Just to remind everyone that today is a rather special Trafalgar Day.
Nicely done, Horatio.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Trafalgar DayOctober 21st, 2005 |
 38 comments to Trafalgar Day |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
“Engage the enemy more closely”.
Nice one Perry.
Of course saying “England Expects That Every Man Will Do His Duty” in this day and age could be grounds for the arrest of Lord Nelson for the encouragement of terrorism …
As a state registered pedant, I’d like to point out that by 1805 the modern Union Flag was in use. The White Ensign shown here would have been used in the 18th century before the union of the British and Irish Parliaments.
I was also rather disappointed to learn on Trafalgar Day that Prince William is to join the army. How infra dig. The heir to the throne should join the Senior Service imho.
John K says “How infra dig.” I would add, “How Diana-esque”. Of course he should have joined the Senior Service. Didn’t Harry go into the Army as well? Of course, they are very frightened of Za-NuLab.
I think Harry might have been rattled by the fact of the Navy being famed for its cult of rum, sodomy and the lash.
As a resident of Trafalgar St. (Vancouver, British Columbia), let me chip in my appreciation of Nelson’s achievement.
However, Tom Utley thinks Nelson is Spinning in his Grave.
I believe that John K is incorrect. The three ensigns (red white and blue) were used by the three squadrons of the Royal Navy at the time of Trafalgar. I believe that Nelson flew the white ensign at Trafalgar. Hence it is entirely appropriate to display it in commemoration.
It is worth noting what Nelson and Britain stood for at the time: the defence of free trade.
Napoleon (and France) was set against free trade – a fact that is often neglected.
We have Nelson to thank for our economic freedom as well as ensuring that the little dictator would never achieve his aim of domination of Europe and beyond.
I think you’ve missed John K’s point, which is that the Union Flag in the corner of the White Ensign is missing the cross of St. Patrick, and that a more up-to-date White Ensign would have flown on HMS Victory.
Andy Wood: as you said.
It was all in vain,we now have a “Little Corporal” all of our own.
BTW,Could we be really be PC and send a team to repair the Charles de Gaulle? At least so it could go to sea.
Just watched a documentry of his life. He was a great guy, a true hero, but his flouting of the sexual mores of his day suggests he might have struggled in todays climate. He would probably be out quicker than you could say David Blunkett.
John East, may I strongly recommend you read Roger Knight’s recent superb biography of Nelson. Very fine book. Nelson has to be one of the most written-about military heroes ever, and certainly the most studied naval one. In terms of UK military greatness, he stands supreme, though some other military buffs may see red!
But he was quite a handful. He treated his wife shabbily. His affair with Emma Hamilton would have had the tabloids slavering, though cartoonists at the time had fun, especially due to Nelson’s love of medals.
But in the end who gives a cat-o-nine tails about all that? The public loved him even because of his foibles, rather in the way that they do with certain celebs of far less merit today. He was in many ways one of the first “celebrities” himself, except that he had a real foundation to support it.
He saved this nation from invasion and the dubious charms of Napoleonic rule. Immortal memory, indeed.
I work in a complex called Trafalgar Place, on Trafalgar Street in Brighton. They’ve named the buildings after various Trafalgar-related things, ‘Victory’, ‘Mocatta’ and the like, and yet did they do anything to commemorate the event the place is named after? Of course not. Dullard fools.
The Lord Nelson pub over the road made up for it though, being rammed to the rafters with revellers.
I join in celebrating Nelson’s victory.
Let us hope by the two hundreth anniversary of Wellington’s last victory (2015) the view that both he and Nelson shared (national independence and freedom as property rights [over one’s own person and over one’s possessions], not as “democracy”) will be a stronger one in Britian and in all other nations.
As the sun is now well over (under? whatever) the yardarm, I will hoist a fine imported English ale or two in his honor very shortly.
I’m pleased the Trafalgar celebrations have been so low key. I’m English and I see no reason to crow too loudly about beating the French. After all it is hardly a unique achievement in modern times.
John K is, of course, exactly right in his observation. The White Ensign was modified in 1801, to incorporate the cross of St Patrick, and has remained that way ever since.
I am sorry that Trafalgar Day was so low key.
If it was explained properly, for once in their lives, the British might just understand the significance of the battle and what it achieved.
But history, for the British, belongs to someone else.
HJHJ,
It is worth noting what Nelson and Britain stood for at the time: the defence of free trade.
Right. 🙂 Is that why you Brits were seizing our vessels, men, etc. from the high seas, because you believed in “free trade?” You do realize that you had a trade mbargo against France and most of the continent for that matter, right?
HJHJ,
Honestly, we fought a war with you starting in 1812 due to your depredations against American trading vessels and sailors and your efforts to block American trade to the continent.
I posted Robert Graves reading his poem ‘1805’ on Nelson.
As to Trafalgar, well, it was a battle fought in large part of secure Atlantic shipping lanes from British efforts to lock them down. After the Amiens treaty was violated by the British (under Pitt the Younger) Napoleon was determined to deliver a knock-out to Britain. In other words, things weren’t as black and white as the hagiography they teach you in British schools.
Castillon wrote
And there was me thinking that Trafalgar was fought in order to wipe out the La Royale off Cadiz because the cowardly little froggies refused to put to sea in the knowledge that the majority of the British fleet was out there waiting for them. Obviously I didn’t read the same touchy feely EU-approved revisionist books that you must be using for reference.
Perhaps you would like to give us your theories on Operation Catapult, or the destruction by the Royal Navy of the French fleet at Mers-el-Kebir in 1940, and prove yet again how dastardly we British really are.
Britain was in a life and death struggle with Revolutionary France, so I am not sure what you think is wrong with ‘locking down’ the SLOCs.
Oh and what I know about the Napoleonic war mostly came from BRNC Dartmouth.
Julian Taylor,
I’ve never read any EU-approved of books. I’m an American. Also, you’ll note that my sole source of national pride isn’t based on battles two centuries old.
Now, as to the events in question, most of the French fleet engaged in the battle had been at sea for months; indeed, most of the fleet was cruising back from the Caribbean prior to the engagement against Nelson. So the idea that they had refused to put to sea is rather silly and ignores the reality of the situation. Second, that they avoided contact wasn’t dumb on their part (until Villeneuve got hot headed and decided to attack) as they were largely a re-supply fleet compared to Nelson’s battle-hardened forces.
You do realize that Pitt the Younger broke the Treaty of Amiens, right? The aggressive party was Britain (and its allies) in in other words. Then again, you are probably one of these anti-libertarian types who believes in things like preventative war.
Making up fantasies about what I think of Mers-el-Kabir doesn’t help your cause any I am afraid.
Oh, and making childish and unwarranted insults against the French (or any other nationality) merely demonstrates the sort immaturity I expect out of a certain class of Britons.
Old Jack Tar,
If Pitt the Younger hadn’t broken the Treaty of Amiens, they wouldn’t have been in a life and death struggle.
I have to say that I have never been overly impressed with what they teach you people in school, but the level of ignorance displayed here is beyond what I have as yet experienced.
Julian Taylor,
Oh, and the only people peddling P.C. crap here are those claiming that Britain was all about “free trade” during the Napoleonic Wars and painting Nelson, etc. as libertarian heroes. I mean really, Nelson dutifully enforced the Navigation Acts against Antigua early in his career and we had to go to war with your nation to stop you from violating our nation’s trade with the continent. What you want is a fallacious re-write, just as Hollywood re-wrote Master and Commander so that the British were fighting a French ship, instead of an American one.
Who said anything about “libertarian heroes”? Strange. Many of the commenters here and even some of the contributing writers explicitly do not call themselves “libertarians”. In any case there is no such thing as honouring free trade during a war, particularly something very close to a total war (at least from the French perspective).
Britain broke the Treaty of Amiens, which was like all treaties of that era was nothing more than a tactical ceasefire, because it was foolish to give up Malta given that the long term strategic objective was still the destruction of Napoleon’s regime as it ever been. The French also did not hold up their end of the Treaty and I doubt either side was deeply shocked it ended that way. The war with Revolutionary France did not start in 1803 with the end of the Treaty of Amiens, it started in 1798. I don’t know what they taught you in school but sounds to me like you lack a firm grasp of the political realities of the time.
Like I said, there was a life and death struggle between France and Britain and that would never stop as long as the RN maintained naval superiority. The Treaty of Amiens changed nothing fundamental. France was a hegemonic power in Europe and that was intolerable to Britain. The French understood that and tried to redress the naval balance. They failed badly and the result was even greater British naval dominance which was in turn a key factor in enabling the eventually end of Napoleon. As I applaud that outcome, I have no trouble raising a glass to Lord Horatio Nelson.
I wouldn’t take 1812 so seriously. America was all for freedom of the seas when it was a weak power. When it became strong (in the 1890s) it had a different attitude.
See Mahan, Alfred Thayer
John K: Apologies about the White Ensign. I was being unobservant and misinterpreted what you were saying.
Castillon displays a breathtaking ignorance of history and of Napoleon – who was scornful of the value of trade (he called us a “nation of shopkeepers” – meaning traders – as an insult) and sought to strangle Britain through the ‘continental system’.
He says: “You do realize that you had a trade embargo against France and most of the continent for that matter, right?”
No I don’t. I realise only the fact that Castillon is talking rubbish. In fact, Napoleon introduced a trade embargo against Britain and used his army to try to enforce it against European countries that refused to comply.
The British blockade (with which you are confusing a trade embargo) was imposed for reasons of self defence.
Napoleon had a huge army ready to invade Britain – that is why his fleet was destroyed – nothing to do with Britain trying to interrupt trade routes.
There are many such elementary errors in Castillon’s posts. For example the ludicrous claim that Villeneuve’s fleet enaged with Nelson after many months at sea. They had long since returned from the caribbean and sailed out of Cadiz prior to the battle. It most certainly wan’t due to Villenueve’s ‘hot headedness’ either – he was ordered to do so by Napoleon.
As for Castillon’s claims about the Treaty of Amiens – laughably wrong.
There is no serious historian who suggests that Britian was aginst free trade and Napoleon somehow in favour.
Can I suggest that Castillon reads up on the subject before posting complete rubbish here? It really isn’t hard to research this.
In honor of Trafalgar Day 2005, I had an order of fish and chips, two pints of Newcastle and sung a stanza of “Spanish Ladies“; much to the chagrin of my fellow bar-mates.
Thanks to the British Navy; we may well be speaking French right now if it wasn’t for them.
Old Jack Tar,
The Treaty of Amiens specifically forbade France’s continue possession of Malta. The point remains that Britain (and its allies) were the aggressors following their abrogation of the treaty.
France was a hegemonic power in Europe and that was intolerable to Britain.
Now we get to the real point of the war, which had nothing to do with free trade, freedom of the seas, or freedom in general. Note how your point clashes with your earlier claims. Dressing up what was clearly just a good old fashioned war for power in Europe as one based on guaranteeing free trade clearly falls apart when the historical record is actually consulted.
M. Simon,
Well, what the U.S. did at a latter point in time is inapposite to the contention at hand – that Britain was fighting the war in the name of “free trade,” etc.
HJHJ,
…sought to strangle Britain through the ‘continental system’.
After the British set up a naval embargo against France. Apparently the French were just supposed to sit there and take it.
In fact, Napoleon introduced a trade embargo against Britain…,/i>
Following an embargo against France.
…and used his army to try to enforce it against European countries that refused to comply.
And the British used their fleet to attack hundreds of American vessels in an effort to stop trade between the continent and the U.S. You’re a hypocrite! If one is bad then other one is, and the only reason you make a distinction is because of national chauvinism. Don’t they teach you that you attacked neutral American vessels and killed or enslaved (impressed) Americans in the process?
The British blockade (with which you are confusing a trade embargo) was imposed for reasons of self defence.
Hypocrisy! It was an embargo. Britain placed ships all along much of the Atlantic coast of Europe to keep out shipping from the U.S. and other places outside of Europe.
Napoleon had a huge army ready to invade Britain – that is why his fleet was destroyed – nothing to do with Britain trying to interrupt trade routes.
No, Napoleon’s army had slipped away from the Atlantic coast weeks before Trafalgar. Like I wrote, they don’t teach you Brits shit about the actual historical record.
For example the ludicrous claim that Villeneuve’s fleet enaged with Nelson after many months at sea. They had long since returned from the caribbean and sailed out of Cadiz prior to the battle.
No, they were in port four weeks. The point of your original claim was that they had been hiding forever in port, which clearly wasn’t the case.
It most certainly wan’t due to Villenueve’s ‘hot headedness’ either – he was ordered to do so by Napoleon.
No, Villenueve was ordered to let another commander take over (Rosily). Villenueve was about to be relieved of his command. This prompted Villenueve to set out against what he thought was a diminished British fleet because he didn’t want to be replaced in his command in such an insulting manner. You are probably confusing Villenueve’s actions at Cadiz with his earlier order (in August) to go to Brest.
There is no serious historian who suggests that Britian was aginst free trade and Napoleon somehow in favour.
This is just a throwaway statement based largely on bluster. Britain believed no more in free trade than France did at the time. If it did, one wonders why the Navigation Acts and other forms of mercantilism were still part and parcel of Britain’s over economic policy.
As to the issue of freedom, well the near dictatorial power wielded by Pitt the Younger during the Napoleonic wars makes one wonder who was a worse figure – Napoleon or Pitt the Younger. Certainly the level of political, etc. oppression committed by the British government undermines claims about Britain having ancient and always honored liberties.
It really isn’t hard to research this.
One wonders why your comments are so error ridden then.
HJHJ,
BTW, just to clue you in, Britain didn’t rid itself of the Navigation Acts until the late 1840s. Britain only became committed to “free trade,” and only haltingly over severals decades, until after the Reform Parliament, dealing with the Corn laws, etc. (free trade agrements with the Second Empire also helped push Britain along).
Claiming that Britain was pro-free trade prior to post-Napoleonic era is ludicrous, especially considering the protectionism Britain practiced with reference to its colonies – after all, Britain (or rather, “The Company” at the behest of Britain did) helped to destroy India’s cloth making industry through legal restrictions on the manufacture of cloth in India so that domestic manufacturers in Britain could have a captive market in India and wouldn’t have to compete worldwide with Indian manufactured cloth.
It never ceases to amaze me the sort of hagiography you people prattle on here about. All you’ve got is faded and ill-remembered glory I suppose, making the hagiography ever more important to your national psyche.
Old Jack Tar,
You are right about one thing. There aren’t many libertarians here. Its mostly a cabal of collectivists of one stripe or another.
So what? Did you actually read my comment?
What earlier claim was that exactly? Britain did not want to be dominated by a vastly powerful French Empire which posed a clear and present danger not just to British Imperial interests but Britain itself; hence a war that would not end until one side or the other was greatly “disaggrandized” (to use a contemporary term). It is that simple really.
More correctly it was (for the British) a war about the balance of power as Britain had little interest in Continental lands for themselves. As for preventing neutral shipping from trading with France, were you under the impression the US or UK in WWII allowed neutral shipping to trade with Nazi Germany or Japan with impunity? In war, you attack the other chap’s economy and anyone who trades with them is trading with your enemy and can expect to be treated accordingly.
Just incidentally, my family (from the Exmouth area since the early 1500’s) were “Free Traders” for at least 100 years (well into the 1840’s) so I suspect I know a bit more about the economic realities of the time than you do.
Castillon, as far as I know, Bonaparte established the Continental System of protectionism in an attempt to squeeze Britain economically, so I don’t understand your point, which appears nonsensical.
Bonaparte wanted to invade Britain, put some flunkey on the throne – as happened in Italy and Spain – and amassed a huge army at Boulogne, which could and probably would have successfully invaded Britain had our sea defences failed. How can you deny the elemental nature of this threat?
Nelson was no marble saint – which is precisely why the Brits loved him – but he kept out a regime from Britain that had ravaged much of continental Europe. You can no more deny that than deny that Bonaparte was a Corsican.
Castillon,
It is breathtaking that you acuse other people of hypocrisy based on your total lack of knowledge of history. You start from a point of view of being anti-British and make up and distort the facts to fit.
Rather than having studied this subject, you hunt around the internet and try to pick up bits and pieces which you misinterpret to try to justify your ridiculous position.
You can’t get anything right. Villenueve was indeed ordered to sea by Napoleon, but frustrated with his tardiness, sent another commander – too late as Villeneuve had already carried out his orders. Yes Napoleon had withdrawn his army from the coast, to fight other battles, partly because his naval ambitions had been thwarted . Are you seriously suggesting that because of this Napoleon only had peaceful intentions towards Britain or that he would not invade given the chance?
Let’s be very clear about this. Britain’s aims in Europe have been the same for hundreds of years – it is in favour of free trade and opposes the rise of any dominant power that threatens either this trade or Britain’s own security.
I coud spend all day correcting your factual errors and your incorrect ‘corrections’ of my posts. There is little point – you are ignorant and stupid and incapable of entering into a serious discourse. Hopefully, you will now stop making a fool of yourself.
For Castillon:
http://www.hms.org.uk/nelsonsnavyfrentraf.htm
It’s the French account of Trafalgar. I’m sure that you’ll agree with this as it accords with your prejudices.
Unlike many people I am not a fan of Pitt the Younger (for example he sent thousands of British troops to die of Yellow Fever in the West Indies – when the same men could have made the difference in the civil war in western France). Allso he restored the Board of Trade (which Burke had got rid of), was a friend of the disgusting Paul Benfield and had some sympathy for the idea of state education.
However, this stuff about breaking treaties is silly. The various regimes in France after 1789 did not respect the right of any independent nation to exist (treaty or no).
Any treaty with “His Imperial Majesty” (or any of the previous regimes) could only be breathing space whilst both sides prepared for the next bout of war.
Even being the slavish “ally” of Revolutionary France would not save you – as the Spanish found out.
America’s turn would have come. The sale of vast lands to Jefferson was only going to be temporary – after all a man who dreamed of going as far as India would look west as well as east.
I am sure he could have found excuses. Saving the blacks from slavery? Saving the native tribes from plunder and murder? The writings of dead Englishmen (such as Dr Johnson) could have been turned to the advantage of Revolutionary and Imperial France.
Not very honest of course, but excuses do not have to be honest .