Talk:Glorious First of June

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Glorious First of June is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Good topic star Glorious First of June is part of the Atlantic campaign of May 1794 series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 28, 2008.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 25, 2008 WikiProject peer review Reviewed
February 15, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted
March 1, 2008 Featured topic candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article
WikiProject Military history (Rated FA-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Featured
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Ship name[edit]

I'm assuming that the number after the ship's name is the number of guns it had, right? --Filippo Argenti 23:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is common. Typically SHIPNAME GUNS, or SHIPNAME (GUNS). Alphageekpa 15:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


This article does not appear very active, but I am leaving this note here as a courtesy. I am currently rewriting this article in my user space at User:Jackyd101/Workbox3, using a range of sources to support the article. Once the article is written, tidy and sourced I will cut and paste it to the Glorious First of June article where I will continue to improve it with the help of anyone who wishes to join me. I will give a link to the edit history of my construction here once I have copied the article across. The aim is to take it to Peer Review, GA and FA over the next few months. If anyone has any comment specifically about this then please leave them here, at my talk page or on the talk page of the userspace workbox. It is not my intention to exclude any of the information currently in the article (providing of course it can be properly sourced) and I hope the piece will be to people's satisfaction. I hope to have the basic part of the article copied up here by the New Year.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It's taking a little longer than I thought to get this sorted, but it should be here in the next couple of weeks. The main workbox linked to above is now virtually complete, requiring only a further copyedit before it is finished. The size of the topic has however spawned two daughter articles, User:Jackyd101/Workbox7 which is an order of battle and has been completed and User:Jackyd101/Workbox2 which is an article on the preceeding month of camapaigning which requires sourcing and copyediting before it is ready. I would rather upload all three of these to article space at the same time, and so I am holding off until they are all ready before I do so. --Jackyd101 (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Right, its finally ready after several weeks of hard work. The main article has been pasted over this version [1] but the edit history of my contributions to the new piece can be seen in the redirect User:Jackyd101/Glorious First of June. The two daughter articles created from scratch are avaliable at May 1794 Atlantic campaign and Glorious First of June order of battle. I hope these are OK, I am taking them to Military History project peer review and hopefully to GA and FA in the next few months and anyone who wishes to contribute to these or to the article itself are more than welcome, just make sure all insertions are reliably sourced and compliment the article's prose. Thanks--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Piece removed[edit]

The only part of the current article for which I could find no reliable sources was:

Aboard the Tremendous, Mrs Daniel Mackenzie gave birth to a boy, Daniel "Tremendous" Mackenzie, who was later awarded the Naval General Service medal in recognition of his presence at the action (with a rating of "baby").

Its probably a true story but I couldn't find a place to put it or a source to reference it. It can go back in if people want as long as it is sourced and placed in an appropriate position.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

CE questions[edit]

And the less said about the 2nd half yesterday, the better!

Just making some tweaks here & there, and want to ask an opinion on this one:

"Eventually a solution to the food crisis was agreed by the National Convention: food produced in France's overseas colonies would be concentrated by a fleet of merchant ships in Chesapeake Bay and augmented with food and goods purchased from the United States."

I'd like to see something other than "concentrated" in there - maybe "stockpiled"? Or even something as simple as "gathered"? Concentrated just doesn't sound right.

Changed to "food produced in France's overseas colonies would be concentrated on board a fleet of merchant ships gathered in Chesapeake Bay and augmented with food and goods purchased from the United States." This retains concentrated (which I feel describes the action quite well) but also clarifys it with the use of gathered.

More questions to come, as I find things I'm not sure about. Carre (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Could "Brunswick also managed to drive off Achille on her far side when the French ship attempted to intervene." be rewritten "Brunswick also managed to drive Achille off from her far side when the French ship attempted to intervene.", or is that a totally different meaning? As it is, it's a little confusing.

Much better phrasing, changed as suggested.

Also, what's "landridge fire"? Carre (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Landridge was used when a ship ran low on shot. It was effectively canvass bags full of rusty nails, broken glass, lumps of iron and any other crap lying around. Although Harvey was not mortally wounded by this, one of the French ships fired several bags of landridge which were actually filled with gold and silver coins hidden on board by an aristocratic officer since executed. I'm not sure how to fit this explanation into the article (obviously in more encyclopedic prose) do you have any ideas?
Changed to langrage and linked.

Thankyou, is there more to come? And please don't mention yesterday, its still a bit painful.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there should be more today - got about 1/2 way through it yesterday, making a few minor changes, but got an edit conflict midway through, so left it for a while.
The landridge fire thing could maybe just be put in a <ref>, if there's no article on it.
So far, I think the hardest bit in reading the article is keeping track of which ship is which, on which side, and attacking which opposing vessel. Not sure there's a lot that can be done about that though. Carre (talk) 08:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes, this is one I was going to ask about. I already changed the text, to:
"Phaeton was fired on by Impétueux as she passed, to which Bentick responded with several broadsides of his own."
Original text ended "broadsides of her own." I changed it, because the second half of the sentence has Bentick as the subject, and he's a he, not a she. As it stands, it may look a little odd to you though, so a rephrasing may be in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carre (talkcontribs) 14:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Ooops, forgot to sign :) Looking at Naval artillery in the Age of Sail and the OED, it would appear "landridge" should be either "langrage" or "langridge" - do your sources specifically use "landridge", or is that an error? Carre (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
"Molloy was dismissed his ship and effectively fired from the service in consequence of his failures during the campaign." – "dismissed his ship"? Perhaps "removed from command"? Something less, erm, technical, or less Navy-speak?
I have attempted to address all of these by rephrasing the parts concerned. Hope it works--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I had some more comments from earlier in the article, but will have to go through it again to remember them; mostly long sentences that could probably be split up a little. Carre (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've also had a go (just at the lead so far). Hopefully it's ok; feel free to revert if not. What I mostly noticed was word repetition and some over-complex sentences, which I've tried to tweak. I'm not always very good at the 'light touch' though, and tend to end up rewriting everything (which is not in any way intended as a slur on the author(s); it's just the way I like to work Obsessive, moi?). I'll hold off while Carre is working though, lest we find ourselves in edit-conflict hell ;) EyeSereneTALK 19:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL - that's OK Eye - I've done about all the CE I'm about to... I've decided I'm really crap at copy-editing! The remainder, I was just going to highlight here as being cumbersome sentences, so they may have gone once your erudite hand has been at it. Carre (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
No promises! I find that reading an article to myself, out loud, is a good way to identify bits that just don't seem right. Nothing can supplant a carre-ful second pair of eyes though... (believe it or not, that started out as a typo, but it was just too apposite to correct :P) If Jacky's happy, I'll crack on. EyeSereneTALK 19:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Further questions[edit]

I'll add them here as I go along EyeSereneTALK 18:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


  • Do we know why HMS Childers was fired on by the forts at Brest? At the moment it seems a little disconnected from the surrounding text (although there's some lovely alliteration in the sentence; try saying it out loud a few times!).
  • Also from that segment, it reads as though France's declaration of war on the Netherlands was a consequence of British indignation (at the executions etc). Can you think of a way to clarify?
As I said below, I'll attempt to address this in the article when the copyedit is finished. However, I'll leave an explanation to both of these issues here. During the period 1789-1796, France was riven by hundreds of political factions, broadly split into monarchists and republicans but in fact spanning the full political spectrum and rarely agreeing with one another for any length of time. The forts which fired on Childers were flying an unusual flag (the nature of the flag differs between sources, but it seems to have been an upside-down and defaced Royalist flag Flag of Royalist France.svg). The fort does not seem to have been acting under orders and was probably in the hands of one of the more extreme republican factions (although the exact circumstances on the French side are unclear). France declared war on Britain and the Netherlands for a number of reasons, but the immediate cause was the rise to power in France of a more extreme republican faction which initiated conflict because Britain and the Netherlands were hereditary monarchies. Obviously the circumstances were more complicated than that but its a summary. I'll look into inserting this information neatly into the article once the copyedit is finished.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Complex indeed... I'm happy to leave that to you!
I'm pretty busy on various projects at the moment, so don't feel you have to wait as a full copyedit may take a while - especially given the article length ;) I tend to c/e section-by-section, so if you want to add in that info, feel free (I've moved on down the page!). It's half-term next week though, and my wife & kids are going away for the week, so I should have some time to really bite into things and catch up on the backlog I've left myself after taking most of January off :P EyeSereneTALK 13:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys, I'm waiting for Eye to finish his copyedit before I tackle the list above, drop me a line when your done. Thanks a lot for this I really appreciate it. Let me know if you need the favour returned.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Apologies Jacky; I was waiting for you to respond before I carried on... :P Crossed wires lol. I'll just plough ahead then! 23:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EyeSerene (talkcontribs)
Drat, wrong number of tildes. EyeSereneTALK 23:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Have attempted to address all these points by rephrasing them.

This background fails to address the main reasons for war between France and England. In November 1792, the French had pushed back Austria and invaded Austrian Netherlands (Belgium) and opened the Scheldt, whose closure had been a stipulation of an Anglo-Dutch treaty. Like during previous periods of tension (Nootka Sound-1790 and 1791 with Russia), Britain had begun to mobilize its navy and army and had refused to recognize France's diplomat. By Jan, Pitt believed that war was inevitable and expelled the French diplomat. (French ships in port were seized.) When the French learned about the expulsion of the diplomat and about British preparations, they made the strategic decision to declare war, rightly assuming that the British would only declare war once they were ready. Unfortunately, the French government overestimated their own ability to mobilize their navy quickly and started the 1793 on the wrong foot. Other factual errors include that Marie-Antoinette wasn't executed until October 1793. Louis XVI's execution was less a cause of the war than British concerns about balance of power on the continent as the French armies seemed to be winning against the Austrians and Prussians.--Ken Johnson (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Royal Navy[edit]

With reference to the Battle of Yorktown, it bears mentioning that the British sent a Royal Navy squadron from New York, which they still held, to land troops BEHIND Washington's men and trap them between the two forces while the British ships shelled them into submission. It didn't work beacuse the French Atlantic Fleet stopped the Royal Navy squadron at Hampton Roads, preventing them from either springing their trap or evacuating General Cornwallis's troops to avoid their surrender. Even most Americans, of which I am one, aren't aware of that. Dick Kimball (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

French navy[edit]

  • Is there a less idiomatic way to express the phrase 'above and below decks'? 'of all ranks', maybe?
  • "...which were untrained and unprepared." Unprepared for what? (I think this needs to be more specific) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EyeSerene (talkcontribs) 14:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, that's it. I deliberately didn't sign these (for formatting reasons). I'm opting out. Adios Sinebot! EyeSereneTALK 14:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The engagement was concerned with blocking French supplies from the colonies. Assuming the almost total anarchy that seems to have followed the heels of fools. What was known about conditions in the colonies and the behaviour of the USA towards slave keeping French colonists in light of the following?é,_égalité,_fraternité: Robespierre "On the organization of the National Guard"

Weatherlawyer (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

May 1794[edit]

  • I've assumed the French grain convoy was being escorted by Vanstabel when it left Virginia?

- Yes it was. Vanstabel's squadron was bolstered by additional ship. (Don't have list on me now but will add later). Furthermore Vanstabel was later joined by the Montagnard which had seperated from Villaret-Joyeuse's fleet following the battle on 29 May. --Ken Johnson (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Do we know where Howe sailed from on 2nd May?
  • "...running into a Dutch convoy and taking 20 ships from it on its first day at sea." Was this Villaret's or the Dutch convoy's first day at sea?

- This was on the 19 May. Villaret had left Brest on 16 May. --Ken Johnson (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Dealt with by me or others.

First of June[edit]

  • "The French were likewise in line ahead..." Wikilinked this to clarify the phrase ;)
  • "...Howe unleashed his unusual battleplan." Would it be stretching the sources to use 'innovative' rather than 'unusual'? I think it may read slightly better.
  • "...exchanging fire at long ranges and then each wearing away,..." Can we use a less nautical term here ('pulling away'?)
Changed (except wearing away which it linked to jibe.

British break the line[edit]

  • I've linked 'van squadron' to Vanguard - although it's basically a disambig page, it covers the meaning the article is after. There may be a better link?
  • "...her crew suffering from contagion and unable to take their ship into battle." Can we link 'contagion' or provide further explanation?
If van squadron is linked, then vanguard is indeed the best place for it to go. I have left contagion, but linked it to Infectious disease. I have no information as to the nature of the contagion, but the source indicates that over 500 sailors were sick (from a crew of approx. 800).

Van Squadron[edit]

I'm a little concerned about this sentence (ce'd and tweaked): "However, Defence was not the only ship of the van to break the French line, HMS Marlborough following her in minutes later."

It's the "in" that causes me pause. "following in", or "in minutes". I know what it means, you know what it means, most people would probably know what it means, but ... well, just but :P ooh, I can get away without signing now?

I agree, and have rewritten it to combine with the next sentence. Better? EyeSereneTALK 08:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Much :) I'll sign this time Carré (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Nicely done

The convoy arrives[edit]

  • The Admiralty 'was' preparing... or 'were' preparing...? Is 'Admiralty' a collective noun?

OK, that's the lot (!) Hopefully I haven't mucked things up too much ;) If you need further changes, let me know. All the best, EyeSereneTALK 17:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


A huge thanks to both of you for all your hard work. I have fully copyedited the article myself and addressed all the points raised here as best I can (see comments above). I hope the article is now in a good enough state for it to pass once I've addressed the issues at FAC. Thankyou once more, the prose is hugely improved.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome Jacky - and thanks to Carre and Karanacs for sweeping for those spaces and endashes. I fixed some as I went along, intended to go through afterwards and do the rest... and forgot :P Much obliged! EyeSereneTALK 08:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Most welcome from me too; looks like a new FA star will be winging its way to you soon, too. Nicely done everyone. Carré (talk) 09:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


This article seems to rely heavily on English secondary sources, particularly James. (He is a great source, but he did not have access to French records.)One example is the statement about "the paucity of French sources" They are there, the problem is that most British naval historians are too lazy to learn French. I have seen the French records of casualties, they exist. Of the ships that made it back to Brest, their losses were recorded as 576 killed, 347 seriously wounded, and 360 lightly wounded. In a letter of 2 June, Howe estimated for the six captured around 690 killed and 580 wounded. As for the loss aboard the Vengeur, numbers run anywhere from 320 to 350 men lost, of which an estimated 250 were killed or wounded before the ship went down. Which gives a total of around 1500 killed and around 1200 wounded (although it is unsure if the British "lightly wounded" were equally counted.) When I have time, I'll come back and help improve this article from the French perspective.--Ken Johnson (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I suspected this might be the case, despite William James's assertions to contrary. (James by the way could speak perfect French, lengthy paragraphs of his work are in the language untranslated). Please do insert this information into the article (and the Order of Battle article, which I see you have commented on) but please try to do it in a sympathetic manner. I suggest editing the footnote which contains the discussion on casualties and changing a few figures in the text to incorporate this new information. In addition, all the statistics added to the article must be sourced clearly and to the page, otherwise they are useless. Thanks for your interest.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
My comment about British historians not looking at French sources is aimed at modern historians, particularly Oliver Warner. James did fairly well but he was primarily limited to French secondary sources, which were written by naval officers, not historians, who had strong biases. In my own work on Villaret-Joyeuse, I chose to avoid getting into the mess of details about the battle, particularly since William Cormack's Revolution and Political Conflict in the French Navy, 1789-1794 has a great chapter that covers the battle from a French perspective in detail. A briefer account from a French perspective is available in Michael Duffy's The Glorious First of June, 1794 which I am surprised to see missing from the list of sources. Meanwhile, Digby Smith's book is generally worthless as there are so many factual errors that it is hard to take anything there as anything more than a guideline.--Ken Johnson (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
If you are able to offer any further information on the battle from either Cormack or Duffy, then it would no doubt improve the article. Apart from the French casualties and frigates is their any other information which you consider to be missing or inaccurate? Regarding Smith, why do you consider him so inaccurate? He clearly indicates where his information comes from and in any case he has not been used as an extensive source here, mainly appearing for the purposes of comparison.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
French secondary sources were written by French naval officers who were highly critical of reforms made by Saint-Andre, completely overlooking some of the major benefits that they brought. This interpretation has been picked up by James and others British naval historians. As for Digby Smith, I've seen on just too many occasions that his numbers can be widely inaccurate. (As well as lists of ships/regiments and other important battles are missing) He relied alot on secondary sources, which are often inaccurate. He is a great reference, but should always be taken with a grain of salt. --Ken Johnson (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


Just wanted to say it looks good. (talk) 12:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Layout weirdness?[edit]

Does anyone else see the top of the article looking sort of odd in their web browser? Looking at it in Internet Explorer, 6, I get the opening paragraph and the infobox looking fine, but then there is a big gap until the Table of Contents shows up in line with the bottom of the infobox. Is it just me? -- Natalya 16:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No problems here (FF 3) Martocticvs (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Using FF3 and there is no problems. I even checked it in IE 6 it seems good. Can you shows us a picture?. --SkyWalker (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... now on a different computer in IE 6, it looks fine. It's also normal in Opera. Who knows!?  :) -- Natalya 00:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it is your browser fault?. Don't you have another browser on your comp?. If no i recommended Firefox 3.--SkyWalker (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


The article refers in several places to battleships; this now generally means those ships used around the start of the 20th century and seems very anachronistic in this article (although it was a term in use at this time, I was interested to read here). It isn't clear to me whether it means 'ships of the line' or some other specific type of ship here, so I propose to change it to the generic 'warships' unless someone can be more precise? Lessthanideal (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The word battleship comes from an alternative name for a ship-of-the-line: a line-of-battle-ship - so wherever one encounters the term in a subject dealing with this period, it should be referring to a ship of the line (though of course it would be prudent to check before altering). I believe we at WP:SHIPS agreed some time ago that the term battleship should not be used to refer to a ship of the line for sake of reducing any ambiguity (mainly in later, transitional times though). Martocticvs (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I've corrected some uses of the word where it was clear from elsewhere in the article that ship of the line was meant. There was nowhere it definitely didn't mean that. Remaining places where there is some doubt are as follows.
[Montagu's] force of ten battleships was intended to both cover Howe's withdrawal from Biscay, and find and attack the French grain convoy. Can't see anything else describing these ships more precisely.
However, on 9 June, Montagu sighted 19 French battleships appearing from the west—the remnants of Villaret's fleet. It seems likely to me these were ships of the line, made up of these previously mentioned: Villaret ... managed to gather 11 ships of the line around him and Villaret was also hoping for reinforcements; eight ships of the line, commanded by Admiral Pierre-François Cornic... . But is also mentions he collected the battered Terrible ... and he also recovered the dismasted Scipion, Mucius, Jemmappes and Républicain, so it isn't clear.
Rear-Admiral Pierre Vanstabel had been dispatched, with five ships including two of the line, to meet the much-needed French grain convoy off the American eastern seaboard. Rear-Admiral Joseph-Marie Nielly had sailed from Rochefort with five battleships and assorted cruising warships to rendezvous with the convoy in the mid-Atlantic. This left Villaret with 25 ships of the line at Brest, to meet the threat posed by the British fleet under Lord Howe.. Sounds likely to be ships of the line, espeically since they are contrasted with other "warships", but the surrounding sentences are explicit about ships of the line so maybe these ones weren't. Not sure what "cruising warships" means, is that a technical term for ships not of the line?
I'm not sure what's the best approach. Reducing to "ships" would make it definitely correct but maybe discards accurate information, especially in the third example. I'm going to leave it at this, and add clarify tags to the article, so someone with access to the references can do so. Lessthanideal (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I wrote most of this article, and whereever "battleship" is written, "ship of the line" is meant. I used the synonym because frankly I was fed up of writing ship of the line over and over again and wanted to vary it. In wider naval historical writing battleship is a perfectly acceptable synonym for ship of the line, and there really are no grounds for confusion because the first modern battleships were not invented until some years after the last ships of the line were removed from military service, and thus the periods did not overlap. That said, if you really want to remove the word please be my guest.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Collingwood's medal?![edit]

I'm not sure how Collingwood could have been issued a medal because the originals were minted according to the list, and the names are on the medal, namely

A gold badge in the form of a flat gold ring with a foul anchor suspended within it. Obverse inscription, on anchor stock: ‘EARL HOWE’. On arms of anchor: ‘QUEEN CHARLOTTE’. On ring: ‘GRAVES HOOD BOWYER GARDNER PASLEY SEYMOUR PAKENHAM BERKELEY GAMBIER’. Reverse, on anchor stock: ‘1ST . OF JUNE.’ On the crown of the anchor: ‘1794.’ On ring: ‘I .HARVEY PAYNE PARKER H . HARVEY PRINGLE DUCKWORTH ELPHINSTONE NICHOLS HOPE’. (comms) ♠♣ 08:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Only just saw this now, but Collingwood was awarded a medal in 1797, after refusing a Cape St Vincent medal in protest at being excluded from this award.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


I believe i am correct in stating that the map on the main page of this article does not accurately portray the position of the fleets on June 1, 1794. (talk) 03:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you believe is wrong with it?--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Order of battle[edit]

Is there any reason the order of battle found in the other similar articles is not given here? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Contradictory Introduction and summary of victory conditions.[edit]

/Quote Nevertheless, his ships inflicted a severe tactical defeat on the French fleet. In the aftermath of the battle, both fleets were left shattered and in no condition for further combat, Howe and Villaret returning to their home ports. Despite losing seven of his ships of the line, Villaret had bought enough time for the French grain convoy to reach safety unimpeded by Howe's fleet, securing a strategic success. However, he was also forced to withdraw his battle-fleet to port, leaving the British free to conduct a campaign of blockade for the remainder of the war. /Unquote

The introduction is self-contradictory. It contradicts directly the stated outcome of the batte; a British tactical victory and a French strategic victory. It is not as simplististic as that.

For example, consider the following:

\quote However, he was also forced to withdraw his battle-fleet to port, leaving the British free to conduct a campaign of blockade for the remainder of the war. \unquote

Clearly, the British won a strategic naval victory. The French lost control of the seas for the duration of the war and were blockaded.

A correct summary of the situation is as follows:

The British clearly won the tactical naval battle in terms of ship losses/statistics. They also won strategic control of the seas for the duration of the war.

The French won a tactical victory because their convoy largely arrived intact before they lost strategic control of the seas.

I strongly suggest a suitable rewite of the article to improve quality based on facts, as indicated.

Perhaps the bar at the right could be changed to:

British tactical victory: the naval battle was clearly won. French tactical victory: the convoy evaded British interdiction. British strategic victory: the British Fleet was free to conduct an effective blockade of France for the remainder of the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


Isn't the article title a little bit too much POV? Mimimito (talk) 05:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Which is the "Third Battle of Ushant"?[edit]

A question has arisen regarding two different battles being called the "Third Battle of Ushant". Please refer to the discussion on the disambiguation page Battle of Ushant. Fred Johansen (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Not heard of this battle being known as 3rd Battle of Ushant in sources. So will leave it to Glorious First of June and Bataille du 13 prairial an 2/Combat de Prairial. Shire Lord 14:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glorious First of June. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)