This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
British Admiral Lord Horatio Nelson has traveled an unusual path through history: a nonpareil hero, a path-finding naval tactician, even a subject of romantic films and novels. But his career can help us understand war fighters, those often unpopular but essential personalities who can—and do—win in combat.
Today, when personnel and force levels are undergoing radical cuts, the quality of the force and its leadership are especially critical. The problem is determining what characteristics add up to “quality.” The crucible of combat has a way of illuminating character; it is the ultimate selection process for successful combat leaders. But during times of peace, other factors—management skills and political acumen, for example—become more convenient measurements of leadership.
During periods of peace, then, it is important to recognize that successful war fighters are a unique and essential breed. And it is particularly important to study the characters of consistently successful war fighters—to ensure that they are still around when you need them.
Character Drives Doctrine to Victory
A quintessential war fighter, General George Patton touched on the relevance of character to combat success when he wrote, “In war, the only sure defense is offense; and the efficiency of offense depends on the warlike souls of those conducting it.”' This observation not only reveals a core element of Patton’s character—aggressiveness—but also points out the requirement for “warlike souls” to prosecute such tactics successfully. Good tactics and doctrine are not enough; they must be married to a personality that can drive them to victory in the field.
In this regard, Nelson provides an instructive learning opportunity—not as a role model for personal conduct, but as a reminder of some timeless truths about winning in combat. His victories were decisive. They were significant in terms of force levels and strategic importance. They involved a variety of tactical situations. And there were enough of them—the Nile, Copenhagen, Trafalgar— to prove that, in combat at sea, Nelson had a victory-prone character.2
It is possible to identify many, if not all, of the important personal qualities that allowed—perhaps drove—Nelson to achieve an astonishing series of major victories. They include physical and mental courage and aggressiveness, deeply held religious beliefs and patriotism, and knowledge of the sea and regard for those he commanded. These elements may not have made Nelson a perfect person, but they combined to make, without a doubt, the character of a combat winner.
> Physical Courage. Although Nelson was slight of build and suffered constantly from sicknesses and wounds— both of which came close to ending his career—his physical bravery was evident from the beginning. Among the early accounts of his sometimes reckless courage was an incident during a voyage of exploration toward the North Pole on board the sloop Carcass. Nelson, 15 and already a veteran of several years at sea as a midshipman in a 64-gun ship of the line, had begged his way into being signed on as coxswain of the captain’s gig.
One night, he and a shipmate slipped from the Carcass, which had been trapped in a ice field, in pursuit of a polar bear. When Nelson’s musket misfired, he was prepared to attack the bear, using his musket as a club. Fortunately, a separation in the ice and a recall signal from his captain—who reportedly was not amused by the incident—saved Nelson for later, more significant deeds.
Other conspicuous demonstrations of physical bravery followed. During a night action at Tenerife, where he lost his right arm, he fought in hand-to-hand combat. During the Battle of Trafalgar, he refused to wear a uniform that would conceal his identity from snipers—an incident that probably cost him his life. The roots of his physical courage can be presumed to be both deep and varied, but Nelson himself explored the subject in a letter to his paramour, Emma Hamilton. His words are thought-provoking and poignant: “I know you are so true and loyal an Englishwoman, that you would hate those
I
who would not stand forth in defence of our King, Laws, Religion, and all that is dear to us. It is your sex that make us go forth; and seem to tell us—‘None but the brave deserve the fair.’”3 ^ Mental Courage. Besides raw combat courage, Nelson possessed a mental toughness that did not allow for fear of failure. He risked in combat and he risked Politically. He did not hesitate to put his career on the line—demonstrated clearly by his flagrant disobedience at the Battle °f St. Vincent, Copenhagen, and elsewhere. Although his disobedience generally was considered essential to the victories that followed, it required great courage, for it raised his personal stakes 'n the battles immensely. His departure from direct orders changed the equation from win/lose to big win/disgrace.
This willingness to risk all can be explained, in part, by an event Nelson described himself. After a near-fatal illness tn the West Indies, he was returning to England on board the frigate Dolphin when he wrote: “After a long and gloomy reverie, in which I almost wished myself overboard, a sudden glow of patriotism Was kindled within me and presented my King and Country as my patron. ‘Well then,’ I exclaimed, ‘I will be a hero and, confiding in Providence, I will brave every danger.’”4
^ Aggressiveness. Closely related to Nelson’s physical and mental courage was his aggressiveness in battle. This aspect of his character, probably the single most unportant part, was the foundation of his famous tactics. It was summed up in one of naval history’s best articulations of a combat doctrine: “No captain can do very Wrong if he places his ship alongside that °f an enemy.”5
Nelson’s aggressiveness is even more noteworthy when evaluated in context. At the Battle of Copenhagen, for example, his pursuit of aggressive tactics led bim to ignore a direct order to retire from his fleet commander, Sir Hyde Parker. In a moment of grim humor, Nelson put his long glass to his blind eye, saying, “I really do not see the signal.”6
Demonstrating a different kind of aggressiveness, Nelson chased French Admiral Villeneuve through the Mediterranean and Atlantic and endured several years of arduous blockading—with only a few week’s respite—to finally press his winning tactics at Trafalgar.
>■ Religious Beliefs. The son of a parson, Nelson held deep religious convictions, as evidenced by his writings. His references to God are abundant in his letters and memos, but the diary entry on board HMS Victory before the Battle of Trafalgar, with the enemy in sight, may best represent this aspect of his character:
May the great God, whom I worship, grant to my Country, and for the benefit of Europe in general, a great and glorious victory; and may no misconduct in anyone tarnish it; and may humanity after Victory be the predominant feature in the British Fleet. For myself, individually, I commit my life to Him who made me, and may His blessing light upon my endeavours for serving my Country faithfully. To Him I resign myself and the just cause which is entrusted to me to defend. Amen. Amen. Amen.7
► Patriotism. Nelson’s regard for those elected to govern his nation and appointed to run his navy was not always high, but his love of country was. There was never a question of the “rightness” of his country’s opposition to France—Britain’s principal adversary during his career—or its sometime opposition to Spain.
In the case of France, Napoleon—the personification of that nation—was the target of Nelson’s abiding hatred. In a letter written on board the Victory in 1804, he expressed his strong feelings: “Buonaparte’s tongue is that of a serpent oiled. Nothing shall be wanting on my part to frustrate the designs of this common disturber of the human race.”8
The board room at the Old Admiralty, virtually unchanged in 300 years, was the control point for Nelson’s Navy. The Iimewood carving around the fireplace was made in 1695 and transferred to the present room in 1725; the wind dial over the fireplace dates from 1708 and still works.
> Knowledge of the Sea. Nelson’s seamanship was legendary. It began with youthful experiences with small boats and harbor navigation, advanced through both piloting and offshore navigation in the merchant service, and was capped by the rare instincts that elevate seamanship from craft to art.
This part of his character played an important role in many of his victories, right up to Trafalgar. There, despite the confusion of battle and his mortal wound. Nelson practiced his art to the end. As the battle neared, he realized that the high clouds and heavy swells from the west were preceding a major storm. Accordingly, one of his dying instructions to the Victory's captain, Thomas Hardy, was to anchor the moment the battle ended. During the two days following the battle, nature added the final punctuation to the story of destruction written during the combat. Nelson’s final instructions preserved a victory that otherwise almost certainly would have been wiped out.
> Regard for Those He Commanded. One of the least recognized aspects of Nelson’s character was his strong feelings for those he commanded. Although a stern disciplinarian, Nelson had an attitude toward those from forecastle to gun room that created unparalleled loyalty. To say that he was loved by his men is no exaggeration.
Whether it was concern for the common seamen, attention to the welfare of the midshipmen, or appreciation for the importance of his captains, Nelson was open in his affection for them and they reciprocated. As a result, they fought hard with him and for him. A modern biographer described a particularly emotional expression of the love those who served under Nelson had for him:
The final incident of Lord Nelson’s funeral . . . was undisciplined and unrehearsed. It had been set down that the men of the Victory were to furl the shot-rent colours which they had bome in the procession and lay them upon the coffin; but when the moment came, they seized upon the ensign, largest of the Victory’s three flags, and tearing a great piece off it, quickly managed so that every man transferred to his bosom a memorial of his great and favourite commander.9
Giving Doctrine a Bad Name
By Rear Admiral Frederick L. Lewis, U.S. Navy
The U.S. Navy has had a doctrine of shared informal beliefs that were under development even before John Paul Jones opened fire on HMS Serapis. Our problem has been that we have not written very much of it down. We generally have been reluctant to take a dogmatic approach to articulation of our war-fighting beliefs and have prided ourselves on our flexibility and the freedom of action we believe is inherent in command at sea. One reason for this lack of codification is that the U.S. Navy, like most English-speaking navies of the world, bases it heritage, culture, and tradition on the example of the Royal Navy.
In its earlier history, the Royal Navy had some untoward experiences with a rigid approach to war fighting.
In 1653, “Fighting Instructions” were written to provide flag officers and ships’ captains with rules for warfare at sea. These rules were developed as a result of a series of failures by the English fleet, and it was felt that rigid standards would enhance their chances of victory.
This approach seemed to work for a while, at least until 1744, when Admiral Mathews was in command at the Battle of Toulon. Mathews gave battle to the French as they sortied out of Toulon and, in carrying out his battle plan, rigidly adhered to those “Fighting Instructions.” He did not exercise imagination, forethought, or initiative, and, as a consequence, he lost the battle. Mathews was relieved of command, taken to Gibraltar, then to London, where he was tried by Admiralty court martial, convicted of negligence, and sent home in disgrace.
Sitting in judgment on Mathews as a member of his court martial was a fellow admiral by the name of Byng. Some years later, in 1757 at the battle for the relief of Minorca, Byng was in command of the English force.
When he engaged the enemy, Byng, unlike Mathews, deviated from the “Fighting Instructions.” He lost the battle, was relieved of command, taken to Gibraltar, then to London, where he was tried by an Admiralty court martial, convicted of cowardice, and executed.
Needless to say, doctrine got a bad name among flag officers and captains of the time, and the Royal Navy’s officer corps backed away from any dogmatic approach to war fighting. The officer who most personified this approach was Lord Horatio Nelson, whose signal to his fleet at Trafalgar—“England expects every man to do his duty”—was as broad as guidance can be from a commander to his command. Prior to 21 October 1805, when he engaged the combined French and Spanish Fleet under Villeneuve, Nelson had ensured that his admirals and captains understood what he expected of them when and if engaged. They knew how Nelson thought.
The Nelson legend grew, and, along with it, a desire to emulate the Nelson touch and concomitant ad hoc approach to war fighting. Perhaps herein lie the seeds of the U.S. Navy’s informal doctrine—shared beliefs that guide, rather than direct, our naval operations—and its abhorrence of things dogmatic or codified. But, as war fighters, we must maintain the advantage of our combat potential. An ad hoc approach to combat will not serve us well in today’s environment. We must articulate our fundamental war-fighting beliefs and codify our core values. We must build a doctrine, a framework of principles to ensure that our people—and our comrades-in-arms—know who they are, what they do, and how they fight.
Admiral Lewis is Commander of the Naval Doctrine Command.
The Catalysts
The elements of Nelson’s character required something to bring them to fulfillment. Two are noteworthy: Britain’s political and naval leaders and its people.
In the former case, it was a near thing. Many at Whitehall and the Admiralty would have been happy to see Nelson retired years before Trafalgar. To them, Nelson was a threat and an annoyance. The Battles of St. Vincent and Copenhagen might have been great victories for Britain, but they were achieved by tactics that included direct disobedience to orders. For many, especially at the Admiralty, that price was too high.
Fortunately for Britain—and for all of Europe—the political scales at Whitehall and the Admiralty never fully tipped against Nelson. He was not promoted to full admiral, was snubbed socially, and was denied full recognition for his achievements, but he was called upon at a critical juncture in history. And very likely there was no other who could have achieved what he did. When the shooting started, they sent for the war fighters.
Perhaps the ultimate factor in Nelson’s favor was public opinion. He was a national hero of unusual dimensions, when a hero was desperately needed in Britain. When he returned home after the Battle of the Nile, notwithstanding a notorious detour through Europe with William and Emma Hamilton, his reception was delirious. Among other demonstrations, his admirers unhitched the horses from his coach and pulled it with their own hands.
Cherish the War Fighters
Mahan called Nelson “the man for whom genius and opportunity worked together.”10 Similarly, the key elements of Nelson’s character worked together to make him a winning war fighter. For those who study his successes, it is important to understand the relevance of his character to his victories.
What we can learn from Nelson can be distilled into two simple admonitions:
► Study and understand the war fighters.
► Cherish the war fighters; they are the
people who will win for you in combat.
These admonitions are not so easy to remember when nonmilitary missions, social engineering, and attempts to solve the deficit through defense cuts are the order of the day, but looking back at the character of a war fighter such as Nelson may help us look ahead more clearly.
'Military Review (1948).
:Battle of the Nile (Aboukir Bay, Alexandria), 20 May 1798; Battle of Copenhagen, 2 April 1801; Battle of Trafalgar (off Cadiz), 21 October 1805. lThe Nelson Touch, Clemence Dane, ed. (London: William Heinemann Ltd., 1942), p. 148.
Tom Pocock, Horatio Nelson (London: The Bod- ley Head, 1988), p. 20.
Tom Pocock, Nelson and His World (London: Book Club Associates, 1974), p. 110.
6Alfred Thayer Mahan, The Life #/ Nelson (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1897), p. 482.
1The Nelson Touch, Clemence Dane, ed., p. 281. "The Nelson Touch, Clemence Dane, ed., p. 216. ‘'Carola Oman, Nelson (London: Hodder & Staughton, 1987), p. 566.
"’Alfred Thayer Mahan, The Life of Nelson, p. iv.
Admiral Callo, a Yale NROTC graduate, is a freelance writer on naval, travel, and business subjects.