A very good book, if a bit repetitive. Combines elements of a literary history with more straightforward historical biography.

Nelson comes to embody the transition from the Enlightenment to the Romantic worldview. Nicholson makes a good case for Nelson's importance as an example of and as a totem for the new man--more instinctive, more irrational, more ruthless, more forceful.

We tend to forget that people like Wordsworth and Coleridge were hugely influenced by the popular culture of their own day, and that the heroism of the British Navy was by no means a small thing to either one of them.

In some ways the book diminishes Nelson-as-demigod, Nelson-as-tactical-genius somewhat, but he's still a fascinating figure even in this rendering (more Nelson as leader-of-men). Perhaps more fascinating. ( )

Beautifully written in the best Nicholson tradition. Makes a good case for Nelson being the archetype of his age as a paradoxical massacre-prone gentleman and Romantic epitome. Brings in great material from literature (especially Coleridge) and the wider culture. but the case seems somewhat stretched, given that Wellington, his contemporary and equally successful warrior, was quite the opposite: buttoned-up, cautious, economical of human life, and described elsewhere as the precursor of the Victorian archetype. All makes for a jolly good read, but could all be argued any which way you choose ( )

To understand Trafalgar this author analyzes the state of Society, the fears and beliefs of each of the belligerents. The ship of the line functioning and the mindset of Nelson are narrated with great style. This is what a history book should be. Not only impeccable research but a narrative that is not dry and questions the reader to think about the society he lives in.

Adam Nicolson also gives the big strategic picture of this battle by explaining with supporting map how the Spanish/French combined fleet undertook a manoeuvre sur les derrières — maneuvering on Nelson's communications with a west hook towards the Caribbean that humbugged Nelson in the same fashion as Wellington was humbugged at Waterloo. The execution of such maneuver however was, considering the state of the fleet, impossible, but once again Napoleon's thinking at Trafalgar was flawless and this battle should have logically been won by the combined fleet enabling the Grande Armee to quickly make England surrender.

I am at a loss to explain why the famous "manoeuvre sur les derriere" can be translated in English as a "Manoeuvre sur la Derriere". Only the most subtle strategic thinkers will be able to answer. Please contact us if you can explain this linguistic difference.

Another very well developed chapter is on the British navy's conception of honor and how it made or broke an officer's naval career. At lot of the heroism is explained by the way the officers who did not own titles and large country estates used a battle's spoils to get set for life in a country cottage. The exact opposite of the type of life their super-ego aspired to.
It also explained why certain officers were reluctant to join the insane slaughter of a naval battle fought for several hours by opposite gunships not further than 5 feet apart.

A chapter I would have liked to see more developed is the link between Nelson and the West Indies plantation barons, specifically William Thomas Beckford the notorious owner of the ever collapsing Fonthill Abbey which Nelson visits with Lady Hamilton in 1800, but of course this was a book about the battle and not a Nelson biography. ( )

A different sort of history of Admiral Nelson and the Battle of Trafalgar. Does a sort of historical psychoanalysis of Nelson, the culture of the British Navy, and its opponents, and how that explains why they won, and why Nelson was idealized. That, of course, set Britain up with an incomplete understanding of warfare which lead in some way to the traumatic disaster of World War I. One of the most interesting books I read in 2007. ( )

There is a reason "the Battle of Trafalgar" is listed after "Heroism" and "Duty" in the title. This book uses the battle as a framework to examine many of the psycological and sociological motivations of the participants in the battle and the English, French, and Spanish societies as a whole. I felt like the author wanted to fill up as many pages as possible. I often found myself beginning to skim. The actual discussion of the events of the battle is a fairly insignificant portion of the book. Truthfully, there me more written about Samuel Taylor Coleridge in this book than about the acutal battle. This book gives an excellent perspective of influences on the participants of the battle, which is insightful. There is just to much. ( )