He pointed out how, in the later years of the Republic, practical gunnery amongst French seamen was so wretched that strongly manned ships were seen “employing batteries of twenty or thirty guns against our vessels without more effect than might easily have been produced by one or two well-directed pieces. Indeed in some cases, heavy frigates used powerful batteries against our vessels for a considerable time without producing any effect at all.” Thus, the victories of the Nelsonian era were made possible because of the great disparity between the two forces in gunnery skill, and it was this disparity that made it possible to adopt the tactics by which the victors got their great successes. Victory was won by superior skill and tactics founded upon its employment. And in the hour of victory we forgot its conditioning cause. “We became,” says Douglas, “too confident by being feebly opposed, and then slack in warlike exercises, by not being opposed at all. And, lastly, in many cases inexpert for want of even drill practice. And herein consisted the great disadvantage in which, without suspecting it, we entered, with too great confidence, into a war with a marine much more expert than that of any of our European enemies. Comparative views of warlike skill, as well as of bulk and force ... are necessary to correct analysis of naval actions.” In the course of his work he made a very detailed analysis of the actions between the _Macedonian_ and the _United States_, the _Guerriere_ and the _Constitution_, the _Shannon_ and the _Chesapeake_, and the _Java_ and the _Constitution_. In the three instances in which the Americans were victorious, they owed success to no superiority in the handling of their ships, but to a combination of longer-range guns and a much higher accomplishment in marksmanship and tactics designed to keep outside the range of British effective fire. In none of the three cases could any criticism be based upon the bravery of any of the British officers and crews. All were, in fact, honourably acquitted by court martial. But it was obvious in each case that had the gunnery skill been equal, while the difference in armament might ultimately have been decisive, the enemy would have had to pay very dearly indeed for victory. In each case, in point of fact, the victor’s losses were trivial. Amongst these, the action between _Shannon_ and _Chesapeake_ stands out just as the _Kent_ and _Nürnberg_ action stands out in the Falkland Islands. Broke, in the first very few minutes of the engagement, established a complete fire ascendancy over _Chesapeake_, and had he chosen, could have hauled off and pounded her into submission without risking the life of a single one of his men. But, as in the first instance, he had relied upon close action, trusting with perfect confidence to the skill and marksmanship of his well-trained crew, so after he had got _Chesapeake_ out of control, he chose the quickest path to victory.