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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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!
Brilliant captain of the British first ship to take the initiative when he saw the gap and to exploit the opportunity.
Thank you for making this so easy to understand!
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.
You took the time. I salute you Sir.
Oooh, that's gotta hurt! British naval power wins the day again.
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.
Simple and to the point. Thanks for this.
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
@@ritparent7239 Thanks. That makes so much more sense.
Wow! The depth of detail! Thank you! Very informative.
I love your animations!!!
Thank you. Very clear and very helpful.
Corvus that was a good documentary thank you the battle of Nile is one of my favourite history battles of all time just to let you know
Really informative and simple.. thanks!!
Thank you so much for this video, it help me a lot!
Thank you!
Brillant.......thank you for making this Video
Thanks a lot
Excellent
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.
A truly brilliant action
This is my favourite naval battle!!
Great stuff. New sub.
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.
Recorded in a drainpipe.
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.
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.
Lol, he just said the French left a hole in their line by accident which the British exploited. You haven't proved anything wrong xD
@@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.
The french still lost as they purged there competant officers for being nobles
1:23 I think u should've switched colors cuz the Brits r known for the red color while the French r known for the blue!
Construye un video de la batalla del Cabo de San Vicente, 1797, otro gran movimiento de Nelson
Rip my ancestor
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.
Defeated in detail.
The Orient had more than 1000 people on board? Wow
Anyone else here because of the poem Casabianca?
How could zee french make such a seeelly mistake?
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.
@@hdufort The revolution had by then slaughtered a huge amount of the French navy's competent officers because mostly they were from the aristocracy.
@@georgerix3224fr they just hampered there graves no competant french admiral
does this man always sleep when he makes a video ??
I love this plain language approach! Very good sah!
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.
Want to hear a joke?
The French Navy
Villeneuve hizo gala de su cobardía...lo que después repetiría en Trafalgar
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!
Tide wouldn't actually be a factor, this being the Mediterranean.
In actuality, every ship that "crossed the T" and passed inside of the French ships "raked" the lead ship from bow to stern.
Great video but a naval battle report without an indication of wind direction is stupid
Confusion. Blue = British Ships. Red = French Ships. Change Red= British. Blue = French
SHOULDN'T THE BRITISH BE RED AND THE FRENCH BLUE?
British Captain FOLEY is an ARTIST of Victory not NELSON 😊
Great animation, but for gods sake get some enthusiasm into your bored narration!! You're describing a naval battle, not a bedtime story!😆😆😆
dont be sad, the french were defeated!
Lol, what?
Sorry man, but i fell asleep after 30 seconds. Nice effort, many thanks therefore, but you should strongly consider someone else as a speaker.
are you sleeping?