Nelson & His World

What do other members think of Coleridge's record of Ball's account of how the fire started on board l'Orient at the Battle of the Nile? While some British historians accept this account, others seem to downplay it or even ignore it. But if French ships were supposed to carry combustibles, why should it be such a surprise to find a British ship similarly prepared? And surely while Coleridge was Ball's secretary in Malta he wasn't in a permanent drug-crazed state of delirium?

However the fire started, it seems that both Ball and Hallowell did their utmost to ensure the ship's destruction by directing both cannon and musket fire at the location of the flames to prevent attempts to extinguish the fire.

How far have accounts of the battle been sanitised, and to whose conception of honour?

As I have been and still am away from home I shall await any comments on this subject with naturally keen interest. In the meantime herewith is an almost verbatim account from the log of the Alexander with extra dashes, August 2nd 1798

REMARKS &C HM SHIP ALEXANDER

Moderate Breezes and Hazy. Looked into Alexandria saw two Ships of the Line and six Frigates with French Colours hoisted made the Signal for Do. – at ½ past 2 saw the French Fleet at anchor inside the Isle of Bequier amounting to 13 Sail of the Line and 4 Frigates. Took the small Bower Cable out of the Gun Room Port and bent . . . to the Anchor. Made all possible Sail towards them at ½ past 5 Tkd in 15 Fathoms water not being able to Weather the Reef that extends to the Eastward from the Isle – at 6 Tkd in 20 Fathoms – at 38 past 6 the headmost of our Ships commenced the Action with the Enemy’s Van. 25 past 8 came to Anchor with the small Bower and Commenced the Action on one of the Enemy’s Ships a three Decker at ½ past Do. let go the Best Bower our Ship being then on the Larboard Quarter of the Enemy – at 25 past 9 the ship we were engaged by took fire, at ½ past Do. cut the stern Cable. Ceased firing Veered away the Best Bower and got along side another of the Enemy’s Ships – Commenced Firing at 50 past 9, cut the Best Bower Cable to prevent the Ship on Fire falling on board of us –at 10 the Enemy’s Ship that was on fire Blew up. With her Explosion set us on Fire in Four different Places, principally the Jib Boom, Sprit Sail & Spritsail topsail Yards & heaving the Royal Yard overboard and with other Exertions the Fire was Extinguished – at ¼ past 12 came to Anchor with the Sheet Anchor and Commenced Firing on three of the Enemy’s Ships – at ¼ past three ceased firing – Cut away and threw over board to prevent their taking Fire the Main Sail, Main Topsail, Fore and Main Top Gallant Sails – at daylight commenced the Action at 6 – one of the Enemy’s Frigates struck to us at ¼ past Do. – one of their Line of Battle Ships struck at 30 past Do – the Frigate took fire and blew up – took possession of the Line of Battle Ship – Ceased firing she proved to be Le Mercure of 74 guns – Killed during the Action Lieut John Collins and 13 Seamen – Wounded Alexr John Ball Esq Captain and Capt Cresswell of Marines, 48 Seamen and 5 Marines – All the masts shot through in several places, Fore and Main Top Gallant Masts and Mizen Top Mast shot away. The Yards all shot through. The greatest part of the Standing and Running Rigging shot away – all the Sails shot through and a number shot in the Sides*
*Found destroyed and in our possession after the Action – 11 Sail of the Enemy’s Line of Battle Ships, 9 Frigates and a Bomb Vessel. Broke to pieces by shot in the Wing and on the Lower Deck Lemon juice cases and a stove, shot through, and threw overboard being between Decks, Butts and Punchions 6 – Served to the French prisoners saved from the Ship when Blown up and came on board Naked – Shirts 28, Trousers 28.

Tony queried:
Unfortunately I can't comment with any certainty whether records (including logs) and recollections from the Nile were sanitised for official or public consumption, but I had in the past also wondered why Coleridge's writings (mainly his passing on of Ball's own comments) had been seen so little in print.

I'm sure that some sources who recorded or passed on conversations were considered less credible than others for very good reasons; but why does Coleridge appear to be considered so? Was he really out of it all the time at the time - or did he have a reputation for being a cavalier with the truth?

Yet there seem to be other, highly untrustworthy, witnesses and commentators who are still frequently quoted in print today.

I can't comment on the authenticity of Coleridge's account, but if Ball did indeed arrange for 'combustibles' to be thrown into the Orient, would it have been regarded as dishonourable? Setting enemy ships on fire by means of fireships was not unknown (see Philonauticus's comment on another thread - link below) but I am not sure whether it regarded as a questionable practice in Nelson's day.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=168&hilit=fireships

It is intriguing that some actions were regarded as dishonourable (resuming action after having struck one's colours, for example) whereas others, which might seem reprehensible to us, were acceptable (e.g. sailing under false colours). Does deliberately setting fire to an enemy ship fall into the 'acceptable' or dishonourable' category?

I feel sure that there was more honour to be had by defeating an opponent through seamanship and gunnery skills than through a ‘lucky strike’ with an ‘infernal weapon’, and thus there may have been an incentive to suppress information.

But I wouldn’t necessarily expect to find information in official reports and logs. Ship’s logs typically include very little detail of the guns and weapons used in an action. The gunner would of course have to account for shot and powder used, but presumably not for anything provided privately by the captain.

In this case Coleridge’s account says that the lieutenant used the combustibles without Ball’s knowledge, and thus without Nelson’s knowledge. But there is an interesting comparison at the Battle of Copenhagen. There the 56-gun Glatton, Captain Bligh, (anchored next in line to Nelson in the Elephant) fired incendiary ‘carcasses’ at the Danish flagship Dannebrog and set her on fire within the first hour of the battle. The Danish Commander Fischer transferred his flag to another ship and the Dannebrog blew up several hours later. Most of the crew had by then been taken off by British and Danish boats, but that was only made possible by the truce. Bligh continued firing incendiary shells during the battle and Nelson must have been aware of this, but as far as I am aware, did not issues any orders for Bligh to desist.

In fact, while making his offer of a truce, Nelson threatened to set fire to the captured floating batteries, explicitly pointing out that while the action continued, he had no means of taking off the Danish seamen before he did so. Perhaps fortunately for Nelson’s legend, during the time it took for his message to be delivered, the Danish resistance crumbled and his offer of truce was accepted.

There is no reason to doubt Nelson’s humanity, but the time for humanity was after victory, and not before.

Let me indulge in some wild speculation for a moment (which is what the Internet is for, isn’t it? ). It would be consistent with Nelson’s battle tactics for him to want to strike at the enemy command and control by ‘taking out’ the enemy commander-in-chief. Suppose he had quietly told his captains to use all means available to destroy the enemy’s flagship. If that was the case, I think it likely that information about his instructions would have been subsequently suppressed. I’m not suggesting that is what happened, just that we probably wouldn’t know if it had.

I have always been aware of paint being stored on deck of the flagship and this ignited during the Battle.

Would be fascinated to know of any French eye witness accounts of the Battle. Does anyone know of any ?

The only French Eye witness account I can find is of Ensign Lachenede from La Jonquiere. Volume 11 Page 399.

At 9.30pm A fire broke out on L'Orient and was extinguished, but a quarter of an hour later broke out again.


There were around sixty survivors from the flagship that blew up at around 10.15pm.

British accounts of the fire aboard L'Orient seem to confirm that it began in the stern cabin (indicating that it was caused by the fire of British ships astern of the French flagship, principally the Alexander) and spread to the poop. It then engulfed the whole ship, resulting in her blowing up. It would appear that Captain Berry drew up the main narrative of the battle, including the incident of L'Orient's destruction, but Nelson would seem to concur with his flag captain's account.

Stephen, this would also seem to have been the opinion of French Rear Admiral Blanquet, which he noted in his report after the battle and which is reproduced in Nicolas: "At a quarter past 9 o'clock, L'Orient caught fire in the cabin; it soon afterwards broke out upon the poop. Every effort was made to extinguish it, but without effect, and very soon it was so considerable, that there were not any hopes of saving the ship."

I would imagine the fact that an incendiary device might be considered unethical by some, is perhaps akin to the introduction of the submarine during the First World War, regarded by many as underhanded and not gentlemanly, and the bombing of Dresden in the Second. However, others think differently – it is war and all means are acceptable to bring it to a conclusion. There is also that old expression, 'all's fair in love and war.'

I am not sure either that considerations of 'niceness' applied to wars either in the Napoleonic, or any other, period. In this case, it may have been thought that (presumably on the spur of the moment, or not?) the blowing up of L'Orient would have been very much a demoralising blow to the French. It would seem to have worked.

I refer to the Trafalgar- Nelson and The Napoleonic Wars, Including the Matcham Collection. Auction held at Sotheby's on October 05,2005. From the Catalogue.

Lot 62 Four Plans drawn up by then Captain Ball showing the position of vessels at various times of the Battle.
In the text it mentions and I refer" It was later rumoured that the explosion was caused by Ball's illicit use of red-hot shot.

I see these plans are kept at the British Library Add.MSS 34909 passim

Lot 62 was auctioned at 10.200 pounds.