FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222  
223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   >>   >|  
presumably largely inspired by his father, who lived till 1835. In his view there was 'an entire alteration both of the scientific principle and of the tactical movements,' both of which he thinks were due to what he calls the _morale_ of the enemy's attitude--that is, that Nelson was afraid they were going to slip through his fingers into Cadiz. The change of plan--meaning presumably the change from the triple to the dual organisation--he thinks was not due to the reduced numbers which Nelson actually had under his flag, for the ratio between the two fleets remained much about the same as that of his hypothesis. The interesting testimony of Lieutenant G.L. Browne, who, as Admiral Jackson informs us, was assistant flag-lieutenant in the Victory and had every means of knowing, endorses the view of the Moorsoms.[21] After explaining to his parents the delay caused by the established method of forming the fleets in two parallel lines so that each had an opposite number, as set forth in the opening words of the memorandum, he says, 'but by his lordship's mode of attack you will clearly perceive not an instant of time could be lost. The frequent communications he had with his admirals and captains put them in possession of all his plans, so that his mode of attack was well known to every officer of the fleet. Some will not fail to attribute rashness to the conduct of Lord Nelson. But he well considered the importance of a decisive naval victory at this time, and has frequently said since we left England that, should he be so fortunate as to fall in with the enemy, a total defeat should be the result on the one side or the other.' Next we have what is probably the most acute and illuminating criticism of the battle that exists, from the pen of 'an officer who was present.' Sir Charles Ekin quotes it anonymously; but from internal evidence there is little difficulty in assigning it to an officer of the Conqueror, though clearly not her captain, Israel Pellew, in whose justification the concluding part was written. Whoever he was the writer thoroughly appreciated and understood the tactical basis of Nelson's plan, as laid down in the memorandum, and he frankly condemns his chief for having exposed his fleet unnecessarily by permitting himself to be hurried out of delivering his attack in line abreast as he intended. It might well have been done, so far as he could see, without any more loss of time than actually occurred
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222  
223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Nelson

 

attack

 

officer

 

change

 

memorandum

 

fleets

 
tactical
 

thinks

 

criticism

 

battle


victory
 

exists

 

illuminating

 

decisive

 

anonymously

 

internal

 

quotes

 

present

 
Charles
 

largely


defeat

 
fortunate
 

England

 

inspired

 

frequently

 
result
 

evidence

 
father
 

Conqueror

 

delivering


abreast

 

intended

 

hurried

 

exposed

 

unnecessarily

 

permitting

 

occurred

 
condemns
 

Israel

 

Pellew


justification
 
captain
 

difficulty

 
assigning
 
importance
 
concluding
 

frankly

 

understood

 

appreciated

 

written