Publisher's Synopsis
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1896 edition. Excerpt: ...thing that could have been done by the fleet was to have taken Bomarsund by landing seamen and marines "I wish those who are so ready to accuse our admirals of wanting the courage of Nelson and his followers would really study the career of Nelson, and also of Sir James Saumarez, one of Nelson's most distinguished seconds. He attacked three French ships at anchor, aided by two batteries, with six ships of the same class, and was beaten off, losing one ship. A few days after, with his damaged ships, he followed and defeated his late opponents, though, . with the Spanish squadron that had joined them, they were double his force. No one who reads that account can doubt his firm determination to bring an enemy to action where he had the slightest chance of success, and it was certainly one of the most gallant actions of the war. But a few years after we find him opposed to a Russian force so inferior that two of his ships with the Swedish squadron had driven them into Port Baltic before he joined with the English fleet. The Russians had landed some guns and thrown up batteries to assist iH the defence; and Sir James, thinking they were in too good a position to be attacked, contented himself with blockading them. "If Sir Charles Napier and Admiral Parseval are to be so severely censured for not getting at the Russian fleet inside the strongest fortress in the world (against an attack by See page 182 for the reasons why this was not done. i854-NELSON'S TACTICS. 2Qy ships), what would have been said of them if they had found an inferior force of the enemy in such a place as Port Baltic and had declined attacking it? Yet Sir James Saumarez is one of our brightest examples. This will, I think, show how very unjust it is to compare the...
