is still going on, some four years after I introduced the note to this article echoing the note that some Brit had appended to the Constitution article. Obviously, the real footnote is that HMS Victory, while claimed to be a commissioned warhship, is a static museum piece, basically a building on dry land. When last I visited her, I didn't see one member of the RN anywhere, just a bunch of civilian workers. Whereas, Constitution, while a museum ship, is still a ship - floating every day at her pier, even going out for a spin once a year, and occasionally sailing under her own power. When you visit her, you see USN personnel manning her - not just one or two, but an entire crew (something the admittedly Victory doesn't need, as she is after all just a building now). Constitution has a far better claim to being a commissioned warship while Victory has a claim to be a very nice museum. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.16 (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is that as commissioned warships they are both pretty much useless to their respective navies other than as museum pieces. If you have a sensible idea for a footnote I'd be happy to hear it. The current one is somewhat misleading, almost suggesting that Constitution has always been afloat, which couldn't be further from the truth. Added to which, when Constitution next has to spend 3 years in dry dock, as she did in 1992, the footnote will be a complete nonsense!--Ykraps (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Seems like a way to try and 'get one over' the Victory because ultimately it made a far bigger impact than the Constitution (which, let's face it, took on far inferior frigates to itself). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.214.208 (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's really funny to see that after all these years the USS Constitution is still annoying the British. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.226.40 (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Funnier in so far as Victory actually took on ships in its own weight class (and above) rather than picking on weaker and less crewed vessels then claiming it to be some magnificent defeat of the Royal Navy.

Length

Anyone knows the total length of the ship including bowsprit etc? Is it 328 feet (100.0 m)? [2] Najro (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Privatization

User: Ralabaf has added unsourced text about privatization talks, and User: 92.4.111.245 has twice restored it. I have no idea if these talks are real or not, but one of our fundamental principles is verifiability. Such a claim needs to be backed by a reliable source - a newspaper article, or at least a press release, or something comparable. Please don't re-add it again without a source or at least without discussion here about why this claim should be in the article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ive tried searching for the information but found nothing, if such consultations started in July i would of thought media would of picked it up, even if it was just local media but i cant see anything. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am a reliable source, I work there. The Commanding Officer and Deputy Command Secretary have personally briefed the ship staff and a formal announcement is due at a grand event on 18 September. You won't see the details on the internet or in the media until the announcement occurs. But it is happening. Ralabaf (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you have inside information on this you should contact The News (Portsmouth) ([3]) because they would look into it and report it, or one of the national papers. But we can not have unreferenced claims here on wikipedia so we will have to wait until its announced officially BritishWatcher (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not inside information, which sounds like it's a secret. It's even on the local trade union website. Is that sufficient for a reference? http://pcsportsmouth.jimdo.com/news/ Ralabaf (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Privatising the staff is not the same as privatising the ship itself. Nor does that appear to be a reliable souce. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User: Narson thank you for that input. You are right, as I understand it the intention is that the ship itself will remain a commissioned warship. It is the public access to it that is being privatised and the staff that make this happen. There's more to it than that, but this is the jist of it. As far as reliable source is concerned, I thought about it overnight and if there are two organisations in discussion then either of them must be a source that's more than meet the "reliable" test for wikipedia. I don't know how trade unions are held in other parts of the world, or indeed in non-Public sectors in the UK, but in the MOD, they are respected even by the bosses. If we can't accept their reports we surely cant ever accept the reports in the media. Ralabaf (talk) 08:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear anyone can create the pages on 'Jimdo' though. I am assuming it is the PCS union? In which case what we want is the union itself to issue a press release or to publish the information themselves. I don't think we'd necessarily accept sources from branches of local political parties, for example, even if their websites were more openly affiliated than the above referenced one. --Narson ~ Talk • 09:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all, for a helpful discussion. NARSON - yes, it is the local branch of the Public and Commercial Services union, which seems to be the union that represents most of the guides affected. I will ask them if they can publish the information or do a press release. Not sure how they will respond to that while the negotiations are still going on. This has been very informative. Ralabaf (talk) 13:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The other place you might want to look if you feel this is news that should be reported is over at en.wikinews.org. We are usually behind the times (as we are a reference work, rather than a news work, and so have slightly more rigorous sourcing requirements). It does sound like an interesting story (certainly from a heritage perspective). --Narson ~ Talk • 22:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EL

I've gone ahead and removed all the spam, irrelevant and duplicated links which has basically left us with the official website. All per WP:EL though. raseaCtalk to me 22:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reinstated the RN website link: that is an official page for the ship. Other than that one, all seems justified. Thanks for doing it, regards, Woody (talk) 09:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claim of Portsmouth as "oldest dry dock in the world"

This claim is highly unlikely, as dry docks have been known since "classical antiquity", and at least no later than 200 BC, when the first accounts of such originate. While "oldest surviving dry dock" or "oldest continually operating dry dock", "oldest in Britain", etc., might be acceptable (with further appropriate citation), it is highly unlikely this was even the first dry dock in Europe, as - lacking evidence to the contrary (burden of evidence remaining with the original contributor) - there is no reason to believe (and in fact there is evidence to the contrary, such as the Paviken archaeological site on the island of Gotland) that the Vikings did not have access to dry dock methods, and thus it is almost certain that the Portsmouth dry dock in 1495 was not even the first dry dock to be built in Europe, as the simple fact of it perhaps being the first to be officially commissioned by one of the major surviving European governmental systems does not obviate the existence of others previously. Besieged (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right, thanks for pointing that out. I've removed that statement from the article. If someone can find a reliable source for that statement, we can put it back in. The Land (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible pic

Final years afloat section:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/dreadnought-and-victory-at-portsmouth-26057

Actualy there appears to have been a tendency for artists and photographers to depict up to date royal navy ships passing the HMS Victory.©Geni 20:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can't use this because it was produced after 1924 so won't be PD in the US until 2020 but woth keeping an eye on:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/the-restoration-of-hms-victory-26019
©Geni 18:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The artist Henry J Morgan died in 1917, i.e. more than 70 years ago, so all his work is now in the public domain. I've uploaded it to Commons. Rcbutcher (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm someone tried to paint one of the thing under sail:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/hms-victory-entering-portsmouth-1844-241

Author died 1867

©Geni 05:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First Battle of Ushant

The opening sentence in this section of the article reads, "Keppel put to sea from Spithead on 9 July 1778, with a force of thirty ships of the line and, on 23 July, sighted a French fleet of twenty-nine ships 100 miles (160 km) west of Ushant". I have very little information regarding this battle but the little I have; The Command of the Ocean (N.A.M. Rodger) and The Age of the Ship of the Line (Jonathan R. Dull), suggest the British had 29 ships and the French 32. Does anyone have a source that supports what's in this article or can I change it? This discrepancy also appears in Battle of Ushant (1778) so I have left a message on the talk page there as well.--Ykraps (talk) 09:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As there has been no interest here, I have been bold and changed the information. Of course, if anyone has good sources and wishes to revert, they are free to do so.--Ykraps (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo! Surely there are multiple problems about verifying precise numbers of wooden sailing ships on choppy seas from one day to the next. The very first source I found states that Keppel sailed on the 10th July "with 25 sail of the line, and was joined off Plymouth by 5 more, making his total force 30 and 4 frigates...", the French having 32 of the line and "many frigates". Perhaps we should simply acknowledge that such numbers are subject to variations of time and tide, to say nothing of seafaring incompetence, departure from orders, opportunism, etc, all being rife in those days. Bjenks (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming good faith; no, I don’t believe so. It can be difficult to fix an object at sea through a spyglass but this skill can be learnt. In any event the effective range of the ships guns would mean that the vessels would be easily visible and identifiable, and as they were slow to manoeuvre, there would be plenty of time for accurate counting. In addition, I find it hard to believe that both Keppel and Orvilliers didn’t know the exact strength of their respective fleets so I think the problem is more likely to do with missing records and inadequate research by historians. Unfortunately, like your musings, that is original research and not allowed. What is the precise wording you wish to add to the article in order to improve it?--Ykraps (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My only point is that different historians offer different specific numbers (and dates). We can induce that some or all of the sources are less than 100% reliable. The most reliable sources are likely to be the logs of participating ships of both sides, and or commentators who have established their direct reference to such logs as their authority for specific figures. Even then, the logs are likely to exhibit variations. Maybe less precise indicative wording could be used, such as "some 30 ships of the line" and "on 9 or 10 July 1778". However, my own interests are mostly elsewhere, and I will not further pursue this relatively minor matter of principle. Bjenks (talk) 03:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that seems reasonable. I have changed the wording to "...around twenty-nine ships of the line and, on 23 July, sighted a French fleet of roughly equal force". There seems little point in going into too much detail here, the main article can discuss fleet sizes between this and that and say they are depending on sources.--Ykraps (talk) 07:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seaworthiness

The article says it has been restored several times, but to what degree? Could the ship be actually put to sea or are the repairs to keep it "shipshape" purely cosmetic? To what extent is the ship original then to the time of Nelson, if large parts of it have been replaced with new timber? Considering the paradox of Trigger's broom.86.176.23.254 (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "put to sea"? If you're asking if it will float, providing the hull is intact, why wouldn't it? If you're asking whether it would be able to sail, then no because it has no sails. As to your second question; do you mean original (at its origin) or do you mean since the time of Nelson (1805) when much of its original timber had already been replaced? If you mean the latter, then I'm afraid I don't know but if you mean the former, then it's around 15%. Hope that helps.--Ykraps (talk) 07:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've since discovered that her hull isn't intact, holes have been bored in her so the weight of the masts are taken by the concrete plinth below and some of the shrouds appear to be tethered to the dockside so I suspect getting her seaworthy would be quite a large, expensive task and not one that is likely ever to be undertaken.--Ykraps (talk) 10:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:HMS_Victory&oldid=623686333"