Talk:Second Battle of Cape Finisterre

untitled

"The French made a very gallant resistance, and the fine quality of their ships enabled them to counteract to some extent the superior numbers of the British."

When that is said it implies that the quality of British crews and ships was inferior. That was quite simply not the case.

Decisive?

I think it's quite reasonable to challenge some of these assumptions of what makes an engagement 'Decisive', as Moagim (talk · contribs) has been doing a lot. But this piecemeal approach to just the infobox result doesn't really help anyone. It still states in the text that it was a 'decisive victory'. Given that the sources are the best way to go to avoid OR, we should look at what they say. We would be equally guilty of OR if we assumed based on our own opinion that the result wasn't decisive when the sources say that it was.

The current source used, Black's Military History of Britain, makes a number of claims to justify the 'Decisive' tag. '...won the most brilliant action of the war...', 'Six of the French ships were forced to surrender and the French also lost 4,000 sailors, a crucial limitation of their maritime strength.' '"All difficulties that could be apprehended in Parliament will by this be removed, the pride of France a little humbled, and I hope our allies so far encouraged, that your Royal Highness will find them willing and able to exert themselves for our own safety and support". The Duke was also confident that victory would also disappoint Jacobite hopes of a possible invasion. The French fleet could no longer escort major convoys bound for French colonies, and this destroyed the logic of the French imperial system.' and 'Victory transformed the invasion threats of 1744-5 and the danger of the loss of Cape Breton in 1746 into a completely political, strategic and diplomatic situation.' It all reads as a pretty significant outcome, though it perhaps lacks the ideal pairing of 'decisive' and 'victory' for User:Moagim if summaries like 'nothing on the source stat such a thing' is anything to go by.

Sources which do state that Finisterre was a "decisive victory":

• David Wallace, Premodern Places: Calais to Surinam, Chaucer to Aphra Behn, p. 30. "In October 1747, the English Channel fleet won a decisive victory against the French off Cape Finisterre."
• John Cannon, A Dictionary of British History, p. 314 "Off Cape Finisterre in October 1747 he won a decisive victory, taking seven out of nine enemy vessels."
• Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery, p. 93 "In October Hawke achieved an even more decisive victory against a West Indian convoy..."

And many other sources which state the importance in the same vein as Black, in that essentially it lifted the threat of invasion and isolated France from its colonies, while ensuring British control of the seas. So if you want it explicitly stated, there it is. Benea (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I will add to that in a recent source placed on the page. Here is the link and the quote: The ensuing eight hour battle ends in a decisive British victory [1] ChrisWet (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't see how this action differs from a hundred engagements fought on the same period. It didn't lead to anywhere, Great Britain didn't gain anything from it and all the war ended in a big stalemate.Moagim (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If you're using statements like 'I can't see...' it really becomes a problem of OR. It's not our interpretation, our analysis of the sources to come to a judgement on what battles have the significant outcomes, it's the third-party sources that we must rely on. Benea (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that that was my just my opinion, I don't wanna fight against any source. Moagim (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is Wikipedia prefers to avoid designating battles as 'decisive' since it is often a matter of opinion. Even if that's what the sources say. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Missing ref

B class. Nice work. Please note that the Willis 2009 citation does not point to any reference. Since the material was already cited by another reference, I removed the Willis ref. I looked up Sam Willis books on Amazon.com and did not see any published in 2009 or any with 761 pages. If you can find the correct Willis ref, feel free to add it back in. Djmaschek (talk) 05:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Second Battle of Cape Finisterre (1747)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 05:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments

I have to confess to being totally ignorant of this war, though I am a nerd for Napoleonic-era naval warfare thanks to the Aubrey–Maturin series of novels. I'd like to offer the following comments:

• Note in the first para of the lead where the convoy was travelling from and to

Good point. Done.

• "isolating the French colonies from supply and reinforcement. The following year the war ended and under the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle France recovered her colonial possessions " - something is missing here, such as a reference to the colonies being captured

Tweaked.

• "its perceived naval superiority " - it's previously noted that this superiority was a fact

Gah. Good spot. Different sources being more or less bold about this. I'm going with Dull as that seems to reflect the consensus of the sources I have to hand.

• Did Hawke ignore his orders, or was he unaware that they existed? The article says both at present, which is confusing. The former seems much more likely given RN practices at this time.

It is entirely clear that Hawke ignored his orders, but, obviously, he wasn't about to publicly admit this; nor was the Admiralty about to persecute a successful admiral. So everyone settled on the tissue-thin excuse of the orders being "mislaid". As there is no official record saying anything different, modern sources are in a tricky spot. I have not been able to find one which flat out states that Hawke and the Admiralty were flat out lying, but Rodger's account (he is the expert on the period IMO) drips scepticism, which I have attempted to convey. (Only Nelson could get away with the telescope trick; ten years after this battle the Brits court martialled and shot Admiral Byng for political expediency/his not sticking closely enough to his orders.)

From checking my copy of Roger, I don't think that it supports the statement that "It seems that Hawke was not aware of their contents until the day after he found and defeated the French". The material in the previous sentence noting that he ignored the orders and acted on the basis of his own sources of intelligence reflects what Roger says really. You could change the second sentence here to note that Hawke claimed to have 'mislaid' the orders and not found them until after the battle. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Assuming you mean Rodger, my copy - 2004, hardback - does not support Hawke claiming to have mislaid his orders. It states that they were mislaid. With only a "mysteriously", and "mislaid" in inverted commas as an editorial comment.

I think that's an overly literal reading. Anyway, the issue remains that this para says both that " Hawke was given detailed orders,[20] which he ignored. and " It seems that Hawke was not aware of their contents until the day after he found and defeated the French", which is contradictory. If different sources say different things, a solution might be to note this, but I think that Roger also supports the first sentence (there are plenty of other examples of British admirals in the age of sail era being given impractical orders before leaving port which they then disregarded or interpreted extremely flexibly). Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Nick-D, apologies for the delay. This seems to be the area we are stuck on. I think that we both suspect that Hawke read his orders and then ignored them. I would love to be able to put this in the article, but can find no support for this in the source. I just don't understand your "I think that's an overly literal reading" comment. It seems to me that a source either says something or it doesn't. But maybe I am too close to it. If you could point me towards whatever parts of the source you feel could be interpreted "less-literally", I would be grateful.

I have also repeatedly read the two sentences you feel are contradictory, and just can't see it. However, that is easy to tweak and I have rewritten that part of the paragraph. See what you think. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

That change, and the other changes look good to me. I'm pleased to pass this nomination - the article really was a very interesting read. Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• "was able to intercept many of them in the winter of 1747–1748" - 'winter' isn't a very meaningful term to apply to the tropics

Understood, but in naval terms of the period it was. Eg one would not sail from Europe to the West Indies - even those parts in the tropics - because of the weather in Europe. Similar for journeys the other way, perhaps more relevant here. But rephrased.

Yeah, this is a bit of a bug bear for me after reading about a zillion American accounts of actions in the Pacific theatre of World War II that supposedly took part in 'winter'! Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• The referencing for the order of battle section is confusing - do the refs at the end of the last entry cover all the content? It might be best to start each sub section with a sentence where the references can be placed.

I am honestly struggling to see how this is confusing. Any chance of being more specific? It is normal for Wikipedia for a cite to cover all information since the last cite, which is what is happening here. This approach also seems to be the usual one. I could rejig it per my FA Battle of Lagos, although as all of the British vessels and all bar two of the French were ships of the line it seems to me to introduce unnecessary redundancy. I am against inserting an introdutory sentence for the sole purpose of hanging the cite off.

The Battle of Lagos approach looks good.

Done.

Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC) Nick-D (talk) 05:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nick-D and many thanks for picking this up. I have, I think, addressed all of your comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nick-D, thanks, and back to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This is a great article, and I'm pleased to pass this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

British OOB

@Gog the Mild: I think Hawke had more out of line ships than the one I've managed to cite. Clowes mentions "and some frigates" in his list, but does not name them (Clowes vol. 3, p. 127), but I believe that Richmond (The Navy in the War of 1739-48 vol. 3) lists more vessels, including Weazel, Vulcan, and Dolphin. I can't find any way of accessing that source, however. Perhaps you'll be able to do better than me..! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Thanks. Took me a while, but see [2]. Some tweaks made accordingly. Not sure but that Vulcan shouldn't be listed as a fireship. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: As part of my ongoing internet problems I can't actually access IA right now, but I'll take your word for it! Not knowing whether these details tally with what Richmond says, I'll leave them in talk here rather than in the article:

• Winfield records Dolphins's CO from June 1747 as Commander Edward Crickett; the ship had been fitted as a fireship in April, armed with six guns.

Does Winfield record that she was rated to carry six guns? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Pre fireship she was armed, per Winfield, with twenty 6-pounders and had a crew of 120. Then "as a fireship, 55 men, 6 guns and 8 swivels." Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, but the thing is, footnote e: " The number after each ship indicates number of guns it was rated to carry." As we both know, this often didn't match well with the number actually carried. Although the correspondence was better for smaller ships and for this period than later. Hmm. Any thoughts? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

They were ad hoc ships purchased or converted for one purpose only. As such I don't believe there is any set down number of guns for a fireship; more the case of how many they could fit on considering the size of the platform. Winfield notes that in 1714 "the fireship was virtually interchangeable with the 20-gun Sixth Rate", but that clearly changed soon afterwards. In the case of Dolphin, Winfield records her six guns and eight swivels as the armament assigned to her as a fireship, which is probably the closest thing you could get to a rated number of guns. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

• Ibid., Vulcan's CO was Commander William Pettigrew; she had been fitted as a fireship in June 1746. Winfield also notes that while she was described as a frigate she was actually a converted merchant ship and fitted before becoming a fireship as a sloop. Armament not recorded.
• Weazle was a 16-gun sloop. Winfield records her last CO before Finisterre as Samuel Barrington, but he left the ship in May. Weazle's article has Commander John Midwinter in command, but I'll have to leave that one up to you too.

Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

• Three smaller ships added, and some other useful additional detail. Thank you for your help and patience. Still need a source for the Weasel's commander. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

  Happy to help. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)