I had the grand honor to visit her a while back. I'm from the states and I'm ever so envy of you who live near by to visit anytime. I also built this magnificent ship in 1:180 scale. God bless you and our alliance England.
I'm lucky enough to live one hour away from Portsmouth. What a fantastic place! Thank you your kind words. Most of us Brits still know what the USA did for us in WW2. We had Hitler and Stalin to the East, and God knows what would have happened without our allies. Cheers, mate!
I lived in Gosport, just across the water from her for 21 years with a 12 year return to live in Gosport, before moving away again, you can take the girl out of Gosport, but you can't take Gosport out the girl, love to you from the UK, glad you enjoyed your visit to see her, we all love her!
Oh don't forget, in calm seas they could open the hatches on the bottom gun deck and add another 15+ guns to the broadside. How to dismantle a ship in 5 seconds :D
congrats on the achievement. it takes a real genius to get guns that old to look that effective and still not damage the surrounding wood in the gunports
Well, not really, faster and more wieldly ships are why Britain managed to control so much of the world so well, this mostly did nothing but look cool and scare people.
Kallum Brookes Parden? Are you implying the fucking first rate of the line was the reason Britain was the most powerful navy? Everyone had first rates, Britain was smart in building lots more of slightly weaker but faster ships.
Roflcopter4b No i mean the pure intimidation factor, The person with the smallest stick usually doesn't attempt to pick a fight with someone with a huge stick. Even tho the bigger stick is harder to wave! In this case the Royal Navy had the big stick!
Years later the old girl is still beautiful. Hopefully the engineers can sort out the problems that are threatening to destroy our national treasure. May HMS Victory be here years from now as a symbol of our freedom.
Given the time period I would hate to be a gunner on a ship opposite that. Nelson's gunnery crews were among the best in the world and his tactics still stand, It is a shame he didn't survive Trafalgar...
@ironfist7747 The ship actually being in the water kept the cannons from falling through the floor, 200 years later and now its in a dry dock. fill it with real cannons and they will go straight through the floor :). there are only like 6 real cannons left on it and they have to be shifted around the ship every now and then.
At the time of Trafalgar her 42 pound bronze guns had been replaced by the standard 32 pound guns which all 74 gun and above warships carried on the lower gun deck.
There are only a few real guns left aboard, sadly the hull is not strong enough to stand the weight of its own guns, so what you see is fiberglass replicas with blank charges mounted outside the muzzles. The heaviest guns it carried were the Bronze 42 pd that weighed several tons each.
If all the broadside cannon of an early 18th century first-rate ship (100 guns or more) were fired simultaneously, the devastating force of the combined blast would cause more recoil than the ship could handle. Because of this, broadside cannon would fire ‘on the roll’, one gun from each deck firing at the same time in a chain of fire along the length of the broadside.
Some seriously odd comments here. An ordinary blank charge of gunpowder (that is a charge without ball) would still risk serious damage to the guns. And possible danger to the crews and watching public. I think what was being intended here was to give folks an idea as to whata rolling broadside would have been like (and yes the lower gundeck was not brought to action). I think they achieved that extremely well and again proved that, like Broke on the Shannon, the victory went to he who regularly practised with the long guns. Nelson knew the vital combined French/Spanish weakness. Their ships may have looked spectacular but they couldn't shoot straight.
El Trinidad en 2 andanadas dejo al Victory a la deriba y al pobre Nelson, como palomo al plato: lo peor de todo, fue, donde Terminaro Mujer e hija del pobre Nelson.
technically its better to shoot few at a time over a longer time period rather than all at once, you can correct for aim as you go, rather than losing the entire broadside cycle in one bad miss etc
@TheOneWingedAngel12 Can tell you one thing...if the museum ship Victory was stationed in America, we would've use live ammo, SOLID SHOT, bitches! Nelson wouldn't have had it any other way, I think.
@3Slim3Shady3 hmmm ... not sure about that but probably not the risk is too great of damage to the ship and people nearby if they explode ... makes sense.
@stevethegecko yup, the Santisima Trinidad was pritty large. I've read reports that the ship was able to hold up to 144 guns after she was rebiult in 1802-03
I'm sure the guns were loaded with a safe pyrotechnic charge rather than their 18th/19th Century black powder. And no ball or shot to boost internal barrel pressure, since there's absolutely no way to tell if those old iron castings are still sound. Even when new muzzle loaders of that era were prone to bursting.
@Rostokouban Victory was heavily damaged by the French ship (and I beleive by another vessel as well), but was not nearly taken. She was almost raked by another ship, which is where Temerire (terrible spelling, I know) came in. Had the Victory been disabled, the British still had victory (haha...) in the bag, and she never would have passed hands. Her captors wouldn't have gotten anywhere.
The cannons may although I would not risk it. but Victories timbers are hundreds of years old and would not take that especialy if you fired her lower gundeck cannon.
@mahoca That doesn't make Victory a better ship. The battle proved that Nelson was a better leader, but the battle doesn't prove that either ship was better. The Santisima got caught in the middle of the batte - boxed in my her own allies - that made her an open target for the quicker British ships who were able to avoid her powerful broadside. Now, if I had to pick a ship - one on one - I'd pick the Santisima in a heart beat. She may take a beating, but if she could lock in, it would be over
yeah... i wish they could man the ship with proper crew, take it out to see, and have it do live fire on targets, THAT would be fucking impressive, and worthy of this ship
That's odd , I have read that they had to remove the guns off Victory due to the weight . And the ones on the ship were now fiberglass copies , the real one were on the quay along side .
LordGeorgeRodney BTW, John Kendrick served in the US Revolution *in the navy* and was later killed far after the war by British royal navy artillery, who sent them running and killed many of them and then claimed they were trying to ''salute them'' LOL. How do you accidently wipe out entire masses of U.S. sailors? British were getting some tasty revenge. I can imagine the smiles on the officer's faces when preparing to fire thinking ''Let's teach these Yankee boys a lesson! Beat to quarters and prepare to fire grapeshot!'' and the Americans getting blasted and sliding dead across the deck.
Centuries of defending their country from the sea, land, and air...Only to let the enemy inside the gates...Broadside the radical Islamic Muslims from their shores..
Well, the cannons were not firing. They strapped fireworks to the cannon and fired those off. So it took days to add them, safely, set up the electronics, etc. In battle there would be 300 crew men, with maybe 5 men per cannon or something.
I've read that hms victory has been almost taken by "le redoutable"(74 guns) in trafalgar battle... She survived becaus of hms temeraire rescue...is that true?
+Neon Racer No, Man O War or Man of War is a ship in service of the Royal Navy. Line ships mostly, from brigs/corvette's to 1st rate's. That Man O War bit is the inaccuracy of AC IV
+Jisk van der Veen Man o' War is just a general term meaning any cannon-armed and square rigged warship, anything from a frigate to a 1st rate could be called a Man o' War
+Jisk van der Veen sorry, but ships of other navys were also reffered to as Men of War. A better term for AC would be Ship of the line (A ship that was meant to fight in the line of battle, usually nothing under a '74')
+US Marine Rifleman You know, it may not be afloat (they don't want to risk an old ship to sail and be damaged), but it surely saw more action, and played a more vital role in early modern history than the USS Constitution.
+US Marine Rifleman Not right away, but in the long term it was equally fatal for Napoleon as the battle of Borodino, seven, or the battle of Waterloo, ten years laters. He (Napoleon) gave up his plan to invade Britain, so England could support the continental nations with money, and maintain its continental blockade.
Ferenc Nedelov It had no direct impact whatsoever on warring on the continent. First the Austrians and Russians got their asses kicked in 1805, and then the Prussia in 1807, followed by the Spaniards. Napoleon did as he pleased. Regardless of Trafalgar. If you totally exclude Wellington's contributions in Spain, the outcome of the war does not change in 1814. They had virtually no impact at all. The Spaniards and the Portuguese would've expelled the French out of their lands on their own without British help and secondly, neither of the three ever made it to the gates of Paris.
+US Marine Rifleman As you wrote, it merely had impact on warring on the continent but for Great Britain it had a great importance because after the battle the French fleet could never recover, thus Britain became the only major naval power in Europe. England could never deploy a major army, they rather relied on their economic base. Napoleon’s embargo against the British meant nothing because they had colonies all over the world. England sent money to his allies to support their fight against the French. For example, only for the Russian Empire, they gave £1,500,000, which is today equivalent to £273,000,000, for every 100,000 soldiers they fielded. And it was only one nation! They acted similarly to the USA in WW2, when they enacted the Lend-Lease. Without their help it is questionable whether the USSR could have stopped the advance of the German Wehrmacht. What you said about Napoleon that he ‘did as he pleased’, is partly true. At one point, every major countries’ rulers were the members of his family or his relatives due to his marriage with Marie Louise. But you also shouldn’t forget that his ‘greatest years’ as an emperor lasted only for a few years (ca. 1805-1809). His conquests were enormous, the victories glorious and they made the illusion that he was undefeatable; but behind the scenes his empire was already crumbling. The economy couldn’t keep up with the constant wars and corruption also became an increasingly big issue. However, the biggest problem was the high death toll of soldiers in the battles and the incompatibility of many of his generals (Spain). In 1813, there were as young soldiers as 12 years old, therefore, they were referred to as ‘Marie Louise Soldiers’. Their morale could not match the morale of Blücher’s or Benningsen’s soldiers, who didn’t suffer such great casualties in the disastrous 1812 campaign. He was forced to abdicate first in 1814 and ultimately in 1815. But nowadays Napoleon is more known as the person who sped up the emergence of nationalism in Europe, thus creating the united Germany or Italy, not to mention the creation of his ‘Code civil des Francais’, what is still the base of many Civil codes in the world. Calling Wellington’s contribution in the Peninsular War, ‘totally excludable’ is a great mistake. In 1814, the war surely didn’t depend on them but you forget that the Napoleonic Wars lasted more than a decade, the Peninsular War ca. 7 years, in which the events of single years didn’t determine the result of the whole war. In 1807-08 the French occupied the Iberian Peninsula so fast, that the Spanish Royal Army was paralyzed. It was under-equipped and the only armies that were somewhat strong, were based in Andalusia and Galicia. After the riots in 1808 it seemed that the French could be expelled, even the British sent a small army (containing ca. 15,000 soldiers) to help the Spanish but then came Napoleon. In merely two months (December 1808-January 1809), he repelled the Spanish-British advance all the way back to Corunna, Portugal, where even the British general Sir John Moore died. But in May 1809, when Napoleon was already not in Spain, Wellesley returned to Portugal, with an even bigger British army. The Spaniard and the Portuguese surely would have been able to expel the French, without the British, but it would have taken a lot longer. Like WW2 in Europe without D-Day. The USSR was already strong enough to destroy the remaining German resistance. The British army gave supplies and helped in the training of the Guerillas, in return they were provided with constant information about of the French forces. The reason, why this campaign played a vital role in the defeat of Napoleon was because the emperor had to send more and more soldiers to fight on the central plateau of the Iberian Peninsula, later at the Pyrenees. The size of the French army quickly grew from 25,000 soldiers in 1807, to 305,000 by the end of 1809, what contained also most of the veteran well trained soldiers, as well as a significant number of soldiers from the Imperial Guard. Now imagine what would have happened in 1812, at the Battle of Borodino. It might have not been a very close French victory, but such a defeat for the Russians, after what they immediately surrender. Or at the Battle of Leipzig, where instead of 200,000, 420,000 soldiers would have faced the 380,000 soldiers strong army of the coalition. It surely wouldn’t have been a defeat, what directly would have led to the Campaign of 1814, and the abdication of Napoleon, but a victory after what the sixth coalition would have been crushed as before. Instead of this, in 1814 Wellington already sieged the French town of Toulouse. In my opinion it proves that it was a bit more than a skippable episode. It is like if you would say that the Russian attack on Germany in WW1 in the East had no impact on the German attack at the French border. In the end you mentioned that none of the three countries (Great Britain, Spain, Portugal) have entered Paris with an army during the Napoleonic Wars. In fact, after the Battle of Waterloo the British army was the first to enter the city and they stayed there for three years, until they were pulled out in 1818. By the way, I don’t know why it is important which nation’s army entered Paris. I don’t think it decreases their merit in the war. The US army also didn’t make it to Berlin in WW2 before the German surrender but ‘surprisingly’ nobody says that they contributed less to the victory in Europe just because the army of USSR was the first to enter and later capture it.
I had the grand honor to visit her a while back. I'm from the states and I'm ever so envy of you who live near by to visit anytime. I also built this magnificent ship in 1:180 scale. God bless you and our alliance England.
I'm lucky enough to live one hour away from Portsmouth. What a fantastic place! Thank you your kind words. Most of us Brits still know what the USA did for us in WW2. We had Hitler and Stalin to the East, and God knows what would have happened without our allies. Cheers, mate!
I lived in Gosport, just across the water from her for 21 years with a 12 year return to live in Gosport, before moving away again, you can take the girl out of Gosport, but you can't take Gosport out the girl, love to you from the UK, glad you enjoyed your visit to see her, we all love her!
If Nelson could see the state of this country today he wouldn't have bothered.
Now imagine this amazingness during full battle mode, 2-300 years ago! :D
They did not have the technology back then😝
Oh don't forget, in calm seas they could open the hatches on the bottom gun deck and add another 15+ guns to the broadside.
How to dismantle a ship in 5 seconds :D
congrats on the achievement. it takes a real genius to get guns that old to look that effective and still not damage the surrounding wood in the gunports
And that lady's and Gentlemen, is why Britannia ruled the waves!
Well, not really, faster and more wieldly ships are why Britain managed to control so much of the world so well, this mostly did nothing but look cool and scare people.
Facepalm!
Kallum Brookes Parden? Are you implying the fucking first rate of the line was the reason Britain was the most powerful navy? Everyone had first rates, Britain was smart in building lots more of slightly weaker but faster ships.
Roflcopter4b
No i mean the pure intimidation factor, The person with the smallest stick usually doesn't attempt to pick a fight with someone with a huge stick. Even tho the bigger stick is harder to wave! In this case the Royal Navy had the big stick!
Thats what i said, Ruled.
Just when the french think it's over..14 more guns fire.
That’s a beautiful sound to my ears & the ship is a beautiful ship, long live the Victory
Years later the old girl is still beautiful.
Hopefully the engineers can sort out the problems that are threatening to destroy our national treasure.
May HMS Victory be here years from now as a symbol of our freedom.
Given the time period I would hate to be a gunner on a ship opposite that. Nelson's gunnery crews were among the best in the world and his tactics still stand, It is a shame he didn't survive Trafalgar...
From your Yankee cousins- AWESOME!!! All Hail Britannia!!!
Wooooow, Great, must visit that ship sometime....
Love the car alarms going off. Great stuff.
@ironfist7747 The ship actually being in the water kept the cannons from falling through the floor, 200 years later and now its in a dry dock. fill it with real cannons and they will go straight through the floor :). there are only like 6 real cannons left on it and they have to be shifted around the ship every now and then.
Awesome filming and sounds of cannon rolling broadside
At the time of Trafalgar her 42 pound bronze guns had been replaced by the standard 32 pound guns which all 74 gun and above warships carried on the lower gun deck.
simplemente belleza de barcos. Saludos
That is a magnificent ship.
Well HMS Victory is a fine ship, and for the video. It looks good
Aye I agree to send her to Somali Africa to deal with some pirates and also Indonesia
And that's how you sunk my battleship!
feels like empire total war all over again
There are only a few real guns left aboard, sadly the hull is not strong enough to stand the weight of its own guns, so what you see is fiberglass replicas with blank charges mounted outside the muzzles. The heaviest guns it carried were the Bronze 42 pd that weighed several tons each.
Theoretically they could fire all at once (this is a demo) is everyone could hear the order across several decks...
HMS Victory, the epitome of sea power.
If all the broadside cannon of an early 18th century first-rate ship (100 guns or more) were fired simultaneously, the devastating force of the combined blast would cause more recoil than the ship could handle. Because of this, broadside cannon would fire ‘on the roll’, one gun from each deck firing at the same time in a chain of fire along the length of the broadside.
Massive firepower !!
It was 40 years old at Trafalgar,hardly "cutting edge".
Some seriously odd comments here. An ordinary blank charge of gunpowder (that is a charge without ball) would still risk serious damage to the guns. And possible danger to the crews and watching public. I think what was being intended here was to give folks an idea as to whata rolling broadside would have been like (and yes the lower gundeck was not brought to action). I think they achieved that extremely well and again proved that, like Broke on the Shannon, the victory went to he who regularly practised with the long guns. Nelson knew the vital combined French/Spanish weakness. Their ships may have looked spectacular but they couldn't shoot straight.
actually the HMS Victory had 4 gun decks including the Quarter deck and she actually had 104 cannons.
she is a 104 guns 1st rate ship of the line.
Swivel guns, chasers and the like are not counted in the official amount of guns
+Nuclearjasper 112 gun ship. 53 each side, 4 bow chasers and 2 stern chasers
imagine back in the 18th century how scary it must have been to be shot by the hms victory on broadside shit i think id shit myself
@3Slim3Shady3 Because the guns are VERY old .... this is symbolic.
RIP headphone users
I agree
Awesome!
@FinalFreek na the rope wouldnt snap, but a ship in dry dock wont be able handle the kick back of its guns
WOW!!
There was no need to fire smoke upwards. It detracts from the spectacle. It hides the cannon fire.
i love that "Bring on the French"
I hope they do this again some day
I would NOT like to be on the receiving end of one of those in reality!
Would have liked to see a simultaneous broadside - even with reduced charge it would probably set off car alarms for miles around.
The Santisima trinidad had 140 guns on four decks, but rest under the sea xD
But Victory had bigger cannons 🤷♂️
El Trinidad en 2 andanadas dejo al Victory a la deriba y al pobre Nelson, como palomo al plato: lo peor de todo, fue, donde Terminaro Mujer e hija del pobre Nelson.
Si, gracias al traidor y cobarde villenueve.. Lo mas bonito de todo fue, como se apropiaron de la economía inglesa tras la batalla de Waterlo. 🙈
technically its better to shoot few at a time over a longer time period rather than all at once,
you can correct for aim as you go, rather than losing the entire broadside cycle in one bad miss etc
33 French and Spanish sailors disliked this broadside.
Absolutely bloody brilliant. 😎🇦🇺
@TheOneWingedAngel12 Can tell you one thing...if the museum ship Victory was stationed in America, we would've use live ammo, SOLID SHOT, bitches! Nelson wouldn't have had it any other way, I think.
@shabbypants54 yea, i would like to see it
@3Slim3Shady3 :-) Still, Slim, it makes for great show! Be well.
@3Slim3Shady3 hmmm ... not sure about that but probably not the risk is too great of damage to the ship and people nearby if they explode ... makes sense.
It'd be incredible if the Victory could/would sail again :)
@stevethegecko yup, the Santisima Trinidad was pritty large. I've read reports that the ship was able to hold up to 144 guns after she was rebiult in 1802-03
Not a complete broadside
You'll note the lower Gun Deck was not involved
Non of the cannons were. That's just poxy little tubes, imagine the real deal.
Lower gun decks were rarely used unless the water was absolute glass, wash could easily get in.
imagine : the british dont capture it from the pirate fleet from trafalgar
@mesmerizeme Wrong, I've been on her twice as she's in my home town and they're deffinately NOT plastic.
I'm sure the guns were loaded with a safe pyrotechnic charge rather than their 18th/19th Century black powder. And no ball or shot to boost internal barrel pressure, since there's absolutely no way to tell if those old iron castings are still sound. Even when new muzzle loaders of that era were prone to bursting.
All these guns are plastic. Its because the ship is in dry dock. Saying that it would have been cool to watch. It just gives you an idea.
@Rostokouban
Victory was heavily damaged by the French ship (and I beleive by another vessel as well), but was not nearly taken. She was almost raked by another ship, which is where Temerire (terrible spelling, I know) came in. Had the Victory been disabled, the British still had victory (haha...) in the bag, and she never would have passed hands. Her captors wouldn't have gotten anywhere.
Was this when Nelson died?
Yeah
MrSquishedsquashed he died by a ram fire
where do I find this exact version of Rule Britannia???
@shabbypants54 but there cast iron surely they can withstand another shot
The cannons may although I would not risk it. but Victories timbers are hundreds of years old and would not take that especialy if you fired her lower gundeck cannon.
this is PHONY BROADSIDE! the cannons werent actually fired..
Really!
So it's not 1805 ? Stupid internet brought me here, it's easy to get lost in time on the internet.
Of course not, they would be recoiling so hard back in.
EFC1878 GP Haha
EFC1878 GP
yeah genius, They're using blanks, that's why you hear more pop
Paul Walker theyre not even firing blanks... its a little firecracker strapped to the cannon
@mahoca That doesn't make Victory a better ship. The battle proved that Nelson was a better leader, but the battle doesn't prove that either ship was better. The Santisima got caught in the middle of the batte - boxed in my her own allies - that made her an open target for the quicker British ships who were able to avoid her powerful broadside. Now, if I had to pick a ship - one on one - I'd pick the Santisima in a heart beat. She may take a beating, but if she could lock in, it would be over
One day in the future go see the hms victory in person
If they fired live shot, mwa ha ha! Goodbye Portsmouth! Surprise shelling!
yeah... i wish they could man the ship with proper crew, take it out to see, and have it do live fire on targets, THAT would be fucking impressive, and worthy of this ship
ty that i am not this ships enemy :D
That's odd , I have read that they had to remove the guns off Victory due to the weight . And the ones on the ship were now fiberglass copies , the real one were on the quay along side .
+welshpete12 As you can see the guns aren't actually firing, instead it's fireworks mounted to the side of the cannons.
Hmm, i was onboard the HMS Victory in 1994. I saw the realcannons. Definitly not fibre glas.
Yah I saw her too, those things are steel. There are even a dozen or so originals from Trafalgar.
Well, bronze actually, but I get your point.
No, the original ones where made of cast iron
well god damn !!
@shabbypants54 yea, probably.
It's apity they felt the need to add extra smoke from below......
the smoke was to simulater her lower gundeck
@MrCagivaman I am indeed.
They should coincide this with a Spitfire squadron fly by.
LordGeorgeRodney BTW, John Kendrick served in the US Revolution *in the navy* and was later killed far after the war by British royal navy artillery, who sent them running and killed many of them and then claimed they were trying to ''salute them'' LOL. How do you accidently wipe out entire masses of U.S. sailors? British were getting some tasty revenge. I can imagine the smiles on the officer's faces when preparing to fire thinking ''Let's teach these Yankee boys a lesson! Beat to quarters and prepare to fire grapeshot!'' and the Americans getting blasted and sliding dead across the deck.
@TheOneWingedAngel12 American music?! I don't get you.
@TheOneWingedAngel12 Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.... ;)
song at start? 😂
a full broadside wouldn't capsize a ship , many ships have fired full broadsides before and not capsized
Centuries of defending their country from the sea, land, and air...Only to let the enemy inside the gates...Broadside the radical Islamic Muslims from their shores..
these is a ship man o war on 1712 this is HMS Drake
Nice English bro
Britain
@yakchirscarlson this may be the case but victory took on Santisima Trinidad in battle of trafalgar and won shame nelson died during it
"3 days of preparation" !!??? That would have been nogood at trafalgar! :-)
+sparky16661 well, they had to add the pipes to the guns. this will take some time ; )
+Talhalarasha
Yes, but the royal navy could fire and reload in under a minute in their day - that's why they were the most feared fleet on earth..
Well, the cannons were not firing. They strapped fireworks to the cannon and fired those off. So it took days to add them, safely, set up the electronics, etc. In battle there would be 300 crew men, with maybe 5 men per cannon or something.
I've read that hms victory has been almost taken by "le redoutable"(74 guns) in trafalgar battle... She survived becaus of hms temeraire rescue...is that true?
@Potatonaught have an avocado.
@edj66 on hms victory only 5 of the cannons are real
Guau
would you put live powder in those 100+ year old guns and fire them or use pryo to do it.
The guns would be fine. The 200 yo timbers of the Victory, not so much.
@Ralastar no we would not
If you can get me another copy of HMS Victory with proper cannons and gunpowder and shot, I'm sure I'll le your comment have some merit.
is not the battle of Trafalga,is the battle of Trafagar
You spelled Trafalgar without the R...
No cannon were fired in the making of this video.
@thugugbob Oh dear. I bet your disappointed ????
A puny fireworks for tourists. For real volley of naval guns 17 - 19 century, it is irrelevant.
and just think, thats not even a full broadside...
She mounted 104 guns
The actual guns did not fire, they had explosive tubes on the sides of them.. Such a shame.
Gå til 2:10.. For at høre en Rullende Bredside...
its a freaking ''MAN o WAR'' / MAN of WAR
+Neon Racer No, Man O War or Man of War is a ship in service of the Royal Navy. Line ships mostly, from brigs/corvette's to 1st rate's. That Man O War bit is the inaccuracy of AC IV
+Jisk van der Veen Man o' War is just a general term meaning any cannon-armed and square rigged warship, anything from a frigate to a 1st rate could be called a Man o' War
***** Mostly a ship in service of the royal navy, yes. But not always only a first rate, that is my point.
+Jisk van der Veen sorry, but ships of other navys were also reffered to as Men of War.
A better term for AC would be Ship of the line (A ship that was meant to fight in the line of battle, usually nothing under a '74')
Nuclearjasper That's exactly what I'm saying, I hate it when people use Man of War for a ship of the line, that's just wrong AC IV logic.
@ironfist7747 yeah there just fake pyrotechnicks
That makes me sad and sad 😭 when you die people 👮👮👮👮👮👮👮👮 I'm calling the police 👮 now
A ship of the line firing in dry dock? How weak...
+US Marine Rifleman You know, it may not be afloat (they don't want to risk an old ship to sail and be damaged), but it surely saw more action, and played a more vital role in early modern history than the USS Constitution.
Ferenc Nedelov Much good it did. A victory at Trafalgar didnt save the Austrians nor the Russians, now did it?
+US Marine Rifleman Not right away, but in the long term it was equally fatal for Napoleon as the battle of Borodino, seven, or the battle of Waterloo, ten years laters. He (Napoleon) gave up his plan to invade Britain, so England could support the continental nations with money, and maintain its continental blockade.
Ferenc Nedelov It had no direct impact whatsoever on warring on the continent. First the Austrians and Russians got their asses kicked in 1805, and then the Prussia in 1807, followed by the Spaniards. Napoleon did as he pleased. Regardless of Trafalgar. If you totally exclude Wellington's contributions in Spain, the outcome of the war does not change in 1814. They had virtually no impact at all. The Spaniards and the Portuguese would've expelled the French out of their lands on their own without British help and secondly, neither of the three ever made it to the gates of Paris.
+US Marine Rifleman As you wrote, it merely had impact on warring on the continent but for Great Britain it had a great importance because after the battle the French fleet could never recover, thus Britain became the only major naval power in Europe. England could never deploy a major army, they rather relied on their economic base. Napoleon’s embargo against the British meant nothing because they had colonies all over the world. England sent money to his allies to support their fight against the French. For example, only for the Russian Empire, they gave £1,500,000, which is today equivalent to £273,000,000, for every 100,000 soldiers they fielded. And it was only one nation! They acted similarly to the USA in WW2, when they enacted the Lend-Lease. Without their help it is questionable whether the USSR could have stopped the advance of the German Wehrmacht.
What you said about Napoleon that he ‘did as he pleased’, is partly true. At one point, every major countries’ rulers were the members of his family or his relatives due to his marriage with Marie Louise. But you also shouldn’t forget that his ‘greatest years’ as an emperor lasted only for a few years (ca. 1805-1809). His conquests were enormous, the victories glorious and they made the illusion that he was undefeatable; but behind the scenes his empire was already crumbling. The economy couldn’t keep up with the constant wars and corruption also became an increasingly big issue. However, the biggest problem was the high death toll of soldiers in the battles and the incompatibility of many of his generals (Spain). In 1813, there were as young soldiers as 12 years old, therefore, they were referred to as ‘Marie Louise Soldiers’. Their morale could not match the morale of Blücher’s or Benningsen’s soldiers, who didn’t suffer such great casualties in the disastrous 1812 campaign. He was forced to abdicate first in 1814 and ultimately in 1815. But nowadays Napoleon is more known as the person who sped up the emergence of nationalism in Europe, thus creating the united Germany or Italy, not to mention the creation of his ‘Code civil des Francais’, what is still the base of many Civil codes in the world.
Calling Wellington’s contribution in the Peninsular War, ‘totally excludable’ is a great mistake. In 1814, the war surely didn’t depend on them but you forget that the Napoleonic Wars lasted more than a decade, the Peninsular War ca. 7 years, in which the events of single years didn’t determine the result of the whole war. In 1807-08 the French occupied the Iberian Peninsula so fast, that the Spanish Royal Army was paralyzed. It was under-equipped and the only armies that were somewhat strong, were based in Andalusia and Galicia. After the riots in 1808 it seemed that the French could be expelled, even the British sent a small army (containing ca. 15,000 soldiers) to help the Spanish but then came Napoleon. In merely two months (December 1808-January 1809), he repelled the Spanish-British advance all the way back to Corunna, Portugal, where even the British general Sir John Moore died. But in May 1809, when Napoleon was already not in Spain, Wellesley returned to Portugal, with an even bigger British army. The Spaniard and the Portuguese surely would have been able to expel the French, without the British, but it would have taken a lot longer. Like WW2 in Europe without D-Day. The USSR was already strong enough to destroy the remaining German resistance. The British army gave supplies and helped in the training of the Guerillas, in return they were provided with constant information about of the French forces. The reason, why this campaign played a vital role in the defeat of Napoleon was because the emperor had to send more and more soldiers to fight on the central plateau of the Iberian Peninsula, later at the Pyrenees. The size of the French army quickly grew from 25,000 soldiers in 1807, to 305,000 by the end of 1809, what contained also most of the veteran well trained soldiers, as well as a significant number of soldiers from the Imperial Guard. Now imagine what would have happened in 1812, at the Battle of Borodino. It might have not been a very close French victory, but such a defeat for the Russians, after what they immediately surrender. Or at the Battle of Leipzig, where instead of 200,000, 420,000 soldiers would have faced the 380,000 soldiers strong army of the coalition. It surely wouldn’t have been a defeat, what directly would have led to the Campaign of 1814, and the abdication of Napoleon, but a victory after what the sixth coalition would have been crushed as before. Instead of this, in 1814 Wellington already sieged the French town of Toulouse. In my opinion it proves that it was a bit more than a skippable episode. It is like if you would say that the Russian attack on Germany in WW1 in the East had no impact on the German attack at the French border.
In the end you mentioned that none of the three countries (Great Britain, Spain, Portugal) have entered Paris with an army during the Napoleonic Wars. In fact, after the Battle of Waterloo the British army was the first to enter the city and they stayed there for three years, until they were pulled out in 1818. By the way, I don’t know why it is important which nation’s army entered Paris. I don’t think it decreases their merit in the war. The US army also didn’t make it to Berlin in WW2 before the German surrender but ‘surprisingly’ nobody says that they contributed less to the victory in Europe just because the army of USSR was the first to enter and later capture it.