Talk:Battle of the Saintes

Untitled

A description of this battle is also in HMS Fame (1759) that was taken from HMS Fame Seano1 20:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Casualties

Who keeps tampering with the casualties and then not providing a source? The French suffered considerably more than what has been advertised (Nathan Miller) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.107.123 (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Shifting commanders

Bit of a headache here over the commanders of the British fleet owing to the death of William Bayne (Royal Navy officer) in the first clash on 9 April. According to Winfield's British Warships in the Age of Sail, Thomas Dumaresq was transferred in to take Bayne's place and served as Alfred's captain at the Saintes and thereafter. Dumaresq was at this time captain of Repulse, so if Winfield is correct, Dumaresq could not have been on two ships at once. Marley's Wars of the Americas (a work I am inclined not really to take at face value without some double checking) has a different order of battle. According to Marley:

• Repulse is commanded by Charrington, formerly of the Ajax
• Ajax is commanded by Fanshaw(e?), formerly of the Namur
• Namur is commanded by a Cranston Inglis (possibly Charles Inglis (c. 1731–1791), and if so formerly of St Albans)
• St Albans is commanded by Cornwallis, formerly of the Canada
• Canada is commanded by a 'Thomas Dumarest' (presumably Dumaresq), formerly of the Repulse

And to tie it off, Alfred apparently has no commander. (She most certainly would have, even if the first-lieutenant or another officer had temporarily served as acting commander).

Other differences in Marley:

• Van
  • Drake's flagship is now the Marlborough rather than the Princessa.
  • Knatchbull is still commander of Princessa and apparently still a 'flag captain' despite the absence of a flag officer
• Centre
  • The differences are described above, the remaining ships are in agreement with our order of battle.
• Rear
  • Hood's flagship is now the Prince William rather than the Barfleur.
  • Knight is still commander of Barfleur and apparently still a 'flag captain' despite the absence of a flag officer. Barfleur is referred to as the 'vice-flagship', despite not having Hood aboard.
  • Alfred with no commander, as before.

Marley specifically states the order of battle as on 12 April. We define the battle, quite possibly wrongly, as spanning two clashes, one on the 9 April and one on the 12 April, when really it is only the latter engagement that is really considered the 'Battle of the Saintes', the other a mere unnamed preliminary clash of the fleets. It may be that in reporting the order of battle we are using the order for the 9 April clash, at least when it comes to the commanders, which may explain the differences. Rodney certainly does not distinguish between the two in his despatch (he also mentions James Cranstoun, 8th Lord Cranstoun as one of the captains of his flagship Formidable though he doesn't appear in Rodney's despatch, and may be there as a volunteer). It could be that between the two engagements, some reshuffling of the captains and the admirals took place, though not necessarily precisely as Marley has it. My queries are: 1) Does anyone have any further evidence or sources that may bring some clarity? 2) Does anyone have any evidence that the 'Battle of the Saintes' really spans both the 9th and 12th April clashes, rather than two separate engagements by the fleet with an intervening pursuit? If not I propose this distinction be made much clearer in the article. Benea (talk) 10:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

A brief survey of sources (primarily through Google Books) shows that most historians use "Saintes" to refer to the action on the 12th alone, although there are some that include the leading action on the 9th and the intervening maneuvers under that moniker. I have no specific commentary on the commander issue, but concur with your assessment of Marley: he's generally approximately correct, but can be wrong (perhaps "incompletely researched" is a more charitable assessment) in details. Magic♪piano 13:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Expansion

This article needed expanding and so I have done just that. The argument over the Breaking of the Line however will never be answered and can only come from speculation. Shire Lord 20:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is woefully lacking in any details of the French side of the battle

This article is woefully lacking in any details of the French side of the battle. Almost the entire French Order of Battle is empty, and some of the information is faulty. By contrast, the French Wikipedia https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataille_des_Saintes has a lot of information (though again, some faulty) which could be easily ported over by a Wikipedia guru. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferreiro (talk • contribs) 02:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Due-Weight and misleading info-box

Like the info-box in the Battle of the Mona Passage article, the info-box here is misleading, as it only indicates that this battle was part of the ARW and nothing else. The info-box needs to specify the primary theme of this battle or we will be dealing with a serious due weight issue here also. I'll give others the chance to remedy this issue, otherwise the article will call for a Due-Weight and NPOV tag. For now the tag will suffice. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Anyone? Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I feel sorta' the same way at this point. Is it really asking too much that we indicate in the info-box what this naval battle, second(?) in magnitude only to the Battle of Trafalgar, perhaps, was 'also' central to the British-French struggle for naval dominance in the lucrative West Indies? We don't have to say it was part of the Anglo-French wars, but we need to say something, along with "part of" the ARW, in the info-box. It would seem someone who is as proud as you seem to be about British naval history would be up front about indicating that this historic cornerstone naval battle was much more than just a remote "part of" the ARW. e.g. 'On going naval Caribbean conflicts between Britain and France'? There are plenty of sources that would support that premise. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Is it really frustrating for you that this battle is part of the AWR? When not one single source says (or argues) that it isn't part of anything else. Eastfarthingan (talk) 09:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

As I've acknowledged before, this battle is related to the ARW in terms of the peace talks, as the sources say. None of them, however, take the idea any further than that. As such it's a bit much that the ARW is the only item mentioned in the info-box, while all the other things involved between Britain and France in this battle are not mentioned at all. The Anglo-French wars, or trade wars if you prefer, occurred over and again throughout the 18th century. Sometime after the ARW began, both Spain and France took advantage of Britain's major commitments on the American continent and went after Gibraltar and Jamaica respectively -- but they were the same sort of wars that have always pitted France against Britain. Regardless of what some sources say, they were not an actual part of the ARW, and let's not forget – the references to the ARW are always made in passing while many of them only say that a given battle occurred "during" the ARW. Nothing more. That by itself doesn't make them part of, or a working component, in the actual war. Saintes came up during peace talks, and this is the only connection this battle has to the ARW, yet it is presented in the info box as if this was its main theme, while everything else is being ignored. It doesn't even mention it as being a part of the ongoing trade wars. This is why there's a due weight issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

this battle is related to the ARW in terms of the peace talks, as the sources say. That in itself warrants inclusion of AWR in infobox. This hasn't been an issue since this article was created now all of a sudden on user comes along and wants to change the world. What trade war do you speak of? Do you have a source that says otherwise? I'll get the popcorn and wait. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

We've been through this: No one denies that Saintes came up in peace talks, (long after the surrender at Yorktown where the actual war over independence between America and Britain had ended) but that by itself doesn't warrant having an info-box that indicates that the ARW was the primary theme behind this battle, while it ignores all the facts and circumstances surrounding the actual battle. Now you're denying there were ongoing conflicts between Britain and France over trade, sugar and such. Amazing. This battle occurred long after Yorktown and the cease fire, so it wasn't a fight over American independence. It also occurred long before the peace talks. Okay, why don't you j just tell us what this battle was fought over, and keep the popcorn? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

where the actual war over independence between America and Britain had ended - are you really sure about that? Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• We both know the peace talks marked the official end of the war, and you should know that the fighting for independence ended at Yorktown, after which a cease fire was ordered and Britain pulled many ships away from the American continent and went chasing after France and Spain in an effort to protect her possessions. You're actually doubting there's a source for this? Saintes was fought to foil a planned French invasion of Jamaica and to protect its lucrative sugar trade. That this must be recited for you seems to indicate that you have no interest in working together here, just for the record. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• According to O'Shaughnessy, 2013, chapter VII, 2nd paragraph, the primary theme of the Battle of the Saintes involved "the defense of Jamaica, the most valuable and most important British colony remaining in the Americas". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• 'the fighting for independence ended at Yorktown,' the fighting DID NOT end at Yorktown - there were still campaigns such as in the South well after Yorktown had finished where actions such as Combahee River or the Action of 22 January 1783. There was also action in the Western Theater where Battle of Blue Licks was fought and ended in stalemate, or Nova Scotia with American privateer attacks. Nathaniel Green was hoping for French support to retake Charleston but defeat at the Saintes force this to be called off too. The war clearly wasn't over except for offensive action - British were defending what they had and succeeded. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Therefore the peace talks were vital in ending the whole conflict. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there were exceptions where the ceasefire was violated. The battle of Blue Licks, August 19, 1782, involved Loyalists and Indians fighting against militia and occurred after Saintes and Mona Passage, as did the battle of Combahhe, on August 27, 1782. These were minor battles or skirmishes and exceptions to the rule of the ceasefire. In the Siege of Yorktown, Aftermath section it states : "there was no significant battle or campaign after the Battle of Yorktown and in March 1782, the British Parliament had agreed to cease hostilities". In any case, Saintes and Mona Passage were fought long before the peace talks and for their own specific objectives, not over the idea of American independence. These battles would have occurred regardless of any future prospect of peace talks and were of little concern to the Americans, who posed no threat to these objectives at all. The greater bulk of the weight lends itself to the facts surrounding these battles, and the objectives involved, and still needs to be reflected in the info-box. Merely saying "part of" the ARW doesn't acknowledge this at all. Once again, the only thing that is mentioned in the info-box banner is the ARW and as such is misleading and poses a Due-Weight issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

What ceasefire? Do explain? On February 4, 1783, it was King George III that declared a permanent ceasefire to the American Revolution. That was the one you should be concentrating on. There were no ceasefires unless they were local which actually happened a lot during the war. So Battle of the Saintes and Mona Passage were fought as did the Battle of the Delaware Capes. They were fought as part of the AWR, that is a fact. Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)