What Type of British Identity Was Created during the Wars with France - Essay Example

The Forging of the British National Identity Through the Napoleonic Wars A country’s national identity is a complicated matter. The entire history of a country must be taken into consideration when discussing that nation’s identity. Of course, there are also outside influences upon a country that must be taken into consideration as well. For instance, the United States derives much of its identity from its revolution against England and being rebels in general, but this revolution also affects England’s national identity as well, along with every other former colony of the British empire that is no longer considered a part of England. A nation’s identity is also every bit as dependent upon particular aspects which the citizens of that country might not be especially proud of; for instance, there is no denying that Germany’s national identity includes the horrors of the Nazis and the Holocaust. As these examples have been drawn from instances of wars, it is not a difficult stretch to say that times of war and how a country reacts to being at war is very important in the creation of a national identity. In the case of England, the Napoleonic Wars with France were extremely important in the creation of the British national identity not only because of a threat of invasion but because of the ideologically opposing views held by the citizens of both countries. In considering these differences, we can come to understand the various aspects of British society that took root during these conflicts that still inform the idea of being British to this day. After the failed invasion of England by France, there was great concern of possible future invasions. The preparations made by Napoleon were extensive in their planning, and it was mostly because of conflicts in Egypt and Austria that the full-scale invasion did not take place. Furthermore, this attempted invasion also informed the British navy of future tactics and preparations in case of another invasion. Beyond the actual invading army aspect of this event, the British also used the event to publish anti-French propaganda, and Napoleon became the figurehead for everything that represented the French, and thus he became the object the British scorn to a certain extent: “In the British imagination, Napoleon became a tool put to uses he himself never contemplated” (Semmel 250). The first thing that must be mentioned about the British national identity is that not every person in England during the time of the Napoleonic Wars subscribed to the same views. There were many French sympathizers among the British. In fact, all of the major points of view go towards the construction of a national identity, and there would be no national identity if there were no dissenting opinions. It is not a possibility to convince every single person in a country that one way of thinking is the correct way, and attempts to do so usually just end with the massacring of people with the dissenting opinions. As mentioned, there were French sympathizers among the British: “When radical sympathizers were not looking directly to Paris, they looked enthusiastically to Paine, named an honorary French citizen; he was author in 1791 of the most famous of the 38 critical replies to Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France” (Briggs 114). The anti-French sentiment was not a simple knee-jerk reaction to the threat o an invasion. Additionally, these sentiments should not be considered to be completely in opposition to French ideology either: “These were symptoms not of a counter-revolutionary ‘loyalism’, but of a potent but complicated and conditional ‘national defense patriotism’” (Phillip 34). The British were not strictly in opposition to Napoleon and France simply because of what they represented, but because they posed a threat to their own safety and security as a country. These kinds of worrisome feelings can have a place in the make-up of a national identity as well. The groups in England that were not ideologically opposed to the French also found themselves in opposition to any sort of wars that were not strictly matters of national security: “if ever there was a domestic consensus in favour of a ‘patriotic war’ against Napoleon, it ended along with the serious threat of invasion; opposition groups often protested the war itself thereafter, and sometimes just as vigorously as they had done in the 1790’s” (Phillip 35). Of course, it is important to remember that this was the opinion of one part of society, and there were other parts of the British population that were more inherently ideologically opposed to the French in matters of governance and religion. One thing to consider about the France of this time period was of Napoleon’s drive to spread the French way of thinking. In the declaration of a French empire, Napoleon was stating that he felt that the French way of life and way of thinking were valuable enough to spread forcefully across the globe. Countries might have a sense of self-importance to a certain extent, but it does not compare to the matters of an empire: “Empires carry a sense of mission that generally goes beyond that of nations. Nations may be convinced that they have a unique contribution to make to the common store of humanity; but that does not entail that they engage in proselytism, or seek to impose a vision on the rest of the world. Imperial nations are prone to just this behavior” (Kumar 32). Empires often see themselves as being in a position where proselytism is basically necessary. There are far too many countries and peoples in the world, in the view of the empire, that were not living in an appropriate manner. An empire’s goal is not to simply expand the nation’s territory but their way of life and way of thinking. Without these ambitions, the drive to build an empire would not force a country into a position of striving to do so. Empires are not simply about territory but a way of life. This is exactly why the British viewed the possible threat of a French threat so serious. One nation, especially another nation with empire tendencies such as the British, would not stand for having another way of thinking forced upon them. The threat of a French invasion was also the threat of having the British way of life being devalued. The entire reason the empire-building tendency exists within nations is because the view is that their way of life is the correct one, and because of this, the nation is powerful enough to build an empire. If an empire conquers a nation, especially another nation with empire-building tendencies, this appears as a sign that the invaded nation’s ideology was not strong enough because it allowed for enough weakness for another nation or empire to conquer them. Not only was the threat of one empire forcing their views upon them to be dealt with, but the very fact of an empire being able to conquer the British would have meant an invalidation of the British ideology and the British way of life. Because of this, the British way of life was especially favoured in the propaganda of the time, and the aspects of society which were particularly British were especially favoured. For instance, an emphasis upon the British monarchy was placed during the Napoleonic wars: “But to many, French republican ideology of the 1790’s seemed to be the greatest trial yet, and as dangerous as an invasion. Britons were urged to defend ‘king and country’ in the struggle against Gallic republicanism, which meant the established social and political order” (Hunt 121). The idea of having a monarchy was tied to the very existence of the country and therefore to the national identity. Part of the national identity France during the Napoleonic wars was that it had cast off it’s old monarchy system, which was viewed as anachronistic in France for a time, and the main figures of the monarchy were executed. Louis the XVI and Marie Antoinette were not executed simply because they were the leaders of the country at the time of the revolution; they were executed because the ideology behind the revolution called for the entire monarchy system to be completely displaced. While they were charged with treason, they were really executed in order to validate the new republican/anti-monarchic system and ideology that would sweep over France. Of course, Napoleon went on the reinstate a monarchic system with himself as emperor, which in part weakened the ideological differences between England and France to a certain extent: Having signed a treaty with Napoleon Bonaparte the British government was no longer in a position to cite the ideological unacceptability of the French regime: at the same time those who had defended the French republic in the 1790’s were dismayed by its transformation into a dictatorship” (Harvey 18). Nevertheless, the current government of the time was in place because of the overthrow of the monarchic system and the execution of the king and queen. In order to place as much distance between this French ideology and the British ideology, an emphasis was placed on the idea of being British depended upon loyalty to the king and the monarchic system. It did not even matter at the time that the parliamentary system of the time had more real power than the king; the French had executed their former monarchic leaders, and the way to show how ideologically opposed to the French that the British were was to pace this emphasis on loyalty to the British monarchy. Because of this, the British monarchy eventually took on a certain celebrity status; they were not simply rulers of the country but figureheads and public figures who the public could recognise and view as being representative of the British way of life. A similar, more current example would be the British obsession with Princess Diana. Furthermore, there were particular events, such as the death of Queen Charlotte during childbirth, which helped humanise the British monarchy. Death during childbirth was an issue for all people, no matter what class, and the recognition that one of the monarchy ended up dying during childbirth was the recognition that these people were every bit as human as regular citizens. It was perhaps partially because the monarchy of France did not seem like actual, flesh and blood people that the citizens of the country were able to put them to death for simply being in power; they, too, were figureheads, but they were not figureheads in that they represented the people such as was the case with the British monarchy. Beyond matters of republicanism versus monarchy, the ideological opposition between France and England had every bit as much to do with religious matters. At the time England was a Protestant country and France was a Catholic country. However, it is not a simply matter of one version of a religion in opposition to another version. The thing to remember is England’s history with Catholicism and Protestantism. As Henry the VIII officially broke the bonds of England with the Roman Catholic Church, this was a very important part of the national identity of England. Similarly to the way that the American Revolution helped form the national identity of America, this rebellion against Catholicism and Rome informed the idea of being British; the English declared that they were not a people that were going to be subjected to the will of a religious body from another country. Because the French were Catholic, they were also representative of this old form of thinking and functioning that England had cast off with Catholicism. Because of this, the national identity that England formed through the Napoleonic Wars was every bit tied to the religious differences as it was to anything else: ”More than anything else, it was this shared allegiance combined with recurrent wars that permitted a sense of British national identity to emerge alongside of, and not necessarily in competition with older, more organic attachments to England, Wales or Scotland, or to county or village” (Colley 18). The national religion served as yet another anchor to which England held itself steady during the Napoleonic conflicts. After religion, yet another way for a national identity to be formed is through the cultivation of a literal symbolic figure. John Bull was the form that this figure took during the Napoleonic conflicts: “Artists experimented with several different figures, but ultimately, John Bull emerged as the most popular symbol of the nation, marking the growing importance of the middle class public opinion” (Hunt 121). As we can see from this passage, the middle class opinions were further given more weight as this figure found acceptance in the masses. Comics of John Bull warding off Napoleon as he was attempting to invade England appeared all over newspapers, and this was an image that the citizens of England could rally around. Though there were various songs, poems, and other characters that were created, John Bull was by far the most popular character to the extent that he became a national representation of England. John Bull was supposed to represent the typical British citizenry; he was not a monarchic ruler nor a member of the noble class. He was a figure that every single British middle class citizen could identify with to a certain extent. It was obviously important as well to have John Bull face of in person with Napoleon; it was ultimately saying that it would be the regular British citizenry who would ultimately be responsible for the safety of their country. Having one’s way of life threatened by an outside force such as another country typically has the effect of banding the citizens of a country together to a certain extent. There is no need to discuss a country’s national identity without discussing the aspects of that society which the citizens feel the most strongly about. National identities are not formed through various sub-groups minority opinions. They are formed through a collective sense of communal betterment for those living in the country. Of course, there can be no real civilisation if there is no sense of the common good; people would simply actively behave in a manner that would benefit themselves, and that is no way to behave in a society if anything is going to function in such way as to make any sort of progress. The “Us versus Them” attitude that was cultivated during the Napoleonic Wars between England and France only served to make the British citizens feel a sense of belonging to each other, to the monarchy, and to their country. While the British Isles had a history, and still does to a certain extent, of internal strife between various different areas, this could not compare with the greater overall threat of and devaluing of the British ideology that would be the result of a French invasion. From a personal attachment to the monarchy who are viewed similarly to celebrities the continued importance of the role of Protestantism, so much so that there have been recent problems with Irish Catholics, many of the aspects of the British national identity were created as a reaction to the empire-driven tendencies of Napoleon. Works Cited Briggs, Asa (1999) The Age of Improvement 1783-1867, Longman Publishing. Emsley, Clive (2003) Napoleon: Conquest, Reform and Reoganisation Pearson/Longman. Harvey, Arnold (1992) Collision of Empires: Britain in Three World Wars, 1793-1945 . Continuum International Publishing Group. Hall, Chistopher D. (1992) British Strategy in the Napoleonic War, 1803-15. Manchester University Press ND. Hueckel, Glenn Russel (1985) The Napoleonic Wars and Their Impact on Factor Returns and Output in England. Garland Publishing. Hunt, Tamara (2003) Defining John Bull: Political Caricature and National Identity in Late Georgian England. Ashgate Publishing Kumar, Krishan (2003)The Making of English National Identity. Cambridge University Press. Melman, Billie (2006) The Culture of History: English Uses of the Past, 1800-1953. Oxford University Press. Phillip, Mark (2006) Resisting Napoleon: The British Response to the Threat of Invasion, 1797-1815. Ashgate Publishing. Semmel, Stuart (2004) Napoleon and the British. Yale University Press. Read More