"Lessons of the Vendée" Topic
70 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please do not post offers to buy and sell on the main forum.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestNapoleonic
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Profile ArticleThe Editor heads for Vicksburg...
Featured Book Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Pages: 1 2
Tango01 | 15 Jan 2016 9:59 p.m. PST |
"EARLY ON THE MORNING of March 11, 1793, the citizens of the small market town of Machecoul in west-central France woke to discover some 3,000 peasants moving toward them across the town's surrounding fields. The peasants were armed with pikes, sickles, pitchforks, axes, a few ancient harquebuses, knives, hunting guns, and whatever else might serve as a weapon. Machecoul had no more than a couple of hundred national guard soldiers to defend it against the mob, and after almost four years of revolution, they were hardly the cream of the army. M The French nation was under siege from all quarters. The Jacobin revolutionaries had beheaded Louis XVI two months before, horrifying the rest of Europe, and their army had fought off the Prussians in the Battle of Valmy the previous September. Now the French army was advancing into the Austrian Netherlands. With conflict on all sides, few local guardsmen were left in the interior of the country to maintain order or to enforce the conscription of an additional 300,000 men to fight the Austrians—a conscription just getting underway in Machecoul and the region along the Atlantic known as the Vendée. Those few remaining guardsmen were either old or very young, not fit for battling the professional armies at the borders of France. On that morning in March, when they were faced with thousands of angry, shouting peasants, most of them fled. A national guard officer named Maupassant, who had come to town to conduct the conscription lottery, confronted the crowd and tried to reason with them. A thrust of a pike to the heart killed him instantly. Then a priest was pulled from the Catholic church and stabbed repeatedly in the face with a bayonet until he was dead. The houses of anyone who served in an administrative capacity or acted for the revolutionary government in Paris were broken into; those found inside were dragged out and beaten. On the street, more than 40 men were killed. Prisoners in the local jail, imprisoned by the peasants, were taken to the fields, forced to dig their own graves, and murdered. By the time it was over, several hundred citizens of Machecoul were dead, and civil war had erupted in France. TO THE PEASANTS, THE ANGER WAS JUSTIFIED. The French Revolution did not exactly have unanimous support. After it exploded in Paris in 1789, it spread slowly to the provinces, but it always faced opposition. In Paris, as faction replaced faction, the tone and actions of the government became steadily more radical, and in some places in France, resistance, in the form of riots, became more violent; Paris itself was often consumed in strife. By 1793 the Vendée, traditional and conservative and, like many rural areas, resistant to change, had had enough…" link Full text here link Amicalement Armand |
Ottoathome | 15 Jan 2016 10:05 p.m. PST |
What did Burke say of the French Revolution? "It will end, and soon, in a military dictatorship.' |
Tango01 | 16 Jan 2016 10:45 a.m. PST |
|
Brechtel198 | 16 Jan 2016 12:18 p.m. PST |
What did Burke say of the French Revolution? "It will end, and soon, in a military dictatorship.' And Burke was wrong because it didn't end up in a military dictatorship. What came out of it was the Consulate and the Empire. See the following by Thierry Lentz: link |
Garth in the Park | 16 Jan 2016 12:44 p.m. PST |
Burke was wrong because it didn't end up in a military dictatorship. What came out of it was the Consulate and the Empire. You and Lentz are entitled to your opinions. They are, however, merely (minority) opinions. Webster defines "dictatorship" as: rule by a dictator : rule, control, or leadership by one person with total power : a government or country in which total power is held by a dictator or a small group Si ça marche comme un canard et parle comme un canard…. A general seizes power from a civilian gov't in a coup d'état that in his own words includes, "…a massive show of military strength." A little more than a year later he'd exiled his remaining republican opponents, including sending some of them off to Guiana. He named his own Senate and didn't give them the power to initiate legislation, then allowed people to elect a lower chamber that didn't even have the power to discuss legislation. Even that was too much power and he eventually took that away from them. Less than three years after his coup he'd installed himself as ruler for life. He then established total censorship of the media, total state control over all religious institutions, arrested and sometimes even killed people who criticized him, and ruled by decree when it suited him irrespective of his own laws. I know you admire Napoleon, but come on. If this were anybody else, you wouldn't hesitate to call him a dictator, no matter how many nice roads and bridges he built. A high-functioning and very competent dictator, fine, but a dictator absolutely. |
Brechtel198 | 16 Jan 2016 1:02 p.m. PST |
The flaw in your argument is threefold: Events in history are not decided by majority opinions. The study of history is not a democracy with conclusions based on who 'wins' the popular vote. Events, and their conclusions, are decided by facts assembled in a logical methodology from which a logical conclusion can be made. Second, the statement by Burke was for a 'military dictatorship' which has not been proven, unless you believe that all dictatorships are military dictatorships, which is not the case. And Napoleon's government was made up of civilians, not generals, except in very few cases. Further, that government was established in law and by that law Napoleon governed. Hence, he was neither tyrant nor dictator. Third, the coup was neither conceived nor begun by Napoleon. It was brought about by at least one of the Directors, Sieyes, who recruited Napoleon as they had to have a general involved as the army was the only stable institution in France in 1799. If it was Napoleon, it would have been another general and he was not the first choice. So the logical conclusion after your errors in both logic and historical fact are considered is that you are incorrect. Perhaps you would do well to read Baron Fain's memoirs for an inside view on how Napoleon's government actually ran? As a footnote, who did Napoleon 'kill' when a person criticized him? I would like to see a credible reference on that subject. |
Garth in the Park | 16 Jan 2016 1:18 p.m. PST |
First, I wasn't making an argument. I was offering a list of facts that contradicted your opinion. Second, I wasn't the person who mentioned Burke. That was Ottoathome. Third, I don't care whose idea the coup was. Nor does Lentz. The very article that you used to back up your opinion criticizes your point as: …the limits and the sterility of defining a power from its ‘origins'. The outcome matters. That, I think, Lentz and I agree upon. "As a footnote, who did Napoleon 'kill' when a person criticized him? I would like to see a credible reference on that subject." Well, for starters: link I believe you knew that because I've seen you discuss it on other threads. "the logical conclusion after your errors in both logic and historical fact are considered is that you are incorrect." You didn't refute the accuracy of any of the historical facts. You refuted things that either were said by others, or things that were apparently only in your mind. Which of the historical facts that I offered, specifically, were erroneous? (For example, are you arguing that Napoleon didn't actually make himself ruler for life? That he didn't actually censor and control all the media? That he didn't actually establish total state control over all religious institutions?) Don't get me wrong: everyone is entitled to his opinion. And I'm entitled to be unimpressed if a person argues his opinions by avoiding inconvenient facts, moving the goalposts, massaging with more opinions, and trying to distract people with insults and tangents. |
Brechtel198 | 16 Jan 2016 4:17 p.m. PST |
Again, which person or persons did Napoleon kill who criticized him? |
Brechtel198 | 16 Jan 2016 4:31 p.m. PST |
… I wasn't making an argument. I was offering a list of facts that contradicted your opinion. I believe that is commonly referred to as 'making an argument.' …trying to distract people with insults and tangents. What were the 'insults'? To what 'tangents' are you referring? You broadened the discussion by adding material that you believed to be factual but is in fact merely opinion. Regarding censorship, I believe that you'll find that to some degree in every major European nation, including Great Britain, during the period. Don't judge the Napoleonic period with the standards of the early 21st century. That is a false premise. The actions and position of the Roman Catholic Church in France was one of the reasons for the Revolution in the first place. That was why the Church was abolished/suppressed during the Revolution. Napoleon brought back the Church, but made it subservient to the state, which was only common sense based on the Church's previous position in society. Further, Napoleon allowed the Protestants to worship as they pleased and gave the Jews full citizenship. Napoleon also put into law freedom of religion. If you're going to believe that you are offering 'facts' then I would suggest that you support them with evidence from credible source material, which is why I offered Thierry Lentz's article for viewing. Otherwise, your 'facts' are merely unsupported opinion. And in answering your posting I was remaining with the article I posted and the comment of Burke's that another poster referred to. You are the one who 'shifted the goal posts' by merely offering your opinion that Napoleon was a dictator. In point of fact, Napoleon guaranteed basic civil rights, freedom of religion, government by the rule of law, abolished feudal rule in the Empire, honest government with a state office established to investigate high-level fraud, and he improved France internally by the Code Civile and other Codes, as well as building canals, roads, harbors, trade routes, and other internal improvements. I can support my argument with credible references if you wish to continue. Can you? Lastly, and again, who did Napoleon kill because they disagreed with him? Seems to me that you're making strawman arguments here. I was answering your assertion that Napoleon was a 'dictator.' |
von Winterfeldt | 17 Jan 2016 12:03 a.m. PST |
not again a boring Boney is an innocent saint thread or why is Brech the most superior contributor in the world and he is the only one to judge all others – keep your critics for yourself and contribute to the Vendée topic – in case you have to say something of value |
Brechtel198 | 17 Jan 2016 3:33 a.m. PST |
And where, pray, is any statement that Napoleon was 'an innocent saint'? Incredible. Perhaps you should get a copy of Fischer's Historians' Fallacies. It would assist you greatly, but only if you have an open mind. Pay particular attention to the logical fallacy of the ad hominem. |
KTravlos | 17 Jan 2016 3:47 a.m. PST |
yeah this thread is now better off dead |
Eclipsing Binaries | 17 Jan 2016 5:57 a.m. PST |
I wanted to read about the Vendee period!!!! But as for Brechtel's argument, surely "Napoleon brought back…", "Napoleon allowed…" and "Napoleon guaranteed…" throughout your comments shows that he WAS in fact a Dictator who had complete control over the state he was head off, including the law and religion. Maybe he did a lot of good, but Dictators don't need to be bad. |
Whirlwind | 17 Jan 2016 6:12 a.m. PST |
Lastly, and again, who did Napoleon kill because they disagreed with him? link To be fair, he seems to have favoured ordering the execution of random innocent people over those who disagreed with him. I leave it up to others to decide whether that was more or less dictatorial. @Eclipsing Binaries: I don't know if you can get hold of them but Guy Halsall did an excellent series on the Vendee period – and gaming it – in some of the early editions of Wargames Illustrated (issues 4-6). |
von Winterfeldt | 17 Jan 2016 7:42 a.m. PST |
In case you can read French I opt for Gras, Yves :La Guerre de Vendée (1793 – 1796)Paris 1994 some authors have the opinion that the French army – and mostly Boney – took over the brutal repression of dealing with the civilian population in the Vendée – however there were other French generals who tried other methods other than pure brutality and were more successfull in the pacification progress. |
Brechtel198 | 17 Jan 2016 7:56 a.m. PST |
Since Napoleon was not in the Vendee, and in fact had refused an infantry command in the Vendee, how did he take over the 'brutal repression' in the Vendee and it was under his government, the Consulate, that the Vendee was pacified? |
Garth in the Park | 17 Jan 2016 8:00 a.m. PST |
To be fair, he seems to have favoured ordering the execution of random innocent people over those who disagreed with him. And quite a few "preventive" death sentences. There are several examples of him ordering so-and-so to be killed if that person prints anything else. |
Brechtel198 | 17 Jan 2016 8:13 a.m. PST |
To be fair, he seems to have favoured ordering the execution of random innocent people over those who disagreed with him. I leave it up to others to decide whether that was more or less dictatorial. Palm was hardly innocent in that he was spreading anti-French propaganda in Germany while France was still at war with both Russia and Prussia. While you may not agree with Napoleon's methods with Palm's arrest, trial, and execution, it should be noted that few, if any, would have tolerated the anti-French propaganda being spread by Palm and others. And it should be noted that those arrested with Palm were pardoned. If you don't understand the French legal/justice system, it might be a good idea to take a look at it. And in this instance military justice would be used to try people of Palm's ilk. It is not an indicator of Napoleon being a dictator or not. |
Brechtel198 | 17 Jan 2016 8:15 a.m. PST |
But as for Brechtel's argument, surely "Napoleon brought back…", "Napoleon allowed…" and "Napoleon guaranteed…" throughout your comments shows that he WAS in fact a Dictator who had complete control over the state he was head off, including the law and religion. Maybe he did a lot of good, but Dictators don't need to be bad. If Napoleon was going to be discussed, why is it not appropriate to discuss the reforms made, which were certainly progressive in nature and of benefit to the citizenry? Napoleon was the head of state, not the head of 'the law' or of 'religion.' When and where did you get those ideas? |
Brechtel198 | 17 Jan 2016 8:16 a.m. PST |
And quite a few "preventive" death sentences. There are several examples of him ordering so-and-so to be killed if that person prints anything else. When and Who? Please give and cite examples if you don't mind. |
Garth in the Park | 17 Jan 2016 8:38 a.m. PST |
"Please give and cite examples if you don't mind." Certainly. Before we do that, however, I think it's only fair for you to indicate precisely how many factual examples you require, in order to change your mind. Over the past couple of years I have seen you demand proof, citations, and examples from many people, and when they provide them, you simply ignore them or change the topic in order to keep arguing. So before I do the work required and provide precise citations, please tell me: How many documented historical examples do you require in order to admit that you were wrong and that you have changed your mind?" Just be honest and frank. Once we have that assurance that you are operating fairly and with an open mind, we can proceed. However, if no amount of examples or proof will ever persuade you, then I will not waste my time. |
Brechtel198 | 17 Jan 2016 8:42 a.m. PST |
Here is another article on Palm, his arrest, trial, and execution: link |
Brechtel198 | 17 Jan 2016 8:44 a.m. PST |
Certainly. Before we do that, however, I think it's only fair for you to indicate precisely how many factual examples you require, in order to change your mind. Over the past couple of years I have seen you demand proof, citations, and examples from many people, and when they provide them, you simply ignore them or change the topic in order to keep arguing. So before I do the work required and provide precise citations, please tell me: How many documented historical examples do you require in order to admit that you were wrong and that you have changed your mind?" Just be honest and frank. Once we have that assurance that you are operating fairly and with an open mind, we can proceed. However, if no amount of examples or proof will ever persuade you, then I will not waste my time. Aside from the ad hominem comments, all you are stating here is that you don't have any examples to offer. |
KTravlos | 17 Jan 2016 8:47 a.m. PST |
As a good counterpoint to Brechtel198's pro-Napoleon point of view I suggest the corpus of work by Paul Schroeder. You can look at both and make your own mind on whether Napoleon was or was not a dictator, and the worth or not of his reforms (which are contested in historiography). As for the Vendee, it should be noted that the republican brutality was presaged by Insurgent brutality as well. One does not justify the other, but provides context. |
Garth in the Park | 17 Jan 2016 8:58 a.m. PST |
Aside from the ad hominem comments, all you are stating here is that you don't have any examples to offer. No, it is a very basic test. A reasonable person has to admit that if a number of documentable facts contradict his opinion, then his opinion is probably wrong or in need of revision. If a person refuses to accept that any number of facts will ever change his opinion, then that person is not operating within the bounds of reason or honesty, and it is pointless to continue to engage with such a person. It is not "ad-hominem" to observe – the facts – that you routinely demand facts and proof from people with whom you argue, and that when they provide them to you, you ignore them and carry on. I have simply decided not to fall into that time-wasting trap. Goodbye. |
von Winterfeldt | 17 Jan 2016 9:14 a.m. PST |
"Aside from the ad hominem comments, all you are stating here is that you don't have any examples to offer." Is this a joke? Brech who is usually the worst offender of ad hominem comments demands fair play from others??? Or is it clever flame war tactics to discredit a person who has another opinion???? Tons of material on numerous fora were already contributed which demonstrated the ruthless ideas of Boney to supress anybody not in his line of thought. Just for fun "To Gen Savary, Duc de Rovigo, Min of Police Paris 30.3.13 "I confess I could not help being very much astonished by the play yesterday…I had a right to expect that the Minister of Police would not have allowed the Court to be handled in so dull and silly a fashion….Never have people been allowed, in any country, so to depreciate the Court. If it had not been for its clumsiness, and lack of talent, the play would have had a most mischievous effect on public opinion…Put a stop to the performances of this wretched comedy, and alter the composition of your Board of Censors." To Gen Lagrange, Governor of Cassel, Warsaw 13.01.07 …."The inhabitants of Hersfeld appear to be guilty. You will send a flying column of 4k men, and have the town thoroughly sacked, to punish the insult offered to the sixty men of my troops… The town of Wacht is guilty. Either it will give up the four principal authors of the revolt, or it must be burnt….. Issue a proclamation… Indicate the men each town must give up on pain of being burnt….Visible traces must be left, to frighten the evil–intentioned in Germany. It was thus, by burning the big village of Binasco, that I kept Italy quiet, in the year IV. …" and no – come on Boney – what is going on in your brain "To Marshal Berthier, Rambouillet, 7.9.07 "You must be sure to inform Marshal Soult, by special messenger, of the incident at Konigsberg, where two actors, appearing on the stage as French officers, were hissed by the audience. you will tell Marshal Soult that I have demanded satisfaction from the King of Prussia for this insult, and that I have required that the two chief culprits shall be shot….." Anyway enough time wasted back to paint my 28 mm Prussian Regiment von Winterfeldt of the lovely Black Hussar miniatures. |
Eclipsing Binaries | 17 Jan 2016 12:03 p.m. PST |
Bechtel, you yourself said "Napoleon brought back the church but made it subservient to the state", which sound a lot like you are saying he controlled the church, him being the head of state. You also say he ALLOWED protestants to worship as they pleased! That also sounds very like someone who is in all actuality controlling the religion of the people he rules over. This does in fact enforce the argument of dictatorship rather than dismiss it. You can't list what Napoleon controlled and changed while at the same time saying he wasn't dictating these changes. |
KTravlos | 17 Jan 2016 1:19 p.m. PST |
I think Brechtel would answer that he was not acting any different from the other monarchs of his time. There is a krenel of truth to that, but there are also counter examples, especially monarchs under the influence of the German (as opposed to the French enlightenment) Enlightement. Joseph II, Leopold II, Frederick VI, all made major progressive reforms. Also it is the case, at least as indicated by people like Esdaile or Schroeder, that while Napoleonic rule was associated with many administrative measures of long term benefit, in many cases the system anhillitated traditions, customs and laws that had checked the arbitrary power of monarchs. As historians are opening up the black box of the ancien regime, they are finding less arbitrary government than the propagandists of the French Revolution, or the writers of the French Enlightenment would let one believe. Especially outside France and in Germany. The status of Napoleon as dictator or legitimate monarch really depends on how one deals with these criticisms of the French narrative. |
Brechtel198 | 17 Jan 2016 4:06 p.m. PST |
"To Gen Savary, Duc de Rovigo, Min of Police Paris 30.3.13 "I confess I could not help being very much astonished by the play yesterday…I had a right to expect that the Minister of Police would not have allowed the Court to be handled in so dull and silly a fashion….Never have people been allowed, in any country, so to depreciate the Court. If it had not been for its clumsiness, and lack of talent, the play would have had a most mischievous effect on public opinion…Put a stop to the performances of this wretched comedy, and alter the composition of your Board of Censors." To Gen Lagrange, Governor of Cassel, Warsaw 13.01.07 …."The inhabitants of Hersfeld appear to be guilty. You will send a flying column of 4k men, and have the town thoroughly sacked, to punish the insult offered to the sixty men of my troops… The town of Wacht is guilty. Either it will give up the four principal authors of the revolt, or it must be burnt….. Issue a proclamation… Indicate the men each town must give up on pain of being burnt….Visible traces must be left, to frighten the evil–intentioned in Germany. It was thus, by burning the big village of Binasco, that I kept Italy quiet, in the year IV. …" "To Marshal Berthier, Rambouillet, 7.9.07 "You must be sure to inform Marshal Soult, by special messenger, of the incident at Konigsberg, where two actors, appearing on the stage as French officers, were hissed by the audience. you will tell Marshal Soult that I have demanded satisfaction from the King of Prussia for this insult, and that I have required that the two chief culprits shall be shot….." The actual question is: what were the results of the above orders to Napoleon's subordinates? Were the actions actually carried out? Merely cherry-picking material such as the above without finding out the results of the orders is only telling half the story and all it demonstrates is that Napoleon was angry and may have been acting on the spur of the moment which he most certainly did from time to time. A good example is his somewhat draconian orders to Davout after he reoccupied Hamburg in 1813. Napoleon wanted Hamburg's leaders to be punished and either imprisoned or executed. Davout responded and reasoned with Napoleon in order to moderate his initial fury and while there were punishments there were no executions, and the punishments were less severe than originally ordered by Napoleon. Napoleon had a temper and was at times infuriated by the conduct of people that he perceived was against either the army or the Empire and he had a knee-jerk reaction to activities of that sort. However, upon reflection and good advice most of the time his innate good sense would reassert himself and he left the situation to the local officials or army commanders. |
Brechtel198 | 17 Jan 2016 4:12 p.m. PST |
I think Brechtel would answer that he was not acting any different from the other monarchs of his time. There is a krenel of truth to that, but there are also counter examples, especially monarchs under the influence of the German (as opposed to the French enlightenment) Enlightement. Joseph II, Leopold II, Frederick VI, all made major progressive reforms. Also it is the case, at least as indicated by people like Esdaile or Schroeder, that while Napoleonic rule was associated with many administrative measures of long term benefit, in many cases the system anhillitated traditions, customs and laws that had checked the arbitrary power of monarchs. As historians are opening up the black box of the ancien regime, they are finding less arbitrary government than the propagandists of the French Revolution, or the writers of the French Enlightenment would let one believe. Especially outside France and in Germany. The status of Napoleon as dictator or legitimate monarch really depends on how one deals with these criticisms of the French narrative. No, Brechtel wouldn't. By his reforms and how his government was run and operated, as well as other measures, I would venture to say that Napoleon was a much better ruler than his contemporaries. And Napoleon's reforms, which solidified the social gains of the Revolution (for example equality before the law, freedom of religion, the end of feudalism, and the promise of honest government) and were far and above any of the governments of his enemies, including England. The British government, for example, enacted progressively harsher repressive measures against their own population during the period and Parliament itself rife with corruption with 'rotten' and 'pocket' boroughs being sold and held by many of its members. And it was Parliament that enacted the increasingly draconian repressive legislation as well as a penal code that was much more harsh than that enacted in France. |
Brechtel198 | 17 Jan 2016 4:18 p.m. PST |
Bechtel, you yourself said "Napoleon brought back the church but made it subservient to the state", which sound a lot like you are saying he controlled the church, him being the head of state. You also say he ALLOWED protestants to worship as they pleased! That also sounds very like someone who is in all actuality controlling the religion of the people he rules over. This does in fact enforce the argument of dictatorship rather than dismiss it. You can't list what Napoleon controlled and changed while at the same time saying he wasn't dictating these changes. Before the Revolution Roman Catholicism was the state religion in France. There was no freedom of religion. And the Church was 'wealthy, arrogant, and corrupt.' Those were the reasons why the Church was suppressed in the 1790s. Have you taken a look at the Concordat Napoleon negotiated with Pius VII? The Pope agreed in the Concordat of 1801 that the Catholic Church would be recognized as the religion of the greater majority of the French people. However, Protestants would be granted the right to worship as they chose and later the Jews were granted the same right, as well as becoming full citizens of France. Religious freedom in France was later put into law, the Code Civile. As to the Church itself, its bishops would be nominated by Napoleon but would be consecrated by the Pope and the bishops were free to choose their own lower clergy. This Concordat 'was to be the governing instrument of church-state relations in France for the next century.' |
KTravlos | 18 Jan 2016 5:41 a.m. PST |
Heres the bibliography we used in the Early Modern Europe class for the origins and causes fo the French revolution and the ancien regime A. The Ancien Régime 1715-1789 BEHRENS, C. B. A., Society, Government and Enlightenment (France and Prussia) ----- The Ancien Régime Campbell, Peter, Power and Politics in Old Regime France 1720-1745. Funck-Brentano, The Old Regime in France Gooch, G. P., Louis XV: The Monarchy in Decline Herbert, S., The Fall of Feudalism in France Jones. P.M., Reform and Revolution in France, 1774-1791 Mousnier, R., Le XVIIIe siècle Sée, H., Economic and Social conditions in France During the 18th Century. Taine, H., The Ancient Regime. 1. Government and Corporate Institutions Carey, John A., Judicial Reform in France before the Revolution of 1789 Doyle, Wm., The Parlement of Bordeaux and the End of the Old Regime, 1771-1790. Gruder, B. R., The Royal Provincial Intendants Harding, Robert, Anatomy of a Power Elite: The provincial governors of Early Modern France Hardman, John, French Politics 1774-1789 Hardy, James, Judicial Politics in the Old Regime: the Parlement of Paris during the Regency. Kwass, Michael, Privilege and the Politics of Taxation in Eighteenth-Century France Major, J. Russell, Representative Institutions in Early Modern France Mousnier, R., Institutions of France under the Absolute Monarchy 1598-1789 Rogister, John, Louis XV and the Parlement of Paris, 1737-1755 Shennan, J.H., The Parlement of Paris. Stone, Bailey, S., The Parlement of Paris, 1774-1789 Swann, Julian, Politics and the Parlement of Paris under Louis XV, 1754-1774 2. The Nobility& Bourgeoisie Bamford, P. W., Privilege and Profit: A Business Family in Eighteenth-Century France Barber, E. G., The Bourgeoisie in Eighteenth Century France. Berlanstein, L. R., The Barristers of Toulouse in the 18th Century CHAUSSINAND-NOGARET, Guy, The French Nobility in the 18th Century FORD, F. L., Robe and Sword Forster, Robert, The House of Saulx-Tavanes: Versailles and Burgundy 1700-1830 ----- Merchants, Landlords, and Magistrates: The DePont Family in 18th-C. France ----- The Nobility of Toulouse in the Eighteenth Century Hayman, Ronald, The Marquis de Sade: the Genius of Passion Maza, Sarah, The Myth of the French Bourgeoisie: an Essay on the Social Imaginary, 1750-1850. Smith, Jay M., Nobility Reimagined: the Patriotic Nation in 18th-Century France. 3. The Church, Religion & Morality Goulemot, Jean Marie, Forbidden Texts: Erotic Literature and its Readers in 18th-Century France Kelly, George, Mortal Politics in Eighteenth-Century France. Kreiser, B. Rbt, Miracles, Convulsions and Ecclesiastical Politics in Early 18th-Century France McManners, J., Church and Society in 18th-Century France, 2 vols. ----- French Ecclesiastical Society under the Ancien Regime Tackett, Timothy, Priest and Parish in 18th-Century France Van Kley, Dale, The Religious Origins of the French Revolution….(1560-1791) 4. Monarchs and Ministers Allison, J.M.S., Lamoignon de Malesherbes: Defender and Reformer of the French Monarchy, 1721-1794 Barker, Nancy Nichols, Brother of the Sun King: Philippe, duke of Orléans Berger, Robert, A Royal Passion: Louis XVI as Patron of Architecture Butler, Rohan, Choiseul Dakin, D., Turgot and the ancien régime in France Faure, E., La Disgrace de Turgot Hardman, John, Louis XVI: the Silent King Harris, R. D., Necker: Reform Statesman of the Ancien Régime Lacour-Gayet, Calonne, financier, reformateur, contre-revolutionnaire Lever, Evelyn, Marie Antoinette. Padover, S. K., The Life and Death of Louis XVI Price, Munro, Preserving the Monarchy: the Comte de Vergennes, 1774-1787 Shennan, J.H., Philippe, Duke of Orleans /1755-1757 Woodbridge, John, Revolt in Prerevolutionary France: the Prince de Conti's Conspiracy against Louis XV, 5. The Masses Brennan, Thomas, Public Drinking and Popular Culture in 18th-Century Paris Maza, Sharon, Servants and Masters in Eighteenth Century France Traer, James F., Marriage and Family in 18th- Century France Woloch, Isser, ed., The Peasantry in the Old Regime 6. Economic Developments Brennan, Thomas, Burgundy to Champagne: the Wine Trade in Early Modern France Clark, John G., La Rochelle and the Atlantic Economy during the 18th Century. Fox-Genovese, Eliz., The Origins of Physiocracy: Economic Revolution and Social Order in 18th-C France Labrousse, C. E., La Crise de l'economie française a la fin de l'ancien regime et au debut de la revolution ' Riley, James, The Seven Years' War and the Old Regime in France: the Eco. and Financial Toll 7. Social Policy Adams, Thomas M., Bureaucrats & Beggars: French Social Policy in the Age of the Enlightenment. Andrews, Richard M., Law, Magistracy and Crime in Old Regime Paris, 1735-1789 Cameron, Iain, Crime and Repression in the Auvergne and the Guyenne, 1720-1790 Fairchilds, C. C., Poverty and Charity in Aix-en-Provence 1640-1789 Hufton, Olwen H., The Poor of 18th Century France ----- Bayeux in the Late 18th Century: A Social Study Kaplan, S. L., Bread, Politics and Political Economy in the reign of Louis XV ----- The Bakers of Paris and the Bread Question, 1700-1775 McCloy, S., The Humanitarian Movement in 18th-Century France Schwartz, Robt., Policing the Poor in 18th-Century France Williams, Alan, The Police of Paris, 1718-1789 8. Political Culture Bell, David, Lawyers and Citizens: the Making of a Political Elite… Braham, Allan, The Architecture of the French Enlightenment Brown, Kate, The Cult of the Nation in France…1680-1800 Chartier, Roger, The Cultural Uses of Print in Early Modern France Darnton, R., The Forbidden Bestsellers of Pre-Revolutionary France. ----- The Literary Underground of the Old Regime ----- and D. Roche, eds., Revolution in Print: The Press in France 1775-1800. Farge, Arlette, Subversive Words: Public Opinion in Eighteenth-Century France Merrick, Jeffrey, The Desacralization of the French Monarchy in the 18th Century Murphy, Orville T., The Diplomatic Retreat of France and Public Opinion on the Eve of the French Revolution, 1783-1789 Rowen, H., The King's State 9. Regional Studies Hall, Thadd, France and the 18th-century Corsican Question (1971). [+ AHR article] Pariset, F.-G., Bordeaux au XVIIIe siècle LeGoff, T.J.A., Vannes and its Region (18th C) Schneider, Robt., The Ceremonial City: Toulouse Observed, 1738-1780. Sheppard, Thomas F., Lourmarin in the 18th Century Swann, Julian, Provincial Power and Absolute Monarchy…Estates of Burgundy 1661-1790 -SC B. The Causes of the French Revolution Aftalion, Florin, The French Revolution: an Economic Interpretation Aston, Nigel, End of an Elite: The French Bishops and the Coming of the French Rev.1786-1790 Baker, Keith, Inventing the French Revolution: Essays on French Political Culture in the 18th C. Blanning, T.C.W., The French Revolution: Aristocrats versus Bourgeois? Chartier, Roger, The Cultural Origins of the French Revolution Church, W.F., ed., The Influence of the Enlightenment on the French Revolution Cobban, A., "The Enlightenment and the French Revolution," in E. R. Wasserman, ed., Aspects of the 18thC ----- Historians and the Causes of the French Revolution DOYLE, Wm., Origins of the French Revolution Greenlaw, R. W., ed., The Economic Origins of the French Revolution: Poverty or Prosperity? Kaplan, Stephen, Farewell Revolution: the Historians= Feud, France, 1789-1989 Mornet, D., Les Origines intellectuelles de la révolution française Palmer, R. R., The Age of the Democratic Revolution, 2 volumes Stone, Bailey, The Genesis of the French revolution (1994). Sutherland, Donald, The Chouans: The Social Origins of Popular Counter-Revolution in Upper Brittany, 1770-1796 Other European states Spain and Portugal Castillo, V. A., Spanish Mercantilismus: Gerónimo de Uztáriz, Economist Cruz, Jesus, Gentlemen, Bourgeois, and Revolutionaries…1750-1850 Dominguez Ortiz, A., La Sociedad española in el Siglo XVIII Gilabert, Francisco M., La Abolición de la Inquisition en España HERR, Richard, The 18th-Century Revolution in Spain ----- Rural Change and Royal Finances in Spain at the End of the Old RegimeØ Hull, Anthony H., Charles III and the Revival of Spain Hussey, R. D., The Caracas Company 1728-1784 Kendrick, John, Alejandro Malaspina: Portrait of a Visionary La Force, J. C., The Development of the Spanish Textile Industry Maxwell, Kenneth, Pombal: Paradox of the Enlightenment. Petrie, C., Charles III of Spain Reglá, J., El Siglo XVIII Ringrose, D., Spain, Europe, and the "Spanish Miracle", 1700-1900 Sarrailh, J., La España illustrada Shafer, Robert J., The Economic Societies of the Spanish World (1763-1821) Spell, J. R., Rousseau in the Spanish World Before 1833 Walker, Geoffrey J., Spanish Politics and Imperial Trade, 1700-1789. E. Elsewhere in Europe 1. Italy Acton, H., The Bourbons of Naples, 1734-1825 Carpanetto, Dino and G. Ricuperati, Italy in the Age of Reason 1685-1789 Cochrane, E., Florence in the Forgotten Centuries ----- Tradition and Enlightenment in the Tuscan Academies Corley, P., Oil, Silk and Enlightenment (Naples) Gross, Hanns, Rome in the Age of Enlightenment Hanlon, Gregory, Early Modern Italy, 1550-1800 Imbruglia, Girolamo, ed., Naples in the Eighteenth Century: The Birth and Death of a Nation State Litchfield, Burr, The Florentine Bureaucracy 1450-1790 Venturi, Franco, The Enlightenment in Italy Waquet, Jean-Claude, Corruption: Ethics and Power in Florence, 1600-1770. WOOLF, Stuart J., A History of Italy 1700-1860 2. Scandinavia BARTON, H. Arnold, Scandinavia in the Revolutionary Era, 1760-1815 3. The Netherlands Jacob, Margaret, and W. Mijnhardt, eds., The Dutch Republic in the 18th Century Schama, Simon, Patriots and Liberators: Revolution in the Netherlands 1780-1813. Te Brake, W. P., Regents & Rebels: The Revolutionary World of an 18th-Century Dutch City 4. Poland Butterwick, Richard, Poland=s Last King and English Culture: Stanislaw Poniatowski, 1732-1798 Fiszman, Samuel, ed., Constitution and Reform in 18th-Century Poland Zamoyski, Adam, The Last King of Poland And generally on the German Enlightenment IV. ENLIGHTENMENT and ENLIGHTENED ABSOLUTISM outside France A. General Treatments 1. Surveys and Collections [CHOOSE ONE] Beales, Derek, Enlightenment and Reform in 18th-century Europe -SC Bluche, Enlightened Despotism Bruun, G., The Enlightened Despots GAGLIARDO, Enlightened Despotism. Hartung, Fritz, Enlightened Absolutism SCOTT, H., ed., Enlightened Absolutism: Reform and Reformers in Later 18th-Century Europe 2. Historiographical Debate Anderson, M.S., Historians and 18th-Century Europe 1715-1789, chapter 3 Aretin, Karl Otmar von, ed., Aufgeklärter Absolutismus Hartung, Fritz, "Der aufgeklärte Absolutismus" HZ, CLXXX (l955) Klassen, Peter, Die Grundlagen des aufgeklärten Absolutismus (1933) Krieger, L., An Essay on the Theory of Enlightened Despotism. ________, "The Idea of Authority in the West" AHR, LXXXII (l977) Lefebvre, G., "Le Despotisme éclairé," Annales historiques de la révolution française, XXI (1949), 97-115 Liebel, Helen, "Enlightened Despotism and the Crisis of Society in Germany," in Enlightenment Essays, 1 (1970). Mommsen, W., "Zur Beurteilung des Absolutismus" HZ, CLVIII (1938) Reinalter, Helmut and Harm Klueting, eds., Der Aufgeklärte Absolutismus in europäischen Vergleich -SC Scott, H., "Whatever happened to the Enlightened Despots?" History, (1983) Venturi, F., The End of the Old Regime in Europe: I (1768-1776), II (1776-1789) ----- Utopia and Reform in the Enlightenment (1971). Wines, R., ed., Enlightened Despotism B. Central Europe Blanning, T.C.W. and Peter Wende, eds., Reform in Great Britain and Germany 1750-1850 Bödeker, Hans E. and U. Herrmann, eds., Über den Prozeß der Aufklärung in Deutschland im 18. Jht. (1987) Dülmen, Richard van, The Society of the Enlightenment: the Rise of the Middle Class and Enlightenment Culture in Germany. ----- Theatre of Horror: Crime and Punishment in early modern Germany Epstein, K., Genesis of German Conservatism, 253-293 Gagliardo, John, From Pariah to Patriot Ingrao, C.W., "Enlightened Absolutism and the German States" JMH (1986) Krieger, L., The German Idea of Freedom Lowood, Henry, Patriotism, Profit, and the Promotion of Science in the German Enlightenment: The Economic and Scientific Societies, 1760-1815 (1991) Maurer, Michael, Aufklärung und Anglophilie in Deutschland (1987) McClelland, Charles, State, Society, and University in Germany, 1700-1914 Melton, Edgar, APopulation Structure, the Market Economy and the Transformaiton of Gutsherrschaft in East Central Europe, 1650-1800,@ German History 3 (1998) MELTON, J., Absolutism and the Eighteenth-Century Origins of Compulsory Schooling in Prussia and Austria NISBET, H.B., "Was ist Aufklärung?: The Concept of Enlightenment in Eighteenth-Century Germany," Journal of European Studies, XII (l982) Oz-Salzberger, F., Translating the Enlightenment: Scottish Civil Discourse in 18th-Century Germany PARRY, G., "Enlightenment and its Critics in 18thC Germany," Historical Journal (1963) RAEFF, Marc, "The Well-Ordered Police State," AHR, LXXX (1975) ----- The Well-Ordered Police State Reinalter, Helmut, Aufklärung und Geheimgesellschaften (freemasonry). ----- Freimaurer und Geheimbünde im 18. Jahrhundert in Mitteleuropa. Sheehan, James, Germany 1770-1866 (Part I) Small, The Cameralists: The Pioneers of German Social Polity (1909) Sorkin, David, Moses Mendelssohn and the Religious Enlightenment Wegert, K., "Patrimonial Rule, Popular Self-Interest and Jacobinism in Germany, 1763-1800," JMH, 53 (1981) ----- "Pol Engagement and the German Intelligentsia, 1789-1800," CJH, 22 (1987) ----- "The Social Context of State Terror in early mod Germany," CJH, 27 (1991) Weis, Eberhard, "Enlightenment and Absolutism in the Holy Roman Empire," in JMH 58 (1986), Supplement. 1. Habsburg Monarchy: Joseph II [CHOOSE ONE] Balázs, Eva H., Hungary and the Habsburgs, 1765-1800: an Experiment in Enlightened Absolutism BEALES, Derek, Joseph II, I: In the Shadow of Maria Theresa. Benedikt, H., Als Belgien österreichisch war BERNARD, P., From the Enlightenment to the Police State (Count Pergen) ----- Jesuits and Jacobins ----- Joseph II. ----- Joseph II and Bavaria ----- The Limits of Enlightenment Blanning, T.C.W., Joseph II (1994). ----- Joseph II and Enlightened Despotism (1970). Brechka, F., Gerhard van Swietan Davis, Joseph II: An Imperial Reformer for the Austrian Netherlands. Dipper, Christoph., Politischer Reformismer und begrifflicher Wandel (Milanese reform, 1764-96). Dubin, Lois, The Port Jews of Habsburg Trieste: Absolutist Politics & Enlightenment Culture. Gates-Coon, Rebecca, The Landed Estates of the Esterházy Princes (1994). Hasquin, Hervé, ed., La Belgique autrichienne, 1713-1794 Michael Hochedlinger, Krise und Wiederherstellung. Österreichische Großmachtpolitik zwischen Türkenkrieg und AZweiter Diplomatischer Revolution@, 1787-1791 -SC Hitchins, Keith, The Rumanian National Movement in Transylvania, 1780-1849 Kann, R. A., A Study in Austrian Intellectual History KARNIEL, Joseph, Die Toleranzpolitik Kaiser Josephs II. (1985). Kerner, Bohemia in the 18th Century. Király, B., Hungary in the Late 18th Century. Klang, Daniel M., Tax Reform in 18th Century Lombardy Langsam, Francis the Good Link, Edith, The Emancipation of the Austrian Peasant, 1740-1798 Maas, Der Josephinismus Mikoletzky, L., Kaiser Joseph II. Padover, S., The Revolutionary Emperor Polasky, Janet, Revolution in Brussels Valjavec, Der Josephinismus WANDRUSZKA, Leopold II. (2 vols.). Wangermann, Ernst, Aufklärung und staatsbürgerliche Erziehung. ----- From Joseph II to the Jacobin Trials WINTER, E., Barock, Absolutismus und Aufklärung Wright, William, Serf, Seigneur and Sovereign Zedinger, Renate, Migration und Karriere. Habsburgische Beamte in Brüssel und Wien im 18. Jahrhundert -SC 2. Prussia under Frederick the Great Baumgart, Peter, "The Annexation and Integration of Silesia into the Prussian State," in Mark Greengrass, ed., Conquest and Coalescence. BEHRENS, C.B.A., Society, Government and the Enlightenment (Prussia and France). Berdahl, The Politics of the Prussian Nobility ----- "The Stände and the Origins of Conservatism in Prussia" 18thCSt (1973). Bessel, Richard and J. Stephenson, Prussia from Roßbach to Jena [GermHist, 12 (1995)] Blanning, T.C.W., AFrederick the Great and German Culture,@ in Robert Oresko, et al.,eds., Royal and Republican Sovereignty in Early Modern Europe. Brunschwig, Henri, Enlightenment and Romanticism in 18th Century Prussia. Büsch, Otto, Militärsystem und Sozialleben im Alten Preußen, 1713-1807 Carlyle, Thomas, Frederick the Great Frederick II, Anti-Machiavel Fulbrook, M., Piety and Politics: Religion and the Rise of Absolutism in England, Württemberg and Prussia Gooch, Frederick the Great Henderson, W.O., Studies in the Economic Policy of Frederick the Great. Horn, D., Frederick the Great and the Rise of Prussia Hubatsch, Walther, Frederick the Great: Absolutism and Administration. Johnson, Hubert, Frederick the Great and His Officials. Kisch, Herbert, Prussian Mercantilism and the Rise of the Krefeld Silk Industry Lavisse, E., The Youth of Frederick the Great LaVopa, Anthony, Prussian Schoolteachers: Profession and Office, 1763-1848 Luebke, David, AFrederick the Great and the Celebrated Case of the Millers Arnold,@ CentEurHist, 32 (1999). Melton, James Van Horn, "From Enlightenment to Revolution" CEH (1979). Metsk, Frido. Die Brandenburgisch-Preussische Sorbenpolitik im Kreise Cottbus. Vom 16. Jhdt. bis…1806. Mittenzwei, Ingrid, Preußen nach dem siebenjährigen Krieg Reddaway, Frederick the Great and the Rise of Prussia Reiners, Frederick the Great Ritter, Gerhard, Frederick the Great Rosenberg, H., Bureaucracy, Aristocracy and Autocracy: The Prussian Experience, 1660-1815. Schieder, Theodor, Friedrich der Große Scott, H.M., APrussia's Royal Foreign Minister,@ in Robt.Oresko, et al., eds., Royal and Republican Sovereignty… Weill, H., Frederick the Great and Samuel von Cocceji 3. The German States [CHOOSE TWO] BLANNING, T.C.W., Reform and Revolution in Mainz, 1743-1803. ---- and Peter Wende, eds., Reform in Great Britain and Germany 1750-1850 Bödeker, Hans and U. Hermann, eds., Aufklärung als Politisierung -- Politisierung der Aufklärung. Braubach, Max Franz BRUFORD, W. H., Culture and Society in Classical Weimar Buchholz, Werner, Öffentliche Finanzen und Finanzverwaltung im entwickelten frühmodernen Staat: Landesherr und Landstände in Schwedisch-Pommern, 1720-1806. Fauchier-Magnan, A., The Small German Courts in the 18th Century Fischer, Wolfram, Das Fürstentum Hohenlohe im Zeitalter der Aufklärung (1958) Flurschütz, I., Die Verwaltung des Hochstifts Würzburg…(1779-1795) Fulbrook, M., Piety and Politics: Religion and the Rise of Absolutism in England,.Württemberg and Prussia Gerard, Frances, A Grand Duchess (Anna Amalia of Saxe-Weimar) Godsey, Wm., Nobles and Nation in Central Europe: Free Imperial Knights…1750-1850 -SC Hirsch, Erhard, Die Dessau-Wörlitzer Reformbewegung im Zeitalter der Aufklärung: Personen – Strukturen – Wirkungen – SC KNUDSEN, J., Justus Möser and the German Enlightenment. HARTUNG, F., Das Großherzogtum Sachsen-Weimar unter der Regierung Carl Augusts INGRAO, C.W., The Hessian Mercenary State: Ideas, Institutions and Reform…. ----- ed., Imperial Principalities on the Eve of Revolution: the Lay Electorates [German History, 20/3 (2002)]. ----- "`Barbarous Strangers': Hessian State & Society during the Amer. Revolution," AHR (1982). Liebel, H., Enlightened Bureaucracy vs Enlightened Despotism in Baden. Lindemann, Mary, Health and Healing in Eighteenth-Century Germany ----- Patriots and Paupers: Hamburg, 1712-1830 Martin, Franz, Salzburgs Fürsten in der Barockzeit 1557 bis 1812. Mörz, Stefan, Aufgeklärter Absolutismus in der Kurpfalz (1742-1777). Müller, Waltraud, Zur Wohlfahrt des gemeinen Wesens (1984) [Bavaria] Rowe, Michael, From Reich to State: the Rhineland in the Revolutionary Age, 1780-1830 -SC Rudersdorf, M., "Das Glück der Bettler": Justus Möser und die Welt der Armen SC Seitz, Jutta, Die landständische Verordnung in Bayern im Übergang von der altständischen Repräsentation zum modernen Staat Taylor, Peter, Indentured to Liberty: Peasant Life and the Hessian Military State. Umbach, Maiken, Federalism and Enlightenment in Germany 1740-1806 ----- AThe Politics of Sentimentality and the German Fürstenbund, 1779-1785,@ Historical Journal, 1998. Ventzke, Marcus, Das Herzogtum Sachsen-Weimar-Eisenach, 1775-1783: Ein Modellfall aufgeklärter Herrschaft? -SC Wüst, Wolfgang, Die "gute" Policey im Reichskreis. Zur frühmodernen Normensetzung in den Kernregionen des Alten Reiches, 2: Der Fränkische Reichskreis and 3: Der Bayerische Reichskreis und die Oberpfalz -SC |
KTravlos | 18 Jan 2016 5:44 a.m. PST |
I am not going to say read them(I did not read them all), but the Jacobin-Napoleonic Narrative comes rather tarnished once one looks at even a small part of the historiography on the Ancien Regimes. There are a bunch of books in there that are a must for understanding the Vendee and other popular resistance not just against the administrative reforms of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic State, but also against the prior reform efforts of Joseph II in Germany, and the various ministers of Louis XVI. |
Gazzola | 18 Jan 2016 9:58 a.m. PST |
I thought this may have been an interesting Vendee debate, but see it is nothing more than another excuse to attack Kevin and also attack and blame everything on Napoleon. Very disappointing, but sadly not unexpected. |
Gazzola | 18 Jan 2016 10:07 a.m. PST |
Bretchel198 I see some people are throwing out the same old anti-Nap rubbish. The Palm one is hilarious. People today are arrested for provoking or inciting terrorism, but obviously Napoleon should have ignored it, I mean, so what if what was written led to violence and people being killed. And Palm's excuse was even more hilarious. He did not know what was in the packages. Yeah, course he didn't. LOL. And Palm's assistant was even funnier, or dumber, or both. |
Brechtel198 | 18 Jan 2016 2:23 p.m. PST |
Gazzola, It's just the 'same stuff, different day' syndrome. If it isn't the reference to Palm, it's the reference to d'Enghien to show what a monster Napoleon was. Incredible. |
Gazzola | 18 Jan 2016 5:14 p.m. PST |
Brechtel198 I guess we should be used to people who just want to believe what anyone says if it is negative about Napoleon. But I wonder if they noticed that four booksellers were shown mercy but not Palm? I wonder why that was? |
KTravlos | 19 Jan 2016 12:14 a.m. PST |
Two more articles worth reading on the issue of Napoleon Paul Schroeder's "Napoleon's Foreign Policy: A Criminal Enterprise" link (a more expanded discussion is in Schroeder's monumental "Transformation of European Politics") vs. Edward Kolla's "Not So Criminal: New Understandings of Napoléon's Foreign Policy in the East" link I personally was not persuaded that Kolla refuted Schroeder, but its up to each reader to make up their mind. |
Brechtel198 | 19 Jan 2016 4:25 a.m. PST |
And Schroeder's thesis and object is…? |
von Winterfeldt | 19 Jan 2016 5:31 a.m. PST |
"yeah this thread is now better off dead" |
daler240D | 19 Jan 2016 6:17 a.m. PST |
Interesting, if you go back Brechtel said that Napoleon wasn't a military dictator. After that everyone (including Brechtel) starts debating points that are tertiary at best to that definition. You all fail. |
KTravlos | 19 Jan 2016 6:26 a.m. PST |
we all fail indeed. I fail doubly. Fair enough, but now this is happening. brechtel198, you are interested in the Napoleonic political and international system and you do not know of Schroeder? Do not take this wrong, but his book is one of the major books of diplomatic history on the era. That article I cited is the main debate point of the schools that are critical of Napoleon. I mean I have seen that you have published a number of books on the Napoleonic Wars. If you have missed this literature you should address it as long as you are interested in defending Napoleon. Schroeder is the main thrust against him in the political-diplomatic historiography. I was very pro-napoleonic before reading "Transformation", after that I became much more critical. Just a note, I am not saying you need to read Schroeder to write about the Napoleonic Wars, but he is a must when debating the impact of Napoleon on politics and international relations. Its a good book to read even if one disagrees. |
Gazzola | 19 Jan 2016 8:11 a.m. PST |
To get back to the Vendee, the following is a short but interesting piece. link |
KTravlos | 19 Jan 2016 8:47 a.m. PST |
I would not say the Vendee has been written off from French Historiography. There has been an acute debate about the use of the word genocide-policide to characterize it. Recent poli-sci and social history work on the clash between corporatist based societies (like the ancien regime) and the liberal individualist values promoted by the Enlightenment has looked at the Vendee as an event in the same vien as the Low Countries revolt against Josephinian reforms. Indeed in many ways the Vendee might have more spotlight than the other contested event of French historiography, The Commune of 1871. Again that is the feel I have had from a rudimentary look. There is also debate about how much the religious policy of the Republic or conscription fed the fires of revolt. |
Brechtel198 | 19 Jan 2016 10:28 a.m. PST |
…you are interested in the Napoleonic political and international system and you do not know of Schroeder? Do not take this wrong, but his book is one of the major books of diplomatic history on the era. That article I cited is the main debate point of the schools that are critical of Napoleon. I mean I have seen that you have published a number of books on the Napoleonic Wars. If you have missed this literature you should address it as long as you are interested in defending Napoleon. Schroeder is the main thrust against him in the political-diplomatic historiography. I was very pro-napoleonic before reading "Transformation", after that I became much more critical. Just a note, I am not saying you need to read Schroeder to write about the Napoleonic Wars, but he is a must when debating the impact of Napoleon on politics and international relations. Its a good book to read even if one disagrees. I know who Schroeder is. I have not read his book because my primary interest in the period is military history, not political or social history. I read some material in the political area when in connects necessarily with the military side. I also read on Napoleon's contributions and reforms in France and the empire, which no other head of state or government could match. In that comparison, Napoleon was liberal in outlook and was a republican. However, you didn't answer my question as to Schroeder's thesis and object is in his book. By the title of the article by him that you referenced, the viewpoint is negative and probably biased against Napoleon. As I have ordered the book today, I'll find out in a little while… |
Brechtel198 | 19 Jan 2016 10:31 a.m. PST |
Interesting, if you go back Brechtel said that Napoleon wasn't a military dictator. After that everyone (including Brechtel) starts debating points that are tertiary at best to that definition. You all fail. Fail at what? The comment was made after the OP that Napoleon was a military dictator. I provided evidence that he was not. Napoleon ruled as a civilian head of state with a civilian government. Then another poster changed it to merely 'dictator' and failed to provide any substantive evidence to support that view. So, in that case, your 'fail' comment is correct. And evidence was also supplied that Napoleon quelled the uprising in the Vendee, just as he would in 1815 after his return from Elba. So, in the end, what was your point? |
KTravlos | 19 Jan 2016 12:54 p.m. PST |
Brechtel198. Well you will read and make your opinion. You probably will not change it, but I consider that book a must read for the 1780s-1848 era. He is anti-napoleonic yes. But he marshals an impressive array of facts into his argument (the book is 900 pages, with a good 300-400 on the Napoleonic period). Whatever you end result its a treat of a book to read. |
Gratian | 20 Jan 2016 12:31 a.m. PST |
"I also read on Napoleon's contributions and reforms in France and the empire, which no other head of state or government could match. In that comparison, Napoleon was liberal in outlook and was a republican." "And was a republican" – interesting, I'd like to know more what you mean here. I'd argue the opposite, that he was the least republican by comparison in many respects. He raised dukes to kings, put his own family on various thrones of Europe, sought dynastic marriage, and wanted his own position as Emperor to be hereditary. I agree on the liberal point, but republican? No way! |
SJDonovan | 20 Jan 2016 2:19 a.m. PST |
Maybe when Brechtel called Napoleon a republican he meant he was like Donald Trump? |
von Winterfeldt | 20 Jan 2016 2:53 a.m. PST |
the republicans hated the guts of Boney – there was a strong movement in the army against Bonaparte, Napoleon was able to corrupt a lot of military leaders but not all and in the end this was his downfall – he never realized that there was one thing which was even more important than himself for French officers – even those who supported him – it was la patrie. Was he liberal in outlook – yes, but in outlook only, himself he behaved like any other absolute monarch of the worst kind. Just for the "worms" eye – of an subaltern officer, a gunner, one has to read Noel : Souvenirs Militaires d'un Officier du Premier Empire Paris / Nancy 1895 The legend that Boney was a republican was constructed later of the legend doré – he himself clearly regarded himself as a total ruler. |
Pages: 1 2
|