Talk:Capture of USS Chesapeake

Shaken morale of the Royal Navy?
Why do I continually see this everywhere? Not 7 years before this blip of a war the Royal Navy had arguably (or in fact had won) the most decisive battle in the Age of Sale. Losing a couple of fifth rates was not something out of the ordinary, the French and Spanish had managed it and it was widely known that the Constitution and all the other US frigates were much larger and more heavily armed than their British opponents (not to mention getting on for double the amount of crew). I guess this is the side effect of this war being almost entirely ignored by British historians and left to American authors to have a free reign over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.0.223 (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is far more complex subject than you are allowing. No nation had strung up much of a record against the British Navy before that.  It isn't an American opinion, perhaps I might direct your attention to the British press at the time.  As for the crew size, or the 44's against the 38's.  Point of fact that the Royal Navy had 40 gun frigates mounting 24 lb guns, and both the Leander and Newcastle were both 50 gun frigates with 24 lb guns, both in the area of operations, at 12 men per gun and 54 guns brings one to a sizable crew.  These were not jousting contests, these were national instruments of war in a deadly serious business.  It would not have occurred to any Captain to pass on taking a smaller ship.  In the case of the the win's of the United States and both of the victories of the Constitution, the British Commanders were so certain of victory they raced up to take on a superior foe.  This battle was more interesting as they sides were almost exactly the same size but unfortunately for the Chesapeake, the Shannon was much better trained and ready to fight.  As for American editors, sorry this was mostly written by your editors.  Badly written by the way and looks like a fan-boy article rather than staying with the facts which were far more interesting.  Perhaps next time you decide to blast away I would suggest that you check your facts and get an account.  Sorry opinions and sorry statements don't carry much weight.Tirronan (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Factual or lack thereof
My whoever wrote this seems to have taken some liberties with the truth... Captain Broke seems to have waltzed on to the Chesapeak's deck without a wound and grandly pronounce a victory in the name of the King while the cowardly American's hid on the gun deck where 2/3rds of them were kia/wia by 3 shots...  Folks this does no one any credit, this was 25 minutes of the most ferocious combat ever seen in the age of sail. HMS Shannon earned her victory and it was the quality of her opposition that makes this battle stand out. For the record, 2/3rd's of the Shannon boarding party ended up dead or wounded. Neither ship got off all that lightly, Chesapeake had 54 holes in her side and Shannon 24 in hers. Interestingly, both were holding their own until Chesapeake lost her head sail or this would have been an even bloodier affair. This is due for a rewrite as are other 2 articles.--Tirronan (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, can you give me a book list etc? I would be happy to read about it, then add the needed changes. Colincbn (talk) 07:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There are several, the biggest single failure of the article isn't the self congratulatory slant, that is merely annoying, but the fact that what Captain Brooke brought was a virtual change in magnitude in the accuracy of naval gunfire, and it is totally missed in the article. The man had trained his gun crews and fitted the guns to custom modified carriages and aiming notches.  The results where that two or three guns could hit a single gun port disabling the gun. There isn't a single word on it, sadly it and the sister articles come across like fan boy articles instead of a serious treatment of the subject.  Don't get me wrong, there have been articles on the US Frigates that were almost as bad, and one at least that was worse until it got worked over pretty well.


 * Ian W. Toll's Six Frigates is a very good one. However any of the modern authors would be fine, just be very careful of the age of the author, some of them were nothing more than books written for a national audience especially US and Canadian authors before 1960, which are nothing less that nationalistic boosting and not serious histories.  Anything coming out of the US Naval Institute will treat the subject with a sober level eye.  The Shannon won her victory, there were a great number of frigates out there that the Chesapeake would have taken, this victory is all due to Brooke and how seriously he took fighting the Americans would be.Tirronan (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will look into this as I get some books shipped to me. Colincbn (talk) 04:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

on this day link to The Fortune of War not needed since Sept 2010
The text in this article once copied into The Fortune of War was deleted in this revision of that article:   https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Fortune_of_War&diff=next&oldid=378765348

The 'on this day' box on this page (and at The Fortune of War talk page) can be removed, as the two articles are no longer linked in that way. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Use of British English in this article
As can be seen from the above discussion, and can be viewed in the edit history, this article was greatly extended, rewritten and improved by me, a user of British English. It was promoted to GA status as a direct result of my efforts. Whilst I assert no degree of ownership of the article, I reject any expression asserting a primacy for the use of American English in this article, and any changes to the variety of English used. The article is not about a US ship, there is a separate article on the ship itself (USS Chesapeake (1799), which is written in American English), it is about a battle between a US and a British ship, which the British won. I believe that all the articles on the American naval victories of the War of 1812 are written in American English, and I would not seek to change this. Please extend the same courtesy to this article. Urselius (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Complement
Gleaves says Chesapeake carried 382 sailors: https://archive.org/details/jameslawrenceca01gleagoog/page/n277/mode/1up Humphrey Tribble (talk) 07:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sources often vary. Incidentally, 'sabre' is exactly following the usage of Padfield. 'Cutlass' is used in another secondary source I have. I am a collector of military swords, and the contemporary use of the words cutlass, hanger, and sabre overlap considerably, as they are all single-edged swords that are usually curved. I do not see that the precise usage here is of particular importance. I would suggest the wording 'sabre or cutlass' would cover all eventualities. Urselius (talk) 11:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have a small collection of swords too,, and agree terminology can be fuzzy. I can certainly see cutlass and hanger being interchanged, both being shorter weapons suitable for use on a ship. However, sabre suggests to me a longer and fancier weapon which would not be used by average crewmen. So it's a bit jarring to come across the word in that context. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've made that change and removed the flag. I might revisit it if I come across new infirmation.
 * Good points about sabres. The P1796 was a tool, not an ornament. I hadn't thought about the sabre briquet; they were shorter weapons. But it would probably require a linguist to assess whether the usage of sabre is the same in French as it is in English.
 * Thank you, Humpster (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not fancier, surely. Many cavalry trooper's sabres of the period were rather 'industrial' in looks and most French infantrymen of the time were equipped with a sabre briquet. As I said the usage was Padfield's. What to my suggested wording? Urselius (talk)
 * Your comment on, 'Don't give up the ship' being used as a rallying cry subsequently, is in need of a citation. Urselius (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I stated the author and title to get it in. Reference to follow. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 12:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Image problem
I want to add this image adjacent to the last para of "The British board". When I insert "thumb", it is blank. File:W Elmes, The Brilliant Achievement of the Shannon ... in Boarding and Capturing the United States Frigate Chesapeake off Boston, June 1st 1813 in Fifteen Minutes (1813).jpg|W_Elmes,_The_Brilliant_Achievement_of_the_Shannon_..._in_Boarding_and_Capturing_the_United_States_Frigate_Chesapeake_off_Boston,_June_1st_1813_in_Fifteen_Minutes_(1813) Humpster (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You've inserted the file name twice, which is likely why it is not showing properly. The syntax is . If you want more help, change the help me-helped back into a help me, stop by the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 12:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have removed hard-coding of image sizes as a number of pixels. It is far better to just use a generic control such as "thumb" and let the software decide how many pixels that means, because what is a suitable size for one device may be unsuitable for another device. JBW (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Boston Harbor
The "Battle of Boston Harbor" is only mentioned once, as an alternative name, and that occurrence is unsourced. If there is not even one source for this usage, it should be removed. Humpster (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)