Most Helpful Customer Reviews
32 of 34 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
"Uncommon Valor was a Common Virtue", September 14, 2005
This review is from: Seize the Fire: Heroism, Duty, and the Battle of Trafalgar
That description of the U.S. Marines who fought at Iwo Jima in 1945 is an equally appropriate description of the British, French, and Spanish sailors who fought at the Battle of Trafalgar on October 21, 1805. Napoleon once referred to England as a nation of shopkeepers ("LAngleterre est une natione de boutiquiers"). This was a disparaging remark meant to signify that England was not capable of success in a war against his France. The heart of Adam Nicolson's "Seize the Fire: Heroism, Duty and the Battle of Trafalgar" is the suggestion that England bested the French and Spanish fleets at Trafalgar in part because they were a nation of shopkeepers not despite that fact. Nicolson make a compelling argument that differences in the social and political conditions of the combatants played a significant role in determining the outcome of the battle before it began. Seize the Fire consists of three interwoven story lines: the battle itself; an overview of the social structures of the combatants; and a discussion of the officer class of the British navy. The book is structured as a chronological narrative of the preparations for and the battle itself on October 21, 1805. Chapters are set up to cover specific time periods during the day. The narrative of the battle is straightforward. Nicolson provides a description of the fleets and the morale of their crews. Nicolson provides a good general overview of vessel construction and operation in the age of sail. By the time battle is joined I had sufficient background information to follow the course of the battle itself. What I was not prepared for was the sheer carnage of Trafalgar. If you have seen the opening minutes of the movie Saving Private Ryan you will have a good idea of the word-picture painted by Nicolson. The early chapters contains Nicolson's discourse on the social structure of the combatants. Spain is seen as a society still struggling to emerge from the middle ages. It had an ossified social structure that was part monarchical and part theocratic. There was little economic growth, a very low birth rate, and no upward social mobility of any kind. There was no middle class to speak of and the country was effective divided between an effete aristocracy and a peasant class. Its navy was similarly constructed. Although many of its naval officers were brave, and some very capable sailors, advancement was not based on merit but through a complex aristocratic hierarchy. Post-revolutionary France also suffered from a very low birth rate and a stagnant economy. More importantly, the French Navy was not immune from the revolution's dramatic restructuring of French society. At the height of the Terror the Navy was radicalized along lines later made famous by the Soviet Union. Political commissars subverted the authority of the officer class. Experienced officers fell victim to the Terror in a manner starkly similar to the decimation of the Soviet officer class in the years rior to World War II. Consequently, even after the rise of Napoleon the damage to the French navy's discipline and spirit of initiative was too great to be repaired before Trafalgar. Nicolson describes an emerging capitalist England marked by both a booming birth rate and economy and a burgeoning middle class. Upward social and economic mobility was a very real prospect to most Englishmen (at least for those who had already reached certain minimal levels of advancement) and those prospects were readily available in the Navy. Opportunity for advancement (of its officer class) in the Navy was available not just to the aristocracy but also to the English middle class, including Nelson and many of his flag officer.. Last, Nicolson provides a detailed analysis of the cultural ethos that permeated the British Navy. Concepts of duty, honor, and courage formed an integral element of each Navy, but the necessity of victory was first and foremost in the minds of the English. Courage and honor without victory was not enough. Victory was everything and duty and courage was considered obvious prerequisites. The arguments Nicolson makes are compelling even if one does not agree with all his conclusions or if you think his emphasis on the critical impact England's developing capitalist ethos had on victory is a bit too fulsome. I happen to think that Nicolson goes a long way towards making his case. Others may disagree but that should not detract from the underlying quality of Nicolson's writing and his analysis. Seize the Fire is a fine examination of an historic battle and the world in which it took place.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
34 of 38 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
For the Royal Navy at Trafalgar, victory was both "a compulsion and a necessity", September 7, 2005
This review is from: Seize the Fire: Heroism, Duty, and the Battle of Trafalgar
How rare to read a work of non-fiction, especially one which focuses on some portion of 19th century military history, and dread reaching its conclusion. Too often, the phrase "page-turner" is applied irresponsibly but not so when describing Nicolson's Seize the Fire. I read it from start to finish and now plan to do so again after re-reading Garrett Mattingly's The Armada. (There are striking similarities between the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 and Nelson's victory 217 years later.) Also John Sugden's Nelson: A Dream of Glory, 1758-1797, Andrew Lambert's Nelson: Britannia's God of War, and Joel S. A. Hayward's For God and Glory: Lord Nelson and His Way of War. Briefly, here is some background information provided by Lambert. "During the engagement at Trafalgar, on 21 October 1805, the Royal Navy annihilated the greatest threat to British security for 200 years, but lost Britain's national hero in the process. Little wonder the battle transcended the mundane calculation of ships and men, victory and defeat. It guaranteed Britain's control of the oceans, the basis of her global power for over a century. "By 1805 Nelson was already a national hero, and considered the ultimate naval commander. His elevated conception of war ensured that every battle he fought was used to solve major strategic problems, and his many successes ensured he was the only contemporary to rival Bonaparte as ultimate exemplar of total war. Nor did Bonaparte disagree - he kept a bust of Nelson in his private quarters. Nelson developed the art of war at sea to the new, terrible form he characterised as 'annihilation' to counter the war effort of Napoleonic France. He did so by taking the command system of Admiral Sir John Jervis, the tough old officer who taught him how to keep a fleet efficient, and melding it with the genius for battle and strategy he developed while serving under Admiral Lord Hood." Credit Nicolson with skillfully examining, step-by-step, the process by which Nelson and his associates engaged in and then achieved one of the greatest naval victories in history. According to Nicolson, "Navies reflect the societies from which they come." In this instance, British meritocracy opposed by European aristocracy. Recalling Sun Tzu's observation in The Art of War that every battle is won or lost before it is fought, I soon realized that the outcome off Cape Trafalgar was inevitable. Napoleon's forces and those of his Spanish allies were no match for Nelson's "animal courage" as well as his leadership skills, in combination with his uncommonly loyal officers and men. For them, "Victory [was] neither a luxury nor an ornament, It [was] a compulsion and a necessity." Their decisive killing ratio (approximately 1-10) without losing a single ship suggests just how skilled and determined as well as violent the British were. Of course, they were aided by the fact that they could fire a cannon round every 90 seconds whereas their opponents required five minutes to do so during what Nelson intended to be "pell-mell" combat. Nicolson is at his best when describing it in compelling detail. For example, the reader learns that that those killed were then tossed overboard to keep the decks clear (a fate which the dying Nelson feared), and, that an "iron wind" of cannonballs filled the air causing many of them to collide. For me, the highlight of this book is Nicolson's sensitive description of the fatally wounded Nelson as his death approached. "Thank God, I have done my duty." He had indeed. When concluding, Nicolson suggests that Trafalgar must be understood in terms of "the uncompromising violence; the dedicated grip on the need for `annihilation'; the seeking of victory through exsanguination; combined with a hunger for honor; a belief in the reality of noble ideas; self-possession as a mark of nobility; and behind all that a tender and active humanity." What occurred on October 21, 1805, was "a brutal amalgam and remains an inheritance with a troubling moral ambiguity at its heart." What can be certain is that the victory on that day denied Napoleon his intended invasion. For the next century or so, Britannia then ruled the waves. To whom do I strongly recommend this book? My list includes those who have read and enjoyed Patrick O'Brian's novels in the Aubrey/Maturin series; those who share my high regard for the film Master and Commander, directed by Peter Weir and starring Russell Crowe as Captain Jack Aubrey, based on two of O'Brian's novels (Master and Commander and The Far Side of the World); and those who share my high regard for the eleven novels in C.S. Forester's Horatio Hornblower series. Who else? Others who prefer non-fiction, more specifically military history, which is thoroughly researched and eloquently presented. In addition, I strongly recommend Nicolson's previous work, God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible, also published by HarperCollins.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
16 of 16 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A Non-fiction "Master and Commander", January 4, 2006
This review is from: Seize the Fire: Heroism, Duty, and the Battle of Trafalgar
Adam Nicolson's book is about the famed battle of Trafalgar, in which Admiral Nelson and the British fleet destroyed an allied French-Spanish armada that was intended to convoy a Napoleonic invasion of Great Britain. The book isn't really about the battle itself or the war that it shaped, even though it does provide a lot of hour-by-hour detail about the battle. Rather, the author is interested in studying the values and cultures that caused men to act as they did on that day. Nicolson explains how the social structures of the British nation, and in particular, of its navy, differed from the French and Spanish, and how in turn this shaped the behavior and confidence of those opposing forces at sea. He also describes the evolution of the public British value for battles of annihilation, how expectations had changed relative to the 18th century military ethic. (As a kid, I always used to wonder why the British were always bringing their military leaders up before courts martial as though they were common criminals, and this book helps one to understand that a lot more.) The book is at its best in explaining the character of Nelson, the love he had for his men, the trust he placed in their initiative, and most especially, in the acts of humanity that occurred routinely once the battle was resolved. Time and again, men risked their lives to save those whom they were trying to kill just a few hours before. This combination of lethal aggression and honorable compassion is worth understanding. (I found myself wondering, as I read it, about the role of cultural familiarity in allowing for such humanity; it seems that when very different cultures meet on the battlefield, as happens more often today, they are less likely to practice such humane actions, because they view one another as having violated the proper norms of war.) The author clearly feels some admiration for cultural values that have long perished, and as a reader, I felt sympathy for that view. A good book, and certainly a vivid, descriptive book. The author is intent upon enabling the reader to understand the feel of naval culture of the time. I felt as though I were reading a Patrick O'Brian novel, except that this was a non-fiction attempt to achieve a similar conveyance of cultural authenticity and detail.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
