Napoleon’s Empire: European Politics in Global Perspective 18-20 April 2012 German Historical Institute, 8 rue du Parc-Royal, 75003 Paris Conference report by Peter Geiss, History Department, Bergische University of Wuppertal The aim of the conference on "Napoleon’s Empire: European Politics in Global Perspective", organised by GUDRUN GERSMANN (Paris) and UTE PLANERT (Wuppertal) at the German Historical Institute in Paris, was to open up and extend the Western European-dominated frame of reference that, until very recently, had left its stamp on research into Napoleonic rule. Given that the upheavals associated with Bonaparte’s political and military strategy were felt from the Ottoman Empire to the North Cape and from the Tsarist Empire to South America, there is a pressing need to take a global perspective on the Napoleonic age. Hence the conference was attended by speakers from some 25 countries and geographical regions. Their presentations provided a summary of the previous historiography as well as a survey of current research. In her introductory lecture ANNIE JOURDAN (Amsterdam) described the age of Napoleon and the French Revolution as the first field of research in French historiography to experience a massive "scène d’entrée" by foreign historians. This external perspective was initially driven by criticism of French "imperialism" and it played a crucial role in "demystifying" the Empire. Since the early 1990s, however, attention has increasingly come to focus on an analysis of transnational processes in the transition to modernity. Jourdan called for a further extension of the field of vision and closer consideration of the long-distance effects of the Napoleonic regime on the other side of the Atlantic. The search for such interrelations should not lure researchers into constructing a “Napoleonic Atlantic”, however, since this would merely constitute a new form of Eurocentrism. In the first section, which was devoted to Western Europe, JACQUES-OLIVIER BOUDON (Paris) began by looking at domestic developments in Napoleonic France. He described in precise manner the composition of the functional elites and showed that the regime drew on the nobility of the ancien régime (ministers) as well as on personnel from the representative bodies of the Revolution, but used new sources of recruitment in the military and technological fields. NATALIE PETITEAU (Avignon) highlighted the lack of research on the political and cultural history of rural areas. In contrast with the prevailing view, she was able to demonstrate the clear politicisation of the rural population that found expression in spontaneous demonstrations of loyalty to Napoleon, for example. BRECHT DESEURE (Leuven) and JOHAN JOOR (Amsterdam) established that the historiography was initially dominated by the patriotic paradigm in what was later to become Belgium as well as in the Netherlands. Consequently, Belgian and especially Flemish historians had long seen affiliation to France as one of several manifestations of foreign rule (along with that of Spain, Austria and the Netherlands). The interest of historians from the Netherlands had concentrated on the Batavian Republic, whereas the Kingdom of Holland and its subsequent incorporation into the French Empire had been neglected as less auspicious chapters in the national history of the Netherlands. ALAN FORREST (York) opened the section on the Ibero-Atlantic area by remarking that, while Napoleon might rank as an object of fear, hate or even admiration in the United Kingdom, the island monarchy and its empire emerged stronger than ever before from the conflicts with Napoleonic France. LUCIA MARIA BASTOS PAREIRA DAS NEVES (Rio de Janeiro) drew attention to an astonishing transfer. Whereas the liberal aspects of the Napoleonic legacy had tended to exert a long-term influence in Europe, it was from Napoleon’s monarchist traits that Brazil derived inspiration in proclaiming Peter I Emperor after it had gained its independence from Portugal colonial rule in 1822. Looking at the "Peninsular War" from a Spanish standpoint, JEAN-RENÉ AYMES drew attention to current controversial research on the role of the Spanish guerrilla, whose role had possibly been overestimated. In his contribution on the independence of the Spanish colonies STEFAN RINKE (Berlin) showed that attempts to mobilise people on religious grounds, which played a key role in the Spanish resistance to the Napoleonic "Antichrist", also gave rise to inter-cultural misunderstandings. This was the case, for example, when priests referred to Napoleon as a "horned snake" in a proclamation translated for the Maya population. In indigenous mythology this religious symbol means both a destroyer but also a "giver of life". BERNARD GAINOT drew attention to research desiderata in the field of French colonial history. While the Napoleonic period was only very brief due to British successes overseas, it nonetheless had fatal long-term consequences as a result of the introduction of racial segregation between whites and "gens de couleur" (instead of the previous separation based on the legal status of "free" or "not free"). In the following section on Northern and Eastern Europe RUTH LEISEROWITZ (Warsaw) examined the special position of Poland. While Napoleon was abhorred elsewhere as an Antichrist, the churches were decorated in his honour when he entered Warsaw, this in the hope of a restoration of the Polish state. DENIS SDVIZKOV (Moscow) stressed that Russia, being outside Napoleon’s sphere of control, emerged as one of the main opponents of the Empire. However, while that was so, there could be no overlooking the phenomenon of inter-imperial exchange, since the Russian army, for instance, was a mirror of its French counterpart. The following presentations took a look at the Scandinavian monarchies, which were embroiled in a geostrategic conflict between Great Britain, the French Empire and Russia. RASMUS GLENTHOJ (Odense) underlined that the sovereignty of the tiny state of Denmark, in particular, depended on the goodwill of at least one great power. After the bombardment of Copenhagen by the British fleet (1807) Denmark chose to ally itself with France. BARD FRYDENLUND (Oslo) highlighted the consequences of the continental system for what was then Danish-ruled Norway, which had lost the British market for its crucial exports of wood. At the same time, however, the end of Napoleonic hegemony in 1814 had opened a window of opportunity for the emergence of a proto-democratic constitution in the Kingdom of Norway. Like its Scandinavian neighbours, Sweden experienced the Napoleonic age as a period of major upheavals, as MARTIN HÅRTSTEDT (Umea) pointed out in his presentation. He referred not only to the modernisation of Sweden and the personal union with Norway brought about under Bernadotte, but also to the conquest by the Tsarist Empire of what had hitherto been Swedish-held Finland. MAX ENGMAN (Turku) explained the paradoxical effects this had. As a result of the Tilsit agreements the country had become part of the Tsarist Empire and for that very reason had produced structures of political independence that were to prove significant for the later development of the Finnish nation- state. ARMIN OWZAR (Freiburg) opened the section on Central Europe with a contribution on the historiography of the Napoleonic period in Germany. He noted that, following the late overcoming of national historical teleologies, researchers had devoted their attention to the manifold processes of modernisation, constitutionalisation and emancipation during the Confederation of the Rhine and opened up new perspectives on social and mentality history. ANDREAS WÜRGLER (Bern) dealt with the no less complex findings in the case of Switzerland as "Napoleon’s sole republic". While the Helvetian Confederation played no role at all in the prevailing historical consciousness of the Swiss, who regarded their democracy as being rooted in resistance to Habsburg rule in the late Middle Ages, Würgler emphasised that the regulatory and organisational principles laid down in the 1803 Act of Mediation were certainly of long-term relevance for the history of Swiss democracy. As was the case in other countries that formed part of the Holy Roman Empire up to 1806, MARTIN SCHENNACH (Innsbruck) could not detect any nationally motivated resistance to Napoleonic hegemony in Austria or in Tyrol even. The opposition that was mounted was directed rather against the claims made by the modern state. The Austrian monarchy had undoubtedly played the patriotic card against Napoleon, but patriotism was to be harnessed to the dynasty. Addressing the situation in Italy, ANNA MARIA RAO (Naples) noted structural parallels with Germany under Napoleon. Recent Italian research saw the French period as a laboratory in which the origins of the Risorgimento could be examined. In the section dealing with South-Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean area three speakers focused on the Illyrian Provinces, an area long neglected by West European researchers. PETER VODOPIVEC (Ljubljana) looked at developments there from a Slovenian perspective and MARCO TROGRLIC and JOSIP VRANDECIC (Split) from a Croatian standpoint. According to Vodopivec, the Slovenian cultural movement associated French rule with the hope of a restoration of the ancient region of Illyria. The introduction of Slovenian-language schools under French rule was in tune with these aspirations. According to Trogrlic und Vrandecic, Napoleonic rule in the Croatian part of the