It was the Franco-Prussian war.

I found out about this by accident about 3 years ago - I googled my great granddad's name. Google said he translated a book written by his uncle, my great great etc.uncle from French to English.

I got hold of the translation. It's interesting, but slightly disappointing. My uncle was a lawyer, and the leaders in Paris thought he would make a good diplomat. So he hot air ballooned out, under fire, and had a poor navigator and crash landed behind enemy lines.

There's probably a good story around the escape from this situation, but it gets glossed over in the book "because you would rather hear about the diplomacy."

He then goes to Austria and England, to try to persuade them to come to France's aid. Both refuse, for what sound like sound military reasons. He meets some English politicians of whom I've heard, such as Gladstone.

The book ends saying that my uncle may write a second volume, which he never got around to doing.

How long untill he gets his bachelors? At what level does he want to teach? With many states in the U.S. facing budget shortfalls, education is facing the brunt of the cuts. That means classes like History, if not cut completly, will be taught by one of the football coaches. you can also thank No Child Left Behind for this as well. A good thing to do if he is teaching at the secondary level is to get certified with a Social Studies component so he will be versitile.

If he is getting his Masters, then he could teach at JR/ Community College.

Not sure about teaching per se. I think in this economy having two or three back-up plans is a good idea. Majoring in history actually leaves a lot of doors open. I have former students who do all kinds of things. Lots are teachers. Others work in museums, archives, or historical societies. Some students have gone to law school or other grad school. I also have students who went into business, government, journalism, and I have one former student who is a diplomat.

Edit: I also have a former student who works on Capitol Hill as a staffer.

I’ve always enjoyed history. I got interested in 18th-century French history, in particular, in a political theory class in college. We read Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s First Discourse (Discourse on the Arts and Sciences). I was astonished at reading it, b/c he challenged everything I assumed to be good. He basically says civilization/human society is making things worse. Progress is bad and making morality worse. He’s kind of the anti-Voltaire. I was fascinated by it and wanted to learn all I could about the time period. I knew political theory or philosophy would be too narrow to satisfy my curiosity, so I started studying history, which can basically be anything you want. Been doing history ever since.

If you pm me your email, I can send you some stuff. I'd prefer not to have my name out publicly.

The one thing I would add is that teaching jobs at jr/cc are probably even more difficult to get than high school teaching jobs. The job market is just brutal right now. There are all kinds of Ph.D.s who are being forced into cc jobs b/c there are no jobs at 4-year institutions. Plus he would be going up against a seemingly countless number of MAs as well. I would not recommend getting an MA for the sole purpose of teaching at a cc. There's a good chance that wouldn't work out.

Do you know if historians talk about him? This sounds like too good of a story not to delve into.

Do you enjoy telling a good story at campfires and parties, or am I just stereotyping?

I can speak to this, since I did get my MA for the purpose of teaching at a CC, and I currently am. Yes, the job market is incredibly tough. At the very least, you had better get used to the idea of being an adjunct (part-timer) with fairly low pay and few to no benefits for 5+ years. Right now I make only a little more than I need to pay the bills (I have low expenses)--no kids, no pets, no debt, no mortgage (if I had to pay those things, I'd either have to take a second job or find a different one). On top of that, job security is often low. If you're willing to do that, you do have a shot; the hardest part is getting a foot in the door.

I will say that when it comes to long-term works, MA's may have an advantage over PhD's at some CC's because they are seen as more stable long-run employees. Many CC department heads and administrators question whether a PhD is in it for the long haul, or if they're just "slumming" it until they can land a university job (no offense to PhD's teaching at CC's).

This relates somewhat to the earlier question regarding counterfactual history. What do you feel about the use of probability analysis when analyzing historical events? As poker players we all know that bad decisions can lead to good results, while good decisions can often lead to bad results. So when judging historical events and the decisions involved in shaping them how do you incorporate the "luck factor", for a lack of a better word, into your analysis? And doesn't this inherently lead to disparate interpretations events and so prevents us from ever arriving at a historical truth so to speak.

Since this is in your area of expertise, can you give an assessment of Jean-Paul Marat, who was stabbed to death by a young Royalist from Caen, Charlotte Corday in July, 1793:

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/his...dav_marat.html


And Marat's friend, Jacques-Louis David, painted a very well-known painting of Marat in death:




-Zeno

I do tell a lot of stories, but they’re not about history. Most historians are actually not very good at telling stories. Historians generally tend to frown upon narrative history and don’t really think of themselves as storytellers per se.

I’m not entirely sure I understand your question. Historians don’t really use probability or a luck factor in any kind of real analysis. If you mean something along the lines of a train broke down so a set of cannons didn’t make it to a battle in time and one side lost b/c of it, then that’s just the way it happened. I don’t think that has anything to do with probability, and historians wouldn’t talk about the winner being “lucky” per se. They won the battle b/c a train broke down. That’s all. Not sure if that answers your question.

David’s painting of Marat is one of the most famous of the Revolution, along with many others of David’s.

I actually talk quite a bit about Marat when I discuss the Terror in my French Revolution and Napoleon class. Basically Marat was one of the ideological architects of the Terror. He was a radical who started published a paper titled L’Ami du peuple. This translates to Friend of the People. In the newspaper he increasingly identified the “enemies of the people,” who were often political opponents (conservatives as well as moderates). As enemies they needed to be rooted out and excised from the Revolution. He became increasingly radical and began openly calling for the massacres of “enemies of the people.” He’s often held to blame for what are known as the September Massacres. Basically mobs starting attacking prisons around Paris to summarily execute nobles and political opponents being held there. Some 1,000 to 1,500 people were killed over about a week in early September 1792. Most of those killed were just petty criminals with no real political ideology. Anyway Marat and his incendiary rhetoric definitely played a major role in radicalizing the Revolution and lead up to the Terror.

I always enjoy asking this of colleagues who specialize in French History:

To what extent do you think our popular understanding of the Jacobins has been influenced (or perhaps biased) by more conservative and Burkean history? Do you think they get a bad rap, or is their reputation as bloodthirsty and uncompromising deserved?

I'm not aware of historians talking about him. However, history has never really been an area of expertise for me, so it may have been mentioned without me realising.

There was a contemporary review of the translation in the NY Times. I would link to it, but it seems not to be working at the moment.

Burke didn’t just hate the Jacobins, he hated even the conservative revolutionaries. Burke also wrote before the Terror, so he condemned the Revolution lock, stock, and barrel before it even got really bloody.

As for whether or not they get a bad rep, I mean they did orchestrate the Terror. I don’t think historians of the Revolution necessarily give them an entirely bad rap. I think historians tend to see them as not necessarily bloodthirsty as much as being driven by contingencies out of their control. Primarily war abroad and civil war at home. France was engaged in war from August of 1792 until pretty much 1815. The great part of the Terror lasted from summer 1793 until summer 1794. The threat of external enemies really drove much of the fear and paranoia that led into the Terror. There was also the civil war within France. There were significant pockets of France in open revolt against the revolution (the Counter-Revolution). So while the Revolution was fighting enemies abroad, it was also fighting enemies within France. To revolutionaries, they seemed to be under siege on all fronts. These two forces, war and civil war, are, imho, the two most important factors in the Terror. So I don’t really see the Jacobins as bloodthirsty as much as being driven by two powerful forces that drove the Terror.

It’s also worth noting that many people think of the Terror as the guillotine in Paris. Most of the people executed as part of the Terror were killed in the provinces of France, especially in the west. The Terror was worst in the rural areas that were in counter-revolutionary revolt as it was used as a way to exterminate the enemies of the Revolution. Probably about 95% of the victims of the Terror were in the rural provinces, not Paris where most people supported the Revolution.

Was that painting of a dead Marat intended to be used as propaganda?

How should we think about Napoleon? Where does he rank on the Gandhi-Hitler continuum? Was there anything qualitatively (perhaps morally) different about his imperial conquests than what other nations did/would have done in his position? First anti-christ or just a badass?

Or bat**** insane?

Very interesting thread, OP, thanks. Unfortunately I don't know anything about French history so no questions on that specifically. I did find Foucault's history of madness and civilization pretty interesting.

More basically, I've always just wondered how historians find the truth. I know that a good portion of what I learned in grade/high school is more or less propaganda and fiction. Or at least, oversimplified to the point of almost inaccuracy. They say that history is written by the victors, and I was just wondering if historians share that belief, or what they do to counterbalance it with truth.

Is there ever social pressure or other reasons why the truth isn't what historians aim for?

I bet being a historian can also mess with your perception of "truth" sometimes.

David definitely meant to portray Marat as a martyr. He died for the Revolution, even writing a revolutionary tract just before his death (as portrayed in the painting).

Napoleon is definitely far right of Gandhi and far left of Hitler. That’s a hell of a continuum though. Lol.

Most historians tend to see Napoleon in one of two ways: a great consolidator of the Revolution at a time when the Revolution seemed to be about to unravel, OR the over thrower of the Revolution and the guy who returned France to absolutist politics (or worse). I tend to see Napoleon as somewhere between.

He was definitely a product of the Revolution. What most people don’t realize is that Napoleon is actually the most famous Frenchman who wasn’t French. He was actually Corsican (Italian speaking). He actually grew up hating the French and dreamed of leading a nationalist revolt against the French. His father forced him to go to France as a child to be educated and learn French (against Napoleon’s will).

During the Revolution, Napoleon finally became committed to the French b/c he saw the Revolution as an opportunity for advancement. He did so well that he became famous for his victories. By 1799, the French government was almost entirely emasculated and rendered impotent by a form of government known as the Directory, which had replaced the Terror five years earlier. It was basically government by committee and some politicians asked Napoleon to help them overthrow the government. They expected him to be a figurehead and easily controlled (b/c he was young and politically inexperienced). It of course did not work out that way.

As far as the empire, keep in mind that Napoleon did not start the wars. France had been at war with most of Europe since 1792 (7 years before Napoleon came to power). So I think it’s unfair to hold Napoleon responsible entirely for that. Having said that, he did have a special flair for it and did make numerous decisions which escalated the wars (like invading Spain, which became known as the Spanish Ulcer, and invading Russia, after giving up on invading England). So, yeah, Napoleon escalated the wars, but he wasn’t entirely responsible for them—not even close. In fact, the French were extracting tribute, forcing conscripts from Europe, and stealing art well before Napoleon came to power. Much of the art in the Louvre was stolen from Europe, especially Italy, well before Napoleon came to power.

I’m not sure historians really believe in truth per se. Most historians realize that everyone has an agenda—both in the past and in the present. You can often tell the personal politics of a historian by their interpretation. For example, liberal historians tend to downplay the Terror and focus on the more moderate early phase of the French Revolution. Conservative historians due the opposite, playing up the chaos of the Terror.

Catholic historians tend to have very different interpretations of the English Reformation. Many see it as Henry VIII imposing the Reformation upon the otherwise pious Catholic population. Meanwhile, Protestant historians often see the English Reformation as not being about Henry VIII at all. It came from below as the masses of English got tired of the Catholic Church. Both examples are oversimplifications, but you get the idea. So I don’t think too many historians believe in absolute truth or anything close to it.

As far as history being written by the victors, this is not something historians would ever say. Historians aren’t really concerned with who “won” of “lost.” If anything, the vast, vast majority of historians are inclined to be sympathetic to the disadvantaged/”beaten,” so they would be much more inclined to by favorable to them than the “victors.” But like I said, that expression is popular among general audiences, it’s not something professional historians ever mention. We tend to be much more concerned with understanding the dynamics at play and the negotiation/back and forth between the competing historical actors than who won or lost.

By the way, I’ve also done work on the Caribbean, Witchcraft, the Scientific Revolution, and the Atlantic in the Age of Revolution (besides early modern France). And I’m glad you’re enjoying the thread. I’m on Spring Break now, so have extra time.

Are there are any common beliefs about history that make you cringe? Perhaps things taught in schools, universities that you know are flat out wrong or incorrect, that mostly everyone believes to be true.