What do you think?
Rate this book
The Line Upon a Wind: The Great War at Sea, 1793-1815
The thrilling story of Britain's death-struggle with Revolutionary France, wherein Napoleon is checkmated by Nelson's brilliant naval exploits.
In February 1793 France declared war on Britain, and for the next twenty-two years the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars raged. This was to be the longest, cruelest war ever fought at sea, comparable in scale only to the Second World War. New naval tactics were brought to bear, along with such unheard-of weapons as rockets, torpedoes, and submarines. The war on land saw the rise of the greatest soldier the world had ever known—Napoleon Buonaparte—whose vast ambition was thwarted by a genius he never met in person or in battle: Admiral Horatio Nelson.Noel Mostert's narrative ranges from the Mediterranean to the West Indies, Egypt to Scandinavia, showing how land versus sea was the key to the outcome of these wars. He provides details of ship construction, tactics, and life on board. Above all he shows us the extraordinary characters that were the raw material of Patrick O'Brian's and C. S. Forester's magnificent novels.
801 pages, Kindle Edition
First published July 17, 2007
90 people are currently reading
331 people want to read
About the author
Noël Mostert
6 books12 followersNoël Mostert was a historian and author. He is best known for his 1974 best-seller "Supership," which examined the oil shipping trade.
Mostert began his writing career as a journalist, and was a parliamentary correspondent, a foreign correspondent, and a New York columnist.
Mostert began his writing career as a journalist, and was a parliamentary correspondent, a foreign correspondent, and a New York columnist.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
August 23, 2019
The author makes an interesting observation near the end of the book, which says a great deal about the memorable years 1793-1815:
"For a twenty-first century witness emerging from close insight into the naval battles and actions of the Great War, one question constantly arises. Were those who fought these battles truly a different sort of man? Their courage in so many striking circumstances compels one to ask also, what was the nature of fear with those men at that time?"
Mostert goes on to discuss fear and the zeal for close combat, whether it be on land or sea, referring to it as, "For it is the element of an ingrained and committed sense of self-sacrifice that so strongly implies a difference that can seem difficult to grasp."
For years, the world as these countries and men knew it, trembled on the brink. Men fought great and little battles on land and sea. It truly was a Great War.
"For a twenty-first century witness emerging from close insight into the naval battles and actions of the Great War, one question constantly arises. Were those who fought these battles truly a different sort of man? Their courage in so many striking circumstances compels one to ask also, what was the nature of fear with those men at that time?"
Mostert goes on to discuss fear and the zeal for close combat, whether it be on land or sea, referring to it as, "For it is the element of an ingrained and committed sense of self-sacrifice that so strongly implies a difference that can seem difficult to grasp."
For years, the world as these countries and men knew it, trembled on the brink. Men fought great and little battles on land and sea. It truly was a Great War.
January 4, 2020
I entered this book with very high expectations, which is perhaps why I only found this account satisfactory and not excellent. The book’s intent to survey the entirety of the naval aspect of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars (or the Great War, as Mostert calls it) is quite ambitious. I must give the author, Noel Mostert credit because I think he succeeds at providing a clear, sound overview. Indeed, I would recommend this book to anyone wanting to learn about the naval side of the Napoleonic Wars, but this book had many flaws which detracted from my reading experience.
Mostert begins with a fascinating and lengthy introduction of the evolution of naval combat from ancient times up to the 18th century. Not only was this introduction interesting, but it also provided excellent context for the main subject. It primarily details the evolution of warships and the gradual rise of Great Britain’s Royal Navy, which was not as predestined or effortless as it is sometimes implied. Though the book is largely told from the perspective of the Royal Navy, Mostert remains fair and objective throughout.
After the introduction, the book is divided into two parts. The first covers the vast conflict at sea that begin in 1793 and ends with the battle of Trafalgar in 1805. Mostert guides the reader through the progression of this naval war, which was mostly Britain against France. All the major events and battles are covered, but Mostert includes several minor incidents to add flavor to the narrative. I thought his coverage of the battles was spotty. The account of the battle of the Nile was particularly well-written, but other battles were given a cursory treatment that left me unsatisfied. For example, Mostert himself says "Camperdown was a battle that, with posterity, somehow lost rank and significance against the greater and more romantically glorious events that followed" but does nothing to rectify that lapse because his account of the battle is only two or three pages long.
One of the quibbles I had with this book is the author’s decision to base the narrative around Nelson and Napoleon. I understand that these men were two of the most pivotal figures of their time, but I felt too much attention and effort was given to comparing the two. In my opinion, Nelson’s minor exploits and his personal life were given too much attention, though others may disagree. Thirdly, I wasn’t entirely taken by the author’s writing. By no means is it badly written, but the prose isn’t outstanding either. Additionally, Mostert makes some interesting choices regarding certain conventions, most notably in referring to Napoleon as Buonaparte.
What Mostert does do well is that he adds context to the naval war. He constantly updates the reader on the happenings on the continent of Europe (and sometimes North America) which makes it easy for the reader to understand how the naval war corresponded to the war on land. It is mainly for this reason that I found this book to be a far more superior summary of the naval side of the war than the book The War for All the Oceans: From Nelson at the Nile to Napoleon at Waterloo. However, I wish the author would have expanded on the relationship between land war and naval war more. Asides from a few isolated examples, there is no attempt at a cohesive argument on this subject. I feel that if the author had maintained a constant argument throughout the book, then the value and interest of the book would be much greater.
After the battle of Trafalgar, the naval war was entirely changed, a change which is reflected in the text. The dramatic, large-scale naval conflict between Britain and France was now a thing of the past. Instead, blockade, small-scale conflicts, and the impending conflict with the United States had became the main priorities of the Royal Navy. Of these three, the British conflicts with the U.S. including the War of 1812 are given the most thorough coverage. I found the second half of the book to be choppier and less interesting than the first – though that may be a result of the subject matter.
A major flaw of this book (I might have given it four stars if not for this flaw) is the complete want of maps. There are three, located at the beginning of the book. The first is a detailed, if disorientating plan of the battle of New Orleans, the second is a series of plans of the battle of Trafalgar, and the third is a general map of the North Atlantic. This is not a sufficient quality for a book that covers over twenty years of conflict on all sides of the globe. The dearth of maps made for a frustrating and inferior reading experience.
In conclusion, Noel Mostert’s The Line Upon a Wind succeeds as a comprehensive survey of the naval conflict that spanned from 1793 to 1815. Unfortunately, there were too many flaws to make this the authoritative account that I hoped it would be.
Mostert begins with a fascinating and lengthy introduction of the evolution of naval combat from ancient times up to the 18th century. Not only was this introduction interesting, but it also provided excellent context for the main subject. It primarily details the evolution of warships and the gradual rise of Great Britain’s Royal Navy, which was not as predestined or effortless as it is sometimes implied. Though the book is largely told from the perspective of the Royal Navy, Mostert remains fair and objective throughout.
After the introduction, the book is divided into two parts. The first covers the vast conflict at sea that begin in 1793 and ends with the battle of Trafalgar in 1805. Mostert guides the reader through the progression of this naval war, which was mostly Britain against France. All the major events and battles are covered, but Mostert includes several minor incidents to add flavor to the narrative. I thought his coverage of the battles was spotty. The account of the battle of the Nile was particularly well-written, but other battles were given a cursory treatment that left me unsatisfied. For example, Mostert himself says "Camperdown was a battle that, with posterity, somehow lost rank and significance against the greater and more romantically glorious events that followed" but does nothing to rectify that lapse because his account of the battle is only two or three pages long.
One of the quibbles I had with this book is the author’s decision to base the narrative around Nelson and Napoleon. I understand that these men were two of the most pivotal figures of their time, but I felt too much attention and effort was given to comparing the two. In my opinion, Nelson’s minor exploits and his personal life were given too much attention, though others may disagree. Thirdly, I wasn’t entirely taken by the author’s writing. By no means is it badly written, but the prose isn’t outstanding either. Additionally, Mostert makes some interesting choices regarding certain conventions, most notably in referring to Napoleon as Buonaparte.
What Mostert does do well is that he adds context to the naval war. He constantly updates the reader on the happenings on the continent of Europe (and sometimes North America) which makes it easy for the reader to understand how the naval war corresponded to the war on land. It is mainly for this reason that I found this book to be a far more superior summary of the naval side of the war than the book The War for All the Oceans: From Nelson at the Nile to Napoleon at Waterloo. However, I wish the author would have expanded on the relationship between land war and naval war more. Asides from a few isolated examples, there is no attempt at a cohesive argument on this subject. I feel that if the author had maintained a constant argument throughout the book, then the value and interest of the book would be much greater.
After the battle of Trafalgar, the naval war was entirely changed, a change which is reflected in the text. The dramatic, large-scale naval conflict between Britain and France was now a thing of the past. Instead, blockade, small-scale conflicts, and the impending conflict with the United States had became the main priorities of the Royal Navy. Of these three, the British conflicts with the U.S. including the War of 1812 are given the most thorough coverage. I found the second half of the book to be choppier and less interesting than the first – though that may be a result of the subject matter.
A major flaw of this book (I might have given it four stars if not for this flaw) is the complete want of maps. There are three, located at the beginning of the book. The first is a detailed, if disorientating plan of the battle of New Orleans, the second is a series of plans of the battle of Trafalgar, and the third is a general map of the North Atlantic. This is not a sufficient quality for a book that covers over twenty years of conflict on all sides of the globe. The dearth of maps made for a frustrating and inferior reading experience.
In conclusion, Noel Mostert’s The Line Upon a Wind succeeds as a comprehensive survey of the naval conflict that spanned from 1793 to 1815. Unfortunately, there were too many flaws to make this the authoritative account that I hoped it would be.
June 17, 2009
I'm a sucker for old navy stuff, and with this book I hit the jackpot. Some of Mr. Mostert's sentences are strange to my ear. They can occasionally be long and meandering with not enough commas or vowels, or so it seems to me. But I quibble. He really knows his British navy and, refreshingly, gives the French and Spanish and Barbary and all those other navies their full due. The new American navy makes its appearance and pretty much whomps the British, which is fun.
June 19, 2025
A lengthy but readable general history of the naval war between Britain and revolutionary and Napoleonic France, mostly focused on the British side.
The first half mainly deals with Nelson, and this part is vivid and flows pretty well. The story of the battles are told with flair and passion.For the most part, Mostert does a decent job looking at the implications of the war’s many engagements.
The narrative is a bit superficial or unfocused at times, and often jumps from individual stories without much context. He doesn’t provide much analysis; when he does he often quotes from other people's judgments. More coverage of strategy would have helped. Some sentences are convoluted. Also, the narrative loses some excitement after Nelson’s death. There are also a few errors here and there (like the US president “ratifying” a treaty, Charles James Fox being called “Edward,” Alexander Cochrane being called “Thomas Cochrane,” Jenkin Ratford being called “Rutford,” Isaac Brock being called “Upper Canada's governor in 1812,” the American War Department is called the “American War Administration,” writing that RObert Barclay lost an arm at Trafalgar, or the Yamoto being sunk at Guadalcanal). Some chapters kind of just sit there with no real connection to the war (like the one on homosexuality in the Royal Navy) Some more maps for specific battles would have helped.
An entertaining and mostly well-written work.
The first half mainly deals with Nelson, and this part is vivid and flows pretty well. The story of the battles are told with flair and passion.For the most part, Mostert does a decent job looking at the implications of the war’s many engagements.
The narrative is a bit superficial or unfocused at times, and often jumps from individual stories without much context. He doesn’t provide much analysis; when he does he often quotes from other people's judgments. More coverage of strategy would have helped. Some sentences are convoluted. Also, the narrative loses some excitement after Nelson’s death. There are also a few errors here and there (like the US president “ratifying” a treaty, Charles James Fox being called “Edward,” Alexander Cochrane being called “Thomas Cochrane,” Jenkin Ratford being called “Rutford,” Isaac Brock being called “Upper Canada's governor in 1812,” the American War Department is called the “American War Administration,” writing that RObert Barclay lost an arm at Trafalgar, or the Yamoto being sunk at Guadalcanal). Some chapters kind of just sit there with no real connection to the war (like the one on homosexuality in the Royal Navy) Some more maps for specific battles would have helped.
An entertaining and mostly well-written work.
August 18, 2009
Who knew that before they called World War I the "Great War" the British used to call the generation long war against Napoleon and France the "Great War?"
That's only one of the historical goodies I derived from Noel Moestert's "The Line Upon a Wind: the Great War at Sea, 1793-1815."
I like this book. A lot. Even at 700 pages the pace is quite good. The author knows people like me are reading this book for the battle scenes and takes of nautical derring-do. And he delivers. This is not a story of institutions and movements but of people. Of wooden ships and iron men, if you will. Especially Horatio Nelson and Napoleon Buonaparte (yes, the author prefers the Italianate spelling which the Brits use to remind the little corporal of his beginnings.)
Napoleon made military history by flaunting the convention of the day calling for methodically linear battle tactics. He mastered local concentration of force and melee combat. Remarkably, almost the same can be said of the bold tactics of Nelson (and certain of his peers) who literally rewrote the rules of naval combat.
Now I am no novice when it comes to tales of the Royal Navy. But I have to confess I was not aware of the ironic similarities between Nelson and Napoleon. In temperament, in fighting style and rejection of convention, even in physical form. Both men became the personification of their nation's military power -- even in the popular mind. And at about the same time.
While primarily a story of the death match struggle between England and France, the emergence of the United States as a nautical power is well served. Including the insults of impressment, blockade and the Barbary pirates. Moestert is not stinting in praise for the competence and daring of the incipient US Navy.
And there's even something for the ladies. Nelson's scandalous affair with courtesan Emma Hamilton is surprisingly well documented. To paraphrase, "After the Battle of the Nile, Nelson would sail to Naples where he encountered action of a very different sort."
The major battles are well covered, with enough detail to make them interesting and fresh, and not so much as to make them incomprehensible. In my mind this fine balance is the art of good military history. And I think this book certainly achieves it.
Confusion to Napoleon; confound the French!
That's only one of the historical goodies I derived from Noel Moestert's "The Line Upon a Wind: the Great War at Sea, 1793-1815."
I like this book. A lot. Even at 700 pages the pace is quite good. The author knows people like me are reading this book for the battle scenes and takes of nautical derring-do. And he delivers. This is not a story of institutions and movements but of people. Of wooden ships and iron men, if you will. Especially Horatio Nelson and Napoleon Buonaparte (yes, the author prefers the Italianate spelling which the Brits use to remind the little corporal of his beginnings.)
Napoleon made military history by flaunting the convention of the day calling for methodically linear battle tactics. He mastered local concentration of force and melee combat. Remarkably, almost the same can be said of the bold tactics of Nelson (and certain of his peers) who literally rewrote the rules of naval combat.
Now I am no novice when it comes to tales of the Royal Navy. But I have to confess I was not aware of the ironic similarities between Nelson and Napoleon. In temperament, in fighting style and rejection of convention, even in physical form. Both men became the personification of their nation's military power -- even in the popular mind. And at about the same time.
While primarily a story of the death match struggle between England and France, the emergence of the United States as a nautical power is well served. Including the insults of impressment, blockade and the Barbary pirates. Moestert is not stinting in praise for the competence and daring of the incipient US Navy.
And there's even something for the ladies. Nelson's scandalous affair with courtesan Emma Hamilton is surprisingly well documented. To paraphrase, "After the Battle of the Nile, Nelson would sail to Naples where he encountered action of a very different sort."
The major battles are well covered, with enough detail to make them interesting and fresh, and not so much as to make them incomprehensible. In my mind this fine balance is the art of good military history. And I think this book certainly achieves it.
Confusion to Napoleon; confound the French!
June 4, 2012
A very good book providing an exhaustive account of the British Navy in "The Great War" from grand strategy to naval tactics to shipboard life and anecdotes. Mostert's style is more journalistic than historical, making for an easy enjoyable read. While an excellent book it does have a major failing for a military history book: a serious dearth of maps. In a book that provides such detailed accounts of battles, tactical maps are a necessity, and for a war that covered so much of the globe more geographical maps would be helpful- I was continually referring to the web for maps. And a possible problem or just an editing error: in the "Postscript" chapter he mentions the Yamato being sunk off Guadalcanal in 1945 - such an obvious error can call into question the accuracy of the rest of his research - though I expect it was just a careless error on Mostert's part (or his editor). I do highly recommend the book (but keep your web access handy - "britishbattles.com" is a very helpful website).
Oh! And I should also say what a great appropriate title for this book.
Oh! And I should also say what a great appropriate title for this book.
September 11, 2025
well done but too thorough for me!
January 30, 2019
Lots of great insights and information, but I didn't enjoy it as much as I expected to.
Frequently the writing (or perhaps editing) is a bit odd. I didn't highlight any examples, but somehow the phrasing often sounded strange and rather non-native. That doesn't make any sense, because Mostert is from South Africa, but his phrasing was just a bit off for me and it made it difficult to disappear into the book. Additional, in the last half of the book (as the Napoleonic Wars continue but the naval action has slowed) Mostert includes single-issue chapters that cover topics like Royal Navy discipline, sexuality, class struggle, etc. To be honest, I found these somewhat tedious.
As a plus (for an American reader), Mostert goes into the U.S. involvement in the wars of the era in greater depth than most similar books.
Overall, it was a good book and a worthwhile read. However, I'd recommend "The War for All the Oceans" by the Adkins as a more enjoyable option that covers much of the same ground.
Frequently the writing (or perhaps editing) is a bit odd. I didn't highlight any examples, but somehow the phrasing often sounded strange and rather non-native. That doesn't make any sense, because Mostert is from South Africa, but his phrasing was just a bit off for me and it made it difficult to disappear into the book. Additional, in the last half of the book (as the Napoleonic Wars continue but the naval action has slowed) Mostert includes single-issue chapters that cover topics like Royal Navy discipline, sexuality, class struggle, etc. To be honest, I found these somewhat tedious.
As a plus (for an American reader), Mostert goes into the U.S. involvement in the wars of the era in greater depth than most similar books.
Overall, it was a good book and a worthwhile read. However, I'd recommend "The War for All the Oceans" by the Adkins as a more enjoyable option that covers much of the same ground.
May 31, 2018
What attracted me to this book? The title "The Line Upon a Wind". So profound, so awe inspiring. The cover illustration is also as evocative too.
Which is in essence my opinion of this fine, fine book. Meticulously researched and meticulously written, I really learned a lot from this book and I looked upon the world differently after wards.
The fate of nations and empires rested on the skill of sailors and the mercy of the wind in the open seas. How more profound can one really get in world history?
Which is in essence my opinion of this fine, fine book. Meticulously researched and meticulously written, I really learned a lot from this book and I looked upon the world differently after wards.
The fate of nations and empires rested on the skill of sailors and the mercy of the wind in the open seas. How more profound can one really get in world history?
December 14, 2014
A must read for any fan of Nelson and the Age of Sail.
August 6, 2017
I loved this book. Engaging, fascinating, and detailed story of England gaining mastery of the world's oceans; especially the dual in leadership between Lord Nelson and Napoleon.
December 4, 2023
This is an excellent book on the naval history of Napoleonic war. Before reading this book, I had no idea how naval warfare in the age of sail was like. I find these knowledge were interestingly presented by this book.
The first few chapters give a brief introduction to the evolution of naval warfare, as well as naval tactics, the structure of a battleship, and sailor’s life on board. Before diving into the narration, Mostert gives some details on the background of the situation. One enlightening point I find is that, the strategical viewpoint at sea is very different from that on land. On land, a military commander needs to consider the landscape, supply route (waterways, villages, supply depot, etc.), forts, cities and so on. At sea, a naval commander considers ports, straits, reefs, wind directions etc. This offered an oceanic view of the world.
Then the book is divided into two parts. The first part covers from the beginning to Trafalgar, the second part covers from post-Trafalgar to the end of the war. The first part is coherently presented, because there is a clue to follow: Nelson. Most of the major events are involved with Lord Nelson. Nelson’s adventure is well told but Mostert constantly makes comparisons to Napoleon’s military career. I understand that Mostert has an enthusiasms for Nelson, but I consider it subjective. I think it would be better to leave it to readers to reflect and digest the similarities of the two stars. Amongst the first part, Mostert also inserts some side events such as the birth of the US navy, the Barbary states, mutinous incidents and so on.
The second part offers on such clear clue to the evolution of history as there was little major naval event happened. It is more like a collection of fascinating episodes happened during that period of time. Many of them are about small scale battle between frigates. Mostert also delivered a concise history of the Anglo-American war of 1812. Aside from the naval conflicts between British and US on the Atlantic coast, one might not realize the great lakes between the US and Canada to be am important naval action theatre. This is one interesting point to point out of that episode of history. I quite struggled on this part because there is no detailed map to support Mostert’s narration.
The sailor’s on board life is vividly presented. Their life was not in any way romantic. Constant tough work, bad living condition, boredom, longing for home, horrifying actions during combat, these were the sailors’ life. I don’t think any reader who went through these passages would not sigh.
The first few chapters give a brief introduction to the evolution of naval warfare, as well as naval tactics, the structure of a battleship, and sailor’s life on board. Before diving into the narration, Mostert gives some details on the background of the situation. One enlightening point I find is that, the strategical viewpoint at sea is very different from that on land. On land, a military commander needs to consider the landscape, supply route (waterways, villages, supply depot, etc.), forts, cities and so on. At sea, a naval commander considers ports, straits, reefs, wind directions etc. This offered an oceanic view of the world.
Then the book is divided into two parts. The first part covers from the beginning to Trafalgar, the second part covers from post-Trafalgar to the end of the war. The first part is coherently presented, because there is a clue to follow: Nelson. Most of the major events are involved with Lord Nelson. Nelson’s adventure is well told but Mostert constantly makes comparisons to Napoleon’s military career. I understand that Mostert has an enthusiasms for Nelson, but I consider it subjective. I think it would be better to leave it to readers to reflect and digest the similarities of the two stars. Amongst the first part, Mostert also inserts some side events such as the birth of the US navy, the Barbary states, mutinous incidents and so on.
The second part offers on such clear clue to the evolution of history as there was little major naval event happened. It is more like a collection of fascinating episodes happened during that period of time. Many of them are about small scale battle between frigates. Mostert also delivered a concise history of the Anglo-American war of 1812. Aside from the naval conflicts between British and US on the Atlantic coast, one might not realize the great lakes between the US and Canada to be am important naval action theatre. This is one interesting point to point out of that episode of history. I quite struggled on this part because there is no detailed map to support Mostert’s narration.
The sailor’s on board life is vividly presented. Their life was not in any way romantic. Constant tough work, bad living condition, boredom, longing for home, horrifying actions during combat, these were the sailors’ life. I don’t think any reader who went through these passages would not sigh.
June 5, 2021
I find myself fascinated by naval history and this one definitely scratched an itch that introduced me to a section of history I knew almost nothing about, spending probably too much time on WW2 Naval history. This book's whole focus is on the dichotomy between land and sea during the Napoleonic Wars, personified by Napoleon and Nelson. If you're looking for a blow by blow of every naval engagement of the war, this will do it. However... it focuses a bit *too* much on Napoleon and Nelson, the author clearly believes in the Great Man theory of history. Every section is about how Nelson and Napoleon reacted, or are supposed to reacted, to each other.
It's a good read, but probably not a definitive work on the matter
It's a good read, but probably not a definitive work on the matter
December 16, 2019
The Naval side of the Napoleonic Wars
Detailed, absorbing, and thorough. Explores the political, economic, and strategic contexts of the naval campaigns, the personalities of the major players, and the conditions of life aboard the ships. The author does have a tendency to wander off in digressions not directly related to his principal themes, though, which makes the book longer than it needed to be. More maps would have been useful as well.
Detailed, absorbing, and thorough. Explores the political, economic, and strategic contexts of the naval campaigns, the personalities of the major players, and the conditions of life aboard the ships. The author does have a tendency to wander off in digressions not directly related to his principal themes, though, which makes the book longer than it needed to be. More maps would have been useful as well.
October 3, 2024
Fascinating and sad a terrible loss of life at sea and on land. The ego of individuals and nations pitted against each other seems to be the lot of our being. That said I did enjoy the book, it wasn't an easy read but was packed with so many stories and details. I enjoyed the ride. Thanks
February 4, 2021
Incredible epic history
March 5, 2022
This is a difficult book to assess; it is not without flaws but I almost gave it 3 stars. One of the puffs on the back cover of this edition praises its 'fluency'. I can't agree; the author's style is idiosyncratic - in several places I had to read sentences two or three times to grasp his meaning. He refers to ships-of-the-line throughout as 'line ships', a contraction that grates; even worse, at one point he refers to frigates, sloops and smaller vessels as 'under-line ships', which sets my teeth on edge. He also refers to frigates as 'destroyers' (253-4), which is a very inaccurate anachronism. I noticed a few other minor factual errors and internal contradictions. The book is under-supplied with maps and plans (and those few are somewhat oddly placed in relation to the text). It is also under-referenced; many interesting statements are left as assertions, without any evidence given; sometimes even direct quotations are not properly attributed.
Mostert's conclusions and interpretations are sometimes questionable, if not impossible to accept. For example, he suggests that the confrontation between Lieutenants Camelford and Peterson at Antigua in 1798 might not have ended fatally if the orders sent to Camelford had been addressed to 'Lord Lieutenant Camelford', rather than to 'Lieutenant Lord Camelford' (240), but this is an absurd impossibility; no one could possibly have addressed Camelford in such a way. Military titles always precede personal titles and in any case the term 'Lord Lieutenant' has an entirely different application. No one cares about matters of correct address now (perhaps rightly) but in the late 18th century they did care, and historians have to be aware of that. In another passage Mostert comments on Nelson's reaction to Sir John Orde's misuse of his frigates off Gibraltar in May 1805; he says that Nelson's remarks on the occasion were generous and 'a measure of his incredulity over such a fault' (463) but to me they read more like rather heavy sarcasm.
The greatest issue however, is that Mostert believes in the 'Great Man' theory of history and takes it rather to extremes. He wants to see the whole war as a personal clash between Nelson and Napoleon, which leads to problems at many levels. Napoleon exercised supreme command from an early date and was a prime mover throughout the period while Nelson was a subordinate commander for much of the time and was dead before the wars were half over. At times the effort to link the two men becomes desperate, as when he notes that Nelson left Cadiz for Gibraltar on 2 May 1798 and Napoleon left Paris for Toulon on the following day and breathlessly tries to turn it into a signifier of providence (251); it isn't even a coincidence.
Napoleon rose from relatively humble origins to be Emperor of France; the greater part of the wars are named after him (it is very rare for any war to be named after an individual); it is not difficult to cast him as a 'Great Man' or, if you prefer, a 'Bloody Nuisance', given that he caused the deaths of tens of thousands and misery to millions by his insane rampages across Europe, north Africa and Asia. But even Napoleon was not infallible, after all; his dismissive comments on the difficulties faced by his admirals (460) are idiotic, even for a landlubber. I have no desire to denigrate Lord Nelson who I have long admired, but I don't think that the sort of hagiography that Mostert attempts here does him any favours. Even Mostert is forced to deal with his occasional silliness and vanity; his tactical and strategic errors; his vindictiveness; the contradictory, and often very bad, advice that he gave to others.
The trouble with the 'Great Man' approach is that it takes insufficient account of luck, a major and usually under-acknowledged factor in all our lives, and that it tends to diminish the contributions of everyone else. (On the topic of luck, it is of some interest to reflect that Napoleon went through the whole of these wars, taking part in most of its major land battles, without apparently getting scratched, while Nelson got bits shot off him almost every time he went into action.) It is irritating to read over and over again that 'only Nelson' could have been placed in command or achieved such-and-such a success (e.g. 437, 448, 518-20); the Royal Navy of this period had its share of incompetents but it also boasted a great many highly capable officers - Keith, Cornwallis, Saumarez, Duckworth or Collingwood (the only one that Mostert will admit), to name but a few. The accusation that Anthony Hunt 'made minimal contribution' to Nelson's success at Bastia could bear further research, rather than just taking Nelson's word for it, as Mostert is happy to do (129).
Having said all that, Mostert is clearly a knowledgeable individual and the book includes much material that I have not come across elsewhere. It is particularly strong on the North American situation and topics such as neutrality.
Mostert's conclusions and interpretations are sometimes questionable, if not impossible to accept. For example, he suggests that the confrontation between Lieutenants Camelford and Peterson at Antigua in 1798 might not have ended fatally if the orders sent to Camelford had been addressed to 'Lord Lieutenant Camelford', rather than to 'Lieutenant Lord Camelford' (240), but this is an absurd impossibility; no one could possibly have addressed Camelford in such a way. Military titles always precede personal titles and in any case the term 'Lord Lieutenant' has an entirely different application. No one cares about matters of correct address now (perhaps rightly) but in the late 18th century they did care, and historians have to be aware of that. In another passage Mostert comments on Nelson's reaction to Sir John Orde's misuse of his frigates off Gibraltar in May 1805; he says that Nelson's remarks on the occasion were generous and 'a measure of his incredulity over such a fault' (463) but to me they read more like rather heavy sarcasm.
The greatest issue however, is that Mostert believes in the 'Great Man' theory of history and takes it rather to extremes. He wants to see the whole war as a personal clash between Nelson and Napoleon, which leads to problems at many levels. Napoleon exercised supreme command from an early date and was a prime mover throughout the period while Nelson was a subordinate commander for much of the time and was dead before the wars were half over. At times the effort to link the two men becomes desperate, as when he notes that Nelson left Cadiz for Gibraltar on 2 May 1798 and Napoleon left Paris for Toulon on the following day and breathlessly tries to turn it into a signifier of providence (251); it isn't even a coincidence.
Napoleon rose from relatively humble origins to be Emperor of France; the greater part of the wars are named after him (it is very rare for any war to be named after an individual); it is not difficult to cast him as a 'Great Man' or, if you prefer, a 'Bloody Nuisance', given that he caused the deaths of tens of thousands and misery to millions by his insane rampages across Europe, north Africa and Asia. But even Napoleon was not infallible, after all; his dismissive comments on the difficulties faced by his admirals (460) are idiotic, even for a landlubber. I have no desire to denigrate Lord Nelson who I have long admired, but I don't think that the sort of hagiography that Mostert attempts here does him any favours. Even Mostert is forced to deal with his occasional silliness and vanity; his tactical and strategic errors; his vindictiveness; the contradictory, and often very bad, advice that he gave to others.
The trouble with the 'Great Man' approach is that it takes insufficient account of luck, a major and usually under-acknowledged factor in all our lives, and that it tends to diminish the contributions of everyone else. (On the topic of luck, it is of some interest to reflect that Napoleon went through the whole of these wars, taking part in most of its major land battles, without apparently getting scratched, while Nelson got bits shot off him almost every time he went into action.) It is irritating to read over and over again that 'only Nelson' could have been placed in command or achieved such-and-such a success (e.g. 437, 448, 518-20); the Royal Navy of this period had its share of incompetents but it also boasted a great many highly capable officers - Keith, Cornwallis, Saumarez, Duckworth or Collingwood (the only one that Mostert will admit), to name but a few. The accusation that Anthony Hunt 'made minimal contribution' to Nelson's success at Bastia could bear further research, rather than just taking Nelson's word for it, as Mostert is happy to do (129).
Having said all that, Mostert is clearly a knowledgeable individual and the book includes much material that I have not come across elsewhere. It is particularly strong on the North American situation and topics such as neutrality.
May 23, 2012
This is a naval history of several wars fought between 1793 and 1815, including (but not limited to) the Napoleonic Wars, the War of 1812 and the various wars with the Barbary states (Algiers, Tunis & Tripoli). If you want to read just one naval history covering this period, this is probably a good choice.
In the opening chapter, the author traces the development of navies from the classical galleys to the ships of the line. Early British naval tactics involved opposing lines of ships sailing parallel to each other. These battles were inconclusive at best for the British because the ships at the head of their line of ships would get disabled by the cannon fire of the opposing line of ships before the British line could get fully engaged.
British naval superiority didn't really begin to assert itself until Admirals Rodney & Howe began breaking through the opposing line of ships resulting in a melee of individual duels between ships. Admiral Nelson perfected this tactic.
The author spends a lot of time talking about Nelson and Napoleon as exemplifying land vs. sea. After Trafalgar the big fleet battles pretty much came to an end with individual ship battles and near shore actions continuing.
If you want to read a good history of the War of 1812, you're better off reading "1812 The Navy's War." But this author does explain why the American navy often beat the British navy. The American 44 gun frigates were acknowledged by the British naval officers (in "The Naval Chronicles", a kind of naval professional journal) as being superior to (and throwing the same weight of metal as) the British 74 gun ships of the line in individual ship duels.
This is a wide ranging book but one that I found very interesting. It certainly told me a lot I didn't know about the naval history of this period. If you want to pick one book of this type to read, this is a good choice.
In the opening chapter, the author traces the development of navies from the classical galleys to the ships of the line. Early British naval tactics involved opposing lines of ships sailing parallel to each other. These battles were inconclusive at best for the British because the ships at the head of their line of ships would get disabled by the cannon fire of the opposing line of ships before the British line could get fully engaged.
British naval superiority didn't really begin to assert itself until Admirals Rodney & Howe began breaking through the opposing line of ships resulting in a melee of individual duels between ships. Admiral Nelson perfected this tactic.
The author spends a lot of time talking about Nelson and Napoleon as exemplifying land vs. sea. After Trafalgar the big fleet battles pretty much came to an end with individual ship battles and near shore actions continuing.
If you want to read a good history of the War of 1812, you're better off reading "1812 The Navy's War." But this author does explain why the American navy often beat the British navy. The American 44 gun frigates were acknowledged by the British naval officers (in "The Naval Chronicles", a kind of naval professional journal) as being superior to (and throwing the same weight of metal as) the British 74 gun ships of the line in individual ship duels.
This is a wide ranging book but one that I found very interesting. It certainly told me a lot I didn't know about the naval history of this period. If you want to pick one book of this type to read, this is a good choice.
February 4, 2012
For a while there, I couldn't put this book down. There is no doubt that the author knows his subject exhaustively, and it shows in this book. From the broad picture to the small anecdotes, this book has it all. Almost too much perhaps.
I did find myself flagging towards the end, I confess, and it was something of an effort to haul myself to the end. The entire last section regarding the War of 1812 with America was a struggle; I suspect because I wasn't expecting it, since up to then I had regarded this book as very on the Napoleonic Wars.
I did, however, end this book with a raging crush on Lord Nelson. Dude was awesome, yo. The book definitely loses something after his death at Trafalgar; such an immense figure naturally dominates so much of the narrative, and without that central figure the book seems to drift a little.
I did find myself flagging towards the end, I confess, and it was something of an effort to haul myself to the end. The entire last section regarding the War of 1812 with America was a struggle; I suspect because I wasn't expecting it, since up to then I had regarded this book as very on the Napoleonic Wars.
I did, however, end this book with a raging crush on Lord Nelson. Dude was awesome, yo. The book definitely loses something after his death at Trafalgar; such an immense figure naturally dominates so much of the narrative, and without that central figure the book seems to drift a little.
February 12, 2017
very detailed history of the British navy covering roughly 100 years,ending with the end of the Napolanic Wars
April 30, 2011
About 3.5 stars for this expansive history of the war that Britain called the Great War prior to World War I. Read for research, it was an extremely helpful volume; for pleasure, it was quite interesting. There were a few details, particularly when dealing with the American navy, that were not accurate and more footnotes/endnotes would have been nice after quotes, but these were minor quibbles. I also didn't think an entire chapter on shipboard immorality was entirely necessary, but one can skip that without missing anything critical in the history.
February 10, 2009
Superb account of a pivotal time in World History
September 25, 2012
very good. French view of things is different
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews