What do you think?
Rate this book
Trafalgar: Countdown to Battle, 1803-1805
'A thoroughly researched and splendidly written book.' The LA Times Book ReviewThe Battle of Trafalgar is well-known for the magnanimous nature of the British victory, even though it cost the nation its greatest hero Lord Admiral, Horatio Nelson. For this reason, the battle itself has been remembered as a momentary success, the resulted only from a stroke of immediate genius or from a brief plan.
But as Alan Schom shows, the Battle of 21 October 1805, a meeting of the might of the British and French navies, was the result of a strategy laid out by the British Admiralty two years earlier, in 1803.
The period from that year until the Battle of Trafalgar was known as ‘the Great Terror’, when British naval forces were on constant alert for attacks by the Frenchman. Various political figures are written about, debating manoeuvres and quota of ships to be constructed, and putting down mutinies.
Exploring previously unexplored archives of both England and France, Schom places Trafalgar in the context of the era. He draws portraits of the key personnel on both sides, such as Dumouriez, Decrès, Talleyrand, Berthier, Pitt, Cornwallis and Castlereagh.
There is also a comprehensive discussion of the growth of the French naval fleet, helped by Dutch ships, and the preparations to build ports, which were hampered by their extraordinary costs and inclement weather.
There are detailed descriptions of the fleets meeting during the run-in to Trafalgar, and Schom is engaging and sometimes humorous in his commentary on events. He also debunks several myths which should put an end to certain debates pertaining to a great battle of modern history.
“[A] riveting narrative...Lively, dramatic.” – Kirkus Reviews
“Fresh and ever interesting...Triumphantly justifies adding to an already crowded bookshelf...The style is vigorous, the narrative packed with facts but relieved with excellently chosen quotations and off-beat insights.” – The Sunday Times
“Deftly drawn biographies bring to life the principal actors in the great drama...A thoroughly researched and splendidly written book.” – The Los Angeles Times Book Review
Alan Schom was a professor of French and European history before retiring to write full-time. He is the author of Emile A Biography and One Hundred The Road to Waterloo.
But as Alan Schom shows, the Battle of 21 October 1805, a meeting of the might of the British and French navies, was the result of a strategy laid out by the British Admiralty two years earlier, in 1803.
The period from that year until the Battle of Trafalgar was known as ‘the Great Terror’, when British naval forces were on constant alert for attacks by the Frenchman. Various political figures are written about, debating manoeuvres and quota of ships to be constructed, and putting down mutinies.
Exploring previously unexplored archives of both England and France, Schom places Trafalgar in the context of the era. He draws portraits of the key personnel on both sides, such as Dumouriez, Decrès, Talleyrand, Berthier, Pitt, Cornwallis and Castlereagh.
There is also a comprehensive discussion of the growth of the French naval fleet, helped by Dutch ships, and the preparations to build ports, which were hampered by their extraordinary costs and inclement weather.
There are detailed descriptions of the fleets meeting during the run-in to Trafalgar, and Schom is engaging and sometimes humorous in his commentary on events. He also debunks several myths which should put an end to certain debates pertaining to a great battle of modern history.
“[A] riveting narrative...Lively, dramatic.” – Kirkus Reviews
“Fresh and ever interesting...Triumphantly justifies adding to an already crowded bookshelf...The style is vigorous, the narrative packed with facts but relieved with excellently chosen quotations and off-beat insights.” – The Sunday Times
“Deftly drawn biographies bring to life the principal actors in the great drama...A thoroughly researched and splendidly written book.” – The Los Angeles Times Book Review
Alan Schom was a professor of French and European history before retiring to write full-time. He is the author of Emile A Biography and One Hundred The Road to Waterloo.
367 pages, Kindle Edition
First published April 3, 1990
165 people are currently reading
219 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews
November 19, 2021
informative, yet dry and insanely boring
—
read twice: it is dry and informative indeed. I also hated Napoleon’s comparison to Stalin and Hitler on one of the epilogue pages. To that, the book has no notes and a lot of exclamation marks, which really disturbs from reading
edit 3: page 304 San Augustin got captured at 3:30
page 314: as it has been seen, San Augustin was captured at 2 PM.
Holy molly, this book is such a mess and a true suffrage for someone doing the research! I cannot even understand how many ships did Pelley have in his division! 7,12,4? Man, make up your mind already or at least tell me where do they go or where the extra ships come from. Horrible, horrendous book. I hope “Nelson’s Trafalgar” arrives to me today so that I can finally get a normal overview of the situation as Fraiser’s book talks mostly about the people, not the ships.
Im degrading this book to a 1 for horrible chronology. I also degrade it to 0.5 for NOT HAVING A PROPER INDEX!!! IN A HISTORY BOOK. The index is like a dictionary! I know who LePelley was, show me the pages where you set him up! Why do I have to read biographies in French and translate them spending extra time on correcting grammatical mistakes? Why is it not the author that gives me a proper detailed view? This is no “thoroughly researched,” this is a “thorough mess!” The author clearly has researched something, but he has put it on a paper in such a way that it almost feels as STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS!!! HELP
—
read twice: it is dry and informative indeed. I also hated Napoleon’s comparison to Stalin and Hitler on one of the epilogue pages. To that, the book has no notes and a lot of exclamation marks, which really disturbs from reading
edit 3: page 304 San Augustin got captured at 3:30
page 314: as it has been seen, San Augustin was captured at 2 PM.
Holy molly, this book is such a mess and a true suffrage for someone doing the research! I cannot even understand how many ships did Pelley have in his division! 7,12,4? Man, make up your mind already or at least tell me where do they go or where the extra ships come from. Horrible, horrendous book. I hope “Nelson’s Trafalgar” arrives to me today so that I can finally get a normal overview of the situation as Fraiser’s book talks mostly about the people, not the ships.
Im degrading this book to a 1 for horrible chronology. I also degrade it to 0.5 for NOT HAVING A PROPER INDEX!!! IN A HISTORY BOOK. The index is like a dictionary! I know who LePelley was, show me the pages where you set him up! Why do I have to read biographies in French and translate them spending extra time on correcting grammatical mistakes? Why is it not the author that gives me a proper detailed view? This is no “thoroughly researched,” this is a “thorough mess!” The author clearly has researched something, but he has put it on a paper in such a way that it almost feels as STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS!!! HELP
October 2, 2016
Warning, the first few chapters are like watching paint dry but if you stick to it, it is not a bad read.
Napoleon may have been a feared leader of armies on Continental Europe but when it came to the sea and the navy, he couldn't organize a drunken brawl at an Irish distillery. He was a control freak who had to make decisions on even the most minute details and changed his mind so frequently his subordinates were hard pressed to keep up.
His original plan, conceived in 1803, was to built sufficient transports to ferry 150,000 men to invade England and sufficient battleships to support them against the British Navy. The attempts to do this as described by the author are like a giant SNL skit except you cant make this stuff up. Part of the problem was lack of senior officers in the French navy many of whom had been disposed of during the Great Terror. They also had a desperate lack of experienced sailors.
French and Spanish battle ships are scattered up and down the Atlantic coast and along the French coast in the Mediterranean. Cornwallis kept them bottled up from the channel on down while Nelson kept them bottled up in the Mediterranean. Villeneuve, the original Captain Tuna, Chicken of the Sea, could find more excuses not to do anything than a Republican controlled Congress.
Napoleon had everything as ready as it was going to get for the invasion with transports and troops along the coast across from England. He ordered Villeneuve to sail from Toulon, give Nelson the slip, sail to the West Indies, drawing the British fleet after him. He was to raise Cain with British possessions there, deposit 12,000 French troops to help protect French possessions there and then sail back, collect the rest of the French fleet from Brest and proceed to Holland to launch the invasion.
He managed to get to the West Indies and back but failed in his mission there. Nelson chased him there and back. When Villeneuve got back to where his orders told him to turn north to Brest, he turned south to the safety of Cadiz where the Spanish fleet lay. Nelson bottled him up nicely, staying far enough away that the fleet could try to escape allowing Nelson to "annihilate them once and for all".
Villeneuve was going nowhere. They could not put to sea without refitting and revictualing. France was running out of money and Napoleon had already stiffed more suppliers than Donald Trump. It was cash on the barrel head or nothing. Eventually they manged to scrounge about 3 months worth but Villenuve was still finding excuses not to venture out.
All of a sudden one morning Villeneuve sat up in bed and said we are leaving NOW. He had got word that Napoleon had fired him and his replacement, whose ONLY recommendation was that he was not Villeneuve, was less than a day away. By this time half the fleet had no use for him and wer reluctant to obey anything he said but they eventually all cleared the harbour, heading not for Brest but for the Straits of Gibraltar and the Mediterranean.
Nelson and his 27 ships had him where he wanted him. When Villenueve saw there was no getting away, he turned his line of 33 ships and went into battle Oct 21st 1805 just off Cape Trafalgar. The battle is described in great and interesting detail. No one could question the courage with which the French and Spanish fought but their lack of experience combined with English gunnery meant they didn't have a hope. They lost 23 ships while the British lost none, though they took an awful beating.
England was safe from threat of invasion for another 135 years. Nelson was dead which only added to his hero status while Cornwallis who played a much larger role than history gives him credit, is all but forgotten.
For those of you interested in the romantic side of Nelson, I suggest "That Hamilton Woman" the 1941 movie about the most famous mistress in British history.
Napoleon may have been a feared leader of armies on Continental Europe but when it came to the sea and the navy, he couldn't organize a drunken brawl at an Irish distillery. He was a control freak who had to make decisions on even the most minute details and changed his mind so frequently his subordinates were hard pressed to keep up.
His original plan, conceived in 1803, was to built sufficient transports to ferry 150,000 men to invade England and sufficient battleships to support them against the British Navy. The attempts to do this as described by the author are like a giant SNL skit except you cant make this stuff up. Part of the problem was lack of senior officers in the French navy many of whom had been disposed of during the Great Terror. They also had a desperate lack of experienced sailors.
French and Spanish battle ships are scattered up and down the Atlantic coast and along the French coast in the Mediterranean. Cornwallis kept them bottled up from the channel on down while Nelson kept them bottled up in the Mediterranean. Villeneuve, the original Captain Tuna, Chicken of the Sea, could find more excuses not to do anything than a Republican controlled Congress.
Napoleon had everything as ready as it was going to get for the invasion with transports and troops along the coast across from England. He ordered Villeneuve to sail from Toulon, give Nelson the slip, sail to the West Indies, drawing the British fleet after him. He was to raise Cain with British possessions there, deposit 12,000 French troops to help protect French possessions there and then sail back, collect the rest of the French fleet from Brest and proceed to Holland to launch the invasion.
He managed to get to the West Indies and back but failed in his mission there. Nelson chased him there and back. When Villeneuve got back to where his orders told him to turn north to Brest, he turned south to the safety of Cadiz where the Spanish fleet lay. Nelson bottled him up nicely, staying far enough away that the fleet could try to escape allowing Nelson to "annihilate them once and for all".
Villeneuve was going nowhere. They could not put to sea without refitting and revictualing. France was running out of money and Napoleon had already stiffed more suppliers than Donald Trump. It was cash on the barrel head or nothing. Eventually they manged to scrounge about 3 months worth but Villenuve was still finding excuses not to venture out.
All of a sudden one morning Villeneuve sat up in bed and said we are leaving NOW. He had got word that Napoleon had fired him and his replacement, whose ONLY recommendation was that he was not Villeneuve, was less than a day away. By this time half the fleet had no use for him and wer reluctant to obey anything he said but they eventually all cleared the harbour, heading not for Brest but for the Straits of Gibraltar and the Mediterranean.
Nelson and his 27 ships had him where he wanted him. When Villenueve saw there was no getting away, he turned his line of 33 ships and went into battle Oct 21st 1805 just off Cape Trafalgar. The battle is described in great and interesting detail. No one could question the courage with which the French and Spanish fought but their lack of experience combined with English gunnery meant they didn't have a hope. They lost 23 ships while the British lost none, though they took an awful beating.
England was safe from threat of invasion for another 135 years. Nelson was dead which only added to his hero status while Cornwallis who played a much larger role than history gives him credit, is all but forgotten.
For those of you interested in the romantic side of Nelson, I suggest "That Hamilton Woman" the 1941 movie about the most famous mistress in British history.
September 19, 2022
Alan Schom's book is supposedly as much on the campaigns leading up to the famous battle as on the battle itself (thus the subtitle). And it generally succeeds at that. Better, it presents a lot of the French side of what was happening, and takes a real look at Napoleon's plans to invade England.
Since that never got attempted, there have been doubts about how serious Napoleon was about the attempt, starting with some of his own propaganda. However, Schom lays out his reasons for treating it as very much a real and pressing project of his, and traces it through way too many changes and contradictory orders. More interesting to me, is his descriptions of the naval flotilla built to support the invasion.
This is Schom's main reason for discounting any claims that the invasion was in the end a feint. Way too much effort, materials, and manpower were spent on all the little craft that were to protect and support the transports for a mere distraction. And they were, in a word, useless. Even the largest of the three classes was not really rated for service in the rough seas of the Atlantic, the cannons they mounted were too small to be any use against regular military ships, and those same cannons dangerously overloaded the vessels.
The British efforts to blockade the French fleet in ports gets more attention elsewhere, but the presentation here is good, and concentrates a bit more on William Cornwallis' (brother of the more famous Charles Cornwallis of Yorktown fame) command of the Channel Fleet. I do think this side could have been presented a bit better, with more of a look at the administration of the naval effort, and how the various demands for ships in different posts were met over time. A true detailed look would be too much for a more popular book such as this, but keeping an eye on policy development would have been a good addition.
Overall, the book does it's job quite well, and my main actual complaint is that it's nearly impossible to keep track of all the changes in French plans over time despite Schom paying attention to that aspect. Of course, those changes were numerous and frequent enough that I doubt anyone at the time could really keep track of it all.
Since that never got attempted, there have been doubts about how serious Napoleon was about the attempt, starting with some of his own propaganda. However, Schom lays out his reasons for treating it as very much a real and pressing project of his, and traces it through way too many changes and contradictory orders. More interesting to me, is his descriptions of the naval flotilla built to support the invasion.
This is Schom's main reason for discounting any claims that the invasion was in the end a feint. Way too much effort, materials, and manpower were spent on all the little craft that were to protect and support the transports for a mere distraction. And they were, in a word, useless. Even the largest of the three classes was not really rated for service in the rough seas of the Atlantic, the cannons they mounted were too small to be any use against regular military ships, and those same cannons dangerously overloaded the vessels.
The British efforts to blockade the French fleet in ports gets more attention elsewhere, but the presentation here is good, and concentrates a bit more on William Cornwallis' (brother of the more famous Charles Cornwallis of Yorktown fame) command of the Channel Fleet. I do think this side could have been presented a bit better, with more of a look at the administration of the naval effort, and how the various demands for ships in different posts were met over time. A true detailed look would be too much for a more popular book such as this, but keeping an eye on policy development would have been a good addition.
Overall, the book does it's job quite well, and my main actual complaint is that it's nearly impossible to keep track of all the changes in French plans over time despite Schom paying attention to that aspect. Of course, those changes were numerous and frequent enough that I doubt anyone at the time could really keep track of it all.
June 11, 2025
When I wrote my review of Alfred Thayer Mahan’s The Life of Nelson earlier this year, I commented that the author’s habit of outlining even the most granular of details could get fairly tedious at times. After reading this book, I wish I could revive Mahan and personally apologize to him; at least he was a good writer. The same cannot be said of today’s subject.
This review will be fairly brief, because I plan to read Schom’s door-stopper of a biography of Napoleon soon, and I anticipate having quite a bit to say about it. In the meantime, I’ll start with some praise: Alan Schom is clearly a talented researcher; he draws from a wide variety of sources, and his knowledge of the material is apparent from the earliest parts of the book. That’s where the praise ends, because the massive amount of information in this book is also a problem: Schom just isn’t a strong enough writer to make endless lists of budget items or members of parliament particularly interesting. Every now and then, he’ll focus on one or two figures in a specific story, and then the reader is treated to a coin flip that makes Anton Chigurh look merciful: sometimes, he offers an interesting, candid insight into the behavior of historical figures from this time period. More often, however, he makes bizarrely personal and judgmental comments, editorializing beyond all sense of good taste or reliability. Historical figures are hit with drive-by adjectives like “greedy,” “selfish,” “cruel,” and any number of other casually dismissive terms, without much justification provided for the author’s seeming dislike of them. Schom’s anti-Napoleon position is made fairly clear by the fact that Bonaparte receives the worst of this treatment, but most of the French are on the receiving end of it, and many of the English are notably spared. His treatment of Napoleon, which falls just short of accusing him of tying women to railroad tracks and twirling his mustache while laughing evilly, feels especially bad when it is compared to the cloying hagiography that he provides for Lord Admiral Nelson—I admire Nelson’s military brilliance as much as anyone, but to hear Schom talking, you’d think that touching the hem of the guy’s garment could cure ailments of the blood. Not even Nelson’s death managed to put an end to Schom’s laudatory descriptions of the Lord Admiral’s power and legacy, with the final chapter of the book serving as an interminable description of his funeral proceedings.
The problem isn’t that Schom criticizes Napoleon and praises Nelson. It isn’t even that he clearly hates Napoleon and loves Nelson. The problem is that he has taken some of the most interesting years of European history and sucked the life out of their retelling with his turgid prose, and managed to flatten some of the most complicated and compelling leaders in military history into cartoon characters. I’m sure that this all bodes well for the biography! Stay tuned, everyone—maybe he’ll surprise me, and write a halfway decent history book, but I’ll be honest: I have a feeling I’ll be writing a truly mean review soon.
(Also, if Alan Schom can baselessly accuse Napoleon of murdering Villeneuve, then I can make this accusation without providing any evidence, either: he definitely wrote his own Wikipedia page, and his writing in the article pulls off the same magic trick that this book does—it is at once lifeless and obviously biased. Who knew it was possible to pull off both flaws at the same time?)
This review will be fairly brief, because I plan to read Schom’s door-stopper of a biography of Napoleon soon, and I anticipate having quite a bit to say about it. In the meantime, I’ll start with some praise: Alan Schom is clearly a talented researcher; he draws from a wide variety of sources, and his knowledge of the material is apparent from the earliest parts of the book. That’s where the praise ends, because the massive amount of information in this book is also a problem: Schom just isn’t a strong enough writer to make endless lists of budget items or members of parliament particularly interesting. Every now and then, he’ll focus on one or two figures in a specific story, and then the reader is treated to a coin flip that makes Anton Chigurh look merciful: sometimes, he offers an interesting, candid insight into the behavior of historical figures from this time period. More often, however, he makes bizarrely personal and judgmental comments, editorializing beyond all sense of good taste or reliability. Historical figures are hit with drive-by adjectives like “greedy,” “selfish,” “cruel,” and any number of other casually dismissive terms, without much justification provided for the author’s seeming dislike of them. Schom’s anti-Napoleon position is made fairly clear by the fact that Bonaparte receives the worst of this treatment, but most of the French are on the receiving end of it, and many of the English are notably spared. His treatment of Napoleon, which falls just short of accusing him of tying women to railroad tracks and twirling his mustache while laughing evilly, feels especially bad when it is compared to the cloying hagiography that he provides for Lord Admiral Nelson—I admire Nelson’s military brilliance as much as anyone, but to hear Schom talking, you’d think that touching the hem of the guy’s garment could cure ailments of the blood. Not even Nelson’s death managed to put an end to Schom’s laudatory descriptions of the Lord Admiral’s power and legacy, with the final chapter of the book serving as an interminable description of his funeral proceedings.
The problem isn’t that Schom criticizes Napoleon and praises Nelson. It isn’t even that he clearly hates Napoleon and loves Nelson. The problem is that he has taken some of the most interesting years of European history and sucked the life out of their retelling with his turgid prose, and managed to flatten some of the most complicated and compelling leaders in military history into cartoon characters. I’m sure that this all bodes well for the biography! Stay tuned, everyone—maybe he’ll surprise me, and write a halfway decent history book, but I’ll be honest: I have a feeling I’ll be writing a truly mean review soon.
(Also, if Alan Schom can baselessly accuse Napoleon of murdering Villeneuve, then I can make this accusation without providing any evidence, either: he definitely wrote his own Wikipedia page, and his writing in the article pulls off the same magic trick that this book does—it is at once lifeless and obviously biased. Who knew it was possible to pull off both flaws at the same time?)
November 6, 2016
An interesting book. . . . This is a work that explores what led up to the dramatic battle at Trafalgar where Lord Nelson wrecked the combined French and Spanish Fleet. But as this book notes, the prelude was also important to understand. It made Nelson's victory at Trafalgar possible.
In the prior two years, there was a challenge to Great Britain from France. Napoleon threatened an invasion of the island, which would depend upon the role of his navy to protect the many ships that would have to transport French troops across the narrow band of water. He gathered a host of troops and built many transports (how good they were is somewhat open to question, according to this volume).
But the English used its superiority at sea to frustrate the French. And a key actor? Admiral Sir William Cornwallis. The brother of the general who surrendered his forces at Yorktown, to--in essence--lose the Revolutionary War for Great Britain. Sir William Cornwallis managed blockading French and Spanish and other ships in the two years preceding Trafalgar. And faced difficulties. Ships would deteriorate over time and would need to be drydocked to get them fit once more. The book does a nice job of describing the logistical difficulties facing Cornwallis and his fleets.
Cornwallis, although a focus of this book, is not headlined or spotlighted as much as one might imagine. But his role is apparent.
And the book concludes with Lord Nelson's demolition of the combined French/Spanish fleet.
All in all, a worthwhile volume to peruse. . . .
In the prior two years, there was a challenge to Great Britain from France. Napoleon threatened an invasion of the island, which would depend upon the role of his navy to protect the many ships that would have to transport French troops across the narrow band of water. He gathered a host of troops and built many transports (how good they were is somewhat open to question, according to this volume).
But the English used its superiority at sea to frustrate the French. And a key actor? Admiral Sir William Cornwallis. The brother of the general who surrendered his forces at Yorktown, to--in essence--lose the Revolutionary War for Great Britain. Sir William Cornwallis managed blockading French and Spanish and other ships in the two years preceding Trafalgar. And faced difficulties. Ships would deteriorate over time and would need to be drydocked to get them fit once more. The book does a nice job of describing the logistical difficulties facing Cornwallis and his fleets.
Cornwallis, although a focus of this book, is not headlined or spotlighted as much as one might imagine. But his role is apparent.
And the book concludes with Lord Nelson's demolition of the combined French/Spanish fleet.
All in all, a worthwhile volume to peruse. . . .
October 10, 2024
Alan Schom's "Trafalgar: Countdown to Battle" is less about the actual battle of Trafalgar and more a primer on the British war effort against Napoleon in the first years of the 19th Century. Standing (literally) on the shores of the English Channel and gazing out at the British Isles, Napoleon is enamored, if a bit amateurish, about a joint military-naval effort to invade Britain. Through lack of resources, poor strategy, even poorer tactics, and a navy littered with uninspiring leaders, the French effort founders well before it is ever ready to set sail from France.
Schom does much to turn the focus back to Admiral Cornwallis and his mastery of the British Channel Fleet, which for years was able to bottle up the French fleets on the Atlantic seaports and stifle any invasion plans. Nelson eventually, and rightfully, wins glory off the shores of Trafalgar by decimating Villeneuve's Combined Franco-Spanish Fleet, but Cornwallis emerges as the unsung hero, putting naval priorities above his own lust for battle and glory.
A plodding but interesting book for anyone wondering why Napoleon never did manage to cross the Channel.
Schom does much to turn the focus back to Admiral Cornwallis and his mastery of the British Channel Fleet, which for years was able to bottle up the French fleets on the Atlantic seaports and stifle any invasion plans. Nelson eventually, and rightfully, wins glory off the shores of Trafalgar by decimating Villeneuve's Combined Franco-Spanish Fleet, but Cornwallis emerges as the unsung hero, putting naval priorities above his own lust for battle and glory.
A plodding but interesting book for anyone wondering why Napoleon never did manage to cross the Channel.
November 20, 2015
'I never trust a Corsican or a Frenchman' - Admiral Lord Nelson
21-OCT-1805 and the brutal Battle of Trafalgar took place. I have walked through Trafalgar Square in London so many times, looking up at Admiral Lord Horatio Nelson perched at the top of the column, and to my shame it is only just now, at the age of 44, that I have read about the battle. Trafalgar Square was constructed in 1840 to commemorate this legendary event. So, what of the book written by Alan Schom. There are, of course, a lot of facts to digest and it is a true history lesson and the actual battle at the end of the book is quite raw and will leave you a little shell-shocked.
William Pitt 'the Younger' (born on 28-MAY-1759) was prime minister between 1783-1801 and then from 1804-1806 so was prime minister while the Battle of Trafalgar raged. He read law at Cambridge and at the ae of 22 was elected to Parliament.
That pesky Frenchman, Napoleon, who seized control of the government in 1799, was busy re-organizing France. New schools, banks, businesses, tax collection system, public works and gearing himself up for 18-MAY-1804 when Pope Pius VII is summoned to Paris for the coronation and enthronement of the Imperial couple. Josephine was 41 years of age at this time.
Henry Addington was prime minister between 1801 and 1804 and in 1802 wanted peace with France at any cost and this was agreed at Amiens (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Amiens). By 18-MAY-1803 things were not going so well and Napoleon is a little unhappy to say the least. He states that Britain had not evacuated Malta quickly enough thus breaking the Treaty. He starts getting tough and increasing tarrifs in ports. Napoleon himself is building his empire and then Britain declares war on France. Napoleons chief diplomat is the former bishop Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Perigaord (phew - apologies for any spelling errors). He actually opposed the hostilities with Britain in 1803. Napoleon ignored him. Oh to be an Emperor (nearly, he was not quite Emperor yet) but when he did make himself Emperor guess who was on the British throne? None other than mad King George III himself. He had came to the throne in 1760 at the age of 22. It was only 200 years later, in the 1960s no-less, that King's real problem was correctly diagnosed. He had something called porphyria which is a rare hereditary disease.
Now England needs to get its defences sorted (advice from General Dummouriez) and build dozens and dozens of ships if they are to match the number that Napoleon has projected that he will build. Napoleon was not one to respect naval officers but one he did was 43 year old Rear-Admiral Denis Decres. Napoleons loyal friend, Alexandre Berthier, was made Major-General of the Grand Armee in 1805. Still, both England and France had enormous trouble with getting their navies, ports and defences ready. The French were building all these ships but with no trained officers or crew to actually man them. He really wanted that 'a flotilla would be ready to carry an army of 125,000 men to Britain' by the end of SEP-1804.
Sir William Cornwallis was in-command of the number one fleet and it was his job to 'seize or destroy' all French vessels of war. There was another issue to deal with. The French were selling captured British vessels in Spanish ports and the crews were detained in Spanish prisons so Cornwallis ordered Graham Moore, the Captain of the ship Indefatigable to intercept and seize Spanish treasure ships returning from America to Cadiz (ancient port in south west Spain). Moore duly executed the order on 05-OCT-1804. Spain are now unhappy. Very unhappy in-fact and declare war against England on 12-DEC-1804.
On 04-JAN-1805 a Franco-Spanish pact was completed permitting military co-operation between the two countries.
Britain had been using blockades as a defensive measure but Admiral Villeneuve escapes one at Toulon. Nelson hears about this on 30-MAR-1805 and races to Cadiz. Villeneuve has sailed to Antigua capturing 15 British merchant ships. With Nelson hot on his tail Villeneuve flees back to Europe. Through the fog on 27-JUL-1805 Villeneuve runs into Admiral Robert Calder's fleet at Cape Finisterre where Calder wins a nominal victory but not a decisive one.
By this time on 02-SEP-1805 Nelson is back home in Merton. As they saying goes 'bad things come in threes'. It was back on 12-JUL-1794 that he was struck in the face and chest by splinters and stone from an enemy battery while laying siege just outside Calvi in Corsica. An injury to his left eye meant that he could only distinguish light and dark and not able to focus at all. The second injury happened three years later on 25-JUL-1797 when grape-shot (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grapeshot)nearly severed his right arm at the elbow during the siege of Spanish capital of the Canaries, Santa Cruz de Tenerife. The injured arm had to be amputated immediately. I think we know what the third will be.
Hearing that the combined Franco-Spanish had been found at Cadiz he heads off and there he waits. On 18-OCT-1805 Admiral Villeneuve orders the combined fleet to sail and by the 20th the remainder of the fleet clears Cadiz. On 21-OCT-1805 Villeneuve goes north to face Nelson who is on HMS Victory. They pound Victory relentlessly. Here comes the third - a ball from a French sharpshooter's musket pierces Nelson's left shoulder. It goes through his lung and lodges in his spine and that will be the end of Nelson. The punishing fighting continues and finishes with England victorious but with Nelson and 448 British sailors dead and 1241 wounded. The Spanish had 1038 men killed and 1385 wounded. The French had 3370 dead and 1160 wounded.
Pierre-Charles-Jean-Baptiste-Silvestre de Villeneuve was caught and was sent to England but released on parole until he was fully freed and returned to France until 22-APR-1806 he was found dead in a hotel in Rennes with six stab wounds. The verdict? Suicide. Hmmmm.
21-OCT-1805 and the brutal Battle of Trafalgar took place. I have walked through Trafalgar Square in London so many times, looking up at Admiral Lord Horatio Nelson perched at the top of the column, and to my shame it is only just now, at the age of 44, that I have read about the battle. Trafalgar Square was constructed in 1840 to commemorate this legendary event. So, what of the book written by Alan Schom. There are, of course, a lot of facts to digest and it is a true history lesson and the actual battle at the end of the book is quite raw and will leave you a little shell-shocked.
William Pitt 'the Younger' (born on 28-MAY-1759) was prime minister between 1783-1801 and then from 1804-1806 so was prime minister while the Battle of Trafalgar raged. He read law at Cambridge and at the ae of 22 was elected to Parliament.
That pesky Frenchman, Napoleon, who seized control of the government in 1799, was busy re-organizing France. New schools, banks, businesses, tax collection system, public works and gearing himself up for 18-MAY-1804 when Pope Pius VII is summoned to Paris for the coronation and enthronement of the Imperial couple. Josephine was 41 years of age at this time.
Henry Addington was prime minister between 1801 and 1804 and in 1802 wanted peace with France at any cost and this was agreed at Amiens (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Amiens). By 18-MAY-1803 things were not going so well and Napoleon is a little unhappy to say the least. He states that Britain had not evacuated Malta quickly enough thus breaking the Treaty. He starts getting tough and increasing tarrifs in ports. Napoleon himself is building his empire and then Britain declares war on France. Napoleons chief diplomat is the former bishop Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Perigaord (phew - apologies for any spelling errors). He actually opposed the hostilities with Britain in 1803. Napoleon ignored him. Oh to be an Emperor (nearly, he was not quite Emperor yet) but when he did make himself Emperor guess who was on the British throne? None other than mad King George III himself. He had came to the throne in 1760 at the age of 22. It was only 200 years later, in the 1960s no-less, that King's real problem was correctly diagnosed. He had something called porphyria which is a rare hereditary disease.
Now England needs to get its defences sorted (advice from General Dummouriez) and build dozens and dozens of ships if they are to match the number that Napoleon has projected that he will build. Napoleon was not one to respect naval officers but one he did was 43 year old Rear-Admiral Denis Decres. Napoleons loyal friend, Alexandre Berthier, was made Major-General of the Grand Armee in 1805. Still, both England and France had enormous trouble with getting their navies, ports and defences ready. The French were building all these ships but with no trained officers or crew to actually man them. He really wanted that 'a flotilla would be ready to carry an army of 125,000 men to Britain' by the end of SEP-1804.
Sir William Cornwallis was in-command of the number one fleet and it was his job to 'seize or destroy' all French vessels of war. There was another issue to deal with. The French were selling captured British vessels in Spanish ports and the crews were detained in Spanish prisons so Cornwallis ordered Graham Moore, the Captain of the ship Indefatigable to intercept and seize Spanish treasure ships returning from America to Cadiz (ancient port in south west Spain). Moore duly executed the order on 05-OCT-1804. Spain are now unhappy. Very unhappy in-fact and declare war against England on 12-DEC-1804.
On 04-JAN-1805 a Franco-Spanish pact was completed permitting military co-operation between the two countries.
Britain had been using blockades as a defensive measure but Admiral Villeneuve escapes one at Toulon. Nelson hears about this on 30-MAR-1805 and races to Cadiz. Villeneuve has sailed to Antigua capturing 15 British merchant ships. With Nelson hot on his tail Villeneuve flees back to Europe. Through the fog on 27-JUL-1805 Villeneuve runs into Admiral Robert Calder's fleet at Cape Finisterre where Calder wins a nominal victory but not a decisive one.
By this time on 02-SEP-1805 Nelson is back home in Merton. As they saying goes 'bad things come in threes'. It was back on 12-JUL-1794 that he was struck in the face and chest by splinters and stone from an enemy battery while laying siege just outside Calvi in Corsica. An injury to his left eye meant that he could only distinguish light and dark and not able to focus at all. The second injury happened three years later on 25-JUL-1797 when grape-shot (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grapeshot)nearly severed his right arm at the elbow during the siege of Spanish capital of the Canaries, Santa Cruz de Tenerife. The injured arm had to be amputated immediately. I think we know what the third will be.
Hearing that the combined Franco-Spanish had been found at Cadiz he heads off and there he waits. On 18-OCT-1805 Admiral Villeneuve orders the combined fleet to sail and by the 20th the remainder of the fleet clears Cadiz. On 21-OCT-1805 Villeneuve goes north to face Nelson who is on HMS Victory. They pound Victory relentlessly. Here comes the third - a ball from a French sharpshooter's musket pierces Nelson's left shoulder. It goes through his lung and lodges in his spine and that will be the end of Nelson. The punishing fighting continues and finishes with England victorious but with Nelson and 448 British sailors dead and 1241 wounded. The Spanish had 1038 men killed and 1385 wounded. The French had 3370 dead and 1160 wounded.
Pierre-Charles-Jean-Baptiste-Silvestre de Villeneuve was caught and was sent to England but released on parole until he was fully freed and returned to France until 22-APR-1806 he was found dead in a hotel in Rennes with six stab wounds. The verdict? Suicide. Hmmmm.
July 7, 2020
Excellent summary of an under described era.
I found this to be a highly readable Nd illuminating chronicle of the Great Invasion scare of 1803 - 1805. It climaxes with a recounting the far better known events T Trafalgar.
Schom gives us the history from both the British and French perspectives. We get thumbnail sketches of all the main protagonists;- Pitt, Addington, Nelson and Castlereagh. On the French side Napoleon. Decres and the unfortunate Villeneuve are all well presented.
The real shining hero here though is the all but forgotten Admiral Cornwallis. This is a man who Schom has a lot of fondness for. He organised both the strategy , created Nelson's victorious fleet and oversaw the great blockade of French held ports and got no thanks for it. Schom is on a mission to put this right.
Overall this is a very good and well balanced history book. It commends, analyses and criticises where such is disturbed.
I found this to be a highly readable Nd illuminating chronicle of the Great Invasion scare of 1803 - 1805. It climaxes with a recounting the far better known events T Trafalgar.
Schom gives us the history from both the British and French perspectives. We get thumbnail sketches of all the main protagonists;- Pitt, Addington, Nelson and Castlereagh. On the French side Napoleon. Decres and the unfortunate Villeneuve are all well presented.
The real shining hero here though is the all but forgotten Admiral Cornwallis. This is a man who Schom has a lot of fondness for. He organised both the strategy , created Nelson's victorious fleet and oversaw the great blockade of French held ports and got no thanks for it. Schom is on a mission to put this right.
Overall this is a very good and well balanced history book. It commends, analyses and criticises where such is disturbed.
October 14, 2022
An exciting book that at times reads like fiction. Alan Schom narrates the build-up to the battle of Trafalgar with brilliance, providing the reader with an engaging description of the characters in the British and French navies. The challenges that each faced and for those without knowledge of Napoleonic naval warfare (which I had none of) the book describes in very understandable terms the way ships were managed and how they would fight each other. The build up to the battle is suspenseful and the chapter covering the battle itself is filled with excellent narration and excitement. A must read for anyone looking to understand more about the Napoleonic wars and in particular the naval battles that took part during them
July 26, 2017
The complex campaign that culminated at Trafalgar
Excellent overview of Napoleon's effort to mount an invasion of Britain and the British campaign to thwart him. Schom discusses the political and financial aspects of both sides'military approaches as well as the strategies, tactics, and leadership of their respective forces. Schom devotes more space to the pagentry of events like Napoleon's coronation and Nelson's funeral than I would have prefered, but aside from that this is an excellent treatment of a complex subject.
Excellent overview of Napoleon's effort to mount an invasion of Britain and the British campaign to thwart him. Schom discusses the political and financial aspects of both sides'military approaches as well as the strategies, tactics, and leadership of their respective forces. Schom devotes more space to the pagentry of events like Napoleon's coronation and Nelson's funeral than I would have prefered, but aside from that this is an excellent treatment of a complex subject.
February 21, 2018
Enjoyed this book book at time if felt like I just had to plow through. A bit slow in parts and at times the author repeats himself...how many times do you have to name every ship of the line for both sides or every mourner at Lord Nelson funeral. That said, I was glad I took the time to read this book.
May 23, 2020
Knew very little regarding the build-up and actual battle. Reading it on a kindle I wish I had a map to hand. Also there were so many shipped mentioned it would have been good if you knew which side they were on! Different font? Perhaps a "real" book addresses this issue.
Overall an excellent read.
Overall an excellent read.
May 7, 2020
Nice peek into the lives and motivations of William Pitt, Nelson, villeneuve, Napoleon and lots of other protagonists on both sides. Very, very detailed but sets the scene on a period I knew very little about. Gained a lot of respect for the sailors of both sides. Absolute carnage .
January 27, 2021
Wonderful History of the Great Sea Battle
Preceded by two hundred pages of events leading up to Trafalgar, the description of the great naval battle is alone worth the price of the book and the time spent.
Preceded by two hundred pages of events leading up to Trafalgar, the description of the great naval battle is alone worth the price of the book and the time spent.
February 3, 2017
Fascinating.
Truly an unputadownable from first page to last page.. The author has gone deep into the history better than any historian.
Truly an unputadownable from first page to last page.. The author has gone deep into the history better than any historian.
May 22, 2019
Excellent History
This is a well documented historical description of the lead up to the Battle of Trafalgar. A bit dry, but interesting to history buffs.
This is a well documented historical description of the lead up to the Battle of Trafalgar. A bit dry, but interesting to history buffs.
August 9, 2019
DNF story was moving along nicely until it began describing ships, page after page...
December 2, 2020
This is a readable and basically accurate account of the two years of naval, military and political manoeuvering leading up to the 1805 Battle of Trafalgar, but it's not a very good book and I don't recommend it.
Some will find the pages of detail on Nelson's funeral too much; some the extensive background on the historical characters; and some the inevitable detail on which ship and squadron did what in exactly what sequence (and the uncertainty about what we know, and what they knew at the time, and about what we know about what they knew). But these are minor sins.
For me, much more problematic is that it has too many adverbs and adjectives, and far too many exclamation marks. In itself this is poor writing, but worse, these are symptoms of a graver fault which is excessive personal judgement by the author. There is a lack of compassion in harshly judging protagonists in dreadful situations and stress most of us hope to live without encountering even once, but coming at them day after day. And often it just isn't necessary. Few historians argue that Admiral Villeneuve was the model of a naval hero, yet I disagree that he deserves the contempt Schom pours on him. And even if he did, rubbing it in detracts from the story.
One particular swipe exemplifies Schom's approach to narrative - Collingwood, taking command after Nelson's death, is described as arrogantly deciding not to anchor after the Battle of Trafalgar, despite being told it was Nelson's last wish. Arrogant? really? Well, Nelson was dead and Collingwood was now in charge. It would be a poor sense of responsibility for him to take actions on the basis of Nelson's hours-old judgement, from the early stages of the battle, before Nelson could have known the state the British fleet would be in at the end. And Nelson, of all people, would have been the last to argue that the wishes of someone no longer in a responsible position should restrict the action judged correct by the person on the spot. Even if Collingwood made a mistake in this, it was in a dreadfully difficult position after a bloody battle that left thousands dead including his own boss, many of the British ships near wrecks, the storm coming and shoals near and... well, he hadn't had much sleep either. I think some empathy is called for and he deserves the presumption that he decided what he thought was best for the fleet. But time after time, Schom sacrifices both good taste and any sense of historian's caution in interpreting the sources to make tabloid-style judgements of this sort. And at the other end, the near-worship of a few individuals (Nelson of course but others too) nears embarrassing levels.
The book makes a worthy effort to highlighting the broader picture, but I think over-emphasises the threat of invasion of England, with a resulting understatement of the strategic importance of other theatres and potential theatres.
So, too much detail for the casual reader; too much personal judgement and hero-worship for the serious historian; and a position taken on the strategic issues of the war that at the least has to be regarded as arguable (although definitely worth considering).
Some will find the pages of detail on Nelson's funeral too much; some the extensive background on the historical characters; and some the inevitable detail on which ship and squadron did what in exactly what sequence (and the uncertainty about what we know, and what they knew at the time, and about what we know about what they knew). But these are minor sins.
For me, much more problematic is that it has too many adverbs and adjectives, and far too many exclamation marks. In itself this is poor writing, but worse, these are symptoms of a graver fault which is excessive personal judgement by the author. There is a lack of compassion in harshly judging protagonists in dreadful situations and stress most of us hope to live without encountering even once, but coming at them day after day. And often it just isn't necessary. Few historians argue that Admiral Villeneuve was the model of a naval hero, yet I disagree that he deserves the contempt Schom pours on him. And even if he did, rubbing it in detracts from the story.
One particular swipe exemplifies Schom's approach to narrative - Collingwood, taking command after Nelson's death, is described as arrogantly deciding not to anchor after the Battle of Trafalgar, despite being told it was Nelson's last wish. Arrogant? really? Well, Nelson was dead and Collingwood was now in charge. It would be a poor sense of responsibility for him to take actions on the basis of Nelson's hours-old judgement, from the early stages of the battle, before Nelson could have known the state the British fleet would be in at the end. And Nelson, of all people, would have been the last to argue that the wishes of someone no longer in a responsible position should restrict the action judged correct by the person on the spot. Even if Collingwood made a mistake in this, it was in a dreadfully difficult position after a bloody battle that left thousands dead including his own boss, many of the British ships near wrecks, the storm coming and shoals near and... well, he hadn't had much sleep either. I think some empathy is called for and he deserves the presumption that he decided what he thought was best for the fleet. But time after time, Schom sacrifices both good taste and any sense of historian's caution in interpreting the sources to make tabloid-style judgements of this sort. And at the other end, the near-worship of a few individuals (Nelson of course but others too) nears embarrassing levels.
The book makes a worthy effort to highlighting the broader picture, but I think over-emphasises the threat of invasion of England, with a resulting understatement of the strategic importance of other theatres and potential theatres.
So, too much detail for the casual reader; too much personal judgement and hero-worship for the serious historian; and a position taken on the strategic issues of the war that at the least has to be regarded as arguable (although definitely worth considering).
September 2, 2019
The book is as much about the proposed invasion of England by Napoleon. My opinion of Napolion lessened but I was impressed by Nelson and the British skill at navel gunnery. The scores did become tedious.
February 14, 2016
A solid account
The author strives to place the battle of Trafalgar into its proper context, while also restoring credit to the mostly-forgotten Admiral Cornwallis. I found this clear, and solidly written. Recommended.
The author strives to place the battle of Trafalgar into its proper context, while also restoring credit to the mostly-forgotten Admiral Cornwallis. I found this clear, and solidly written. Recommended.
October 2, 2015
This book is published by Endeavour Press.
February 7, 2016
Ponderous recounting....
March 23, 2016
Very complete portrayal, detailed geographic and logistical information.
June 11, 2016
Good read on an epic battle
I enjoyed the book. It is a little light on the actual battle. It is more involved with the politics of the time. But that is interesting as well.
I enjoyed the book. It is a little light on the actual battle. It is more involved with the politics of the time. But that is interesting as well.
November 28, 2016
Excellent book
Had lots of background on the battle which actually made the book an excellent read. Had trouble putting the book down. Highly recommend.
Had lots of background on the battle which actually made the book an excellent read. Had trouble putting the book down. Highly recommend.
April 2, 2017
A fascinating, if occasionally slow-moving, account of the political and military campaigns that led up to the famous battle that established British naval supremacy for generations. It does bog down a bit in detail sometimes, especially in the descriptions of Napoleon's preparation for an all out cross-Channel invasion of England. The descriptions of the personalities involved, however, are vivid, and the account of the climactic battle itself is one of the best I've ever read. Highly recommended.
May 1, 2017
Quite good but gets bogged down , confusion towards the end with the ships names english or french ! and what sank where a much better read is roy adkins trafalger
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews