Nelson & His World

Hi all,
I've been quite worried lately that younger generations are not so aware of Nelson and his navy as they used to. I know this happens over time anyway, but I dont feel that 200 years is that long a time. I think that the age of sail is such an important part of British history because it enabled Britain to get an empire and affected many other countries. Yet, many people I know aren't aware that the navy played such an important role and often confuse Nelson with Napoleon and the Duke of Wellington.

I really wish I could do something about it!

Is anybody else worried about this, or am I just being paranoid??

It's interesting to have a young person's viewpoint. Many thanks for raising the issue, Rae rae.

Yes, I think you're right that Nelson has been disregarded in recent years along with many other major naval and military figures. I think this is largely part and parcel of the end of Empire which brought with it much imperial guilt and a feeling that we should not celebrate the arrogance and rapacity of empire. Another factor was the change in the approach to, and the teaching of history, which became less focused on the great figures of history and the narrative of great events and more directed towards the 'long march of everyman', concentrating on the minutiae of social history and the unknown and forgotten ordinary men and women who shaped it.

Even now, when there is a new focus on the teaching of 'our island story', voices are raised against it; wrongly, I think. It seems to me very wise to teach history as a continuous narrative, instead of selecting random periods for study. It is perfectly possible, indeed it is highly desirable, to give children an overview of our evolution as a nation without making it an exercise in bombastic nationalism. The period of the Napoleonic Wars is valuable and instructive in this regard: the navy was not merely an instrument of imperial expansion, but also crucial to our identity as a nation, acting as a bulwark which protected our preferred way of political pragmatism through vigorous debate, and evolutionary, rather than revolutionary politics. When you think of the vast numbers in Europe killed in civil strife, isn't it extraordinary to think that, on the UK mainland (I exclude tragic Ireland) the number killed in civil disorder since the time of the French Revolution has not yet reached triple figures?

If imperial adventures are now a subject for valid criticism (though historians like Niall Ferguson and Andrew Roberts have written about the positive aspects of empire) then the comparatively peaceful evolution of our domestic politics is something to be understood and valued, I think. It's all about balance.

Maybe there will be a return to the respect and admiration given to great men, Nelson included. Currently, we seem to be allowed to admire the exceptional talents and gifts only of sportsmen. Anyone who excels in other fields of endeavour seems to be quickly cut down to size. It is a British trait, I think, to ensure that people don't get too big for their boots. This is a valuable protection against tyranny; but it can be a sour and ungenerous characteristic too, I think. The contribution of ordinary men and women deserves to be explored and understood; but so also does the rare quality of leadership, such as Nelson had, that can inspire even the most ordinary person to achieve excellence. Again, it is the sporting leaders who are elevated - only today, the Times carries the headline 'England expects' regarding the possible appointment of Harry Redknapp as manager of the England football team.

I do sense a change in the air; and I would certainly welcome a more concentrated focus on history as a continuous narrative and, without being uncritical, a recognition of the special qualities of great historical figures such as Nelson, and ahem - dare I say it?- Napoleon.

Cool, thanks for the interesting reply! Sorry for the rant! I guess I feel more frustrated than others might as it seems that nobody my age finds the age of sail as fascinating as I do.

I might be barking up the wrong tree entirely- but as well as our reluctance to celebrate about Britain's past, perhaps other events such as the two world wars have overshadowed the napoleonic wars? It certainly seems to me that kids nowadays find that particular area of history to be the most interesting- or at least that's the case in my school.

I do hope that some day soon the events if the age of sail will once again become much more common knowledge, especially for the young. I neither want nor expect everyone to like it or find it particularly interesting (where's the fun if everyone else is the same?!) but I believe they deserve to be known as I think they played an important role in us becoming who we are today.

Raerae, to back up what both you and Anna are saying, here is a quote from Derek Matthews, 'The strange death of history teaching', 2009:

I think you might have a point about the overshadowing of the age of sail by the more recent world wars. Perhaps this is partly owing to the fact that the two world wars of the 20th century involved the whole country and nearly every family was touched by them. Largely because we are an island, we have remained free from invasion for a thousand years, and wars in which we were involved were fought far away or on the high seas by professionals. It was very easy to push them to the back of public consciousness, or, on the other hand, work up fervour about 'our brave lads' while sending them to do their work with inadequate equipment and starvation wages, and with no idea of the grim realities of warfare.

In contrast, the first and second world wars directly affected civilians who were conscripted to serve or who were on the receiving end of bombing or who lost loved ones or saw them return maimed. The horror of war came home to civilians more powerfully than ever. The poetry of the first world war, largely written by conscripts utterly horrified by what they were experiencing, had a huge impact, and continues to do so to this day. As a retired teacher, I still recall holding classes spellbound with Wilfred Owen's poem 'Dulce et Decorum Est', an ironic counterblast to the idea that death in battle is glorious. (Mind you, Tennyson's 'Charge of the Light Brigade' used to go down well with the more thuggish elements!)

The preoccupation with the Nazi era is understandable; Nazi-ism was one of the most monstrous creeds ever to infect humanity and a fear of any repetition affected all aspects of our lives from the unbalanced focus on it in teaching curricula to the more relaxed ideas about child-rearing. The long shadow of Nazi-indoctrinated children denouncing their own parents resulted in children being encouraged to question and challenge authority (perhaps too much!) rather than blindly accepting what they were told.

I became interested in the age of sail initially through the fascniating personality of Nelson himself; but more and more I have developed an unwavering admiration for the men of the Georgian Navy. Of course, with hindsight and the shifts in historical perspective, one can criticise their function as the arm of imperialism; but their courage, stoicism, focus and sense of purpose are admirable and inspirational.

It's also interesting to consider how we learn about history. I suspect that it is fairly well established that people learn very little history by studying it at school. The vast majority of children give up the subject at the age of 14, and in 2006 1,479 out of the 3,500 state secondary schools entered no candidates at all for GCSE history.

I'm not sure it was much better in my day! I did 'O' Level history, but I don't recall history lessons at school ever getting as far as the 19th century, let alone the 20th century. Exactly as you suggest, Anna, I learnt about WW1 from Wilfred Owen in English Literature lessons (and of course from Graves and Sassoon). I learnt about WW2 from comics - anyone remember the comic about that Battle of Britain ace - what was his name? We also played a board game, which was quite instructive, but the prodigious number of black & white war films played a big part. But I have to say that I didn't get much idea of where Russia or Poland fitted in!

I think we learn about history from fiction, drama, films & TV, and not by being taught history. Much of our (distorted) view of British history comes from Shakespeare of course. These days, it must surely be TV drama that plays the biggest part, but there's a pretty variable level of rigour in what we are fed.

The problem with the age of sail is that it makes for expensive film making! What's needed is the the next 'Master & Commander'!

But it's nice to know that Nelson is still remembered around the world.

From the Trinidad Guardian: Oops, have I got hold of the wrong end of the stick here?

Tony,

No, I think you have it right. Don't you remember reading of Nelson's accompanied singing to his crew on the gun deck of the Victory between battles? I think more than one log referred to the Admiral's 'slick calypso strumming, and the two songs which appeared favourite amongst the men were, 'Meh Lover' and Disco Daddy' '! (It was pretty obvious who the first one was about!) Even Captain Hardy had been known to tap his foot to the rhythm. They were popular on the West India run in '05, I believe. No?

It would seem as though I was taught more history than you were then, since I remember we were taught about the First World War (although, like most people, I still don't know what it was all about!) and Russia during the early twentieth century (these were real sleep-inducing lessons!)

Seriously though, there is something very wrong with the teaching of history these days, or rather the not-teaching of it, and it is very sad indeed. Someone once said, it may have been Churchill, words to the effect that, a country that has no interest in its past, has no future. I think this is very true. I agree too, that history shouldn't be taught in 'modules' but rather as a progression, which is what it is, and how I remember we were taught. Thus I seem to remember we studied every period, beginning with the earliest. In that way I think children are not confused by chopping and changing around between periods, and they can see it not only as a logical progression, but one into which they, and the world today, fit.

Regarding the Second World War, I think the time is fast approaching when even that period will not be a living memory, and children won't have a grandfather who served in it. So what happens then – out of site, out of mind, perhaps. I think a radical re-think about the way history is taught is needed, and before it's too late.

The fact that there are so many historical films made, must highlight the fact that people are interested in history, even if it's only on the light costume drama level – just look at the popularity of Downton Abbey. That and a few others apart though, it's a shame that film directors choose to distort history for their own convenience. This means that for those who don't want to delve into books about the period, have a somewhat distorted view of it. I am sure though that many have their appetite whetted and start reading, and probably relearning, about what they have just been watching.

Anna, I not so sure that the two world wars were the first to involve the whole country. I would have thought that the Napoleonic Wars (the original Great War) also did that, certainly through conscription for the army and navy, and also through war production. No one could have been unaware of it and probably most knew of someone who was intimately connected with it in some way. There was also the threat of invasion. Even on a superficial level in Jane Austen's world, the 'officers' who were such a favourite (although they were usually likely to be militia) would most likely in reality have been on a war footing. As we know, Jane herself had two brothers in the navy.

I must agree with a lot of the comments. The concentration on WWII (and less WWI) is a function of its recent placement in 'memory' added to what current history teachers have been taught themselves. I personally managed to avoid it mainly because I dislike anything in living memory being studied as history being studied due to the huge weighting influence of public opinion which normally means the history is even more weighted than it usually is.

My own experience is almost of the opposite. Prior to o-levels my school covered the Tudors and Romans plus the crusades then for o levels it was a lot of Victorian history and medieval. In A-levels I had a choice of the French Revolution or the ECW as one module with the other being European history from 1400-1700 (which everyone took). Being stupid I selected the English Civil War because I already knew a huge amount about the Napoleonic period and wanted to expand my knowledge.

Then to cap it all when I went to University I picked Ancient History because I had done very little serious historical research into the Romans/Greeks/Egyptians so thought it would be 'fresh'. If I had picked my own specialised subject I might be doing a more interesting historical job now...

The sad thing for me is that historically when the 'living memory' disappears the people forget what it means so when in 20 years or so World War III occurs that will kill millions and be the new favourite topic of historians with WWI and WWII purists arguing how they should still be a subject of useful study.

Joss

Much of WWII is already often forgotten. I have just been chatting on Twitter to Prof Peter Doyle and Dan Snow (to indulge in a little name-dropping!) about the forgotten stories of the BEF.

My brother and sister-in-law live in a small town which has a pub called the Napoleon and another called the Lord Nelson. I once jokingly called them traitors for drinking in the Napoleon. My sister-in-law looked genuinely confused, and we had to explain that Napoleon and Nelson were effectively enemies... She'd thought that they were the same person or at least that they were both French! I find it incredibly sad that any English person doesn't know at least the very basics about Nelson and what he did.

I agree with Tony and Kester that films and tv do actually have a massive role to play in informally teaching history. We've had Hornblower and Sharpe which have shown that people do have an interest specifically in Nelson's time period. And numerous 'costume' dramas and other tv shows and films set in history, especially WW1 & 2. Wars seem to be particularly popular! For children, there's the Horrible History series, which is pretty accurate and also makes history fun and appealing to a young audience. The trouble with school is that kids often don't have the best attitude towards academic learning, mostly I think because of the way it is taught, and it doesn't help that the government in this country seems to be steering education away from academic subjects and into more practical and vocational ones, with the view to getting kids in to work as soon as they leave school, rather than teach them an appreciation of their heritage.

Kester, I'm not sure if accuracy is necessarily paricularly important, to a point, when it comes to film-making. For example, The Tudors failed on its most basic level in that it portrayed Henry VIII to be ridiculously good looking! The writers/directors were quite liberal with their interpretations of historical fact. But that show was very popular, and no doubt a lot of people did learn from it, as of course there was fact under all those heaving bosoms and gory torture. It's quite likely that it sparked an interest in some to delve into the period a little more. Beyond tv and film, the study of history is a little inaccessible to most people, I think.

A lot of people I've told about my studying Nelson have at first seemed to humour me a little... then seem surprised at how interesting a lot of it is. I have to say I am very surprised that there hasn't been a big-budget movie on the subject. It seems to me like the story of Nelson has everything a successful movie needs - a strong, complex protagonist; romance & sex; scandal; and of course large-scale, exciting battles... but it lacks a happy ending! Though perhaps the fact that our hero is British might put Hollywood off!

Vicki,

There's a pub called the Napoleon? Outrageous! I imagine the police being called out on Trafalgar night to separate the regulars from both establishments! However there does seem a trend to give pubs opposing names if they are close to one another. I remember two pubs near, I think, Lymington in Hampshire, one on either side of the road – one was called the Happy Cheese, the other the Angry Cheese. I wonder if they are still there. I am sure your sister was grateful you could explain the difference between Nelson and Napoleon – and not just in how they wore their hats! (I think that was from '1066 and All That').

A agree with much of what you say, and I do tend to be a bit of a purist where historical films are concerned (even my wife tells me off sometimes). However, although we do watch and (mostly) like historical dramas, we both were turned off by The Tudors which seemed to centre on one subject and not much else! The two Elizabeth films were ok (and we do have them on DVD), but I still can't get over the fact that Elizabeth lived in a cathedral (I think they used Durham)! I enjoyed both Hornblower and Sharpe, even though the storylines have been altered about somewhat. This was certainly so in Hornblower, but I think where this partly scored over the books, was in the continuity and creating more meaningful characters. The fact that his 'crew', Matthews, Stiles, and the others followed him from ship to ship was for me definite plus, since it enabled them to develop as characters. (This would probably not have happened in the navy of the time at his age, although older captains often had men follow them from ship to ship). The other 'plus' was in the development of the characters, allowing them to stand on their own. Unfortunately, Forester tended to make Hornblower himself shine, whilst many of the other characters remained undeveloped, with the exception of Bush. If you're interested, another good film to watch is Captain Hornblower, with Gregory Peck and Virginia Mayo. Ok it's dated, 1951 I think, but they did have good actors in those days, and I think he made a good Hornblower. It is available on DVD.

Well, actually Hollywood did make a film about Nelson and Lady Hamilton, entitled Lady Hamilton (That Hamilton Woman in America). Made in 1942, it was really a wartime propaganda film, but it is quite good. It starred two of my favourite actors from that period Laurence Olivier and Vivien Leigh. Again it's available on DVD. I agree though, it would be nice to see a modern production. There was a company in the US who were going to make one, but unfortunately it seems to have died a death. Yes, in one sense it doesn't have a happy ending, certainly not for Emma or the romance, but I think he at least died happy in the knowledge that he had defeated the French fleet.

Yeah, the media certainly is very powerful- almost scarily so!

I think it would be awesome for someone to make a film about Nelson. I don't think that anybody's managed to accurately portray Nelson yet. They've often glossed over parts of his life and I think nobody's quite captured that charisma that made him so beloved. It would be interesting to see a modern, hopefully much more balanced view of the man, and since we've the technology now, see him at sea more, doing what he did best. But my dad says that it's probably unlikely another Nelson film would be made again as it doesn't appeal to a wide audience. That would be an enourmous shame if he's right! After all, Nelson's life was pretty epic.