Dispatches On War (Part IX)

Your insight into those European events of a while ago is simply fascinating – at least for this newcomer to history. I assume that you are letting it slowly build up to the two world wars. (Don’t answer that!)

I am intrigued by how much rivalry then existed between Great Britain and France. (Neither was much of a free-trader!) What was at the root of the rivalry? Language, culture, or simply a desire to dominate?

How did you reconstruct so vividly the “descriptive” information on the Battle of Trafalgar? War is truly hell. Yet the courage of some of the officers and their concept of honor was something else! (In contrast with what passes for “honor” in our sub-continent! (The British/French people would die with valor for honor – ours kill our women for “it”!))

From this side of the Atlantic, it is my understanding that we took full advantage of that rivalry – playing the two countries against each other to get maximum benefits for the US. Yet here we are today, we are friends with both countries – one is our “oldest ally” and the other a close friend who gave us the “statue of liberty” (what could be more American)! One protected us when we were just getting settled – the other sold to us our middle third – and boy what a bargain that turned out to be!

Was George Washington right – or was he right?!

At what point did imperialism start going out of style in Europe?

ANY two countries can fight – democracies or otherwise – but having different ideologies probably increases the chances of war.

re: bjkumar # 1

As I mentioned earlier, this series of articles is basically for my AP European history students and the general idea is to address the pivotal issues and their contextual background and consequeces. The plan is to reach the 1990s, but lets see how it pans out. The intent is not to discuss wars and battles, as much as try to understand the reasons why those events happened and a similar approach will be applied to the two world wars.

The rivalry between Great Britain and France is really interesting and it goes back to the days of the Norman conquest in 1066 AD and there are many reasons for it. Basically, what it boils down is a clash of British and French foreign policies. Throughout its history, France had to sought to dominate western Europe and Britain had sought to keep Europe divided and the rivalry was the result of this policy. I am simplifying it, but the generics are still valid.

As to the Battle of Trafalgar, the ``descriptive account`` is actually a composite. It includes historic accounts of the battle; movies, which showed the life abroad a Royal Navy ship and occassional visits to H.M.S. Victory, when even ever I ended up in London and from reading the Horatio Hornblower series of books. Incidently, Victory is the oldest commissioned ship on active duty and was commissioned in the same year that Nelson was born - 1758. It is presently dry docked in the Dock No. 2 at Portsmouth and still has a serving crew attached to it. It took nearly 2000 trees to make the ship and the timber came from British North America. It is older than than the USS Constitution by a few years. Visit it, if you get the chance. :)

Yes, it would seem that United States benefitted out of this Anglo-French tussle.

Geroge Washington started out as a land surveyor in Virginia and George knew a good piece of real estate, when he saw one! :)

Imperialism actually ended after the Second World War in Europe, when Europe was economically ruined. In fact, the origins of the post-1945 European process of de-colonization was inked in the Atlantic Charter signed between United States and Great Britain in 1941. According to that treaty, the United States promised to secretly support the British war effort and in return, Britain agreed to decolonize its empire. The salient point was that the United States wanted free market access to British colonies and did not like Britain having an economic monopoly over a large area of the world. The concept of British Commonwealth was the idea of Joseph Chamberlain, the uncle of Neville Chamberlain, and it was designed to promote free trade within the British empire and to overcome the problem of tariffs, which hurting international trade after the First World War.

The general idea was for the United States to replace Britain as the premier economic power after the war and it was for this reason, that the United States created a new economic regime based on the Brettonwood institutions - IMF and World Bank. The problem was that Stalin spoiled the plans by taking over Eastern Europe and not giving it back. The result was the Cold War, but the end of the Cold War did allow the United States to economically dominate the world till the Bush administration ruined that economic performance by its misadventures in Iraq. :)

However, imperialism still exists depending on your definition of the term. ;)

Ciao

This is an excellent article. I must read it again, it has to be perused more carefully.

I have been interested in the Duke of Wellington, since he really started his militay career in India as Arthur Wellesley. He did a bad job at Srirangapatnam.

Napoleon of course was not just a conqueror but a builder of a state. Parts of Code Napoleon are still followed in France and in many ways the little Corsican was an enlightened man. The deciphering of the Rosetta Stone etc was done by some of his army engineers.

I shall read your earlier articles. It was on a visit to the USS Constituion (which is the oldest commissioned floating naval ship) that I heard that the term sharp shooter originated from a Boston gunsmith whose prize rifles were given to the best marksmen to shoot with. They used to crouch above the rigging to pick off prime targets.

Do your earlier articles cover the role of the French Navy during the American War of Independence ?

And of course speaking of 1066 , any articles of how the Germanic tribes of the Angles, the Saxons and the Franks took over England and France and in virtually renamed Britain and Gaul with the names of their tribes.

This is just some historical triva, which might interest people.

The tradition of giving a diamond ring was started in 1477 when the Austrian king Maxmillian I presented a diamond ring to his wife, Mary of Burgandy, as a gift.

One can wonder if he used two months worth of taxes to pay for it. :)

The expression ``rule of thumb`` comes from a medieval practice, which allowed a man to beat his wife with a rod no thicker than his thumb.

The expression ``a square meal`` comes from the Royal Navy, where the sailors would be served their meals in square trays three times a day, which created the expression of ``three square meals a day`` and so does term ``learning the ropes``. Young British midshipmen (cadets) had to master tying different kinds of knots in the Royal Navy and this process of learning the different kinds of knots for different purposes was known as learning the ropes.

Ciao

Re: # 3

As of now, none of the articles covers the French naval operations during the American revolutionary war and as to Normans and England, since AP European History starts with 1450, I have no plans to cover that time period.

Interestingly, both Nelson and his second-in-command, Collingwood, were serving on different ships at the Battle of Saratoga against the French and Collingwood was senior to Nelson in terms of the tenure of his service in the Royal Navy.

I know very little of ancient history and in terms of Britain`s name, I have no idea. I am familar with the Roman period, but anything before it, I have only a passing interest. I will find out, because it is an interesting question you have posed and let you know, what I have discovered.

Ciao

Re: # 5

I`m curious as to role of the French Navy during the American War of Independence since I`ve heard varying accounts. I shall look at it some time.

The one battle of Nelson`s that I followed was the one where he really won his spurs as a senior commander, the battle of St. Vincent.

I have just purchased the 8 volume set of ``The barbarian invasions of the Roman Empire``. The 6th volume in that deals with the Frankish invasion of Gaul, and prior volumes speak of the the waves of Angle and Saxon settlements in Britain. In fact some of the Celtic peoples of Great Britain fled to then, Gaul and I believe that is why that area is still called Brittany. I must check on this. I just got interested in this bit.

Is it true that C Northcote Parkinson was an authority on Napoleonic wars?

Glad to see an article on something different than the usual chowk chakh-pakh.

#6 ```m curious as to role of the French Navy during the American War of Independence since I`ve heard varying accounts. ``

As I recall, the French Navy played a decisive role in the Battle of Yorktown by preventing re-inforcements from reaching Cornwallis from the sea. The Battle of Yorktown was Britain`s Waterloo in the War of the American Revolution, and Cornwallis surrendered and later moved on to India to create mischief for Tipu Sultan.

#3 I saw a fascinating account on the anglo-saxon invasion on the history channel i think the other day - it had to do with the legend of king arthur which was originally built up around the resistance of the local britons to the invasions by angles, saxons, jutes around 5 century AD. The anglo saxons won. Britain became England (from Angle-Land, land of the Angles). The To add insult to injury, the victorious anglo-saxons took to calling the defeated Britons ``foreigners`` (i.e. ``welsh``, and that indeed is the orgin of the ethnic group ``Welsh``, who were pushed into is now wales). Some defeated britons fled across the channel and settled in Brittany, France.

1066 was in a sense the Revenge of the Britons, since they were included in William`s forces that beat the Anglo-Saxons in 1066 and the french influence took over.

Someone needs to write an article on this on chowk. But for now, I think the napoleonic wars are fascinating enough. Thanks for the article, ferozk.

ferozk: When I was in school (so you know we are talking the middle ages here!! or the 1960`s to be more exact), I once checked out a book from the Army Library in Rawalpindi on Napoleon. It was written and published in the 19th century by a man named Abbott, who as I recall had actually met Napoleon. The book was about a thousand pages of fine print. I dont know if that book is still preserved there - but you might want to check it out. It provides a detailed account of his various wars, and what I still recall as an inspiring speech he made at sunrise on the day of the Battle of Austerlitz.

Of course, I am older and wiser now, :-) and have no use for such ``heroes`` who created so much bloodshed in the name of glory. If you have seen the garish Napoleon`s tomb in Paris, you will agree I think that it is is a true monument to megalomania.

Re: # 9

I think, I might have come across that book. My late grandfather had a book on Napoleon, which was quite similar to one you mentioned. It was about a thousand or plus pages with a very fine print as you have mentioned, which had black and white picture templates. It was of a darkish green color and very detailed. More books have been written on Napoleon than Jesus Christ, which goes to show the levels of megalomania we all aspire.

As to the tomb of Napoleon and of others, I ignore them and instead visit war cemetaries, which really impresses one with the true cost of glory. Tombs are the ultimate selfish act, because they seek to elevate a person on the basis of other`s achievment. Thousands died to make sure that Napoleon had his tomb and in fact, it would have been more fitting if Napoleon had been left buried in a simple grave on St. Helena where the British had buried him in 1821.

In this sense, I really respect the Americans. To the best of my memory, there is no tomb for any American general. The only expection might be George Washington, but he is commorated as a civilian leader - president of the United States and not as a military man. There are monuments to the soldiers, but not to the generals and the Vietnam War Memorial is good example of this practice. The British and the Germans also do not have tombs for their past great military leaders and in fact, I joke that nations which have lost more battles than they have won, have tombs for their military personalities.

A visit to the British Museum of War in London will show that all the great oil paintings there mark British military disasters and not victories.

The iconology of war and its remembrance is unique to each nation.

However, as a wit once said that most truest monument to the vanity of man was the concept of wars and in a sense, it is the calculated justification of the costs of war, which is the real measure of our meglamania.

The idea of having military forces is the outward symbolism of the vanity of our own sense of meglamania.

Ciao

You make a good point about the downplaying of military glory in the US. In Washington DC, there are a number of statues of generals, most of whom are actually non-Americans!! There are monuments to Simon Bolivar e.g. (the great liberator of South America after whom an entire country, Bolivia, is named) as well as some other Latin American heroes, to the frenchman Lafayette (who was GWs right hand man during the American Revolution) which occupies a place of prestige opposite the White House, to Gandhi, to Churchill, and to Einstein. The common denominator is that these were all men of peace or men who fought against tyranny.

And this is what makes America so great - the focus is on a set of universal ideals, rather than on nationalistic jingoism.

Also, independence day celebrations in the US are very different from much of the rest of the world - i.e. while other countries have a show of force (weapons, military formations) on that day, the July 4 celebrations in the US (including in Washington) have virtually no sign of the military anywhere - the parades are mostly school children playing bands and with the only ``military`` being men dressed up as revolutionary war soldiers, and the big event is a display of firewords.

Tahmed sahib,

USA`s military glory is displayed outside USA- in Iraq, `Nam, Afghanistan

Regards

Feroze sahib,

(The rivalry between Great Britain and France is really interesting and it goes back to the days of the Norman conquest in 1066 AD and there are many reasons for it. Basically, what it boils down is a clash of British and French foreign policies. Throughout its history, France had to sought to dominate western Europe and Britain had sought to keep Europe divided and the rivalry was the result of this policy. I am simplifying it, but the generics are still valid. )

Rightly said. And after 1870 Germany replaced France as the prime European power so UK became pally with France against Germany. After 1945, US entered equation on UK side and Russia replaced Germany as the prime continental power.

Regards

Tahmed , Ferozk, et al

Germany is a young country compared to England and France so has not won or lost enough battles. Pre Bismarck all you had was the Prussian Junkers jousting for power after the demise of the Hapsburgs.

Napoleon was not just a military man. He did create things like Code Napoleon , opened the first lycee for girls etc. He is still to be admired for what he acheived, though not for everything he did.

As for Washington, the American revolutionaries also had millions of livres sent from France to support their cause. It was not done in isolation. The tacit assumption was that the revolutionaries would help France drive the British from Canada. That didn`t work.

The war of 1812 was never really a victory for the Americans. They lost all the major battles. It was just not economically viable for the British to continue this war, when they could make money in India. In fact in the Hansard there are recorded debates of people complaining that every pound of shot, sugar sent across the water to sustain the war was a waste of time.

I think the American founding fathers had imperialistic ambitions too. In fact there is a book by Howard Zinn that touches on some of these facts. Of course these are opinions advanced by people from certain readings.

I wish I had enough time to read some of these books.

Incidentally William came over from Normandy to England , one to get the English throne but also because the Mad Fox, Henry 1 of France was looking for a chance to get rid of him. Since Henry was his suzerain William was never quite sure of his position in retaining the Normandy Duchy.

Do you think the USA is not jingoistic? I think it is very jingoistic. It needs to be. It is a young country made of immigrants. It needs the jingoism, the raising of the Flag, the chanting of ``USA, USA``.

Dear Mr. Khan

Its incredible! It was a pure joy to read you and I have not doubt in mind that you are a master story-teller too. I’ll have to read earlier chapters too. The content and the way you write should set the standard at chowk. Hats off to your knowledge and style.

Now, the last paragraph of Part IX seems to take us to roots of First World War, which I am sure you will detail. Don’t you think, imposition of tariffs by British, France, Germany and the US to secure profits of their respective countries and to some degree attempting to keep competitors out from areas where raw material was produced and idea of keeping the consumer-markets secured also, played more important role in the break out of 1st WW than means to meet the above objectives like naval strength etc.? Parentetically, the fact that industrialization had brought unprecedented market pressures to the fore.

I have asked above question out of my naïvete; please don`t mind if its too early to ask.
Regards.

Re: # 14

Yes, you are right. The intention is to slowly work towards the outbreak of the war in 1914. I have no set chronology, which I follow, but generally base my articles around a specific event and deal with the context; both before and after the event. Hence, there is a lot of over lapping in the series, but the many layers do help in the formulation of a comprehensive account.

First World War had many causes and though I am using the naval arms race between the Germans and British, it was by no means the only reason. Economics played a key role within the gambit of European imperialism itself and the process of industrialization. However, you are correct in the sense that access to markets was a very important consideration not only in terms of the war, but more crucially in the terms of fermenting the European tensions just prior to the outbreak of the war.

Actually, and I am getting ahead of the narrative here, the war happened due to the logic of ``military neccessity``. In fact, none of the diplomats ever lost the control of events and it was only when diplomacy appeased the military mobilization plans, that war became a distinct possibility. In fact, there was a proposal on the table made by the British to the Germans that if the Germans withdrew from Belgium, Britain would convince France to stop its own mobilization. Interestingly, Britain was the only nation in the crisis where the civilian political set up did not allow the military to influence the flow of events to the extent that the militaries of Russia, Austria, France and Germany were shaping the events.

The lesson of the British experience was the indelible impression that a strong civilian control of the military is a requiste for preventing wars and civilian political institutions should decide the issues pertaining to wars and peace and not the military. Sadly, we seem not to have learned this lesson as we keep repeating the mistake of appeasing the logic of ``military necessity``.

Ciao

Re: # 13

Yes, there was a marked streak of imperialism in United States and it was expressed under the idea of ``manifest destiny``, which would shape the the expansion of the United States in the nineteenth century.

The Monroe Doctrine was also a reflection of this idea, because by stating the western hemisphere was an American sphere of influence, United States was interested in consolidating its influence in the region. When the Monroe Doctrine was framed, the United States did not have the military means to compete with the Europeans in the imperial race and thus, adopted a diplomatic-moralism to keep the Europeans out of the Americas.

In answer to your question, the United States does have a jinoistic streak based on the concept of an American universalism, but it is not a military society per se. American military is the extension of American patriotism and it has always maintained a sense of idealism in its wars. The United States, does indeed wage wars, but it does on the basis of the ideals of the American revolution and not overtly, as the argument goess, for any territorial gains.

This doctrine, though in all fairness, has been pushed to the background since 1945, when the United States started to fight wars for territorial reasons, i.e. to prevent the communist from taking lands over ala ``the Domino Theory`` and now is fighting to prevent the Islamic fundementalist from taking over large areas of the Muslims world. The prevailing logic is the same, as it was under Woodrow Wilson and that is to make the Islamic world safe for democracy. The working synthesis of this idea was the Truman Doctrine, which combined American political idealism to a military posture in order to gain United States` strategic objectives in the world.

The only problem was, that in the present situation, the neo-cons simply ignored the political aspects in favor of a purely military option to gain United States` goals and therefore, what we are seeing in Iraq is the battle of American political idealism struggling with United States` political-military realism. :)

Ciao