Talk:Spanish ship Nuestra Señora de la Santísima Trinidad

Do plans exist?
The page claims that "[t]here is no complete plan of the ship in existence", but the entry on the Blagodat in Tredrea and Sozaev's Russian Warships in the Age of Sail, pp. 155-156 mentions that a copy of the plans for Santísima Trinidad in her 130-gun configuration does exist in the Russian naval archives.

There also seems to be some fairly serious disagreement about the armament of Santísima Trinidad. Spanish sources suggest that she made 130 guns by somehow adding extra guns below deck in the mid-1790s, was raised to a four-decker in a 1797-99 refit, and was then up-gunned again by 1805 (and they also indicate that most of her new topside guns were heavy carronades); but without clear access to primary sources, I don't want to confuse the issue by editing. AJN (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not true that there is "no complete plan of the ship in existence". Plans - both contemporary and modern copies, exist of her both as built and as reconstructed in 1795-97 (see plans in the new book on Spanish Warships in the Age of Sail). As regards her guns, one extra pair of guns (36-pounders) was added to her lower deck during her reconstruction, and the same to her middle deck (24-pounders) and upper deck (12-pounders). Most of the additional guns were added to her 4th tier - the quarterdeck and forecastle which were joined to a 'spar' deck to provide a complete new 4th gundeck. Many of the extra guns at this level were obuses (naval howitzers, not carronades!) so that she emerged in 1795 with 18 x 8-pounder long guns and 10 x 24-pounder obuses at this level to give her 130 guns (or 134 if you include the four small 4-pounder obuses fitted on her poop). An additional six 24-pounder obuses were fitted to her by 1805 (the primary source is the Estado General del dia 19 de Octubre de 1805 immediately before sailing from Cadiz). Rif Winfield (talk) 09:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I think this entry is not fair.
Good day. I do not believe the author did an impartial job. Considering the Santisima Trinidad as a "clumby" ship, and their crew as in same way, is giving the English fleet all the credit for the winning battle.


 * I disagree. She clearly wasn't a great success or the design would have been repeated. Instead, the Spanish built another class of more successful 112-gun ships. JimmyTheOne 00:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It's true, the Santísima Trinidad had problems even from her trials and she went thru reforms soon after arriving in Spain, having again important rebuilts in 1803 but without improving her sailing. She was a bad handling ship, slow to manouvre and difficult to sail together with fleet formations. The great Jose de Mazarredo y Salazar advised that the ship should be set aside from sailing and turned into a floating battery for the defence of Cadiz. Politics and prestige issues kept her in active service, being the most coveted prize in all actions and battles. User:Zampa's 00.05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

This page duplicates another page on this ship
There are two pages for the Santísima Trinidad. This one, and one at Spanish ship Santissima Trinidad.

I suggest that we merge the two articles on this page. See Talk:Spanish ship Santissima Trinidad. JimmyTheOne 00:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

My Spanish is poor, but I believe "Poderoso" means "powerful" Bastie 17:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I would say "The Mighty". It was in fact the largest ship of line in its time, carrying upto 144 guns. The only one with four decks and some 5000 tons of displacement. About the size of a modern light cruisier or a heavy destroyer or about half the size of a modern European aircraft carrier. She was one of the reasons for Villenueve to head for Cadiz instead of for Brest, as he wanted to reinforce the Combined Fleet with the Spanish giant before confronting the British. In Trafalgar, the Trinidad was captured as the consequence of the so called "the third Villenueve´s mistake in Trafalgar", then she was released by the Spaniards and finaly she was sunk by the storm that follows the battle.

Villenueve disobeiyed Bonaparte´s orders to go to the Channel (First mistake); then, against the criterion and previous comitment of his whole staff (and only to avoid handing over the command to other French Admiral, who was in his way to Cadiz sent by Bonaparte), he took out the Fleet from the Cadiz Harbour when the Combined was enjoing a clear strategic adventage, since Nelson, who was blocking the Cadiz Bay with his fleet, was in fact in a trap, facing, off shore, a long winter season under the triple threat of: 1) the Combined Fleet, itself, blocked but protected inside the Cadiz harbour, plus 2) the Spanish fleet in La Coruña, and 3) the Spanish fleet in Cartagena, which were ready to move on, not to mention the French fleets in Tolon and Brest (to accept the battle was a gift to Nelson and a second mistake). The third mistake was the maneuver traying to take back the Combined to Cadiz, which virtually rendered the entire fleet to Nelson. (Threshold 16:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC))

Ship's correct name
I'm spaniard, and the correct name of the ship is "Nuestra Señora de la Santísima Trinidad" usually named as "El Trinidad" or "el Santísima Trinidad".

Thanks a lot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.57.189.227 (talk) 13:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions
Naming conventions (ships) describes the convention for the names of warships. Under this convention, this ship article should be named Spanish ship Nuestra Señora de la Santísima Trinidad (1769)--Toddy1 (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My profound apologies to all concerned -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  19:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I too have fallen foul of the conventions.  Please can you change the name back to the convention.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That link doesn't work. Gob Lofa (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Scuttled by her British captors
Hi, the text says:

She was taken in tow by the Prince, but sank in a storm the day after the battle having been scuttled by her British captors.[citation needed]

I have not found any book that supports that explanation. Please can you tell me where you read it?

I always read that: The ship was finally sank by the storm, with still many wounded Spanish sailors inside the ship (approx. with 150 wounded aboard).

(for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episodios_Nacionales, first book)

(As you can read, the wikipedia text in Russian, Portuguese, Spanish, Italian and German languages are agree on this point)

Thanks

--195.55.245.173 (talk) 07:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Replica/scale model?
A small point, but given the earlier statement that no complete plans of the original ship exist, perhaps the mention of "replica" and "scale model" should be qualified somehow? Maybe "reconstruction"? Squid603 (talk) 02:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no replica of this ship! The ship in Malaga is a converted cargo! a modern steel-hulled ship! and she's not accurate at all, just watch at her: her hull's shape is completelly flat from the gunwale to the waterline!!!! Me and three other users had already corrected the Spanish article... we decided tu use the words conversión mimética ("mimetic conversion") instead of "replica"... since it's not a replica. The day a historically accurate, full scale replica of the Santísima Trinidad will be efficiently constructed... don't worry: it will be known worldwide :) Cheers! Kintaro (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually there are two plans that are- supposedly- blueprints of original ship. One in Boston, one in St. Petersburg. Both show same (and very un-typical, considering regulations) figurehead of St. Michael Archangel, with sword and shield, scutum fidei, which is a symbol of Holy Trinity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.174.136.209 (talk) 13:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Other 130 gun ships
I've noted in the entry on Russian Ships of the Line that there seems to be a vessel, the 'Blagodat' which is reported as having 130 guns. Sadly, I can't seem to find much information on English except an entry in Google Books which talks about the launching of the ship (the author refers to it as 'perhaps the largest in the world')which mentions that it was damaged during launch. The entry in the Russian SOTL article notes that it was employed as a flagship, though, so presumably it had a naval career. It might be worth looking into to see of some Russian speakers can find out more about that ship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.80.219 (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Time travel conspiracy
Under "Design and construction," the article states that Santísima Trinidad was modified in 1795 by joining her forecastle to her quarterdeck, creating an fourth gun deck (using the term a bit loosely), and that this conversion made her the largest warship in the world until she was surpassed by ships such as the Océan of 1790 and the Orient of 1791. Assuming all of these dates to be correct, the French ships, having been launched before Santísima Trinidad ' s refitting, could not have surpassed her in size due to her 1795 enlargement. If anything, Santísima Trinidad would have surpassed the Frenchmen due to her enlargement. Anyone know the true sequence of events? --Badger151 (talk) 02:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good catch. As far as I can make out the French ships were always bigger (but only just so after Trinidad's refit) but post-refit Trinidad carried more guns (but only just; the "120-gun" Ocean carried circa 126 guns). Pinkbeast (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Number of guns
From the third paragraph of "Design and construction,": "In 1795, her forecastle was joined to her quarterdeck ..., giving her a total of 140 guns. Her armament seems to have been quickly reduced to 130 from 136 guns." Should this be "reduced to 130 form 136 guns"? Or was there an intermediate reduction from 140 to 136? --Badger151 (talk) 02:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"El Ponderoso" was also the nickname of the "Santisima Trinidad" that was built in 1751.
Considering that that ship was built 30 years previously, was also considered very large, and was called "El Ponderoso", I have trouble believing that this ship was given that nickname solely because it was heavy and ponderous. Especially since the other ship was called that in the typical Spanish meaning of the word, which means "mighty" or "powerful", which also makes more sense to me for THIS ship, seeing as how it was extremely powerful, shared the same name as the older ship, and was no harder to sail than many smaller, yet poorly designed ships. At best it was called "The Mighty", but some people took it on themselves to joke it meant "ponderous", since the same word means both things. The Spanish aren't given to calling their flagships and such disparaging names. I think it has more to do with poor translation skills assuming it means the same as it does in English. For some reason I also note that I cannot edit the page; when I click "edit" it just goes to a blank page with a header and a cursor bar flashing. AnnaGoFast (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The 1751 ship was not called "El Ponderoso", and the same word does not mean both things. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please distinguish between "Poderoso" (which means "powerful") and "Ponderoso" (which means "ponderous"). The first is a justifiably proud name (there was a Spanish 68-gun ship, the Poderoso of 1754, which carried that name, and of course the English equivalent HMS Powerful). The second was a contemporary seaman's term of disapproval, used as a slang term and an ironic play on the first name, because of the ship's poor sailing qualities, which were always bad, but were made worse by her enlargement and up-gunning in 1795. Rif Winfield (talk) 08:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)