Customer Reviews

La Belle France: A Short History

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I hate to write a bad review about a book written by someone as famous and published as Alistair Horne, but so many of the reviews written thus far have been so over-the-top with praise that I have to say something. Horne has written books on France under Napoleon, the First and Second World War, the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71, and the Algerian War in the 20th century. However, he has not written books on the early history of France (before Napoleon) which is where I made my studies in grad school.

Whenever I read a book of history like this, I look at the sections on what I know. If the author does a good job there, then I figure the author is doing a good job elsewhere where I know less. In this case, to select one chapter, the one on Louis XIV, Horne makes too many mistakes to be taken seriously. Either his research team didn't do their job right or he did not know that he was relying on bad secondary works. Thus, he ends up repeating past mistakes.

A non-comprehensive list of errors in one chapter:

page 153 Louis XVI was Louis XIV's great-great-GREAT grandson, one more generation separated the two men.

page 165 in 1709 Louis XIV's former mistress died (Madame de Montespan) but he did not lose her, as Horne says, because when he was told about it, the king said she had been dead to him for years. She had not lived at court since 1690.

same page There is a whole paragraph on the Peace of Utrecht, Marlborough's intervention in Europe, the undoing of Colbert's achievements, and the loss in the value of the French livre between 1683 and 1713 that requires more explanation than I have space. To select one issue, the livre lost value, not because of France's defeats, but because of the policies of Colbert's successors who devalued the coinage and currency several times between 1683 and the Peace of Utrecht. That means they reduced the amount of gold and silver in the coinage.

page 166 Madame de Maintenon, or Scarron as Horne calls her, played absolutely no role in the revocation of toleration for the Huguenot. Research has proven this.

page 167 Horne has confused Frederick I of Prussia with Frederick II the Great who was not born while Louis XIV was alive.

page 168 Horne attributes a poor harvest to the suffering of the poor without saying that the harvest was caused by one of the worst winters in French history that was responsible for killing five percent of the population (one million people).

page 169 In describing the King's day, he fails to mention that, after 1690, Louis XIV put in longer days working at governing France. He stopped attending the balls, operas, and parties that went on at Versailles. Instead, he worked in the evenings with his ministers. Versailles became deadly dull.

page 170 The Dauphine, Louis's daughter-in-law, is said to have died after giving birth to Louis' first grandson, the Duc de Bourgogne. Funny, she had two more sons after she died, I guess.

same page Horne has the King say, in 1700 after his second grandson, whose mother according to Horne died before he was born, became King Philip V of Spain, that, "The Pyrenees are no more." Unfortunately, Louis XIV did not say that. The Spanish Ambassador did.

Same page Horne says the thermometer fell below -21 degrees F. What thermometer? No such instrument existed in 1709. Neither did Fahrenheit as a scale. The temperature fell below -21 degrees Fahrenheit as we measure temperature today. Perhaps this is an author's shorthand, but...

Page 171 has a paragraph on deaths in the royal family. Horne describes the eldest grandson, the Duc de Bourgogne (the one whose mother died shortly after his birth) as a hard worker with the King's affections. In reality, the grandson was a timid religiously narrow man who had lost the Battle of Oudenarde in 1708 and embarrassed the royal family doing so. Louis XIV never gave him another command. Horne is reflecting the opinion of one faction at court, not the King's opinion. In any case, Horne says he died in 1712 as the Allies were threatening Versailles. Actually, in 1712 the English deserted the Allies and France was able to turn the tide defeating them at Denain to gain some advantage at the negotiating table. I guess mentioning the English desertion of their allies in a history of France would not be right.

Enough recounting the errors in one chapter. How many errors do you have to have before they become too many? I cannot recommend this book to anyone based on this one chapter. It is not a good book. And I have to confess that I stopped reading after this chapter. I had read everything up to that chapter. Maybe it got better, but I don't have the patience to read bad books. My time is too limited.

I will say that Horne does describe the importance of the Battle of Bouvines in 1214 that forced King John of England to seek higher taxes leading to the confrontation with his barons and Magna Carta in 1215. For that alone, I gave this book two stars instead of one. Many English historians fail to consider the impact of foreign events on their country's history. The title of this book when it was published in England was "Friend or Foe: An Anglo-Saxon Looks at French History."

In my opinion, the role of a narrative history is to arrange the puzzle-pieces of individual facts into an interesting, entertaining story that allows the reader to better see the entire mosaic of history. Unfortunately, in my opinion "La Belle France" does not do a good job of this. Horne jumps around in both chronology and subject matter; fascinating anecdotes are abundant, but "the big picture" is largely elusive. For example, Horne gives an excellent and vivid description of life in Paris during the Huguenot siege in the 16th century. However, little attention is given to the social forces that gave rise to Protestantism in France, the type of folks who converted, etc. We're given a vivid description of the tortures Protestants endured, but without any context I was left wondering why anyone would risk the threat of such torture by becoming a Protestant. Horne seems to assume that the reader already knows the big picture.

Another reviewer did a top-rate job of chronicling the factual errors, which I won't try to duplicate. However, I did take notice of the fact that Horne references the "Droit de Seigneur" (the right of feudal lords to sleep with women on their wedding night) as settled fact. I know that there is plenty of debate about this supposed practice, and in my mind this called into question the factual accuracy of the rest of the book.

For anyone seeking a model of how a good historical narrative should be done, go no farther than Horne's FRANCE:this is how it's done. It is humorous, informative, maintains an agreeable pace, and does not burden the reader with a nuisance ideological overflow. The breadth of knowledge and use of quality sources is impressive (Tuchman, Schama...), but the highlight is the subtle and sometimes not so subtle one and two line zingers.
What is most impressive is Horne's marvelous command of flow and detail while still maintaining cogence in the grand sweep of French history. One of the most enjoyable books I have read in a long time, the momentum is established on the first page and never falters.

This book is a good one volume history of France. The author, Alistair Horne, who has written numerous books on the history of France, has provided a brief chronological overview of many centuries of French history in an engaging narrative. The major historical periods and events are summarized, from the rule of the Capetians to the presidency of Mitterand of the late 20th century. Horne seems particularly adept at describing French history of the 19th and 20th centuries, vividly bringing to life events such as the Nazi occupation of Paris. He describes the major political, social and economic forces across centuries and also highlights how key historical figures (e.g., Louis XIV, Napoleon) have shaped the country's history. The book, however, almost seems too brief. I was left wanting more information and more detail about specific historical periods and events. The book also does not provide much on the history of France prior to Philippe-Auguste. In addition, more explanation and background about important events, such as the Commune of Paris and Communards, would have been helpful. The inclusion of French phrases that are not translated is unfortunate, and the Index could be more exhaustive (e.g., the Index does not provide any page references to 20th century French literature even though several pages are devoted to this topic). Despite these concerns, I would recommend the book as a good, popular history. It is a highly readable and informative portrait of a fascinating country.

I would think that Alistair Horne's "La Belle France" would appeal most and be most useful to someone who has a limited knowledge of French and/or European History. As someone who is such a reader, I have nothing to say about any percieved errors in this book, but I can say that it fulfills its most important duties: it sparks an interest in further reading, it creates the structure or outline that more in-depth study requires, and it makes for an engaging and entertaining read in its own right.

"La Belle France" also gave me quite a bit of empathy and admiration for France. I don't think one could walk away from this book thinking of the French as being a bunch of "cheese eating surrender monkeys". It is simply impossible for we crowing Americans to comprehend the horrors and instability that France has experienced since 1789, and even before that. Those horrors may have been the result of their own actions, many of the horrors may have benn committed by their own hand, but they were horrors none the less. I don't think many Americans realize that France lost 100,000 lives attempting to resist the German march to Paris in WWII, hardly a pathetic surrender. This coming less than 30 years after 1.4 million of their citizens were killed and their countryside demolished in WW1. This perspective doesn't absolve (for example) those, under Vichy, who enabled the Nazis. It does, however, make it harder to cast judgement on the France as a nation. The resort to cliche is an indicator that one doesn't know what their talking about. This book helps to dispel the cliches.

France is so compelling because it is the most confounding country in Europe, particularly for "un anglo-saxon." In both Mitterand and de Gaulle, Horne sees those things, not quite contradictions, that make France a subtle an difficult place to understand. The problem Horne leaves the reader with is where do we go next? Do we study de Gaulle, Mitterand, Napolean, the revoltuion, the Commune? Horne's chapters of each of these topics were incredibly interesting. Not a bad problem to have. I will certianly be reading "Seven Ages of Paris".

FYI, a very basic understanding of French would be helpful when reading "La Belle France", being that some basic phrases are not translated. I thought this untranslated statement from a woman harassed for dating a German during the occupation was both sad and quite funny: "Mon cul est international, mais mon coeur es toujour francias!"

I bought this book thinking it would be a humorous, fast read.
It isn't; it is a serious piece of work. After an initial surprise, I began to really enjoy it and found it to be very informative and interesting. The author knows his subject cold.
He writes beautifully. This book is worth the effort.

Everybody knows something about French history, but much fewer can place individual events like the French Revolution, Napoleon's rise and fall, and the Paris Commune into context. Alistair Horne takes on that task and does a pretty good job of it. Horne's pleasant writing style borders on the chatty but it's a chattiness that is informed by a deep understanding of French history and, particularly, the central role that Paris has played in it, a fact that is true down to the present day. While Horne exhibits a deep affection for France, he doesn't allow that to deter him from dispassionately and clearly discussing the glorious and horrendous periods in French history. If you ever wanted to know how all those places and events described in the Michelin Green Guides are tied together, this is the book for you.

If you want a readable and simple history of France this is a good book, but it is not a great book and there are entire pieces of it that could have been left out. The first problem is that most of the book up untill the 16th century, or up until Louis XIV, is basically weak, it is weak on writing and comprehension and story-telling. It is just not very interesting and cobbled together, collected facts. There is absolutely no sense of pre 800 A.D France. The period after Louis XIV however is well written with a full understanding of the currents in French politics, culture and military affairs.

Therefore this is a good read, a very general history and one that someone should buy who knows very little of French history. If you are remotely familiar with the outlines of French history you may be disappointed.

Seth J. Frantzman

This is not the place to go to in order to find out much about France or its history. Sketchy, repetitious, a mishmash of anecdotes. If you're looking for amusing tidbits, there's a plethora of them here, but they're presented in a confusing, non-chronological order.

La Belle France: A Short History is a book with two sides. The first part of the book deals with the history of France before the reign of Napolean, an era which the author, Alistair Horne, has never written about before. This part of the book presents a confusing jumble of annoying ancedotes that confuse the reader and make it hard to remember what the chapters were about. The second part of the book, beginning with the reign of Napolean and ending at the election of Chirac, provides a fairly well written overview of the more modern period of France, an era which the author is more used to. In the end, this book is a good beginners look at the history of France, but should definately no be counted on as a solid background in the history of one of the most influential and illustrious nations in Europe.