I am a creature of habit with my reading. I tend to binge read on subjects or have periods of reading various types of fiction, before plunging back into non-fiction. The world of non-fiction is where I mostly live in my reading world. I have various reasons for this. For one, I am a self confessed nerd, especially when it comes to current affairs and history. I tend to go through these phases of reading to death certain topics that interest me: the Middle East, US Politics, WWI history, WWII history, UK politics etc.
Recently a particular subject has caught my attention and seems to be holding it longer than usual. This is the period of history that extends from the French Revolution and throughout the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. I was introduced to this period through the assistance of a massive, but brilliant book, 'The War of Wars' by Robert Harvey. What is staggering about this book is it's sheer scope. The Revolution itself is told with a fair amount of detail, emphasising the drama and significance of the time. And how like any modern revolution, it was agitated by the middle class, with the poor doing the heavy lifting but still getting breadcrumbs, the beneficiaries were few and far between. The revolution as any had very high expectations behind it, but ultimately began to consume it's children, through the period of savage killing called simply 'The Terror'.
It was this period, which took place after the killing of Louis XVI that made all European governments' hearts skip a beat. The Republican in me says good riddance to the royalty of France. But to end my opinions there would be to miss half the story. The French Revolutionary government declared war on us, not the other way round, with high ideals at the forefront of their reasons. But the real reasons where far more self serving. To put it lightly the Directory (the French Rev gov) used war as a political tool. To distract the poor by conscripting them, to live up to their propaganda, and to prove to their enemies that they were not at weak. It was ultimately a disastrous miscalculation.
For our country the revolution put us on the spot. The reform movement was gathering pace. Parliament was riddled with internal contradictions and outright corruption. So called 'rotten boroughs' existed where bribing the electorate gauranteed entry into parliament. Patronage ruled supreme. Sadly the Prime Minister at the time William Pitt the Younger, once a promising reformist, put the breaks on reform. And even repealed what little democratic rights existed in the UK at the time. It is easy to look back on those times and call him a monster and defender of the aristocracy. But actions in history need to be understood in context. These were violent times, and he made the decision of choosing stability over reform. I believe looking back at those times via the books I have read, that peaceful reform could have taken place and defused a lot of revolutionary agitation. It took over 50 years for the cause of reform to make gains. Making reform and true democracy with it one of the most significant casualties of the war.
There are many reasons why I came to have an interest in this period. One was sheer curiosity. I had heard intermittent interesting facts about Napoleon, his conquests and the long struggle to vanquish him. But once I started to look at the long line of events and the characters that made them happen, I came to appreciate why people still look back on this period. No matter how you look at it these were years of high tensions and drama. Napoleon can be said to be one of history's great oppurtunists. He took full advantage of the chaos of that period and his undoubtedly impressive military skills to get to the top of his adoptive country France. His reputation got to such a point that long after he is dead, many French still revere him, despite those who vanquished him harbouring slightly less rosey attitudes. I myself find him a fascinating figure, but still an oppurtunistic one. He started out from very humble beginnings and undoubtedly had to work hard to get to rise in the French military establishment. But in power he supported reform only insofar as it advanced his interests and quest for further power. He was ultimately a dictator and a warlord, who could only rule his country by the continuation of hositilities with France's neighbours.
The characters on the allied side interest me greatly too, although it interesting to see how nationalist attitudes can paint long dead peoples lives. The Duke of Wellington who lead the British against Napoleon's forces in Spain was long heralded as the quintessential British gentleman. The truth was that while he was undoubtedly smart and exceptional at what he did he was far from a perfect person. He was snobby, often rude, a terrible husband and ultimately an opponent of non-aristocratic democracy. British naval hero Horation Nelson was vain, glory-seeking and also a terrible husband. But both of their acheivements stand for themselves, they we very courageous and they both harboured humane concern for the men under their command (Wellington very grudgingly).
My favourite character of that period is Lord Thomas Cochrane, the naval hero who is immortalised in the Master and Commander books in the form of Captain Jack Aubrey. Cochrane made his name as a commerce raider, essentially a legal pirate. He was so effective at his job that he came to Napoleon's attention, who harboured a certain soldierly respect for him, christening him the "Sea Wolf". His perhaps most famous feat was his capture of the 600 man Spanish ship the El Gamo with his crew of 60. A feat only made possible by the sheer ferocity and quick thinking Cochrane instilled in the attack. He was also radical MP (many naval figures were also MPs) who while was never a great politician, stood up for his beliefs. When Prime Minister Lord Liverpool ordered the arrest of the Radical leader for speaking out against corruption, the leader barricaded himself into his home. Just as people swarmed around the home, waiting for the army to storm it, Cochrane walked calmly through the mob and entered the house. Much to the Radical leaders's suprise he brought out a barrel of gunpowder and threatened to blow the place up if it was stormed. In this event the leader talked him down, but I think nonetheless the statement is very powerful. But like all characters of this period (and today) he was imperfect. He had an unsettling obsession with money, which often revealed a bitter side to his personality. This lead it to being rather easy for him to be fingered in a stock exchange scandal which he may or may not have been involved in, after reading on the subject the jury is still out in my opinion on whether he was guilty. In later life he fought on the side of Latin American independence movements, achieving naval victories that made their success inevitable. Yet he charged through the roof for his services. An interesting figure no matter how you see it.
Nowadays this period seems to get scant attention compared to other wars, WWII especially. Yet the more I look at this period the more I see undoubted parallels with that war. The 1809 withdrawal from Corunna has many similarities to the Dunkirk evacuation in 1940. The failed Walcheren expedition was disastrous almost as much as Operation Market Garden. And of course Napoleon was replused in his invasion of Russia in 1812 just as Hitler was, except Napoleon got to Moscow, albeit when it was practically deserted. Granted, the course of the Napoleonic Wars was longer than WWI and II out together and much less easy to structure into periods. Undoubtedly WWII is a simpler struggle to present than the Napoleonic Wars, with more defined themes of good versus evil. But I think all to often this is used as an excuse for people to be intimidated at learning more about this era, and modern culture to forget this period while films continously role out about WWII.
I am currently watching my girlfriend play Call of Duty. Yet another WWII video game. Surely a cavalry charge, a naval battle or Waterloo would provide an exciting experience in that medium? In the latter case it would be far more challenging since you would likely be limited to one shot per 30 seconds. And maybe just maybe....it would be nice to have a game in which the arrival of the Germans gives you cause for praise and not grief. I think they have heard long enough about WWII for several lifetimes.
