Again, another French officer, of much later date, justifies the
opinion expressed, when speaking of the war of the American Revolution
in the following terms:--

"It was necessary to get rid of the unhappy prejudices of the days of
the regency and of Louis XV.; but the mishaps of which they were full
were too recent to be forgotten by our ministers. Thanks to a wretched
hesitation, fleets, which had rightly alarmed England, became reduced
to ordinary proportions. Intrenching themselves in a false economy,
the ministry claimed that, by reason of the excessive expenses
necessary to maintain the fleet, the admirals must be ordered to
maintain the 'greatest circumspection,' as though in war half measures
have not always led to disasters. So, too, the orders given to our
squadron chiefs were to keep the sea as long as possible, without
engaging in actions which might cause the loss of vessels difficult to
replace so that more than once complete victories, which should have
crowned the skill of our admirals and the courage of our captains,
were changed into successes of little importance. A system which laid
down as a principle that an admiral should not use the force in his
hands, which sent him against the enemy with the fore-ordained purpose
of receiving rather than making the attack, a system which sapped
moral power to save material resources, must have unhappy results...
It is certain that this deplorable system was one of the causes of the
lack of discipline and startling defections which marked the periods
of Louis XVI., of the [first] Republic, and of the [first] Empire."
(1)

----
1. Lapeyrouse, Bonfils: Hist. de la Marine Francaise.
----