[lit-ideas] Re: France, a Rogue State in 1801-05

  • From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 18:56:47 -0700

Simon,

 

Well, that's an improvement over you last note.  But you still didn't finish
my note.  My emphasis was on the nature of the Rogue State which you ignore.
To what extent Britain supported the World Order Napoleon was opposing is of
secondary importance, but after hearing both you and Kagan, Kagan sounds far
more reasonable.  The one thing that Kagan said that he believes is new to
me is that most Napoleonic historians emphasize military actions and ignore
the political.  He thinks it was the inept handling of political matters
that did Napoleon in.  In fact, Kagan says, this is a problem with military
histories in general.  At West Point there is very little emphasis upon the
political and he thinks that cost us in Iraq.  Military officers are now
getting a crash course in politics.   Military Historians at West Point have
bent over backwards in the past to avoid politics because Military Officers
are supposed to be neutral.  But deficiencies in the handling of political
matters in Iraq are apparently causing some to rethink this.  

 

As to Britain's Hegemony during the period prior to Kagan's, for example:
<http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/economicHistory/pdf/WP6501.pdf>
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/economicHistory/pdf/WP6501.pdf : "Over the
period 1648-1815 the English state may well have ruled over the most rapidly
growing of Europe's national economies. Furthermore, that favourable
development certainly carried whole sections of society over thresholds of
income and promoted patterns of expenditure, whereby purchases by households
on goods and services taxed by governments began first to contribute and (as
private expenditures rose and diversified) to augment public revenues from
indirect taxes. . . ."

 

"The dramatic rise of a fiscal state (which, liberal historians, taking
their cue from Adam Smith, neglect to recognize as being positive and
functional for the growth of the domestic economy) occurred for several
reasons which are best exposed by way of comparisons with other European
powers, (especially Spain, Portugal, France and Holland and other rivals).
These states ultimately lacked the fiscal and financial capacity required to
compete with Britain in struggles for hegemony at sea, for colonies and for
dominant shares of international trade in commodities and services. That
deficiency certainly delayed their transitions to industrial market
economies."

 

This quote supports Kagan's argument.  Don't forget, Kagan is saying that
previous historians emphasized the Military at the expense of the political.
You dismiss Kagan by emphasizing Trafalgar, a military event.  Britain was
prior to Kagan's period the Hegemonic guarantor of the World Order of the
day "in struggles for hegemony at sea, for colonies and for dominant shares
of international trade in commodities and services."    A serious challenge
of Britain's hegemony had not been put to a serious military test until
Napoleon put it. 

 

Lawrence

 

 

 

  _____  

From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Simon Ward
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 5:54 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: France, a Rogue State in 1801-05

 

Lawrence, if you're relying on Kagan for your view of European history
during the early nineteenth century, you place yourself at a distinct
disadvantage. I'm not going to trade references on this, merely assure you
that Kagan is on a revisionist path. 

 

Prior to 1805, the 'world order' was a matter of competing economic
interests, essentially colonialist in nature, disturbed by the French
Revolution and subsequently Napoleon's own empire building. Only after
Trafalgar did Britain have complete naval domination and only after
Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo could she be termed a Hegemon. Between 1805
and 1815, Britain's naval domination enabled her to establish market
precedence outside Europe, which, for the most part, was blockaded against
her by Napoleon. In some respects, it's fair to say that Napoleon, rather
than defeating Britain, actually created the conditions for her to be that
Hegemon after 1815.

 

It's revealing that the page Judy linked to (a discussion by Kagan on this
new work), makes no mention whatsoever of Trafalgar (unless the word was
indiscernible, in which case it was Kristol rather than Kagan). After all it
was only after Napoleon learnt of the French and Spanish defeat at Trafalgar
that he planned and implemented his Austerlitz campaign. 

 

The more I look at this, the more I suspect Kagan and Kristol are seeking to
create a revisionist view of history based on their Neocon slant. You've got
a lot of convincing to do Lawrence. 

 

For an alternative view of 'grand history' try:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Great_Powers

 

Simon

 

 

 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Lawrence <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>  Helm 

To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 

Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 12:46 AM

Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: France, a Rogue State in 1801-05

 

Kagan has taught at West Point, is considered a distinguished military
historian but, no doubt he doesn't measure up to your credentials which are
what?  Of course one doesn't needed credentials to present evidence, the
assumptions from which you might be able to draw a conclusion (missing in
the note below). He just completed the first volume on Napoleon.  I thought
there were to be three total volumes but Amazon.com says four.  I heard him
on C-Span and he had some interesting ideas.  

 

I don't know what the heck is wrong with you guys.  A distinguished
historian introduces some new ides and you and Andreas do a little clown
act.   If you don't have anything to add, any reference or example backing
up your claim that you know more than Kagan, then what are you doing?  Do
either of you know what a World Order is?  I know Andreas doesn't from what
he said, and I don't think you do either because you focused on "Hegemon"
and not the World order of which Britain was the protector and against which
Napoleon reacted.

 

 

Lawrence

 

 

 

 

 

 


  _____  


From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Simon Ward
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 2:41 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: France, a Rogue State in 1801-05

 

Britain wasn't the Hegemon until after 1805, once Nelson had defeated the
French and Spanish Navies at Trafalgar. Before then, though dominating naval
trade, she was unable to project her power onto the Continent. 

 

Note that Trafalgar enabled Britian to send an army onto the Iberian
Peninsular in 1808, the same army that crossed the Pyranees in 1814, even as
Britain was fighting the War of 1812 across the Atlantic. 

 

After 1805, based on its naval supremacy, Britain might be said to have been
the Hegemon. Before 1805, she was merely competing for the position, albeit
with a distinct financial advantage.

 

It sounds to me as though Kagan is erroneously projecting a world view back
in time supported by a deficient knowledge of European history.

 

Simon

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. lit-ideas
  3. Archive
  4. 08-2006