|
The First Total War: Napoleon's Europe and the Birth of Warfare as We Know It |  | Author: David A. Bell
Publisher: Mariner Books
Category: Book
List Price: $15.95
Buy New: $2.95
as of 9/8/2010 01:37 MDT details
You Save: $13.00 (82%)
New (20) Used (33) from $2.95
Seller: whypaymorebooks
Rating:  10 reviews
Sales Rank: 82807
Media: Paperback
Pages: 432
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.2
Dimensions (in): 8.6 x 5.6 x 1.1
ISBN: 0618919813
Dewey Decimal Number: 940.27
EAN: 9780618919819
ASIN: 0618919813
Publication Date: January 16, 2008
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
| |
| Features:
| • | ISBN13: 9780618919819 | | • | Condition: New | | • | Notes: BUY WITH CONFIDENCE, Over one million books sold! 98% Positive feedback. Compare our books, prices and service to the competition. 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed |
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
| |
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
The twentieth century is usually seen as “the century of total war,” but as the historian David Bell argues in this landmark work, the phenomenon actually began much earlier, in the age of Napoleon. Bell takes us from campaigns of “extermination” in the blood-soaked fields of western France to savage street fighting in ruined Spanish cities to central European battlefields where tens of thousands died in a single day. Between 1792 and 1815, Europe plunged into an abyss of destruction, and our modern attitudes toward war were born. Ever since, the dream of perpetual peace and the nightmare of total war have been bound tightly together in the Western world—where “wars of liberation,” such as the one in Iraq, can degenerate into gruesome guerrilla conflict.
With a historian’s keen insight and a journalist’s flair for detail, Bell exposes the surprising parallels between Napoleon’s day and our own in a book that is as timely and important as it is unforgettable.
|
| Customer Reviews:
Showing reviews 1-5 of 10
 A Compelling Study of a Fundamental Cultural Shift July 8, 2009
Patrick Yeung (Anaheim, California)
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
Enlightenment produced new currents of thoughts that repudiated the military culture of the old regime as merely pursuit of honor and glory. According to Bell, since the religious wars, modern European states and its concomitant aristocratic culture `placed surprising limits on war' by mutually agreeing to a code of conduct to protect POWs, enemy noncombatants, etc. In a sense, the aristocratic wars were really `large-scale duels with moral issues subordinated to the thirst for honor and glory' that treated enemy as `honorable adversaries' and recoiled from inflicting needless human sufferings. Hence, Louis XIV's razing of the Palatinate particularly outraged and courted collective condemnation.
Bell singled out Fenelon and his work, Telemachus, for corroding the adhesion to the aristocratic war culture. Its exhortation of the aged-old `claims of conscience, denunciation of war and Christian pacifism' gained a huge following in France. D'Holbach's The System of Nature, another bestseller, proposed a theory of history to explain the persistence of warfare as an `incomplete embrace of modernity - to remnants of barbarism.' War was just a stage in the progress to universal peace. In the minds of the reading public, these works `transformed peace from a moral imperative to a historical one... and opened the door to the idea that in the name of future peace, any and all means might be justified - including even exterminatory war.'
The cataclysmic social transformation of the French Revolution opened an opportunity for the execution and reinterpretation of those ideals. The Assembly debate on war and peace at the Manege underscored an acute shift from aristocratic concept of wars. Bell observed that new leaders such as Brissot `saw international relations in idealistic terms straight out of Telemachus.' The Girondins successfully made a declaration of peace but simultaneously asserted that `peoples had the right to defend themselves vigorously if attacked.' War rhetoric took a fanatical turn: `A coming `worldwide war of liberation was a holy cause; we will only be "regenerated" by blood; we need strong explosions to expel strong poison in the body of France.'
The Revolution spurred the conviction that war was `a matter of morality and not science or aristocratic art,' no longer the `chess piece maneuvers of the aristocrats.' The democratization of the hitherto aristocratic monopoly of glory and honor formed the plank of the modern culture of war. Individual soldiers and military leaders could enjoy upward mobility by battlefield achievements. The immediate consequence was the rise of `political generals,' with Napoleon being its chief representative. The glorification of war successes underscored the military's moral superiority, the heart of militarism, which 'imposed the values and customs of the military on the civilian society.' For example, the Battle of Valmy gained legendary status that reverberated in the civilian society.
The birth a total war was complete when the French army with new leaders had to quell internal and external threats. The culture of war spawned a `virtual cult of martyrdom.' The sensual treatment of young Joseph Bara's death and the Republic's reaction cultivated a demonization of the enemy and intensified the `rhetoric of a war to the death.' War assumed a religious character and termed as a 'clash of proselytisms.' The spontaneous Vendee peasant uprisings was the apotheosis of this new war. The military viewed `all Vendeans as potentially soldiers and dedicated rebels' hence this `erasure of the line between combatants and non combatants brought about the wanton slaughter of both.' Both sides adopted this total war unleashing unspoken cruelty. Evidence could be found from Calabria to Saragosa.
This riveting and fascinating narrative charted the formation of a new war culture but the story falls short. In the introduction, Bell remarked on Americans' treatment of `armed forces with respect verging on reverence' and the apocalyptic rhetoric used in the war of terror eerily mirrored the revolutionaries. How did this modern `culture of war' metastasize and subsume into the fabric of western civilization and beyond? Bell's observations and evidence found in literature seem to support his theory but a further examination would greatly boost credibility.
Great book by a leading historian February 21, 2009
Lehigh History Student
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
David Bell provides an interesting thesis through an intellectual look at the French Revolution and Napoleonic wars and their effect on European culture and thinking. The rise of militarism and the move towards modernity in the army is categorized well throughout and supported by looking at actions from Vendee, Italy, Egypt, Prussia and Spain. From brutalizing campaigns where the limited warfare of the old regime was cast aside in favor of not only large scale relentless battles but guerilla actions. The book is not simply a recasting of the great battles but combines the results of these battles with popular works of literature and theater at the time and the shifts in beliefs from the intellectuals down to the masses. Bell as always delivers a fresh look at a tired topic by utilizing the aspects of intellectual history and using them as a lens to view various events. In this case we see the development of a new type of warfare and how it crystallized in the Napoleonic era. The reason that I use the word interesting and disagree with various reviewers is that Bell thesis is not flawed but the fact that this warfare did not stick and went back to a traditional European model means it did not become dominant until later on. It planted the idea that this type of war could be waged and laid the groundwork for some of the great military minds to publish works such as On War creating new tactics and strategies to shape future wars. Overall well worth the time for those who enjoy military history or the exciting things that intellectual history can unlock when looking at a topic.
Very accessible and interesting book November 4, 2008
mathprof (Baltimore, MD USA)
2 out of 3 found this review helpful
David Bell is a leading academic historian who specializes in early modern European history with an emphasis on the French revolution. I purchased this book on a whim since the price was right. I thought it would be too technical compared to the history books that I usually read. I was surprised by how accessible and gripping the book was. My only quibble was that I felt that he should have reserved the comparisons between the current Iraq war (lots of mistakes) with the Napoleonic wars for the afterward. In my opinion they interrupted the flow of the book. On the other hand, there weren't too many of these asides.
This summer, I gave my copy to a nephew who is also a history buff.
 Interesting, But with the Usual Academic Flaws August 2, 2008
David M. Dougherty (Arkansas)
25 out of 29 found this review helpful
Mr VanGaalen's review is pretty much on point, but I rated this book somewhat lower due to several flaws.
First, Total War of any definition is not a modern concept, whether it developed first under Napoleon or not. The Greeks of Ionia certainly fought multiple total wars against the Persians, as did many tribes and states in ancient history. One should remember the Jews against the Assyrians and Babylonians and the disappearance of the "Lost Tribes." In more modern times, the Thirty Years War was a "Total War" for Germany in which the population fell by over three-quarters. In all of these conflicts politics and warfare were integrated and the populace was fully mobilized for war.
Our modern conception of Total War, like most of our narcissistic attitudes, tends to enhance the importance of our time in history. In a similar vein, one could argue that the creation of a national holiday for Martin Luther King Jr was not to honor King, but to honor someone (anyone) from our own time -- we knew him, and were therefore more important as a result. With respect to a "militaristic" society, it can be argued that Sparta, Imperial Rome, Turkist and Mongol tribes were all highly militaristic societies that far eclipsed modern societies with the possible exception of Nazi Germany.
Secondly, the interspersing of titillating events such as the atrocities during the Napoleonic wars like castration, Napoleon's love life, and the like in the text were obviously ploys to attract a wider readership and not welcome. The author has apparently never experienced combat, otherwise he would know that dead and captured French soldiers routinely suffered having their genitals cut off and put in their mouths during their campaigns in Mexico, North Africa and Vietnam as did Americans troops in Vietnam. But even the venal American media decided to omit those details from their reporting as not adding anything to their presentations.
Lastly, the left-wing author felt compelled to follow many of his politically allied academics into comparing whatever his discourse was covering to the actions of President Bush and his conservative base. All of this author's silly excursions into this polemic were off-base, and they added nothing to the discussion of the Napoleonic times versus the formal and limited warfare of the 18th century in Europe.
Clearly the author feels that the French Revolution was the most important event in history, a viewpoint often found in European historical works. The American Revolution meant little or nothing in the course of history which is dominated by Europe and its political evolution under civil (Roman) law for the writers of such works. Bell seems oblivious to the formation and role of militias since the Middle Ages, and overlooks the fact that most leaders in history have developed through military feats. Instead he subscribes to militarism as being a new feature now common in Western culture. Spare me the far-left propaganda! Bacevich's treatise is totally wrong, and yes, "...no one who has not been in combat can ever really understand 'what it is like' or how it changes a person." Obviously the author disagrees, but I fear he limits his disagreement to intellectual elites in academia (with tenure) like himself.
On the positive side, the book was very readable and his flowing treatment of the times for developing nation states, "enlightenment" and citizen involvement is excellent. I would have given Bell a "4" for this book for the historical treatment of 1770-1815 if he had been able to keep his political preaching out of the text.
Flawed but fascinating May 8, 2008
Rick W (Auckland, Auckland New Zealand)
4 out of 4 found this review helpful
As a brief history of the late Enlightenment and the French Revolution: 4 stars
As a brief history of the Napoleonic Wars (only 3 of 8 chapters): 3 stars
As a coherent political theory: 2 stars
On average, this amounts to 3 stars and makes for a light readable history accompanied by some often interesting theory. However, if you're getting the book based on its title, 2.5 stars might be more accurate.
The history itself is fine, making for a broad overview with a few good insights, so my critique will focus on the theory and the parallels Bell draws.
Bell is not an idiot and seems to have a good grasp of general history, capable of soberly pointing out that the total American casualties in the War on Terror have so far amounted to less than what the Russians would have suffered in an average 6 hours during WWII. Yet he will often come up with the most inane comments to keep the book contemporary. For instance, he repeatedly states how "uncannily similar" the guerrilla war in Spain is to the current Iraq insurgency. "Uncannily similar" in what sense? The answer seems to be that they're both insurgencies - just like Afghanistan, Somalia, Vietnam, Lebanon, and thousands of other historical insurgencies. Arguably Iraq has more in common with the Jewish revolt against the Romans than with the Peninsula War. But then, of course, if he argued that, he would be admitting that fanatical insurgency predates the French Revolution by a long margin.
What he terms "Total War" is also problematic. The West has only fought a handful of total wars since Napoleonic times. Instead, less technologically advanced societies have tended to be the ones to most fully mobilize their populations in war. But is this really a modern phenomenon? Bell admits city states fought total wars in this [his] sense, but so too did tribal societies, nomadic pastoralists, and small colonies. Some of the religious wars of the 16th and 17th century seemed pretty total too. Perhaps he has things the wrong way around and it is "limited war" that needs explaining.
On the other hand, he is right to emphasise the role the French Revolution played in the military/civilian split, the advent of the literate soldier, and the rise of propaganda. He also brings up the birth of the philosophical concept of a War to End All Wars (in the non-Biblical sense, of course). Did these things lead to Total War though? He is unconvincing. Wars had already long been fought as much to eliminate other powers as for plunder or to keep a system of powers in balance. "Delenda Carthago/Carthage must be destroyed" is not a modern call to war.
Showing reviews 1-5 of 10
|
|
|
Contact Military Topix
Privacy and Legal CERTAIN CONTENT THAT APPEARS ON THIS SITE COMES FROM AMAZON SERVICES LLC. THIS CONTENT IS PROVIDED ‘AS IS’ AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE OR REMOVAL AT ANY TIME. Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| |
