#square Louise Michel | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

usergreenpixel · 2 years

Text

MALMAISON MEDIA SALON SOIRÉE 9: THE SECOND EMPRESS (2012)

1. The Introduction

Greetings, my dearest Neighbors. Welcome to today’s soirée here at the Malmaison Media Salon.

Tonight is a special gathering, mostly for two reasons. Firstly, I’m not the only host today - @maggiec70 , @joachimnapoleon , @josefavomjaaga and @count-lero were kind enough to agree to help me out. @suburbanbeatnik is also welcome to chime in, seeing as she writes historical fiction involving Napoleon so I trust her expertise as well.

Secondly, tonight we have a bingo night! Props to @tairin for suggesting that I turn this review into a bingo game. I already posted the images of your bingo cards and sent them to my mutuals in the Napoleonic community personally but, just in case, here they are:

These cards were designed by yours truly and you’re going to need them. Trust me.

The rules are simple. You just need to put a check mark on the square that corresponds to what you just heard. For example, check off “Inaccuracies” when I mention an inaccuracy. Okay?

Anyway, before we begin the bingo game, allow me to introduce the subject of today’s review. It’s a book published by Michelle Moran in 2012 and it’s called “The Second Empress”.

How did I stumble across this book? Actually, I must give credit to @maggiec70 , who suggested that I review it after Imperial Venus, as both the former and the latter feature Pauline Bonaparte as an important character.

Well, after reading the entire thing here, I’m extremely happy with my decision not to purchase it in any format and dig up a free online version instead. Let’s just say that annoying ads were the least of my problems while I was reading this shit, but we’ll get to that later.

Please, prepare to check things off your bingo cards, sip tea and demolish this motherfucking abomination.

Let the soirée commence!

2. The Summary

The following (lengthy) summary comes from Goodreads:

“After the bloody French Revolution, Emperor Napoleon’s power is absolute. When Marie-Louise, the eighteen year old daughter of the King of Austria, is told that the Emperor has demanded her hand in marriage, her father presents her with a terrible choice: marry the cruel, capricious Napoleon, leaving the man she loves and her home forever, or say no, and plunge her country into war.

Marie-Louise knows what she must do, and she travels to France, determined to be a good wife despite Napoleon’s reputation. But lavish parties greet her in Paris, and at the extravagant French court, she finds many rivals for her husband’s affection, including Napoleon’s first wife, Joséphine, and his sister Pauline, the only woman as ambitious as the emperor himself. Beloved by some and infamous to many, Pauline is fiercely loyal to her brother. She is also convinced that Napoleon is destined to become the modern Pharaoh of Egypt. Indeed, her greatest hope is to rule alongside him as his queen—a brother-sister marriage just as the ancient Egyptian royals practiced. Determined to see this dream come to pass, Pauline embarks on a campaign to undermine the new empress and convince Napoleon to divorce Marie-Louise.

As Pauline's insightful Haitian servant, Paul, watches these two women clash, he is torn between his love for Pauline and his sympathy for Marie-Louise. But there are greater concerns than Pauline's jealousy plaguing the court of France. While Napoleon becomes increasingly desperate for an heir, the empire's peace looks increasingly unstable. When war once again sweeps the continent and bloodshed threatens Marie-Louise’s family in Austria, the second Empress is forced to make choices that will determine her place in history—and change the course of her life.

Based on primary resources from the time, The Second Empress takes readers back to Napoleon’s empire, where royals and servants alike live at the whim of one man, and two women vie to change their destinies.”

Okay, I must admit now that the summary itself has breadcrumbs of slander and Anglophone propaganda more blaringly obvious than a neon sign, but let’s not jump to conclusions and unpack this, if only to see what “primary sources” contributed to the creation of said “masterpiece”.

3. The Story

Let’s start with the only thing that I liked about the story - its potential.

Propaganda aside, when you think about it, Marie-Louise was in a difficult situation in reality so I do like the idea of exploring what she had to deal with in a work of fiction. Although courtly drama usually isn’t my cup of tea in fiction, I can see the potential of such a story if it is given a good plot, good characters, good writing style, etc.

Unfortunately, the plot is definitely FAR from good. Multiple inaccuracies aside, it was insufferably boring to me, with flashbacks, filler scenes and the unnecessary inclusion of letters between the historical figures ruining what little immersion I had and making me want to drop the book completely.

The pacing doesn’t help, because it’s slower than a pregnant sloth and, to me, all the attempts to add action (in the form of a love triangle) fall flat quickly.

Plus, with time the happy ending for Marie-Louise (as in, Napoleon being exiled for good and her return to Austria to be with her lover) just becomes more and more predictable! Of course she will get her happy ending and of course the “villains” in her life will lose! Well, that was anticlimactic...

The stakes aren’t exactly there most of the time and it’s really hard to be concerned about the heroine due to this fact. Why should I give a shit if I know everything will work out for her in the end?!

I also hate the fact that the author chose to adopt a “black and white” morality for the story.

The protagonists may as well be candidates for canonization by the Catholic Church, while the antagonists feel almost like cartoonishly evil bad guys from a Disney movie.

We’ll talk more about portrayals of characters later, so here I will only add that, most of the time, the “good vs bad” approach isn’t really fit for historical fiction as a genre.

Heck, even some children’s cartoons know better than do that, so I’m genuinely surprised that this is the approach that a book clearly aimed at a much older audience uses. And by “aimed at adults”, I’m referring to the fact that it has scenes with nudity, an all but stated outright sexual assault and all that fun stuff, so the childish morality really looks out of place in something that is trying to tackle such mature topics.

Oh, and the love triangle between Pauline, Paul (the chamberlain) and de Canouville (Pauline’s lover)? Totally unnecessary sideshow that didn’t need to be there in the first place. And it especially didn’t need to almost end in a duel between the two men but it fucking did. Yay, melodrama... Check it off your bingo cards, everyone.

4. The Characters

Okay, let’s begin with Marie-Louise, the protagonist.

She starts out as someone forced into a difficult and awkward situation, what with being supposed to marry a monarch of the country in which her great aunt got executed and the groom having a horrible reputation because it’s none other than Napoleon himself!

However, the potential to make Marie-Louise a somewhat tragic character is quickly thrown out the window when the author goes out of her way to make her heroine into a perfect saintly angel.

Marie-Louise is hardly ever wrong, she never fucks up, she is almost universally loved by everyone (except the bad guys of course) and, of course, she gets a happy ending.

So, basically our Saintly Marie-Louise ™️ is a textbook case of a Mary Sue character - a character who is perfect in every way, never wrong, almost universally adored, etc. She might also be the author’s avatar and a way to express the author’s views on the historical figures portrayed, but I’m not sure if there is a case of a self-insert at play.

Napoleon.... oh boy. Look, my dear Neighbors, I’m going to preface with the fact that I don’t like him at all, but the levels of demonization he is put through in the book make me feel bad for the guy, which is a big fucking achievement!

In this book, Napoleon is explicitly stated to be unable to love anyone but himself, not even either of his spouses or his own son. He is close with Pauline, but doesn’t seem to care about her all that much either.

He quickly does away with all his charm as soon as Marie-Louise is with him after he gave her the official welcome, shows exactly what he thinks of her by calling her “a birthing cow”, yells in the presence of his toddler son to toughen him up... The list of the misdeeds of Napoleon the Tyrant ™️ continues, but all of this is nothing compared to the stunt he pulls during the wedding night.

(Dearest Neighbors, here’s a trigger warning because the description of the following scene implies assault. Please click away if you don’t want to read this.)

Here’s the deal. So, we have the wedding night and the marriage must be consummated. Marie-Louise is too tired, however, and refuses to undress when Napoleon orders her to do so. Yet he repeats the order and bangs her anyway! Yes, I’m being serious. In this book, he shags his wife without her consent.

I... WTF did I just read?! I wish I was joking when typing all of the above, but nope. I wasn’t. And I regret ever reading this...

Napoleon isn’t the primary villain though, believe that or not. That role goes to Pauline.

Throughout the story, Pauline is portrayed as a possessive femme fatale who is in love with Napoleon and wants him all to herself. Yes, in that way. It’s basically incest here, which is apparently an old chestnut when it comes to lies.

She wants to rule Egypt together with Naps, she does everything in her power to make other women in his life feel inferior to her and is shown to be on her way to becoming outright delusional towards the end.

Oh, and she is ambitious. Ambitious enough to protest her newborn nephew’s status as King of Rome because she wants Rome for herself (even though the real Pauline wasn’t about politics, from what I know).

The author seems to employ a lot of tactics to show how tyrannical and evil (and later delusional) Pauline is, up to the point where, in one scene, she uses one of the ladies serving her as a footstool and dresses her servants as Egyptian slaves. I don’t even know how true it is in the swarm of all the lies, but that scene is clearly there to demonstrate that Pauline is evil and just as bad as her brother.

Paul, Pauline’s Haitian chamberlain, has a much more interesting character arc in the beginning so I would rather read a book about him. He is a mixed race young man who is in love with Pauline and loyal to her until she becomes so evil he can’t tolerate her company and runs off to Haiti, so to me his character felt wasted and the resolution of his arc is a bit too boring. Add the love triangle, and the impression that this character was flushed down the drain along with his potential only amplifies. Shame, really. I kind of like him as a character.

Caroline Murat gets a treatment only slightly better than what her siblings do so she is still slandered.

*Laure Junot has entered the chat*

She is portrayed as a callous, miserable woman who is arrogant with Marie-Louise, is extremely cruel and insensitive when the latter has to leave her dog behind and even wonders why anyone would love a pet. I honestly expected Caroline to kick that dog with how overboard the author’s portrayal of Caroline and Pauline as callous bitches went!

Murat himself, fortunately, doesn’t get slandered but this could be because he only makes a brief cameo. Still, the first impression he has on Marie-Louise is pleasant enough for her to wonder how Murat could be married to Caroline...

Aside from Murat, other characters who don’t get slandered include Hortense. And here she is idealized like Marie-Louise!

They apparently become friends when Hortense is made Marie-Louise’s Mistress of the Robes despite the fact that Hortense is already the Queen of Holland here so she can’t be a lady-in-waiting, making the plot point illogical.

(In reality, Marshal Lannes’s second wife was Dame of Honor to Marie-Louise, but here that woman only makes a brief cameo and is largely left out because the author forgot about her.)

But, all that aside, Hortense is also portrayed as a victim of the cruel Napoleon, the sweetest person ever who was married off to a cruel tyrant of a husband, etc. Oh, Poor Sweet Hortense ™️! 🙄

When it comes to minor characters, I kind of like Metternich, even though I’m not sure how accurate his portrayal is. He is nonchalant, weirdly enthusiastic about Marie-Louise’s wedding and he is implied to be having an affair with Caroline Murat. He is also the one who helps Marie-Louise prepare for her life with Napoleon.

Josephine doesn’t appear and is only mentioned, so I can’t make very accurate judgement on her.

Unfortunately almost every character is smeared with slander so let’s move on.

5. The Setting

Can’t judge the accuracy of costumes and buildings described here, but the descriptions fail at immersion and there are tiny inaccuracies that just make things even worse.

For example, Napoleon is described as having a cup of orange flower water each morning, while in reality orange flower water was mainly used with recipes or drank as a spoonful of tonic to aid with digestion. Supreme Being knows what else is inaccurate, but research has clearly left the chat.

6. The Writing

Oh god, the writing style is atrocious like in a bad fanfiction! There’s a first person present tense narration, which is annoying and sounds like characters are just voicing what they’re doing on the go, making things sound unnatural with this writing style.

There are also gems like Marie-Louise, a Hapsburg princess mind you, saying “What the Hell”, a phrase that would be more appropriate for a commoner or a drunk soldier than her. But at least she isn’t dropping f-bombs.

And also the narration is littered with unnecessary long descriptions of how characters look, their dresses, flashbacks of their backstories and inclusions of letters in their entirety. Like I said, it only breaks immersion and feels completely unnecessary so I don’t understand why all those elements are in the book.

Other than that, though, at least the language used in the writing is comprehensible.

7. The Conclusion

Phew, it’s finally over! As you may have guessed, I would NEVER ever recommend this book. Not just due to propaganda, but also the horrible style, flat characters, wasted potential and an oversimplified, overstretched story.

Okay, it’s time to end our bingo night here at Malmaison Media Salon. You can keep the cards and help yourselves to food and drinks as a reward for sitting through the review of such a monstrosity.

As for me, I gotta go now, but I will post updates soon so please stay tuned.

Your Neighbor,

- Citizen Green Pixel

#history #napoleonic art #napoleonic literature #napoleonic media #napoleonic era #napoleon bonaparte #pauline bonaparte #caroline murat #marshal murat #prince metternich #empress marie louise #the second empress #michelle moran #malmaison media salon #literature review

53 notes · View notes

inthearmsof · 4 years

Text

'La Grotte de l'Amour' - Émile Derré (1908)

Square Louise-Michel, Montmartre

Paris, France, 2019 (insta)

128 notes · View notes

cincinnatusvirtue · 4 years

Text

War of the Fourth Coalition: 1806-1807. Napoleon nears his zenith, Prussia is rocked, Russia reels and Poland is partially restored...

Napoleonic France by the start of 1806 was nearly unquestionably the most powerful force in terms of military prowess and influence on the European continent. In 1804, Napoleon Bonaparte had after a referendum crowned himself Emperor of the French. Fifteen years after the start of the French Revolution and subsequent overthrow the Bourbon royal dynasty, France’s unstable republican era had given way to a military dictatorship and new imperial dynasty with republican influences resulting in the First French Empire. 1805 saw the War of the Third Coalition, the third such anti-republican multi-national formation since the French Revolution which sought to check France’s influence and restore the balance of power on the European continent. The Third Coalition consisted mainly of the British, Austrian and Russian Empires in opposition to France’s own empire. Britain maintained control of the seas with the Royal Navy and funded Austrian and Russian forces with subsidies of gold to press a joint attack against France and her satellite states in the Low Countries, Italy and Germany. However, the war was effectively over with Napoleon’s major tactical victory over a joint Austro-Russian force at Austerlitz and the subsequent peace with Austria.

With Austria out of the war, Britain relegated to the seas in a stalemate with France and Russia licking her wounds in retreat in the east, there was a series of political overtures gesturing for peace but nevertheless war remained ongoing. An obstacle remained the French occupation of the Electorate of Hanover, a German state of the Holy Roman Empire that was in personal union with United Kingdom of Great Britain since the early 18th century with the Hanover dynasty ruling Britain. Britain’s ally Sweden had attempted to take Hanover from the French in the spring of 1806 but itself was defeated. Britain and France mostly avoided direct military conflict aside from naval clashes and a single battle during this time.

1806 also saw Napoleon continue to unravel the existing political order with a series of decrees and political moves, ones that would provoke a European major power that had sat idle during the last decade, the Kingdom of Prussia. Other than Austria, Prussia was the German speaking world’s great power. During the 18th century it had risen from small fiefdoms to a much expanded kingdom straddling East and Central Europe. Military reforms and martial discipline had made it into one of the foremost powers in Europe and its reputation for brilliance on the battlefield was best exemplified by Frederick the Great’s performances during the War of the Austrian Succession and the Seven Years War. However, by the time of the French Revolutionary wars and the Napoleonic era it had aside from earlier participation against France remained untested.

Prussia was angered by French trespasses on to its territory to partake in the Battle of Austerlitz by ultimately stood out of the war. Napoleon also had in 1806 practiced duplicity in his dealings with Prussia. He had offered them Hanover in exchange for some territory to be given to France’ s German ally, the Kingdom of Bavaria. Meanwhile, Napoleon had also offered Hanover’s restoration to Britain during abortive peace negotiations earlier in the year and the discovery of this duplicity greatly upset the Prussian government. Prussia’s other grievance was Napoleon’s decree of the Confederation of the Rhine, a new reorganized loose confederation of German states that replaced the 1000 year old Holy Roman Empire which had existed since the Middle Ages. The Confederation of the Rhine required these German states to secede from the Austrian run Holy Roman Empire. Austria’s own emperor, Francis II ceased to be known as Holy Roman Emperor and was ever after, Francis I, Austrian Emperor. Neither Prussia nor Austria were members of the Confederation of the Rhine whose primary function was to serve as a buffer state between France and its German enemies to the east. All the small princely states of this divided Germany were now under the primary political and military influence of Napoleonic France. They would serve as satellite states who provided German troops for his campaigns elsewhere and would in turn benefit with increased recognized political rewards, namely in elevating a number of these fiefdoms to the rank of grand duchy and kingdom, increasing their “stature”. Prussia greatly resented what they saw as French meddling in German affairs and the loss of their own influence among Germans.

Russia and Prussia forged an alliance as well during this time but Russia was still trying to reorganize its forces after it’s defeats in 1805, though it had not actually made peace with France unlike Austria. The French and Russians nearly made peace mid year, but Tsar Alexander I ultimately declined as last minute.

Prussia’s government was divided over the decision of whether or not to go to war with France in the autumn of 1806. King Frederick William III was initially hesitant and undecided, it was actually his wife, Queen Louise of Mecklenberg-Strelitz who siding with the war party in the government convinced the King to declare war. In August that year war was officially declared, Prussia independent of any other major power save for distant and reorganizing Russia would face the French Empire and its new Confederation of the Rhine. Prussia however did have the support of the Electorate of Saxony at war’s start as well. Prussia hadn’t fought a war since 1795 and in relied mostly on its former well earned reputation as a preeminent military power to face France, Prussia’s leadership remained confident that victory was a certainty given this reputation. However, the reality was far more grim, Prussia’s military had become outdated and in need of reform. Like Austria, it suffered from outdated organization on almost all levels, its leadership were veterans 40 years past their prime, its tactics were equally outdated as was some of its weaponry. Prussia had been famed for its discipline but this alone was not enough to win the day as they would soon find out. Meanwhile, France since the Revolutionary days had undergone 15 years of military reform. Its conscription was now more expansive, its leadership was based more on individual merit as opposed to the European tradition of nobility leading troops regardless of military prowess. Furthermore, under Napoleon logistics, discipline, weaponry and overall organization with the innovative corps system had revitalized the French military into the Grande Armee. Napoleon also improved the French economy to better finance his troops and gave them a strong sense of patriotic fervor and his own tactical prowess combined with an almost unbroken string of personal victories gave him an aura of invincibility.

In September, Napoleon launched French forces east of the Rhine into a so called battalion square formation with his Corps (mini-army) spread out but in close enough distance to support each other. The French were uncertain of the Prussian troops exact location. The goal was to pass through the Franconian Forest into Saxony and deliver an uppercut like blow to the south of Prussia, catching them off guard. Initial engagements at Schleiz and Saalfield were not the promising start the Prussians hoped to have, they were brushed aside and the latter battle saw the death of Prince Louis Ferdinand, member of the Prussian royal family. On October 14, 1806 the major showdown between France and Prussia took place in a now famous double battle, known to history as Jena-Auerstadt. It was in fact two simultaneous battle fought separately but interrelated and relatively close by to one another. At Jena, Napoleon personally commanded the bulk of the French army in the vicinity numbering some 40,000 troops against 53,000 Prussian and Saxon troops. Meanwhile at Auerstadt, one of Napoleon’s Marshals of the French Empire, Louis Nicholas Davout, the so called Iron Marshal due to his stern discipline and courage lead his III Corps numbering 28,000 troops against a 60,000 plus strong Prussian force.

At Jena, the battle was fought on a grassy plain and Napoleon’s intention was to attack the Prussian flanks and he ordered Marshal Michel Ney to maneuver into a position to do so and await further orders. Ney’s corps attacked before it was ordered to do so leaving the French center vulnerable to counterattack. Recognizing this danger, Napoleon, ever the adaptable to changing situations on the battlefield ordered his Imperial Guard to reinforce the French center and delay the presumed Prussian counterattack and allow for Ney to be rescued. Ney’s corps were rescued in time and meanwhile the Prussians felt to even cease the initiative against the French center leading to great death due to French artillery bombardment. The French flanks pressed hard against the Prussians and eventually began to encircle the enemy forcing them to withdraw. Napoleon had won his portion.

At Auerstadt, Davout would bump into the main Prussian force almost by accident in the fog, starting opening skirmishes that branched into full deployment of his Corps against a Prussian force three times his size almost. Repeat Prussian charges against the French III Corps resulted in a stunning defensive victory for Davout and his men which had held off the main Prussian force joining against Napoleon at Jena. Davout had unquestionably and unexpectedly to all saved the day, though at great loss of life. Napoleon when told of Davout’s single corps holding off an entire Prussian army without assistance initially cast doubt on its veracity. When he found it was true, he awarded Davout, the noble title 1st Duke of Auerstadt in honor of his victory. He also gave Davout’s III Corps the ceremonial honor of being the first French troops to parade into Berlin victorious. The victory of Jena-Auerstadt effectively undid the bulk of the Prussian army in one day and allowed the French to occupy the Prussian capital shortly thereafter, capturing many surrendering troops along the way. Napoleon captured the capital but the Prussian royal family and leadership retreated east to East Prussia and its old capital of Konigsberg, carrying on the war. While in Berlin, Napoleon had a triumphal march in front of the Brandenburg Gate. He also visited the tomb of Frederick the Great, Prussia’s 18th century king and military genius whom Napoleon respected and had studied in military school. He ordered his Marshals to take off their hats in solemn remembrance of Frederick, famously remarking over his grave “If he were alive today, we wouldn’t be here.” Napoleon had in under a month, completely routed the bulk of the Prussian army, ended its military reputation as unstoppable force and captured its capital. While he achieved a fast paced initial victory it wasn’t a full on political victory. War was to drag on in the east and a renewed Russia was to be his opponent.

In the coming days after Berlin’s capture, Napoleon issued his Berlin Decree that November, putting into effect his Continental System. A system of trade and economic warfare against his most intractable foe, Britain. It forbade trade with the British Empire by any nation in continental Europe, his hope being that this would help starve the British economy into peace. The effectiveness of the Continental System was undone by ongoing noncompliance and smuggling in the coming years and would backfire on France in notable ways, namely in Iberia and Russia. Meanwhile in the immediate future, Saxony switched sides, joined the Confederation of the Rhine and was elevated to kingdom status by France. Now Napoleon needed to head east and finish off Prussia so that he could force a treaty with them. He sought to completely weaken Prussia and he also needed to undo them before they reorganized and joined with Russia which was forwarding its own troops westward.

Meanwhile, in Prussian controlled Poland, the Poles who had been without their own nation since the late 18th century partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth by Prussia, Austria and Russia rose up against the Prussians. The renewed Polish nationalism coupled with the arrival of French forces would use this most opportune time to restore the country’s independence. The Poles were induced in part due to call for conscription by the Prussian military, they revolted and due to Prussia’s weakness from the French inflicted defeats they were in little position to subdue the rebellion. The Poles established what would become the Duchy of Warsaw, which in the coming years was to become an important French client state that supported almost all of Napoleon’s campaigns up through and after his Russian campaign of 1812. The Poles would earn a reputation among the foreign soldiers who fought with the French in the Napoleonic Wars as among the most fierce and capable in Napoleon’s armies.

Napoleon and his troops now entered in the early months of 1807 what was known as East Prussia. The Russian strategy was one of withdrawal so as not to overextend their lines and have Napoleon exploit them by cutting off their rear which was precisely what he hoped to do in another uppercut like fashion as he had done to the Prussians in the autumn. After some touch and go battles with the Russians throughout December and January on February 7th, France and Russia would collide in major fashion for the first time since Austerlitz 14 months before at a place called Eylau. Napoleon had left his forces more spread out than he had in Germany, this was due to the poor roads and winter conditions making it harder to travel, additionally he was overconfident in repeating his victorious results at Jena-Auerstadt. At Eylau this was not to be the case though. The Russians were better concentrated and the French would be. Eylau was a small town on a plateau with heights commanding the approach. Elements of the French calvary under Marshal Murat and the French IV Corps under Marshal Soult encountered the Russian rearguard who were eventually reinforced by Russian artillery and forced a French retreat. Eventually other French forces arrived by forced march. Both sides battled for control of the town itself but by nightfall the fighting continued with heavy casualties before the Russians withdrew just outside the town. Heavy snowstorms decreased visibility and both sides spent the night out in the freezing snowy open fields. Daybreak on the 8th brought a little warmth to the troops who now occupied two opposing ridges on the plateau. The Russians had shortened their right wing to shore up their center but this left them vulnerable to flanking maneuvers. They covered this weakness with a vicious artillery bombardment front the center which the French returned with equal gusto. Both sides attempted to attack and defend the Russian right flank. The French then planned a counter strike against the Russian left only to get lost in the blizzard that descended once more on the field. It kept a portion of the attack on track only to have little effect and another Corps was sidetracked elsewhere and facing deadly crossfire between both sides’ artillery. Napoleon realized his own center was now exposed and weakened, had two options to either commit his own elite Imperial Guard as he had at Jena or deploy Murat’s cavalry reserve. He went with the latter and sent an 11,000 strong cavalry force into one of the largest cavalry charges of all time against the Russians. The weather helped obscure Murat’s force and they attacked with fury against the Russian lines with sides fighting fiercely, only the timely arrival of a smaller Prussian force prevented the Russians from total collapse. Napoleon should have at that moment sent in the Imperial Guard to overwhelm the Russian and Prussian forces but for reasons unknown he did not, losing the initiative for once. As a result the battle raged on slowly. The French continued to maneuver around the Russian lines and gradually pushed them back by nightfall yet again. After much deliberation that night during a lull in the fighting, the Russian leadership ordered a withdrawal. Neither side had slept well, had been fighting day and night for nearly 14 hours straight and on no food and with mounting causalities and bad weather, the Russians saw no alternative but to retreat. The French were initially unaware of the retreat and by the time they did realize the Russians were in retreat they were too exhausted to pursue. Napoleon had retained the battlefield, one littered with frozen and bloodied corpses. He gained no real advantage, the Russian army though battered would live on to fight another day. Eylau was the first time Napoleon was personally forced into a draw, the spark of his earlier genius had for once abandoned him on the battlefield, it was now a question of whether his genius was fading altogether?

Napoleon sought a separate peace with Prussia after Eylau but it was rejected outright. Napoleon now knew he had to wait for better weather and reinforcements to force a decisive victory. He also sought to dispense with the moderate political overtures, Prussia and Russia were going to suffer. Both sides battered needed time to recuperate from Eylau and waited the winter and spring out so the cold weather wouldn’t be a bother and so the roads would dry out after the winter thaw and spring rains. By June 1807 after a mostly quiet lull both sides would meet once more at Friedland on the 14th. Marshal Lannes lead his Corps out to pursue the Russians, who hoped to pin him down in isolation and destroy his Corps near Friedland. Lannes men held a delaying action and sent urgent messages to Napoleon for help, he could now engage a full sized Russian army once more and this time in better early summer weather. Lannes stubborn defense of Friedland forced more Russian troops across the Alle River as had hoped, since this would allow Napoleon to concentrate his reinforcements timely and then destroy the Russians with their backs to the river, preventing an escape like at Eylau. French and Polish troops fought side by side against the Russians and more bloody fighting in various pockets of the battlefield took place. Finally, Napoleon fixed the Russians into place and had Marshal Ney’s Corps press the attack against them. The Russians with their backs against various bends in the river were easy targets for the French artillery and Ney’s subsequent follow up attack which proceeded with haste. Nightfall was causing the French to fear a repeat of Eylau but the solid dry ground and lack of bad weather allowed the French to focus and hone their attacks, the French applied canister shot at close range against masses of Russians huddled on the riverbanks with no place to go but either collapse in surrender or take their chances in the river where they may drown. Ultimately, this did happen and the Russians began a confused withdrawal across the river, many drowning in the process. 10,000 French and Poles were wounded or killed while the Russians had 20,000 wounded or killed. This time however, the Russians were soundly beaten and were in no fit shape to continue the war after the savagery of Eylau and now Friedland, which was a total French victory. Tsar Alexander I sent peace envoys on the 19th. He would agree to meet Napoleon at a place called Tilsit.

Tilsit was located in East Prussia near the Neman River which runs through the modern Russian exclave of the Kaliningrad Oblast, Lithuania and Belarus. The Treaties of Tilsit signed that July would officially end the War of the Fourth Coalition in France’s favor. Symbolically the two emperors, Napoleon and Alexander would meet in a makeshift raft built and anchored at a halfway point between French and Russian controlled territory. The Franco-Russian treaty was signed on July 7th during this first meeting. Alexander said to Napoleon right away “I hate the English as much as you do.” To which Napoleon replied “Then we have already made peace.” The terms of the treaty were as follows. The two empires of France and Russia would become de-facto allies dividing up the continent between their spheres of influence with the Vistula River in Poland as the natural boundary between these spheres. France offered to assist Russia against its old enemy, the Ottoman Empire and in return Russia would join the Continental System against Britain. Additionally, Russia was induced into a declared war with Britain that would last for the next five years. It was also given a free hand to face Sweden in the Finnish War of 1808-09. The Russians had earlier in the decade captured and occupied Moldavia and Wallachia in modern Moldova and Romania, then part of the Ottoman Empire, they were to evacuate them as well as Greek Ionian Islands off the west coast of Ottoman Greece, these islands were handed over to the French. Napoleon in turn guaranteed the sovereignty of the Duchy of Oldenburg and other German states where the Tsar had relatives.

Prussia’s treaty with France was signed on July 9th. Its terms were much harsher, Napoleon sought punish them for starting the war in the first place. King Frederick William III was forced to lose half his territory, some going to its old ally Saxony, some to the Napoleonic creation, the Kingdom of Westphalia in Western Germany and some to Russia. Most humiliatingly, it was forced to cede its portion of once partitioned Poland to the newly semi-independent Duchy of Warsaw, a Polish rump-client state of the French Empire which sought eventual liberation of all of former Poland, including from Russia and Austria, for now the Duchy was a first step to total Polish independence. Prussia’s total army was reduced to no more than 43,000 troops where as before the war it had been roughly 250,000 total. It also had to submit to permanent French occupation and garrisoning, pay a large reparation of 154 million French francs and provide troops to serve in the French Empire’s campaigns as needed, becoming in effect a de-facto ally and vassal state of the French Empire.

The Treaties of Tilsit were followed by weeks of wining and dining between the French and Russian Emperors, the two seemed to have developed a somewhat genuine affectionate friendship during this time. Alexander previously despising Napoleon was supposedly mesmerized by Napoleon’s personality and his hypnotic stare and Napoleon in turn somewhat learned to find trust in Alexander, though in reality it was likely a combination of mutual awe and smokescreen flattery. They attended military parades, exchanged gifts and pleasantries and then parted ways. Tilsit was a resounding success and was nearly the zenith of Napoleon’s military and political influence, the French Empire was to grow ultimately in the coming years with 1809-1812 being its absolute apogee. Only later would the disasters of the drawn out Peninsular War in Iberia and the later Russian Campaign of 1812 have disastrously grave consequences, sending Napoleon’s good fortunes crashing to the ground in 1813-1814.

#napoleon #napoleonic wars #first french empire #prussia #russian empire #russia #france #19th century #1806 #1807 #tilsit #duchy of warsaw #poland #germany #tsar alexander i #frederick william iii

11 notes · View notes

crimethinc · 11 months

Text

Today we observe the birthday of Louise Michel—schoolteacher, poet, fiction author, and popularizer of the black flag as the symbol of anarchism.

In the article "Heroines of the Revolution," the daily paper of the Paris Commune described her thus: "An energetic woman is fighting in the ranks of the 61st battalion. She has killed several police officers."

Nonetheless, a square is named for her in Paris today.

Read about her role in the Paris Commune:

http://crimethinc.com/arch18

Read about her role popularizing the black flag:

http://crimethinc.com/TheBlackFlag

70 notes · View notes

parisfind · 5 years

Photo

A dad watched the kids ride the carousel at the Square Louis Michel, Montmartre, Paris. . . . #Paris #carrousel #parisien #merrygoround #parisphoto #parisjetaime #parislife #parisart #montmartre #parismonamour #parismaville #parisgram #parislove #pariscity #villedeParis #Instaparis #Iloveparis #parisfind (at Square Louise-Michel) https://www.instagram.com/parisfind/p/BwkCz44ngfr/?utm_source=ig_tumblr_share&igshid=ivt1bqyj1xxf

#paris #carrousel #parisien #merrygoround #parisphoto #parisjetaime #parislife #parisart #montmartre #parismonamour #parismaville #parisgram #parislove #pariscity #villedeparis #instaparis #iloveparis #parisfind

14 notes · View notes

cinenthusiast · 5 years

Text

WARNING: The following contains heavy semantics. This is the equivalent of letterboxd users breaking down their dumb rating systems. OK, not as bad, but still! You have been warned!

I’m starting a new (and final) iteration of something I’ve done my whole life. A single list of my 50 Favorite Actors, covering the full scope of era and gender. I’ll make a new one from scratch each year as a kind of record. 50 doesn’t leave too much room for sudden or drastic evolution, but the long game is what I’m playing at.

All of my old lists (of any kind) used to be ranked. Frankly, fuck that. I’m all for ranking within narrow frameworks (Top Ten By Year, etc) but general lists like favorite actors and movies? Why do it? Numbers make the whole thing an arbitrary assessment, isolating the actors and films into a misguided hierarchy that doesn’t add any insight or clarity. Lists and rankings are such an oversaturated aspect of culture content as it is, and I’d like to avoid this feeling like just another ranking. The collective group is the thing, the totality of taste, interest, and meaning. Keeping this a singular entity (with one or two caveats) preserves this as a personal journal entry of sorts, a snapshot and not the end-all be-all. It’s a way of capturing my taste in film and the people in it. I’ve put a star next to my ten favorites, and I’ve got a separate long list of people I considered but ultimately didn’t add, and that’s the extent of it.

Growing up, I made favorite actor lists obsessively. When I was around six or seven I would play ‘School’. I was the teacher. My students? The likes of Tony Danza, Christopher Lloyd, Danny DeVito, and John Travolta. I had pages and pages of any actor whose name I knew (the entire casts of Angels in the Outfield and Addams Family Values were represented). I took very careful attendance to make sure everyone was present, calling out each name and imagining that yes, they were there. Each actor received a little check in their row of squares (I made sure I had the checkered graph paper to keep everything orderly and precise).

age 11

all of these were made at age 11

Then there were the dark days, the days when tween Katie made lists like Top Ten ‘Cutie-Patootie’ Actors (a reference to the Rosie O’Donnell Show, yes, the Rosie O’Donnell Show, seen above). As you can see, the kid from Dennis the Menace topped that one. I also had my constantly revised Top Ten Favorite Actors & Actresses. Five actors from the lists pictured above are also on this current one: Nicole Kidman, Jim Carrey, Winona Ryder, John Travolta, and Michelle Pfeiffer. They were major icons for me then, and they remain so now, 20 years after the fact. They are forever favorites.

the four quadrants, from 2006 (age 18)

What followed were continuously updated versions of this, covering half my lifetime: Top Blank (at varying points it was 20, 30, and 50) Modern Actors, Modern Actresses, Classic Actors, and Classic Actresses (‘Classic’ accounted for the Hollywood studio era). They were always divided into those four quadrants. I can timestamp the years by who was on them. Simon Pegg at the top? Must be 2008. Katee Sackhoff near the top? I must have been watching “Battlestar Galactica” then. You can find the 2012 versions on this site: here and here.

These categories created considerable grey area, swaths of actors that never really fit comfortably in their group. Those who either featured in films from both eras (Jack Lemmon) or were technically of the ‘Modern’ era but with careers that didn’t really transition into the current (Faye Dunaway). And those ‘Modern’ lists were always much more about the now. I never made room for these actors who qualified as ‘Modern’ but who could be pinpointed to the past. I wanted to feature the up-and-coming, people whose careers I was excited about now! Filmographies I could follow along with as they progressed.

This factor, which meant so much to me then, means nothing re: this new list. For one, I don’t follow current stuff to the degree I used to. 21st century film is less interesting to me (current TV far less so). But I’m really fond of a lot of actors working today, from relative newcomers to tried-and-true character actors to cemented A-listers. The group there was no room for, not by a long shot, were the relative newcomers. I’m an easy lay when it comes to loving actors. But with over a century of performers to choose from, it doesn’t leave much room for the young “oooh I love him/her/them, I can’t wait to see what they do next” ones.

But for the record, the fresher (2010 to present) faces that I’m most invested in are Adam Driver, Elizabeth Debicki, Tom Hardy, Lakeith Stanfield, Kristen Stewart, Jesse Plemons, Nicholas Hoult, and Jonah Hill (whose career trajectory I’m endlessly intrigued by, a man funnier than most of his peers, with the unstable depths of a Chris Penn, whose hyper-sensitivity about being taken seriously and joining the ranks of the prestigious show up on the screen).

The old lists, especially the 50-each ones that totaled to 200 actors, were actually more challenging than this list. Because with so much room, you’re fooled into thinking everyone can be represented. But they can’t; even those lists fill up quick. And now, with just 50 total, it gets down to essentials. There are the favorites, and then the ones who matter most. Oh, I love them? Cool, next! Oh, I love them a lot? Cool, next! Omgtheyaresoamazing? Cool. Next!

There are so many actors whose performances I consistently love or enjoy, that I always look forward to seeing and am often moved by. But there’s a difference between actors who frequently deliver great work, and actors who make something inherently more just by being there, that make me sit up in my seat because what they give either draws out extra engagement from me or they are so distinctive a presence that the fabric of the film/show is thereby altered. But none of this exists without the secret ingredient: that chemical thing that just draws you to one person’s talent and onscreen life more than another.

The factors are endless. Above is my next tier of favorites, the ones that I didn’t go with but thought about and in some cases agonized (yes, agonized) over whether to include or not.

What do you do when a specific stretch of someone’s work means more to you than most people’s entire careers? Most don’t make it (Patty Duke, Diane Lane, Juliette Lewis, Marlon Brando, etc) But a few do: pre-Dick Tracy Warren Beatty, Eric Roberts in the 1980’s, and Sandy Dennis in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s.

What do you do with the actors who are still alive but not working regularly, at all, or at the same caliber they used to? Most don’t make it (Nancy Allen, Tim Curry, Kathleen Turner, Fairuza Balk, Sheryl Lee, etc). But a few do: Jim Carrey, Shelley Duvall, Theresa Russell (a spot that could have been occupied by many that mean just as much to me, but I went with Theresa this time because it felt right), Eric Roberts, and John Travolta.

What do you do with the actors who mean a lot to you but whose careers were so brief that it’s hard to justify adding them over others? Unfortunately, almost all of those actors didn’t make it (Linda Manz, Paula Sheppard, Laird Cregar, Zoe Lund, James Dean, Pamela Franklin, etc). One does: Louise Brooks.

What do you do about the actors you love watching more than most but whose work you aren’t familiar enough with yet? None of them make it (Natasha Lyonne, Yaphet Kotto, Silvana Mangano, Helmut Berger, Dagmar Lassander, Tuesday Weld, etc). There are plenty of films from the 50 I’ve yet to see, but I’ve at least seen enough.

Then there are all the others, the really tough ones. I think about James Gandolfini more and more as the years go by. Harvey Keitel’s performances resonate a lot more as I get older (those defiant eyes, I can often feel him). I can’t believe I didn’t make room for Christina Ricci. Julia Louis-Dreyfus is the defining comedienne of my lifetime. There is only one Carol Kane, Donald Sutherland, Nicolas Cage, Joan Cusack, Parker Posey, Lily Tomlin, Crispin Glover. I get distinct pleasures from watching each of them. Some of my favorite immortals are Marlene Dietrich, Alain Delon, Judy Garland, Bette Davis, Buster Keaton, Cate Blanchett. I’m pretty sure I talk about Jude Law all the time. I will, and have, watched Jean-Claude Van Damme in anything I can find. In recent months I’ve rewatched a lot of key Samuel L. Jackson performances (Jackie Brown, Pulp Fiction, Black Snake Moan, Django Unchained), and was newly reminded that he is one of our most compelling living actors. His pervasive and phoned-in presence in every imaginable franchise had led me to forget that. I’ve been hooked on Gene Wilder, Charles Laughton, Eva Green, Cillian Murphy, and still am. It goes on and on and on.

But this is the challenge of it, and the fun of it. My 50 favorites capture my fascination with stardom and long-range careers with eras & reinventions (ex. Crawford, Cruise, Fonda, Monroe, DiCaprio, Farrell, Taylor), physicality (ex. Chan, Ball, Phoenix, Reeves, Olyphant) & commanding physical presence (ex. Reed, Kidman, De Niro, Mitchum), blue moon charisma (ex. Pfeiffer, Russell, Walbrook, Cagney, Reed, Nicholson), the ones I feel a deep connection to (all of them but especially Carrey, Brooks, & Hoffman) & offbeat god-tier character actors (Dennis, Dourif, Roberts, Black, Duvall) I would take a bullet for.

I start to realize some of the people that aren’t even on this second list: Tilda Swinton, Kate Winslet, Robin Williams, Ingrid Bergman, Cary Grant, Humphrey Bogart, Gloria Grahame, Katharine Hepburn, Michael Shannon, Al Pacino, Meryl Streep, Jeanne Moreau, Saorsie Ronan, Brad Pitt, Gena Rowlands, Dirk Bogarde, James Mason, Jeff Bridges, Ethan Hawke, Jeff Goldblum, Steve Buscemi, Julianne Moore, Catherine O’Hara, Catherine Deneuve, Juliette Binoche, Charlize Theron, Robert Redford, Julie Christie, Michael C. Hall, Michael Caine, Malcolm McDowell, John Hurt, Paul Newman, Anjelica Huston, Sigourney Weaver (every time I watch her in something I think about how much I love her. Her work in Alien 3 means a lot to me), Elliot Gould, etc etc etc. Hell, Peter Mullan is the only person on either list who appears in any Harry Potter film, and that franchise employed basically every British actor you can think of. Most of these actors have been on other lists in the past. Some you’d always be guaranteed to find there (Binoche, Deneuve, etc). As I type this I am realize I forgot Michael Stuhlbarg and John Hawkes in that second group. At the end of the day it just becomes about knowing who there was never any question about, and going with your gut on the rest.

But these 50 (ok, 52, I cheated, the truth is out!), the ones I ultimately chose, are the actors whose work collectively means more than the rest, my ultimate favorites: the ones I can lose myself in, and then find myself in. Who are yours?

1st Annual 50 Favorite Actors list WARNING: The following contains heavy semantics. This is the equivalent of letterboxd users breaking down their dumb rating systems.

3 notes · View notes