I was taught in school that mercantilism is a completely busted philosophy, but is that really true? I suppose my sense is that it works out fine if you're Britain engaged in war with France. Control the trade lanes, dictate the terms of trade, embargo key resources from your enemies, seize all their colonies, use the surplus specie you generate to subsidize your allies on the Continent so they can do most of the dying for you. Maybe that doesn't count as mercantilism.
It probably makes the most sense when you're trying to figure out how to generate taxes from your colonies all over the world and the trade generated by them. Especially in a pre-industrial world with less state capacity.
The problem is the Continental system was bad. It didn't solve any problems. It didn't enrich the central government. It annoyed all the allies that were made to comply with it. And Napoleon, for whatever reason, couldn't ever figure it out.
Roberts also references lebensraum, another philosophy I was taught was, economically speaking, a crazy idea for idiots, but Tooze argues in his book that it made some economic sense, even if its implications were evil. German farm productivity (in contrast with its industrial productivity) was awful, the farms were backward and inefficiently small. Spread those farmers out while at the same time modernizing the farms, and productivity will improve. And self-sufficiency in food was essential if you didn't want to live at your enemies' mercy.
Autarky is bad if you want to be the richest country that was ever rich, but if you imagine war with your key trading partners as inevitable, then you need to think about how your country will function if trade with them breaks down.
I am excited to hear that he is doing one on the Marshals. I have read two books on the Marshals, AG Macdonnel's Napoleon and His Marshals, and RF Delderfield's Napoleon's Marshals. They were both short books, not a ton of detail, but very well written and they actually are a very good introduction to the period in its entire sweep.
Very interesting interview. Napoleon is one of the fascinating men in world history.
One minor point. Adolf Hitler’s policies of military conquest were also strongly influenced by economic factors. He believed in the “shrinking markets” theory, which is something like mercantilism.
Hitler believed that due to zero-sum economic competition, Germany needed to conquer the agricultural areas in Ukraine and the oil in the Baku and Maikop plus force the Russians to stay agricultural.
I wonder if the people who did Downton Abbey and The Gilded Age would do Napolean in a series. They are very good about using historians and making sure everything is as close to possible to reality. It would be a huge leap from their usual material, but it should be people who care about historical accuracy.
I mean, this is a movie. Suggesting that having a couple of historians on set would make the movie better is ridiculous. I don’t quite see the value, generally, of critiquing movies from a strict historicity point of view. These are great topics of discussion, what is true and not true about the movie, but I don’t think they have value in regards to the quality of the movie. I think the movie can be good as long as it is entertaining. Just as Andrew’s book can be highly accurate but not an enjoyable read because of his prose. If the movie’s plot and/or historical liberties served a certain theme that was intended to be brought home and if there is truth in that theme/idea than the movie has accomplished what it set out to accomplish no? This is perhaps Josephine’s importance that Andrew disagrees with but the movie does seem to do a good job of demonstrating military prowess. I agree though that it’s not a standard for telling of Napoleon’s story and no doubt better movies will be made.
I was taught in school that mercantilism is a completely busted philosophy, but is that really true? I suppose my sense is that it works out fine if you're Britain engaged in war with France. Control the trade lanes, dictate the terms of trade, embargo key resources from your enemies, seize all their colonies, use the surplus specie you generate to subsidize your allies on the Continent so they can do most of the dying for you. Maybe that doesn't count as mercantilism.
It probably makes the most sense when you're trying to figure out how to generate taxes from your colonies all over the world and the trade generated by them. Especially in a pre-industrial world with less state capacity.
The problem is the Continental system was bad. It didn't solve any problems. It didn't enrich the central government. It annoyed all the allies that were made to comply with it. And Napoleon, for whatever reason, couldn't ever figure it out.
Roberts also references lebensraum, another philosophy I was taught was, economically speaking, a crazy idea for idiots, but Tooze argues in his book that it made some economic sense, even if its implications were evil. German farm productivity (in contrast with its industrial productivity) was awful, the farms were backward and inefficiently small. Spread those farmers out while at the same time modernizing the farms, and productivity will improve. And self-sufficiency in food was essential if you didn't want to live at your enemies' mercy.
Autarky is bad if you want to be the richest country that was ever rich, but if you imagine war with your key trading partners as inevitable, then you need to think about how your country will function if trade with them breaks down.
I am excited to hear that he is doing one on the Marshals. I have read two books on the Marshals, AG Macdonnel's Napoleon and His Marshals, and RF Delderfield's Napoleon's Marshals. They were both short books, not a ton of detail, but very well written and they actually are a very good introduction to the period in its entire sweep.
Very interesting interview. Napoleon is one of the fascinating men in world history.
One minor point. Adolf Hitler’s policies of military conquest were also strongly influenced by economic factors. He believed in the “shrinking markets” theory, which is something like mercantilism.
Hitler believed that due to zero-sum economic competition, Germany needed to conquer the agricultural areas in Ukraine and the oil in the Baku and Maikop plus force the Russians to stay agricultural.
Here is a good video on the subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQGMjDQ-TJ8
I wonder if the people who did Downton Abbey and The Gilded Age would do Napolean in a series. They are very good about using historians and making sure everything is as close to possible to reality. It would be a huge leap from their usual material, but it should be people who care about historical accuracy.
I mean, this is a movie. Suggesting that having a couple of historians on set would make the movie better is ridiculous. I don’t quite see the value, generally, of critiquing movies from a strict historicity point of view. These are great topics of discussion, what is true and not true about the movie, but I don’t think they have value in regards to the quality of the movie. I think the movie can be good as long as it is entertaining. Just as Andrew’s book can be highly accurate but not an enjoyable read because of his prose. If the movie’s plot and/or historical liberties served a certain theme that was intended to be brought home and if there is truth in that theme/idea than the movie has accomplished what it set out to accomplish no? This is perhaps Josephine’s importance that Andrew disagrees with but the movie does seem to do a good job of demonstrating military prowess. I agree though that it’s not a standard for telling of Napoleon’s story and no doubt better movies will be made.
“Cannons”, not “canons”, please. Especially in a piece about military history. Save the literary and ecclesiastical canons for later.