elsewhere, today is the 200th Anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar. There was a lengthy cover story on the topic in this week's US News, and it's an issue I read for a change.
The article's fine, if a little light on detail on the battle itself. This is the first link that comes up on Google, and seems pretty comprehensive, so you can get that elsewhere. One thing about the article I found a little odd was the end:
Was Britain's mastery of the seas, and the eventual demise of Napoleon, good for the world? That depends, of course, on whether one thinks the growing interconnectedness of the world--one certain consequence of the British Empire and the trade that moved throughout it--was a good thing. When Britain abandoned its restrictive Navigation Acts in the mid-19th century, it gave a strong boost to free trade among all nations across sea routes made somewhat more secure by the presence of British naval power--a further boost to globalization.
Did Nelson really matter in all this? That's the question the anniversary of his most famous battle invites us to ponder.
I thought answering those questions was the whole point of the article? Anyway, it's worth a read. I'm no expert, but I think the battle was important for the immediate impact on the Napoleonic wars. I'm not so sure about the greater impact on trade, etc. The battle, to me, simply proved what should have been obvious - nobody on sea could execute the precision, gunnery, and seamanship of the British navy. Nelson's boldness and skill are what made Trafalgar happen as it did, but I don't think the French could've competed with the Brits at sea.
Given that the first British troops didn't arrive on the continent until 1809, four years later, I don't know what was the impact of the sea victory on the overall defeat of the French beyond morale. British domination on the sea, I think, was going to happen regardless of the events at Trafalgar. Yes, I acknowledge that the fear of a Napoleonic invasion was real, but practically speaking I don't think the French would have been successful - I don't the French or Napoleon had the same skill at sea fighting as they did on land.
The other interesting point, historically, is the impact of Great Men and Great Deeds. Oh, I know modernist historians have tossed out that model, but they forget that these are the things that make history come alive. Nelson and my other favorite of the period, Wellington, are exactly the sorts of personalities that could make an impact on young people and teach them about history. Flawed men, both, but the kinds of men that turn the tide of history. Nobody had beaten Napoleon in Europe until Nelson succeeded at Trafalgar; no one defeated the French on land until Wellington succeeded in the Peninsula. Oh, I know about the attacks on Russia and the costs to the French, but the British beat the French head-to-head, and I think a lot of that was because of Wellington's generalship.
Anyway, I think too much has been disposed of in the rush to rewrite history. There's a certain value in knowing how regular folks lived, but let's face it - it's awfully dull to read about peasants when you can ride along with the big boys.
|