The First Total War and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more
Buy New
$11.39
Qty:1
  • List Price: $15.95
  • Save: $4.56 (29%)
FREE Shipping on orders over $35.
In Stock.
Ships from and sold by Amazon.com.
Gift-wrap available.
Add to Cart
Have one to sell? Sell on Amazon
Flip to back Flip to front
Listen Playing... Paused   You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more
See this image

The First Total War: Napoleon's Europe and the Birth of Warfare as We Know It Paperback – January 16, 2008

ISBN-13: 978-0618919819 ISBN-10: 0618919813 Edition: Reprint

Buy New
Price: $11.39
28 New from $8.37 46 Used from $6.13
Amazon Price New from Used from
Kindle
"Please retry"
Paperback
"Please retry"
$11.39
$8.37 $6.13
Unknown Binding
"Please retry"
Free%20Two-Day%20Shipping%20for%20College%20Students%20with%20Amazon%20Student


Frequently Bought Together

The First Total War: Napoleon's Europe and the Birth of Warfare as We Know It + When the King Took Flight
Price for both: $34.13

Buy the selected items together
  • When the King Took Flight $22.74

NO_CONTENT_IN_FEATURE

Save up to 90% on Textbooks
Rent textbooks, buy textbooks, or get up to 80% back when you sell us your books. Shop Now

Product Details

  • Paperback: 432 pages
  • Publisher: Mariner Books; Reprint edition (January 16, 2008)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 0618919813
  • ISBN-13: 978-0618919819
  • Product Dimensions: 8 x 5.3 x 1.1 inches
  • Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
  • Average Customer Review: 3.6 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (11 customer reviews)
  • Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #95,098 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Bell combines his roles as professor of history at Johns Hopkins and contributing editor for the New Republic in this interpretive study arguing that history's first total war was waged during the Napoleonic era. Scholars have increasingly stressed the global aspects of the network of conflicts extending across North America, South Asia and Europe during that time. Bell goes further, presenting a fundamental transformation of war from an ordinary aspect of human existence to an apocalyptic experience whose "terrible sublimity" tested societies and individuals to their limits and ultimately became a redemptive experience. Total war developed not in the context of nationalism or revolutionary zeal, but in the fundamental sense of a "culture of war" driving participants in the direction of complete engagement and total abandonment of restraint. Ironically, the intellectual roots of this modern militarism are in the Enlightenment belief in the coming of perpetual peace. Revolutionary France transformed a moral concept into a practical one: war to emancipate humanity from its past. Bell's conclusion that this mentality survived two world wars is open to challenge, yet his appeal for the rediscovery of restraint and limitation is particularly relevant at a time of nuclear proliferation and apocalyptic rhetoric. (Jan. 12)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

From Booklist

The wars of the French Revolution acquired a pitiless character and an unprecedented scale for which historians have groped for explanations: ideology and French nationalism are most commonly cited. Bell elaborates an alternate viewpoint without dismissing traditional analyses. The author of two books on the ancien regime, Bell roots his thesis in Enlightenment theorizers of progress and, less philosophically, in the eighteenth-century aristocratic attitude toward war. Bell effectively personifies his case in a nobleman favorable to the Revolution but ultimately consumed by it, titled the Duke of Lauzun. The boudoir and the battlefield were all the same to him, stages for stylized and restrained performances of honor. When Lauzun was sent to western France to quell royalist revolt in 1793-94, his scruples doomed him as radicals demanded the annihilation of rebels. In this shocking civil war of the Vendee, Bell observes the seeds of the "total war" methods that grew apace in ensuing wars and established dark precedents for the future. Astute and fluid, Bell's study has ramifications beyond his historical specificity. Gilbert Taylor
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

I found this book very interesting.
J. Mckenna
Mr VanGaalen's review is pretty much on point, but I rated this book somewhat lower due to several flaws.
David M. Dougherty
Individual soldiers and military leaders could enjoy upward mobility by battlefield achievements.
Patrick Yeung

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

50 of 52 people found the following review helpful By Izaak VanGaalen on February 27, 2007
Format: Hardcover
We have grown accustomed to viewing the World Wars of the 20th century as the first total wars in modern history, for they required the total mobilization and militarization of the societies involved. Their accompanying ideologies, fascism and communism, were appropriately called totalitarian since they left no aspect of society unaffected. Now historian David A Bell has written a new and different history of the Napoleonic Wars (1792 - 1815) arguing that they were in fact the first total wars.

In his introduction, Bell tells us that he is borrowing techniques from intellectual history to write a military history. Traditionally military historians have restricted themselves to accounts of battlefield tactics and weapon systems. Bell is attempting to go further in showing that the ideals of the Enlightenment played a role in what he calls the first total war. He believes that the French Revolution - the apotheosis of the Enlightenment - radicalized people's ideas about how and why wars should be fought.

During the time of the ancien regime - which is Bell's main standard of comparison - wars were limited and short-lived. They were fought according to established rules and usually to defend the honor of this or that aristocrat; in fact, many times the armies were made up of mercenaries. The philosophes of the Enlightenment such as Kant, Diderot, d'Alembert, and the Marquis de Condorcet were certain that with the advent of reason wars would be a thing of the past. As late as 1790 Robespierre was declaring in the Assembly that the French nation had no desire to engage in war, that to invade another country and make it adopt their laws and constitution was the furthest thing from their minds.

Much changed in two years.
Read more ›
1 Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
12 of 12 people found the following review helpful By Rick W on May 8, 2008
Format: Paperback
As a brief history of the late Enlightenment and the French Revolution: 4 stars
As a brief history of the Napoleonic Wars (only 3 of 8 chapters): 3 stars
As a coherent political theory: 2 stars

On average, this amounts to 3 stars and makes for a light readable history accompanied by some often interesting theory. However, if you're getting the book based on its title, 2.5 stars might be more accurate.

The history itself is fine, making for a broad overview with a few good insights, so my critique will focus on the theory and the parallels Bell draws.

Bell is not an idiot and seems to have a good grasp of general history, capable of soberly pointing out that the total American casualties in the War on Terror have so far amounted to less than what the Russians would have suffered in an average 6 hours during WWII. Yet he will often come up with the most inane comments to keep the book contemporary. For instance, he repeatedly states how "uncannily similar" the guerrilla war in Spain is to the current Iraq insurgency. "Uncannily similar" in what sense? The answer seems to be that they're both insurgencies - just like Afghanistan, Somalia, Vietnam, Lebanon, and thousands of other historical insurgencies. Arguably Iraq has more in common with the Jewish revolt against the Romans than with the Peninsula War. But then, of course, if he argued that, he would be admitting that fanatical insurgency predates the French Revolution by a long margin.

What he terms "Total War" is also problematic. The West has only fought a handful of total wars since Napoleonic times. Instead, less technologically advanced societies have tended to be the ones to most fully mobilize their populations in war. But is this really a modern phenomenon?
Read more ›
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
31 of 41 people found the following review helpful By 1. on January 5, 2007
Format: Hardcover
David Bell has written an interesting but somewhat flawed book which states that the Napoleonic Wars was the first total war in European history. According to Bell the intellectual origins of the Napoleanic wars occurred with the writings of elightenment philosophers who wanted to go back to the Classical period in which all the citizens of the republic were part of the army. This theory about the armed republic became reality during the French revolution in which mass conscription took place. As a result of the Napoleonic wars, accroding to Bell, aristocrats soon lost their place with the French army and later in the nineteenth century with other Eurpean armies. As a result classes that taught aristcratic values for army officers were soon replaced by those that stressed technical skills. Also every citizen was judged a combatant and this led to massacres committed by French forces during the Vendee and in Spain and Italy. The are two main weaknesses in Bell's case that the Napoleonic Wars was the first truly modern war in history. The first is Bell's belief that aristocrats and royals were eliminated from the army but this was not the case with the German army in the First World War which included the Bavarian Prince Ruppert as a commander of the main German armies and the Tsarist army of the same time period who had Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich and Tsar Nicholas II as head of the army. Also the Napoleonic wars as being a precursor to the atrocities committed during the two world wars seems to be flawed in that the genocides that occurred in the first half of the twentieth century were based on the physical elimination of class and ethinc groups unlike the massacres in Spain,France, and Italy in the early nineteenth century. Despite these major flaws this book is still an interesting book to read.
1 Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again

Customer Images

Most Recent Customer Reviews


What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?