Nelson is hailed as a "great" admiral for winning battles that, given the conditions, even a retarded monkey in Admiral colors would have won for the Brits.
I mean, think of the Battle of Aboukir; A French fleet forming in line anchored at a exposed harbour and leaving a nice gap between the front ship and the shallow waters so that british ships could sail thru, gain local superiority, engage the parked french ships 2 or 3 to 1 on both sides of the line and.. next one..
close ranks and hurried up to support the by then outnumbered, outgunned and smashed center, whereas the French ships on the vanguard saw the fucking mess and fled the battle without firing a shot. Good news is that days after the battle they were intercepted by a british squadron, and as expected, the french surrendered.
The odds were favourable to the British fleet, as it had excellent skilled crews, but had an Spanish Admiral been in command before the battle... not this outcome for sure.
- In addition, the Franco-Spanish fleet had the winds agianst them, whereas the brits had the wind on their side. That's a huge advantage.
- Nelson's fleet engaged the centre of the allied fleet, with ship after ship cutting the line and envolving the opponnets. So here you would see 3 or 4 british ships engaging 1 Spanish or French ship
- While all this was going on, the vanguard and rearguard could not take action. The rearguard, mostly Spanish ships, tried desperately to --->
The battle was won by the brits for several reasons, primarily because Villeneuve was an asshole. Every single Spanish Admiral was against sailing the fleet to battle Nelson. And then comes the rest of Villeneuve's assholeness;
- Plan was to form a line of battle. That is easy when you have a realtively small sized formation of ships belonging to the same navy and naval specifications and speed. That was not the case and the line of battle was never truly formed.
Although this is a well researched video, I have to challenge your comment that "only one last great obstacle was blocking his pass", as Russia was also a major hindrance on his hopes of completely domination, although I expect Napoleon himself could not have anticipated the disastrous 1812 Russia campaign.
For a College project by a non specialist on Royal Naval History this is a very good attempt. The major facts are covered, the errors are slight and do not detract from the overall sense of what happened. An example is that HMS Victory had 104 guns not 100 but that is a minor quibble. The criticisms made against the film and it's producers are full of errors some major, especially if you are going to criticise.
@manucaribeytube Pity that Lucas didn´t get Villeneuve before the battle. When H. Nelson was in the process of breaking the line, I suppose that Lukas got angry beyond saying at Villeneuve´s passivity.At least Cosme Churruca on board of the "San Juan" was, and that is a documented fact
@97anonymus Napoleon's ambition did get the better of him but you are wide of the mark on Villeneuve. The French Admiral was in fact an excellent naval warfare tactician and had learnt from the Battle of the Nile. Hence the combined fleet was arranged in two columns, one cable apart with a cable distance fore and aft. He was only at sea because Napoleon threatened his life. The Spanish gunners were not up to the task.. They took four minutes to fire of a shot. The British took 90 seconds.
no, napoleon only said that he wasn't going to be admiral no longer, so villenueve wanted to win the battle to be better at napoleon's eye, it was his fault in a part, the original plan was that there had to be 4 squads there, 3 French and 1 Spanish, and then, they were going to make the English spend the winter in the sea if they wanted to block Cadiz's port, which was almost impossible and if they did it the ships would have several damages and it would be easier, sorry for my eng
@97anonymus Your English is OK. But your argument does support my view that Villeneuve was NOT retarded but a good Admiral. Napoleon sent a messenger to tell Villeneuve to report to Paris, The purpose of this was to court martial Villeneuve and remove his head. Villeneuve's brother in law was on Napoleon's staff and got word to Villeneuve before Napoleon's messenger so Villeneuve went to sea against his better judgement. Napoleon was the one with retarded intelligence - at least on this matter.
sry if i did offend you, i didn't mean so, but when i said villenueve's retarded intellingence i didn't mean at the battle, i meant the decision to go out of cadiz
@97anonymus Villeneuve was executed by Napoleon later. The officers in the French Navy at that time used to be selected from the aristocracy for their position in society not for their ability at sea . Unlike the Royal Navy where all officers had to pass the Admiralty board before gaining a commission and then promotion. The French officers had been disposed of by the guillotine of the French Revolution. Leaving very few competent officers in charge of poorly trained men, They had no chance.
they would have had it if they hadnt exit from Cadiz, it is proved that Nelson couldn't hold that position for a long time, and as i said before, there had to be 4 floats there instead of 2
@21oct1805 Villeneuve was NOT executed. After he was freed by the British in late 1805, he returned to France; his requests to get back into military service weren't answered. In April 1806 he was found dead in his room in a hotel in Rennes, France, with stab wounds in his body, the verdict was suicide, although the British press of the time suspected he had been murdered on Napoleon’s orders. If true, a murder isn't an execution.
Napoleon had no concept of naval warfare. Villeneuve was a sound naval tactician. His arrangement of his fleet was designed to prevent Nelson using the same tactics he had at the Battle of the Nile. He was only there because Napoleon threatened his life if he remained in port. The video gives the Spanish gunners undue credit. They were very poor it took them 4 minutes to reload and fire their guns. The British did it in 90 seconds or quicker.
@ALDERMANOFFOUNTALL I never said he wasn't (an orgre) I said "he was much more of the latter"... see the historic of the conversation and I am not a "Pro Napoleon" supporter... it just that objectively for me he did more GOOD things than BAD. Even if he did a LOT of the TWO. :P Hope you get my position now and plz you can disagree with me and have your own truth/opinion.
@ALDERMANOFFOUNTALL I never denied he did bad things... nevertheless I stick to my opinion. Which empire didn't? or even which country didn't? nevertheless I won't pull a Argumentum ad antiquitatem... saying every empire has done attrocities therefore it was right for Napoleon to do it... but once again... I stick to my opinion. You didn't lesson to mine: he did much greater deed than bad.
@ALDERMANOFFOUNTALL This quote dosn't mean he wanted to control the world. In my opinion he was praising the english navy: without it he would of crushed the English empire (which dominated the East). Nevertheless the view on Bonapart depends on ur education and how history was written in your country history books. In england he is portait as an Ogre wanting to eat the world. In france he is protrait as a savior of republic values and progressist. In my opinion he is much more of the latter
@AlpineWilfy haha are you trolling? your too serious about this argument. First you don't know if I had a french education (which I didn't) and secondly England also did atrocitys... who didn't? thirdly and lastly you add an other case (Haiti) without finishing arguing about it. I agree that Haiti was a massacre and should be condemned, but it has nothing to do with "Total world domination" or Egypt. Plz don't answer by bringing new arguments ^^ or it will be endless!
@AlpineWilfy Canal of Suez? British trade? if they are blocked england wouldn't of been able to raise armies. Also He invaded British Egypt not egypt it self. "Massacring" is a big word... no massacres were made. If you think about the The Cairo Revolt; it was against rioters. Its funny to see in England that you portray Napoleon as pure evil or "ogre" which wants to control the whole world... which in fact isn't true. Look up the reasons for his campain.
Oh and also... Napolean never planned to do a "total world domination"... he defended the interest of France and as we say... the best defense is offense = perfect example is when the Third Coalition formed he HAD to attack.
By the way it wasn't the first french empire... cause Charlemagne was the first french emperor. First king of the Franks and later in the year 800 he was crowned emperor. Voila!
Spain had many faults, the main one was to be allied with the French and submit to their orders, were worse seamen and were less able to design the defense of Trafalgar. The error according to the Bourbon dynasty, and satellites were absolutist France. Ruined Spain..
You'll find a majority of the British sailors at Trafalgar were English, mainly coming from Devon, Dorset, Cornwall and Norfolk. But there were Londoner's, Northerner's from Durham, Newcastle present, as well as 46 men from Scotland.
@TheBattleForBritain1 Correct, england hasn't existed as a country since 1707. The BRITISH fleet contained men and ships from the four regions of the UK (England,Scotland Ireland Wales) and had sailors from 24 countries. Silly americans...
@Command0666 Actually the Carronades on the forecastle fired 64 lb round shot.. HMS Victory had two, one port one starboard. Made in Carron Scotland. The barrels were reamed not cast, so they could take the force.
Overall story was good. However Nelsons body was actually placed in a barrel of "BRANDY" and not Rum. Rum later became known as Nelsons Blood, when in fact it should of been Brandy that took on this nickname.
@mattyreynolds1990 I don't seem to understand what your response is trying to achieve. Yes, I mispelt abysmal, but still, it takes a truly pathetic individual to stoop down to criticsing grammar, when in actual truth they are partaking on this senseless attack since they know that I am correct in relation to the central issue - that this 'documentary' (if you can call it such a thing) is ghastly.
@mattyreynolds1990 I would give the guy a break, but the pire fact of it is that everything he says is a total lie and doesnt make sense. This man cannot call himself a historian at all. What a moron.
Good job! A well researched and paced doco well layed out. It's a shame that some commenter didn't realise that one of the deciding factors of the battle was that the sea wasn't at all choppy before they fired their broadside....
@JFreakdc747 It is a documented fact that the Spanish ships were undermanned. Three of them never took part in the battle because they could not turn around in the increasing wind. You need manpower to shoot the guns and you need manpower to manoeuvre the ship.Three French ships missed the signal to turn around and so they continued for a time in the wrong direction... When they finally turned, it was too late to get in time for the battle. Concealing facts, glorifying... very honest!
The HMS Victory still stands in Portsmouth. You can go on a tour of of the ship. I have, so if you ever get the chance I'd defiantly recommend it!
TheDecbass 2 days ago
Nelson is hailed as a "great" admiral for winning battles that, given the conditions, even a retarded monkey in Admiral colors would have won for the Brits.
I mean, think of the Battle of Aboukir; A French fleet forming in line anchored at a exposed harbour and leaving a nice gap between the front ship and the shallow waters so that british ships could sail thru, gain local superiority, engage the parked french ships 2 or 3 to 1 on both sides of the line and.. next one..
How extraordinary...
Sky1green 4 days ago
close ranks and hurried up to support the by then outnumbered, outgunned and smashed center, whereas the French ships on the vanguard saw the fucking mess and fled the battle without firing a shot. Good news is that days after the battle they were intercepted by a british squadron, and as expected, the french surrendered.
The odds were favourable to the British fleet, as it had excellent skilled crews, but had an Spanish Admiral been in command before the battle... not this outcome for sure.
Sky1green 4 days ago
--->
- In addition, the Franco-Spanish fleet had the winds agianst them, whereas the brits had the wind on their side. That's a huge advantage.
- Nelson's fleet engaged the centre of the allied fleet, with ship after ship cutting the line and envolving the opponnets. So here you would see 3 or 4 british ships engaging 1 Spanish or French ship
- While all this was going on, the vanguard and rearguard could not take action. The rearguard, mostly Spanish ships, tried desperately to --->
Sky1green 4 days ago
All crap.
The battle was won by the brits for several reasons, primarily because Villeneuve was an asshole. Every single Spanish Admiral was against sailing the fleet to battle Nelson. And then comes the rest of Villeneuve's assholeness;
- Plan was to form a line of battle. That is easy when you have a realtively small sized formation of ships belonging to the same navy and naval specifications and speed. That was not the case and the line of battle was never truly formed.
--->
Sky1green 4 days ago
great video thanks :)
smattwood 1 week ago
Have you been deepthroating barbed wire or something? fuck.
HallettDesign 1 month ago
Although this is a well researched video, I have to challenge your comment that "only one last great obstacle was blocking his pass", as Russia was also a major hindrance on his hopes of completely domination, although I expect Napoleon himself could not have anticipated the disastrous 1812 Russia campaign.
Hughes1Callum 2 months ago
isnt the battle of trafalgar where the HMS victory kicked that one miget's ass? i cant quite remember
chelseayay1 2 months ago
Bajo mando español Trafalgar hubiera sido una victoria segura.
LCSVLLACOS 3 months ago
Los españoles no queríamos salir.Pero el gabacho se empeño....
xLesstatx 3 months ago
For a College project by a non specialist on Royal Naval History this is a very good attempt. The major facts are covered, the errors are slight and do not detract from the overall sense of what happened. An example is that HMS Victory had 104 guns not 100 but that is a minor quibble. The criticisms made against the film and it's producers are full of errors some major, especially if you are going to criticise.
21oct1805 3 months ago
a good history lesson hope it never will never be for gotten
superoldguy45 4 months ago
GOTCHA HORATIO !!
C.V. Lucas.
manucaribeytube 4 months ago
@manucaribeytube Pity that Lucas didn´t get Villeneuve before the battle. When H. Nelson was in the process of breaking the line, I suppose that Lukas got angry beyond saying at Villeneuve´s passivity.At least Cosme Churruca on board of the "San Juan" was, and that is a documented fact
Antares2F 2 months ago
21 October 1805. Napoleon defeated at TRAFALGAR BATTLE by Admiral Nelson.
arenadri7 4 months ago
@arenadri7
21 October 1805 Admiral Nelson died.
LeHappiste 4 months ago
@arenadri7
21 October 1805. Spanish Armada destroyed becouse of Napoleon's ambition and Villenueve's retarded intelligence
97anonymus 4 months ago
@97anonymus Napoleon's ambition did get the better of him but you are wide of the mark on Villeneuve. The French Admiral was in fact an excellent naval warfare tactician and had learnt from the Battle of the Nile. Hence the combined fleet was arranged in two columns, one cable apart with a cable distance fore and aft. He was only at sea because Napoleon threatened his life. The Spanish gunners were not up to the task.. They took four minutes to fire of a shot. The British took 90 seconds.
21oct1805 3 months ago
@21oct1805
no, napoleon only said that he wasn't going to be admiral no longer, so villenueve wanted to win the battle to be better at napoleon's eye, it was his fault in a part, the original plan was that there had to be 4 squads there, 3 French and 1 Spanish, and then, they were going to make the English spend the winter in the sea if they wanted to block Cadiz's port, which was almost impossible and if they did it the ships would have several damages and it would be easier, sorry for my eng
97anonymus 3 months ago
@97anonymus Your English is OK. But your argument does support my view that Villeneuve was NOT retarded but a good Admiral. Napoleon sent a messenger to tell Villeneuve to report to Paris, The purpose of this was to court martial Villeneuve and remove his head. Villeneuve's brother in law was on Napoleon's staff and got word to Villeneuve before Napoleon's messenger so Villeneuve went to sea against his better judgement. Napoleon was the one with retarded intelligence - at least on this matter.
21oct1805 3 months ago
@21oct1805
sry if i did offend you, i didn't mean so, but when i said villenueve's retarded intellingence i didn't mean at the battle, i meant the decision to go out of cadiz
97anonymus 3 months ago
@97anonymus Villeneuve was executed by Napoleon later. The officers in the French Navy at that time used to be selected from the aristocracy for their position in society not for their ability at sea . Unlike the Royal Navy where all officers had to pass the Admiralty board before gaining a commission and then promotion. The French officers had been disposed of by the guillotine of the French Revolution. Leaving very few competent officers in charge of poorly trained men, They had no chance.
21oct1805 3 months ago
@21oct1805
they would have had it if they hadnt exit from Cadiz, it is proved that Nelson couldn't hold that position for a long time, and as i said before, there had to be 4 floats there instead of 2
97anonymus 3 months ago
@21oct1805 Villeneuve was NOT executed. After he was freed by the British in late 1805, he returned to France; his requests to get back into military service weren't answered. In April 1806 he was found dead in his room in a hotel in Rennes, France, with stab wounds in his body, the verdict was suicide, although the British press of the time suspected he had been murdered on Napoleon’s orders. If true, a murder isn't an execution.
odalrich 2 months ago
@21oct1805
it would be easier to win
97anonymus 3 months ago
@21oct1805
sorry my poor english
97anonymus 3 months ago
@97anonymus
21oct1805 3 months ago
Napoleon had no concept of naval warfare. Villeneuve was a sound naval tactician. His arrangement of his fleet was designed to prevent Nelson using the same tactics he had at the Battle of the Nile. He was only there because Napoleon threatened his life if he remained in port. The video gives the Spanish gunners undue credit. They were very poor it took them 4 minutes to reload and fire their guns. The British did it in 90 seconds or quicker.
21oct1805 3 months ago
Nice docu
Well done!
LordGeorgeRodney 4 months ago
Very well done,specially the fact that Napoleon was a brilliant land war general but really lacked understanding of naval warfare.
00G000 5 months ago
Very well done, i enjoyed watching it.
At least there isn't any rap music hahaha
Good job.
jonesgerard 6 months ago
@ALDERMANOFFOUNTALL I never said he wasn't (an orgre) I said "he was much more of the latter"... see the historic of the conversation and I am not a "Pro Napoleon" supporter... it just that objectively for me he did more GOOD things than BAD. Even if he did a LOT of the TWO. :P Hope you get my position now and plz you can disagree with me and have your own truth/opinion.
LLPorduction 7 months ago
@ALDERMANOFFOUNTALL I never denied he did bad things... nevertheless I stick to my opinion. Which empire didn't? or even which country didn't? nevertheless I won't pull a Argumentum ad antiquitatem... saying every empire has done attrocities therefore it was right for Napoleon to do it... but once again... I stick to my opinion. You didn't lesson to mine: he did much greater deed than bad.
LLPorduction 7 months ago
@ALDERMANOFFOUNTALL This quote dosn't mean he wanted to control the world. In my opinion he was praising the english navy: without it he would of crushed the English empire (which dominated the East). Nevertheless the view on Bonapart depends on ur education and how history was written in your country history books. In england he is portait as an Ogre wanting to eat the world. In france he is protrait as a savior of republic values and progressist. In my opinion he is much more of the latter
LLPorduction 7 months ago
@AlpineWilfy your funny, especially the fact that you assume I am from France! Sacre bleu! baguette! Greetings from the Kingdom of Belgium!
LLPorduction 8 months ago
@AlpineWilfy haha are you trolling? your too serious about this argument. First you don't know if I had a french education (which I didn't) and secondly England also did atrocitys... who didn't? thirdly and lastly you add an other case (Haiti) without finishing arguing about it. I agree that Haiti was a massacre and should be condemned, but it has nothing to do with "Total world domination" or Egypt. Plz don't answer by bringing new arguments ^^ or it will be endless!
LLPorduction 8 months ago
@AlpineWilfy Canal of Suez? British trade? if they are blocked england wouldn't of been able to raise armies. Also He invaded British Egypt not egypt it self. "Massacring" is a big word... no massacres were made. If you think about the The Cairo Revolt; it was against rioters. Its funny to see in England that you portray Napoleon as pure evil or "ogre" which wants to control the whole world... which in fact isn't true. Look up the reasons for his campain.
LLPorduction 8 months ago
Oh and also... Napolean never planned to do a "total world domination"... he defended the interest of France and as we say... the best defense is offense = perfect example is when the Third Coalition formed he HAD to attack.
LLPorduction 8 months ago
By the way it wasn't the first french empire... cause Charlemagne was the first french emperor. First king of the Franks and later in the year 800 he was crowned emperor. Voila!
LLPorduction 8 months ago
i never knew nelson died there! :O
imenglishurnot 9 months ago
2 people dont know anything about war,instead they dance in flowers. XD
jwjm92 9 months ago
Spain had many faults, the main one was to be allied with the French and submit to their orders, were worse seamen and were less able to design the defense of Trafalgar. The error according to the Bourbon dynasty, and satellites were absolutist France. Ruined Spain..
movohox 9 months ago
You'll find a majority of the British sailors at Trafalgar were English, mainly coming from Devon, Dorset, Cornwall and Norfolk. But there were Londoner's, Northerner's from Durham, Newcastle present, as well as 46 men from Scotland.
barnabyfraser 9 months ago
@TheBattleForBritain1 Correct, england hasn't existed as a country since 1707. The BRITISH fleet contained men and ships from the four regions of the UK (England,Scotland Ireland Wales) and had sailors from 24 countries. Silly americans...
maureenOWW 10 months ago
it also says that the cannon balls ranged from 18-36 lbs but on the front of the hms victory there was a gun which fired 68lb cannon balls
Command0666 10 months ago
@Command0666 Actually the Carronades on the forecastle fired 64 lb round shot.. HMS Victory had two, one port one starboard. Made in Carron Scotland. The barrels were reamed not cast, so they could take the force.
21oct1805 3 months ago
Spain=Moors
ScotsIrishReb 10 months ago
where can I download the music?
olepetersen2003 11 months ago
Great video! :)
LordWaspy 11 months ago
Nice little video! I love Nelson. (Too bad he died.)
MrZizhen 11 months ago
Nice little video!
MrZizhen 11 months ago
Napolean was a genius, fortunately for us Brits, Nelson was better than him.
DJFozter 1 year ago 3
@DJFozter You can't compare an admiral to a general when it comes to naval warfare
ToaJoe 10 months ago
Lord Nelson = British Legend.
FellowTownsman 1 year ago
Overall story was good. However Nelsons body was actually placed in a barrel of "BRANDY" and not Rum. Rum later became known as Nelsons Blood, when in fact it should of been Brandy that took on this nickname.
toonsta1892 1 year ago
@toonsta1892 Really? I didn't know that! Hm, you learn something new every day!
JFreakdc747 1 year ago
@toonsta1892 in fact a french officer was placed in a barrel of brine nelson was shot not blown in half
oldstuffandcollect 3 months ago
@oldstuffandcollect sorry i understand now you are right i did'nt know about that very interesting thankyou
oldstuffandcollect 3 months ago
This is terrible. You should be hanged for this wretched pile of garbage. Call yourself historians? HA, this is abismal.
XtremeRockerRambo 1 year ago
@XtremeRockerRambo HA? abisimal? :P
mattyreynolds1990 4 months ago
@mattyreynolds1990 I don't seem to understand what your response is trying to achieve. Yes, I mispelt abysmal, but still, it takes a truly pathetic individual to stoop down to criticsing grammar, when in actual truth they are partaking on this senseless attack since they know that I am correct in relation to the central issue - that this 'documentary' (if you can call it such a thing) is ghastly.
XtremeRockerRambo 4 months ago
@XtremeRockerRambo This guy just made a small documentary for his college course its not professionally done obviously but give the guy a break lol.
mattyreynolds1990 4 months ago
@mattyreynolds1990 I would give the guy a break, but the pire fact of it is that everything he says is a total lie and doesnt make sense. This man cannot call himself a historian at all. What a moron.
XtremeRockerRambo 4 months ago
Comment removed
XtremeRockerRambo 4 months ago
@XtremeRockerRambo Get over it you sad bastard
mattyreynolds1990 4 months ago
Great video! i enjoyed it!
Fitmatt1978 1 year ago
The victory's signalling! its says....are you paying too much for your car inurance :)
1993DaVinci 1 year ago
Good job! A well researched and paced doco well layed out. It's a shame that some commenter didn't realise that one of the deciding factors of the battle was that the sea wasn't at all choppy before they fired their broadside....
numptyboxer 1 year ago 10
great video :)
mastercheifishere 1 year ago
the commentator is terrible who cannot project his voice or read with a sense of confidence. The ocean is "less choppy" than this fucking retard!
SpearSiix 1 year ago
@SpearSiix
Well why don't You make a vid instead of just bitching about others lol. The uploader isn't a professional and done a good job.
29Gixxer 1 year ago 10
@SpearSiix U MAD BRO?
JFreakdc747 1 year ago 13
@JFreakdc747 great job, I liked the video. I didn't know all the details of this famous battle.
TheUniverseNow 1 year ago
@JFreakdc747 It is a documented fact that the Spanish ships were undermanned. Three of them never took part in the battle because they could not turn around in the increasing wind. You need manpower to shoot the guns and you need manpower to manoeuvre the ship.Three French ships missed the signal to turn around and so they continued for a time in the wrong direction... When they finally turned, it was too late to get in time for the battle. Concealing facts, glorifying... very honest!
Antares2F 2 months ago
@SpearSiix A tad harsh mate. I agree it's not the best commentary but as a short documentary it's ok.
MikeDenby 7 months ago