Re: Fate of spanish San Julian after battle Cape St. Maria -- NAVAL WARFARE IN THE AGE OF SAIL 1650-1815

Friday, May 2, 2008 - New servers are in! Click-in for more info!

[ VoyUser Login optional ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 16:34:32 04/29/08 Tue
Author: Albert Parker
Subject: Re: Fate of spanish San Julian after battle Cape St. Maria
In reply to: ManuBlasco 's message, "Re: Fate of spanish San Julian after battle Cape St. Maria" on 13:00:49 04/29/08 Tue

I don't usually have this kind of stuff, but I do have Rodney's letters up through early 1780. In his letter to Philip Stevens, secretary to the Admiralty, on January 27, 1780, he enclosed a list of the entire Spanish squadron that he must have gotten from one of the captured ships or from captured officers (it included the names of the captains). The list includes the following entries:

San Julian Marques de Medina 70 600 Taken. The [Spanish] officers shifted [taken off], and a Lieut[enant] and 70 seamen put on board afterwards (went on shore)
San Eugenio Don Antonio Pumonte 70 700 Taken. The officers shifted but drove a'shore on the breakers and lost.

Robert Beatson, Naval and Military Memoirs of Great Britain, from 1727 to 1783 (6 vols.; London: Longman, Hurst, Rees and Orme, 1804), V, 108-110, gives the following account of these two ships:

". . . St. Julian, and St. Eugenio, of seventy guns each, were taken and boarded. . . .
"In the morning after the action, the Royal George and Prince George made signals to the Admiral, that they had founded and were in shoal water; and as the gale had not abated, considerable danger was to be apprehended, from the risk of driving towards the bay, which is formed near the entrance of Cadiz. An immediate necessity appeared for changing the tack, and laying the ships' heads from the coast of Spain, which was accordingly done. The Admiral also found himself obliged to make sail with the fleet, in order to avoid a dangerous coast. These movements were absolutely necessary; but it was unfortunate that they became requisite, because two of the Spanish prizes, the St. Julian and St. Eugenio, were so materially damaged in their masts that it was impossible for them to carry sail. The preservation of the fleet, however, compelled Admiral Rodney to quit those two ships, which had only a few British sailors in each, their Captains and principal officers having been put on board the victorious fleet, when possession was taken of them; but the weather had proved so very tempestuous, that only a Lieutenant, some petty officers, and about fifty seamen could be sent on board of each. These, indeed, used the utmost endeavours to keep up with the fleet, of which their crippled state would not admit; but notwithstanding all their exertions, they drove so near the coast of Spain, that they were compelled to make for the harbour of Cadiz, near the entrance of which the St. Eugenio was wrecked. The St. Julian got in, and was retaken by the Spaniards."

There is no mention of the fate of the men on San Eugenio. Beatson, and others, mention the British battle losses, but do not add that any additional men were lost in San Eugenio. That probably means that the British prize crew and the Spanish prisoners were saved. Rodney's correspondence included an exchange with Langara about sending in sick prisoners in a cartel, and instructions to Blane, his Physician of the Fleet, to make sure that none of the Spaniards were faking illness in order to get out of custody. I think that sometimes, "prisoners" who had become so by shipwreck were let go without formal exchange or parole, but I don't see any mention of that in this case.

David Syrett, The Royal Navy in European Waters during the American Revolutionary War (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1998), 88-89, says that San Eugenio "surrendered about 11 p.m., when HMS Cumberland shot away all her masts." "HMS Culloden and HMS Prince George passed the mastless San Eugenio and overhauled and engaged the San Julian, which surrendered at 1:05 a.m. Despite the heavy seas, HMS Prince George managed to place a thirty-five-man prize crew aboard the enemy vessel."
"The situation confronting Rodney at the end of the Moonlight Battle was similar to what Collingwood faced after Trafalgar. At daylight on the morning of 17 January, Rodney's ships and their prizes were scattered along the coast of Algarve with a heavy sea and an onshore wind. There was a great danger that the British ships and their prizes would be forced to leeward and wrecked on the Portuguese coast. Closest to shore was HMS Sandwich, Rodney's flagship, attended by several other British ships and the prizes Monarca and San Julian. The British ships and the Monarca were able to work their way offshore and rejoin the convoy . . . Nothing, however, could save the partially dismasted San Julian, and that ship was driven ashore shortly after 10 a.m. Meanwhile, HMS Terrible was standing by the dismasted San Eugenio, but the situation was helpless and this ship was also driven into the breakers just before noon."

Syrett contradicts Beatson about the fate of San Julian. He cites "PRO, ADM 1/311, 65f" as his source for his account of the Moonlight Battle. That's some kind of official navy officer reports, but I don't know what. In his next paragraph, he mentions Rodney's capturing seven Spanish SOL (including Guipuzcoana in a separate incident before the Moonlight Battle) and lists them in a footnote as follows: "Guipuzcoa, Princesa, Fenix, Diligente, San Eugenia, San Julian, Monarca. The San Julian and Monarca were driven ashore after the battle and destroyed." That's clearly not true of Monarca; he seems to have substituted her for San Eugenio.

I don't have the account of the battle in Isaac Schomberg, Naval Chronology (London: T. Egerton, 1802), but I do have his list of Langara's fleet "on the 16th of January, 1780" (IV, 358) He has the same footnote to the names of both San Julian and San Eugenio: "Taken, but were afterwards ran ashore, and lost near Cadiz."

Christian St. Hubert has San Eugenio as an 80-gun SOL built in 1775 at Ferrol and broken up in 1804.

Perhaps Eugenio did go aground off the mouth of Cadiz harbor but got off again and was able to run into the harbor, or perhaps she was gotten off after the storm.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: Fate of spanish San Julian after battle Cape St. Maria -- Bob Legge, 01:37:22 05/03/08 Sat

Re: Fate of spanish San Julian after battle Cape St. Maria -- Albert Parker, 07:09:33 05/03/08 Sat

Re: Fate of spanish San Julian after battle Cape St. Maria -- Ted, 07:44:45 05/03/08 Sat

[ VoyUser Login ] Not required to post.
Post a public reply to this message | Go post a new public message
* Notice: Posting problems? [ Click here ]
* HTML allowed in marked fields.
Message subject (required):

Name (required):

Expression ^{(Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)}

E-mail address (optional):

* Type your message here:
>I don't usually have this kind of stuff, but I do have >Rodney's letters up through early 1780. In his letter >to Philip Stevens, secretary to the Admiralty, on >January 27, 1780, he enclosed a list of the entire >Spanish squadron that he must have gotten from one of >the captured ships or from captured officers (it >included the names of the captains). The list >includes the following entries: > > San Julian Marques de Medina 70 600 Taken. >The [Spanish] officers shifted [taken off], and a >Lieut[enant] and 70 seamen put on board afterwards >(went on shore) >San Eugenio Don Antonio Pumonte 70 700 Taken. >The officers shifted but drove a'shore on the breakers >and lost. > >Robert Beatson, Naval and Military Memoirs of Great >Britain, from 1727 to 1783 (6 vols.; London: >Longman, Hurst, Rees and Orme, 1804), V, 108-110, >gives the following account of these two ships: > >". . . St. Julian, and St. Eugenio, of seventy guns >each, were taken and boarded. . . . >"In the morning after the action, the Royal George and >Prince George made signals to the Admiral, that they >had founded and were in shoal water; and as the gale >had not abated, considerable danger was to be >apprehended, from the risk of driving towards the bay, >which is formed near the entrance of Cadiz. An >immediate necessity appeared for changing the tack, >and laying the ships' heads from the coast of Spain, >which was accordingly done. The Admiral also found >himself obliged to make sail with the fleet, in order >to avoid a dangerous coast. These movements were >absolutely necessary; but it was unfortunate that they >became requisite, because two of the Spanish prizes, >the St. Julian and St. Eugenio, were so materially >damaged in their masts that it was impossible for them >to carry sail. The preservation of the fleet, >however, compelled Admiral Rodney to quit those two >ships, which had only a few British sailors in each, >their Captains and principal officers having been put >on board the victorious fleet, when possession was >taken of them; but the weather had proved so very >tempestuous, that only a Lieutenant, some petty >officers, and about fifty seamen could be sent on >board of each. These, indeed, used the utmost >endeavours to keep up with the fleet, of which their >crippled state would not admit; but notwithstanding >all their exertions, they drove so near the coast of >Spain, that they were compelled to make for the >harbour of Cadiz, near the entrance of which the St. >Eugenio was wrecked. The St. Julian got in, and was >retaken by the Spaniards." > >There is no mention of the fate of the men on San >Eugenio. Beatson, and others, mention the British >battle losses, but do not add that any additional men >were lost in San Eugenio. That probably means >that the British prize crew and the Spanish prisoners >were saved. Rodney's correspondence included an >exchange with Langara about sending in sick prisoners >in a cartel, and instructions to Blane, his Physician >of the Fleet, to make sure that none of the Spaniards >were faking illness in order to get out of custody. I >think that sometimes, "prisoners" who had become so by >shipwreck were let go without formal exchange or >parole, but I don't see any mention of that in this >case. > >David Syrett, The Royal Navy in European Waters >during the American Revolutionary War (Columbia: >University of South Carolina Press, 1998), 88-89, says >that San Eugenio "surrendered about 11 p.m., >when HMS Cumberland shot away all her masts." >"HMS Culloden and HMS Prince George >passed the mastless San Eugenio and overhauled >and engaged the San Julian, which surrendered >at 1:05 a.m. Despite the heavy seas, HMS Prince >George managed to place a thirty-five-man prize >crew aboard the enemy vessel." >"The situation confronting Rodney at the end of the >Moonlight Battle was similar to what Collingwood faced >after Trafalgar. At daylight on the morning of 17 >January, Rodney's ships and their prizes were >scattered along the coast of Algarve with a heavy sea >and an onshore wind. There was a great danger that >the British ships and their prizes would be forced to >leeward and wrecked on the Portuguese coast. Closest >to shore was HMS Sandwich, Rodney's flagship, >attended by several other British ships and the prizes >Monarca and San Julian. The British >ships and the Monarca were able to work their >way offshore and rejoin the convoy . . . Nothing, >however, could save the partially dismasted San >Julian, and that ship was driven ashore shortly >after 10 a.m. Meanwhile, HMS Terrible was >standing by the dismasted San Eugenio, but the >situation was helpless and this ship was also driven >into the breakers just before noon." > >Syrett contradicts Beatson about the fate of San >Julian. He cites "PRO, ADM 1/311, 65f" as his >source for his account of the Moonlight Battle. >That's some kind of official navy officer reports, but >I don't know what. In his next paragraph, he mentions >Rodney's capturing seven Spanish SOL (including >Guipuzcoana in a separate incident before the >Moonlight Battle) and lists them in a footnote as >follows: "Guipuzcoa, Princesa, Fenix, Diligente, >San Eugenia, San Julian, Monarca. The San >Julian and Monarca were driven ashore after >the battle and destroyed." That's clearly not true of >Monarca; he seems to have substituted her for >San Eugenio. > >I don't have the account of the battle in Isaac >Schomberg, Naval Chronology (London: T. >Egerton, 1802), but I do have his list of Langara's >fleet "on the 16th of January, 1780" (IV, 358) He has >the same footnote to the names of both San >Julian and San Eugenio: "Taken, but were >afterwards ran ashore, and lost near Cadiz." > >Christian St. Hubert has San Eugenio as an >80-gun SOL built in 1775 at Ferrol and broken up in >1804. > >Perhaps Eugenio did go aground off the mouth of >Cadiz harbor but got off again and was able to run >into the harbor, or perhaps she was gotten off after >the storm.

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 2.94, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums^(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2008 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.