FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   328   329   330   331   332   333   334   335   336   337   338   339   340   341   342   343   344   345   346   347   348   349   350   351   352  
353   354   355   356   357   358   359   360   361   362   363   364   365   366   367   368   369   370   371   372   373   374   375   376   377   >>   >|  
windward and so attack it on both sides; but the commander of that division, a prince of the blood royal, did not obey, and the possible advantage was lost. On the English side the same manoeuvre was attempted. The admiral of the van and some of his ships tacked, as soon as out of fire (D),[124] and stood after the French rear; but for the most part the damage to rigging prevented tacking, and wearing was impossible on account of the ships coming up behind. The French now stood to leeward and formed line again, but the English were not in condition to attack. This was the end of the battle. It has been said that there are some interesting points about this resultless engagement. One is, that Keppel's conduct was approved throughout, on oath before the court-martial, by one of the most distinguished admirals England has brought forth, Sir John Jervis, who commanded a ship in the fleet. It does not indeed appear what he could have done more; but his lack of tactical understanding is shown by a curious remark in his defence. "If the French admiral really meant to come to action," says he, "I apprehend he would never have put his fleet on the contrary tack to that on which the British fleet was approaching." This remark can only proceed from ignorance or thoughtlessness of the danger to which the rear of the French fleet would have been exposed, and is the more curious as he himself had said the English were lying up for it. Keppel's idea seems to have been that the French should have waited for him to come up abreast, and then go at it, ship for ship, in what was to him the good old style; D'Orvilliers was too highly trained to be capable of such action. The failure of the Duc de Chartres,[125] commanding the French van during the firing, to wear in obedience to orders, whether due to misunderstanding or misconduct, raises the question, which is still debated, as to the proper position for a naval commander-in-chief in action. Had D'Orvilliers been in the van, he could have insured the evolution he wished. From the centre the admiral has the extremities of his fleet equally visible, or invisible, as it may be. At the head he enforces his orders by his example. The French toward the end of this war solved the question by taking him out of the line altogether and putting him on board a frigate, for the avowed reasons that he could thus better see the movements of his fleet and of the enemy without being blinded by smok
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   328   329   330   331   332   333   334   335   336   337   338   339   340   341   342   343   344   345   346   347   348   349   350   351   352  
353   354   355   356   357   358   359   360   361   362   363   364   365   366   367   368   369   370   371   372   373   374   375   376   377   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

French

 

admiral

 

action

 
English
 
question
 

orders

 
Orvilliers
 

curious

 

Keppel

 

remark


attack
 

commander

 

trained

 

capable

 

failure

 
Chartres
 

obedience

 

misunderstanding

 

firing

 
highly

commanding

 
exposed
 

ignorance

 

thoughtlessness

 

danger

 

waited

 

misconduct

 
abreast
 

debated

 

altogether


putting

 

frigate

 

taking

 

solved

 

avowed

 

reasons

 

blinded

 

movements

 

enforces

 

insured


position

 

proper

 

windward

 

evolution

 

wished

 

invisible

 
visible
 

equally

 

centre

 

extremities