# Talk:Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson

Lord Nelson is widely regarded as the man who forced neutral Denmark-Norway to side with Napoleon (in Denmark at least) by starting the battle of copenhagen and capturing the danish-norwegian navy. At the same time he also commited one of the first acknolwedge terror attacks on a capital city, in the bombardment of Copenhagen, yet the article barely mentions the battle and none of the attrocities. I consider this to be a rather important aspect of the battle.
The main article about the battle should provide suffecient sources to verify what happened.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.167.145.44 (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC) 

I believe that in Nelson's Battle of Copenhagen, in 1801, he did not actually bombard the city, just the fortresses and the floating batteries and ships moored along the waterfront. During the negotiations to establish the truce, he seems to have threatened to bombard the city but did not actually do so. It was the 1807 battle, nearly 2 years after Nelson died that the British did bombard the city and about 200 civilians died and thousand buildings were burned. Dabbler (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Thereafter right up to Mers el Kebir destroying or rendering ineffective a potentially belligerent fleet was known within the Royal Navy as "doing a Copenhagen".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.6 (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
'first acknolwedged terror attacks on a capital city'. What precisely is meant by this? Why is it different to the time-honoured tradition of sacking or burning a city? LastDodo (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:HoratioNelson1.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 29, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-09-29. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

British Admiral Horatio Lord Nelson was killed off the coast of Spain on October 21st, 1805 at the Battle of Trafalgar. His body needed to be brought back to Britain for proper burial. In order to preserve his body during the long passage back, Admiral Nelson’s body was stored on the ship in a vat of rum and the crew was forbidden to drink it. When Nelson’s body was retrieved at port, the vat was discovered dry. Apparently the crew had ignored orders and had consumed all of the rum in Admiral Nelson’s vat. From that point forward, British Royal Navy rum was known as Nelson’s Blood.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.90.62.125 (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC) 

Unfortunately several of the above statements are not true. Nelson's body was placed in a barrel of brandy not rum. Secondly, the body was still immersed in brandy when he was transferred to the coffin back in London. Dabbler (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Brandy and port was drunk by the officers and rum by the men. The officers would not have deprived the men of their rum, as they had earned it, and would more likely have sacrificed their own supplies of brandy for this purpose.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.6 (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I an a true born Nelson but French..of black decent. But claim my family white also.  Thank you Wiki for your help. Bless the Lord of Lord. Wisdomismykin (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Why does an image of the "Death of Nelson" painting appear in this article?  This painting is totally inaccurate and rather than inform readers of the article it misleads them.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:CD00:7A74:B908:6A2E:519D:16A3 (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC) 

yo,
small issue guys, the aforementioned field does not line up properly. i experienced this issue before on Edward Routh's page, and i guess some dumb luck resulted in a fix.
are there rules for infoboxes with long lists like this? i was hoping maybe removing the bulleting or playing with the spaces would fix it. i know it's minor but it's SOOO ANNOYING, lol. it should line up!! 174.3.155.181 (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930014923/http://www.nmm.ac.uk/collections/prints/viewPrint.cfm?ID=PAH7300 to http://www.nmm.ac.uk/collections/prints/viewPrint.cfm?ID=PAH7300
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Archived ref no longer shows Nelson's coat of arms and so I have deleted it as there already was another reference. Dabbler (talk) 00:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080821021212/http://www.oxonianreview.org/issues/5-1/5-1nicholls.html to http://www.oxonianreview.org/issues/5-1/5-1nicholls.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The section on 'Early naval career' has a linked reference to the 'fabled North West passage' In fact they sailed NNE by Spitzbergen and were searching for the North East passage. The orders were to see if there was open water all the way to the pole, and to return if that were so. Oddly, they took whalermen as pilots, and they already knew there was impassable ice.Dean1954 (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, it depends on your point of view. But I take your point, Phipps' expedition went via Spitsbergen.--Ykraps (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I have one or two concerns about the relevance and factual accuracy of this section. It suggests, for example, that Nelson's wife was the daughter of a slave owner with £60,000 worth “stock of Negroes” and “cattle”. Frances Woolward's father may or may not have owned a slave but his money came from his position as a senior judge. Her uncle, John Herbet, was a councillor on the island and owned a large estate where she and Nelson were married. Perhaps this estate had slaves, although I don't know  that for sure, and this is what is meant by "family". But in any event, what has this to do with Nelson? By all means mention his views on slavery but the rest seems somewhat undue to me. Nelson wasn't a George Washington he didn't own slaves and he didn't profit from slavery through his marriage.--Ykraps (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
The book to which this is referenced is here.[[1]] On p.162 there is part of a letter to Nelson's uncle, Maurice Suckling, in which Nelson does indeed talk about Frances' uncle, who settled a debt on her behalf and must be very wealthy because he owned several plantations with "£60,000 worth stock of Negroes and cattle". So again I ask, is this relevant? Also notice the letter makes no mention of her father being a slave owner.--Ykraps (talk) 09:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Here is the letter to Simon Taylor, published in volume xi of Cobbett's Political Review, January-June 1807, columns 295-296.[[2]] I can see how someone with the obvious prejudiced and partisan views of Afua Hirsch might read more into this but I would say it takes a fair bit of WP:Synth to make the source fit the current wording. For a start, Nelson is not offering to fight in defence of the slave trade, he is offering to fight in defence of the West Indies.--Ykraps (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Unable to stimulate debate here, I have been WP:Bold and rewritten this section to reflect what has been said in WP:Reliable sources. I hope this suits everyone. Whether it deserves a level-2 heading is another question.--Ykraps (talk) 11:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

This section seems somewhat contradictory. The first half makes him out to be as in favour of slavery as anyone that ever lived, the second half seems to suggest he has much more nuanced views. The section does not attempt to reconcile these, which would be helpful. LastDodo (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
The bit after the following line feels like editorializing. "Many of Nelson's actions indicate his position on the matter of slavery, most notably: " As previously shown in the section there is evidence on both sides, nothing listed below this sentence actually proves he was anti-slavery. Either it should be stated that the list is purely the 'he was anti-slavery' evidence or the he was pro-slavery evidence like the fact he seemingly wrote a slavery-supporting letter should be included in it to make it neutral and unbiased.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firestar47 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC) 

I have no idea where to find a reference, but I recall many years ago reading that the words "Kiss me Hardy" were actually "Kismet, Hardy.", indicating resignation to fate.
("Kismet" means "Fate".)
Does anyone know a suitable reference for this ?   Darkman101 (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Modern historians dismiss the kismet story as nonsense; an invention of prudish Victorians who misunderstood that kissing a dying friend was wholly in keeping with the age in which Nelson lived. Nelson's relationship with William Hamilton and wife, no doubt adding to the embarrassment. Nobody who was with Nelson at the time recorded anything other than "Kiss me" and that included William Beaty, Alexander Scott, Walter Burke and of course Thomas Hardy who, in response, kissed Nelson twice; once on the cheek and then later, on the forehead. --Ykraps (talk) 08:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if it's necessary but there is some inconsistency between the listings of WIAs over numerous battle articles, some featuring WIA symbols, some without. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 08:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The text states "In 1797, the famous composer Haydn wrote a mass to commemorate Nelson’s stunning defeat over Napoleon and the French."
The Wikipedia entry for the "Missa in Angustiis" ("Mass for Troubled Times") indicates that it was was written before the Battle of the Nile, and its nickname the "Nelson Mass" was acquired because news of Nelson's success in the battle was reported around the time of its first performance in September 1798.  If this is correct it would be inaccurate to state that it was written to commemorate Nelson's victory.
--JRAC001 (talk) 11:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

If it does not have a source to back the claim, you can simply remove it. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 14:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Benea I am making some copyedits to the article and I noticed that the town of San Fiorenzo / Saint-Florent is referred to as "St Fiorenzo". Although this is the name used in the source (Nelson: A Dream of Glory by John Sugden), I don't think it can be considered accurate. At Siege of San Fiorenzo, a note in the lead section explains that it is most commonly referred to as such in English-language sources. Thus, I will be changing all references to "St Fiorenzo" to "San Fiorenzo", as that was the local name and (apparently) the British name of the town at the time. If you object to this, please let me know, revert the edit, and we can discuss it further here. Toadspike (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

At the date and time I'm writing this the article is wildly inconsistent between "Santa Cruz dé Tenerife" and "Santa Cruz de Tenerife". I don't know which is correct. The articles about the battle and the town there do not seem to have any occurrences of "dé", so I suspect "de" is correct and "dé" could be vandalism.2600:8804:8C40:401:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Nelson is mentioned at John Moutray. But in his BBC4 documentary "Nelson’s Caribbean Hell-Hole" here, historian Sam Willis suggests that Nelson was besotted with Moutray's wife Mary. There is more here. Nelson's time stationed at English Harbour in Antigua probably deserves more coverage. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Unclear sentence:
"He fought in several minor engagements off Toulon and was important in the capture of Corsica, where he was wounded and partially lost sight in one eye, and subsequent diplomatic duties with the Italian states."
The second clause either should be removed or someone with knowledge of the history should properly complete: "and subsequent diplomatic duties with the Italian states." Eltamarindo (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: - re your removal of a See also link.  Robert Blake was as famous in his day as was Nelson in his, and like Nelson, remains so today. Blake served under and  was admired by Oliver Cromwell as an Admiral and General during the English Civil War in many major campaigns. He was the General at Sea during the First Anglo-Dutch war. For his service he was thanked by the Parliament who appointed him Council of State. After he died, of battle wounds, he laid in state in the Queen's House, Greenwich and then received a memorial parade attended by Cromwell and many state officials, after which he received a  state funeral and was buried at Westminster Abbey. There is a  monument in his honour and also a plaque in his honor at Westminster Abby. There are coins and stamps minted in his honour. There were several British ships named in Blake's honour. To say Blake was and is "nationally acclaimed" is not at all some subjective opinion any more than it would be to say so about Nelson, who once said "I do not reckon myself equal to Blake". Please see Robert Blake (admiral)#Final days and legacy, and the many works written about Blake if you doubt any of this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Links in the WP:See also section should be relevant and just being a famous admiral is not relevant enough in my opinion. Why Blake and not Hawke, Boscawen, Hood, Jervis, Pellew etc? --Ykraps (talk) 08:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I think you have to justify reason for inclusion better; also see see also. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
The see also section is for "related or comparable articles". The three extant see also links for Nelson are all clearly and directly related to him and/or his career. If we're going to add every British admiral (or why stop at only the British?) who's been compared to Nelson then we're going to need a bigger article. To add to Ykraps' list, why are we not also adding Drake, Rooke, Collingwood, Grenville, Beatty, Russell, Cunningham, Howe, Duncan, Rodney, Monck, Smith, Benbow, Cochrane, Keppel, Codrington, Hawkins, or Saumarez? A brief quote from Nelson from one letter is not, in my opinion, enough to allow Blake the honour of being the only admiral listed as being comparable with Nelson. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
WP:SEE ALSO also says:  MOS:ALSO — Links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number. Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category.Blake was not just another British Admiral. Blake is relevant as he was a very famous British Admiral  in the same capacity that Nelson was. ( 1, 2 )  While "tangentially related" topics are allowed, Blake is at least that, and more, given the extensive history he was involved in. They share a "defining category" as they are both very famous and top British Admirals who died at sea in the service of their Kings. That Nelson, albeit in one letter (that I know of off hand), compared himself to Blake also says much. Nelson didn't mention Admirals Monck, Drake, etc, it was Blake. There are many dedicated works on Blake, while virtually all the others are only  mentioned in context in those works. Unlike the other admirals, both Blake and Nelson where honoured with large parades, or funeral processions that received national attention, and have monuments or statues erected in their honour -  the others do not. No one wants to include 'just another British admiral' here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Having read the very interesting and well formed viewpoints my "editorial judgment" is that Blake is best not added to see also Lyndaship (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Not seeing any viable or pressing reason why Blake should not be included, while there are a number of reasons why he should -- it's only a See Also link, btw. Having said that, we must abide by consensus. Thanks for the feed back everyone. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
To be clear on my view about adding Blake - no. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I can't find anything in this article that says he wasn't really created a Viscount. In articles on other nobles, one can find such titles listed, with "new title" as the "predecessor", and "extinct" as the "successor". Why wouldn't this be done in Nelson's case? The omission sticks out like a sore thumb, since I came to this article by typing "Viscount Nelson" in the search-slot, and I'm sure many people come to this article the same way.2600:1700:6759:B000:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson

This is how the lead describes his death, however this is unsourced; "sharpshooter" is a distinct type of unit used in military studies of the era, whereas the body only identifies the gunman as a musketman, and the term 'sharpshooter' is not mentioned whatsoever on the article for Battle of Trafalgar. Orchastrattor (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The rationale in the edit (by Benea) that included this word was "sharpshooter is the better term here, these were not snipers in the modern sense, but regular French naval infantry sent into the fighting tops". Definitely an improvement on sniper, but I agree suggests a proficiency and specialisation that the sources do not back. The ODNB used to cite his death only notes "was hit by a musket-ball fired from the mizzen-top of the French Redoubtable alongside". I have changed the lede to more accurately reflect the source. I note that Hibbert does mention sharpshooters, but only in a more general sense. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
The main question for me was how likely it was that the Frenchman responsible was specifically aiming for Nelson, as would be implied by either sense of the term; trying to eliminate an enemy commanding officer with small arms would be a very bold and distinctive strategy for the naval combat of the era, so I got very suspicious when looking up "naval sharpshooter" didn't seem to bring up anything relevant. Many of the casualties in these situations would come from strays, which is what the source you highlighted would lead me to believe happened to Nelson.
"A musket-ball fired from..." feels  too wordy for the lead. I would recommend "fatally wounded by musket fire from the French Redoubtable", feels more in line with how more general events are described in military history. Orchastrattor (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Your alternative doesn't shorten the sentence by much, but does open up the suggestion that Nelson was hit by more than one musket ball. Whether someone was aiming specifically for Nelson, and whether Nelson was wearing a more distinctive uniform than usual, is a much-debated topic and one that goes far deeper than "sharpshooter or not". I think the article now reflects the sources in a more appropriate manner, but let me know if you have any further suggestions. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Maybe just "musket shot" then? Describing the type of ammunition feels too technical for the lead. Orchastrattor (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
@Orchastrattor: To answer your question; very likely indeed. It was extremely common to have specalist sharpshooters in the rigging to deliberately target the officers. The plaque on the quarterdeck of Victory, which records where Nelson fell, specifically uses the term sharpshooter and the man [sometimes] credited with shooting Nelson (whose name escapes me for the moment) claimed to have deliberately picked out Nelson. It is well documented that many of Nelson's officers tried to dissuade him from wearing anything that marked him out, for this very reason. Searching Google Books for "fighting tops sharpshooters" brings up several examples of the term including: "...he [not Nelson] was wearing epaulettes which marked him out to enemy sharpshooters in the tops" (Nelson’s Band of Brothers p.123) and "...sharpshooters in Redoubtable’s fighting tops..." (Napoleonic Britain: A Guide to Fortresses, Statues and Memorials of the French Wars 1792-1815 p.101). --Ykraps (talk) 07:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The article, alongside the one of Yi Sun-Sin, includes a quote from Japanese naval admiral Tōgō Heihachiro in which it is essentially stated that Tōgō viewed himself as comparable to Nelson but not to Yi. The issue is that this quote is very faulty. First off, the source for this was from "The Imjin War: Japan's Sixteenth Century Invasion of Korea and Attempt to Invade China" which is prone to scepticism as it says that Togo said the quote at a party following the Battle of Tsushima with little to no context or details on the party itself. In fact, this quote isn't seen until 1964 in a study conducted by the Institute of Korean Studies in Japan in which Kotaro Andō in his "The History and Theory of relations of Korea, Japan, and China" attributes this quote to Admiral Togo. The issue is that Andō based this off of Imperial Japanese naval tradition in which multiple versions of quote can be found and DID NOT use ANY first-hand accounts nor primary sources. There is much speculation on if Korean merchants and/or businessmen spread the rumour of this quote in order to ease tensions between Koreans and the Japanese in 1965 when closer relations between the two nations was favourable. The whole situation is simply too sketchy too be kept in Horatio Nelon and Yi Sun-Sin's articles. Wzmtwin (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed that the article is over 13,000 words long, far more than the recommended maximum article size in WP:SS. The article also has some uncited statements. Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2025 (UTC)


### Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson
Article (edit | visual edit | history) ·  Article talk (edit | history) ·  Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending 
The article, at over 13,000 words, is too long and too detailed. Text should be summarised more effectively or spun out. There are uncited statements, including quotations. I also think there is an overreliance on quotes and block quotes which would be better as summarised prose. Z1720 (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2025 (UTC)