| Nelson & His World http://www.nelsonandhisworld.co.uk/forum/ |
|
| Tight Squeeze for Victory http://www.nelsonandhisworld.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1694 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | tycho [ Sun Feb 22, 2015 8:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Tight Squeeze for Victory |
An interesting Google Alert just received: http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015 ... -trafalgar |
|
| Author: | tycho [ Wed Feb 25, 2015 12:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Tight Squeeze for Victory |
This report produced a third leader in yesterday's Times and further correspondence today. One correspondent states that he was taught at school that Nelson's early removal from the command structure meant that the battle was won by Collingwood - but he adds that he attended the Royal Grammar School in Newcastle, as did Collingwood, so we must allow for a little bias there. But surely, battles are not won just on the day? Without detracting in any way from the heroic and admirable Collingwood, surely factors such as Nelson's strategic planning, commitment to training, subtle and skilled man management and distinguished leadership over many years were the foundations of victory at Trafalgar? |
|
| Author: | tycho [ Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Tight Squeeze for Victory |
A correspondent in Today's Times challenges the view expressed yesterday, and does so most succinctly, I think: 'Nelson won the battle of Trafalgar through the extraordinary motivational qualities of his relationships with his captains, his innovative orders and his insistence on aggressive engagement with the enemy. None of these factors were undone by his death during the battle. Collingwood, in his general orders on the day after the battle, acknowledged that Nelson had died 'in the arms of victory, covered in glory.' |
|
| Author: | Devenish [ Fri Feb 27, 2015 5:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Tight Squeeze for Victory |
Hi Anna, Yes, I would certainly agree with you and the latter correspondent in the Times. Trafalgar was planned in meticulous detail some while ahead, and whilst Nelson's continued presence was to be expected, I don't think it was vital and later events were to bear this out. Even after Nelson had been shot, the battle continued largely to Nelson's plan. I don't think most captains and crews knew that Nelson had been hit for some little while afterwards, but I am sure that even if they had been aware of it, that fact wouldn't have changed the tactics used – and might even have ensured their continuance. A large part of this must be put down to Nelson himself, and his desire to both keep everyone informed and to let his commanders and crews know what was expected of them. Nelson had also given them some leeway, in that by placing their ship alongside that of an enemy no-one could do very wrong. Collingwood, of course, has his due, but that was largely to come after the battle. The earlier Times correspondent can perhaps be forgiven his view, given he went to the same school, but I think he is overstating it. I think Collingwood would most likely agree! Btw, the earlier article regarding the Victory was something that I hadn't heard of, and I think I shall be buying Brian Lavery's new book! |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|