Historiography and the uses of history in the Second French Empire?

score:2

Accepted answer

Of the three countries, Britain, France, and Germany, France was the least dynamic economically in the late 19th century, and hence the least likely to hearken back to Rome or other classical civilizations.So yes, there were intellectual movements in France but they were in no way comparable to those in England. Put bluntly, they had the least to celebrate or brag about.

The "least dynamic" part can be seen in an abridged version of the table of past GDPs for the three countries. 

GDP in billions of 1990 USD in the chosen years and countries:

(country)    | 1820 | 1870 | 1913
Britain      |   36 |  100 |  225
France       |   36 |  72  |  144
Germany      |   27 |  72  |  237

France's GDP was equal to Britain's in 1820, but had fallen way behind by 1870, and even further behind by 1913. France's GDP was equal to Germany's in 1870, but Germany was growing faster, having started off a lower 1820 base, and was way ahead of France's and comparable to Britain's, by 1913. So the two better candidates for the Roman style historiography were Britain and Germany.

Then why Britain? For a couple of reasons. Britain had been occupied by Rome and Germany (mostly) had not. (It is noteworthy that Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" was written by a British and not a German. Also, Britain had a large maritime empire with plenty of overseas trade. In this one regard, France was more like Britain than was Germany, which was landlocked and "continental.

In other respects, Germany was more "British" than the British. Germany had the faster growth rate, starting out from a lower 1820 base. Germany also had a capital goods economy, and outdid the British in iron and steel, chemicals, and electricity. In these regards, both Britain and Germany were more like the practical, engineering oriented Rome than was France.

AS discussed in another post, France had a more luxury goods oriented economy, one that the Romans might have considered "effete." It drew its inspiration from the luxury trade of the Middle East and Mediterranean, at least during the Middle Ages, and later from the Italian Renaissance. But neither Italy nor the Ottoman Empire could provide the "anchor" to France that Rome did to Britain.

Put another way, Britain celebrated Rome in the 19th century because it was then the "new Rome." France was closer to (non-Roman) Italy, Greece, and the Ottoman empire than to Rome, but those three empires were (at the time) much less prestigious than Rome. Also, France was never occupied by any of them in the way that Rome occupied Britain, so France's connection to those countries was more tenuous than Britain's to Rome.

More post

Search Posts

Related post