• HOME

  • Bones of Burgos

  • FORUM

  • FRENCH REVOLUTION

    • Origins
    • Events
    • French Revolutionary Wars
    • The Revolution Abroad
    • The Glorious First of June
    • The Battle of Cape St Vincent
    • Occupied Europe
    • Napoleon's Early Life
    • 1793: The Siege of Toulon
    • 1796-7: Napoleon in Italy
    • 1798: Egypt Campagin
    • The War of the Second Coalition
    • The Battle of the Nile
    • Napoleon's Coup
    • War in the West Indies 1793-1801
  • NAPOLEONIC WARS

    • British Politics, 1793-1815
    • Invasion Scares in Britain, 1793-1815
    • The Peace of Amiens, 1802
    • The Redeclaration of War, 1803
    • 1805: The Battle of Trafalgar
    • 1805: Austerlitz
    • 1806: Jena-Auerstedt
    • 1807: Friedland
    • 1809: The Walcheren Expedition
    • 1809: Wagram
    • 1812: Napoleon's Invasion of Russia
    • 1813: Leipzig
    • 1815: Waterloo
    • Expanding Britain's Empire
    • Death, Glory and Legacy
  • PENINSULAR WAR

    • 1808: The War Begins
    • 1809-10: Weathering the Storm
    • 1811: Stalemate
    • 1812: Breaking the Deadlock
    • 1813: Breakout
    • 1814: The Endgame
    • Wellington's Letters
  • LEARN MORE

    • Reviews
    • TEACHER'S ZONE
    • ABOUT
    • CHANNEL
  • Members

  • More

    Use tab to navigate through the menu items.
    To see this working, head to your live site.
    • Categories
    • All Posts
    • My Posts
    Kevin F. Kiley
    Aug 21, 2020

    British Anti-Napoleon Propaganda

    in General Discussions

    The following quotations are a selection of excerpts of British anti-Napoleon propaganda of the period after Napoleon became head of state in France in late 1799. This material was written and published in an attempt to demonize and defame Napoleon for two reasons: the British considered him a deadly enemy of Great Britain, and to criticize with propaganda in order to picture Napoleon as evil.


    The selections can be found in The Secret War Against Napoleon: Britain’s Assassination Plot on the French Emperor by Tim Clayton.


    However, the question I have for the forum regarding this 'information' is how much it has influenced the study of Napoleon himself and how much is still be used by present day authors and historians (the two are not necessarily synonymous)?


    Two of the quotations, by Coleridge and Whitbread, are apparently replies to the constant stream of anti-Napoleonic propaganda.


    ‘As to Buonaparte himself, there is every feature in his character, every circumstance in his conduct, to render it certain that no species of fortune, mental and bodily, no sort of infamy, which a malignant spirit, a depraved imagination, and a heart black with crimes of the deepest dye, can possible suggest, or a hand, still reeking with the blood of murdered innocence and stimulated by the most insatiable thirst of vengeance, can inflict, which will not be exhausted upon the conquered inhabitants of the British empire.-Anti-Jacobin Review, xv, 332-333, 1803.


    ‘A revolutionist by constitution, a conqueror by subordination, cruel and unjust by instinct, insulting in victory, mercenary in his patronage; an inexorable plunderer and murderer, purchased by the victims whose credulity he betrays, as terrible by his artifices as by his arms, dishonoring valor with ferocity, and by the studied abuse of public faith, crowning immorality with the palms of philosophy, tyranny and atheism with the cloak of religion, and oppression with the cap of liberty.’-Revolutionary Plutarch, II, 204; 227.


    ‘An obscure Corsican, that began his murderous career by turning his artillery upon the citizens of Paris-who boasted in his public letter from Pavia of having shot the whole municipality-who put the helpless, innocent, and unoffending inhabitants of Alexandria, man, woman, and child, to the sword till slaughter was tired of its work-who against all the laws of war, put near 4,000 Turks to death in cold blood, after their surrender-who destroyed his own comrades by poison.’-Buonaparte’s True Character, Wheeler and Broadley, Invasion, II, 284.


    ‘The contents of these volumes are interesting in a remarkable degree; as detailing, either from personal knowledge, or from accredited works of other writers, the lives, conduct, and crimes, of every person distinguished as a relative, a courtier, a favorite, a tool, an accomplice, or a rival of the Corsican upstart, who has hitherto with impunity oppressed, and plundered the continent of Europe; and as exhibiting at the same time a clear display of the extraordinary kind of police by which Paris is now regulated. Such a mass of moral turpitude as is here displayed, yet in a form that leaves little room to suspect its authenticity makes up blush for out species.’-European Magazine XLV, 56, 1804.


    ‘Fear is always cruel…In the late war and in the present the British Ministry has been loudly accused of participating in, and encouraging those plans of assassination, which have been directed against the person of the chief magistrate of France. Let the ministry, if they can with truth, vindicate themselves from so black a charge by a solemn and authentic disavowal; and let the British public show the high honor and intrepid courage, for which they have long been renowned, by consigning to merited contempt and abhorrence all works, together with their authors, who direct tendency is to degrade the generous and high-spirited patriot into the lurking assassin.’-Annual Review and History of Literature II, 510, 1803.


    ‘It has been considered an appropriate appendage to this work, to republish the celebrated pamphlet of ‘Killing no Murder,’ one of the most singular controversial pieces the political literature of our country has to boast; one of those happy productions which are perpetually valuable, and which, whenever a usurper reigns, appears as if written at the moment, and points with equal force at a Protector-or a Consul.’-originally from Killing No Murder directed against Oliver Cromwell and resurrected to be against First Consul Bonaparte.


    ‘It will, we trust, be amply sufficient for our purpose, to remind our readers that the doctrines and principles in question had for their object, not merely the revolution in France, but that of the whole world-That the usurping rulers of France have laboured, with unremitting assiduity for the accomplishment of this object-That the war was entered into with the Emperor in order to complete the overthrow of the French monarchy, according to the well-known declaration of Bissot, ‘It was the abolition of royalty I had in view in causing the war to be declared!-That hostilities were afterwards extended to other countries in pursuance of the impious design, announced by the declaration of fraternity, of affording military assistance to the disaffected of all countries-And that in furtherance of the same scheme of universal revolution, France has had her emissaries in every state, to inculcate her doctrines and to incite the people to insurrection.-Anti-Jacobin Review I, 27, 1798.


    ‘Mr Pitt railed most bitterly at the character of Bonaparte…But the truth is Mr Pitt knows Bonaparte to be sincere, and, therefore, will not negotiate, because the negotiations would lead to a peace, which peace would baffle that idle hope of restoring the French monarchy, which, spite of the document sent to Petersburgh, is and has been the real object of Ministers, both in beginning and continuing the war.’-Samuel Taylor Coleridge, as written in the Morning Post, 6 February 1800.


    ‘Every topic that can revile, and every art that can blacken, has been resorted to, for purposes of political slander; and I am very sorry to see that the Intercepted Correspondence from Egypt, strengthened, and embellished with notes, and perhaps, too, garbled, has made its appearance to prejudice the country against the chief consul, and thereby to set at a distance every hope of a negotiation for peace.’-MP Samuel Whitbread, 3 February 1800.


    ‘The intrigues of the French, the servile, the insidious, the insinuating French, shall be the object of my constant attention. Whether at war or at peace with us, they still dread the power, envy the happiness, and thirst for the ruin of England. Collectively and individually, the whole and every one of them hate us. Had they the means, they would exterminate us to the last man…while we retain one drop of true British blood in our veins, we shall never shake hands with this perfidious and sanguinary race, much less shall we make a compromise with their monkey-like manners and tiger-like principles.’-Prospectus of a New Daily Paper to be entitled The Porcupine by William Cobbett, September 1800.


    331 comments
    0
    331 Comments

    Share Your ThoughtsSign up to leave a comment.

    tomholmberg
    Sep 14, 2020

    Really. This thread needs to be put out of it's misery.

    Like
    J
    john fortune
    Sep 14, 2020
    Replying to

    Shhh. You'll wake it.

    Like

    Kevin F. Kiley
    Sep 09, 2020

    As an addendum, you really should read the books especially if you're going to refer to them in postings:



    books.google.com
    The French Army Before Napoleon

    https://www.amazon.com/General-Bonaparte-Revivals-Military-History/dp/0751200395/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=9780751200393&linkCode=qs&qid=1599673489&s=books&sr=1-1


    https://www.amazon.com/Swords-Around-Throne-Napoleons-Grand/dp/0029095018/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=swords+around+a+throne&qid=1599673528&s=books&sr=1-2


    If you wish to discuss them further, I have all three on my desk ready to refer to any section you might care to read.

    Like
    D
    david Tomlinson
    Sep 09, 2020
    Replying to

    @Kevin F. Kiley I will not respond to threats.

    Like

    Kevin F. Kiley
    Sep 09, 2020
    Replying to

    @Zack White I did not 'threaten' anyone.

    Like

    Z
    Zack White
    Sep 09, 2020
    Replying to

    @Kevin F. Kiley To quote you: "I'm a retired Marine. And being disrespectful towards a Marine and any of his friends can be unpleasant."


    That is a threat. If you cannot recognise that as a threat, that is not my concern.

    Like

    David Hollins
    Sep 08, 2020

    But why is Elting above criticism, when every book is critiqued on publication and many years later. Often, the comments will revolve around the approach taken and the material used (viz. the thread on HW and Bowden), with addiction all remarks on how the world has changed in later critiques.

    I am sure Elting would have taken the same view as Chandler in that he didn’t mind being proven 100% wrong, because the later researcher must have started with his book. As I said, pretty much everyone starts with these old survey books, but then might do specialist work of their own. There is no appetite to rewrite these surveys, but to focus on subjects they only cover in outline. Surely that is how historical method works - not by setting one author’s work in stone.

    Like
    David Hollins
    Sep 09, 2020
    Replying to

    @Kevin F. Kiley Now read the rest of p.81 and the footnotes. Then you might consider why Elting writes this, but does not list la guerre in his bibliography and the 1757 memories are only listed under Chap 1.

    Like

    Kevin F. Kiley
    Sep 09, 2020
    Replying to

    @david.a.hollins Col Elting wrote what he did because it is accurate. Perhaps if you would be just a little more careful in your opinions, it might be better for all of us.


    The rest of page 81 in Swords does not mention Bourcet, his work, or anything else on that subject. It does mention Berthier, Mathieu-Dumas and the need for staff officers.


    So your point was what? I guess I missed it.

    Like

    R
    Rob Wolters
    Sep 13, 2020
    Replying to

    @david.a.hollins Did you read Elting directly or as quoted by Kiley? I ask, because I don't have "Swords around a Throne" and I wonder whether this discussion might be based on careless writing and/or reading. I did find an example online including p. 81 and the extensive quote from Wilkinson is not there. In his post of 25 January in the "Chief of Staff" discussion Kevin starts with a quote from "The Superstategists" followed by a comment. Then a lengthy quote from Wilkinson, followed by several paragraphs from "Swords around a Throne". The source of the first quote is given at the end of it, but the sources of the next two quotes precede them. This is not immediately obvious, because confusingly there is a blank line after the reference and not before it. The reference at first glance seems to belong to the preceding paragraph, but actually belongs to the next one(s). See the ": " at the end of it. Kevin's quote:


    ‘In 1764 Bourcet was appointed Director of a Staff College at Grenoble, where he taught the art of war for seven years, during which he wrote for his pupils a treatise entitled Principes de la Guerre de Montagnes. The book was not intended for publication, but a number of copies were made, of which one was sent in 1775 to the Ministry of War, and others appear to have been circulated among the students and other officers who could be trusted. In 1888 the work was printed but not published by the French Ministry of War. It contains the whole art of generalship as it was understood by the best French officers of the eighteenth century, and it is the more interesting because the principles are illustrated by a series of examples of actions in almost every one of which Bourcet himself had planned the operations. They are also further illustrated by an imaginary campaign in the Maritime Alps, of which Bourcet knew every inch and which were to be the scene of Napoleon’s first essays in planning campaigns.’
    
    

    is from Wilkinson, both in the "Chief of Staff" discussion as here.


    Like

    D
    david Tomlinson
    Sep 07, 2020

    @Kevin F. Kiley that’s exactly what I mean. A more modern style would be to reference your sources directly, not direct you to go on a fishing expedition. When you couple this with “you can’t prove a negative” this is merely an exercise in confirmation bias. Perfectly acceptable at the time, but not rigorous enough today.

    Like
    H
    Hans - Karl Weiß
    Sep 08, 2020
    Replying to

    @john fortune



    "It seems to me that the unjust criticism to historians such as Col  Elting and others is because they are sympathetic to Napoleon and the  Grande Armee, nothing more, nothing less."

    The old victimization approach, which is a last ditch effort - or ad hominem attacks.


    One of my favorite author Stephane Beraud - is clearly sympathetic to Nabulienoe.



    Like

    D
    david Tomlinson
    Sep 08, 2020
    Replying to

    @Kevin F. Kiley Yet again (for I think the 6th time?) this is not a criticism of Elting, or anyone else for that matter. I don’t quite know what more I can do to convince. Times have changed, and as I think @david.a.hollins rightly identified, the need for these broad survey types of works has probably past. There was a time they made sense, when primary sources were hard to find, dusty archives could only be visited and their indexes inspected in person. No casual enthusiast wanted to buy big expensive ‘serious’ history books, perhaps in foreign languages, for may be one or two interesting ‘nuggets’. Perhaps we needed someone to trawl through all this and produce something readable and entertaining out of it. We probably didn’t even mind the odd myth getting repeated. We had more deference and were more willing to take opinion at face value. We had neither the money time or inclination to do it for ourselves. But that was then, and this is now. The digitisation revolution means primary sources are just a Googlebooks click away. We can find a copy in Gallica. Many Kew indexes and records are searchable, I can find out things in 10 minutes on find my past that would have taken weeks. I can order copies and scans from my armchair for modest fees. I can supplement my language skills with Google translate and have access to 1,000’s of dictionaries and encyclopaedias. Why would I want to take somebody’s half a century’s old word for it? In this era of fake news, we are demanding more rigour from our sources. We are training our young people to question far more. It’s not enough to be ‘credible’ anymore, you’ve got to be transparent. Respected figures are being toppled all the time, the West is surely not as deferential as it used to be. Being asked your sources, and saying “another respected historian’s view of another historian’s view” just isn’t going to cut it in the 21st century. Brutal, but true.

    Like

    Kevin F. Kiley
    Sep 08, 2020
    Replying to

    Perhaps because you haven't looked to see who and where they are and what they have written.


    And some are posters on the various Napoleonic forums...

    Like

    D
    david Tomlinson
    Sep 07, 2020

    @Kevin F. Kiley At the risk of repeating myself for the third or fourth time, it’s not about quality or disagreeing, it’s about style. A modern work would generally have considerably higher proportion of footnotes. When this book was written, the internet as we know it did not exist. The iron curtain was still in place. The digitisation revolution had not yet happened. There will come a point (and it already has, for me) when the lack of transparency makes it less useful than it used to be. I think there is a gap in the market for an expanded and modernised study. A Swords 2.0 if you will. Twice a century seems a reasonable cycle time, and in the basis it’s going to take at least a decade to pull together, shouldn’t somebody be starting now?

    Like

    H
    Hans - Karl Weiß
    Sep 06, 2020

    For me it is not primary sources or secondary, but one cannot follow him from where he got his information, for example about the Régiment de Prusse - so was their clothing and equipment really up to 1810 mostly Prussian?



    Like
    D
    david Tomlinson
    Sep 08, 2020
    Replying to