Reviews for Crown And Nobility In Early Modern France

The average rating for Crown And Nobility In Early Modern France based on 2 reviews is 3.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2021-03-04 00:00:00 Omed Ahim A history of the Napoleonic period in the Clausewitzian manner. It is a tale of politics and diplomacy where the romantic thunder of guns roars in the distance. This is not to say that pure analysis is neglected, indeed Esdaile distils as much observation into a paragraph as many battle monographies in a few hundred pages, but he doesn't offer a clear military timeline for the unitiated. He isn't devoid of surprises, either, when held against the light of traditional Boney-bashing historiography. As a specialist of the Peninsular War, he sees the possibility of French victory at the outset, both sides being roughly equal. It's repeatedly stressed that the Coalitions of Napoleonic wars weren not ideological in nature. Rather than reactionist monoliths, all participants continued to pursue the long-term territorial interests that had guided the continuous dynastic warfare of the 18th century. They were perfectly willing to let a Republican France exist, if the peace treaty satisfied said interests. This attitude was extended at the various treaties of the day (most importantly Amiens (1803) and the raft at Tilsit (1807).which would have left France in possession of the Low Countries as well as its satellite states in Italy and Germany. This leads the book to the conclusion that each renewal of coalition warfare be traced back to Napoleon's insatiable ambitions. Can it ? Apologists maintain that Napoleon's campaigns were at heart defensive in nature. Either way, this is one point where the monster of British folklore rears its head and it costs the book a star. There is also a disproportionate amount of attention for British cabinet politics, where other states' foreign policy is often limited to the standpoint of their rulers. The global reach of the wars is looked at in detail, from the naval wrestling in Master and Commander over the back-and-forth conquests of Carribean colonies to 'sideshow wars' between Russia and the Ottoman Empire. Bloody "hurrah!"s echo across the Balkan & the Caucasus as the Continental Blockade tightens its grip... but this insightful exposition on the causalities of 1810-1811 fades inevitably into an impatient countdown towards that Barbarossa of the Napoleonic period, the War of 1812. The pace picks up again at the conference of Vienna, with the "100 Days" delegated to a lost cause. A curious parallel is drawn between Metternich's Cold War-esque design and the power balance as it existed in Europe at the zenith of 1809: an equally strong France and Russia could preserve the peace, with their respective dependencies (the German states, the partitioned lands of Poland) acting as buffers.

Review # 2 was written on 2018-01-04 00:00:00 Nelson Dittmar One of the most biased and one-sided books I have ever read in my life. This diatribe is as balanced as a one-legged stool. Esdaile starts with the arbitrary date of 1803 - as if France and Britain had not been fighting each other for decades. It was French support for American Independence from an Imperial, dominating and arrogant British government, that helped bankrupt France and bring on the Revolution of 1789. There was a British fleet under Admiral Hood actually in Toulon harbour in 1793 aiding Royalist rebels - interfering in a conflict that was no business of the British. And it was a young Napoleon who responded to this British aggression by siting his cannon so that the Royal Navy had no option but to evacuate the French town. One wonders what the corrupt aristocratic and oligarchic British government of the day would have said about French vessels suddenly appearing at Portsmouth or the Pool of London and sticking their oar into British internal affairs? Esdaile quotes copiously from the likes of Fouche, Talleyrand, Bourrienne and Remusat - all hostile witnesses, despite himself saying their views are open to question. General John Elting in his masterly book Swords Around a Throne (1988) refused to use Bourrienne and Remusat at all because their 'memoirs' are so notoriously unreliable. He stated that: 'In preparing this book I have used original sources whenever possible but have ignored the alleged memoirs of Louis Bourrienne, Paul Barras, Clare de Remusat, Laure Permon, and Miot de Melito, which are mendacious and worthless' (P. 735) Indeed, most of them were written for a Bourbon and royalist audience. Fouche and Talleyrand were serial traitors who betrayed Napoleon and France on innumerable occasions. No wonder a contemporary called them 'vice' and 'crime'. Bourrienne was caught with his hand in the till, Napoleon forgave him and he was given another lucrative post until he repeated his crime. Are we to trust the words of a criminal against the man who forgave him and gave him a second chance? Esdaile is constantly contradicting himself and every thing he mentions is given a hostile spin. He evens endeavours to blame Napoleon for the worst Russian winter in 100 years in 1812. Esdaile obviously knows nothing about the spate of volcanic eruptions that affected the weather of the period. The decade 1810-1820 was the coldest decade of the C19th due to those eruptions filling the atmosphere with dust - leading to widespread climate change - an El Nino event which affected world temperatures, and a low sunspot count which is also indicative of low temperatures. According to Esdaile, Napoleon repeatedly 'forced' other countries to attack him. Everything was his fault and his fault alone. Esdaile's Napoleon is like a James Bond villain who gets up every morning with the thought of dominating the world before he has had his breakfast. It would be amusing if it wasn't so pathetic. And of course, he quotes British politicians who decry Napoleon for wanting world domination, when the British Navy was dominating the seas and forcing every other nation to bow to their will. And as for England being the 'land of the free", yes it did abolish slavery in 1807 but this did not stop it impressing seamen from other nations and refusing thereafter to ever give them shore leave in case they 'deserted' . This insufferable arrogance led to America declaring war on Britain in 1812. No doubt, that was all Napoleon's fault too? This isn't history - it's propaganda!