These are exactly the ships I am talking about. The British Admiralty was obsessed with meticulous record keeping. I once read that, in examining their maintenance records, those French ships entered into British service required more maintenance and more frequent maintenance than their British-made counterparts. The author took this as a sign that French ships may have been of lower quality.
The increased maintenance needs were in spite of the fact that both ships were sailing under British crews (who, as you point out, had superior experience).
IIRC, the claim was made by Michael Lardas, “British Frigate vs French Frigate.”
The crew on Nelson’s flagship was a lot more diverse than most people imagine, and there is no reason to think that it was in any way unusual.
One of the “Americans” may have been the same William Brown who was later discovered to be a woman while serving on the Charlotte and was dismissed from the Navy in 1815 - after serving 11 years at sea and becoming captain of the foretop.
The Brits and (particularly) the Scots invented a whole lot of stuff in the late 18th, early 19th Century, which the UK was able to take advantage of and then put towards their shipmaking ability and general naval capabilities (e.g., the marine chronometer).
I don’t know, exactly, why England in particular and the Scots in even more particular were able to pull ahead of the rest in this manner. A lot of the scientific work was being done in France as well, and the economics in both France and (if I recall correctly) the Netherlands, but England is the one that ended up producing the most concrete outputs from that.
One suggestion might be the invention of the Royal Society in 1660, by Charles II. It might be considered as something similar to the modern day National Science Foundation or DARPA. A government that puts money into science is going to end up with a country that has more technological breakthroughs. Since England started first, they advanced ahead of the rest.
As to earlier times, I had a teacher once who once gave a lecture about how gothic stone architecture is related to shipbuilding, and the conjunction of the two occurred in Brittany. Unfortunately, I don’t recall enough of the lecture beyond to say that there may be some connection there.
One of the big reasons is the Financial Revolution that happened after the Glorious Revolution. Because the Parliament had to approve spending, and bondholders were active in politics, the government could not run up debts and then repudiate them like an absolute monarchy. This meant protection for the bondholders and the cost of government bonds was much lower in England than most of the rest of the world. This meant they could borrow much more money and navies are very capital intensive as are the merchant ships which they protected.
FWIW, the Napoleonic Wars-era Royal Navy had, for it’s time, a remarkably meritocratic system. It wasn’t overwhelmed with aristocratic officers- there were some, but most were middle class.
As for French vs. British ships, from what I understand, the French designers were considered better (faster ships, better sailers), but the British built stronger.
Coal-rich Britain began to come into prominence with the introduction of oven coke beginning in the 17th century. Even before the invention of steam engines, coke vastly boosted manufacturing: it made possible mass-produced cast iron and expanded the production of glass and brick, all energy-intensive processes. In addition it could replace charcoal for domestic use and even contributed to brewing ale, being clean-burning enough to roast malt. All of this greatly boosted Britain’s wealth and trade.
In addition, the tumultuous political events of the 17th century eventually left Britain unified and comparatively well-balanced between conservatism and progressiveness, making it (for its time) an advanced nation both stable and at the same time able to accommodate change. This in sharp contrast to the increasingly ancien régime in France and the by-now hopelessly backward Spain. Even so it took most of the 18th century for Britain to truly surpass its rivals.
Once steam engines were invented, Britain was well-poised to get in on the ground floor of the industrial revolution. Revolutionary/Napoleonic France had too many other concerns to concentrate on being primarily a naval power, and once it collapsed Britain was left for a time with a huge prominence in overseas trade and imperial expansion.
Another contributing factor to the numerous ones already mentioned is Britain’s strategic position. Great Britain sits directly on the trade routes from the Mediterranean and Africa to Northern Europe and Scandinavia. This puts her in a position to both conduct shipping trade and to easily interrupt that of others.
And, of course, once Britain’s navy is strong, you can’t do anything to them with your army until you’ve overcome their navy. Continental powers would need to match or beat Britain’s naval investment BUT at the same time maintain sufficient army strength to deter adventurous neighbors.
It cannot be done unless one’s economy is decisively superior. And with Britain controlling trade, leading the industrial revolution, and having solid scientific advancement, achieving a decisively superior economy is a daunting challenge. Eventually the United States, both larger and richer in natural resources, managed to have a larger navy than Britain – greatly aided by the fact that the US is similarly unafraid of land-based invasion.
The French had a version of the Royal Academy too, so I don’t think that’s the crucial factor; although after the revolution this was disbanded and the prowess of its scientists directed to subjects like artillery and mining. France had fielded (?) a large fleet prior to the French Revolution, but the decimation of the officer corps seems to me a key factor. We can debate the demerits of an aristocratic officer system, but without leaders the French fleet was essentially unable to sail. When some sort of order was restored, the French were, as others have said, effectively bottled up and therefore not as well trained as the British.
Worth noting that Wellington received the crucial aid of a Prussian noble at Waterloo, though it’s not clear to to me if von Blucher inherited his title or was granted it.
That is what contributed to the decline of the Netherlands from their previous position as a global trading power, and what frustrated Germany from becoming a major naval power: Britain, sitting there at the mouth of the North Sea like a cork in a bottle. Germany would have needed a navy actually stronger than Britain’s simply to make up for its geographic disadvantage.
Also Britain was an early adopter of the central bank concept, developed the modern insurance market and nicked the stockmarket model from the Dutch. It was all going on!
It’s interesting to note, though, that England/Britain was saved from invasion by a massive storm at least twice that I can recall. Granted the French were trying for Ireland and not London, but a successful invasion would have created a lot of headaches.
As for the “Protestant Wind,” I don’t know if it would have made too huge a difference in the long run if it had been merely a light breeze.
And foiled by one in 1812 when they were trying to burn down all of Washington DC. A huge hurricane came up and drove them off and put out most of the fires.
English guns became much cheaper. Not quite as good, but much cheaper. And smaller and lighter, which was an effect not a cause of being not as good: no point making a heavy long gun if you couldn’t load it to match. Cheap guns =more guns per ship, and more ships.
This conflicts with what I’ve read. During the Napoleonic era, British ships were notable for their poor design and construction. This was one reason why the Royal Navy was so eager to capture foreign warships and put them into service. Captains would call in favors to get command of a captured foreign-built ship rather than a British-built one.
British ships were less comfortable and harder to operate than their Continental counterparts. However, they were a lot more resistant to battle damage and could be repaired lot more quickly and even in situ.
HMS Victory at Trafalgar had all her masts shot off and tooks hundreds of cannon balls. Survived,
