|
|
25 of 27 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The fighting spirit of the British Navy, 6 Jul 2005
There are exceedingly few circumstances when anyone would hear me excuse violence, abusive or anti-social behaviour such as that sort of activity so aptly described as 'lager louts at play'. So why am I reluctantly coming to a viewpoint which states that this sort of behaviour, ranging from football hooliganism to drunken violence, whilst not condoning the very idea, at the very least is to be understood, especially from the British! The argument, laid out very plausibly in a book named 'Men of Honour' with the subtitle 'Trafalgar and the making of the English Hero' is that we have a built-in predilection, almost at a genetic level, for ferocious violence; and it was primarily because of this predilection that the British Navy was so successful over such a long period of time. A time when men, not machinery, determined the outcome of battle; and the more ruthless the man leading the ruthless placed in his command, the more sweeping the victory! The portrait painted of Nelson as a ruthless tactical genius is not new, but what is new in this sweeping account of the days before and during the battle, which commenced the long countdown to the fall of the bloodthirsty Napoleon Bonaparte is the detail of the carnage resultant from the orders given by the little Admiral!The account of the ruthless actions taken by the Pitt Government to stem and curb any notion of republican fervour was new to this reviewer, but the stern requirements of the British public that defeat was unacceptable was not, as the swift trial and execution of Admiral Byng for cowardice showed. The Admiralty and the Government knew almost to the letter what was expected of British naval officers by the 'knowledgeable crowd', and had to obey the unwritten rule that stated 'Surrender was acceptable, but only after the British blood and body-count was agreeable!' So when Nelson's orders stated, "England expects" he was only re-iterating what every naval officer had learnt as a Midshipman, that the enemy was there to die for his country, and the duty of every British seaman and officer was to ensure that they did die, or die themselves! The author, when describing the composition of the three great fleets is complimentary in small terms of the French, derisory of the Spanish, and surgically praises the British; for it was the seamanship of the British Fleet, their willingness to go the extra mile in terms of training, of a readiness to do battle with anyone; their known edge in sailing practice, especially since the British Fleets had been at sea for months without surcease. Bur his ultimate praise is reserved for the psyche of the ruling mind of the half-blind, crippled, sickly and superbly victorious Admiral Horatio Nelson, for without the knowledge that they would be letting him down, Trafalgar might have had a very different outcome! His book, "Men of Honour", which could have been a dry, dusty tome, unread except by a few naval scholars, is in fact a book which grips and holds it's readers with the knots learnt by sailors, draws them along the routes planned by the navigators of the British Fleets, and finally shows them that the huge scale of the French and Spanish defeat, on both ships lost and casualties, was due to the fighting spirit of the British Navy, who knew that they were better than anyone else afloat!
|