Clauswitz At the end of Chapter One, Book One of On War, Carl von Clausewitz famously gives his "paradoxical trinity" in regard to the nature of the forces arrayed against each other in war. He tells us war is a "total phenomenon" in which there are three "dominant tendencies" that characterize the nature of warfare, and that any theory of war which neglects or ignores any of these tendencies would both "conflict with reality" and thus be "totally useless."[footnoteRef:1] These three tendencies are so intertwined that they act like "three different codes of law, deep rooted in their subject and yet variable in their relationship with one another;" that is, each of the three tendencies is variable in its operative force, and the strength of each strand dominates or is diminished in any given particular case, but nevertheless, each magnet is still intimately involved in a given war or engagement.[footnoteRef:2] Clausewitz's formulation may in fact be useful when analyzing a particular conflict, as his framework for understanding can shed light on why certain strategies and tactics seem to be consistently successful (or consistently tragic, as the case may be) and can be improved upon or understood by succeeding generations. With this in mind, this paper will use Clausewitz's rubric in considering the factors that contributed to Admiral Lord Nelson's victory at the Battle of Trafalgar. The analysis of the battle of Trafalgar will be placed in the discussion of Clausewitz's three "magnets," with the emphasis on what I believe to be the dominant strand in this battle. [1: Carl von Clausewitz, Michael Howard and Peter Paret, trans., On War, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976), 89.] [2: Ibid.]

At the end of the first chapter of the first book of On War, Clausewitz gives the reader what he believes are the three main theoretical tendencies found in warfare. The first tendency concerns the various peoples involved in any given conflict. He calls the emotions found on the part of the warring polities a "blind natural force," in which the dominant...

Though the British revolution was over a century old, its polity emerged from the nonviolent "Glorious Revolution" with a government that was more republican than monarchical, and in which it was defined by more democratic practice and freedom than the nation had previously seen. The freedom of action that Nelson displayed at Trafalgar is indicative of the political freedom (i.e. decision making) found by citizens in republican polities. Furthermore, the British people were on the defensive against a possible French invasion and they were additionally supported in their "passions" by their historical enmity with France. In the case of the recent French Revolution, the French people emerged from a revolution that was violent and exhausting, and by the time of the Battle of Trafalgar, the spirit of the French polity, though excited by their two-year-old war for empire, found its fleet's sailors tired and diminished from engagements during and following the revolution. The French people, despite the Revolution, had a history of servitude under a monarchy (and now under Napoleon Bonaparte) and were more used to being "directed" by the government rather than "directing" the government as in a republic, so the motion of the French polity could be considered as "directed" by the government -- here we have the example of two peoples engaged in war where each social body was animated by two different "spirits." [3: Ibid.]
It is in Clausewitz's next principle where we find the dominant strand operative at the Battle…