Nelson & His World

Whenever Nelson’s flaws are discussed, his vanity is always cited as one of his obvious faults; and there is no denying that Nelson gloried in his achievements and craved recognition for them. His account of his decisive part in the battle of St Vincent, which he composed and sent home with the explicit hope that it would be published in the newspapers reveals a skilled self-publicist. But was this a singular characteristic peculiar to Nelson while other captains were shrinking violets, full of reticent modesty? I don’t think so.

I have mentioned on another post a rather quaint Edwardian book ‘Deeds of Naval Daring’ by Edward Gifford of the Admiralty. It is interesting that many of these anecdotes are derived from letters and dispatches written by the participants themselves – often a little self-deprecating, always giving full credit to supportive colleagues (as did Nelson) but written with the aim of bringing their actions to the notice of a wider audience. Indeed, many of the letters contain very little in the way of personal chat – they plunge straight into the account of the action, and are clearly meant for public consumption and dissemination. Margarette Lincoln makes this point in her book on seamen’s wives and mistresses, discussed on other threads.

The navy was a highly competitive profession: glory, achievement, recognition and promotion (as well as prize money) were the goals of most zealous officers. Nelson was perhaps a little more bare-faced than others in his explicit comment that he hoped his account would reach the newspapers; but was surely not alone in his mastery of the arts of self-promotion.

Tycho,

I believe you're right. Because we know so much about Nelson's case as every part of his character has been minutely analysed, it tends to distort the picture.

I would imagine many a naval officer was of the same mind, keen to make a name for himself and anxious also for it to be known and publicised. Witness also the jealousies that arose when Nelson came of flag rank and assumed command of a fleet, when other admirals thought it was theirs by seniority and believing they had been passed over.

Kester

One of the most intruiging things about the period is the importance that 'interest' played in getting on. The openess of place-making, as recorded then, can look very forthright in modern terms when such things as employment law and public sector accountability are so much a part of life.

But in Nelson's time, across the court, politics, church and diplomatic circles, as well as the armed forces - indeed all public service - it is interesting to see how many letters and dispatches so unashamedly request/demand notice for their own family members and favourites.

I know that Nelson's interest through his uncle Captain Sucking, and the distant connection with the Walpoles have been mentioned as emoluments to his progress in the past. But these connections really do appear to pale into insignificance when placed in line with the long, endless queues of Dukes, Marquises, Earls and Royal Princes who solicited, in no uncertain terms, patronage for their proteges from high ranking officials in all areas of the public service. The nakedness of the nepotism and the numbers involved is quite startling.

Despite being raised to the Peerage, it could also be said that Nelson's later titles would have been viewed as inferior to those of a similar rank who had been born to it, and not placed there from common birth by virtue of their own talents and services. A sort of natural born right to automatically take the best places.

It seemed to be a world where every young man wishing to progress needed to build, develop and work their connections ruthlessly, and also bring their worth to public notice at every opportunity. Nelson would have been keenly aware of this, and what he needed to do to get on.

He certainly appears to have been very successful at it, but this must be placed in context with those who did exactly the same thing and whose efforts have not been as well recorded.

Perhaps the Navy provided a better opportunity than other professions to do this, but how much was the officer class also populated by those with very powerful connections ashore?

I'm not at all sure Nelson was very different from his peers in this respect, but would be interested to understand, during his lifetime and in the decade beyond his death, how much any success at self-promotion was responsible for the public acclaim he received for his actions. And whether in the modern world, the scale of his achievements should be considered in a less glowing light because of that?

Kester/Mira

Thanks for those interesting observations.

I think it's true to say that Nelson's courage, while unquestionable, was not exceptional. The courage of so many - seamen and officers - of the period was breathtaking, as books like the one I quote above on heroic deeds make clear. It's also true to say that many officers were perhaps better seamen. Though Nelson had equals or betters in some individual aspects of naval command, his overall claim to superiority is, I think, undeniable. In aggregate, his seamanship, leadership, personal courage, strategic vision, decisiveness of decision making and administrative diligence allied to his personal qualities of great kindness and charismatic charm are unchallengeable. His pre-eminence is justly
deserved; but I think it may well have overshadowed the great achievements of many other officers that have slipped unremembered into history.

He was also lucky in that he fought three great fleet to fleet battles which inevitably brought him to public notice. Collingwood, for example, fully Nelson's equal in courage and many aspects of naval leadership, never had that good fortune and is therefore less generally known to the public (unless you're a Geordie!)

I recall reading an article in The Times just as my interest in Nelson was aroused and I've managed to locate it as it has some relevance to our discussion here:

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/colum ... 537073.ece

A further point strikes me about 'interest'. The demands of a naval career in Nelson's time were relentless. An incompetent or unsuitable officer may well get initial, and undeserved promotion through interest (e.g. Josiah Nisbet) but was likely to be undone by it sooner rather than later, either by making a misjudgement that would bring punishment or by the antagonism of his junior officers (Josiah Nisbet again.)

However, there was a large pool of brave and competent officers on which to draw when making appointments - and it is here that interest must have been an advantage. Perhaps interest did not, ultimately, advance the incompetent very far; but lack of it must surely have hindered the progress of many a deserving and capable officer, which must have caused resentment, frustration and disillusion.

I would think that Nelson's self promotion was very necessary, and fully justified, as relying on a commander-in-chief to provide the public recognition due was very risky indeed. Examples were the controversy after Howe's dispatches after the Glorious First of June, Hood's failure to give Nelson due recognition after Corsica, and Jervis, who did not name any captains other than his own flag captain in his public account of the Battle of Cape St Vincent (although he did privately). Wisely, on that occasion Nelson did not wait to see what recognition he would receive in Jervis's public account.

I think it worked on two levels, directly winning public acclaim via the newspapers, but also demonstrating to those such as Hood, that he was deserving of their interest. As previous posts have said, 'interest' was everything, but there was interest and patronage that could be earned within the service, as well as interest that was inherited or 'traded'. But it is certainly astonishing how fast the son or brother of an earl could gain promotion.

I am sure Nelson’s public self promotion and private lobbying was also effective in winning loyalty from his men. By taking an interest in, and publicly crediting his subordinates and being seen to press for their public recognition and promotion, he would gain the loyalty of the right sort of follower.

But his self promotion quite understandably did not consist of even-handed and objective accounts. While he was careful to give credit to subordinates, he tended to exaggerate his own part in the action, and did not always give credit to fellow captains and commanders where it was due. In his account of Calvi, despite a good working relationship, Nelson barely mentioned General Stuart (who similarly failed to give Nelson due credit), and after St Vincent, Nelson implied that the Captain, Culloden and Excellent were unsupported for an hour, which was simply not true. Sugden goes so far as to say that Nelson libelled the Blenheim in one letter. I think this must be a letter to his brother in which he said In fact the Blenheim joined the action a few minutes after the Culloden, and suffered heavier casualties than either the Culloden or the Excellent. Nelson also failed to mention that the Prince George had engaged the San Josef before he boarded her, prompting a furious row with Rear-Admiral William Parker who then made his own exaggerated claims. I imagine this contributed to the bad feeling that Kester referred to in the fleet the following year when Nelson was detached for the Mediterranean. I think it would be wrong to view this as an entirely harmless PR exercise.

Whether or not his self promotion increased his public acclaim, Nelson's subsequent pre-eminence and public acclaim did result in his own versions of events being related in his biographies, finding their way into history books, and I think, becoming the widely accepted versions. But that is more the fault of the historians than of Nelson. It is only perhaps in fairly recent times that naval historians have gone back and done the careful analysis needed for a more objective view. I don't think that Nelson's achievements are seen to be any the less as a result, rather that his exaggerations seem unnecessary and a little distasteful in the light of his achievements. But the more objective view does allow us to appreciate better the contributions and achievements of others.