What do you think?
Rate this book
Nelson and Napoleon: The Long Haul to Trafalgar
Horatio Nelson is Britain’s greatest naval hero, and Trafalgar in 1805 is her greatest naval victory. Through the prism of the events of the preceding years, historian Christopher Lee reexamines the myths surrounding Trafalgar. He also paints a detailed picture of the personalities and the intrigues, particularly the creation of Nelson as national hero and his intense rivalry with Napoleon. Finally, he explores the "what ifs" of Trafalgar—for instance, what if Nelson had lived?This is an illuminating account of a victory that changed the course of the Napoleonic wars and led to Britannia ruling the waves for more than 100 years. Christopher Lee is the author of the prize-winning history of Britain, This Sceptered Isle.
416 pages, Hardcover
First published September 1, 2005
5 people are currently reading
45 people want to read
About the author
Christopher Lee
329 books34 followersChristopher Lee was a British writer, historian, and broadcaster, best known for creating and writing the acclaimed BBC Radio 4 documentary series This Sceptred Isle. His career spanned journalism, academia, military service, and historical writing.
After an early life at sea, he studied history at London University before joining the BBC as a defence and foreign affairs correspondent, with postings in Moscow and the Middle East. He later transitioned into academia, becoming the first Quatercentenary Fellow in Contemporary History at Emmanuel College, Cambridge, and conducting research at Birkbeck College. He also served in the Royal Navy's Joint Intelligence Reserve Branch, reaching the rank of captain.
Lee’s This Sceptred Isle, originally broadcast in 1995, chronicled British history from Roman times to the 20th century and was expanded with additional series covering the 20th century and the British Empire. His historical works include 1603, Nelson and Napoleon, and Monarchy, Past, Present… and Future?, as well as an abridgment of Winston Churchill's A History of the English-Speaking Peoples. He was also a prolific radio playwright, penning over 100 plays and series for BBC Radio 4.
Beyond writing, he served as a defence and foreign affairs adviser to the British Forces Broadcasting Service for 30 years and was involved in policy analysis.
He divided his time between Sussex and Florence, Italy, and was married to portrait painter Fiona Graham-Mackay. Lee passed away in 2021 at the age of 79.
After an early life at sea, he studied history at London University before joining the BBC as a defence and foreign affairs correspondent, with postings in Moscow and the Middle East. He later transitioned into academia, becoming the first Quatercentenary Fellow in Contemporary History at Emmanuel College, Cambridge, and conducting research at Birkbeck College. He also served in the Royal Navy's Joint Intelligence Reserve Branch, reaching the rank of captain.
Lee’s This Sceptred Isle, originally broadcast in 1995, chronicled British history from Roman times to the 20th century and was expanded with additional series covering the 20th century and the British Empire. His historical works include 1603, Nelson and Napoleon, and Monarchy, Past, Present… and Future?, as well as an abridgment of Winston Churchill's A History of the English-Speaking Peoples. He was also a prolific radio playwright, penning over 100 plays and series for BBC Radio 4.
Beyond writing, he served as a defence and foreign affairs adviser to the British Forces Broadcasting Service for 30 years and was involved in policy analysis.
He divided his time between Sussex and Florence, Italy, and was married to portrait painter Fiona Graham-Mackay. Lee passed away in 2021 at the age of 79.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
January 25, 2020
2 1/2 stars. I have to start off with that I found the blurb on the back very misleading. The author doesn't always have a say in what is printed there, so this isn't necessarily a criticism of the author. It says Lee examines the battles of Cape St. Vincent, the Battle of the Nile and Copenhagen. These are given a sketchy mention, but no means an analysis that showed much about Nelson's character or tactic abilities. And the mention of a rivalry between Nelson and Napoleon seems over inflated. They knew about each other but there isn't proof there was any feeling of a one-on-one face off.
The book is an easy read. Some historical texts are difficult to read because they are so technical and full of academese. Lee did a good job of showing this famous battle and the resultant century of British domination of the seas in a much larger context of how many other people and things influenced this battle than just Nelson and his French admiral counterpart. Politicians and leaders had a large influence on making available (or as often the case might be, not available) money for supplies, workers and sailors which impacted the condition of the ships and crews. Napoleon issued many orders that showed he did not understand the navy which resulted in impossible expectations, confusion and disarray. Weather, the difficulty of coordinating maneuvers of sailing ships and egos also had huge impacts. Nothing was preordained in this battle, including the British's success or Nelson's death.
My heart was broken to learn that some of the iconic images in painting and movies of sailing ships in battle were usually wrong. If possible, ships did not go into battle with all their sails up. It looks pretty to have them under full sail, but in reality only the top sails would be used for maneuverability in battle. The other wrong idea: that all the cannons would fire at once. It would cause such a recoil that it would probably knock over people and dislodge important items (like part of the cannons).
But, Lee makes too much of what ifs. Many times he says Trafalgar might never have happened if...a confrontation between these groups happened here, this command happened, etc. There are what ifs that could have lead to just as an iconic battle. I don't think this is very productive.
One other thing bothered me, even though it only took up about a page of the book: his conjecture that Villeneuve knew Nelson's new tactics he drew up in London before Trafalgar. "The Frenchman was so caught up in Nelson's reputation as a tactician of enormous daring and above all, original thinking that he probably understood his enemy better than Nelson's own fellow commanders...Villeneuve would even have reached the same calculations in tactical thinking that Nelson had done." Lee goes on to use this conjecture later in the book. There is no proof, here at least, that Villeneuve had any idea of Nelson's change of tactics that he put on paper much less that Villeneuve responded to it or didn't respond to it.
The book is an easy read. Some historical texts are difficult to read because they are so technical and full of academese. Lee did a good job of showing this famous battle and the resultant century of British domination of the seas in a much larger context of how many other people and things influenced this battle than just Nelson and his French admiral counterpart. Politicians and leaders had a large influence on making available (or as often the case might be, not available) money for supplies, workers and sailors which impacted the condition of the ships and crews. Napoleon issued many orders that showed he did not understand the navy which resulted in impossible expectations, confusion and disarray. Weather, the difficulty of coordinating maneuvers of sailing ships and egos also had huge impacts. Nothing was preordained in this battle, including the British's success or Nelson's death.
My heart was broken to learn that some of the iconic images in painting and movies of sailing ships in battle were usually wrong. If possible, ships did not go into battle with all their sails up. It looks pretty to have them under full sail, but in reality only the top sails would be used for maneuverability in battle. The other wrong idea: that all the cannons would fire at once. It would cause such a recoil that it would probably knock over people and dislodge important items (like part of the cannons).
But, Lee makes too much of what ifs. Many times he says Trafalgar might never have happened if...a confrontation between these groups happened here, this command happened, etc. There are what ifs that could have lead to just as an iconic battle. I don't think this is very productive.
One other thing bothered me, even though it only took up about a page of the book: his conjecture that Villeneuve knew Nelson's new tactics he drew up in London before Trafalgar. "The Frenchman was so caught up in Nelson's reputation as a tactician of enormous daring and above all, original thinking that he probably understood his enemy better than Nelson's own fellow commanders...Villeneuve would even have reached the same calculations in tactical thinking that Nelson had done." Lee goes on to use this conjecture later in the book. There is no proof, here at least, that Villeneuve had any idea of Nelson's change of tactics that he put on paper much less that Villeneuve responded to it or didn't respond to it.
August 10, 2022
I didn't enjoy this as much as ‘Trafalgar, the Nelson Touch’, by David Howarth, but it was still worth reading, and pretty good, really.
The title's an eye-catcher, but a bit misleading. It's more (eager) Nelson versus (reluctant) Villeneuve, than Nelson vs. Napoleon. Of course Bonaparte figures large, as he did in so much of the history of the era that bears his name, and is taken to task by Lee for meddling outside his area of expertise, and, Canute like, failing to understand the ungovernable nature of the seas.
Like Napoleon, Lee gives Villeneuve a good drubbing, portraying him as a whining vacillating poseur, who wanted the trappings of high naval office, but for whom the pantaloons just didn't fit. Or, rather he filled them, but not in the way Napoleon had hoped for!
To his credit, Lee does say that Villeneuve, once battle was joined, was not as craven as he had been at the Battle of the Nile. And he gives the French and Spanish navies due credit for hard fighting on the day. Well, on the whole... Villeneuve's second in command welshes on him during the battle, scarpering for Cadiz. Lee suggests that had he not done so, the Combined Fleet might've won the day.
As many familiar with this subject will know, there are, quite apart from the British tragedy of losing Nelson - and it's gently suggested here that Nelson may have been playing to the gallery, deliberately courting a death-wish - some ironies on the Franco-Spanish side, which Lee addresses: firstly Villeneuve was being relieved of his command (knowledge of this impending demotion/usurpation may have caused him to finally engage Nelson), and secondly, Napoleon had in fact already turned his focus and his Grande Armée eastwards, to deal with Austria, giving up on his cross-channel invasion plans. Thus making the battle at Trafalgar an unnecessary waste.
Lee's writing style is eminently readable, and his scholarship appears to be pretty thorough. I did, however, feel that there was rather too much repetition of certain ideas, and that 'The Long Haul To Trafalgar' might not have needed to be quite so long. Still, in tracing back the tale to its roots and filling out the back story, you do get a clearer, fuller picture, which is good.
I read the paperback version, which I was lucky enough to pick up for just £2 at a local 'Alladin's Cave' type second-hand store in Ely. As well as the text, there's a picture section, with portraits of the main protagonists, and some invasion scare and naval battle scenes, etc. One very strange omission, to my mind, especially given that this book benefits from both a glossary and 'cast list' (useful things many such books omit), is the total absence of any maps showing the battle of Trafalgar itself.
So, not perfect, but very good nonetheless, and well worth reading if this subject is your jug of grog.
The title's an eye-catcher, but a bit misleading. It's more (eager) Nelson versus (reluctant) Villeneuve, than Nelson vs. Napoleon. Of course Bonaparte figures large, as he did in so much of the history of the era that bears his name, and is taken to task by Lee for meddling outside his area of expertise, and, Canute like, failing to understand the ungovernable nature of the seas.
Like Napoleon, Lee gives Villeneuve a good drubbing, portraying him as a whining vacillating poseur, who wanted the trappings of high naval office, but for whom the pantaloons just didn't fit. Or, rather he filled them, but not in the way Napoleon had hoped for!
To his credit, Lee does say that Villeneuve, once battle was joined, was not as craven as he had been at the Battle of the Nile. And he gives the French and Spanish navies due credit for hard fighting on the day. Well, on the whole... Villeneuve's second in command welshes on him during the battle, scarpering for Cadiz. Lee suggests that had he not done so, the Combined Fleet might've won the day.
As many familiar with this subject will know, there are, quite apart from the British tragedy of losing Nelson - and it's gently suggested here that Nelson may have been playing to the gallery, deliberately courting a death-wish - some ironies on the Franco-Spanish side, which Lee addresses: firstly Villeneuve was being relieved of his command (knowledge of this impending demotion/usurpation may have caused him to finally engage Nelson), and secondly, Napoleon had in fact already turned his focus and his Grande Armée eastwards, to deal with Austria, giving up on his cross-channel invasion plans. Thus making the battle at Trafalgar an unnecessary waste.
Lee's writing style is eminently readable, and his scholarship appears to be pretty thorough. I did, however, feel that there was rather too much repetition of certain ideas, and that 'The Long Haul To Trafalgar' might not have needed to be quite so long. Still, in tracing back the tale to its roots and filling out the back story, you do get a clearer, fuller picture, which is good.
I read the paperback version, which I was lucky enough to pick up for just £2 at a local 'Alladin's Cave' type second-hand store in Ely. As well as the text, there's a picture section, with portraits of the main protagonists, and some invasion scare and naval battle scenes, etc. One very strange omission, to my mind, especially given that this book benefits from both a glossary and 'cast list' (useful things many such books omit), is the total absence of any maps showing the battle of Trafalgar itself.
So, not perfect, but very good nonetheless, and well worth reading if this subject is your jug of grog.
August 15, 2018
Finished this 20mins ago. I love reading about naval battles, and found a lot of this book highly interesting. However, its editor has made some surprising decisions. Every person mentioned gets a footnote with their dates and something about them - even if it's already said in the footnoted text! This really distracts from the narrative and makes it an uncomfortable read. Lee also writes passive aggressively throughout, especially (but not only) about Villeneuve, which undermine the book's trustworthiness as an unbiased account. However, I did appreciate that he points out flaws in Nelson and most other key players.
The title is also questionable, as the drama more concerns partly Nelson and Villeneuve, and partly the awkward mechanics between the French admiral and emperor. I'd have liked more on relationships between Royal Navy leaders of the campaign, but that could fill another book, and what Lee gives us is still interesting.
The title is also questionable, as the drama more concerns partly Nelson and Villeneuve, and partly the awkward mechanics between the French admiral and emperor. I'd have liked more on relationships between Royal Navy leaders of the campaign, but that could fill another book, and what Lee gives us is still interesting.
August 31, 2008
Probably the worst book on the subject I have ever read. At first I thought the book could have used an editor, but later I thought it should have been entirely rewritten. The writer drifts around his chapters,(for example, halfway through a discussion of the Royal Marines he drifts into the Battle of St Vincent, and then eventually drifts back), he can't keep individual paragraphs on topic, and at times he is actually incoherent. He has a distaste for Villeneuve, and never passes up a chance to say so.
I gave up just after the Battle of Cape Finisterre, for what it's worth.
I gave up just after the Battle of Cape Finisterre, for what it's worth.
September 14, 2015
heel veel informatie, weinig ordening.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews