Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΜύ permalink

Villeneuve underrated?

• Message 1.Μύ

  Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Friday, 21st October 2005

  How good an Admiral was Villeneuve? Was he a decent commander who was simply overshadowed by Nelson, TOO aware of his own and his fleet's limitations, and forced into an unwise engagement by the bullying of Napoleon?
  
  Or was he just rubbish?

  Link to this forum: Villeneuve underrated?

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Stepney Boy (U1760040) on Friday, 21st October 2005

  Yes and no in that order
  Regards
  Spike How good an Admiral was Villeneuve? Was he a decent commander who was simply overshadowed by Nelson, TOO aware of his own and his fleet's limitations, and forced into an unwise engagement by the bullying of Napoleon?
  
  Or was he just rubbish?Μύ

  Link to this forum: Villeneuve underrated?

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Friday, 21st October 2005

  How good an Admiral was Villeneuve? Was he a decent commander who was simply overshadowed by Nelson, TOO aware of his own and his fleet's limitations, and forced into an unwise engagement by the bullying of Napoleon?
  
  Or was he just rubbish?Μύ
  
  Villeneuve was a decent admiral, his problem was
  
  a) Had a boss who didn't understand the problems he faced.
  
  b) Had a workforce under him who couldn't do the job Villeneuves boss demanded.
  
  Villeneuve understood both a and b, so makes him in my view fairly decent.
  
  AA.

  Link to this forum: Villeneuve underrated?

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by General Zod (U1771421) on Friday, 21st October 2005

  Villeneuve was set to be replaced by Napoleon who considered him incompetent. Villeneuve heard of this and went and engaged Nelson, resulting in the loss of the combined French/Spanish fleet because of a mans wounded pride.
  
  

  Link to this forum: Villeneuve underrated?

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Saturday, 22nd October 2005

  That hardly fits with the claims yesterday that N ordered Villeneuve to go and fight - bizarrely when N was in southern Germany at that time. N had no grasp of naval warfare, as illustrated by his insistence on the fleet sailing by at Boulogne in 1804, resulting in heavy loss of life. There is also a decent case for saying N had him murdered soon after the battle.
  
  Villeneuve knew the tactics he had to employ against Nelson - but his crews lacked the numbers and training to execute them.

  Link to this forum: Villeneuve underrated?

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Saturday, 22nd October 2005

  DaveMBA, I'd be interested to read your thoughts regarding Villeneuves death.
  
  Mine are that although the official records show it as a suicide, five stab wounds to the chest seems a remarkably strange way of committing suicide. Plus Villeneuves manner after Trafalgar, the time at which you'd have thought he'd have been most depressed, doesn't suggest that he was contemplating suicide. So, murder is highly likely. However who was responsible? Napoleon is obviously in the frame, however I don't believe from my understanding of Napoleon that he was the type of man to order the killing of a subordinate. So, I'm led to the conclusion that it was ordered by somebody close to Napoleon who believed that this was what Napoleon wanted to happen, but wouldn't order it. My suspicion falls upon Fouche. (All conjecture, I don't have a shred of proof).
  
  Cheers AA.

  Link to this forum: Villeneuve underrated?

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Saturday, 22nd October 2005

  Oops, should read Napoleon wasn't the type of man to order the killing of a subordinate.

  Link to this forum: Villeneuve underrated?

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Sunday, 23rd October 2005

  Napoleon was not averse to it, like any dictator. He had d'Enghien executed by kangaroo court and Pichegru is thought to have been murdered - Moreau only escaped judicial execution because of is popularity in the army. Fouche may well have arranged it, but that does not exclude Nap's involvement - he had Landrieux in Italy in 1796 organising Suppsoed "uprisings" in Venetian cities - until it all went wrong in Verona and the "massacre" of French troops followed by the French interbention and seizure of the key city. Like his spying operations, you cannot see N's fingerprints on the documents as they either nevcer existed or were destroyed subsequently. however, N was known for working on everything - delegation was a word that did not exist in his vocabulary. So, he can hardly then suddenly be said to have had no part in these events - especially as the perpetrators were never rounded up.

  Link to this forum: Villeneuve underrated?

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Sunday, 23rd October 2005

  Message 4:
  
  Napoleon didn't know his bowsprit from his binnacle. His opinion of whether or not an Admiral was competant is hardly to be trusted.
  
  Villenueve had seen Nelson in action at the Nile. One could argue that felt that he felt that since his replacement would almost certainly seek to engage the British Fleet, then he might as well give the Combined Fleet the best chance it had by placing himself - a man who knew something of Nelson's tactics - in command.
  
  Besides, Villeneuve's pride, as in so many things, was as nothing to Nelson's.

  Link to this forum: Villeneuve underrated?

  Report message9

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 9.

  Posted by Turnwrest (U2188092) on Sunday, 23rd October 2005

  The record of Allied fleets is somewhat mixed - they frequently don't perform as well as their numerical strength suggests they should. The failure of the two contingents in Villeneuve's fleet to co-operate as well as they should is merely one case in point. I can't think of any French commander who could have been expected to do better than Villeneuve, but there again, Nelson really didn't want to command that operation - he seems to have done so only because he thought the dead hand of the Fighting Instructions would stop Collingwood from adopting his tactics of breaking the line from the windward station, which the two of them had discussed and agreed beforehand - hence Collingwood's response to the "England expects" signal.

  Link to this forum: Villeneuve underrated?

  Report message10

• Message 11

  , in reply to message 10.

  Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Monday, 24th October 2005

  The record of Allied fleets is somewhat mixed - they frequently don't perform as well as their numerical strength suggests they should. Μύ
  
  It strikes me that it is the fate of any alliance that there will be failures in co-operation - just look at the Allies during WWII.
  
  Still, it's a good point.
  
  P.S. How's the sausage inna bun business?

  Link to this forum: Villeneuve underrated?

  Report message11

• Message 12

  , in reply to message 11.

  Posted by Turnwrest (U2188092) on Monday, 24th October 2005

  
  <It strikes me that it is the fate of any alliance that there will be failures in co-operation - just look at the Allies during WWII.
  
  Still, it's a good point.
  
  P.S. How's the sausage inna bun business? Μύ
  
  You don't need allies, though, do you? ISTR a submarine signalling something like "ETA Portsmouth 1730 tomorrow, attacks by friendly aircraft permitting", whilst convoys were known to fire on $h@gb@t$.
  
  Business? The competition is cut-throat.

  Link to this forum: Villeneuve underrated?

  Report message12

Back to top