Nelson & His World

Hi All,

I have always been interested in this painting reputed to be of the Battle of Trafalgar. Can anyone shed any light on the painting and is it Trafalgar in question and the artist.

Cheers

Hi Stephen,

I found this about the painting, by a French artist and which had numerous inaccuracies. I believe it comes from a reliable, researched, source and appeared in the Nelson Dispatch in 2005:

http://www.robin-brooks.com/articles/bu ... lgar.shtml

Thanks for that Kester, I have had a copy of David Howarth's book although the Dust cover has long since gone, but always remembered the dust jacket. The mystery has always been the Red Duster in the painting.

Regards

Did not the East India company fly the Red Duster ? and could this show some other action, in the annals of the long history of the company.

Stephen,

I don't think there are any contradictions to this painting supposedly depicting Trafalgar, just the inaccuracies in it. Yes, the red ensign is one of these, especially since it wasn't worn by any of the British ships, so far as I know, although of course it was the senior RN ensign at that date and used as such until 1864. It was then given over solely for use by the merchant navy.

My own theory is that Mayer, painting the picture in 1836 some while after the event, was either given faulty rememberances by the survivors of the battle or, having found out the significance of the red ensign to the RN, just assumed Nelson was an Admiral of the Red, not knowing that he was in fact a Vice Admiral of the White and that the British ships wore the white ensign because of this (and because it was less likely to get confused with the French flag.)

The East India Company actually had their own ensign, composed of white and red horizontal stripes, with the union flag in the upper canton next the hoist, so I don't think they would have worn the red ensign. There is actually some reason for thinking that it was the EIC ensign that gave birth to the American stars and stripes.

I also have the book (complete with dust jacket) and I will have a look at it when I am able to do so, as I am not at home at the moment.

It looks like the Musée national de la Marine in Paris has done some more research in recent years, because their website now says that this painting is one of a series of six by Mayer, showing the Bucentaure in action against five British ships at various stages of the battle. See this page: http://www.musee-marine.fr/cartel2.php?id=55 Curiously, the image is reversed on that page, although not on this one: http://www.musee-marine.fr/public/virtu ... uerre.html

The mystery is that the British three-decker with red ensign has the name 'Sandwich' on her stern. As Robin Brooks' article says, she was a hulk at Chatham at that time. It seems a very strange mistake to make. Her stern does not look much like a British ship from 1805, and it makes me wonder if it has been copied rather too faithfully from a painting of the Sandwich sailing into the moonlit battle of St Vincent in 1780? Mind you, one of the inaccuracies in the painting is said to be that the ship has open stern galleries, rather than closed, but in fact the Temeraire had an open stern gallery on the quarterdeck, although she had closed stern galleries on the other two decks.

Alternatively, the Sandwich was a prison ship at Chatham, and held many of the French prisoners from Trafalgar. I wonder whether stories of being imprisoned in the Sandwich had been misinterpreted as being captured by the Sandwich?

In the painting, the Bucentaur looks as though she is surrounded by three-deckers, and I suspect this this may be derived from part of General De Contamine's (inaccurate) account which states: In fact the Victory and Temeraire had moved on, and probably also the Neptune by the time the 74-gun two-decker Conqueror brought down the Bucentaur's foremast.

I wonder how common French representations of Trafalgar were? It does seem strange to us to commemorate such a crushing defeat. However, in an interesting collection of essays by various hands, 'Trafalgar 1805-2005' [Ed. H. Hoock, OUP 2005], Bernard Taithe, Professor of Cultural History at Manchester University, notes the French admiration for courage in heroic defeat as well as victory: 'Unhappy courage is not less admirable than the victorious one', and is clearly worthy of commemoration.

I recently acquired a French print by Gosselin of the doomed but heroic attempt of Captain Lucas of the Redoutable to board Victory. (My daughter's parents-in-law found it in their attic and gave it to me!) The inscription at the bottom (according to my rusty French) reads:

Battle of Trafalgar 21st October 1805

The English having broken the French line, Captain Lucas of the Redoutable, attacked the Victory of Admiral Nelson. Three times he attempted to board when he was taken on the flank (?) ['pris en flanc'] by the three deck Temeraire, and a boarding took 800 men out of the battle. He was forced to strike his flag on the smoking remnants of his vessel. Nelson was killed in this battle.

I'll try and post it here in due course.

Incidentally, the phrase I've used, 'took 800 men out of the battle' is an attempt to render the French 'hors de combat'. We too, of course, have appropriated the French expression. I'm not sure how you would correctly render this in English - that's why we pinched the term, I suppose!

I don't know how many French paintings there were of Trafalgar and other sea battles that they lost, but the subject would obviously have been a somewhat painful one. My impression is that artists then attempted to paint, or were told to paint, the other alternative - which was to make the French appear super heroic by emphasising (however implausibly) how much the odds were stacked against them.

Thus, as Tony makes reference to in General Contamine's account and is seemingly depicted in Mayer's painting, all the ships surrounding the Bucentaure were three deckers, they fired at her for two hours at half pistol shot (?), they were fired on by no less than eleven passing British ships both from ahead and astern, and finally Bucentaure is completely dismasted so that they couldn't fire a single gun. As for Lucas, his Redoutable is reduced to 'smoking remnants'! By jove, it almost makes you want to be French!

I imagine the reason for this attitude was to bolster French pride and to make it appear as though things weren't quite so bad as they seemed.

But we Brits love our heroic defeats too - Charge of the Light Brigade, Gordon of Khartoum, Rourke's Drift, Dunkirk...

But they never involve a defeat of the Royal Navy...

Except there was the capture of HMS Guerriere by the USS Constitution... But when Captain Dacres was court martialled, his defence was that the Guerriere was French-built, and he was therefore of course acquitted.

Rorke's Drift was a victory, Tony (only just, though!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rorke%27s_Drift

though the British were defeated at Isandlwana, not long before.

One reason for the defeat, apparently, was that they ran out of ammunition - or rather, of screw drivers to open the ammunition boxes. The design was changed and that is why, to this day, you don't need a screwdriver to open an ammunition box; a swift thump from a rifle butt suffices. (Or maybe that's another urban legend.........)

As a Welshman Tony, Rorke's drift was not a defeat, but Isandlwana was the complete wipe out of the 24 Foot on 22nd January 1879.

Spot on Anna.

Oops - better stick to naval history

Stephen, proud Welshman that you are, you're going to hate me for this! It wasn't a Welsh Regiment that fought at Rorke's Drift and they didn't sing 'Men of Harlech' (wonderful in the film, I agree).

As you'll see, the county designation of the 24th of Foot when the battle was fought was the South Warwickhsire Regiment. Only later was the 24th of Foot applied to the South Wales Borderers.

http://www.rorkesdriftvc.com/myths/myths.htm

Just for you, though, Stephen, here's a 'lollipop' - the singing of 'Men of Harlech' from 'Zulu'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q8EM0G8tjg

Anna, True.