Nelson & His World

Does anyone watch the arts review programme late on Friday nights on BBC2?

Last night, they reviewed a modern war film ‘The Hurt Locker’ which explores the motives, attitudes and responses of a group of bomb disposal experts in Iraq. The director apparently addresses a disturbing truth that is not often dealt with in modern war films: that war, which all experience tells us is ugly and evil is also, for some men, an alluring prospect; that its dangers and excitements can, for some, be a form of addiction.

I wonder, from what we know of him, if Nelson might fall into this category. That he lamented the horrors of war is unquestionable: Collingwood notes that he ‘was the gentlest if creatures and always lamented the necessity of it [war].’ He recalls himself in a letter to Emma that he was in tears as he collated the figures of the dead at Copenhagen. And yet, there are numerous accounts too, of his relish for getting to grips with the French; ‘If I can only get at them’ is a phrase that appears often in his letters. He took part in the boarding exercise at St Vincent despite being a commodore, and could probably have ‘left it to the captains’. At Copenhagen, he commented that ‘this is too warm work to last long. Mind you, I would not be anywhere else for thousands.’ His aggression in the face of the enemy was legendary.

I recall hearing an interview some years ago with a mercenary soldier who was quite open about the exhilaration of war. His honesty was refreshing but such a mindset was also puzzling and slightly repellent to modern sensibilities. Was Nelson addicted to war? Maybe he was lucky that in the 18th century he could mesh his relish of violent action with the concept of honour, and that could have an approved outlet in patriotic endeavour.

Anna,

I think there are different threads here.

Firstly whilst Nelson famously 'hated the French', an attitude acquired from his mother who in turn, we assume, acquired it from her brother, Maurice Suckling, the earlier French wars and the attitudes of that time, he could modify that view with his own first-hand experience of war, of which naturally his mother had no experience. For him, this simple view would have been tempered by the later events of the French Revolution, the spread of its tenets by the French to other countries and the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte, intent on European domination. He would naturally have also been influenced in his own sphere, since the ships which he fought against were more often than not French. Thus it would be surprising if he did not both have an antipathy towards that nation, as being the cause of so much of the evils of the time and the deaths of so many thousands of people, and the desire want to stop its spread in the only way he knew how – through fighting them. Therefore it would only be perhaps natural that he should acquire the aggression and exhileration in battle noted by so many observers.

Even though he did not have quite the same attitude towards the Spanish, they were after all allied to the French for much of the time and had declared war on England. Thus they also became the enemy and he showed the same tenacity towards them, so that when the opportunity presented itself for him to turn out of the line and then personally board the San Josef and the San Nicholas at Cape St Vincent, even though he were a commodore, he took it, displaying the same qualities. (In passing, poor Fanny assumed that boarding was done by captains, whereas in fact it was usually left to lieutenants or even on occasion midshipmen.)

Then there is the other side of Nelson's character, his humanity and feelings towards and for his men. I think we can wholeheartedly believe Collingwood's words, as from one who had served with him for many years and who probably understood many of Nelson's innermost thoughts. I can also imagine Nelson in tears at the number of those killed at Copenhagen – and probably not only from numbers of British dead - as this was probably the hardest fought of Nelson's battles and the most costly in lives on both sides, there being significantly more lost by the Danes. Probably what also affected him was the fact that the battle against 'the brothers of Englishmen' might have been avoided. For one who would never needlessly throw men's lives away, it is quite understandable that he considered this one of the hardest of his battles in terms of lives lost.

Lastly, the mercenary. This type of soldier, for they are usually soldiers, are of course nothing knew in war and have been around since the earliest times. Whilst I think many, including myself, would think this a particularly despicable type of soldier, willing to hire himself out to any warring faction for payment, I can perhaps understand the desire or even neccessity for doing it. After all he is probably well trained, his skills having been learned in either the British or other national army, has done his time and is now out in civvy street with perhaps no other skill to acquire a job. Probably, having then found that life outside the army doesn't have the same excitements and exhileration and is mild by comparison, he seeks to return to the life that he knows and where he can use the skills he has acquired.

I can understand that probably for him and for others fighting a conventional war, warfare itself can be addictive. In that sense Nelson and he would very likely have understood one another, but would have approached other aspects of war from different perspectives.

Many thanks for that thoughtful input. It may be fortuitous that the political situation and enmity to France gave Nelson a valid outlet for the restless and adventurous part of his character - remember the story of the stolen pears from the headmaster's pear-tree when he was at school, and the escapade with the polar bear on the Arctic expedition? He certainly seemed to relish physical challenges and excitements. Perhaps it was the adrenalin surge he needed, and war was only one means of experiencing it.

Re: mercenaries. A generally despised bunch, I agree. (I believe many of the 'British' soldiers during the American War of Independence were German mercenaries. Maybe one of our US viewers can confirm this?) Nevertheless, the poet A E Housman wrote a short and telling poem noting that mercenaries, with sometimes base motives, can nevertheless, on occasions, 'pull the fat out of the fire'.

Epitaph on an Army of Mercenaries

These, in the days when heaven was falling,
The days when earth's foundations fled,
Followed their mercenary calling
And took their wages and are dead.

Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood, and earth's foundations stay.
What God abandoned, these defended,
And saved the sum of things - for pay.

*******************

Hope I've got that right - typed it from memory!

Anna,

Thanks for that. I found this article from Wikipedia about mercenaries, which makes interesting reading. About half-way down, referring to the seventeenth/eighteenth centuries, it does make mention of the German mercenaries during the American War of Independance – so you are right:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercenary# ... _centuries

Regarding Nelson's supposed escapade with the polar bear, I am reading Roger Knight's book in which he says that at on the 5th August, three large bears came alongside. They were all shot from the ship. He then goes on to say, that 'no record exists of Nelson's venturing alone on the ice to shoot a bear'. A footnote says that Nelson's part in the incidents is not recorded, and that his central role in the bear escapade was first printed by Clarke and McArthur (!) who attributed the story to Ludwidge.

Is this another case of the 'deadly duo' falsifying the evidence and making Nelson more 'heroic' than he actually was and, furthermore leading other authors into believing it as gospel, no doubt prompted by Westall's painting?

It seems that we are more and more being asked to question the incidents traditionally attributed to Nelson, through modern scholarship and research.

Although the German troops that served with the British in the American War of Independence are often described as mercenaries, I think this is a bit misleading, as they were not mercenaries in the modern sense of the word used in this thread. They were regular army regiments from various German principalities, with whom Britain entered into treaties in which the principalities provided the regiments and commanders to fight in America under the overall command of the British Commander in Chief. A large number came from Hesse-Kassel, and so all the German troops were often referred to as Hessians. During the course of the war, I think about 30,000 were sent from various German states. The treaties of course required Britain to pay for the troops, and so they were mercenaries only in that sense. However, the individual soldiers, some of whom were conscripts, had no choice in the matter, and simply served in their regular regiment wherever their country sent them. This was normal practice at that time, and had happened in previous wars. The troops from Hanover were of course subjects of King George as he was prince-elector of Hanover. I believe the Americans were angered by the use of foreign troops, as it appeared that Britain was treating the conflict just like any other foreign war. I think several thousand of the Germans settled in America after the end of the war. My ancestor was a midshipman in a frigate that escorted a convoy carrying some of the first Hessians to America in 1776. I too would be interested in hearing a US perspective on this.

For mercenaries, we need look no further than the Royal Navy, which recruited seamen from all over the world. And if we are looking for men who fought for money, many of its officers joined in times of war hoping to make their fortune in prize money. A fair number of officers became mercenaries in every sense of the word, by joining foreign navies after the end of the Napoleonic Wars rather than face unemployment at home.

Another instance that could be described as foreign troops fighting in the American War of Independence was the Irish Brigade of the French army, which was in action against British troops and marines in the West Indies, for example at St Kitt’s in 1782. The Irish Brigade was manned by Irish exiles in France, and had originally been formed from Jacobite regiments which left Ireland. The British troops and marines against whom they fought would have of course also included some Irish recruits. The Irish Brigade was part of the French Army, but I am sure the Irish recruits would not have regarded themselves as mercenaries.

During the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars there were tens of thousands of foreign ‘mercenaries’ serving with the British army. Some were in foreign corps paid by the British, but not part of the regular British army, some were in foreign corps that became units in the regular British army, and some were individual recruits in regular British army units. I don’t think there was the same stigma attached to being a professional soldier in foreign service that exists today.

On Nelson’s attitude to war, I think Sugden titled the first volume of his biography ‘A Dream of Glory’ for good reason. I think glory was central to Nelson’s attitude, and far more so than honour. Honour was essential, as an honourable cause and honourable conduct allowed him to win glory, rather than notoriety, but personal glory was a strong driver, and war provided the means to that end. But that does not mean that he was insensitive to the consequences of war.

Tony,

Thanks for adding those thoughts and in particular for giving more incite into the mercenary. It shows yet again that Wikipedia is only so good!