To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
Languages
Recent
Show all languages
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Action of 31 March 1800

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Action of 31 March 1800
Part of the Mediterranean campaign
during the War of the Second Coalition

Capture of the Guillaume Tell 31 March 1800, Nicholas Pocock
Date31 March 1800
Location36°11′N 14°37′E / 36.19°N 14.62°E / 36.19; 14.62
Result British victory
Belligerents
 Great Britain  France
Commanders and leaders
Manley Dixon Denis Decrès  Surrendered
Strength
2 ships of the line
1 frigate
2 brigs
1 bomb vessel
1 ship of the line
Casualties and losses
128 killed and wounded 200 killed and wounded
1 ship of the line captured

The action of 31 March 1800 was a naval engagement of the French Revolutionary Wars fought between a Royal Navy squadron and a French Navy ship of the line off Malta in the Mediterranean Sea. By March 1800 Valletta, the Maltese capital, had been under siege for eighteen months and food supplies were severely depleted, a problem exacerbated by the interception and defeat of a French replenishment convoy in mid-February. In an effort to simultaneously obtain help from France and reduce the number of personnel maintained in the city, the naval commander on the island, Contre-amiral Pierre-Charles Villeneuve, ordered his subordinate Contre-amiral Denis Decrès to put to sea with the large ship of the line Guillaume Tell, which had arrived in the port shortly before the siege began in September 1798. Over 900 men were carried aboard the ship, which was to sail for Toulon under cover of darkness on 30 March.

The British had maintained a blockade off Malta since the beginning of the siege, ostensibly led by Rear-Admiral Lord Nelson, who by March 1800 was defying a direct order from his superior officer Lord Keith by remaining in Palermo with his lover Emma, Lady Hamilton. In his absence the blockade was under the command of Captain Manley Dixon of HMS Lion and Nelson's flag captain Sir Edward Berry, who were notified of Decrès' departure by the patrolling frigate HMS Penelope and gave chase. The large ship of the line was initially attacked only by Penelope, which manoeuvered around Guillaume Tell's stern, causing severe damage and delaying the French ship sufficiently for Berry to bring his squadron into action. Despite being heavily outnumbered, Decrès continued to fight for more than three hours, fighting off two British ships but ultimately unable to resist the combined weight of Berry's attacks. Casualties and damage were severe on both sides, and the defiance of the French ship was celebrated in both countries as a brave defence against overwhelming odds.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    Views:
    1 782 689
    15 569
    4 659 409
    10 497 297
    9 096
  • American Imperialism: Crash Course US History #28
  • Art III: Modern 1800–2000, with Rick Steves
  • The French Revolution: Crash Course World History #29
  • Berlin in July 1945 (HD 1080p color footage)
  • The Dark Side of George Washington: A Startling Look into America’s First Family (2017)

Transcription

Episode 28: American Imperialism Hi, I’m John Green, this is CrashCourse U.S. History and today we’re gonna talk about a subject near and dear to my white, male heart: imperialism. So, here at CrashCourse we occasionally try to point out that the U.S., much as we hate to admit it, is actually part of a larger world. Mr. Green, Mr. Green, you mean like Alaska? No, Me from the Past, for reasons that you will understand after your trip there before your senior year of college, I do not acknowledge the existence of Canada’s tail. No, I’m referring to all of the Green Parts of Not-America and the period in the 19th century when we thought, “Maybe we could make all of those green parts like America, but, you know, without rights and stuff.” Intro So, the late 19th and early 20th centuries were a period of expansion and colonization in Asia and Africa, mostly by European powers. As you’ll know if you watched Crash Course World History, imperialism has a long, long history pretty much everywhere, so this round of empire building is sometimes called, rather confusingly, New Imperialism. Because the U.S. acquired territories beyond its continental boundaries in this period, it’s relatively easy to fit American history into this world history paradigm. But there’s also an argument that the United States has always been an empire. From very early on, the European settlers who became Americans were intent on pushing westward and conquering territory. The obvious victims of this expansion/imperialism were the Native Americans, but we can also include the Mexicans who lost their sovereignty after 1848. And if that doesn’t seem like an empire to you, allow me to draw your attention to the Russian Empire. Russians were taking control of territory in Central Asia and Siberia and either absorbing or displacing the native people who lived there, which was the exact same thing that we were doing. The empires of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were different because they were colonial in their own special way. Like, Europeans and Americans would rule other places but they wouldn’t settle them and more or less completely displace the native people there. (Well, except for you, Australia and New Zealand.) American historians used to try to excuse America’s acquisitions of a territorial empire as something of an embarrassing mistake, but that’s misleading because one of the primary causes of the phenomenon of American imperialism was economics. We needed places to sell our amazing new products. And at the time, China actually had all of the customers because apparently it was opposite day. It’s also not an accident that the U.S. began pursuing imperialism in earnest during the 1890s, as this was, in many ways, a decade of crisis in America. The influx of immigrants and the crowded cities added to anxiety and concern over America’s future. And then, to cap it all off, in 1893 a panic caused by the failure of a British bank led the U.S. into a horrible economic depression, a great depression, but not The Great Depression. It did however feature 15,000 business failures and 17% unemployment, so take that, 2008. According to American diplomatic historian George Herring, imperialism was just what the doctor ordered to help America get out of its Depression depression. Other historians, notably Kristin Hoganson, imply that America embarked on imperial adventures partly so that American men could prove to themselves how manly they were. You know, by joining the Navy and setting sail for distant waters. In 1890, Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan published “The Influence of Seapower upon History” and argued that, to be a great power like Great Britain, the U.S. needed to control the seas and dominate international commerce. Tied into this push to become a maritime power was the obsession with building a canal through Central America and eventually the U.S. decided that it should be built in Panama because you know how else are we gonna get malaria. In order to protect this canal we would need a man, a plan, a canal. Panama. Sorry, I just wanted to get the palindrome in there somewhere. No we would actually need much more than a man and a plan. We would need ships and in order to have a functioning two-ocean navy, we would need colonies. Why? Because the steamships at the time were powered by coal and in order to re-fuel they needed coal depots. I mean, I suppose we could have, like, rented harbor space, but why rent when you can conquer? Also, nationalism and the accompanying pride in one’s “country” was a worldwide phenomenon to which the U.S. was not immune. I mean, it’s no accident that the 1890s saw Americans begin to recite the pledge of allegiance and celebrate Flag Day, and what better way to instill national pride than by flying the stars and stripes over … Guam. So pre-Civil War attempts to expand beyond what we now know as the continental United States included our efforts to annex Canada, which were sadly unsuccessful, and also filibustering, which before it meant a senator talking until he or she had to stop to pee was a thing where we tried to take over Central America to spread slavery. But, the idea of taking Cuba persisted into the late 19th century because it is close and also beautiful. The Grant administration wanted to annex it and the Dominican Republic, but Congress demurred. But we did succeed in purchasing Canada’s tail. You can see how I feel about that. To be fair, discovery of gold in the Yukon made Seward’s icebox seem like less of a Seward’s folly and it did provide coaling stations in the Pacific. But we could have had rum and Caribbean beaches. Ugh, Stan, all this talk about how much I hate Alaska has me overheated, I gotta take off my shirt. Ughhh. Waste of my life. So hard to take off a shirt dramatically. I’m angry. Anyway, coal stations in the Pacific were important because in 1854 we “opened” Japan to American trade by sending a flotilla of threatening black ships under Matthew Perry. No Stan, not that Matthew Perry. You know better. By far, America’s best piece of imperial business before 1898 was Hawaii. Like, I like oil and gold as much as the next guy but Hawaii has pineapples and also had sugar, which was grown on American owned plantations by Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, and native workers. Treaties between the U.S. and the Hawaiian governments exempted this sugar from tariffs, and America also had established a naval base at Pearl Harbor, which seemed like a really good idea...then. We eventually annexed Hawaii in 1898 and this meant that it could eventually become a state, which it did in 1959, two years before Barack Obama was born in Kenya. And this leads us nicely to the high tide of American imperialism, the Spanish-American-Cuban-Fillipino War. The war started out because native Cubans were revolting against Spain, which was holding on to Cuba for dear life as the remnant of a once-great empire. The Cubans’ fight for independence was brutal. 95,000 Cubans died from disease and malnutrition after Spanish general Valeriano Weyler herded Cubans into concentration camps. For this Weyler was called “Butcher” in the American yellow press, which sold a lot of newspapers on the backs of stories about his atrocities. And at last we come to President William McKinley who responded cautiously, with a demand that Spain get out of Cuba or face war. Now Spain knew that it couldn’t win a war with the U.S. but, as George Herring put it, they “preferred the honor of war to the ignominy of surrender.” Let that be a lesson to you. Always choose ignominy. Oh, it’s time for the Mystery Document? The rules here are simple. I guess the author of the Mystery Document. I’m either right or I get shocked. Alright, let’s see what we’ve got today. With such a conflict waged for years in an island so near us and with which our people have such trade and business relations; when the lives and liberty of our citizens are in constant danger and their property destroyed and themselves ruined; where our trading vessels are liable to seizure and are seized at our very door by warships of a foreign nation, the expeditions of filibustering that we are powerless to prevent altogether -- all these and others that I need not mention, with the resulting strained relations, are a constant menace to our peace, and compel us to keep on a semiwar footing with a nation with which we are at peace. Thank you, Stan. This is obviously President William McKinley’s war message to Congress. You can tell it’s a war message because it includes the word “peace” more than the word “war.” By the way, it’s commonly thought that the President McKinley asked Congress for a declaration of war, he didn’t; he let Congress take the lead. That’s the only time that’s ever happened in all of American history, which would be more impressive if we had declared war more than 5 times. So, the document shows us that, at least according to McKinley, we officially went to war for American peace of mind and to end economic uncertainty. It was not to gain territory, at least not in Cuba. How do we know? Because Congress also passed the Teller Amendment, which forswore any U.S. annexation of Cuba, perhaps because representatives of the U.S. sugar industry like Colorado’s Senator Henry Teller feared competition from sugar produced in an American Cuba. Or maybe not. But probably so. Also not the cause of the war was the sinking of the USS Maine. The battleship which had been in Havana’s harbor to protect American interests sank after an explosion on February 15, 1898 killing 266 sailors. Now, most historians chalk up the sinking to an internal explosion and not to Spanish sabotage, but that didn’t stop Americans from blaming the Spanish with their memorable meme: “Remember the Maine, to hell with Spain.” Let’s go to the Thoughtbubble. The actual war was one of the most successful in U.S. history, especially if you measure success by brevity and relative paucity of deaths. Secretary of State John Hay called it a “splendid little war” and in many ways it was. Fighting lasted about 4 months and fewer than 400 Americans were killed in combat, although 5,000 died of, wait for it, disease. Stupid disease, always ruining everything. There weren’t a ton of battles but those that happened got an inordinate amount of press coverage, like the July attack on San Juan Hill at the Cuban city of Santiago, led by future president Theodore Roosevelt. While it was a successful battle, the real significance is that it furthered Roosevelt’s career. He returned a hero, promptly became Governor of New York and by 1900 was McKinley’s vice president. Which was a good job to have because McKinley would eventually be assassinated. A more important battle was that of Manila Bay in which commodore George Dewey destroyed a tiny Spanish fleet and took the Philippines. This battle took place in May of 1898, well before the attack on Cuba, which strongly suggests that a war that was supposedly about supporting Cuban independence was really about something else. And what was that something else? Oh right. A territorial empire. As a result of the war, the U.S. got a bunch of new territories, notably the Philippines, Puerto Rico and Guam. We also used the war as an opportunity to annex Hawaii to protect our ships that would be steaming toward the Philippines. We didn’t annex Cuba, but we didn’t let it become completely independent, either. The Platt Amendment in the Cuban Constitution authorized American military intervention whenever it saw fit and gave us a permanent lease for a naval base at Guantanamo Bay. Thanks Thoughtbubble. So, Cuba and Puerto Rico were gateways to Latin American markets. Puerto Rico was particularly useful as a naval station. Hawaii, Guam, and especially the Philippines opened up access to China. American presence in China was bolstered by our contribution of about 3,000 troops to the multinational force that helped put down the Boxer Rebellion in 1900. But in the Philippines, where Americans had initially been welcome, opinion soon changed after it became clear that Americans were there to stay and exercise control. Emiliano Aguinaldo, leader of the Filipino rebellion against Spain, quickly turned against the U.S. because his real goal was independence and it appeared the U.S. would not provide it. The resulting Philippine War lasted 4 years, from 1899-1903. And 4,200 Americans were killed as well as over 100,000 Filipinos. The Americans committed atrocities, including putting Filipinos in concentration camps, torturing prisoners, rape, and executing civilians. And much of this was racially motivated and news of these atrocities helped to spur anti-imperialist sentiment at home, with Mark Twain being one of the most outspoken critics. Now, there was some investment in modernization in the Philippines, in railroads, schools, and public health, but the interests of the local people were usually subordinated to those of the wealthy. So, American imperialism in short looked like most other imperialism. So Constitution nerds will remember that the U.S. Constitution has no provision for colonies, only territory that will eventually be incorporated as states. Congress attempted to deal with this issue by passing the Foraker Act in 1900. This law declared that Puerto Rico would be an insular territory; its inhabitants would be citizens of Puerto Rico, not the United States and there would be no path to statehood. But this wasn’t terribly constitutional. Congress did extend U.S. citizenship to Puerto Ricans in 1917. Now it’s a commonwealth with its own government that has no voice in U.S. Congress or presidential elections and no control over its own defense or environmental policy. The Philippines were treated similarly to Puerto Rico, in a series of cases between 1901 and 1904 collectively called the Insular Cases. But Hawaii was treated differently. Because it had a sizeable population of American settlers who happened to be white. Ergo, it became a traditional territory with a path to statehood because white people and also pineapples. Now let’s briefly talk about anti-imperialism. There were lots of people who objected to imperialism on racial grounds, arguing that it might lead to, like, diversity. But there were also non-racist anti-imperialists who argued that empire itself with its political domination of conquered people was incompatible with democracy, which, to be fair, it is. The Democratic Party, which had supported intervention in Cuba, in 1900 opposed the Philippine War in its platform. Some Progressives opposed imperialism too because they believed that America should focus on its domestic problems. Yet those who supported imperialism were just as forceful. Among the most vocal was Indiana Senator Albert Beveridge who argued that imperialism was benevolent and would bring “a new day of freedom.” But, make no mistake, underneath it all, imperialism was all about trade. According to Beveridge, America’s commerce “must be with Asia. The Pacific is our ocean … Where shall we turn for consumers of our surplus? Geography answers the question. China is our natural customer.” In the end, imperialism was really driven by economic necessity. In 1902, Brooks Adams predicted in his book The New Empire that the U.S. would soon “outweigh any single empire, if not all empires combined.” Within 20 years America would be the world’s leading economic power. We didn’t have the most overseas territory, but ultimately that didn’t matter. Now, the reasons for imperialism, above all the quest for markets for American goods, would persist long after imperialism became recognized as antithetical to freedom and democracy. And we would continue to struggle to reconcile our imperialistic urges with our ideals about democracy until...now. Thanks for watching. I’ll see you next week. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller. Our script supervisor is Meredith Danko. The associate producer is Danica Johnson. The show is written by my high school history teacher, Raoul Meyer, Rosianna Rojas, and myself. And our graphics team is Thought Café. Every week there’s a new caption for the libertage. You can suggest captions in comments where you can also ask questions about today’s video that will be answered by our team of historians. Thanks for watching Crash Course and as we say in my hometown, don’t forget to be awesome. This is the part where Stan gets nervous, like, is he gonna go this way or this way or this way? I’m going this way. Imperialism -

Background

In May 1798, a French fleet under General Napoleon Bonaparte crossed the Mediterranean Sea, sailing for Egypt. Pausing at Malta on 9 June, Bonaparte landed soldiers and seized the island leaving a sizeable French garrison at Valletta under General Claude-Henri Belgrand de Vaubois while the rest of the fleet continued on to Alexandria.[1] After the successful landing in Egypt, Bonaparte marched inland at the head of his army. The fleet anchored in Aboukir Bay to support the troops ashore and was surprised and almost completely destroyed on 1 August by a British fleet under Rear-Admiral Sir Horatio Nelson. Only two ships of the line and two frigates escaped the Battle of the Nile from the 17 French ships that participated in the action.[2] Of the survivors, the ship of the line Généreux sailed for Corfu while Guillaume Tell, under Contre-amiral Pierre-Charles Villeneuve, reached Malta with the two frigates.[3]

When Villeneuve arrived at Malta in September 1798, the island was already in turmoil: the dissolution of the Roman Catholic Church on the island under French rule had been highly unpopular with the Maltese population, who forced the French garrison to retreat into the fortress of Valletta on 2 September.[4] By the start of October, British and Portuguese troops had supplemented the Maltese irregulars, while a naval squadron watched Valletta harbour, to prevent any French effort to resupply and reinforce the garrison.[5] Although small quantities of material reached Valletta from France in early 1799, by the start of 1800 no ship had arrived for more than seven months, and the garrison was near starvation.[6] In an effort to resupply the garrison, the French sent a convoy from Toulon in February 1800, but the ships were intercepted off Malta by a squadron under Nelson on 17 February and in the ensuing battle the flagship Généreux was captured and Contre-amiral Jean-Baptiste Perrée was killed.[7]

Without Perrée's supplies, the garrison faced continued food shortages, and by March Vaubois and Villeneuve decided to send an urgent request for support to France. For this operation they chose the 80-gun Guillaume Tell under Captain Saulnier, partly because the condition and size of the ship enabled Vaubois to embark over 900 men aboard, many of whom were sick or wounded.[8] Contre-amiral Denis Decrès had command of the ship and Vaubois and Villeneuve confirmed the date of departure for 30 March. While the French prepared this expedition, the British maintained their blockade, although without their commander. Nelson, in defiance of specific orders from his commanding officer Lord Keith, had retired to Palermo on Sicily to be with Emma, Lady Hamilton, the wife of the British ambassador Sir William Hamilton with whom Nelson was conducting an adulterous affair.[9] In his absence, command had passed to Captain Sir Thomas Troubridge on HMS Culloden and then to Captain Manley Dixon on HMS Lion.[10]

Battle

At 23:00 on 30 March, with a strong wind from the south, Guillaume Tell sailed from Valletta, Decrès hoping to use the cover of darkness to escape the British blockade. Dixon had deployed his ships around the island, with Valletta watched by the frigate HMS Penelope under Captain Henry Blackwood.[8] At 23:55, Blackwood's lookouts spotted Guillaume Tell and the captain gave chase, ordering the brig HMS Minorca under Commander George Miller to convey the message to Dixon, whose ships were just visible in the distance.[11] Blackwood also attempted to signal his discovery to his commanding officer as Penelope gave chase.[12]

Blackwood rapidly gained on the ship of the line and by 00:30 the frigate was within range, pulling up under the stern of Guillaume Tell and beginning a steady fire to which Decrès could respond with only his stern-chasers, light cannon situated in the stern of the ship.[13] Decrès recognised that if he stopped to engage Penelope then the rest of Berry's squadron, visible on the horizon to the south, would soon overwhelm him. He therefore continued sailing to the northeast, hoping his heavy ship of the line could outrun the light and speedy frigate. However, Penelope was too fast, and Blackwood handled his ship with considerable skill, managing to pass Decrès' stern repeatedly and pour several raking broadsides into the French ship.[14]

The capture of the 'Guillaume Tell', 31 March 1800 by Nicholas Pocock

Blackwood's attack was so successful that by dawn on 31 March Guillaume Tell had lost its main and mizen topmasts and its main yard, considerably reducing the speed at which Decrès could travel. The French ship had also suffered heavy casualties in the exchange, but Penelope had lost only one man killed and three wounded, and was almost undamaged.[13] British reinforcements were now arriving from the south: the 64-gun HMS Lion under Captain Dixon had received Minorca's warning at 01:00 and immediately sailed in pursuit, sending the brig on to Captain Sir Edward Berry in HMS Foudroyant, who lay some distance to leeward.[15] By 05:00, Dixon was close enough to engage, passing between Penelope and Guillaume Tell and firing a triple-shotted broadside into the port side of the French ship. Shooting ahead of the now sluggish Guillaume Tell, Lion crossed its opponent's bows and shot away the jib boom, allowing Dixon to maintain a position across the bow, raking the French ship from one end while Penelope did the same to the other.[11] During these manoeuvres, Dixon's ship had briefly become entangled with Guillaume Tell's rigging, and two determined efforts to board the British ship had been driven off as the ships were disentangled.[16]

For half an hour, Lion continued to fire into the larger Guillaume Tell, but Dixon was unable to keep his ship completely out of range of the French broadsides and by 05:30 the subsequent damage showed an effect, Lion dropping back and falling behind the French vessel, although remaining within range alongside Penelope.[14] At 06:00, Guillaume Tell came under attack for the third time, when Berry himself caught up with the battling ships in Foudroyant and pulled along the starboard broadside of the French ship of the line. Berry hailed Decrès to demand his surrender, and accompanied the demand with a triple-shotted broadside, to which Decrès responded with fire from his own guns.[8] Foudroyant was flying a full set of sails and therefore suffered severe damage to its rigging in the opening exchange, the additional speed provided by this rig forcing Foudroyant to move ahead of the French vessel.[11] After working back alongside Guillaume Tell, Berry recommenced fire that rapidly tore away much of the remaining French rigging, allowing Lion and Penelope to return to the battle while Foudroyant dropped back to make urgent repairs.[15]

By 06:30 the badly outnumbered French ship had lost both its main and mizen masts, Foudroyant returning to the battle in time to collapse the foremast by 08:00. At 08:20, with no means of making sail and with wreckage obscuring most of his gun decks, Decrès surrendered to spare any further, fruitless, loss of life.[17] His ship was in danger: the lack of masts and strong winds caused it to roll so severely that the lower deck gun ports had to be closed to prevent the ship from foundering. Casualties on the French ship numbered more than 200, from a crew of over 900,[18] with both Decrès and Saulnier badly wounded.[19] British losses were lighter, with eight killed and 64 wounded, including Berry, in Foudroyant, eight killed and 38 wounded in Lion and one killed and three wounded (one fatally) in Penelope. Damage was unevenly spread, Foudroyant suffering most severely, with the hull and all masts damaged, the mizzenmast so badly that it collapsed at approximately 12:00, wounding five more men. Lion was badly hit, although not so severely as Foudroyant while Penelope was only lightly damaged in the masts and rigging. The battle, which had begun within sight of Malta, had concluded roughly 21 nmi (39 km) south-west of Cape Passaro on Sicily.[15]

Aftermath

Both Foudroyant and Lion were too battered to provide an effective tow to the dismasted French ship, and as a result Penelope was left to bring the shattered Guillaume Tell into Syracuse on Sicily.[18] Eventually the ship was repaired sufficiently for the journey to Britain, and there was added to the Royal Navy under the name HMS Malta. Malta was, with HMS Tonnant captured two years earlier at the Nile, the most powerful third rate in the British fleet, and served for many years,[20] participating at the Battle of Cape Finisterre in 1805.

The British officers were praised for the capture of Guillaume Tell, the last surviving French ship of the line to escape the Battle of the Nile: Nelson, who by his absence had "missed what would indeed have been the crowning glory to his Mediterranean career", wrote to Berry that "Your conduct and character in the late glorious occasion stamps your fame beyond the reach of envy."[21] Despite Nelson's praise however, Berry in particular came in for subsequent criticism, especially from the historian William James, who wrote in his 1827 history of the conflict that:

"Had the Foudroyant, single-handed, met the Guillaume-Tell, the combat would have been between two of the most powerful ships that had ever so met; and, although the Foudroyant's slight inferiority of force, being chiefly in number of men, was not that of which a British captain would complain, still the chances were equal, that the Guillaume-Tell, so gallantly manned, and so ably commanded, came off the conqueror."

— William James, 1827, [18]

James instead attributed most of the praise for the victory to Blackwood and Dixon, whose ships were heavily outmatched by Guillaume Tell, but who successfully pressed their attacks with the intention of delaying the French retreat. He also highly praised Decrès for his conduct in the engagement, stating that "A more heroic defence than that of the Guillaume-Tell is not to be found among the records of naval actions".[18] First Consul Napoleon Bonaparte reached a similar conclusion, and when Decrès was exchanged soon after the battle he was presented with armes d'honneur, later converted to membership of the Légion d'honneur. He was also given the position of maritime prefect of the Biscay port of Lorient.[19]

Aboard Guillaume Tell, the British found evidence of the severity of the food shortages in Valletta: "the only thing found in La Guillaume Tell was the leg of a mule, hung for safety and his especial use of the admiral's stern-galley".[22] News of the capture of Guillaume Tell was immediately passed to Vaubois by the British besiegers, along with a demand that he surrender the island. The French general, despite dwindling food supplies, refused, stating "Cette place est en trop bon état, et je suis moi-même trop jaloux de bien servir mon pays et de conserver mon honneur, pour écouter vos propositions." ("This place is in too good a situation, and I am too conscious of the service of my country and my honour, to listen to your proposals"). Despite Vaubois' defiance, the garrison was rapidly starving, and although the French commander resisted until 4 September, he was eventually forced to surrender Valletta and all of its military equipment to the British.[23]

References

  1. ^ Adkins, p. 13
  2. ^ Mostert, p. 272
  3. ^ Clowes, p. 374
  4. ^ Gardiner, p. 67
  5. ^ James, Vol. 2, p. 189
  6. ^ Clowes, p. 418
  7. ^ Bradford, p. 247
  8. ^ a b c Gardiner, p. 69
  9. ^ Mostert, p. 365
  10. ^ Clowes, p. 420
  11. ^ a b c Clowes, p. 421
  12. ^ James, Vol. 3, p. 16
  13. ^ a b James, Vol. 3, p. 17
  14. ^ a b Woodman, p. 142
  15. ^ a b c James, Vol. 3, p. 18
  16. ^ Mostert, p. 366
  17. ^ Mostert, p. 367
  18. ^ a b c d James,Vol. 3, p. 19
  19. ^ a b Clowes, p. 422
  20. ^ Woodman, p. 143
  21. ^ Bradford, p. 248
  22. ^ Adkins, p. 69
  23. ^ James,Vol. 3, p. 20

Bibliography

  • Adkins, Roy & Lesley (2006). The War for All the Oceans. Abacus. ISBN 0-349-11916-3.
  • Bradford, Ernle (1999) [1977]. Nelson: The Essential Hero. Wordsworth Military Library. ISBN 1-84022-202-6.
  • Clowes, William Laird (1997) [1900]. The Royal Navy, A History from the Earliest Times to 1900, Volume IV. Chatham Publishing. ISBN 1-86176-013-2.
  • Gardiner, Robert, ed. (2001) [1996]. Nelson Against Napoleon. Caxton Editions. ISBN 1-86176-026-4.
  • James, William (2002) [1827]. The Naval History of Great Britain, Volume 2, 1797–1799. Conway Maritime Press. ISBN 0-85177-906-9.
  • James, William (2002) [1827]. The Naval History of Great Britain, Volume 3, 1800–1805. Conway Maritime Press. ISBN 0-85177-907-7.
  • Mostert, Noel (2007). The Line upon a Wind: The Greatest War Fought at Sea Under Sail 1793 – 1815. Vintage Books. ISBN 978-0-7126-0927-2.
  • Woodman, Richard (2001). The Sea Warriors. Constable Publishers. ISBN 1-84119-183-3.
This page was last edited on 29 December 2023, at 17:44
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.