HOW TRAFALGAR WAS FOUGHT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2902, 27 October 1909, Page 80

HOW TRAFALGAR WAS FOUGHT.

NEW LIGHT ON THE CONTROVERSY. Mr J. R. Thurfifield's masterly work, " N«lson and Other NavaJ Studies," contains valuable material towards the solution of tbe much-vexed auestion of the British formation at Trafalgar It is a strantfe fact (says the Nation in reviewing the book) that a century after Trafalgai ths most divergent Views still exist as to laow t-he battle was fought. It is a problem of history J,hat may never be finally solved, in the sense that there will be no room left for doubt or cavil. Mr Thux§field discusses the, .whole available evidence Vfery fully, and incidien tally shows from .Incidepts at manoeuvres how difficult it. is to speak wiOh. certainty as to the a'ctaul formation of a. great fleet under way at sea at any given moment. The phrase " the Nelson touch" has become historic in, connection with Trafalgar. Nelson certainly explained both verbally and in a memorandum to his captains the |>lan on wiiich he meant to act. There <*as something novel aad striking about it.

j for.it called forth - genera! enthusiasm -in that "band of brothers " Bu^ the plan o/ attack as set forth in tbe memorandum, however we read it, is so unlike anything _ in the traditional plans of tfhe battle or the large mode] to be seen at the Royal United Service Jnstituttion (a, model made, by the way, wniie many of Nelson's captains were still living), that there has been a disposition either to try to read the traditional story of the figh/ into the memorandum or to hold that a/ the last 'moment Nelson abandoned his cherished scheme. • Mr Thursfield carefully examines the famous memorandum, and brings a plain meaning out of it iv t>he light of the con- > ditions and traditions of the period. Then j he shows that the method set forth in the memorandum was followed as nearly as any general plan can be realised under the changing conditions of an, actual encountei. One point ha proves beyond all reasonable doubt. The plans of Trafalgar -, , found m many of our histories, and shown in the famous model, are mere misleading diagrams. Whatever happened, th*re was ao attack of two parallel lin-es j of ships in "line ahead," one led by Nel- ; .*3to, the other by Collihgwood, against the centre of an allied line, roughly at I right angles to their course. There' was 'no 'mad perpendicular attack." To describe m popular phrase what really happened, it would seem that the two English hues approached the enemy coi a course making a very sharp angle with his general direction. As thf attack closed on them the allies were not in straight line, but m one that had become slightly convex towards it. While Ccllingwood flung nis division almost simultaneously on the rearward ships of the enemy, Nelson, after a feint at their van, which kept them uncertain as to what was coming, altered his course and, no .longer in. line ahead, but with every ship doing its bast to close or tha enemy, dashed at the allied centre and broke into it. fhe ship? of the enemy's rear were thus overwhelmed and mastea>ed before the van could beat back against th« wind to their assistance. The theory is borne out by remarkably interesting plans of the fight drawm by one of the Spanish admirals.