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

  • From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 11:59:19 -0700

Unlike Andreas, I have no source of information about history other than
from books.  Nevertheless unwilling to rely solely upon my memory, I went
out to the garage and rummaged through the lesser-used books and all I could
find on British history was A History of England by Charles Oman, 1907.  Oh
well, that should do.

 

Let's start with 1702.  "England, Holland, Austria, and most of the smaller
states of the Empire bound themselves to frustrate the union of France and
Spain . . ."

 

"War had been declared by England and her allies in 1702, but it was not
until 1703 that important operations began . . . ."

 

"Hitherto Churchill [Marlborough] had shown himself an able general, but no
one had taken the true measure of his abilities, or recognized the fact that
he was the greatest military man that England had ever known."  [LH: that
hyperbole might be contested but he was nevertheless successful against the
French.]

 

". . . he drove an army of 60,000 French before him and seized half the
duchy of Brabant, without losing more than 80 men."

 

"Great as were Marlborough's talents as a general, he was almost as notable
as a diplomatist . . . The Dutch, the Austrians, and the small princes of
the Empire had such divergent interest that it was a hard task to get them
to work together.  That they were kept from quarrelling and induced to
combine their efforts was entirely Churchill's work."    

 

In 1704 is the Battle of Belnheim.  Marlborough as usual outfights the
French.  "Eleven thousand men laid down their arms in Blenheim village when
they saw that their retreat was cut off; 15,000 more were drowned, slain, or
wounded, and not half the Franco-Bavarian army succeeded in escaping (August
13, 1704).

 

I'll skip the rest of the gory details in which the English defeat the
French time after time and move up to the end of the war and the Treaty of
Utrecht in 1712.  "By this agreement England recognized Philip V. as King of
Spain and the Indies, stipulating that Austria and Holland were to be
compensated out of the Spanish dominions in Italy and the Netherlands.
France ceded to England Newfoundland, Acadia -- since known as Nova Scotia
-- and the waste lands round Hudson's Bay.  Spain also gave up Gibraltar and
the important island of Minorca.  Both France and Spain signed commercial
treaties giving favourable conditions for English merchants.  Even the
long-closed monopoly of Spanish trade in South America was surrendered by
Asiento, in agreement which gave England certain rights of trade with those
parts . . . The minor allies of England also obtained advantages by the
treaty of Utrecht. . . . "

 

Oman describes the period 1739-1760 one in which Britain develops its
Colonial Empire.  Britain had defeated the only nations that could contest
it, France and Spain, and during this period developed its colonies and its
merchant trade.

 

Oman describes the period 1760-1783 as "George II and the Whigs -- the
American War."  Spain and France attempted to frustrate England in the new
world but they were not successful -- at least not successful in ways that
benefited France and Spain very much.  On the other hand the American
colonies were successful against England..  Despite the setback in America,
"England had reasserted her old maritime supremacy . .  . [against France
and Spain]."  We also see that a French and Spanish army had besieged
Gibraltar from 1779 to 1782 but Gibraltar withstood them.  Still, England
reached a low point during this period.

 

Pitt the Younger ruled from 1783-1792.  Oman describes this as a time of
"peace both at home and abroad."  What was the World Order that can
especially be seen during Pitt's rule?  "His enlightened views on Free Trade
were shown by a commercial treaty with France with took off many prohibitive
duties, and much increased the commerce between the two countries (1786).
This was a world of merchant trade -- a world order in which merchants went
hither and yon buying and trading whatever they liked.

 

The period 1789-1802 is described as "England and the French Revolution."
We enter here the period Kagan takes up in his book.  What Oman descries as
"the great war" began in February 8, 1793 and was to last, with two short
intervals till July 7, 1817.

 

We can see from these highlights that this century began with a war that
crushed the French and Spanish.  Britain in the Treaty of Utrecht in
1712-1713 obtained lands and rights that enabled it to establish its trading
rights throughout the world and to acquire the colonial empire upon which
the sun never sat.  Britain was successful in virtually all that it did
during this century until it encountered difficulty in America.  But then
Pitt learned from George III's mistakes and solidified the political and
economic gains Britain had made.  This involved the recognition of Free
Trade at which no nation was better than Britain.  

 

Let us return now to Andreas comment: "I don't need to read a book to know
that Kagan's point is wrong. In the 1700s, Britain was 

not the top global power. Kagan is wrong." 

 

I think all would agree that Andreas is wrong and Kagan is right.  Even
Andreas would agree if he would give up his resolve not to read a book.
There is no nation during the 18th century that is as powerful as Britain.
Britain was the top global power.  No nation compared to it.  There are only
certain nations that could contest Britain's ascendancy and these were the
nations Britain defeated during the 18th century.  

 

But enough!  I've wasted enough time on this.  Andreas needs to read a book.
I'm returning to Christopher Hitchens' Love, Poverty, and War."

 

Lawrence.

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Andreas Ramos
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 8:40 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: France, a Rogue State in 1801-05

 

> My arguments against Andreas and Simon can be summed up as

> that, they haven't read his book.

 

I don't need to read a book to know that Kagan's point is wrong. In the
1700s, Britain was 

not the top global power. Kagan is wrong.

 

Kagan is either rewriting history or presenting one-sided arguments to
bolster his political 

views.

 

yrs,

andreas

www.andreas.com

Other related posts:

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