Talk:Battle of Cape St. Vincent (1797)

Military history: Maritime / British / European / Spanish / Napoleonic era

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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Spanish military history task force
	Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815)

2006

hello,e the article states (at the end of the "origines" part) that "This pushed the Spanish into the Atlantic and by February 13, close to the British fleet". But it does not say what did. whats missing? Zkip 11:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Direct copy of another website

Story of the Battle of Cape St. Vincent is reproduced almost exactly in this. Is it kosher? Dale662 (talk) 14:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spanish participants

Noting that the article only included 24 of the Spanish ships of the line present during this battle, although all references were to 27 such vessels being there, I have added the three missing ships (plus five smaller vessels - a brig and four armed merchantmen - not previously included). Rif Winfield (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of Cape St Vincent (1797). 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, 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 14:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Planned Development

Hello. I am turning my attention to this article, and intend over the next few weeks to work up a revised, expanded and sourced new draft of this article in my user space before pasting it in here. For examples of the success of this method, please see Battle of the Nile, Battle of Camperdown, Battle of Groix or Battle of the Basque Roads, alongside many others on my user page. I will branch off the order of battle into its own article, and the whole is intended to sit within a new overview article which covers the British Blockade of Cádiz between 1795 and 1802, which compliments the recently completed Mediterranean campaign of 1793-1796. It is not unknown for me to become suddenly busy in RL and have to put these projects on hiatus, but this is an important battle and so I hope to do justice to its significance in a newly developed page. As always, send any questions, comments or complaints to me.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson's promotion to rear-admiral

"Nelson's promotion to Rear-Admiral was not a reward for his services, but simply a happy coincidence: promotion to flag rank in the Navy of the time was based on seniority on the Captain's list and not on achievement."

Is this true? As I understand it, at the time you could only be promoted from captain to admiral if all the officers senior to you in the captains' list were promoted at the same time: deserving or not, active or not. So, if the Admiralty had desired to promote Nelson, then that is what they would have done. I very much doubt that his promotion was a "happy coincidence"; and suspect that it was not even a "reward for his services"; but, rather, that the Admiralty wanted to raise Nelson to flag rank for obvious naval reasons. Promotion of those captains senior to Nelson didn't mean that they would ever be employed.

This is a question for better naval historians than I am. Narky Blert (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The official promotions were seldomly single acts and usually within a mass of others attaining a new rank. This case wasn´t different as on that day 8 other Captains, 5 of them senior to Nelson, were made Rear-Admiral. Could it be that they all, or at least the senior ones, were promoted at that point because of Nelson? Possible; as being promoted didn´t mean getting a command and the alternative would be to completely retire them. I don´t know if those five even had a command at that time. However for the records here is the promotion announcement in the London Gazette. ...GELongstreet (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Lavery decides it was a promotion on merit: "(The Admiralty) could also accelerate the promotion of very deserving candidates but only by 'reaching down' the captains list. When the Admiralty determined to promote Nelson to flag rank in 1797 five officers above him in the list had to be promoted as well". However if these officers were not deserving of the position and had been promoted purely to allow Nelson to rise they would have been promoted "without distinction of squadron" and retired immediately on half pay (as so called yellow admirals. The five captains senior to Nelson all became rear-admirals of the blue, the lowest rung in the admiral ladder. William Swiney, Edmund Dod and Charles Powell Hamilton went on to become full admirals and Charles Edmund Nugent reached the pinnacle of admiral of the fleet. Only William Fooks died without being promoted further. At the same time three captains junior to Nelson were promoted - if the Admiralty had indeed just been "reaching down the captains list" to promote Nelson early I don't see why they would have promoted those below him as well.

Nelson's promotion was dated 20 February and this battle took place on the 14th, it would have been impossible for even a fast vessel to reach England and for a messenger to reach the Admiralty in time to bring them news of the victory - bear in mind it took John Richards Lapenotière of the Pickle fourteen days to bring news of the victory at Trafalgar to London (including a 37 hour horse ride from Falmouth). This 1840 source states he was promoted before news of the action reached England. On the whole I think he was promoted in line with the usual progression, though his previous performance may have encouraged the Admiralty to promote more admirals than usual in February 1797 (but there is no reason to favour this). In any case there cannot be any connection to this battle due to the timings - Dumelow (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The capture 112-gun ship San Josef

The article Sir William Parker, 1st Baronet, of Harburn states:

After service on the Jamaica Station in 1796, he took part under Sir John Jervis in the Battle of Cape St Vincent in 1797, where he damaged the 112-gun ship San Josef so badly that Commodore Horatio Nelson was able to board and capture her with little opposition.

I presume that this sentence is based on his account of the battle that tends to underplay Nelson's part in the battle, which is commonly based on Nelson's own account (as is quoted in this article). Perhapes someone with more knowledge of the battle than I, and who has read secondary sources that asses the conflicting primary accounts (which I believe are over the interpretation of the facts rather than the facts themselves -- eg: "double boarding is a remarkably unusual feat of arms worthy of emphasise", or "capturing a battered hulk that was unable to disengage with a crew ready to surrender was not shuch a feat of arms and should not be idolised") can discuss if there is a balanced POV over this issue in this article.

-- PBS (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copywrite

There are great sections of the text which are almost identical with this fandom wiki [1] Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 11:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fandom article is a straight rip of this one. Compare this article on 7 November 2013 with the Fandom article as created on the same day. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I see... Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 12:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]