Seize the Fire: Heroism, Duty, and Nelson's Battle of Trafalgar

by Adam Nicolson

“Strikingly original. . . . Nicolson brings to life superbly the horror, devastation, and gore of Trafalgar.” — The Economist Adam Nicolson takes the great naval battle of Trafalgar, fought between the British and Franco-Spanish fleets, and uses it to examine our idea of heroism and the heroic. A story rich with modern resonance, Seize the Fire reveals the economic impact of the battle as a victorious Great Britain emerged as a global commercial empire. In October 1805 Lord Horatio Nelson, the most brilliant sea commander who ever lived, led the British Royal Navy to a devastating victory over the Franco-Spanish fleets at the great battle of Trafalgar. It was the foundation of Britain's nineteenth-century world-dominating empire. Seize the Fire is not only a close and revealing portrait of a legendary hero in his final action but also a vivid account of the brutal realities of battle; it asks the questions: Why did the winners win? What was it about the British, their commanders and their men, their beliefs and their ambitions, that took them to such overwhelming victory? His masterful history is a portrait of a moment, a close and passionately engaged depiction of a frame of mind at a turning point in world history.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Military History, Military Fiction, Naval History, European History, British Literature

384 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2005

About the author

Adam Nicolson writes a celebrated column for The Sunday Telegraph. His books include Sissinghurst, God’s Secretaries, When God Spoke English, Wetland, Life in the Somerset Levels, Perch Hill, Restoration, and the acclaimed Gentry. He is winner of the Somerset Maugham Award and the British Topography Prize and lives on a farm in Sussex.

Reviews

[Manray9 · Rating 2 out of 5]

To my surprise, I found Adam Nicolson's Seize the Fire: Heroism, Duty, and the Battle of Trafalgar to be a bit tedious. While there is something to be said for the impact of evolving societal mores on warfare, to attempt explanation of every aspect of the Battle of Trafalgar through analysis of the cultural, social, and artistic influences of the times is overblown to the point of pretentiousness. It was simply a naval battle, probably different from Actium or Lepanto only due to the development of gunnery which made large-scale slaughter quicker and more efficient.

I am unconvinced that reading into the battle's history an overwhelming impact resulting from the cultural or social changes of the era is an accurate assessment. It was what it was – a naval battle. It was fought using the prevalent tactics of the day with large guns, carronades, grape, bar and solid shot, and heavy musketry. To make it any more is too much of a stretch. Nicolson's book only rises to my Two Star level through its detailed account of the wounding and subsequent death of Lord Nelson. Many years ago I read Trafalgar: The Nelson Touch by David Howarth. It is much superior to Nicolson -- but to be fair it is not an apples to apples comparison.

[Nooilforpacifists · Rating 5 out of 5]

More than a book about the battle, Nicolson (the author of the splendid "God's Secretaries") has produced a "meta-history" of the 21st of October, 1805. And most of the book helps the reader imagine the minds of the officers, men, and land-lubbers on that day. So if you want the social connotation of naval warfare, this is the best I've read.

Other books contain more technical detail about the battle; this one is about Nelson and Trafalgar's time, and place in history. If you're looking for military history, look elsewhere.

Nicolson argues that Trafalgar was the triangular divergence of three conceptions of statehood:

1) Authoritarian and traditionalist Spain; hopelessly incapable of reform -- their ships were "Castles in transit";

2) Revolutionary France, having cast out many of the old without providing a competent path for replacing with the new -- the "spontaneity and shock" on which Napoleon depended on land couldn't replace the "steadiness and practice" necessary to navies; and

3) An evolving enlightenment and commercial England, where the curtain between first and third estates was torn aside and men could seek advancement of "place" -- "the navy was beautiful, substantial, orderly and English," with libertarian and Atlanticist values, wrapped in cloaks of "King and Country", if not Medieval Chivalry.

Advancement of place (prizes) allowed sons of country parsons or third sons of landed gentry opportunity, which only could be secured by summoning "a scale of aggression" previously unavailable to Gentlemen who would (no matter what) return to being Gentlemen. As a result, only a few years after publication of Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations", England's Navy was almost a perfectly functioning market.

But all this took place in a culture whose conception of hero was changing from Hercules to ordinary mortals, men with humanity. Enter said son of country parson, Horatio Nelson.


"What, in the end, would Nelson be without humanity? As cold and admired as the Duke of Wellington."

"The great and dreadful victory at sea on 21 October 1805 played itself out in the mind of Englishmen as a near-perfect example of the violent moral theater whose sublime beauty relied on its distance and it dreadfulness. . . This understanding of war lasted, at full strength, until the shock of the trenches."

[Johann Laesecke · Rating 2 out of 5]

Moderate coverage of the battle and aftermath. Most of the book is taken with examining the national characteristics of the English, French and Spanish. He goes on about why the winners won and the losers lost, and that's where it usually gets pedantic. One of the author's points is that the English were moving into a phase of a more violence-prone and capitalistic national character, seeming to imply that to be capitalistic is to be violence-prone, and that's why Nelson designed his attack for maximum violence. However, one could say that about most battle winners, capitalist or socialist. Isn't that what a wartime battle attempts to do - exact maximum damage or loss to the enemy? In fact, had Nelson lost, blame for his battle plan would have fallen on his head like tons of cannon balls.

The battle was won because the English sailors were somewhat better trained and prepared and provisioned, although that is true only in comparison to the French and Spanish. Curiously, the author says in explaining the qualifications and oral exam to become a lieutenant, he had to have the "ability to answer a series of disturbingly sea-based questions." That's a rather strange statement about a process to determine if someone is qualified to be a Navy officer, potentially rising to be a post captain of a frigate or line-of-battle ship. What is disturbing about the examining board asking sea-based questions? There's a few other odd statements that prevented my giving the book a higher rating. As for all of the author's ruminations about various aspects of national characteristics, there is not really that much about the daily life of a sailor. One could find much more about that from reading Marryat, O'Brian and Forester.

So, yes, lots of research, undoubtedly, but it adds very little to the already reported knowledge of the battle and movements of the ships. The descriptive 'tedious' in a previous review is how I felt about this book.

[Kate Sherrod · Rating 4 out of 5]

Far from just a recounting of the battle (though there is plenty of that, in intense detail), this is also a study in the kinds of societies - the commercial British, the almost medieval and aristocratic Spanish, and the weirdly old fashioned yet supposedly revolutionary French - that produced the ships, officers and seamen who fought in it. Nelson's death gets a tight focus, but there's also some art and literary criticism of the works inspired by Trafalgar and a sociological take on the turn of the 19th century that I haven't really encountered before. Good stuff.

[Bill · Rating 4 out of 5]

Today is the 200th Anniversary of Trafalgar and Nelson's death. The battle was fought in the Atlantic off Cape Trafalgar near the harbor and port of Cadiz, Spain. Coincidently but very appropriately, I finished Adam Nicolson's excellent Seize the Fire today.

Napoleon, by 1805, controlled all Europe west of Austria including northern Italy and Spain through arms and diplomacy. England, as it would again 145 years later, stood alone. France's fleet was potentially capable of invading Britain but only if it could defeat the Royal Navy.

Two years earlier, Nelson chased the French fleet from the Caribbean to Cadiz without engaging in battle. During the next two years 15% of the British fleet under Nelson blockaded Cadiz daring the combined French and Spanish fleet to come out to fight. Finally, the Combined Fleet leadership decided to fight. According to Nicolson the British were confident of victory while the French and Spanish were less so.

The ships in both fleets were relatively the same. In fact, both fleets contained captured and refitted ships that at one time belonged to the other side. The Combined Fleet also outnumbered the English 33 to 27.

Crews, especially officers, and naval systems made the difference according to Nicolson. Most English officers were from middle class families and went to sea as young as 12. They only received promotions when they could pass detailed examinations testing their ability to handle and fight ships. French and Spanish officers were frequently former or current aristocrats and knew little about the sea and ships.
English crews were carefully trained. Each member of a gun crew, for example, was trained to do the jobs of all other crewmembers.

Relatively poor middle class English officers could become rich and set for life by cashing in on prize money. Cash from prizes was realized when the English captured a ship, sailed it into port and sold it. English officers strongly responded to monetary incentives. Prize money was not available to French and Spanish officers.

English ships also enjoyed a systemic advantage. The industrial revolution in England roughly began in about 1780. Among the many national benefits deriving from the industrial revolution were more taxes. These, in turn, were used to maintain the fleet. During the same years France was embroiled in a political revolution and Spain continued to be a backwater economy. Their fleets were not maintained and in many cases the ships were rotting.

Cannons on English ships enjoyed a technological advantage. They were fired by flintlocks while French and Spanish guns relied on much slower rope fuses. English guns and with their well-trained crews could fire faster.

Nicolson's main theme is how honor, heroics and mutual love motivated English officers and to some extent crews. Nelson is a suburb example of honor. British officers as an example were expected to stand exposed during battle. At the beginning of the Trafalgar engagement Nelson ordered his crew to lie on the deck to avoid an enemy broadside. He and other officers remained standing. Nelson was shot when a musket ball hit his shoulder, went through his body and lodged in his spine. Some believe that the ball was shot by a marksman in the mast of an enemy ship. Nicolson believes that the shot ricocheted off of a piece of metal and then hit Nelson.

English crews regarded Nelson as their hero. He had won huge victories at Copenhagen and the Nile. Public relations had yet to be discovered, but Nelson resulting from these victories, his own character, and his relations with Lady Hamilton made him larger than life and a hero.

Honor continued to motivate Englishmen throughout the 19th Century. Fighting was horrific. The tactic was to kill enemy crews so they could not fire back. With their thick hulls of laminated wood, the ships were very difficult to sink especially if there were enough sailors to man the pumps. One example of the horror was that English ships carried gallons of whitewash. It was used to coat and block out blood and gore after the battle.

The concept of honor was overturned by the World War I slaughter in the trenches. Nicolson concludes with this excerpt form WWI poet Wilford Owene,

If you hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues.

[James · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent account on arguably the most pivotal naval battle in modern history.

The author openly admits to not being a naval scholar yet his book reads very well and the descriptions of naval combat in the age of sail are simply beach taking as is the detail and depth of every page of this fine work.

This is a highly recommend account on Trafalgar. Forgive my political incorrectness but in the words of Billy Connelly it's "f*#@ing brilliant!'

[Simon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very well done. Nicolson examines the Battle of Trafalgar as a meta-event in the transition from the understanding of warfare and masculinity from 18th century gentility to the harder edges of the 19th century's British imperial expansion. He frames the story by placing the reader at a certain distance in miles and time as the opposing fleets draw closer. By the time the British and Combined Fleet clash, Nicolson has created the coherent picture that explains the battle. This applies to both its immediate consequence (Napoleon could not cross the Channel) and those effects that stretched into the future, and which were only dealt a deathblow by the trenches of World War I.

Recommend.

[Emylie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Had to start it a few times but was good once I got moving. Really appreciated all the literary references. The end was very interesting to me discussing ptsd symptoms, the tragic sublime and the complete change that the industrial war brought (WWI) v different. After battle they went and took care of the Spanish. I’m glad I now have some history for when I walk though Trafalgar Square.

[Trevor · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting take on the battle of Trafalgar. But no footnotes! How a history book gets published without footnotes is beyond me.

[Brian · Rating 3 out of 5]

“Seize the Fire” is not a book of military or navel history, so if that is what you are looking for, keep looking. Rather it is a sociological examination of the early 19th century culture of England and how it shaped the English Navy, the national character, views of honor, love, etc.
The purpose of the text is not about the navel victory at Trafalgar as much as it is about the society and world that created the elements that made that battle what it was. That is a very interesting subject matter, but it does get a little long winded at times and there are moments where Adam Nicolson’s obvious intellect gets the better of him and he belabors the point too long after making it. “Seize the Fire” is a studious book, not difficult, but also not something that will keep the casual reader’s attention.
The text has numerous strengths, among them the preface which serves as a (too lengthy) sociological introduction to the early 19th century English character. The paperback also includes a “P.S.” section after the text that is a nice addition, including an interesting author interview and some details about the fallout after the battle of Trafalgar.
Although the book is tedious at moments, it does give a nice examination of what Nicolson phrased as, “Battle is a mysterious place; it is not to be celebrated in any naïve or jingoistic way, but to be examined as deeply as one might look at, say love or God.” This text certainly does that.

[Abby Jones · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book! I was terrified it would be over my head. It wasn't. I saw where he was going in his final arguments before he got there which was gratifying. I think what I found most interesting was that while I loved every minute of it, I also disagreed with him on several things. He tended to use the word brotherhood mockingly as if it is just an excuse for a violent boy's club. He treated the sense of honor present in the Golden Age of Sail as something to be disdained. And he found the violence and humanity on display during the battle to be two apposed forces that made no sense. How could men be so barbaric and show so much humanity? As if we’re not violent today, and as if there aren't things worth being violent for. The men in the battle are no more barbaric or 'human' than we are. So, I come at some of these things from a different philosophy, perspective, and view life through the lense of Christianity. We're sinners, thus barbaric. But, there are things worth dying for and killing for. Even with all that, this was an awesome book. I feel like I want to read it all again. Now pardon me while I go dream of ships!

[Colleen · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was an ambitious book. The emphasis isn't so much an account of the battle of Trafalgar (though the battle is covered) but how the new concept of "duty" and "honor" carried the day for the English. I've always thought it an error of omission that the larger books on the Napoleonic Wars often entirely skip over the naval arena, with just brief mentions of the Battle of the Nile and Trafalgar or the blockades. After reading this book, I consider it even worse now that more attention isn't paid.

Occasionally, the author overreaches a bit with his thesis, and I could have done without Ruskin and Wordsworth bits at the end, since I don't think either is relevant to the point he is trying to make.

I wasn't expecting to find a book like this to be so incredibly moving and touching--and it's packed with aw-inducing letters and facts. I learned something new on almost every other page, and the attention to detail was appreciated. I'm now going to have to read a biography on Nelson.

[Gale · Rating 2 out of 5]

A society's mores and history can be seen in how it conducts war, commerce, and diplomacy; it's important to understand where soldiers, sailor, politicians, and industrialists come from to make sense of their actions. You can grant all of this and still find "Seize the Fire" to be something of a slog.

It's an ambitious topic that requires careful navigation of the line between clarity and verbosity. Unfortunately, Nicolson frequently swerves into the latter, waxing long about Trafalgar in prose that falls somewhere between hopelessly academic and first-year Romantic poetry student. There is useful detail and insight in these pages, especially if you've stumbled onto this subject by chance-- otherwise, you'd be best served by steering clear.

[Julian · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is simply a magnificent book for those interested in the battle of Trafalgar. This book focused on the lives of those on the ships, the methods of fighting at sea and how they differed between the British, French and Spanish, and the sea of blood that was the day of the battle. This is one of the most well written books I have read on the subject to date. It is a fine mix of very technical and historical text as well as great storytelling which stops this from being a dry historical book and turns it into a story that can be read by hard core fans of the battle and those who are interested in learning more about the subject.

[Chris Miller · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a thought provoking, well reasoned, and highly entertaining (if that word applies to the carnage described,) history of 21 October 1805 and its aftermath. It is not only a history of the naval personnel and their actions, but, also an indepth look at how culture and art also helped create the moment. Nicolson brings so much to bear and writes in such a clear style that it is just a pleasure to read. It is so well done and so powerful, that one can't help but be moved by this awful, glorious day.

[Bcoghill Coghill · Rating 2 out of 5]

It is a good general sort of book, however it is such a general picture of the age that loses the thread of the battle in all of the digressions. Most of those digressions are widely known, such as British sailors ate limes to prevent scurvy and thus were known as limeys. Perhaps seventh grade boys do not know this today but they certainly did in my day and I suspect still do.
He does mention Jane Austen, so the author is not all bad.

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is not so much a history of the Trafalgar battle but a study of what molded Nelson's personality and those of other British officers of the 19th century. What did it take to be a competent commander of the time? A British commander stood at the helm of the battleship, wide open to enemy fire, to set an example for his crew. The stiff upper lip of the 19th century British was shaped in reaction to the French revolution, with its over-heated marauding gangs and their senseless violence.

[Delanie Washburn · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the best non fictions I have read. This is seen by the fact I actually finished it and skimmed very little ( only the end in fact and that bc it was near bedtime). Easy to read even without knowledge of ships (ei my condition). Big print is also a big plus. NF with small print is too daunting for me

[Jimmie · Rating 4 out of 5]

I listened to the audio version of this book as part of a book challenge. The narration, by the author, was done really well. I enjoyed hearing about the history of the Battle of Trafalgar. I have a lot of respect for the old school sailing ships. The best part of the book was how the officers treated their enlisted sailors.

[James V · Rating 5 out of 5]

Vivid storytelling of an incredible moment in history. The author effectively builds for the modern reader the significance, context, imagery, themes and most importantly the personalities involved at play before plunging into the heat of the battle.

[Tyler · Rating 1 out of 5]

I'd been wanting to read this book for years. I finally got around do it, only to be greatly let down. The author has a magnanimous writing style, but the book lacks content and accurate information. I got rid of my copy after reading.

[Edb · Rating 2 out of 5]

A curious mix of very good mixed with very boring.

[Voyt · Rating 4 out of 5]

Brutal and murderous melee in the name of modern capitalism.
POSTED AT AMAZON 2008
Good historical book should explain/elaborate WHY and HOW battles erupt, and "Seize the Fire" fulfills these two criteria. Author presents in depth psychological and economical study of French, Spanish and British societies, what factors were responsible for vast differences between France and England. Mental attitudes of citizens, rulers, aristocrats, seamen, officers and admirals create well constructed background. Eventually (Part II) we read gruesome details how the bloody and horrific battle evolved and ended. You will be surprised learning about Nelson's motivations and strategy (author calls it "mutually assured destruction"). Violence, humanity and nobility were happening almost at the same time. Shocking to me was to find out that NKVD was not the first in history to use "special methods" for stopping desertion. On the decks of ships, prospect of instantaneous execution by one's own officers might well have persuaded the reluctant to fight longer and harder than they otherwise would. In the end monstrous storm diluted the blood in the sea, sea gobbled ships taken as prizes. Revolution and republican idealism was dying in Europe. Road to Anglo-Saxon commercial Atlantic, materialist, go-getting entrepreneurial culture became well paved and secured. Some segments of this book are too philosophical, repetitive (IMO) and slightly boring. In general it is interesting, informative and worth of recommendation volume.

[Diana Sandberg · Rating 4 out of 5]

I admit I approached this 317-page book with some puzzlement, as to how an entire book about one battle could be anything but tedious, but it had received such an enthusiastic review from an acquaintance that I gave it a try. And it is, indeed, anything but tedious.

We begin at 5:20am on 21 October, 1805, and each chapter moves us a little forward through that day, but each also contains a remarkably coherent and intense investigation of what feels like absolutely everything, from Nelson's character to that of several of his "band of brothers", to the underlying national psychology of the British, contrasting the 18th and 19 centuries, and taking note of the shifting notions of class, and encompassing as well the different histories and attitudes of the French and Spanish, including a short but trenchant glance at the French Revolution and subsequent Empire. Everything, in short, that led up to and, to a certain extent, proceeded from Trafalgar. The portions of the book that deal with the actual battle itself are unrelentingly hair-raising, while the author strives to elucidate the set of mind that could convince thousands of men to submit themselves to such an experience.

Really very good.

[Henry · Rating 2 out of 5]

A curious book.....I heard about this work listening to "The Rest Is History" podcast and thought I'd learn something about Trafalgar and Nelson. Nicolson focuses on the late 18th-early 19th century conception of heroism and duty, which makes this more of a social psychology treatise. Nicolson's writing doesn't help either; there are several sentences that stretch to twenty plus lines, complete with distracting em-dashes and parentheticals and what-not. Maddening. Eventually, he does get to the battle itself, long after your interest has dwindled.

[Christina Dudley · Rating 4 out of 5]

It takes a very long time to get to the actual battle, though once it does it's riveting because how can it not be? Nicolson takes a wider view of the spirit of the age, the definition of heroism, and what drove men at different levels in the Royal Navy.

Frank Austen puts in an appearance, missing the battle, and Bingley and Darcy even get compared to the 18th century ideal fellow and its Romantic replacement.

For its particular audience it's well worth the read and made me want to go to Greenwich and Trafalgar Square to pay my respects.

[Shaheer · Rating 5 out of 5]

Most historians, especially English ones, tend to lionize Nelson and his men for their feats. Instead, Nicolson explores the psyche of the Royal Navy to expose a culture of violence, savagery, and greed. He also looks at the changing culture of 19th century Britain, where 'authenticity', abrupt and unpredictable, and Romanticism, alternately chivalric and barbaric, came to triumph over 18th century decorum. Highly recommend.

[Donald Schopflocher · Rating 4 out of 5]

A cunningly written history of the Battle of Trafalgar, which successively presents important framing concepts including descriptions of the combatants, the political, cultural, and social backgrounds, essential naval vocabulary, etc in early chapters along the way to the horrific battle. Excellent background reading for anyone contemplating a foray into any of the Napoleonic Naval book series by Forester, O’Brian, Pope, or Kent.

[Stephen Morrissey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nicolson's "Seize the Fire" is an unconventional but illuminating take on the Battle of Trafalgar. Weaving in the cultural and societal impulses that propelled the Royal Navy to victory (and, to some extent, portended the doom of France and Spain's Combined Fleet), Nicolson captures a different angle to the carnage and glory of Trafalgar. For those who have read about the battle in more traditional histories, Nicolson's book offers a fascinating view from a grander angle.

[David Kirchman · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a great book, a vivid re-counting of the battle, broken down by the hour. Between descriptions of being on a ship of the line in the early 1800s, the author provides the backstories for countries, their navies, the commanders and the men, and of course Vice-admiral Horatio Nelson.