1 Stone

Duncan C. Stone

Professor Schechter

French Revolution

06NOV17

A Review of William Scupham: Friends, Fellows, Citizens, and Soldiers: The

Evolution of the French Revolutionary Army, 1792-1799 Primary Source, Volume
V, Issue I pp.24-31

What is the authors argument?

The crux of the authors argument is that the French Army during the French

revolution was different both from the previous royal army of the French monarchy and

the Grande Armee that Napoleon would use to conquer much of Europe following the

French Revolutionary wars. Scupham argues that unlike the previous and future armies

that the French Revolutionary Army was as much a tool of politics as it was of defense,

and through the adoption of new tactics and strategy changed the way that war was

fought in Europe for the next quarter of a century. He also claims that the Army itself

mirrored the successes and failures of the revolution, and because of this the two were

inexorably linked. He concludes his argument by claiming that without the French

Revolutionary Army the fledgling French republic and the revolution itself would have

quickly failed.

Is the author is mainly interested in filling a historiographical gap?

Scuphams primary motivation in writing this scholarly article is to fill in a gap in

history that he believes has not received much attention by historians. While the political
2 Stone

and social outcomes of the French Revolution have been covered by numerous

scholars in detail, the history of the French Revolutionary Army is often overlooked by

historians. This purpose is made abundantly clear by the author who states in his

introductory paragraph that. One thing that often gets lost in the bloody tumult of the

storming of the Bastille, the execution of the king, the Terror, the rise of Napoleon and

all the rest is the way that the military influenced the revolution and was influenced by

it. (24) Therefore, the authors purpose in writing this article is to explore a piece of

history that he feels has been overlooked in favor of more famous and well-known

aspects of the French Revolution.

Who are the authors scholarly allies? If the author has a long list of scholarly

allies, discuss the three most important allies.

Scuphams scholarly allies in this article are fellow historians of the French

Revolution who have covered some aspect of the French Revolutionary Army in a way

that Scupham believes supports his arguments. However, as Scupham has an

extensive list of allies, I will focus on the three allies mentioned most frequently in the

articles footnotes. The first of these three allies is Owen Connelly, a fellow historian.

Connellys primary focus is the political effects of the Revolutionary Armys defeats and

victories on the French Revolutionary government. From his work Scupham draws the

conclusion that while the Revolutionary Army was essential to the preservation of the

Revolutionary government, it was also feared by the politicians as victory could remove

their government from power just as effectively as a defeat (27). Scuphams second

primary ally in the article is John Lynn, who focuses on the tactics and moral of the

French Revolutionary Army. Scupham uses Lynns arguments that the egalitarian
3 Stone

nature and inexperience of the French Revolutionary Army helped to form it into a

deadly fighting force to support his own claims that the Revolutionary Army was the

driving force behind the change in tactics and strategy that swept through late

eighteenth-century Europe. The third major ally of Scupham throughout his article is

Jean Paul Bertaud, who focuses on the evolution of the French Revolutionary Army

from an unorganized rabble to a major political instrument that would ultimately usher in

Napoleon and end the revolutionary era. Scupham uses Bertaud to support his

argument that the Revolutionary Army wielded immense political power in the latter

years of the French Republic, and the fear that the republican leaders had that they

would one day be replaced by the military because of this power.

What kinds of primary sources has the author used to support her/his argument?

Where has the author obtained these sources?

Unfortunately, Scuphams article does not reference many primary sources as he

mainly draws support for his arguments from secondary sources. The primary sources

that he does mention in the article though are primarily letters, orders, and transcripts

from the meetings of the revolutionary government during the 1790s. Scupham seems

to have obtained these documents through either quotations from the primary source

used in a secondary source referenced elsewhere in the article (For example the

primary source Les represents du people is referenced as a quote mentioned in Lynns

secondary source), or from edited collections of material taken from the parliamentary

archives of the period.

4 Stone

Do you see any potential problems with these sources? For example, are the

sources biased? Are they not well-suited to answer the question/s the author is

trying to answer?

While the sources that Scupham uses in his article are excellent, I see a few

potential problems. To begin with, the article seems to rely too heavily on secondary

sources, as much of the evidence supporting his arguments is drawn from these

sources and not primary sources. Secondary sources are subject to an inherent bias

found in any scholarly work no matter how diligent the author is, and as Scuphams

arguments draw so heavily from these sources I think that the information that he is

referencing may have been slanted one way or the other by this bias. I would also have

liked to see some additional primary sources as I feel that their inclusion would

strengthen the arguments that Scupham is making in his article more so than the

possibly flawed secondary sources that he has instead used.

Does the author have an awareness of any potential problems with the sources?

If so, how does she or he respond to these problems? Are you satisfied with this

response?

Although Scupham is relying primarily on secondary sources for his article he

does not seem to be aware of the potential problems that these sources could pose to

his arguments validity. He does not make any mention that the authors of the

secondary sources that he is using could have been biased about the importance of the

French Revolutionary Army to the Republican government as this is the same point that

he himself is trying to argue throughout this article. Reading through the article, I find

this approach to be unsatisfactory. While it is fine to find documents that only support
5 Stone

your argument, I would have liked to have seen several sources from opponents that

made counterpoints to the arguments presented by both Scupham and his allies. I

believe that he could have made his argument much stronger by doing this, as it would

have allowed him to provide specific examples of the Armys importance using primary

sources to refute the claims of his opponents.

Choose two of the authors claims that you find most convincing, and explain

why you are convinced?

Although Scupham makes many interesting points throughout the article, the two

that I found to be the most convincing were the claims that the French Army and

republican government relied heavily on one another for support, and that the

organization of the French Revolutionary Army revolutionized warfare in the late

eighteenth century and early nineteenth century. I find the claim that the army and

government were inexorably linked to be convincing because as Scupham points out

both were revolutionary in their own ways (26). The revolutionary government was a

radical institution for the time, with much of its doctrine, customs, and structure being

made up on the fly much like the command structure and organization of the

Revolutionary Army. The government depended on the army to keep the hostile nations

of Europe away from France, but also carefully considered each move that the army out

of fear that a conquering general would one day replace them, with good reason as

history has shown. I am also convinced that the French army of the time also was

responsible for the change in warfare that defined the Napoleonic period of war. As

Scupham points out, the inexperience of the soldiers and officers in drill and tactics

meant that emphasis was placed on swift, aggressive attacks that focused on closing
6 Stone

with the enemy as swiftly as possible so that their advantages in drill would be

overwhelmed by sheer numbers. This method of warfare proved devastating as the later

French Revolutionary Wars show and forced the nations of Europe to develop new

strategies to match the French, with mixed results, making the French army responsible

for the changes that previously stagnant European militaries underwent during this time.

Choose two of the authors claims that you find least convincing, and explain why

you are unconvinced?

In the article, there are two claims that I find to be less convincing than the other

excellent points that Scupham makes throughout the article. The first is the claim that

the French Revolutionary Army contained few competent officers in its early years.

While it is true that many French officers either fled or were executed during the

revolution, there still was a large competent core of noncommissioned and junior

officers under arms in the new force, and it was these men that would conquer much of

Europe under Napoleon. Therefore, I remain unconvinced by Scuphams claim as most

famous French officers in the Napoleonic wars began their careers in the French

Revolutionary Army. The second unconvincing claim that Scupham makes is that the

French people flocked to support the new Revolutionary army out of patriotic fervor or to

support their family members in the force. Instead I would claim that the reason why

support for the army was widespread was fear of invasion. Even though the revolution

may not have been popular in certain areas of France, the idea of being invaded by a

foreign power and losing the right to self-governance would have been an excellent

motivator for individuals to support the army, as it not only protected the republican

government, but also the citizens of France.

7 Stone

Overall, how convinced are you of the authors argument?

Although Scupham does not use many primary sources, and has several weak

claims in his article I find his argument that the French Revolutionary Army changed the

course of European history to be convincing for two reasons. The first reason is that

Scupham explicitly points out is the role that the army played in keeping the

revolutionary government of France in power for the first crucial years of its rule, giving

it time to develop and mature from a mob into a functioning government. The second

reason has to do with the tactics and organization of the army itself. Because the army

had few officers from the old regime in its ranks, it was able to adopt new tactics that

had been proposed prior to the revolution but never implemented, allowing French

generals such as Napoleon to change the way that war was fought and dominate the

battlefield for almost three decades.

What is the larger significance of the authors argument? In other words: why

should we care today about the topic and what the author has to say about it?

Scuphams argument of the importance of the Revolutionary Army in the French

Republic is important, as scholars have covered almost every other aspect of the

French revolution in exhaustive detail, but have paid only cursory attention to the

organization that ensured that the revolution survived beyond its early stages. A deep

understanding of this organization is therefore critical in appreciating the significance of

the revolution itself. While the French revolution may have changed the course of

Frances history, as Scupham notes in his final sentence: The Revolution was saved by
8 Stone

the blood, tenacity, and merit of the Revolutionary Army, forever changing Europe in the

process (30).