In the profusion of books that have appeared in recent months around the bicentenary of Napoleon’s death, here is one that stands out. By its mass first: 880 pages of text, 30 maps, 180 pages of notes, 60 of bibliography (more than 1,100 titles cited) and 40 for the index. But above all by its planetary ambition and its deliberate choice to broaden if not entirely modify the familiar perspective. And, as if to signify from the outset that, despite its title, The Napoleonic wars, the work of Alexander Mikaberidze is not centered exclusively on the person and the role of the Emperor, its cover relegates the inevitable image of Bonaparte prancing to the Great Saint-Bernard in a sort of blue night, eclipsed by the luminous disc of a world which it does not dominate.
Alexander Mikaberidze, The Napoleonic Wars. A global story. Trad. from English (United States) by Thierry Piélat. Flammarion, 1,184 p., € 39
The author, born Georgian, of Russian culture, teacher in an American university and passionate since his childhood by the French hero most known in the world, embodies through his personal journey a form of universality without borders. We find this in the multiplicity of languages used for the bibliography: the 945 books or articles mentioned under secondary literature were published in 16 different languages - including Georgian, Turkish, Bulgarian, Danish, Finnish , Swedish, Dutch… It will therefore be difficult for the average reader to go back to the source each time, but we will trust Alexander Mikaberidze. Fortunately, most of the works referenced are cited in more common languages: French (21%), Russian and German (4% each), Spanish and Italian (1.5 and 1%). The lion’s share nevertheless goes to English (64%), and this is perhaps one of the setbacks of this globalized history: it is seen largely through the prism of Anglo-Saxon historiography, even if the latter is obviously not unanimous. For the French reader, it may be a chance to look at the world differently, to relativize the scheme to which he was used.
In this regard, we can regret that the editors did not make the effort to find the references of the original editions or of the French translations of certain works available in our language. It is curious to see oneself referred to English translations of Bergeron, Chastenet, Chaussinand-Nogaret, Colson, Godechot or Madelin; or to find cited only the English editions of works which have been translated into French (Englund, Liéven, Hazareesingh, in particular), or the only English version of works written in Russian or German (even though some have been additionally, translated into French). This defect would be easy to correct in a new edition.
“The Battle of Tudela” by January Suchodolski (1827)
–
It is a safe bet that this history of the Napoleonic wars, which is in fact a history of international relations at the time of Napoleon, will serve as a reference for a long time. Alexander Mikaberidze follows on from some great ancestors such as Albert Sorel, Émile Bourgeois, Édouard Driault or André Fugier, on the French side, John Holland Rose or Paul Schroeder on the English side [1]. However, it differs from its predecessors in that it is almost entirely limited, after two introductory chapters, to the truly Napoleonic years (1799-1815); and above all by paying much greater attention to non-European regions. These are most often presented from the perspective of their particular histories and not only as issues of the great Franco-English war, even if the latter largely affects them.
The framework of the book is first of all chronological, with regard to the relations between France and the other powers of Europe, even if certain aspects of the conflict take place overseas. Then six thematic chapters deal with the margins: Scandinavia, the Ottoman Empire, Iran, the peripheral operations of the Navy, India, the Americas. The last three chapters take up the plot of the main story before the concluding chapter. And it is the parts devoted to the rest of the world which obviously seem the most novel: they provide a luxury of unusual and often fascinating details, which broaden our perception of world history and allow the occasion to shed light on certain issues of our present. They also show London and Paris observing each other closely in all four parts of the world, Napoleon often taking the initiative, but being ultimately held in check, for reasons linked both to the structural weaknesses of France and to a certain inconsistency. of its diplomatic action.
Regarding the best-known matters, Mikaberidze’s account, supported by very good maps, is generally sure and his judgments admissible. We regret some errors of detail, which may be due to the translation (otherwise excellent). A complete enumeration would be tedious, but a careful rereading will have to eliminate these few imperfections. [2] for future editions of an authoritative book. We also regret the absence of Stein in the account of the events of 1812-1813, although he played an essential role there, as well as the lack of nuances in the presentation of the role of Bonaparte during the Germanic recess of 1802-1803.
Some shape points too. Why write more than once “a historian (English, German…) writes”, instead of naming him? This would save the reader from having to search through the notes for who it is, even though handling a volume of this size, printed on Bible paper, is not practical – and all the more so. that nothing indicates at the top of the pages of notes which chapter one is in. Another embarrassing point, the way (more and more widespread, unfortunately) to designate the smallest character by the myriad of his first names, even his titles and complementary names: this slows down the reading without use since these indications are included in the index ; we would also save a good twenty pages in total.
But the essential is not there: this remarkable sum is reliable and almost exhaustive. Alexander Mikaberidze shows that “the Napoleonic wars”, if they include an ideological dimension inherited from the French Revolution, are also the extension of the secular rivalry with Great Britain for the domination of the planet. The confrontation takes place on all the continents and all the seas of the globe, like the Seven Years’ War already half a century earlier. It is inexpiable and France undoubtedly did not have the assets to prevail, even if its domination over Europe, carried by the genius of Napoleon, may have been an illusion for some time.
By 1810, France no longer had any overseas footholds and found itself locked behind the parapets of old Europe. One cannot help but wonder, on several occasions, whether the Emperor’s mistakes did not offer his adversary decisive advantages: the abandonment of the Persian and Ottoman alliances in the drunkenness of Tilsit; the invasion of Spain which opens a second land front and provides the South American market to the English; the appointment of Bernadotte as King of Sweden; and the war waged in Russia at the very moment when the United States was declaring war on their former metropolis and inflicting rather severe blows on it. Over time, without these mistakes, and thanks to the launch of dozens of ships under construction in Antwerp or Venice, a different future may have been conceivable. But Napoleon, it is the reverse of his audacious genius, and no doubt also the effect of his youth, has never been able to leave from time to time.
There remains the balance sheet. These twenty years will have shaped the face of the XIXe century. Britain will now be the only great power, with Russia replacing France as its main rival. Europe has taken a decisive lead over the rest of the world: it is then that the “great divergence” occurs. Of Napoleon, there will remain the myth and the dream.
A solid and highly recommendable book, therefore, which testifies to an immense and perfectly dominated knowledge, a mass of knowledge that it is rare to find gathered in a single author. The student can use it as an updated manual to learn about the international history of the period in all its dimensions. The curious reader will discover picturesque episodes, such as the odyssey of the frigate Phaeton in Nagasaki, the naval battle of 1812 on Lake Erie or the vagaries of the Russo-Iranian war on the shores of the Araxis. With all the more pleasure that the book is written very fluently and is easy to read.
-
Albert Sorel, Europe and the French Revolution, 8 vol., 1887-1904; Émile Bourgeois, Historical Manual of Foreign Policy, tome 2 : The revolutions (1789-1830), 1920; Edouard Driault, Napoleon and Europe, 5 vol., 1910-1927 ; André Fugier, The French Revolution and the Napoleonic Empire, volume 4 by Pierre Renouvin (ed.), History of international relations, 1954 ; John H. Rose, The Revolutionary and Napoleonic Era 1789-1815, 1894 ; Paul W. Schroeder, The Transformation of European Politics (1763-1848), 1994.
-
Let us quote this Prime Minister George Hammond (p. 73) or this Carnot Minister of War in 1793 (p. 86); “Governor” is Morris’s first name and not his office (p. 106); the French did not “take” three fortresses in 1800 (p. 129); the Comte de Boigne had returned from India in 1796 (p. 137); it is not correct that the princes of the Holy Empire supported the revolutionary armies (p. 155); fraternity was not part of the French currency until 1848 (p. 156); there were 4,500 dead in Eylau, double if we include the Russians, no ” dozens of thousands ”(P. 326); the “ realistic Are royalists and not realists (p. 403); it is the Elbe (river), and not the island of Elba, which is blocked (p. 482); the first English occupation of the Cape dates from 1795 (p. 629), etc.
–
