Two reviews for Trafalgar Day

Today is the 200th anniversary of the battle of Trafalgar, one of the most important naval battles ever fought and the last great naval battle of the age of fighting sale. Earlier this month, I decided to read a couple of books on Trafalgar and Nelson that I hadn't already read, hence the two reviews below. But, in addition to the two books listed below, there are numerous other good books out there on Trafalgar and Nelson, including Dudley Pope's fine England Expects and Alan Schom's Trafalgar: Countdown to Battle.

Trafalgar: The Nelson Touch by David Howarth

With the 200^th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar rapidly approaching, I decided to read one of the books on Trafalgar that I hadn't yet read. Therefore, I picked up a book by a popular historian whose works I’ve always enjoyed, David Howarth, whose books on Waterloo and 1066 I had enjoyed. His Trafalgar: The Nelson Touch provides a good overview of the battle, as well as the key events that lead up to it and the horrific storm that followed it.

Trafalgar was a pivotal moment in history. It ended any plans by Napoleon to conquer Britain, and by keeping Britain free, thus prevented Napoleon from every truly conquering Europe. For the next 10 years, Britain was able to stand against him, hemming him into the continent, providing aid to those fighting against him, and eventually providing the army that would most contribute to his defeat.

As Howarth points out, in many ways, the battle was one before the first shot was fired. There were three key reasons for this:

• The British, even though outnumbered, were convinced they would win. They never doubted it. Likewise, the French and Spanish fleet knew it would lose.
• The English were far better sailors.
• The English were far better gunners.

The first of these was directly attributable to Nelson (who of course had a major part in the other two as well). The latter two were a direct result of the proceeding two years. During those two years, the French and Spanish had been blockaded into ports, such as Toulon on the Mediterranean. The English, in an incredible naval accomplishment, patrolled outside, keeping them from breaking out. (A major French sea expedition could have been disastrous to Britain, as Napoleon only needed a fleet to control the English Channel for perhaps 48 hours to give him time to ferry his waiting army across.) For two years, the British patrolled, preventing the French from escaping. (Though in the Mediterranean, Nelson actually tried to tempt them out, hoping to finally defeat part of the fleet.) It was hard work; keeping ships in line, on patrol, in all forms of weather, is not an easy task. And it was boring work. But it honed the skills of the English, who became the best sailors of wooden ships the world had ever seen. And, since the British engaged in gunnery practice while on patrol, they also became superb (and what is very important, fast) gunners; they could fire, reload, and fire again twice as fast as the French, something that was decisive in ship-to-ship combat.

The French and Spanish fleet, meanwhile, in harbor, rarely able to put to sea, could not practice their sailing or their gunnery. As a result, when they finally did get loose, they could neither sail nor shoot every well. Moreover, they were often manned by landsmen and soldiers, who really didn’t understand or like the naval life.

The French had the additional handicap of being ruled by a soldier who thought he understood the sea, but didn’t. Napoleon was prone to give the navy orders that were impossible, then fume that they were all cowards or slackers for not doing what he asked. This sort of thing is of course a major problem with most dictators: Hitler did the same sort of thing in World War II, issuing orders to the army that hindered them in many ways.

Meanwhile, the British had Nelson. I’m surprised that nobody has written a pop-management book on “managing the Nelson way” as he was the model of a good commander. He genuinely cared for and worked well with those around him. (The term “Band of Brothers” was coined by Nelson to describe his close relationship with his captains.) He knew them and trusted them; he gave general instructions but expected his people to use their best judgment and initiative in executing them. He took pains to show concern for all the seamen. As Howarth said, the result was that he wasn’t just respected and admired but truly loved by the sailors. When his death was reported after the battle, sailors all over the fleet were seen crying at the news.

Howarth provides a good general history of the Battle of Trafalgar. He provides enough of background that a reader who knows at least a bit about the Napoleonic Wars has some context, but not as much as some of the more detailed histories I’ve read. There is enough detail of how the battle was fought to satisfy both those who don’t know much about the technology behind and the operation of wooden ships as well as those who do. And he explores the lives and thoughts of both the officers – not only the English but a few key French figures – and the men. He provides a reasonable balance – he is sympathetic to Villeneuve, the French Admiral whom Napoleon blamed for the loss (forgetting everything that he, Napoleon, had done to contribute to the loss) – though he is clearly and Englishman and is proud of the achievements of the Royal Navy.

For serious history buffs, there are perhaps better books on Trafalgar, but if you want a quick yet accurate and reasonably detailed history, this one is recommended.

Nelson by David Walder

After reading the above book on Trafalgar, I wanted to fill in some of the gaps in my knowledge about Nelson with a biography. David Walder’s biography is a good one. It has enough background material so that if you are even a little familiar with British history, you can follow along, but not so many details of the small moments of Nelson’s life that you become bogged down.

Nelson was, as alluded to in the previous review, an amazing man. He led the British naval forces in three major battles – the Nile, Copenhagen, and Trafalgar – and was responsible for the key maneuver that lead to victory in another, the Battle of Cape St. Vincent. He changed naval strategy, moving it from one in which lines faced one another and could break off after a few ships had been taken or disabled to a more daring one, involving new, aggressive tactics, and one in which victory meant overcoming the opposing fleet.

He was a great man, yet at times didn’t understand his own weaknesses. In addition to his great victories, his style led him into at least one large defeat: this one in leading troops in a land/sea operation. He was generous, kind, and could be morally upright – but in the end left his wife in favor of Emma Hamilton, his mistress. He was in favor of navy discipline, but sometimes thought it didn’t apply to him. Admittedly, his success let him get away with it. The victory at St. Vincent was a result of Nelson disobeying orders and doing what he, on the spot, thought best. And at Copenhagen, the story of Nelson putting the glass to his blind eye and stating that he did not see the signal to withdraw (and then going on to win the battle) is one that every British child knows.

Walder’s biography provides a balanced look at Nelson. It of course emphasizes his accomplishment – which far out numbered his faults – but it doesn’t turn a blind eye to those faults, and looks at Nelson cleanly.

A good biography, and recommended to those interested in Nelson or in the Napoleonic wars.