Horatio Hornblower was actually Gene Roddenberry's nspiration for the Captain Kirk character. I agree with some of the above posts, that Hornblower is more action-packed than O'Brian. However, O'Brian is the better read. More meat on the bones, so to speak.
Of the two (I haven't read Kent), I would have to choose O'Brian, without a doubt. He is definitely more historically accurate, in both description and dialogue. The novels also cover a rather underwritten topic, namely espionage in the Napoleonic period. Jack Aubrey is often the cover for Stephen Maturin's exploits as a spy. Also, our heroes are not perfect. Aubrey is "that Lion at sea and Ass ashore", and Maturin, though brilliant, is a laudenum addict.
Other historical topics are worked in to the narrative in brilliantly inventive ways that only add to the depth of the reading experience. For instance, in The Yellow Admiral there is a really excellent description, spread out over most of the book, of the Enclosure movement that took place in England in the first half of the nineteenth century. This is where the local landowners fenced, or enclosed, the Commons, where previously anyone was free to pasture their animals. This had a major impact on the lower classes, and O'Brian works it seemlessly into the story. This is precisely the way historical fiction should be written.
If the history ain't right, then it ain't historical fiction.
, but O'Brian's books are better written, more cerebral, more historically accurate and even funnier. I've read most of them. Twice.
