13 Comments

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.

Expand full comment

Indeed.

People who think free trade is always the obvious better choice tend to come from either the U.K. or the U.S., and don't realize that their views have been shaped by seldom having to worry about being cut off from trade during wartime.

Germany is rich today, but at anytime the U.S. could cut it off from trade and the country would effectively collapse. Obviously the U.S. won't do that... so long as Germany plays by the rules of the U.S.-built system.

If you're not the top dog, following free trade prescriptions amounts to surrendering strategic autonomy. That's why China is so adamant about building comprehensive, broad-based industrial power, efficiency losses be damned.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment
RemovedJan 25
Comment removed
Expand full comment

No, he wasn't.

Putting morality aside, Hitler's policies made a lot of sense if one wanted to preserve German strategic autonomy.

Expand full comment

If you look at the world as a zero-sum struggle between nations, as Hitler did, it is not so crazy.

I am going off memory, but the British blockade in WW1 was a key part of his thinking. Hitler thought that conquering the agricultural areas in Ukraine and the oil in Baku and Maiko would insulate Germany from another British naval blockade. He hated overseas trade and preferred military conquest on the Continent, particularly in the East.

And remember that Hitler never wanted to fight with Germany in the first place. He saw them as part Aryan, so why would they fight? He was completely surprised when UK declared war after he invaded Poland. He thought that they would let it slide just like the Rhineland, Austria, and Czechoslovakia.

I despise Hitler and everything he stood for, but he actually had a very well-thought-out ideology and plan.

If you are interested in the topic, here is a recent article that I wrote:

https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/was-hitler-a-precursor-of-anti-semitic

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

“Cannons”, not “canons”, please. Especially in a piece about military history. Save the literary and ecclesiastical canons for later.

Expand full comment
author

Thank you Susan.

Expand full comment
Jan 22Liked by Richard Hanania

You're welcome, Richard. I really liked today's post, very much engaged with it. That's why I read it carefully enough to spot the typo. :-)

Are canons more powerful than cannons? May be. Cannons are only as powerful as the morale of the men who serve them.

Expand full comment
deletedJan 22
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Yeah I had to ChatGPT that one:

"Colbertianism, in the context of Napoleon, refers to a system of economic policies based on those advocated by Jean-Baptiste Colbert, a French Minister of Finance under King Louis XIV. These policies emphasize state control over the economy, including mercantilism, state-sponsored manufacturing, and protectionism. Napoleon adopted similar principles, focusing on strengthening the state's control over the economy to enhance France's power and independence"

Expand full comment
deletedJan 22
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

What does it mean to say the Enlightenment "failed" in France? What would success look like? Where did it succeed?

Expand full comment