Nelson : The Man and the Legend

by Terry Coleman

Horatio Nelson never sailed in a ship named "HMS Audacious", but Terry Coleman's sympathetic and searching biography of England's most famous The Man and Legend suggests it would have been an entirely appropriate command. In an age when a fine line existed between fighting for national honour and fighting for plunder, Nelson was pluckier and luckier than most of his naval contemporaries. Helped by family connections, a talent for self-publicity and a stern devotion to the law of the land (and sea), he quickly rose through the Admiralty list during the tail-end of the American war, before coming to personify the British pursuit of Napoleon in the seas surrounding Europe. Coleman is excellent on the big battles--Tenerife, the Nile, Copenhagen and, of course, Trafalgar. He also sifts the evidence for and against Nelson in the various controversies that dogged his his pursuit of lowly commodores in the West Indies, mutineers and conspirators in his crew, republicans in Naples, and patrons and politicians at home. Coleman manages to be judicious without losing any of the colour of the story. And on the greatest controversy of all--Nelson's ménage à trois with Emma and William Hamilton--he lets the audacious facts speak for themselves. This is a very readable and enjoyable book, from which Nelson emerges a flawed hero, but a hero nonetheless, fully deserving his pedestal status amongst the pigeon-droppings of modern London.--Miles Taylor. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title. Horatio Nelson was a naval genius and a natural born predator. In his private life as in war he was ruthless. A fanatic for duty, at times beyond all sense, he was also a royalist so infatuated with the divine right of kings that he began to see himself as an instrument of God.

Genres: Biography, Nonfiction, History, Naval History

448 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2001

About the author

Terry Coleman was born in Bournemouth, England, went to fourteen schools, and then studied English and law at the Universities of Exeter and London. As a foreign correspondent for The Guardian and the London Daily Mail, he has traveled to forty-six countries, three times circumnavigated the world, and interviewed everyone from the former Cassius Clay to the Dalai Lama.

Reviews

[The Final Chapter · Rating 4 out of 5]

High 4. Coleman has produced a detailed warts-and-all biography of this legendary figure. Throughout his military career, Nelson proved to be a natural predator with no qualms about being ruthless and pitiless in war. Yet, aside from being a daring naval genius he was a diehard monarchist with a firm belief in the divine right of kings and in himself as an instrument of God in defending the interests of the King. Born in September 1758 to a Norfolk vicar, Nelson entered the navy at the tender age of 13, rapidly being promoted through the ranks. The author had to navigate the complicated task of separating factual accounts of Nelson from the mythical figure he would become - not helped by efforts of Nelson’s surviving elder brother, William, a grasping opportunist, to elevate the family name after his brother’s heroic death, and by the fact that Nelson himself was a born self-publicist. Though Nelson strove to portray his rapid rise as resulting solely from merit, he was able to take advantage of family contacts, primarily through his maternal uncle, Maurice Suckling, who attained the lofty position of comptroller of the Navy, second only to the First Lord of the Admiralty regarding power and patronage. Nelson benefitted from a series of influential patrons, but often clashed with his superior officers. Indeed, his early career, serving in the Caribbean to protect British interests against the French both during and after the American War of Independence, revealed traits apparent throughout his career. Firstly, his reckless pursuit of glory in contravention of orders. In distinguishing himself in an ill-fated and ambitious mission to capture Nicaragua from the Spanish in 1780 he disobeyed orders to remain with the fleet at anchor off the coast, joining the inland military expedition upriver. While besieging the main Spanish garrison he was struck by malaria and yellow fever and only a timely recall probably saved his life. Secondly, his stubborn defence of, and devotion to, the establishment and monarchy. When peace was declared in 1783, he adhered to the letter of the law in the face of local hostility enforcing the Navigation Laws, passed by Parliament prohibiting trade with the former colonies. Not surprisingly, local planters and governors blithely ignored such restrictions, and in enforcing the regulations, it is no wonder that Nelson became so unpopular that he had to remain offshore for fear of arrest. Further animosity resulted from ignoring the chain of command and personally complaining in writing to the Home Secretary - even sending a formal petition to George III. During the same period, Nelson revealed his unstinting loyalty to the monarchy by supporting the rash attitude of Prince William, later to become King William IV. The latter had been unofficially sent to the Caribbean to serve in the Navy to prevent him further damaging the reputation of the Crown through his licentious behaviour. In ignoring the advice proffered by more experienced officers below him, threatening them with court martial for their conceived insolence, he should have been reprimanded but received Nelson’s complete support. Thus, on returning to England in 1787, Nelson found that his loyalty to the questionable behaviour of the young prince had drawn the anger of both Admiralty and the Crown, leaving him on half-pay and devoid of a command. Coleman presents us with a haughty young officer, too assured of his own importance and effectively being side-lined for his lack of evaluative judgment. Indeed, Nelson considered renouncing his commission, although with 400 trained officers seeking 55 positions, his experience was far from irregular. The prospect of the outbreak of hostilities with revolutionary France provided an opportunity to finally return to the Fleet, with Nelson joining Hood’s fleet in the Med in August 1793. Having secured the surrender of the port of Toulon and its declaration of support for the restoration of the French monarchy, Hood’s defence would prove ill-fated as the city lay surrounded by 40,000 French troops – including a young commander of the artillery, Captain Buonaparte. Hood abandoned the port to its fate in late 1793 leaving the local populace to face savage retribution from the republican mob - hundreds drowned trying to reach sanctuary with the British fleet in the harbour. Yet, Hood secured the safety of the fleet and maintained an important naval presence in the Med. Nelson was absent from this action having been given the task of heading an official request to the King of Naples for troops to defend Toulon. Naples was the third largest city in Europe and capital of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, stretching across virtually the whole of the Italian peninsula south of Rome. The grandeur of the mission appealed to Nelson with him establishing a warm relationship with King Ferdinand IV and the Hamiltons. Real power behind the Sicilian throne lay with the queen, Maria Carolina, sister to Marie Antoinette, and her prime minister, John Acton, formerly English captain of the Neapolitan navy. In securing English support to avenge her sister, the queen would rely on her close friendship with Lady Hamilton. The latter was the second wife of the English ambassador to the Neapolitan court, formerly an illiterate daughter of a Lancashire blacksmith disgraced at 16 by having a child out of wedlock, and mistress to a succession of rakes. Nelson’s service in the Med would further reveal his heedless attitude to danger and his disregard for orders from above. Firstly, in the Corsica campaign of April-May 1794, seeking to establish an alternative naval base for the Med fleet, he and Hood would be convinced of the need to storm population centres, while the army preferred siege warfare - Hood’s reputation would lie in tatters as the campaign faltered, forced into retirement to become Governor of Greenwich hospital. Moreover, Nelson would enter the foray ashore, losing sight in one eye. Secondly, at his first experience of naval warfare, amazingly coming as late as March 1795 and more of a skirmish than a fully fledged battle, he gave further evidence of his flagrant disregard for superior officers. Nelson criticised his commanding officer’s lack of ambition in not seeking to capture and scuttle the French fleet, despite the fact that the priority of defending British interests on Corsica had been achieved. The arrival of his new commander-in-chief, Sir John Jervis, should have answered his prayers for a superior who esteemed personal courage and duty. Yet Jervis regarded his younger officer as having too much zeal which could outweigh his judgment. On Valentine’s Day 1797, at the battle of Cape St Vincent, Nelson risked court-martial. The regulations governing the rules of naval engagement had been published three years earlier, stipulating that the line of battle should be adhered to. Yet, Nelson would instinctively disobey orders to tack in line and engage the first three ships at the head of the enemy fleet - in 1756 Admiral Byng had been shot for his flagrant disregard for such norms of battle but he had lost. The ensuing victory marked his reputation, though he was loathe to acknowledge others’ contributions. Nelson’s reckless misjudgment can no better be highlighted than by the events which took place at Tenerife in July. His ambitious plan to seize the Spanish bullion fleet led to a costly failed commando raid with heavy casualties with only one ‘treasure ship’ at anchor. However, his reputation for bravery rose while his loss of an arm provided him with his signature pinned-back sleeve. This growing acclaim secured him the command of a new squadron to be sent to the Med with one overarching objective: to pursue and sink the reported French fleet assembled for a still-as-yet unknown purpose. This appointment was remarkable, given the fact that Nelson was at this juncture the fourth most junior admiral out of an active list of 94. Months of chasing this ephemeral fleet led to sceptical evaluations in the press of his fitness for such a command. Moreover, Nelson’s infamous lack of patience could have led to dire consequences. Unbelievably, he had weighed anchor from the Egyptian coast on the very same day at the end of June 1798 as the French fleet arrived. Thus, by the time of his eventual return to Aboukir Bay on the first day of August, Napoleon had already embarked on his Egyptian campaign. The author poses the intriguing question of whether the Battle of Trafalgar would effectively have been fought seven years earlier preventing Napoleon ever being crowned emperor, if Nelson had caught the French army aboard the fleet. Moreover, credit for the scale and tactical brilliance of the victory at the Battle of the Nile may not rest with Nelson. Anchored close to shore, the French defensive position was compromised by the courage of the first five ships of the line navigating a course between the dangerous shoals to position themselves between the French and the shoreline. Such boldness rules out a preconceived plan and could not have been relayed down the chain of command in the heat of battle. The initiative of Captain Thomas Foley allowed the French to be decimated by broadsides from both sides, while the direction of the wind made escape virtually impossible. Over the ensuing three days of battle, of the 13 ships only two avoided destruction or capture – a scale of defeat previously unknown in naval warfare. In the wake of this victory, public acclaim for Nelson was at its peak, though he was about to face two disastrous years leaving his reputation in tatters. Seeking repairs in Naples, Nelson’s inflated sense of duty would be drawn into protecting the fortunes of the Neapolitan monarchy. Hamilton’s plans had the King of Naples become the saviour of Italy by capturing Rome and expelling the French. Yet, the repelling of the Neapolitan invasion of Rome in November 1798 was followed by a calamitous retreat south. With the French threatening the kingdom, the royal family took flight aboard Nelson’s ships to Palermo, leaving Naples to the control of the mob. In toppling the puppet republican regime the French established in June and July 1799 Nelson would greatly blacken his reputation. The first incident surrounds his summary execution of, and refusal of a Christian burial to, the turncoat Neapolitan admiral, Francesco Caracciolo. Secondly, he contravened the terms of a treaty agreed between the republican defenders and the loyalist international force prior to his arrival. The simple fact remains that of the rebels promised sanctuary for abandoning their fortresses, 99 would be hanged while the severity of the treatment of prisoners of war led the crew of the ‘Leviathon’ to petition the Hamiltons to intercede. For his part in these events, Hamilton would be recalled to England in disgrace. Nelson was considered too invaluable for these transgressions to derail his career. As Coleman states it succinctly, the English fleet could not have been under the command of a better admiral at the Nile, or under that of a worse at Naples. Criticism of Nelson would sharpen when details emerged in 1800 of his relationship with Lady Hamilton. On return to England, Nelson and the Hamiltons became figures of public ridicule. For his part, Hamilton, a born diplomat, adopted a matter-of-fact attitude to their illicit affair placing his friendship with the admiral above the need to draw attention to it. Nelson’s own wife, Frances Nesbit, proved not so understanding, abandoning the family home. Nelson had met this widow of a plantation owner with a young child on Nevis during his service in the Caribbean. – the wedding in March 1797 even being attended by Prince William. Ironically, in this aspect Nelson’s life mirrors that of Napoleon - both would marry Creole heiresses to later abandon them. It is unfortunate for Lady Hamilton and Nelson that the scandal of their affair broke just as London society was engrossed by the lurid details of the ‘Hoare v Williams’ case, bearing striking resemblance to their own situation. His wife having eloped with an army officer, the unfortunate Mr Hoare sought damages from the latter but his case was dismissed due to his prior knowledge of their affair. In abandoning his wife Nelson became estranged from his father, who refused to follow suit with the rest of the family in transferring their loyalties to Emma, especially after the latter had given birth to a daughter in January 1801. Such was the degree of rift that Nelson did not even attend his father’s funeral upon the latter’s death in April 1802. Despite the scandal surrounding his private affairs, Nelson returned to active service in the Channel fleet. Moreover, this offer emanated from Jervis, now Earl St Vincent, despite their own private dispute over prize money – prize money due to Nelson had been received by Jervis, after the latter had left service in the Med. The backdrop to the Battle of Copenhagen was British unease at the formation of an armed neutrality pact between Russia, Sweden, Denmark and Prussia due to the impact this would have on the policy of blockade against French interests across Europe. It appears that the official policy under the command of the First Lord of the Admiralty, Hyde Parker, was to apply pressure on diplomatic negotiations by showing strength through positioning the British fleet in the Baltic. This was contrary to Nelson’s own preference of immediate military engagement. After weeks of delays, Nelson finally anchored off Copenhagen in April 1801, and what ensued was the closest run and bloodiest of all his naval engagements. This was no battle between two fleets, but rather, the onslaught of the British fleet against the stationary harbour defences of the Danish capital. With the British frigates taking a severe battering as they floundered on the harbour shoals, Parker issued his famous signal to; ‘Discontinue the action’, resulting in Nelson’s equally renowned acknowledgement and failure to adhere to orders – yet the legend which surrounds him putting a telescope to his blind eye has no truth whatsoever. Despite heavy losses on both sides, and no indication of an imminent victory, Nelson adopted the ruse of demanding a truce to avoid unnecessary waste of life. Though the ruse worked, Nelson would always be aggrieved at how underhand this strategy was considered, claiming in his defence that his sole objective had been humanitarian, in seeking to avoid further bloodshed. Yet, the terms stated that his ships would fire on the defenceless wounded should the truce not be agreed, suggesting little humanity behind his actions. Moreover, the victory at Copenhagen should be considered in light of the fact that the Danish promise to abandon their pact with Russia only spanned a period of 14 weeks, while prior to the battle taking place, the prime instigator of the pact, Tsar Paul III, had been murdered by disgruntled courtiers. With further damage to his reputation from the abject failure of his attacks on French flotillas being prepared for invasion at Boulogne in the summer of 1801, Trafalgar came as a much needed opportunity to salvage his reputation. After declaring himself emperor in December 1804, Napoleon hatched the much anticipated plans for his invasion of England, dependent upon French control of the Channel. To achieve this required bluff, so the French fleet was to combine with the Spanish and head to the West Indies as a lure to the British fleet, before quickly re-crossing the Atlantic and gaining control of the Channel offering a vital window of opportunity to launch the invasion. The advantage lay in the scale of the enterprise effectively acting as persuasion that there could be no duplicity. Certainly, Nelson swallowed the bait and set off in pursuit in May 1805 without permission from the Admiralty. Yet, ultimately the plan failed as a large part of the French fleet which was to join forces in the West Indies failed to depart from Brest. Learning of the presence of the combined French and Spanish fleets at Cadiz, Nelson determined that this presented a wonderful opportunity to convincingly defeat the enemy and give Britain total command of the seas. The French commander, Villeneuve, renowned for his gallantry, was an officer from a family of ancient military tradition, one of the few from the ‘ancien regime’ to emerge unscathed through the Revolution. So demoralised was he at the failure of the invasion plans, and piqued at his knowledge of Napoleon’s plans to have him removed, that he set sail before his replacement could take command. Despite being outnumbered by 33 to 27 ships, Nelson’s choice of tactics would win the day by removing the enemy’s numerical advantage. By concentrating the attack on the enemy’s centre and rear, the van was left unable to manoeuvre to come to their defence. In the ensuing melee, broadsides from the ‘Victory’ reduced Villeneuve’s flagship to a wreck in less than 2 minutes. After just an hour of the battle, Nelson was shot by a sniper firing from the rigging of the ‘Redoubtable’ and took three hours to die. The ball entered his shoulder, ruptured a pulmonary artery before lodging in his spine with a piece of epaulette attached. The scale of the French defeat was substantial with the capture of 17 ships compared to no British losses – incredibly the gales which lashed these seas in the following four days meant that 12 of the captured 17 ships would founder, leading to a greater loss of life than occurred in the battle itself. A further victim after the battle itself would be Villeneuve, exchanged after capture and facing disgrace he would commit suicide on his return to France. Though many have postulated the theory that Nelson had a death wish at Trafalgar, Coleman believes that the reckless courage he displayed there was just a further instance of the fearless bravery demonstrated throughout his career. His former superior officer, Earl St Vincent, would sum up his reputation as follows: ‘Animal courage was the sole merit of Lord Nelson, his private character most disgraceful in every sense of the word’. Coleman’s biography fleshes out these accusations, and provides further intriguing disclosures with two aspects of Nelson’s life not greatly reported. The first concerns the blackmail attempt from a certain Mr Hill. The latter threatened to publish his own seaman’s account of the truth behind the military record of Nelson unless he received £100. Disgruntled at Nelson’s dismissive response, a letter did appear in an obscure London newspaper criticising Nelson for the blunders committed at Tenerife, accusing him of taking credit for other officers’ bravery and initiative at the Nile, and questioning his stated claims of humanitarian concern behind his actions at Copenhagen. The second aspect concerns his relationship with Thomas Troubridge. Joining the ranks together, Troubridge’s rise had little to do with connections. Both Jervis and Nelson set great store by his ability as an officer, with the latter pleading the case for him to be awarded a commendation for his bravery at the Nile. Yet, the pair would be estranged first by Troubridge’s honesty in personally addressing his concerns to Nelson over the severity of the treatment of the Neapolitan rebels, and of the risk to his reputation from his relationship with Lady Hamilton. Secondly, the real spur to Nelson’s lasting antipathy would be Troubridge’s promotion to the admiralty under Earl St Vincent and the latter’s equal estimation of both men’s abilities. After Nelson’s death, Emma, abandoned by the grasping elder brother, William, became ensnared by drink and debt, before taking flight to Calais to escape her debtors, where she died in 1815.

[Mervyn Whyte · Rating 4 out of 5]

Definitely warts and all. And what warts. Vainglorious, arrogant, prickly; a treaty-breaker, flogger, executioner; treated his wife badly, shunned his father, fell out with many of his peers - the list of Nelson's shortcomings is endless. Even his (undoubted) courage was of the reckless sort, which in other times and different conflicts would probably have seen him fragged by his own men. On the credit side, he was generous, dutiful - to his country, at least - and repulsed by bull fighting. A gambler in all aspects of his life - he even liked playing the lottery - his demise was effectively suicide. Fascinating read though. And, I suppose, not that shocking that such a revered figure had such feet of clay.

[Alison Slade · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very well researched and readable account of Nelson's life.

[Indah Threez Lestari · Rating 3 out of 5]

303 - 2018

[Henning Hj · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant book. Through a comprehensive use of sources it shows how Nelson was at once both an outstanding naval officer and a deeply flawed character.

[Benjamin Thomas · Rating 3 out of 5]

As others have said, Mr Coleman goes out of his way to demystify Lord Nelson in this book; indeed even to go far toward the other side of his legend and present him as a much more human character, suffering from a large ego and power hungry for more and faster self promotions than most people believe. The very first chapter calls out predecessor biographers as falling for the propoganda that was put out at the time of Nelson's death at Trafalgar and producing haphazard facts based on sloppy research. Mr Coleman, who has a journalistic background,I understand, claims to use all available documents including letters in and among senior British Navy personnel, personal letters between Nelson's relatives including between he and his wife, etc. And to give him credit, he includes a lengthy bibliography to support his depiction for those that may want to check his sources.

But Coleman doesn't "trash" Nelson. He takes pains to also point out instances where Nelson backed underlings despite risking his own reputation and he is shown several times taking care of his crew and foregoing standard punishments for his men such as flogging or hanging. That's not to say that he never did that but rather he seems to have taken into account all angles of a situation before issuing orders. There is no doubt that Nelson had one of the largest impacts on the history of sea warfare that we know. And there is no doubt that he achieved some remarkable successes. This book however spends less time on the military engagements and more on the motivation of the man himself. After all, a sea captain/admiral who gave up eyesight in one eye, lost one arm, incurred a possible skull fracture, and ultimately gave his life in the name of doing his duty, is certainly to be admired. Surely his bravery is beyond question. Nor does Coleman question it other than to suggest his bravery was unnecessarily foolhardy. His death at Trafalgar, for example, seems as if it could easily have been avoided. I've read biographies of other great military men and it seems that trait is a common thread whether we are talking about Nelson, or Custer, or Crazy Horse.

So I'm sure Nelson worshippers will prefer other "more positive" accounts of Nelson's life and career but this one worked fine for me.