Part 1 | Part 2

Were the French invincible on land?
As Napoleon's great victories against various coalitions of Prussians, Austrians and Russians at Austerlitz (1805), Jena (1806) and Wagram (1809) show, his military genius reigned supreme. But it depended on Napoleon's personal leadership and his tactical innovations, as well as his well-trained troops and their ability to live off the land. When his opponents saw how successful he was, they copied his tactics. As for Napoleon, when he started to run out of well-trained volunteers after 1806, he had to rely on disgruntled conscripts; and when he tried to conquer Russia, he was unable to live off the land. The result was the tragic 1812 retreat from Moscow. Finally, his genius deserted him at Waterloo in 1815, which he fought badly and lost to Wellington.

So Wellington was the better general?
Not exactly. He won the battle of Waterloo partly because the Prussian General Blücher arrived in the nick of time with extra troops. But in the long Peninsular War (1808- 13), he did outfight Napoleon's generals who, in the absence of their emperor, were mediocre. The secret of Wellington's success was, first, his employing of a small number of highly disciplined troops in well-defended positions, which wore down the French, and second, his ruthless exploitation of French supply difficulties and his own ability to keep his men fed. Wellington was the master of old-style 18th-century warfare, and succeeded because he fought only limited campaigns. As time went on, Napoleon's enemies learned to pin the emperor down in battles of attrition where their superior numbers would eventually win.

What about the British navy?
Well, just as the French could seem invincible on land, so the British were supreme at sea. In Nelson, they found an admiral who was as good at sea as Napoleon was on land.

What was Nelson's secret of success?
Nelson was extremely brave. He led from the front and was always in the thick of the action. At the battle of Cape St Vincent, he personally led a boarding party that captured two Spanish ships. When his men could see that he was prepared to face the same danger as they did, they were willing to follow him into hazardous situations. Also, he took an interest in their health and welfare. He treated his captains as friends, shared his plans with them and always acknowledged their contribution to his victories. They repaid his trust by serving him enthusiastically.

What about Nelson's tactics?
The British innovated by sailing close to the enemy and destroying their ships at close quarters instead of just firing at them from a distance. Nelson was a great leader, but not a tactical innovator: most of his ideas had already been tried out. But he was able to turn those ideas into simple and inspiring battle plans. At the battle of the Nile, for instance, Nelson attacked the French at dusk. Any other admiral would have thought this foolhardy, but Nelson had briefed his captains in detail and made them drill their gun crews so that day or night made little difference to them. The French fleet was anchored in Aboukir Bay, east of Alexandria, in a long line, very close to the shore and its shallow waters. Admiral Brueys was convinced that no one would risk running aground by sailing on the shore side of his boats, so their gun ports were closed on that side. Worse, many French sailors were ashore. To seize the element of surprise, Nelson attacked at dusk and sailed his ships along the shore side of the French line, pounding the defenceless ships. To avoid being mistaken in the dark, each of Nelson's ships had four lanterns hoisted in a horizontal pattern.

Why was the French navy unsuccessful?
For the same reason that their land armies were successful. The Revolution had led to purges of experienced officers in both the army and the navy, but revolutionary élan was of limited value when a man-of-war had to be manoeuvred.

And Trafalgar?
At this battle, Nelson's genius lay in his decision to split the enemy fleet into three distinct sections by sailing directly at it in two columns of ships. Significantly, the French ships in the northern third of the fleet were then cut off from the battle because it would take them an hour or so to turn round and get back into action. This changed the odds in Nelson's favour. In that vital hour, the British gunners inflicted appalling damage on the enemy ships they engaged. More than half of the combined French and Spanish fleet eventually surrendered under the relentless gunfire. Like Napoleon, Nelson excelled in organising his resources so that he had a local numerical superiority, even if he was outnumbered by the enemy overall.

Why was Nelson killed?
At the battle of Trafalgar, he refused to remove the stars of knighthood from his uniform because he did not want to set a bad example. This made him a target for French snipers.

But what about the sailors?
Conditions at sea could be grim, and many sailors were press-ganged – snatched off the streets and made to work on naval ships. Pay was poor, as was food, and there was great concern for the plight of sailors' families at a time of famine and food shortages.

Sounds dangerous ...
Only if you were a sailor. Press gangs had no right to take non-mariners for service so they focused their attention on finding experienced seamen. Many sailors were taken from merchant ships in port at the same time. Although sailors in the navy were not as well paid as their counterparts on merchant ships, their basic wages were often supplemented with a share of prize money from the capture of enemy vessels.

Wasn't it lonely on board?
In port, prostitutes were brought on board to service the needs of sailors. The Admiralty didn't like this so the men had to claim that the women were their wives – this is the origin of the phrase 'having a wife in every port'. The system of supplying women to ships in port was organised by 'bumboat men', who were paid by the women if they managed to get them on board a ship.

What did sailors eat?
The British navy was one of the first to realise that good food kept the sailors fit and healthy and to issue citrus fruit to prevent the spread of scurvy. Each man was provided with 1 gallon (3.8 litres) of beer a day as well as 0.25pint (120 millilitres) of rum, issued at morning and evening meal times in the form of grog (a mix of one part rum to three parts water). Live animals were kept on board British warships as much as possible, and a great deal depended on the captain as to how often provisions were resupplied. Food was often old and stale.

So why didn't sailors complain?
They did. In fact, there were two massive naval mutinies. In 1797, a petition complaining about pay and conditions circulated among sailors on warships at Spithead. To suppress the discontent, the admirals ordered the ships to sea, but on 16 April the crews mutinied. The government caved in to their demands, but not quickly enough to avert another mutiny in May.

What happened?
As the crews in Spithead called off their mutiny, those at Nore in the Thames – afraid of being left out – started their own action. The mutineers blockaded the Thames, and there was talk of sailing the fleet over to the French. This mutiny was put down with ferocity by loyal troops. About 36 men were executed, and about 400 were flogged and deported to the colonies.

That was that then ...
No, a year later, there was an attempt to repeat the mutinies. This time, the action was politically motivated by the United Irishmen. But although there were many Irishmen in the fleet, most of crews stayed loyal because, as Protestants, they were unsympathetic to the cause of Catholic Irish independence.

Part 1 | Part 2

Top