No More Learning

195 Alan Forrest reports that France had 750,000 men in arms in September 1794, fewer than 500,000 a year later, only 400,000 in July 1796, and roughly 325,000 by September 1798. Con- scripts and Deserters: The Army and French Society during the Revolution and Empire (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), 34?
196 Austria's victories were facilitated by the dilatory conduct of the commander of the French Army of the Rhine, Jean-Charles Pichegru, who was collaborating with a group of royalist emigres and receiving bribes from English intelligence agents in Switzerland. See Mitchell, Underground War, 6o-6J, 1 1 8-24; Woronoff, Thermidorean Regime and the Directory, 53-54; Palmer, Democratic Revolution, 2:227.
197 In addition to retaining Belgium, the French insisted that England relinquish its colonial conquests, and Pitt concluded that England would have to wait "for the return of reason in our deluded enemy. " Quoted in Ehrman, Reluctant Transition, 6o7; see also Rose, "Struggle with Revolutionary France," 261-65; and Ross, European Diplomatic History, 1 15-16.
198 On the Treaty of Berlin, see Biro, German Policy, 615-19.
? ? ? ? Revolution and War
In Italy, by contrast, the French armies won a series of stunning victories that eventually forced Austria to negotiate in earnest. Under the command of Napoleon Bonaparte, the Army of Italy took Piedmont in April, forced Sardinia to make peace in May, and followed up these victories with a suc- cessful invasion of Lombardy. Milan fell on May 15. Venice, Verona, and the papacy had agreed to armistices by the end of June. The French then de- feated a detachment of Austrian reinforcements in August and trapped them at Mantua, which fell after a long siege in February 1797.
Although Reubell and several other directors opposed "revolutionizing" Italy for fear that it would prolong the war, Bonaparte had ignored their ob- jections and set up a number of "republican" governments in the wake of his victorious army. 199 After establishing a new regime in Lombardy and proclaiming a "Cispadane Republic" in December 1796, he created "Vene- tian" and "Ligurian" republics in May and June and, in July, combined Lombardy and the Cispadane Republic into the "Cisalpine Republic. " To- gether with the Batavian Republic in Holland, these new states comprised the "sister republics" of revolutionary France. Nominally independent and equipped with constitutions similar to the French, they endured the same
"benefits" of French occupation that Belgium and the Rhineland had. The systematic looting of the conquered regions sustained the French troops in the field and swelled the personal fortunes of French commanders, but the policy cost the French whatever local support they initially enjoyed and left the sister republics entirely dependent on French backing. 200
Bonaparte renewed his attacks in March, and the Austrians were now willing to negotiate. Eager to seal his triumph, Bonaparte ignored the Di- rectory's preference for territory on the Rhine and negotiated a preliminary peace that gave Belgium and Lombardy to France and compensated Austria with Venice and its Adriatic provinces, but deferred the status of the Rhineland to a later congress. The Directory, in no position to oppose France's most successful general, quickly ratified his fait accompli. Bona- parte then raised the stakes by demanding the left bank of the Rhine and several other concessions, and Austria was forced to accede. After six months of negotiations, the state of war between Austria and France was formally ended in October 1797 by the Treaty of Campo Formio. 201
England's deteriorating military position had brought it back to the ne- gotiating table as well, but a peace agreement remained elusive. England faced a serious fiscal crisis and rising public discontent. In addition, Spain
199 On the directors' reservations, see Homan, Jean-Francais Reubell, 135.
200 Godechot estimates that the French conquests in Italy paid 45 million livres to France during 1796 alone and even more in subsequent years. Grande nation, 439-41.
201 For the text of the treaty, see Stewart, Documentary Survey, 702-709; for insightful analy-
ses of the negotiations, see Schroeder, Transformation ofEuropean Politics, 166-72; and Roider,
? Thugut and Austria's Response, 24? 1.
?
[106]
? The French Revolution
had realigned with France in 1796, and its cabinet was increasingly alarmed by French support for the Irish independence movement (including an at- tempted invasion by a French expeditionary force in December 1796). Talks between Lord Malmesbury and French foreign minister Delacroix began in October 1796, but the English terms were too one-sided and the negotiations soon broke down. 202 Although a victory over the Spanish fleet at Cape St. Vincent in February stiffened English resolve temporarily, the pressure for
peace resumed after Austria signed the preliminary agreement at Leoben and the Royal Navy was rocked by a series of mutinies in April.
When negotiations between England and France resumed in July, En- gland now indicated it would accept the annexation of Belgium in exchange for the French and Dutch colonies at Ceylon, the Cape of Good Hope, and Martinique. Unfortunately, this promising initiative was soon derailed by political divisions within France and England's renewed hopes for a royal. - ist restoration. Although some emigre leaders continued to insist that the old regime be restored in its entirety, other prominent royalists had begun to downplay these ambitions to attract popular support. 203 The result was a stunning defeat for the Directory in the elections of Germinal, Year V (April 1797), which left the two Councils divided between republicans who fa- vored a harsh peace and the moderates and royalists who were willing to offer more generous terms in order to end thewar quickly. 204 The Directory was itself divided by this time, and the royalist leaders assured their English patrons that better peace terms would be available once they gained control. Thus, internal divisions within France both prevented the Directory from offering acceptable terms and encouraged England to stand firm in the hope of obtaining a better deal.
With their positions in jeopardy, a triumvirate of Barras, Reubell, and La Revelliere-Lepeaux turned to the army once again. Backed by the minister of war, General Hoche, and by Bonaparte (whose prestige was now un- matched), the triumvirs launched a coup on 17 Fructidor, Year V (September
202 On French support for the Irish rebels, see Elliott, Partners in Revolution; the 1796 inva- sion is analyzed in chapter 4? See also E. H. Stuart Jones, An Invasion That Failed (Oxford: Ox- ford University Press, 1950). On the Anglo-French peace talks, see Ehrman, Reluctant Transition, 641-50.
203 According to Martyn Lyons, "the story of [royalist) attempts to seize power is one of consistent self-delusion and failure. " France under the Directory, chap. 3, esp. 37? Counterrev- olutionary activities are described in Godechot, Counter-revolution; Sutherland, France 1789-1815, 286-92; Doyle, History ofthe French Revolution, chap. 13 and 127-31; Jones, Long- man Companion, 194-200; Palmer, Democratic Revolution, 2:225-28, 244-55; and Massimo Boffa, "Emigres" and "Counterrevolution," in Furet and Ozouf, Critical Dictionary, 324-36, 64o-48. English support for the royalists is described in detail in Hutt, Chouannerie and Counterrevolu- tion; and Mitchell, Underground War, 124-35, 15o-{)1.
204 Only 11 out of 216 deputies were reelected at this time, reducing support for the current directors from roughly two-thirds of the Councils to about one-third. Sydenham, First French Republic, 121-27.
? ? Revolution and War
3, 1797). The main royalist leaders were arrested, and Carnot and Barthelemy were ousted from the Directory, while 198 royalist deputies were removed from the Councils. Royalist newspapers were closed, former emigres were given ten days to leave French soil, and a number of anticlerical measures were restored. The Fructidor coup ended the danger of a royalist restoration, but it also showed that the Directory could not survive without violating its own constitution. The coup also brought the peace talks with England to an end; when the French representative declared that France would neither grant colonial concessions nor relinquish its prior annexations, his English counterpart broke off the negotiations. 205
The First Coalition lay in ruins by the end of 1797. Prussia was firmly neu- tral, Austria had made peace, and Spain, Sardinia, and the sister republics in Holland and! Italy were formally allied with France. England was France's sole remaining opponent, but it could do little without a strong continental ally.
The story of the War of the First Coalition illustrates the difficulties that revolutionary states and other powers face when attempting to gauge the balance of threats. The war expanded in part because England and France saw each other as both threatening and vulnerable, and it continued be- cause France could not sustain its military effort and because the Coalition was divided by conflicting interests and ambitions. Since the leading mem- bers of the Coalition had trouble assessing the true level of threat, they failed either to muster sufficient power to overthrow the revolutionary regime, on one hand, or to offer sufficient concessions to persuade it to make peace, on the other. The problem was compounded by a lack of infor- mation on each side and a concomitant tendency to rely on biased sources. As a result, Lebrun and the Convention exaggerated the prospects for a rev- olution in England in 1792-93, and the Directory felt emboldened to sup- port an uprising in Ireland. Similarly, the Coalition's war effort was partly sustained by the belief that the revolutionary government was unpopular and by exaggerated hopes of a counterrevolutionary restoration. In each case, incomplete or biased information reinforced expectations of victory and discouraged efforts to make peace.
'Domestic politics within France contributed to the expansion and contin- uation of the war as well. Under the CPS, negotiations were inhibited by the danger of appearing disloyal, while the Directory's efforts to pursue peace were hampered by several factors: disagreements among the directors, their fragile hold on power, and the army's growing interest in expansion. These internal divisions also helped sustain the Coalition's hopes, at least until the republic's victories in 1796-97 forced all save England to make peace.
205 On the coup of FructidorV, see Sutherland, France 1789-1815, 305-o7; Sydenham, French Republic, 14o-48; and Lefebvre, French Revolution, 2:197-2o6.
? [to8]
? The French Revolution
Finally, the course of the war also illustrates how a revolutionary state will modify its initial goals in the face of external pressure. The goal of spreading liberty had been abandoned by 1795, and though the directors continued to offer lip service to republican ideals by giving the sister re- publics French-style constitutions, they treated these areas as assets to be ex- ploited rather than as fraternal associates in an idealistic campaign for liberty. 206 The war also bore an increasing resemblance to a traditional strug- gle for power, with the contenders wrangling over colonial possessions and territorial compensations rather than rival ideological visions.
THE WAR OF THE SECOND COALITION
The Armed Truce
The peace that followed the collapse of the First Coalition was little more than an intermission. The Directory was unhappy with the Treaty of Campo Fonnio (because it deferred acquisition of the left bank of the Rhine), and it faced a new challenge to its authority at home, this time from the left. Ja- cobinism had made a brief resurgence after the royalist uprising in Vendemi- aire III, when the Councils had relaxed the existing anti-Jacobin measures in order to suppress the royalists. Support for the Jacobins was further en- hanced by such factors as chronic economic problems, growing disparities of wealth, and the military setbacks of 1795? 6, which recalled the dangers of
1793 and cast doubt on the Directory's ability to lead the nation in war.
The Directory had responded by closing the remaining Jacobin political clubs and banning former Montagnards from Paris, but Jacobin influence began to reemerge after the antiroyalist coup of Fructidor, Year V. 207 Left- wing newspapers and political associations became increasingly active, and with nearly 6o percent of the deputies due for replacement in the next elec- tion, the danger of a Jacobin victory began to eclipse the fear of a royalist restoration. 208 The directors imposed new restrictions on the Jacobin clubs,
206 Thus, a French general argued that "Holland has done nothing to avoid being classed among the general order of our conquests. It was the ice, the indefatigable courage of our troops and the talents of our generals that delivered her and not any revolution. It follows from this that there can be no reason to treat her differently from any conquered country. " Quoted in Schama, Patriots and Liberators, 201.
207 The first <Challenge had come not from the Jacobins but from the even more radical Con- spiracy of the Equals, Jed by Fran\ois-Noel ("Gracchus") Babeuf. Babeuf tried to launch an insurrection against the Directory by organizing a clandestine party and infiltrating the army, but the plot was betrayed by an informer and Babeuf was executed in May 1797. See R. B. Rose, Gracchus Babeuf The First Revolutionary Communist (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1978); Palmer, Democratic Revolution, 2:231-44; and James H. Billington, Fire in the Minds of Men: Origins ofthe Revolutionary Faith (New York: Basic Books, 1980), 72-78.
208 Sutherland, France, 309.
? ? ? Revolution and War
eventually passing a decree that required incumbent deputies to verify the elections of new members. These maneuvers enabled the directors to re- move 127 deputies (most of them suspected Jacobins) in the so-called Coup of Floreal, Year VI. The Directory had managed to cling to power once again, but the episode further underscored its political weakness. 209
Despite its earlier successes, France's strategic position remained prob- lematic. England remained defiant and its fortunes were reviving after the setbacks of the previous year: the naval mutinies had been quelled by mid- summer, a series of fiscal reforms and tax increases had restored the govern- ment's credit, the threat of invasion had made the English public more receptive to patriotic appeals, and the destruction of the Dutch fleet at Camperdown in October had bolstered English morale and preserved its maritime superiority. England had also extricated itself from Santo Domingo by the fall of 1798, freeing resources for new campaigns elsewhere. Although Pitt had been willing to acknowledge French possession of the Low Coun- tries during the peace talks in 1797, England's leaders were increasingly committed to overthrowing the revolutionary regime and restoring the bal- ance of power in Europe. Naval power could not accomplish these objectives unaided, however, so England still needed continental allies. 210
FrenchExpansionism. Therewasnoshortageofcandidatesforconstructing a new coalition. The Austrian government was equally unhappy with the Treaty of Campo Formio, and Baron Thugut of Austria began exploring new alliance possibilities before the ink on the treaty was dry. 211 There were hints that Prussia might join a new coalition and Russia was beginning to take a more active role as well. 212 Yet given the conflicting interests and mistrust
209 The results were ratified by the law of 22 Florea! , which gave a legal veneer to a clear vi- olation of constitutional procedure. See Sydenham, First French Republic, 17<>-75; and Isser Woloch, Jacobin Legacy: The Democratic Movement under the Directory (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970), chap. 10.
210 See Rose, Life ofPitt, 2:328-33; Ian R. Christie, Wars and Revolutions: Britain, 176o-z8z5 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982), 241-42; Piers Mackesy, Statesmen at War: The Strategy ofOverthrow, 1798-99 (London: Longman, 1974), 2-9; A. B. Rodger, The War ofthe Sec- ond Coalition, 1798-z8oz (London: Oxford University Press, 1964), 7-8; Duffy, Sugar, Soldiers, and Seapower, 298-311; and John M. Sherwig, "Lord Grenviiie's Plan for a Concert of Europe, 1797--99,'' Journal ofModern History 34, no. 3 (1962).
211 In a note to a confidant, Thugut remarked, "Peace! But where is it? I do not see it in the treaty [of Campo Formio] . . . and the execution of it will perhaps be only a second volume of the preliminaries. " The future foreign minister, Louis Cobenzl, told Thugut, "We are only concluding a truce which wiii allow us to reestablish ourselves in Italy more easily than by means of the most successful military campaign; in any case, settling matters in Germany will give us twenty reasons for beginning the war again if we wish to. " Quoted in Roider, Thugut and Austria's Response, 26o-61; and Mackesy, Statesmen at War, 9?
212 Catherine II had died in 1796, but the new tsar, Paul I, shared her anti-Jacobin senti- ments and was alarmed by the growth of French influence in Italy and the eastern Mediter- ranean. See Norman E. Saul, Russia and the Mediterranean, 1797-1807 (Chicago: University of
[uo]
? The French Revolution
among the potential members, the formation of a second anti-French coali- tion could have been prevented had the Directory refrained from further ef- forts to expand. But the coup of 18 Fructidor had left the conduct of foreign policy in the hands of Reubell-a consistent advocate of the "natural bor- ders"-and the Jacobin resurgence in 1797 magnified the pressures for an ex- pansionist policy. Taking a hard line at the Congress of Rastatt, the Directory forced the Imperial Diet to acknowledge French sovereignty over the entire left bank of the Rhine (including several territories that had been excluded at
Campo Formio ). Negotiations between Austrian and French representatives accomplished nothing, and Thugut was increasingly convinced that Austria would have to resume the war once conditions favored it. 213
At the same time, the creation of additional sister republics in Italy and Switzerland and the consolidation of French influence in Belgium and Hol- land had reinforced an image of ? imitless French ambition. Although the Di- rectory had not intended to "revolutionize" Rome, struggles between local radicals and conservatives led to the death of a French general, an invasion of the the papal territories, and the establishment of a "Roman Republic" in February 1798. French intervention enabled a group of Swiss sympathizers
to launch their own revolt in January, which led to the establishment of a "Helvetic Republic" in April. The Kingdom of Piedmont was occupied and annexed the following year, confirming France's aggressive reputation. 214
Why was the Directory unable to stop the expansion? In part because the French armies were still dependent on foreign plunder and the Directory on military backing. War had become an economic and political necessity de- spite the widespread desire for peace, and abandoning the sister republics would have entailed dismantling the army in the middle of a war-with un- told domestic and international consequences. As Reubell told a Prussian diplomat in January 1799, "War has become our element . . . the nation has become martial. " Or as Bonaparte later recalled, "To exist [the Directory] needed a state of war as other governments need a state of peace. "215
? Chicago Press, 1970), 32-39, and "The Objectives of Paul's Italian Policy," in Paul l: A Re- assessment ofHis Life and Reign, ed. Hugh Ragsdale (Pittsburgh: Center for International Stud- ies, University of Pittsburgh, 1979), 31-43; and Rodger, War ofthe Second Coalition, 11-12.
213 See Lefebvre, French Revolution, 2:227-28; and Roider, Thugut and Austria's Response, 264, 283, and passim.
214 Thugut concluded, "We must either accept the status quo in Italy and in Switzerland or come to a new rupture with France. " He chose the latter option because he believed that "if the French continue to hold Switzerland, revolution in the Swabian Circle first and then in all of Germany is inevi? able. " Quoted in Roider, Thugut and Austria's Response, 283-84. On these events, see Palmer, Democratic Revolution, 2:372-80, 402-13; Woronoff, Thermidorean Regime and the Directory, 153-54; and Godechot, La Grande nation, 198-202.
? 215 AlbertSoreloffersasimilarverdict:"WaraloneassuredtheexistenceoftheDirectory,and war could only be sustained by war itself. " Europe et Ia revolutionfranfaise, 5:283; and see also Woronoff, Thermidorean Regime and the Directory, 167; and Lyons, France under the Directory, 204.
(111]
? In addition to the army's interest in conquest and plunder, further efforts to extend French control were encouraged by the desire to safeguard past con- quests and put additional pressure on England. In the words of one director, France now aimed "to unite Holland, France, Switzerland, [and] the Cisalpine and Ligurian republics by an uninterrupted continuity of territory . . . a nurs- ery of excellent soldiers and a formidable strategic position. " Thus, the Rhineland was sought as a strategic barrier, and the establishment of the Hel- vetic Republic was inspired in part by a desire to control the strategic passes between France and Italy and halt the espionage activities of English and! emigre agents in Switzerland. Similarly, although France's policies toward the Batavian Republic were affected by its own domestic politics, its underlying objective was to strengthen a key ally and guarantee its continued loyalty. 216
The Expedition to Egypt. French expansionism after Campo Forrnio helped! ensure that a Second Coalition would rise to replace the First, despite the many conflicts between France's putative opponents. 217 The decisive event, however, was the French expedition to Egypt in May 1798. Because England's naval supremacy made a cross-Channel invasion problematic, Bonaparte pro- posed an expedition to conquer Egypt instead. 218 In addition to enhancing French control of the eastern Mediterranean, the conquest of Egypt would pose a direct challenge to the British position in India, which was regarded as the key to England's wealth. It would also bring France's military power to bear against England and facilitate French commerce in the eastern Mediter- ranean. Napoleon and Talleyrand assured the Directory that the Egypt's de- fenders were weak and the population "would greet us with rapture. " They
also promised that England's fear of invasion would prevent the Royal Navy from interfering, and that France's expedition would not provoke any ad- verse foreign response. Over the objections of Reubell and La Revelliere- Lepeaux (who favored consolidating the French hold on the Continent), the expedition was approved in March 1798 and set sail from Toulon in May. 219
216 See BlaiiUling, French Revolutionary Wars, 178. Reubell supported the "revolutionizing" of Switzerland as a military necessity, remarking, "I have never deserved better of my coun- try than by pushing this revolution with all my strength. " Swiss wealth was an additional in- centive, and France used the Bern treasury to finance Bonaparte's expedition to Egypt later in the year. See Gerlof D. Homan, "Jean-Francois Reubell, Director," French Historical Studies 1, no. 4 (196o), 431-32; and Palmer, Democratic Revolution, 2:200.
217 Blaruting, French Revolutionary Wars, 192; Sherwig, Guineas a11d Gunpowder, 101-103; and Mackesy, Statesmen at War, 12-13.
218 After Campo Formio, Bonaparte had advised the Directory "to concentrate all our ac- tivity on the Navy and destroy England. That accomplished, Europe will lie at our feet" (quoted in Rodger, Warofthe Second Coalition, 11).
He was ordered to prepare for an invasion but soon realized that the risks were too great.
"9 As Blanning points out, these arguments echo the Girondins' earlier optimism; the French were again choosing to expand the war in the belief that victory would be swift and easy. See his French Revolutionary Wars, 181-83; Rodger, Warofthe Second Coalition, 15-30; and Woronoff, Thermidorean Regime and Directory, 146--48.
Revolution and War
? [112]
? The French Revolution
The Egyptian expedition was a product of Bonaparte's personal ambition and the desire to end the stalemate with England. The directors' political weakness played a role as well, as they were in no position to defy France's most popular and successful general. Sending him away at his own request may have appeared an ideal solution.
If the solution seemed ideal, its actual consequences were not. 220 Bona- parte's troops seized Malta in June and reached Egypt in July, where they made short work of the Mameluke defenders. However, the situation was reversed when an English squadron destroyed the French fleet at the Bat- tle of the Nile, leaving Napoleon and his army stranded. Not only did this defeat end any possibility of a French challenge in India (where a French- backed uprising was rapidly collapsing), it also brought Russia and Turkey into the war against France. Contrary to Talleyrand's assurances, the invasion of Egypt had encouraged a rapprochement between the two eastern rivals, and the destruction of the French fleet cast doubt on French invincibility. Russia and the Ottoman Empire began joint operations to re- take the Ionian Islands in the fall. The sultan also prepared an army to re- conquer Egypt. In response, Bonaparte led an expedition to Syria in an attempt to disrupt the Ottoman preparations, but his forces were repulsed, with heavy losses, by a combination of Ottoman troops and English seapower.
In addition to squandering some of France's best troops and isolating its most successful general, the results of its expedition to Egypt was to restore England's control of the Mediterranean and bring two new powers into the war against lFrance. 221 It also prevented France from exploiting the Irish re- volt in May 1798; although a belated expedition managed to land a French battalion in Ireland in August, the invaders were quickly defeated and. the opportunity to strike a direct blow against England was llost. 222
The Renewal of the Coalition French expansionism had forced Austria back toward war, but the fear of
a Prussian alliance with France, together with England's refusal to grant a
220 R. R. Palmer calls the expedition to Egypt possibly "one of the worst strategic blunders ever made. " Democratic Revolution, 2:499. Also see Blanning, French Revolutionary Wars, 179-82. For a contrasting view, see Edward Ingram, Commitment to Empire: Prophecies of the Great Game in Asia, 1797-1Boo (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981).
221 See J. Holland Rose, "The Political Reactions of Bonaparte's Eastern Expedition," English Historical Review 44, no. 173 (1929).
222 Marianne Elliott argues, "The failure of the French to arrive had baffled the Irish leaders and was the most important single reason for the indecision of the leaders, the consequent erosion of United [Irish] strength, and the confused campaign that followed. " The rebel force consisted of 8oo French soldiers and 500 Irish recruits, facing roughly 20,000 English soldiers. Partners in Revolution, 214.
[1 13]
? ? new loan, kept Vienna on the fence for some time. m The Austrian govern- ment, understandably reluctant to resume a war in which its own territories would be most at risk and its own troops would do most of the fighting, held! on to hopes that the Directory would offer additional concessions. These reservations faded when it became clear that France would not give ground! and Tsar Paul I offered to send a corps to Austria to fight against the French. As a first step, Austria sent troops into the Swiss canton of the Grisons in Oc- tober, where they stood ready to invade the Cisalpine and Helvetic republics.
The final push came after King Ferdinand of Naples launched an ill-fatedl invasion of the Roman Republic in the fall. A French counterattack routed the Neapolitan forces and led to the proclamation of the "Parthanopean Re- public" in January 1799? Although its alliance with Naples was purely de- fensive (and Ferdinand had been warned to avoid any provoking the French), Austria's refusal to come to Ferdinand's aid reinforced Paul's fear of Austrian duplicity. He threatened to withdraw his troops unless Vienna declared war immediately. France made the Austrian decision easier by de- manding that Austria expel the Russians or face war. Austria promptly re- jected the ultimatum, and French units were crossing the Rhine even before the forman declaration of war in March.
Ironically, although both Grenville and Thugut sought to forge a unified! concert against France, their conflicting aims and mutual mistrust made this impossible. Austria was formally allied with Russia but not with England, and efforts to draw Prussia into the coalition failed completely. Agreement on war aims was equally elusive, because the three main allies had very dif- ferent objectives. England and Russia sought to overthrow the revolution- ary government and reduce France to its original size, in order to establish a balance of power on the continent that would maximize their influence there and free them to pursue territorial advantages elsewhere. By contrast, Austria was largely indifferent to the nature of the French government. It sought a territorial settlement that would contain future French expansion- ism, compensate Austria for its previous sacrifices, and enable it to protect itself against its other rivals. As Piers Mackesy observes, "in the absence of agreed Coalition aims, the major allies would allow their divergent political aims to distort the planning of their strategy and disrupt its execution. "224
223 Relations between England and Austria were severely strained by Austria's refusal to ratify a loan agreement in 1797 (which had embarassed the Pitt government and shaken En- glish finances temporarily), as well as by Austrian resentment at having to bear the brunt of the costs of the war and English anger over Vienna's decision to make peace at Campo Formio. See Sherwig, Guineas and Gunpowder, wo-toJ; Mackesy, Statesmen at War, 12-14, 3o-32; and Roider, Thugut and Austria's Response, 27Q-73?
224 Statesmen at War, 70; and see also Ross, European Diplomatic History, 187-88. For accounts sympathetic to Austria, see Schroeder, Transformation ofEuropean Politics, 192-97, and "The Collapse of the Second Coalition," Journal ofModern History 59, no. 2 (1987); and Roider, Thugut and Austria's Response, chap. 11.
Revolution and War
? ? The French Revolu tion
Thus, the conduct of the war followed the same familiar pattern: the Coalition's early successes were undermined by internal disagreements that allowed France to emerge victorious once again-but not, however, before a series of serious setbacks. An initial French offensive in Germany was re- pulsed, and Austrian troops under Archduke Charles had driven the French forces out of southern Germany and the Helvetic Republic by mid-June. A combined Austro-Russian army under Marshal Alexander Suvorov swept the French from northern Italy, the sister republics promptly collapsed, and a combined Anglo-Russian force staged an amphibious landing in Holland in August. 225 The Coalition seemed poised to carry the war directly into France, where the combination of a new conscription law and the Allies' ini- tial successes had sparked new counterrevolutionary uprisings in Toulouse, the Vendee, and Brittany. 226 The French Republic now faced its most serious challenge since 1793. The result was another swing to the left in the elections of Germinal, Year VI and a brief attempt to resurrect the revolutionary spirit of 1793--94. Jacobin clubs reopened throughout France, and the Councils de- creed the mobilization of five classes of conscripts in June, along with new restrictions on emigre families and other suspected dissidents. These poli- cies were obviously reminiscent of the revolutionary Terror of 1793--94, yet memories of the earlier period helped ensure that these new mea? ures were but a pale imitation of the earlier mobilization. A proposal to declare Ia pa-
trie en danger was rejected in September and the other decrees were never fully implemented. 227
Fortunately for France, the Second Coalition now succumbed to the same internal divisions that had undermined its predecessor. Ever mistrustful of Austria (which he suspected of harboring territorial ambitions in Switzer- land), Grenville proposed that the Austrian army in Switzerland be replaced by 6s,ooo Russians under Marshal Suvorov and General A. M. Rimsky- Korsakov. Supplemented by Swiss volunteers (which were expected to number 2o,ooo), this force would then clear the French from the rest of Switzerland and launch the main invasion into France itself. Despite his own misgivings, Thugut accepted this strategy in the interest of allied cohe- sion. He was also eager to see Suvorov's forces depart from Italy (where the conduct of the Russian soldiers was sowing discord between Vienna and St. Petersburg), and he worried that the allied armies would be left without ad- equate supplies. Accordingly, Thugut proposed that Charles's forces move north out of Switzerland, leaving a residual force to remain in contact with
225 According to A. B. Rodger, the French army had only 250,000 men with whom to defend the border from Holland to Italy. Warofthe Second Coalition, 151, 158-59; and also Ross, Euro- pean Diplomatic History, 194--95.
226 Godechot, Counter-Revolution, esp. chap. 13.
227 Palmer, Democratic Revolution, 2:564-65; Lefebvre, French Revolution, 2:246-49; Syden- ham, First French Republic, 198-203; and Woloch, Jacobin Legacy, 369-70.
[115]
? Revolution and War
the Russians. This step would relieve the logistical burden, protect the Upper Rhine from a French counterattack, preserve Austrian interests in southern Germany, and facilitate efforts to link up with the Anglo-Russian expeditionary force in Holland. The English and Russian ambassadors ac- cepted Thugut's suggestions, and the bulk of Charles's army headed north toward Mainz in late August.
This decision proved fatal to the Coalition's plans for a coordinated as- sault on revolutionary France. Rimsky-Korsakov turned out to have only 28,000 troops (instead of an anticipated 45,000), and the efforts to raise Swiss volunteers yielded a mere 2,000 men. The orders to Suvorov were delayed and Thugut neglected to remind Charles to remain in Switzerland until Su- vorov had arrived. As a result, writes Karl Roider, "Switzerland gradually become not the staging area for the overwhelming allied invasion force . . . but a weak point in the allied cordon. " The French seized the opportunity and attacked, driving the Austro-Russian forces from Zurich on September 25-26 and forcing them back into Hapsburg territory for the winter. 228
The French victories ended the danger of a foreign invasion and enabled France to send reinforcements to Holland in October, where the Anglo- Russian expeditionary force remained on the narrow Helder Peninsula. Testimony from Orangist exiles in England had convinced Grenville and Pitt that the landing would spark an uprising against the French, but the anticipated revolt never materialized. 229 Pressed by the onset of winter, the Anglo-Russian force signed an armistice permitting them to evacuate their troops in return for the release of 8,ooo French and Dutch prisoners. The latest wave of internal revolts was subsiding as well, and disgust over his allies' conduct led the tsar to withdraw from the Coalition in October. Once again, an attempt to combine against revolutionary France had fallen victim to overconfidence, conflicting aims and interests, and the in-
trinsic difficulty of a coordinating allied strategy over a vast geographic area.
BrumaireandBeyond. AlthoughFrancehadsurvivedthislatestdanger,its government did not. The machinations of the previous two years had cost the Directory whatever legitimacy it had once possessed, and the directors'
228 Earlier accounts view the decision to send Charles's army northward as a product of Austria's selfish desire to retake the Netherlands: Ross, European Diplomatic History, 2o8-12; Sherwig. Guineas and Gunpawder, 123; Rodger, War of the Second Coalition; and Mackesy, States- men at War. More recent research offers a different interpretation, which is the one I adopt here: Roider, Tlrugut and Austria's Response, 3o8-27; and Schroeder, "Collapse of the Second Coalition," and Transformation ofEuropean Politics, 2oo-2o6.
229 In the words of the British commander Sir Ralph Abercrombie, "The grounds on which this great undertaking were founded have failed. We have found no cooperation in the coun- try. " Quoted in Palmer, Democratic Revolution, 2:568. See also Schama, Patriots and Liberators, 389-96; and Rodger, War ofSecond Coalition, 176--94.
? [116]
? The French Revolution
attempts to rein in the army had cost them the military's support as well. The purge of Prairial, Year VII left Abbe Sieyes in charge of the Directory, an inveterate schemer who now conspired to establish a new government that could eschew the use of terror, protect bourgeois interests, and arrange a final end to the war. Because he regarded the legal procedure for revising the constitution as too cumbersome and time-consuming, Sieyes decided another coup was necessary. 230
The stage was now set for Bonaparte, who had abandoned his army in Egypt and staged a dramatic return to Paris just as France's military for- tunes began to rise. Despite his failure in Egypt and his callous disregard for his troops' welfare, Bonaparte's prestige was undimmed and he quickly endorsed Sieyes's plans. The plot was launched on 17 Brumaire, Year VIII (November 8, 1799). After warning of a fictitious Jacobin con- spiracy, the real conspirators persuaded the Councils to reassemble a few miles outside Paris, where they would be at the mercy of the troops as- signed to protect them. The directors then resigned in favor of Bonaparte, who appeared before the Councils to receive their approval. The deputies greeted Bonaparte with open hostility, however, and drove him from the chamber. Rallied by Napoleon's brother Lucien, troops loyal to the con- spirators removed the defiant deputies. The remainder then appointed Bonaparte, Sieyes, and Roger Ducos as "provisional consuls" pending the drafting of a new constitution.
Sieyes's plot backfired when Bonaparte ignored his erstwhile partners and quickly established himself as the unchallenged leader of France. As Burke and Robespierre had warned many years before, the revolution in France had ended in a military dictatorship. The war continued until French victories at Marengo and Hohenlinden forced Austria to negotiate a separate peace in February 1801. Pitt resigned and peace talks began the following month. The final treaty was completed at Amiens in March 1802. England formally recognized the new French state and the Batavian, Cisalpine, Ligurian, and Helvetian republics and agreed to return all of its colonial conquests save for Ceylon and Trinidad. The treaty was a clear tri- umph for France, if not for the revolution: the revolutionary period was now over and the Napoleonic era had begun. 231
230 Amendments to the Constitution had to be proposed by the Council of Elders on three separate occasions in nine years and ratified by the Council of Five Hundred. An "assembly of revision" would then have three months to make final changes. See Stewart, Documentary History, ? .
231 This period of the war is analyzed in Piers Mackesy, War without Victory: The Downfall ofPitt, 1799-1802 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984); Gunther E. Rothenberg, Napoleon's Great Adversaries: The Archduke Charles and the Austrian Army, 1792-1814 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982), chap. 3; Ross, European DiplomaticHistory, chap. 7; Sherwig, Guineas and Gunpowder, 126-143; and Christie, Wars and Revolutions, 249-61.
? ? ? ? ? Revolution and War CoNCLUSIONs: THE FRENCH REvoLUTION AND
BALANCE-OF-THREAT THEORY
The evidence presented in this chapter supports the main propositions advanced in chapter 2. As predicted, the revolution increased the level of se- curity competition among the European states. Conflict was a constant fea- ture of European politics before 1789 and some sort of war might well have occurred had the revolution never occurred, but the revolution in France was largely responsible for the wars that did occur and the shape that they ultimately took. By weakening France in the short term and casting doubt on the legitimacy of existing political forms, the revolution created both new problems to resolve and new opportunities for other rulers to exploit. The struggle for power within France sabotaged Austrian emperor Leopold's ef- forts to preserve the French monarchy and promote a concert of mutual re- straint, leading directly to the declaration of war in 1792. The war delivered the final blow to the monarchy, and French attempts to spread the revolu-
tion soon brought the rest of Europe into the war. The republic survived the initial assault but eventually became dependent on a diet of conquest and exploitation that made a negotiated settlement extremely elusive.
The dynamics that led to war also support the basic theory laid out in the previous chapter. The revolution created inviting shifts in the balance of power, encouraged states to view one another's intentions as excessively malign, and fostered an exaggerated belief in the efficacy of military force and the prospects for both revolutionary and counterrevolutionary sub- version. These problems were compounded by uncertainty and biased in- formation; which were themselves a by-product of the revolutionairy experience. 232
The Balance ofPower
The revolution in France altered the balance of power in Europe, and these shifts contributed to the outbreak of war in two closely related ways. First, Prussia saw France's apparent weakness as an opportunity either fro acquire territory directly from France or to obtain it elsewhere in compen- sation for helping restore Louis to his throne. A similar motive played a minor role for Austria as well-particularly after the death of Leopold-as Francis II and his ministers came to see war against France as a way to ob- tain international approval for the coveted Bavarian-Belgian exchange. 233
232 As Paul Schroeder points out, "Europe in the 178os was not heading inexorably toward revolution, but toward war, whether or not there was revolution. " Transformation ofEuropean Politics, 51-52. Nevertheless, the French Revolution was the immediate cause of the wars of the 1790S, and largely for the reasons I set forth in chapter 2.
233 See Blanning, French Revolutionary Wars, 115.
[118]
? The French Revolution
Second, the belief that the revolution had left France defenseless boosted its adversaries' confidence that victory would be swift and the cost low. Their calculations were not entirely mistaken, as the French armies did perform poorly at first and would have had difficulty meeting a full-fledged inva- sion. In the end, however, the allies' belief that the French "army of lawyers" would not fight effectively was self-defeating, as it encouraged Austria and Prussia to wage only a half-hearted campaign.
Shifts in the balance of power also contributed to the expansion of the war in 1793. French capabilities were on the rise by the fall of 1792, and England decided to enter the war as a direct response to the French conquest of the Austrian Netherlands and Liege and the danger this posed to Holland. 234 The French victories at Valmy and Jemappes had partly dispelled the image of French impotence, but Pitt and Grenville still believed that the war would offer an easy opportunity to expand England's colonial holdings at French expense. Once again, this view was not entirely unwarranted, and only the extraordinary efforts of the Committee on Public Safety and divisions within the allied coalition allowed the republic to avoid defeat in 1793?
Thus, the French case supports the claim that revolutions cause war by al- tering the balance of power and creating seemingly large windows of op- portunity. Yet it also demonstrates that this effect is only part of the story. Prior to 1792, Prussia was the only state that saw the revolution as an op- portunity for aggrandizement. 235 Frederick William was unwilling to act alone, however, and Leopold and Kaunitz consistently opposed war, be- lieving that Louis' acceptance of the constitution in September 1791 had eliminated the need for military action. Although Francis II was more ac- quisitive and adventuresome, Austria would not have gone to war had the French Assembly taken a less belligerent position from November 1791 on- ward. By itself, therefore, the effect of the revolution on the balance of power would not have led to war. Similarly, England's leaders were less concerned with French capabilities per se than with the purposes for which French power was being used. As noted earlier, England's leaders still saw France as relatively weak, and both Grenville and Pitt emphasized that they were primarily concerned with French actions (such as the closing of the River Scheidt) and not with the nature of the French government or its rela- tive position in the European system.
The growth of French power after 1793 had other effects as well. The de- sire to balance the threat from revolutionary France played a central role in the formation of the First and Second coalitions, although the divisions that
234 Not only was England eager to keep the Belgian and Dutch coastlines out of French hands, but they were worried that the Dutch fleet might fall under the control of the French as well.
235 Cathedne the Great is a partial exception to this claim. She saw the revolution as a means of distracting the other powers and gaining a free hand in the east.
[119]
? ? Revolution and War
undermined both of these alliances suggests that the sense of threat was not overwhelming. Moreover, it was the policies pursued by successive French governments that led to these countervailing coalitions, not simply the growth in French power. Thus, Russia and the Ottoman Empire entered the war in 1798 not because France was becoming too powerful (although this was a concern) but because France's activities in the eastern Mediterranean, and above all Bonaparte's expedition to Egypt, betrayed limitless ambitions and posed an immediate threat to Russian and Ottoman interests.
Perceptions of Intent
The revolution also profoundly affected France's intentions and its wm- ingness to use force. From 1789 to 1791, French assertiveness declined as a consequence of military weakness and a preoccupation with internal events. The Assembly gradually adopted more aggressive policies, however, in- cluding the annexation of Savoy and Alsace, the de facto renunciation of the Austro-French alliance, and the ultimatums demanding that the German princes expel the emigres. The Decree on Liberty in November 1792 marked an even more dramatic departure from diplomacy of the old regime, and nf the quest for "natural borders" did not begin with the revolution, the new regime placed more weight on this goal than its immediate predecessor had. Thus, the revolution did influence French aims and objectives in ways that contributed to foreign perceptions of threat.
This case also supports the claim that revolutionary states are especially prone to spiral toward enmity with other powers. The pervasive fear of an aristocratic conspiracy between the king, the emigres, the papacy, the dissi- dent clergy, and various foreign rulers helped radicalize the revolution be- tween 1789 and 1791 and formed the centerpiece of the Girondin campaign for war in 1791--92. The flight to Varennes reinforced these suspicions, and events such as the Padua Circular, the Declaration of Pillnitz, the formation of the Austro-Prussian alliance, and Austria's imprudent demarches nn 1791--92 merely confirmed the Girondin image of a monolithic counterrevo-
lutionary bloc. Impressions of irreconcilable foreign hostility increased even more during the war; for example, the dire warnings contained in the Brunswick Manifesto helped spark the abolition of the monarchy and the September Massacres and reinforced the prevailing image. This tendency to view opponents as irrevocably hostile reached its peak during the Terror, when any sign of dissent could be seen as treason.
The revolutionaries' suspicions were not without some basis, of course.
Indeed, the deputies were correct to doubt the king's commitment to the constitution, as they were to suspect that the royal family was seeking for- eign assistance. Domestic opposition to the revolution was widespread, and the antipathy of the emigres was self-evident.