Customer Reviews

Thirst for Glory Hb

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Having enjoyed Pocock's biographies of Nelson and his history of the Seven Years War, I was a little disappointed by this book, but it's likely not Pocock's fault; it's the material. On the surface, Admiral Sir Sidney Smith had as spectacular a career as any during the Napoleonic Wars, climaxing with his brilliant defense of Acre against Napoleon's army of Egypt. Looking closer, it's obvious that his contemporaries thought he was a total ass. Now Nelson and Cochrane both had faults, but they also had redeeming factors: Nelson was not only the greatest fighting admiral who ever lived but he was obviously personally likable and his contemporaries have left no end of favorable memories of him for history's perusal. Cochrane could be impossible to authority, but he was, like Nelson, a brilliant fighting officer and possessed of a slightly wacky charm. Smith, on the other hand, was a brave man, a fine fighting sailor and soldier, and an astute diplomat, but he was also absolutely full of himself, and his contemporaries never forgave him for it. The result is that this biography, while full of incident, adventure, and history, is also somewhat toneless. Anyone interested in the Royal Navy during the Napoleonic Wars will find this book valuable, but it may not be as appealing to the general reader as some of Pocock's other books.

As an author who is writing a series of novels based on the life of Sir Sidney Smith, (The Midshipman Prince, HMS Diamond) I have read (I think) every book ever written about him. To me, this is the best of the modern biographies; and you'd have to go back to some of the primary sources (e.g. Howard's 1839 The Memoirs of Sir Sidney Smith) to find anything better.

If there is anything to criticize about the book it is that I wish Mr. Pocock had dwelt more on Smith's psychology. It is true that Smith was not well liked in some quarters, but the reason for that has to do more with professional animosity and jealousy than anything else.

In 1790 he went to Sweden to fight for the Swedes against the Russians, while most of the British naval officers who went overseas fought for Russia. As a result of Smith's assistance, many of those ex patriot Brits were killed and his brother officers never forgave him for it. Now, when you combine that animosity with the fact that Smith was knighted (by Sweden), and with Smith's biggest personal weakness--that he did not suffer fools gladly--and you do not exactly have a prescription for a professional love-in. I wish Pocock had brought out more of Smith's frustration with this situation, and it's utter unfairness.

In 1793, during the retreat from Toulon, Smith destroyed more French ships than had been destroyed in any British fleet action prior to that. Yet, he was blamed by Nelson and Collingwood (neither of whom were there) for not destroying more.

The first person to defeat Napoleon on land, head-to-head, was not Wellington; it was Smith at the Battle of Acre. Everyone knows about Nelson at Trafalgar; but few people realize that there would have been no Trafalgar if Smith--a naval officer--had not stopped Napoleon in a three month land battle in the east.

His list of accomplishments goes on and on--to the point where you wonder if Nelson really WAS the greatest admiral of his day. But Nelson got the "good press" and Smith did not--and does not even today.

If you are interested in looking under the surface of the Napoleonic Era, this book is a good place to start.

This is an interesting book, more from what it does not say as does. Smith was not a great man, not a nice man, not a particularly likable man. But he had luck, and time, and place on his side. He made do in the only war he had, and he had the brains to take avantage, the luck to survive, and the good fortune to put the two together. Its an interesting story about a man both underrated and overrated in his time, and forgotten in ours.