Research challenges

[The Bitter End]

Hello to you all!

 

I thought this might be an interesting example of the challenges we face when doing research on naval subjects with even the best possible sources.

 

Below is an excerpt from the naval chronicle XIV written in 1805, A series of publications covering various aspects of naval activity in the British navy at the time. About as good a source as one can hope for(although I'm sure some will disagree).

 

This source shows Nelson being shot from the Spanish ship Trinidada and not the French Redoubtable. I am no expert on the battle and I have no reason to dispute the fact that he was in fact shot from the mast of the redoubtable.

 

My point however is that it is worth noting that whatever information we are working with there is rarely such a thing as being 100% sure. I am definitely guilty of over-confidence in what I read especially when it comes from contemporary sources(especially when it agrees with me) but I think there is a lesson here for everyone

 

A side note is that there are 2 other references to the redoubtable in the document which state that she sunk while being towed after the battle.

 

If anyone is interested in accessing these documents and you have not seen them already the link can be found below. It is a great little window into life at sea at the time.

 

https://www.historicnavalfiction.com/general-hnf-info/naval-facts/the-naval-chronicle

 

I hope you enjoyed this morsel of food for thought.

 

 

TBE(Haiko)

 

EDIT: This error was then corrected in the subsequent edition of the chronicle from 1806:

 

 

 

 

Edited Monday at 09:15 AM by The Bitter End

[Jim Lad]

The above excerpts are a very important cautionary tale. While contemporary sources are a very important resource, they are not necessarily primary sources, and thus as liable to error as any other secondary source!

 

John

[druxey]

Of course, in the midst of a battle and its confusion, it would be easy to mis-report incidents. But you make a good point in that contemporary source accounts can also be misleading.

[georgeband]

Contemporary documents often copied each other (and still do) so mistakes were repeated and became a truth (and still do). One example that I took a while to get past was the Wikipedia entry for HMS Whiting 1805 which states that at one time Lieutenant George Roach was her commander. Wikipedia gives its references and being a doubting soul I follow them up; the chain ends with Winfield's great history and begins with the Naval Chronicle. The Chronicle got it wrong and the person who should have been named was Sub-lieutenant John Roach. Why am I so confident? Because his log book says so.  The commander at the time of Roach's appointment as one of the first sub-lieutenants was Lt John Orkney. 

There was a George Roach who was in command of a force of Fencibles at the time. 

Lloyds register in my experience is another reputable source which copied news articles without fact checking them. 

 

George

 

 

[dafi]

Also Trafalgar was won by the French. At least in Napoleon’s newspapers. Also do not forget personal or political „corrections“, famous today still as alternative fakts or fake news. So nothing was learned since then.

 

Also the eyewitnesses had their own apperception from a special moment or a made up memory as part of trauma or time that passed. 
 

So it is always a good starting point for a new research, a new thesis or to confirm the old known facts in spite of the new input 🙂

 

But sometimes something new really pops up .

 

XXXDAn

Edited 18 hours ago by dafi