or stern-chasers, neither of which could be used in broadsides.
Nevertheless, I include them, both because it works in about an
equal number of cases against each navy, and because they were
sometimes terribly effective. James excludes the _Guerriere's_
bow-chaser; in reality he ought to have included both it and its
fellow, as they worked more damage than all the broadside guns
put together. Again, he excludes the _Endymion's_ bow-chasers,
though in her action they proved invaluable. Yet he includes those
of the _Enterprise_ and _Argus_, though the former's were probably
not fired. So I shall take the half of the fixed, plus all the
movable guns aboard, in comparing broadside force.

But the chief difficulty appears when guns of one style are
matched against those of another. If a ship armed with long 12's,
meets one armed with 32-pound carronades, which is superior in
force? At long range the first, and at short range the second; and
of course each captain is pretty sure to insist that "circumstances"
forced him to fight at a disadvantage. The result would depend
largely on the skill or luck of each commander in choosing position.

One thing is certain; long guns are more formidable than carronades
of the same calibre. There are exemplifications of this rule on
both sides; of course, American writers, as a rule, only pay
attention to one set of cases, and British to the others. The _Cyane_
and _Levant_ threw a heavier broadside than the _Constitution_ but
were certainly less formidably armed; and the _Essex_ threw a heavier
broadside than the _Phoebe_, yet was also less formidable. On Lake
Ontario the American ship _General Pike_ threw less metal at a
broadside than either of her two chief antagonists, but neither
could be called her equal; while on Lake Champlain a parallel case