It's a great pleasure to have the opportunity to speak with the professor in Jumani from the University of Ragina, in Saskatchewan, Canada. Ian is a specialist in military history. In particular the link between military history and wider politics and, and society. Specifically in terms of the French Revolutionary wars. He has an interest in expertise in the role of military discipline. So I'm going to take the opportunity to ask Ian some questions about, the revolutionary wars and the way in which the armies functioned at that critical time during the French Revolution. So in first of all, why the revolutionary wars so important? What, what drew you to study them? >> The French Revolutionary wars are really essential to any understanding of political development and, the [INAUDIBLE] development of political culture. Not just in France but throughout Europe during this period. it's, I think really impossible to understand the course of the French Revolution itself without understanding the impact of war upon the thinking, the attitudes, the behavior of the revolutionaries. By the same token. The war had a powerful impact on the political cultures of the states that were opposed to France. We can talk about in particular the impact of the war in helping to generate the processes that. Led the terror in France but also it's important to understand the war in terms of the development to the counter terror in contemporary Britain at the same time. We often point to the large numbers of victims that occurred as a result of the terror in France but you could also point out that the suppression of rebellion in Ireland lead to just as many victims during the same period. So, understanding the. Revolutionary wars is important for an understanding of the internal development of France, but also of the great powers against which France was pitted. >> So it's really pivotal to the. The course of the French Revolution from 1792 onwards and but as you say, it also has a major impact on the way other European pals regard France and the importance of counter-revolution. Those the nature of warfare changed during this period? I mean, is this period important for any developments of the nature of armed conflict? >> Absolutely, the French revolutionary army undergo a massive change during this period. The, perhaps massive is the right word because they're much larger than any armies had been had the two. In 1793, 94 as a result to the [UNKNOWN] on [UNKNOWN]. the, French army reaches a peak of some three quarters of a million men. Which is vastly larger than the the old line army of, the old regime. In terms of the composition of, of that army. It's that also is, is transformed, as a result of the Revolutions. There were, there were changes in terms of the recruitment of, of soldiers. The there's a series of levies, first of all, volunteers are. Integrated into the army. Essentially you have two, two strings of recruitment, you're developing two armies. The, there's the white coated regulars inherited from the old regime, and then the blue coated volunteers, which ultimately are brought together through the process of the amalgam, into. a, an integrated national force, which, in principle at least, combined the, professional attributes of the old regime army with the, revolutionary enthusiasm of the volunteers, >> So do you think that. That there is a revolutionary enthusiasm. I mean, do the, do the French revolutionary armies manage to win by the middle of 1794 just because they're so huge? Or is there some sort of revolutionary motivation behind many of the troops that helps explain that victory? >> Well that's a really debatable point. Tim Blanding makes the point for example, that, it's, it's hard to attribute the military, success or failure of the, revolutionary armies to the degree of. Of revolutionary enthusiasm. He, he rather provocatively asks the question do, do they lose because on this particularly day they're not feeling very revolutionary? Which but I, I think There are a number of factors involved. The great size of the armies is definitely important. I don't think we should discount the importance of the motivation of the troops and the revolutionary enthusiasm with which they have been. Been imbued, one instruction from the Committee of Public Safety to, to the generals commanding the armies was that, it's important to maneuver always offensively and en mass, and to resort to the bayonet on every possible occasion. So, that,. Implies a new way of fighting. and, and I think that. That, tactically and strategically, we do see the advent of a new, system of warfare. They're, the seeds of it have been sown already, in the tactical and strategic innovations of the old regime armies. But we see those bearing fruit during the revolution, Under a new. Kind of leadership, as well. One can talk some historians talk about the fusion of political and military leadership. And I suppose, in a, in a sense, Napoleon represents the, the culmination of the process. But, already. Under the Committee of Public Safety, you have that with Carneaux, from the, from the Committee of Public Safety and, pro-consuls, like Sanjuste, also from the, the, the Committee, providing a kind of political supervision to the generals at the front and, so, so this the, the representatives on mission, the Committee of Public Safety, the young. A very dynamic and when they need to be very ruthless generals. Like Bonaparte or [UNKNOWN] or any number of other rising young commanders, help to. Make this a very effective, ultimately, a very effective army. It's not effective in, at all in the beginning and that, it's, it's the fact that it's that there are so many reverses sustained in 93s, 92, 93. That generates the crises, that have such a huge impact, on the political situation in, in France. >> And yet despite the successes, and despite the brilliance of some of the generals, this is a, a massive army that requires, a lot of discipline. Is there something particular about the military discipline that's imposed during these years? I'm thinking particularly after 1794, once the war becomes one really of territorial expansion at least the sister republics and other parts of Europe. There seems to be more and more emphasis placed on. The imposition of discipline on the, on the troops. Is that right? >> Yeah, I think that, that that's correct. Although it's a much more complicated picture overall. Initially when the structures of military discipline were developed and this occurs really early in the revolution particularly in the aftermath of the mutinies of 1790. The emphasis was placed essentially upon protecting the rights of citizen soldiers. And so, judicial processes were put in place that, were really quite idealistic. And in particular they emphasized the, the notion of the, the soldier being tried in some way by his peers. So in some respect, a jury system, and sometimes quite complex jury systems were, were implemented. Again, in order to protect the, the, the rights of, of citizen soldiers. But once war began, the, the emphasis changed, and the emphasis had to be placed upon preserving order in the armies. And that was very difficult to do, given the lack of training, experience, and above all, the problems of supply that those armies sustained. the, and, and in a sense, the. you're, you're, you're quite right. As the character of the war changes after 1795, and the emphasis is no longer so much on national defense, but actually winging a war of conquest the, reliance upon military discipline becomes greater. the, and ultimately there's a return to a system of military discipline that. Places much greater, emphasis upon the authority of offices. Consul's of war, are instituted which by their very name evokes the system of military discipline that had prevail on the [UNKNOWN]. >> And so it's actually returned to >> returned to the same. >> Much more traditional systems of. Discipline. >> Yes, I think so. But I, I, I don't, I don't I don't think I'd want to make too much of that because the in a way, the. The revolutionaries had, I think there's a fair degree of continuity, as well. From the more radical phase of the revolution. And, if you like, the more liberal. System of military justice through to the, to the, to the, the system that prevailed under the directory. I think there's, perhaps, There was even a, even during this earlier period, an awareness that, perhaps it was necessary to find ways to protect or preserve the authority of officers. It's a very complex problem. Is the armed forces a one area where it's very difficult to apply the principles of popular sovereignty and democratization, isn't it? I mean, you do need a command structure. >> I think that's right. Typically, historians have placed a lot of emphasis upon the role of the representatives on mission implementing a sort of. A reign of terror within the army, a terror that was directed much more against officers than it was against the rank and file. So that, that during 93, 94, there was relative leniency for the kind of minor crimes that were committed by ordinary soldiers, theft, in order to survive. That was treated quite, quite gently in, in many cases. Crimes of insubordination against their officers. Also treated relatively gently. But officers who expressed counter-revolutionary opinions. Well, you're off to the guillotine. So So there was that kind of, that kind of emphasis, and it, historians have, again, so many historians have been determined to justify the terror in one way or another. So they have tended to see this reign of terror imposed upon the army as a positive thing. And yet some of the civilian liegists at the time expressed some doubts about whether it was actually doing much good for the discipline of the army. So even, even at the time one could, certainly some people raised some questions about whether this the imposition of a reign of terror, and exemplary executions was actually doing the discipline of the army a lot of good. >> You referred to leniency towards minor matters such as theft in order to survive by, by soldiers. And the final question I wanted to ask you was actually about conditions in the army, because. The impression I get from reading some of the memoirs of, of reconcile volunteers in the critical period of 93, 94 when the whole revolution is a stake, really. Is just how basic the provisions were, how pulling some of the conviction in which people were fighting. Had difficult, the supply issue jammies. Is that something that improves across time,or is it a constant in these years, to be a soldier is a truly miserable existence? >> I think its a constant it, and I don't think it improves very much, certainly. from, from my reading of, of what took place there's one essential feature of revolutionary warfare is that in many respects it was improvised. And I think that applies to the military justice as much as it does to everything else. They're kind of trying to feel there way. They're making it up as they go along and that certainly applies to supply. and, and of course ultimately. These vast armies can't be supplied adequately. Quite often the volunteers of 93, 94 didn't have weapons. So, and, and after 1795 under the Directory. You get a situation where supply has been privatized and the, the, the, the soldiers are being paid in worthless assigna and, and that really undermines discipline. there's, there are many comments on the. The, the, to the effect that offices have become dependent upon the men for their own sustenance, and therefore they exert, they can exert no moral authority over the, over the soldiers. So one historian refers to the system of. Supply during this period throughout as the pillage system. And it's not really a a, a bad way of describing it, because. And, and of course that is, itself, undermining of the discipline of the army because. As soldiers go abroad to pillage, they come into conflict with civilian populations, and they misbehave themselves in all of the predictable ways. >> Ian you've really, enabled us to, to see the ways in which the course of the war, the experience of the war, explains so much. About the, the French and European experience, and I want to thank you so much for such insights, it`s been fascinating. >> Thank you.
