Contagion: Disease, Government, and the 'Social Question' in Nineteenth-Century France Book

The Birthpangs of Modern Democracy
27 November 2015

I have to say that I quite like these books, namely because they give a fairly detailed, but concise, rundown of various periods of European History. The funny thing about history is that it tends to be a continuous flow of cause and effect, yet it seems to be fairly easily compartmentalised into various periods. The topic of this book is a classic example because while the French Revolution certainly didn't occur in a vacuum, can easily put it into a compartment where we are able to write a book about this specific period. Of course, as with most history, we need to have an understanding of the background events that led up to this specific period, and a history book is certainly not worth its salt unless we explore its effect upon our own world.

The first thing that I discovered as I was reading this book was that it was actually produced by my alma-matar - the University of Adelaide. This, I have to say, was pretty cool. Okay, when I studied the French Revolution at university it was pretty much a rush job (namely because we had to cram a lot into one semester), however when I was in high school we did look at it a lot more deeply (our European History course consisted of three parts - the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and Europe at War). Mind you, before I returned to high school all I knew about the French revolution was that it happened and all I knew about Napoleon was that he was some French dude that conquered Europe and had an unfortunate experience when he marched his army into Russia. However, after that first semester everything suddenly came together - Napoleon and the French Revolution actually went hand in hand.

The funny thing that I came to realise about the French Revolution as I was reading this book was that you could almost say that it was a rerun of the entire Roman Republic and Empire condensed into a period of twenty-five years. In fact Napoleon even based his civil code upon Roman Law (which is not all that surprising). The entire revolution began with an uprising of the middle class with the support of the lower classes. We then go into a populist period known as the Jacobean period, which was overseen by Robespierre and the guillotine was used as a tool of control quite freely (another thing I knew about the French Revolution before I returned to high school was that the guillotine was incredibly popular). After Robespierre found himself sitting under the blade of the guillotine the revolution took a much more conservative route, to the point that it looked like the monarchy was going to be restored, so in comes Napoleon, launches a successful coup-de-tat, and proceeds to conquer Europe. However this wasn't going to last as his Grand Empire was eventually destroyed by an invasion of the barbarians at the fringes, and the entire empire was then divided up among the victors.

While I could say a lot more about Napoleon, I will leave it here and instead refer you to my blog post Napoleon's Final Hour - what if he lost at Austerlitz. Actually, mentioning Austerlitz I have to say that this book said very little about that very important battle. Basically it was a paragraph mentioning that two armies met at this village in Austria (modern day Czechoslovakia) and Napoleon won. That, I have to say, was really disappointing, considering that one battle was what ended up changing the course of European history. However, I guess the writer saw things somewhat differently and considered that Austerlitz was a minor part of a much larger picture. Still, the question needs to be raised - what if Napoleon lost (and that was always a possibility)?

I guess I should say a few things about revolutions as a whole. The two revolutions that seem to be studied to death (at least in a European context) are the French and Russian revolutions. Sure, there were other revolutions but it was these two revolutions that effected the most change upon society as a whole (and as I mentioned I am looking at a European context - the American revolution, while mentioned, generally isn't studied in a course on European history). The thing about revolutions is that they tend not to be nice - there is no such thing as a peaceful revolution. While the bolsheviks took over Russia without a drop of blood, the after effects of that even in October 1917 was still quite bloody. Mind you, I can't say that the French revolution was any less bloody, but I guess that is the nature of removing governments by force.

As the book says, revolutions don't happen in a vacuum, and further they don't happen because a part of society is agitating for change - if that was the case we would see a lot more of them than we do. Further, it is not necessarily an uprising of the lower classes that will push a country towards revolutions - there have been peasant revolts throughout the ages and they have always been put down, usually quite brutally. The thing with the French revolution (and you will discover the same with the American revolution) was that it was a revolt against the established order by the middle classes, however this would not have succeeded if they were unable to mobilise the lower classes and the military - without the military's support revolutions are doomed to fail (usually, but not always - the American Revolution is a case in point, as was the Russian revolution).

The other thing about revolutions is that they tend to be undone quite quickly. When it because evident that life after the revolution is actually quite harder than life before, there is suddenly a push to return to the old order - there is a romantic idea about revolutions and how they promise a better world that inevitably never arises. As such they tend to then move into a much bloodier stage as the new power brokers do whatever they can to retain power. In the case of Lenin and the Russian revolution he outlawed all opposing political parties, which in France you see the rise of the committee of public safety and the Jacobean terror.

Okay, I did say I wouldn't say any more about Napoleon, but I feel that I should say a couple of things before I close off this review. One thing that the book mentioned is that Napoleon actually has a very romantic element about him. Mind you, depending on which lense that you look at him he is either a tyrannical dictator who desires to subjugate the entire world, of he is this romantic figure that rides out to conquest with his army. For instance in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure you have a picture of Napoleon as this spoilt brat who throws a tantrum whenever he doesn't get his own way, and cheats if he finds himself on the losing side. This isn't the Napoleon of history, but rather the Napoleon of British Propaganda. The problem with Napoleon is that we see him too much in the light of a later European conquerer - Adolf Hitler. The thing is that the two men are nowhere the same - in fact Napoleon, while a general and a conqueror, was also a champion of equality - there were no concentration camps under Napoleon's rule.

As for the book, well , I have to say that I did quite enjoy it, even though it was a refresher of a period of history with which I am now quite familiar. Mind you, the author did use Anglicised terms, such as 'The Mountain' instead of Montaignards, which was a little confusing because when I wanted some more information on that particular political grouping I wasn't able to find it (Wikipedia kept on sending me to pictures of mountains). However Rude does explore the period quite throughly, and does paint a very detailed picture of this rather turbulent period of European history.

For those who are interested, I have written a counter-factual piece on my blog speculating what would have happened if Napoleon had lost at Austerlitz.