Nelson & His World

Discussion on the life and times of Admiral Lord Nelson
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 11:06 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Council of War
PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 8:52 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 11:06 am
Posts: 2830
Location: mid-Wales
On the Santa Cruz thread, I mentioned the ‘Council of War’ that was held before the second attack. The term is self-explanatory, but can anyone say more about how they worked?

They seem not to have been obligatory. The Santa Cruz CofW took place after the first failed action. Was it usual to have a CofW in the middle of an operation or did they usually take place before the action began?

Were they held at the instigation of the captain or could officers make a request for a CofW to establish what was required of them in particular circumstances? Or, if an operation was going badly, to have some input into any future course of action?

_________________
Anna


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 7:59 pm
Posts: 42
Location: Angeln, Northern Germany
I'd say the Santa Cruz CoW was a kind of emergency measure. As far as I know, that has been the only "formal" CoW ever initiated by Nelson. His normal procedure was to aquaint his captains very early about his intentions when meeting the enemy, and they seem to have understood.

CoWs in general tend to have an ugly smell. Just see the fatal CoW Admiral Byng held after the indecisive Battle of Menorca or the CoWs held by Villeneuve.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 5:17 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 11:06 am
Posts: 2830
Location: mid-Wales
Thanks for that, Ned.

I must say Miller's report struck me as rather puzzling. I know Nelson remarked on one occasion (I paraphrase) that if a captain had to ask whether he should fight, he really didn't want to. And once he was committed, he was the type who was determined (stubborn/pig-headed) enough to keep going whatever the cost. That's why I wondered whether it was possible for a CofW to be initiated by his officers, in which case they might have taken this step in the hope of restraining his tendency to recklessness.

_________________
Anna


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 11:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 9:11 am
Posts: 1376
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Anna,

I rather think that Nelson often looked upon Councils of War as a necessary evil, when it was usually quite plain to him what needed doing and that they should get on with the task. This view was probably also very likely coloured by the facts that they had not been called by him – and that he often didn't agree with his Admiral!

A case in point here, and the one to which you allude, was that called just before Copenhagen, by Hyde Parker on his flagship. You remember that Nelson had up until then been kept out of most of the deliberations but with the return of the diplomat, Vansittart, to the fleet from negotiations with the Danes – at which Parker's terms for the Danes to withdraw from the Northern coalition were rejected – Nelson was called.

His response was typical, 'Now we are sure of fighting,' he wrote to Emma. 'I am sent for. When it was a joke, I was kept in the background'. He went on to make the remark, 'If a man consults whether he is to fight, when he has the power in his own hands, it is certain that his opinion is against fighting'. Nelson actually wrote the last part in italics, by means of underlining it, and it is one of his more prophetic statements. According to Oliver Warner, and in light of many eighteenth century actions, his view was realistic. One tends to agree with him.

As regards Santa Cruz, the CoW here of course was called not to decide what to do, but how to retrieve the situation when it had gone wrong – and was in itself, perhaps, an understandable and sensible course. Quite whether his course of action afterwards was as sensible is debatable!

There is then of course the well-known picture of the CoW, if it could be called that, just before Trafalgar where Nelson explained to his captains the 'Nelson Touch'. This was quite some time before the battle and Nelson seems to have called it partly because he knew few of the captains of the assembled fleet personally, and also because he wanted to acquaint then with his methods as soon after he had joined the fleet as possible. This was quite different to Nelson's rapore with his Nile captains, where of course he had known them for some time and they were familiar with his style and expectations. Thereafter, he came to know the Trafalgar captains through individual dinners and more distantly by signal and other communication. By that time he expected them to know 'his methods' and by and large they did, as witness Collingwood's terse remark in response to Nelson's famous signal, 'I do wish Nelson would stop signalling, we all know what we have to do'!

I'm not sure that a CoW could be conveniently convened by officers under a C-in-C and be effective. To begin with no Admiral, Nelson or any other, would take easily to what was in effect their command being taken from them - and the officers involved would, very likely, have been open to charges of mutiny at the very least!

_________________
Kester.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 7:44 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 11:06 am
Posts: 2830
Location: mid-Wales
Thanks, Kester, for these wide-ranging and informative comments.

_________________
Anna


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 8:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 7:11 pm
Posts: 1258
Location: England
Kester, I am sure you are right that Nelson disliked ‘Councils of War’ when they were called by other people and he was a junior participant. But as a commanding officer, I think he made as much use of them as anyone else. I think the term “Council of War” is in itself confusing, because, as far as I know, a ‘CoW’ was not an officially recognised procedure, and carried no more weight than any consultation of junior officers by a commanding officer. What one author or participant may describe as a “CoW” may be described by another as a ‘consultation’, or by another as a ‘briefing’. As you say, whether or not a consultation or CoW posed a formal list of questions to the participants, the sole responsibility for any decisions rested with the commanding officer.

I would say that Nelson used briefings/consultations/CoWs at various times and to various degrees to gain information, intelligence and advice from his officers, brief them on his intentions, gain their ‘buy in’ to his plans, and also to cover his own backside.

An explicit example of the last is his CoW during the action of the Agamemnon against La Melpomène in October 1793. When La Melpomène hauled her wind to rejoin the rest of her squadron, Nelson called a ‘CoW’ to consult his officers on whether to continue the pursuit (in his log: ‘The Captain sent for his officers to consult them’.) Having decided against continuing, he recorded a memorandum of the ‘CoW’ and sent it to Hood as part of his justification of the fact that his 64-gun ship had broken off action with a frigate:
Quote:
MEMORANDUM RELATING TO THE ACTION WITH THE FRENCH SQUADRON, ON THE 22ND OCTOBER I793

At seven o'clock sent for all the Officers to give me their opinion what the Ship on our Weather quarter was; they all agreed she was a Ship of the Line, of which opinion I was also.

At nine run into a calm, our head paid round to the Southward, the Frigates to the N. E. In about a quarter of an hour afterwards the breeze came again from the Northward: sent for the Officers to give me their opinions what the Ship on the quarter was; they all agreed she was a Line of Battle Ship, of which opinion was myself.

Question. "Do you think we can, by hauling our wind to the N. E., after the Frigate, close with her before she joins her consorts?" Answer. “No; it is impossible."

Question. “From what you see of the state of our Ship, is she fit to go into Action with such a superior force which is against us, without some small refit and refreshments for our people?" Answer. “She certainly is not."

My Orders. Mr. Wilson, 8 wear the Ship, and lay her head to the Westward, (the Enemy bore N. W. by W. three miles,) let some of the best men be employed refitting the rigging, and the carpenters getting crows and capstern bars to prevent our wounded spars from coming down, and to get the wine for the people, and some bread, for it might be half-an-hour before we were again in Action.

H. N.

The memorandum placed much emphasis on the initial mistaken identification of one of the other frigates as a ship of the line (correctly identified as a frigate an hour or two later), and of course the possibility of the enemy renewing the action.

As Nelson gained confidence, popularity and seniority, he presumably felt less inclination or need to use a ‘CoW’ for that particular purpose, and most biographers prefer to quote his opinion of CoWs expressed after Copenhagen.

St Vincent (with his less consultative leadership style!) later quoted Boscawen as describing CoWs as ‘cloaks for cowardice’.

_________________
Tony


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 8:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 3:17 pm
Posts: 217
Tony,
Although it is difficult to generalize, I am sure that you are right, and that a good and confident commander who already had a plan as to how to put into effect his orders would gather his captains together in order to
a) brief (ie inform) them what he intended to do, or
b) brief them on what he intended to do, but also ask opinions (ie consult) on points of tactical detail.
Enthusing them in the process and sharing 'ownership' of the plan can be taken as read.
I must say however, that I have heard of either of these types of meeting referred to, or written up as, a 'Council of War'. My impression is that the 'true' CofW was called when a commander who was reluctant through tinidity or uncertainty, gathered his captains together in order to either i. get them to back his desire to disobey orders or ii. (if they refused to do so) to show that the dubious course of action on which he was about to embark was being done against his better judgement. Inevitably in these true CofWs, questions and opinions were recorded and names named.
A CofW of this kind was certainly an abdication of responsibility by a commander who did not have the courage of his convictions. This, I think, is what St Vincent meant.
Brian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 11:12 pm
Posts: 14
The importance of the Council of War changed markedly during the century to 1806. In the earlier years of this period it was not uncommon for the Government to include in the orders given to a Commander in Chief a requirement that he hold Councils of War in certain circumstances, quite apart from any that he might chose to hold of his own volition. This had become less common in the later years of the 18th C. but the 1790 KR&AI still contained detailed instructions on who was to be included in Councils of War. e.g. When Parker called a Council of War on 30th March, 1801 the Regulations required that it would consist of Parker, Nelson, Graves and Dommett (the Captain of the Fleet). During this century Councils of War seem to have become increasingly rare except in the case of Combined Operations. Perhaps this was a reflection of the increasing professionalism of the sea officer corps.

In the 1806/8 Instructions the section on Councils of War is omitted.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 6:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 3:17 pm
Posts: 217
Not quite. The British - as with other navies - did indeed have regulations about what can be described as Councils of War. The 'Regulations and Instructions Relating to HM Service at Sea' which were current for most of the 18th century did not however require that they be held or even say what they were for. (Was there another Order which did?) The Regulations and Instructions merely say who is entitled to attend. Thus Article III of the section on Rank and Command merely says
"When there is a sufficient Number of Flag Officers together a Council of War shall be held of them only..."
This cannot be taken to mean that a Cof W had to be held whenever a group of flag officers were together. It seems to be have left to the admirals to decide if one was needed. A self confident commander like Hawke at Quiberon Bay or Rodney at the Saints or Nelson at the Nile certainly did not postpone the action for hours so he could call a CofW in order to ask his senior officers what should be done.
Likewise, whether the mechanism was used or not reflected the ethos of the particular service. Councils of War were not risk taking instruments. The more cautious Spanish and Portuguese navies seemed to use them as a matter of course. Indeed the feeble performance which both put up during the wars of South American Independence could be attributed to the habit of doing nothing without a CofW which (as someone said) inevitably played safe and merely rehearsed the sum total of everyone's fears. S American Viceroys were furious about the constant excuses offered via CsofW for the their navy's refusal to obey orders.
The Royal Navy on the other hand was marked by an aggressive style which meant that they immediately got stuck in - and were expected to get stuck in - whatever the complexities.
I think vela is right and that both of these attributes - that is confident commanders and an agression instinct- increased enormously in the Royal Navy during the latter years of the 18th century. The use of CsofW lessened as a result until all official reference to them disappeared.

Brian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 10:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 11:12 pm
Posts: 14
brian wrote:
Not quite.

Brian


Could you expand on the "not quite " ?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 9:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 3:17 pm
Posts: 217
Hello vela!

I just meant that whereas British naval regulations mentioned CsofW in the 18th, they don't seem to have been as detailed (eg as to purpose) as you implied.
Were their rules outside the 'Regulations and Instructions'?

Brian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 11:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 7:11 pm
Posts: 1258
Location: England
Thank you, vela, for correcting my mistaken impression.

It is interesting, as Brian points out, that the Regulations seem to be designed to limit the use of Councils of War (by limiting the participants to flag officers if there are three present), rather than prescribing how or when they should be used.

_________________
Tony


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 88 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by p h p B B © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 p h p B B Group