A short animation of the British victory in the Bay of Aboukir. Nelson defeats a French Fleet, that had helped transport Napoleon and his army to Egypt.
At 3:17 you mention that Foley "noticed that there was a gap". I don't think that that is correct. I read that Foley noticed that the ships were only anchored at the bow, rather than also being anchored at the stern. That would mean the ships would always swing downwind of the anchor as the wind shifted. He concluded that the ships must be anchored with room to swing and if there was room to swing, then there must be room for his ship to pass between the first and the shallows.
Stephen Mafeo (an AMERICAN - whose kith and kin go to great lengths not to say anything good about Britain's military heritage) described Nile as perhaps the most decisive naval engagement in the Age of Sail. Forget Trafalgar, Saintes or Medway; Nile was a total and complete domination; man to man; gun to gun; sail to sail.... complete. Perfect. Flawless.
Amazing how Foley, without taking any soundings, was able to notice there was deep water to the west of the French line. It must have been pretty obvious. The French captain on the left must have been a total idiot. But, even so, Nelson's original strategy would probably have allowed the Brits to defeat the French even without Foley.
Foley did not notice that there was deep water, as suggested at 3:17. What he DID notice was that the French ships were only anchored at the bow, rather than also being anchored at the stern. That would mean the ships would always swing downwind of the anchor as the wind shifted. Foley concluded that the French ships must be anchored with ROOM TO SWING and if there was room to swing, then there must also be room for his ship to pass between the first and the shallows
Question: Did did everyone have officer schools where they studied historical tactics and strategies like this? The sane for the army? All movies I see imply British especially incompetent led by inexperience rich landlords etc. Which nations were better at balancing disciple following orders and adapting as things progressed. Very impressed presentation.😁
What was the name of the ship grounded in the shallows? I believe The exploding of L'Orient resulted in the poem, "The Boy Stood on the Burning Deck" Did Nelson originate the plan, or was it purely by chance that Captain Foley noticed the gap left at the head of the French Line? It was certainly a tactical Victory by the Royal Navy, but it looks like there was an element of good fortune for the British. The quality of seamanship in taking advantage of such an opportunity, was excellent.
Foley did NOT notice that there was a gap of deep water, as suggested at 3:17. What he DID notice was that the French ships were only anchored at the bow, rather than also being anchored at the stern. That would mean the ships would always swing downwind of the anchor as the wind shifted. Foley concluded that the French ships must be anchored with ROOM TO SWING and if there was room to swing, then there must also be room for his ship to pass between the first and the shallows. And it was the Culloden that ran aground...Captain Troubridge.
your info is wrong. the did not just sail behind the French line because of a "hole" they could fit through. the Royal Navy did hydrographical research since the early 17th century and because of that they knew how deep the sea there was. the knew that they could sail around the French on both sides, the French did not know that because of having old seacards.
@@mauricedesaxe1745 the animation is mixed up on a number of levels. Nelson planned for different contingencies in a number of meetings with his ships captains on the way to Egypt, including doubling on the seaward side, and doubling on both sides (as in fact happened) if the enemy dispositions allowed it. Foley sailed behind the French ships because he was confident he would be supported, and that confidence arose from his knowledge of Nelson's intentions in different situations.
That's not how Foley knew. And he did not notice that there was deep water, as suggested at 3:17. What he DID notice was that the French ships were only anchored at the bow, rather than also being anchored at the stern. That would mean the ships would always swing downwind of the anchor as the wind shifted. Foley concluded that the French ships must be anchored with ROOM TO SWING and if there was room to swing, then there must also be ROOM TO PASS his ship between the first and the shallows, and also along that back side.
It was clearly the main and mortal fault of Admiral Brueys. Normally his anchored in line ships would had been a strong fortress wall against Nelson. It´s hardly to understand that such an experienced naval officer placed his ships so far away from the shore. Furthermore the half of french crew was on land, when the battle started, looking for water and food, not able to reach their ships in time anymore. So they had to be the spectators of the downfall.
Excellent Demo bro, thanks! So, we can't blame Napoleon's decision for the campaign of Egypt, but French admiral Brueys! Why did he leave the gap between his fleet & the peninsula ? Shouldn't ships be tied closest to the shore ? His mistake cost his fleet & encouraged enemies for the second coalition! But he showed extraordinary valour refusing to surrender while was severely bleeding, cut almost into 2 halves by a cannonball & his ship L'Orient was on fire ! He died before or when L'Orient exploded ! Salute for the valour !
the Royal Navy did hydrographical research since the early 17th century and because of that they knew how deep the sea there was. the knew that they could sail around the French on both sides, the French did not know that because of having old seacards.
its a great animation but it makes a few errors. 1. Nelson did not plan to sail along the French line. Rather he planned to "double" on the seaward side, i.e. cram his ships in close so that they would have an advantage of 2:1 over each French ship. 2. But Nelson also planned with his captains for various contingencies, one of which was if the French allowed room for doubling on both sides (as happened). 3. For Brueys, closing the gap between his ships and the shore is more complex than it sounds - the less room he leaves behind him, the more danger that his own ships might run aground - ships in this era shifted all the time, as did the sea bottom. 4. The great insight of Capt Foley in Goliath wasn't spotting the gap on the end, but rather realising that there was room to sail and manoeuvre behind the French ships. He saw that the French ships only had a single anchor (forward), which meant they had room to swing, therefore his ship could get in there too. 5. Because Foley knew Nelson's plan, he was confident to sail Goliath behind the French ships knowing the others would support him by hitting the forward French ships from both sides.
The gap was left because the French ships were anchored with a single anchor at the bow. Without a second anchor at the stern, they'd need room to swing, as the wind shifted, without running aground. Foley did NOT notice that there was a gap of deep water, as suggested at 3:17. What he DID notice was that the French ships were only anchored at the bow, and he concluded that they'd need ROOM TO SWING, and if there was room to swing, then there must also be ROOM TO PASS his ship between the first and the shallows. But you're correct...the French should have been anchored fore AND aft, allowing the first French ship to be right against the shallows.
Can someone discuss if this was ever winnable for the French ? Purely counter factual , but there were big flow on impacts from this crushing defeat from their point of view.
They were mostly a continental military power, and never developed great tactics for sea battles. While they won many, many infantry battles, their navy was never as successful.
Omg that is so unfair ..... it was Nelson and the British fleet and Nelson had the odds in his favour by one ship. The French must have known they had no chance.
When you show the animation of the original plan, you show a yellow star indicating exchange of broadsides between the lead British ship and the French ship abeam. But what about the other ships in the line as they align with French ships, why are there not yellow stars along the entire line of battle? And when you show the actual action, as the British ships "cross the T" of the French fleet to get behind them, no yellow stars??? Thats crossing the T on the whole French fleet with four ships in succession, followed by broadside to broadside on both sides of the French lines! Seems like there is a paucity of yellow stars. Also, please show wind direction (makes all the difference!) and when talking about anchoring a fleet in a line, can we see tide direction? Its very relevant! Otherwise great animation! Not criticisms, just suggestions. I love the idea of visual history!
