Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Nelson and Jellicoe


Gary Charles

Recommended Posts

After reading some of the posts on the Jutland thread I was moved to go and re-read some of the secondary source information about some of the points. I had not read Marder for 25 or 30 years so a revisit was a good thing. However, I was dismayed at some of his assertions. On page 208 of volume V he begins a comparison of Admiral Lord Nelson and Admiral Jellicoe. To me the two simply cannot be compared. Nevertheless, to try to boost up Jellicoe he denigrates Admiral Nelson. He says at Copenhagen and the Nile the enemy could not refuse battle and that at Trafalgar he chose to stand and fight. The suggestion is that at the first two battles Nelson had it easy because the enemy were at anchor. I say that if Jellicoe had been a Nelson he would have steamed into Schillig Roadstead, then he could have found the enemy at anchor, just like Nelson. He then quotes an Admiral James who says Jellicoe was as eager as Hawke or Nelson to bring the enemy to battle, bit it takes two to make a fight. In fact Admiral Scheer carried the fight to Jellicoe twice at Jutland, and the second time Jellicoe turned away. To me it is senseless to try and compare Jellicoe to Nelson, he couldn't hold a candle to him. Marder may have some interesting points in his book, but this comparison is disappointing and misguided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Different times, different resources, different practices and completely pointless to compare one period of naval warfare against another. If Nelson had fought Jutland as he fought his own campaigns over 100 years before, then he may well have lost the war at Jutland. We should be grateful we had Jellicoe in 1914 and through 1916, in the same way we should be grateful we had Nelson in 1805.

Regards,

Jonathan S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Different times, different resources, different practices and completely pointless to compare one period of naval warfare against another. If Nelson had fought Jutland as he fought his own campaigns over 100 years before, then he may well have lost the war at Jutland. We should be grateful we had Jellicoe in 1914 and through 1916, in the same way we should be grateful we had Nelson in 1805.

Regards,

Jonathan S

Exactamundo. Might as well compare Montgomery with Wellington - which I've never heard done. Nelson got lucky, Jellicoe didn't, and mercifully didn't risk everything on it. The one who was most keen on being compared with Nelson AFAIK was Beatty. Regards, MikB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could add that Nelson knew at Trafalgar that his gunfire was more effective than the enemy's, but Jellicoe knew that in general he didn't have that advantage. Seems to me that Jellicoe did the best anyone could have with the navy he had, in the conditions he faced, with the information he thought he could trust, and with the demands he had to meet. Regards, MikB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could say that Nelson and Jellicoe commanded the largest fleets the Royal Navy could muster during their respective wars; that those fleets were still in being at the end of their successive major engagements; and that those engagements effectively neutralised the naval power (above the surface, at any rate) of their respective enemies for the remainder of the respective wars. To that extent, they both succeeded in what they were expected and paid to do.

Further comparisons are somewhat pointless because of the various differences mentioned by Jonathan.

As regards comparing Wellington and Montgomery, a similar comparison between Wellington and Haig would seem as appropriate - and equally pointless - as between Nelson and Jellicoe. They all make jolly good subjects for a long discussion over a few pints (or pink gins?) but that's about all.

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They all make jolly good subjects for a long discussion over a few pints (or pink gins?) but that's about all.

Ron

Especially since, had Jutland had a different outcome than it did in either direction, today's world would be a different one and some of us wouldn't exist to talk about it. It's highly likely I wouldn't be here, for one. :D Regards, MikB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether Jellicoe could "hold a candle" to Nelson is irrelevant. Comparisons between two or more objects are normally useless anyway - they rely on a complete knowledge and understanding of each subject which in my experience tends to be lacking.

Jellicoe was a master of his profession and willing and able to adapt. He'd already proven on a number of instances his personal bravery. Could he have done things differently at Jutland? Not in line with the manner in which he had trained the Battle Fleet. Did he alter training after Jutland to reflect lessons learned from the battle? Yes he did.

Simon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is good to see that we agree on one thing Simon, that there is no comparison between Admiral Lord Nelson and Admiral Jellicoe. As well as being a great leader of men, organiser and tactician Nelson had an another attribute, he was brave. Nelson not only gave Britain a great victory, he gave Britain the ascendancy at sea for over a hundred years. He also gave his life for his country. Jellicoe didn't and wouldn't. I agree it is an affront to compare the two. I wonder if you are saying Marder lacked knowledge and understanding by his effort to compare the two? I remember you already discounted R. A. Burt once before because you didn't believe his range figures for capital ships. On page 200 of his volume V Marder says that the Forth Sea Lord, Cecil Lambert, asserted that Jellicoe had "run away" on the morning of 1 June. He was not alone in this opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree it is an affront to compare the two.

No you don't. You just did so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many forms of bravery. Jellicoe was physically brave, he fought in the Boxer rebellion and almost died leading his sailors in the Naval Brigade. He carried a bullet in his lung to his dying day. I also think that Jellicoe was morally brave in that he consistently stuck to what he believed was right. Jellicoe detailed exactly how he thought the Germans would try to destroy the Grand Fleet and he was almost exactly right. He believed that the Germans would try and lure parts of his fleet further south to ensure their destruction piecemeal. That is what they tried to do. After the raids on the English east coast the public and media cried out as to why the RN wasn't protecting them. This was also echoed in parliament and military circles. Jellicoe did not give in to public and political pressure even though it would have been the easy thing to do. He told the Admiralty that in the event of a mass torpedo attack he would turn away even though he said that he was sure the officers and men of his fleet would find this "repugnant". The Admiralty approved this. Jellicoe also worked tirelessly and had a phenomenal capacity for work. He threw himself into the job. He worked almost throughout the entire day. This is well documented. Personally I find Jellicoe to be physically brave, morally brave and utterly dedicated to his profession. I am well aware of his faults. I think his lack of night training in the GF was a serious flaw. He was also adamant that the U-Boats could not be defeated. Just a thing to remember about Nelson. From what I gather he was a frail man at the time of his death and quite possibly dying. Every time he coughed a pile the size of his fist would pop out. He also bought all of those decorations before the battle and had them sewed to his uniform. It seems to me that he wanted to make himself a target so that he could die in battle. He walked up and down the deck in full view of the enemy in the knowledge that he would be seen. Extremely brave yes, but could it also not be argued that to get yourself killed during a decisive battle is a bit irresponsible? As people have mentioned earlier. They lived in completely different worlds and a comparison does not do either justice. Jellicoe was the right man for Jutland, and Nelson the right man for Trafalgar. That is my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jellicoe was the right man for Jutland, and Nelson the right man for Trafalgar. That is my opinion.

Mine too. Beatty was the only other man in the frame, and it's anybody's guess what he would've done.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Victory, you seem to be implying that Jellicoe was not brave. Please explain why. There can be no question of his determination to bring the Germans to battle. What can be questioned is the manner in which he chose to do it.

Lambert was a muck-raking prat disliked by many of his contemporaries - Duff, Hamilton, and Colville to name but three - for his stupid statements and his proclivity for going around the country stirring up trouble. Jellicoe probably disliked him after he dropped him in it with Jackson after Jutland, and Lambert probably reciprocated after being forced to leave the Admiralty at the end of 1916.

Simon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jellicoe, Nelson. What can be said is this. One thing they did both have in common was being in Command in a period where the Navy meant everything to us as nation, without them we could never be this nation. Long term standings post conflicts certainly give Nelson his place in history, and maybe not so Jellicoe. We utter many many words on this topic and others but the one that is so important to our hearts we can unfortunately not say but want to say, and that is we destroyed our enemy in battle. It is the fundamental backbone of what we expected after Nelson, and what we did not achieve under Jellicoe, and it has played with our psychology ever since.

If you were to mark down wrecks of vessels sunk in WW1 be they warship or merchant vessel it does show how many are predominately British, this also shows we did not fare as well in the conflict as people like to allude to. It is either we did not adapt as well to modern warfare after 100 years of relative inaction awarded to us by Nelson or the passive nature of the Fabian Tactics allowed an enemy to engage our sea lanes. From this point I am afraid Simon we can question his determination to bring the Germans to battle with the conclusion of action at Jutland as it simply was cast aside.

On that note, Bed time.

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can you question it when he steered his Fleet so as to cut off what he believed was the line of retreat of the German Fleet in order to make battle on the 1st of June?

Simon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the conclusion of action at Jutland as it simply was cast aside.

After his return to base Simon he lost that dertimation you speak of, that is my point and that is the facts. You need to relax a bit on these topics the world is not against you. Maybe bed time for you too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not say that he lost his determination. If anything Jellicoe and the rest of the RN, especially Beatty, wanted to even up the score board. You speak as if we are in denial about what happened at Jutland and are trying to alter history. The victor of a battle is not always the one inflicts the most casualties though this obviously helps a lot. Britain's naval tradition accepted losses in the RN. That is one of the reasons it emerged the victor in 1918, although it wasn't an exactly glamorous victor. In the end the RN maintained a blockade that strangled Germany and did not let the Germans break that blockade. In order to enforce the blockade they had to put ships out to sea. This meant losses. The RN as well as hemming in the HSF helped reinforce the Italian & French navy's against the Austro-Hungarian navy and pinned in the Turkish units at the eastern end of the Mediterranean. The RN fought a global war, although the Germans did have units overseas in 1914 they were either neutralised or removed off the high seas soon enough. Because the RN fought a global war it took more losses. The Germans had their U-boat campaign which was the closest the German navy came to a global war and accordingly they suffered heavy losses. 204 U-boats were lost in the Great War. The Germans also lost 1 battle cruisers, 1 pre-dreadnought, 6 armoured cruisers, 15 light cruisers, 1 cruiser-minelayer,1 aviso, 9 auxiliary cruisers, 67 destroyers, 4 gunboats, 1 auxiliary minelayer, 29 minesweepers. This is before you have the German fleet surrendering at Scapa Flow and eventually scuttling itself. So the Germans did not get off lightly. The only way the German surface fleet could have helped win the war would have been to directly confront the RN and break the blockade so that Germany could feed itself. This would have meant accepting losses. The German navy did not do this.The German fleet was neutralised by the end of the war, the RN was not. The RN took massive losses in the second world war also, however I don't believe this diminishes what they achieved or lessens their victory in the battle of the Atlantic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you were to mark down wrecks of vessels sunk in WW1 be they warship or merchant vessel it does show how many are predominately British, this also shows we did not fare as well in the conflict as people like to allude to. It is either we did not adapt as well to modern warfare after 100 years of relative inaction awarded to us by Nelson or the passive nature of the Fabian Tactics allowed an enemy to engage our sea lanes. From this point I am afraid Simon we can question his determination to bring the Germans to battle with the conclusion of action at Jutland as it simply was cast aside.

On that note, Bed time.

Bob

I believe most British lossess in WW1 were to U-Boat & mines, Both relativly new weapons in WW1and it did take the RN time to deal effectivly with these weapons.

However one reason why there are more British (& allied)wrecks is because after 1914 there were very few German targets.

You are right to some extent that the RN struggled with the technology and adapting tactics but still managed to inflict casualties on thr German Navy. At Jutland the two fleets were only in range for a very short time and the Grand Fleet's gunnery was at a disadvantage because of faulty shells but still inflicted an awful amount of damage to the HSF

bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the conclusion of action at Jutland as it simply was cast aside.

After his return to base Simon he lost that dertimation you speak of, that is my point and that is the facts. You need to relax a bit on these topics the world is not against you. Maybe bed time for you too.

Bob, no offence but you're going to have to spell out how he supposedly "lost" this determination. I'm in possession of copies of all the correspondence between him and the First Sea Lord (not the half baked affair in the published "Jellicoe Papers") and a great deal of the official papers. There's nothing to suggest a lack of determination. Quite the opposite in fact.

Simon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To ATM, how dare you suggest I am altering history, there is nothing whatsoever I have written that has anything to do with re-writing history, obviously a few facts you are uncomfortable with. Such self-absorbing speeches give no scope to any free thinking individual and I am happy to say your words do little to corral me in your direction.

I would like you to now post a full list of the determined efforts we carried out to lure the enemy out to destruction beyond the 1st of June 1916, not just on paper as that means nothing, but actual put to sea operations, the tone of the response I do expect to see a few pages of operations. If you can’t, then you can remove the slur you have placed against me for altering history, weird.

For the record, I think Jellicoe did do the right thing by keeping his ships out of harm’s way, the U-Boats were a new phase of warfare that needed the caution he applied.

Time to get back to work.

Edited by Alan Curragh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't accuse you of trying to alter history but rather get the impression that you believe that it is your perception of my and some of the other posts on here. You're argument has done nothing to sway me to your opinion either. You have not tried to add substance or argument but have just rather made sweeping statements. I think that it is you who is perhaps uncomfortable with certain facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simon says Lambert was a Prat, probably because his opinions differed from Simons. I wonder if Lambert would call people with opinions opposed to his a Prat? I am intrigued by the vehemence of two seemingly opposed camps, Prats and Prats alike. One camp follows Beatty, the other Jellicoe. Simon seems to be in the Jellicoe camp. Marder called them Beattyites and Jellicoites. After the war the Admiralty, with Beatty as First Sea Lord, commissioned the Dewar brothers to produce a "Naval Staff Appreciation of Jutland" in 1922. Although some 300 copies were printed they were never distributed. They showed Jellicoe in an unfavourable light. Have you a surviving copy Simon? Probably not as when Jellicoe's former Chief of Staff and wife's brother in law Admiral Madden succeeded Beatty he had the copies destroyed. What was going on between these two camps? Each was trying to apportion the blame. Blame for what? I think that neither of them wanted to see the elephant in the room.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, ye of little faith, Victory:

NSA_zpscc7bb7ef.jpg

Everyone with any connection to the Naval Staff Appreciation knew that it was an absolute stinker, which is why it shouldn't have been suppressed in the first place. Then again Beatty shouldn't have tried suppressing Harper's record either.

As to Lambert, I base my opinion upon the opinions of those in a position to know him and work with him. Not "because his opinions differed from" mine.

Simon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose it is obvious that I am in the Jellicoe camp. I think it is important to not forget both of their faults and attributes. I rate Jellicoe as by far the better admiral of the two, though, again as I have mentioned, his lack of night training was a serious flaw and his responsibility alone. Beatty's faults are well known, especially those of Jutland, but it should not obscure his strengths. You have to give him credit that after he charged headlong at Hipper and lost the Indefatigable and Queen Mary he managed to get out and lead the HSF onto the GF. Full credit to him for that. Very easy to get into a hole but hard to get out. When he took over the GF he kept up morale when the GF saw no true action for the rest of the war. As First Sea Lord he worked exceedingly hard to secure the British position at the Washington treaty and later negotiations with the Americans. He lobbied for the Singapore naval base too, What is surprising in the post-war period is how serious and dedicated he showed himself to be. I have a higher opinion of Beatty for his time as First Sea Lord. It was in this role I think he shined, which is to me surprising given his nature. On the other hand I find Jellicoe to be the better admiral in action, yet his tenure as First Sea Lord disappointing. I know that there is a whole lot more to Jellicoe as First Sea Lord, he inherited the role when Britain was being strangled by U-Boats, there were few effective measures and new practises untested etc, but I still find him disappointing in this role. On a final note, Beatty's attitude and fighting spirit carried on into the RN in the Second World War when the RN was stretched to breaking point through seeing so much action rather than a lack of it. It was this attitude that it needed to succeed. Again these are my opinions, feel free to pick holes in them and offer your own views. I do love a good debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, ye of little faith, Victory:

Simon, I must admit that did make me laugh.

I believe the internet expression is ROFL :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...