Several editions of the General Essay on Tactics were published during and after Guibertâs lifetime. As the book lacked official government sanction to be published in France prior to the Revolution, the first of these were by the publishing houses that ringed France and served its underground literary market, beginning with the 1772 London and 1773 Liège editions. After Guibertâs death, his widow ceaselessly advocated for recognition and income, culminating in the publishing of a collected Åuvres militaires in 1803, with Napoleonâs fiat. Comparison between the editions reveals no substantive changes. As a result, I have relied on the 1803 edition as the definitive version of the text and the basis for this translation.
For reference, I have used a variety of tools to supplement my own reading. I have relied on the various editions of the Dictionary of the Académie française (AF Dictionary). When I found an unclear term, or one that differs from modern usage, I consulted the Fourth Edition and then worked forwards if it did not occur in that edition. I have also made extensive use of the 1917 edition of Cornélis de Witt Willcoxâs French-English Military Technical Dictionary for many of the more esoteric terms. To supplement this, I have used various translation tools, including Google Translate and Wordreference. Finally, I have used several technical treatises and other sources, particularly for difficult words and passages.
According to Guibertâs friend and biographer François- Emmanuel Toulongeon, the General Essay on Tactics was translated into many languages, from German to Persian. However, to my knowledge, only one translation into English exists. This was published in London in 1781 by âan officer.â The anonymous translator dedicates his volume to Charles Stanhope, Earl of Harrington, who commanded the 85th Regiment of Foot between 1778 and 1783. The 85th was raised for Caribbean duty and stationed in Jamaica between 1780 and 1783. The translatorâs preface âpresent[s] this essay of my military application, but not of my genius, to your Lordship [Stanhope], not only in testimony of my respect for your patriotic conduct, but [also] from a desire of submitting those principles of the tactic[s] to your inspection, which you have so assiduously cultivated for the good discipline and regulation of the regiment you now command.â This likely indicates that the translator was an officer in Stanhopeâs regiment, perhaps an educated member of the bourgeoisie looking to curry favor with his noble and less-educated commander. Several library catalogs list the translator as âLieutenant Douglas,â but databases available to me at the time of publication do not list such an officer on the rolls of the 85th Foot. The 11 September 1779 edition of the London Gazette provides a list of the unitâs original officers, many of whom are young noblemen like Henry Fitzgerald, Henry Phipps, and Vere Poulett. Perhaps the most likely candidate on the list for the author is Lieutenant Francis Grose, veteran of several battles in the American Independence War, and, more importantly for our purposes, son of the prolific writer and antiquarian Francis Grose. However, barring extensive research in archives and chance discoveries in family papers, the translatorâs identity will likely never be known with certainty.
The anonymous scholar probably made his translation while the 85th Foot drilled and trained on Jamaica in 1780. Such a work might prove useful to an officer who wished to maintain currency on European tactics but lacked proper French to read the original. The text shows signs of having been completed over time, most notably in its use of the term âhobitâ in its first volume before switching to the much more common term âhowitzerâ in the second to refer to the same type of artillery piece.
The English translation is an excellent companion to Guibertâs original text, offering suggestions on translation, particularly in his more difficult turns of phrase. However, the translator takes liberties with the language, most often when Guibert criticizes Great Britain, but also in other curious ways that defy explanation. On occasion, it is simply incorrect in its understanding of a word or phrase. Ultimately, it proves most valuable as a source of the contemporary English language. The translator often leaves words in French that are now commonly translated into English, like âdeploy.â This indicates that these terms had not yet entered into the English lexicon by 1780, and an argument follows from this that Guibert and his fellow French theorists introduced these terms and others into the English language, where many remain in common use.
Translating French to English is relatively easy, particularly when compared to many other languages. Phrase, clause, and sentence structure are largely identical, and the vast majority of words translate directly or nearly directly. In addition, Guibert largely avoids using idioms and the tendency of period writers like Voltaire to intend certain words and phrases to have multiple meanings that may not translate well; the latter may be considered to be the specific genius of the French language in literature. Guibertâs prose is remarkably clear and pointed except on occasions where he wanders into philosophy; these should be readily apparent from the text, especially in the Preliminary Discourse.
The modern English reader will likely notice several quirks of period French, and Guibertâs use of it, in the translation. Foremost of these is a preference for lengthy, compound-complex sentences containing several phrases and clauses. The language also lends itself to building to a dramatic conclusion by placing the key clause or phrase at the end of a sentence, which Guibert deploys to great effect throughout. He also stacks modifiers, often nesting them inside other modifying phrases and clauses, which may cause the reader to lose track of his point in a single reading of any given sentence or passage. Finally, Guibert uses some words or phrases that do not appear to have been used even in eighteenth-century French; these have provided the greatest challenge in translation and generally have footnotes explaining them.
I have endeavored to make as literal a translation as possible. There are several reasons for this. First, I believe in a more literalist translation style, particularly in technical works like Guibertâs. Second, as noted above, Guibert seems to have helped to introduce many words into English, which a literal translation will reveal better than a more impressionistic one. Third, Guibert was regarded by his peers as a spirited and effective writer, including recognition of his talents via admission to the Academie française in the 1780s; altering his words necessarily robs him ex post facto of his literary agency in the work and makes the subsequent text more about the translator than the writer. Fourth, military terminology has changed a great deal in the centuries since Guibert lived, and translators have an unfortunate habit of anachronistically using modern terms in their translations of material from previous periods. For example, âétat-majorâ is often translated as âstaffâ despite not conforming to the modern usage of that term in eighteenth-century French. I believe such translations confuse the reader, particularly when the term is not an exact analogy to the activity or item being described. Readers familiar with the technical aspects of military affairs, in the present or past, will likely be able to draw their own analogies without my inserting them into the text.
Finally, experienced readers of military theory will know that its technical manuscripts are rarely works of literary achievement, so I did not endeavor to make this translation one, as so many translators are wont to do. Specifically, I have tried to avoid dynamic equivalence in the translation, particularly the more technical passages. Many translators of works from the period make use of dynamic equivalence, whether to produce a more literary text or to make the process easier for the reader. Unfortunately, this often obscures both the development of the military technical language and creates anachronisms, especially when modern terms are substituted for period ones. In particular, many elements of eighteenth-century drill and petty tactics have changed drastically in the time since; using modern terms would confuse both the reader and Guibertâs intent.
Despite this, I have made some alterations to Guibertâs words and phrasing. The vast majority of these are necessary for the language to function in translation. The two most prominent examples are to de-gender the language and to move modifying words, phrases, and clauses, usually adverbial adjuncts, within sentences to clarify Guibertâs points. I have also removed or changed many commas, semicolons, and colons, as usage of them was markedly different during Guibertâs time. None of these changes has altered the wording, language, or intent of his writing. On rare occasion, I have changed words outright, usually because of changes in technology and/or language. Finally, I have added clarifying words, almost all adverbs, articles, and conjunctions, as period French often did not require them when and where modern English does.
I have left a few words and phrases in French. Some of these are commonly used in English today, either in general usage or in military theory, like élan and coup-dâÅil. Others simply do not have adequate translations, or their direct translations do not convey the meaning of the original word or term. Several are technical terms, like positions or ranks within the contemporary French army. Rather than attempting to find an analog in period or modern English, I have left them in French in order not to draw false equivalencies. On the other side of the translation, certain words do not have the same meaning in modern English that they did at the time, or do in French. For example, the words âplaceâ and âpointâ both refer to defensive positions, usually fortified and often part of a fortress. As there is no easy way to translate these without lengthy digressions, I have left the words intact. To provide clarity, I have provided a glossary of terms that may be unfamiliar to the reader, in both English and French, and an appendix detailing the branches, ranks, and structure of the Old-Regime French army.
Finally, Guibert included several footnotes in his translation. I have retained and translated them, leaving them where he inserted them. My own footnotes are enclosed in brackets to distinguish them from his. I have also reproduced his diagrams as faithfully as possible, including any errors or omissions that he made. I have moved them from the end of each volume to the appropriate place in the text in order for the reader to better appreciate them.
The eighteenth century, and early-modern France in general, is one of the better-sourced topics in history writing. Almost every major topic, conflict, and state has several excellent works dedicated to it, both surveys and monographs. While only a portion of these is available to the Anglophone reader, its historiography remains both large and deep. As a result, sourcing for Guibertâs work is plentiful, although some curious omissions exist, as the reader will discover. I will provide an overview of relevant works in English here, particularly ones that might be useful to have read before exploring the General Essay on Tactics.
I have generally tried to avoid using French-language sources, but many references to them, especially technical, are unavoidable. I have also attempted to use digital sources like websites and Google Books when possible, especially on more technical and linguistic topics. In addition to universal accessibility, this provides the Anglophone reader with the opportunity to use translation tools like Google Translate, especially for reference works.
English-language sourcing on Guibertâs life is limited. My biography, Guibert: Father of Napoleonâs Grande Armée, is the only monograph on his life and work to date. Julia Osman has also written on his work and influence, particularly in âGuibert vs. Guibert.â Readers may also consult my article on Guibert on Oxford Bibliographies Online, although many of its sources are in French.
Guibert expected his readers to be widely educated in history, military history, mythology, current affairs, literature, popular science, and many other areas. He draws references and makes allusions to a huge variety of topics, as the reader will discover. Most of these are either contemporary French examples, generally dating from 1650 to his own time, or to Classical Greece and Rome, and thus would be quite familiar to his readers. Others are relatively obscure, and Guibert occasionally either misquotes or misattributes his references, further complicating understanding. Finally, as befits the subject, Guibert also expected his readers to be fluent in the language and practice of military affairs, including the details of deployments, maneuvers, tactics, and battle.
General surveys of the period of Guibertâs life and career are thus critical to understanding the context of his work. Roger Priceâs A Concise History of France is an excellent survey of French history at large. Dorinda Outramâs The Enlightenment and Daniel Rocheâs The Enlightenment in France provide introductions to the Enlightenment and its major themes. James Collinsâs The State in Early Modern France outlines the growth of French state power and the difficulties it faced, particularly as the Revolution loomed. James Wolfâs Louis XIV, while problematic, details the reign of the Sun King. Unfortunately, there are no modern, comprehensive, English-language biographies of Louis XV; Colin Jonesâs The Great Nation provides an overview. William Doyleâs The Origins of the French Revolution provides context for what followed the publication of the General Essay on Tactics, particularly its analyses of the breakdown of Old-Regime France.
Most of the wars in which early-modern France participated have detailed operational accounts. Peter Wilsonâs The Thirty Years War is a weighty exploration of arguably the most important war of the period. John Lynnâs Wars of Louis XIV and Dennis Showalterâs The Wars of Frederick the Great survey most of the conflicts between 1660 and 1770. John Suttonâs The Kingâs Honor and the Kingâs Cardinal is the only notable work on the War of the Polish Succession in English. The War of the Austrian Succession fares better, with titular works by both M.S. Anderson and Reed Browning. Franz Szaboâs The Seven Years War in Europe is the best account of that conflict, albeit from a decidedly anti-Friedrich stance.
Readers will also wish to be familiar with contemporary military affairs, particularly the basics of linear tactics. John Childâs Armies and Warfare in Europe and Christopher Duffyâs The Military Experience in the Age of Reason remain the best overviews of the topic. The relevant chapters in Azar Gatâs A History of Military Thought outline the various intellectual movements current during the period. Christy Pichicheroâs The Military Enlightenment and Armstrong Starkeyâs War in the Age of Enlightenment locate eighteenth-century warfare within the context of the period, particularly by creating the subfield of the Military Enlightenment, to which Guibert belonged. Brent Nosworthyâs The Anatomy of Victory and Steven Rossâs From Flintlock to Rifle describe contemporary tactics in great detail. Rafe Blaufarbâs The French Army and Robert Quimbyâs The Background of Napoleonic Warfare illuminate the various theorists and reformers of the period as well as the currents of reform and the barriers to it.
In areas outside of the above, I have attempted to amalgamate sources and references as much as possible. For Greek and Roman Warfare, I have relied on The Oxford Handbook of Warfare in the Classical World, which is an excellent one-volume survey of the topic. Unless otherwise noted, all biographical information is taken from Louis-Gabriel Michaudâs Biographie universelle ancienne et moderne, and all Classical texts are from the Perseus Digital Library at Tufts.
All references to the Encyclopedia are from the ARTFL Encyclopédie Project hosted by the University of Chicago. The Académie française maintains the official dictionary of the French language, publishing a new edition at irregular intervals. It is the official repository of the language, setting its definitions, spellings, and grammar. There have been nine editions of the dictionary: the First in 1694, the Second in 1718, the Third in 1740, the Fourth in 1762, the Fifth in 1798, the Sixth in 1835, the Seventh in 1878, the Eighth in 1935, and the Ninth, which is the current edition. When consulting the AF Dictionary, I have generally used the Fourth Edition from 1762, as it was the current dictionary when Guibert wrote.