Michael Gorman on Mon, 13 Dec 2004 00:45:40 -0600 (CST)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

RE: [eia] Napoleonic Naval Site


At 11:28 PM 12/12/2004, you wrote:
I'll insert a little follow-on to Mike's observation regarding the
success of the Royal Navy : Theodore Roosevelt wrote what I think is
still widely held to be the premier analysis of the naval conflict in
the War of 1812.  In it, he notes that during the 20 years preceding
1812 there were over 200 one-on-one battles between a British ship and a
ship of another nationality in which the nominally weakest ship was no
less than half the strength of the more powerful vessel.  (Roosevelt
spent some time developing metrics to assess the relative strength of
warships.)  Roosevelt noted that of those 200 battles over 20 years the
British ship was defeated in only five.  Certainly not all of the others
resulted in the British capturing or destroying their opponent, but
disparity was nevertheless huge.  He goes on to gloat (yes, gloat) that
in 1812 the British subsequently went 0 for 5 against the Americans,
losing three frigates and two sloops.  Say it with me: USA! USA! USA!

Here's Roosevelt's book on Project Gutenberg.  It's good stuff
historically, as well as a very insightful example of how writing
standards have changed over the centuries.

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/9104

Yeah, there are several comments I've seen that when the British went and sent more ships over and started strengthening blockades and defeating some of the American frigates that it was a major psychological comfort for the British who weren't used to hearing about defeats. But even after that I noticed the Constitution and the Wasp featured frequently in British losses throughout the war of 1812.

_______________________________________________
eia mailing list
eia@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia