What do you think?
Rate this book
That Sweet Enemy: Britain and France: The History of a Love-Hate Relationship
From Blenheim and Waterloo to 'Up Yours, Delors' and 'Hop Off You Frogs', the cross-Channel relationship has been one of rivalry, misapprehension and suspicion. But it has also been a relationship of envy, admiration and affection.
In the nearly two centuries since the final defeat of Napoleon, France and Britain have spent much of that time as allies - an alliance that has been almost as uneasy, as competitive and as ambivalent as the generations of warfare. Their rivalry both on peace and war, for good and ill, has shaped the modern world, from North America to India in the eighteenth century, in Africa, the Middle East and South East Asia during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and it is still shaping Europe today.
This magisterial book, by turns provocative and delightful, always fascinating, tells the rich and complex story of the relationship over three centuries, from the beginning of the great struggle for mastery during the reign of Louis XIV to the second Iraq War and the latest enlargement of the EU. It tells of wars and battles, ententes and alliances, but also of food, fashion, sport, literature, sex and music. Its cast ranges from William and Mary to Tony Blair, from Voltaire to Eric Cantona; its sources from ambassadorial dispatches to police reports, from works of philosophy to tabloid newspapers, from guidebooks to cartoons and films.
It's a book which brings both British humour and Gallic panache to the story of these two countries, in sickness and in health, for richer for poorer, in victory and in defeat, in dominance and in decline.
In the nearly two centuries since the final defeat of Napoleon, France and Britain have spent much of that time as allies - an alliance that has been almost as uneasy, as competitive and as ambivalent as the generations of warfare. Their rivalry both on peace and war, for good and ill, has shaped the modern world, from North America to India in the eighteenth century, in Africa, the Middle East and South East Asia during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and it is still shaping Europe today.
This magisterial book, by turns provocative and delightful, always fascinating, tells the rich and complex story of the relationship over three centuries, from the beginning of the great struggle for mastery during the reign of Louis XIV to the second Iraq War and the latest enlargement of the EU. It tells of wars and battles, ententes and alliances, but also of food, fashion, sport, literature, sex and music. Its cast ranges from William and Mary to Tony Blair, from Voltaire to Eric Cantona; its sources from ambassadorial dispatches to police reports, from works of philosophy to tabloid newspapers, from guidebooks to cartoons and films.
It's a book which brings both British humour and Gallic panache to the story of these two countries, in sickness and in health, for richer for poorer, in victory and in defeat, in dominance and in decline.
816 pages, Paperback
Published January 8, 2008
44 people are currently reading
604 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews
Read
April 30, 2025Frustrating. Yet I felt somewhere around page 600 or 623 that this was entirely due to my own preconceptions, if I could have lets go of those then perhaps I could have enjoyed the book for what it was , but with less then a hundred pages to go at that stage, it seemed a bit late.
The argument of the book is that frequent wars are only one aspect of the deep mutual engagement and entanglement of British and French culture. That seems to be pretty self-evident to me, but the Tombs felt the need to bury the reader in 700 pages of text just to make sure that you don't miss their point, or perhaps they did it to entirely entomb their opinion as if shy of it.
Each country in this view represents "The road not taken" to the other - although since this seems to be repeatedly if not continuously the case, one gets the impression that the roads in question always ran very close to one another, perhaps Tombs spots a distinctive unifier in describing them as Europe's Warrior nations, rare examples of countries that spend quite a lot on their armed forces .
A joint commitment to the grandiose was I felt evidenced by the story of Concorde. Commercially that was a project that could only succeed by capturing committed buyers in far off countries which was precisely what they failed to. Yet that was the prestige project that both countries committed themselves to rather than building channel tunnels which would have mainly benefited the two countries involved unlike supersonic flight which only offered the potential to get away from each other faster.
The Tombs approach reminded me of the head of history at school, Mrs H. who would say "Detail, detail" in her mild Northern Irish accent - she would emphasise her commitment to detail by stapling something to the wall .
All of this detail is a bit of a pity as it obscures the very short and interesting book that is lost inside this one, perhaps though you delight in reading another retelling of the wars of Louis XIV, the war of American Independence, the revolutionary and Napoleonic wars? I though have recently read The command of the ocean - a book that Tombs references if I am going to dragged through another retelling of a century of warfare then it has to be better than what I am offered here.
I had the feeling that nearly everything was treated as being of equal significance - as much space was given to discussing a failed assassination plot on Napoleon III as to the Crimean war - this is history as a grand parade in which everything gets it's spot in the sun.
Then I noticed that according to Tombs many things typically regarded as French were apparently English imports, restaurants were apparently an imitation of London pubs, while Parisian nightlife were "often pale copies of London music halls" (p.372), the British contribution to French fashion, cuisine, sports and even prostitution is stressed, maybe Tombs is correct, but I began to recall a comedy show in which a character insists that everything and everybody famous is from India (an example) , and if he is correct, then surely the significance is not in the adoption but in the adaptation? Furthermore, what ever France adopts appears in his view to be worse than the original, so sport in France, for example, is both corrupt and overly bureaucratic in his opinion which swiftly lead me to imagine him singing, when discussing translation he tells us that more books may be translated from English into French but they are mostly merely textbooks and childrens' books - while in contrast when books are translated from French into English they are apparently worthier ones like Montaillou , when France overtakes Britain in GDP then of a suddenly decline can be fun and grandeur is a burden, consequently I found it hard to take Tombs seriously and I suspected him increasingly of being disingenuous . After all the book begins in 1688 - the point is that from then on England and then Britain began to influence and impress other Europeans rather than being influenced and impressed upon. I began to suspect that all of Tombs' vaunting aloud reflected a deeply felt sense of national inferiority. One begins to channel de Gaulle's Ne pleurez pas, Milord which he claimed to have been on the verge of singing to Harold Macmillan.
It is a bit of a 'so what' book, best suited for the kind of English conservative who spends as much of their life in France as they can, while vaulting aloud that England is best. However I thought that part two of the book was interesting as were all of the detailed sections on a separate topics marked out in a slightly smaller font. I was somewhat less enamoured of the rest.
Politically Tombs and I are a long way apart, since this book was published he has spoken and written in favour of Brexit and against the Erasmus EU student exchange scheme - I am not sure if he feels that the presence of EU students corrupts UK universities (or take up places that could go instead to Chinese or US students who could be charged more money) or if he believes spending time in the EU corrupts the lamb like innocence of British students. It is hard not to see the continuity between his book and his current positions.
The argument of the book is that frequent wars are only one aspect of the deep mutual engagement and entanglement of British and French culture. That seems to be pretty self-evident to me, but the Tombs felt the need to bury the reader in 700 pages of text just to make sure that you don't miss their point, or perhaps they did it to entirely entomb their opinion as if shy of it.
Each country in this view represents "The road not taken" to the other - although since this seems to be repeatedly if not continuously the case, one gets the impression that the roads in question always ran very close to one another, perhaps Tombs spots a distinctive unifier in describing them as Europe's Warrior nations, rare examples of countries that spend quite a lot on their armed forces .
A joint commitment to the grandiose was I felt evidenced by the story of Concorde. Commercially that was a project that could only succeed by capturing committed buyers in far off countries which was precisely what they failed to. Yet that was the prestige project that both countries committed themselves to rather than building channel tunnels which would have mainly benefited the two countries involved unlike supersonic flight which only offered the potential to get away from each other faster.
The Tombs approach reminded me of the head of history at school, Mrs H. who would say "Detail, detail" in her mild Northern Irish accent - she would emphasise her commitment to detail by stapling something to the wall .
All of this detail is a bit of a pity as it obscures the very short and interesting book that is lost inside this one, perhaps though you delight in reading another retelling of the wars of Louis XIV, the war of American Independence, the revolutionary and Napoleonic wars? I though have recently read The command of the ocean - a book that Tombs references if I am going to dragged through another retelling of a century of warfare then it has to be better than what I am offered here.
I had the feeling that nearly everything was treated as being of equal significance - as much space was given to discussing a failed assassination plot on Napoleon III as to the Crimean war - this is history as a grand parade in which everything gets it's spot in the sun.
Then I noticed that according to Tombs many things typically regarded as French were apparently English imports, restaurants were apparently an imitation of London pubs, while Parisian nightlife were "often pale copies of London music halls" (p.372), the British contribution to French fashion, cuisine, sports and even prostitution is stressed, maybe Tombs is correct, but I began to recall a comedy show in which a character insists that everything and everybody famous is from India (an example) , and if he is correct, then surely the significance is not in the adoption but in the adaptation? Furthermore, what ever France adopts appears in his view to be worse than the original, so sport in France, for example, is both corrupt and overly bureaucratic in his opinion which swiftly lead me to imagine him singing, when discussing translation he tells us that more books may be translated from English into French but they are mostly merely textbooks and childrens' books - while in contrast when books are translated from French into English they are apparently worthier ones like Montaillou , when France overtakes Britain in GDP then of a suddenly decline can be fun and grandeur is a burden, consequently I found it hard to take Tombs seriously and I suspected him increasingly of being disingenuous . After all the book begins in 1688 - the point is that from then on England and then Britain began to influence and impress other Europeans rather than being influenced and impressed upon. I began to suspect that all of Tombs' vaunting aloud reflected a deeply felt sense of national inferiority. One begins to channel de Gaulle's Ne pleurez pas, Milord which he claimed to have been on the verge of singing to Harold Macmillan.
It is a bit of a 'so what' book, best suited for the kind of English conservative who spends as much of their life in France as they can, while vaulting aloud that England is best. However I thought that part two of the book was interesting as were all of the detailed sections on a separate topics marked out in a slightly smaller font. I was somewhat less enamoured of the rest.
Politically Tombs and I are a long way apart, since this book was published he has spoken and written in favour of Brexit and against the Erasmus EU student exchange scheme - I am not sure if he feels that the presence of EU students corrupts UK universities (or take up places that could go instead to Chinese or US students who could be charged more money) or if he believes spending time in the EU corrupts the lamb like innocence of British students. It is hard not to see the continuity between his book and his current positions.
March 30, 2009
Now, let me admit up front, That Sweet Enemy is a gimmick book. Ordinarily, that would be a big strike against it. But, while the central gimmick hits you in the face, the authors are so accomplished, their prose shines above it.
What's the gimmick you may well ask? Well, the book is co-authored by a husband and wife team. The husband is an Englishman but an historian of France and a Francophile. The wife is French but an English historian and an Anglophile. It has all the makings of a bad sitcom when they write a book together on the long historical relationship between England and France.
But, as I said, while you can't miss the gimmick, its OK. Because this book is brimming over with superb insight and anecdote. While the book cannot avoid discussing the impact of Louise the XIV, Waterloo and Dunkirk on the relationship between the two peoples, that is not the genius of this history. Where you really gain some insight about "Britishness" and "Frenchness" is in the engrossing passages about cross cultural currents.
How did the French receive Shakespere? How did the English view Zola? What about the interplay of ideas of government? How did England go from the radical state in Europe and France the paragon of tradition to the reverse? Of course, the modern context is also fascinating -- DeGaulle vs. Churchill, Blair vs. Chirac. The great debate of a broader or deeper Europe. Its all in here.
You come away from this tomb with an important realization. The relationship between these two people has fundamentally shaped modern history. As the French frequently saw it, the two countries are the modern versions of Carthage and Rome. Their timeless rivalry gave shape and meaning to the struggles of the last three centuries.
Oddly, rivalry is exactly the correct term for this relationship. It denotes competition and struggle. But, it also connotes grudging respect, a degree of admiration and even immitation. These are two nations that have essentially defined themselves by contrast. What is it to be British -- not to be French. What is it to be French -- anything but English.
That process of definition has come at great cost to both countries. But it also has given birth to some excellent developments in world history -- the birth of our country, the rise of individual liberty, the defeat of totalitarianism in Europe are all aspects of their relationship.
The great thing is, this is an epic story which still is ongoing. I must say that I haven't read a narrative so epic but so engaging since Guns, Germs and Steel. If anything, this is better. To the readers of this site, my only recommendation is to grab it.
What's the gimmick you may well ask? Well, the book is co-authored by a husband and wife team. The husband is an Englishman but an historian of France and a Francophile. The wife is French but an English historian and an Anglophile. It has all the makings of a bad sitcom when they write a book together on the long historical relationship between England and France.
But, as I said, while you can't miss the gimmick, its OK. Because this book is brimming over with superb insight and anecdote. While the book cannot avoid discussing the impact of Louise the XIV, Waterloo and Dunkirk on the relationship between the two peoples, that is not the genius of this history. Where you really gain some insight about "Britishness" and "Frenchness" is in the engrossing passages about cross cultural currents.
How did the French receive Shakespere? How did the English view Zola? What about the interplay of ideas of government? How did England go from the radical state in Europe and France the paragon of tradition to the reverse? Of course, the modern context is also fascinating -- DeGaulle vs. Churchill, Blair vs. Chirac. The great debate of a broader or deeper Europe. Its all in here.
You come away from this tomb with an important realization. The relationship between these two people has fundamentally shaped modern history. As the French frequently saw it, the two countries are the modern versions of Carthage and Rome. Their timeless rivalry gave shape and meaning to the struggles of the last three centuries.
Oddly, rivalry is exactly the correct term for this relationship. It denotes competition and struggle. But, it also connotes grudging respect, a degree of admiration and even immitation. These are two nations that have essentially defined themselves by contrast. What is it to be British -- not to be French. What is it to be French -- anything but English.
That process of definition has come at great cost to both countries. But it also has given birth to some excellent developments in world history -- the birth of our country, the rise of individual liberty, the defeat of totalitarianism in Europe are all aspects of their relationship.
The great thing is, this is an epic story which still is ongoing. I must say that I haven't read a narrative so epic but so engaging since Guns, Germs and Steel. If anything, this is better. To the readers of this site, my only recommendation is to grab it.
June 21, 2015
Written by a husband and wife team of historians--the wife a French historian of Britain and the husband a British historian of France--the book is well-balanced by their disagreements. From loathing to love from hatred to imitation, the two countries have swayed from side to side in their relationship--sometimes feeling both at the same time. The Tombs do a very good job of showing things from both sides of the Channel.
February 8, 2015
Seriously, it has taken me 4 years to get through it because it runs like a shopping lists. It is well researched and historically/factually correct (very english) but it has no humour and seems to just be trying to prove a point about how ace they all think they are. Luckily for all, neither one of them has an empire to speak of so ....if I were you I'd spend more time understanding the 6000 yrs of tension between China & India and how the Persians & Mongols & Tibetans (and even the Egyptians & Italians) got mixed up in their bickering & incessant trade war & industrial espionage throughout the centuries! Afterall it is now clearly established that some Chinese dude discovered America first...so all that Europhile version of history needs to have a look at its own "naivety".
I found it boring, as I do aspects of both culture...due to the repetition of the book. Ad naseum.
www.ceciliayu.com
I found it boring, as I do aspects of both culture...due to the repetition of the book. Ad naseum.
www.ceciliayu.com
March 18, 2010
I put this book on my "to read" list because I saw this review:
"...deeply researched, elegantly written, culturally literate, multidisciplinary, coherent, thoughtful, and balanced...... fresh and original, politically engaged but never tendentious... one of the most important and engaging books of the year..." -- Foreign Affairs Magazine, Jul/Aug 07
and, having finished, I have no quarrel with it. The book was a pleasure to read, from beginning to end. Although there are large, very readable, parts devoted to the political and economic lives of the two nations, starting about 1680 and continuing through the second Iraq war, the most interesting bits were often asides about the now forgotten popular culture trends and personalities of long ago, e.g., Harriet Howard, Victorian-era daughter of an English publican who became a consort of the leader of France.
Although this book is nominally about England and France, the pair it brought to my mind was Herodotus and Thucydides, both of whom are sometimes called “The Father of History”. They have wildly varying styles, and those who admire one of the pair often are not so fond of the other. Specifically, Herodotus is from the Attention Deficit Disorder school of historical writing, so reading him is sort of like being with a friend who has just returned from a fascinating trip and is tugging at your sleeve and saying “Oh, oh, oh, and then...”. Thucydides, by comparison, is damned to the deepest rings of hell as the father of self-serving historical writing, in which all facts are used, bent, or ignored to further the writer's thesis. Every time you see some geek's political memoir (as of this writing, the latest example of this awful genre is Karl Rove's) crowding worthwhile books off the shelves of your favorite dying bookstore, you may thank Thucydides.
Your opinion of this book could be predicted by knowing which of the two you prefer. I like Herodotus, and I enjoyed this book. Thucydides's admirers are free to go read Karl Rove's memoir.
"...deeply researched, elegantly written, culturally literate, multidisciplinary, coherent, thoughtful, and balanced...... fresh and original, politically engaged but never tendentious... one of the most important and engaging books of the year..." -- Foreign Affairs Magazine, Jul/Aug 07
and, having finished, I have no quarrel with it. The book was a pleasure to read, from beginning to end. Although there are large, very readable, parts devoted to the political and economic lives of the two nations, starting about 1680 and continuing through the second Iraq war, the most interesting bits were often asides about the now forgotten popular culture trends and personalities of long ago, e.g., Harriet Howard, Victorian-era daughter of an English publican who became a consort of the leader of France.
Although this book is nominally about England and France, the pair it brought to my mind was Herodotus and Thucydides, both of whom are sometimes called “The Father of History”. They have wildly varying styles, and those who admire one of the pair often are not so fond of the other. Specifically, Herodotus is from the Attention Deficit Disorder school of historical writing, so reading him is sort of like being with a friend who has just returned from a fascinating trip and is tugging at your sleeve and saying “Oh, oh, oh, and then...”. Thucydides, by comparison, is damned to the deepest rings of hell as the father of self-serving historical writing, in which all facts are used, bent, or ignored to further the writer's thesis. Every time you see some geek's political memoir (as of this writing, the latest example of this awful genre is Karl Rove's) crowding worthwhile books off the shelves of your favorite dying bookstore, you may thank Thucydides.
Your opinion of this book could be predicted by knowing which of the two you prefer. I like Herodotus, and I enjoyed this book. Thucydides's admirers are free to go read Karl Rove's memoir.
January 25, 2015
'Round about page 42, I realized that I just wasn't interested. To me, it's just 700+ pages of "so what"? It's--I guess--a history of a relationship, but not enough history of the specifics to interest me. YMMV.
January 2, 2014
Not a bad book but too long for what it is.
October 4, 2022
A more truthful title would have been “How the French Have Been Mean to Us”. While the book is entertainingly written (no mean feat for a 700-page brick), I frequently rolled my eyes about its pro-British bias over three centuries.
With the authors as they are – a British historian of France (Robert Tombs) and a French historian of Britain (Isabelle Tombs) – one would assume that all perspectives would be covered. Yet I assume that Robert Tombs wrote most of the book (easier for a university professor than for a civil servant anyway), as the main narrative almost exclusively aligns with his perspectives presented at the end of each part (and definitely not with Isabelle Tombs’s). Unfortunately, those parts at the end of every part explicitly labelled as Isabelle Tombs’s opinion are sometimes so cartoonishly pro-French that Robert Tombs’s answer almost appears like the voice of reason (particularly in the first part, when Isabelle Tombs’s does not even shy away from describing the various wars of aggression Louis XIV started under shabby pretexts as essentially defensive – as Louis had been thinking about France’s borders. Well, yes, but he was assertively aiming to push them far east).
Thus, the quality of the book varies according to the state of the Franco-British relationship:
The first part (1688—1815) is entertaining when referring to their political/military rivalry (and a bit tedious in the culture part, as French likes for British fashions are interpreted as longing for the culture and freedoms of the Brits, whereas French dislikes are inevitably labelled “Anglophobia”).
The second part (1815—1914) is the most nuanced (while possibly also the least consequential) in its exploration of the countries’ intense cultural contact and political role as the two liberal states in Europe.
The third part (1914—1945) might be the best – after all, Britain and France are now allies!
My increased appreciation of the book, however, was immediately smashed with the fourth part (1945—2005, the time of writing), exclusively written by Robert Tombs (as per the introduction): Somehow, European integration was not an attempt at European peace and prosperity (in which, by and by, most European countries voluntarily, and sometimes enthusiastically, participated), but rather a renewed French attempt at European hegemony (which, if you follow Tombs, you’d believe the French pursued mostly to stick it to Britain). Britain, Tombs argues, is too much of a global power to belong in such a scheme (notwithstanding the EU’s role in negotiating global agreements, particularly in trade, for its members). In that diction, Britain’s blockading of all decisions under Margaret Thatcher until a the “British rebate” was agreed upon is not presented as egoistic blackmail (which it would surely have been, according to Tombs, if France had done a similar thing), but as a principled stand for the European Community as primarily a free-trade area. Later, Tombs assures that the Iraq War was somehow France’s fault for not supporting Britain (and the United States) enough in pressuring Saddam Hussein by threatening him with war in case of non-compliance with the UN resolutions, particularly regarding the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction (which Tombs freely admits Saddam had none and the purported “proof” was doctored), thus leaving Britain and the US no choice but to actually invade Iraq.
Maybe most telling about the book’s general approach is Tombs’s dig in the very last paragraph that in the future, Britain and France might be so close that the French would actually learn English. If one compares the average proficiency of the French in English with that of the English in French, the paragraph is – as is the entire book – ludicrous.
Maybe Jan-Maat has summed it up best in their review here: The target audience for this book is the “kind of English conservative who spends as much of their life in France as they can”. Which might just be an apt summary of Robert Tombs.
With the authors as they are – a British historian of France (Robert Tombs) and a French historian of Britain (Isabelle Tombs) – one would assume that all perspectives would be covered. Yet I assume that Robert Tombs wrote most of the book (easier for a university professor than for a civil servant anyway), as the main narrative almost exclusively aligns with his perspectives presented at the end of each part (and definitely not with Isabelle Tombs’s). Unfortunately, those parts at the end of every part explicitly labelled as Isabelle Tombs’s opinion are sometimes so cartoonishly pro-French that Robert Tombs’s answer almost appears like the voice of reason (particularly in the first part, when Isabelle Tombs’s does not even shy away from describing the various wars of aggression Louis XIV started under shabby pretexts as essentially defensive – as Louis had been thinking about France’s borders. Well, yes, but he was assertively aiming to push them far east).
Thus, the quality of the book varies according to the state of the Franco-British relationship:
The first part (1688—1815) is entertaining when referring to their political/military rivalry (and a bit tedious in the culture part, as French likes for British fashions are interpreted as longing for the culture and freedoms of the Brits, whereas French dislikes are inevitably labelled “Anglophobia”).
The second part (1815—1914) is the most nuanced (while possibly also the least consequential) in its exploration of the countries’ intense cultural contact and political role as the two liberal states in Europe.
The third part (1914—1945) might be the best – after all, Britain and France are now allies!
My increased appreciation of the book, however, was immediately smashed with the fourth part (1945—2005, the time of writing), exclusively written by Robert Tombs (as per the introduction): Somehow, European integration was not an attempt at European peace and prosperity (in which, by and by, most European countries voluntarily, and sometimes enthusiastically, participated), but rather a renewed French attempt at European hegemony (which, if you follow Tombs, you’d believe the French pursued mostly to stick it to Britain). Britain, Tombs argues, is too much of a global power to belong in such a scheme (notwithstanding the EU’s role in negotiating global agreements, particularly in trade, for its members). In that diction, Britain’s blockading of all decisions under Margaret Thatcher until a the “British rebate” was agreed upon is not presented as egoistic blackmail (which it would surely have been, according to Tombs, if France had done a similar thing), but as a principled stand for the European Community as primarily a free-trade area. Later, Tombs assures that the Iraq War was somehow France’s fault for not supporting Britain (and the United States) enough in pressuring Saddam Hussein by threatening him with war in case of non-compliance with the UN resolutions, particularly regarding the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction (which Tombs freely admits Saddam had none and the purported “proof” was doctored), thus leaving Britain and the US no choice but to actually invade Iraq.
Maybe most telling about the book’s general approach is Tombs’s dig in the very last paragraph that in the future, Britain and France might be so close that the French would actually learn English. If one compares the average proficiency of the French in English with that of the English in French, the paragraph is – as is the entire book – ludicrous.
Maybe Jan-Maat has summed it up best in their review here: The target audience for this book is the “kind of English conservative who spends as much of their life in France as they can”. Which might just be an apt summary of Robert Tombs.
January 27, 2013
This book was recommended to me some time ago, and I purchased a copy, only to have it sit on my desk and daunt me with its girth for over a month. I've finally picked it up and made my way through it - which at times was a bit of an effort. In the end, I'm glad that I persevered. It was worth the struggle.
For anyone interested in history - military, economic, political, and cultural, this is an excellent read. The breadth of its scope is quite fantastic, and the ability of the text to go between grand historical currents to intimate observations of ordinary people of the time is fascinating. I thoroughly enjoyed the concept of the two nations developing their cultural identities through the cross-channel opposition, and the ebb and flow of these cultural identities over the course of centuries.
At times, it does seem overwhelming. Names, dates, and events at times blur; though perhaps that is inevitable with any narrative of history, which, though it does not repeat itself, "often rhymes". The pace can be rather unrelenting; I would have loved to linger over certain periods or personalities and explore them in more detail, but that would make the book even more unwieldy.
Overall, I would recommend this to anyone interested in learning about the past, or in contextualizing the present. As long as they are not afraid of a serious time commitment.
For anyone interested in history - military, economic, political, and cultural, this is an excellent read. The breadth of its scope is quite fantastic, and the ability of the text to go between grand historical currents to intimate observations of ordinary people of the time is fascinating. I thoroughly enjoyed the concept of the two nations developing their cultural identities through the cross-channel opposition, and the ebb and flow of these cultural identities over the course of centuries.
At times, it does seem overwhelming. Names, dates, and events at times blur; though perhaps that is inevitable with any narrative of history, which, though it does not repeat itself, "often rhymes". The pace can be rather unrelenting; I would have loved to linger over certain periods or personalities and explore them in more detail, but that would make the book even more unwieldy.
Overall, I would recommend this to anyone interested in learning about the past, or in contextualizing the present. As long as they are not afraid of a serious time commitment.
November 1, 2014
This is a pretty good study of the love/hate relationship between Britain and France, from the Glorious Revolution to the present day. For those who like a broad stroke study of these two countries, this may be an appealing choice. For those who prefer an emphasis on social and domestic aspects, this will be something of a disappointment as the majority of the book covers military, political and general economic dynamics between the two countries. There is some discussion of how each affected the culture of the other, but this was by no means the core of the book. A good overview of the two countries and how they help shape each other.
June 1, 2019
This is very good, a great attempt at explaining a very long and complex relationship between the two greatest and oldest nations in Europe. I’m sure the Tombs’ could not help this, but I absolutely hated the endnotes and found them very frustrating, which is why I took off a star. Also, I don’t understand the reasoning for beginning during the 17th c. as opposed to earlier or later (which would have made either a much longer or much shorter book). I think it would’ve been interesting to have seen an account like this during the 13-16th c., but maybe that isn’t in their fields of study.
December 31, 2020
This book is a pleasure to read, and has filled in many gaps in my historical understanding. It has many interesting diversions (the British loss of Minorca leading to the creation of Mayonnaise sauce for instance).
A stand out for me was how France viewed the American War of Independence as a great national victory. The Anglo-Saxon world often views it as doughty independent minded colonists taking on a burdensome overlord. Much more was in play.
It is refreshing to see British history from a French perspective.
A stand out for me was how France viewed the American War of Independence as a great national victory. The Anglo-Saxon world often views it as doughty independent minded colonists taking on a burdensome overlord. Much more was in play.
It is refreshing to see British history from a French perspective.
December 30, 2017
One of the best books I've ever read, including fiction and non-fiction.
Told with lots of good anecdotes to keep the narrative flowing, I was surprised by how much I learnt about Britain's history (and therefore by how little I had really learnt at school), and gained a new appreciation for the importance of France for the British; and the importance of England for the French.
It's big, though, took me a while!
Told with lots of good anecdotes to keep the narrative flowing, I was surprised by how much I learnt about Britain's history (and therefore by how little I had really learnt at school), and gained a new appreciation for the importance of France for the British; and the importance of England for the French.
It's big, though, took me a while!
November 20, 2022
This book was amazing! I highly suggest to anyone interested in British/French history and their relationships.
December 26, 2012
Fabulous book! Very thought provoking and more than one "light bulb" went on for me regarding the Franco-English long history together. Highly recommend.
January 19, 2015
A beautiful read for history fanatics. Yet, a bit too detailed even for my taste of history.
October 27, 2022
The relationship between France and England is, to put it mildly, messy. Perhaps not as ethnically complicated as the Balkans or as religiously charged as between India and Pakistan (although it has been at some points) but certainly ingrained to the point where, even when nominally fighting for the same cause, the two countries are never quite on the same page. Robert Tombs, with a little input from his French wife, explores the evolution of this relationship from military conflict to the more subtle political disagreements of (fairly) recent years. Although it’s rather a shame the book wasn’t written more recently, because post 2016 the relationship has shifted again.
When I first came across That Sweet Enemy my immediate thought was that this might be like a more serious version of 1000 Years of Annoying the French. That it isn��t is largely because it covers a shorter period – essentially from the Glorious Revolution to the wrangling over the European Constitution – but in more detail. Realistically, extending the book back to the traditional origins of Anglo-French rivalry (i.e. the Norman Conquest) wouldn’t really add much, because in those years the conflict was simpler, and the period from 1689 to Waterloo serves as an adequate proxy to examine the military and territorial rivalry of the two nations.
Tombs covers the unrolling of history with efficiency and elegance. A casual reader should find sufficient detail to explain why The Glorious Revolution had such a profound impact on Anglo-French relations, but readers with more of a grasp of either country’s history won’t find themselves trudging through familiar territory for too much time. And there are some genuine surprises: I found in particular that the background to the French position over Blair’s Iraq war was new to me – surprisingly so, given that much of the British press were very gung-ho for the war and might have been inclined to undermine the seemingly principled opposition coming from the continent. These revelations do much to give value to the work.
What adds heft to Tombs’ work is that he explores not only the military and political angles of our shared history, but the cultural. So, we see how French and British writers regarded each other or how those travelling for work or leisure in more recent times reflect on the overall picture of the relationship. This is both the strength and the weakness of the work, because whilst there are many interesting nuggets to be found, Tombs has a tendency to examine too many examples. If you compare with Dominic Sandbrook’s modern histories, Sandbrook is a master of cherry-picking cultural touchstones to give a flavour of an era – you sometimes feel with Tombs that were he writing about the early 1980s, every New Romantic band would get a namecheck.
Each era also ends with a series of short opinions showing how the British and French view of history differs – Tombs’ wife providing the latter. When the idea of a French perspective was trailed in the book blurb, I admit to having been genuinely interested in this idea. Unfortunately, the idea works better in theory than in practice, because Isabella’s positions sometimes come across as somewhat nonsensical – regarding it as Britain’s role to expend men and materiel in the name of France, for example – and, because of the brief nature of these exchanges, her positions invariably go unchallenged. In all but the last section, the French are given the final word – and in the last section there is more or less agreement.
Ultimately, That Sweet Enemy is something of a slightly missed opportunity. An interesting read, for the most part, but a little stodgy in places and not making the most of the author’s marital position. Had the book instead factored the differing perspectives more into the main narrative and sacrificed a few of the cultural references in favour of a clearer view of a few more representative voices, I think it could have been a classic.
When I first came across That Sweet Enemy my immediate thought was that this might be like a more serious version of 1000 Years of Annoying the French. That it isn��t is largely because it covers a shorter period – essentially from the Glorious Revolution to the wrangling over the European Constitution – but in more detail. Realistically, extending the book back to the traditional origins of Anglo-French rivalry (i.e. the Norman Conquest) wouldn’t really add much, because in those years the conflict was simpler, and the period from 1689 to Waterloo serves as an adequate proxy to examine the military and territorial rivalry of the two nations.
Tombs covers the unrolling of history with efficiency and elegance. A casual reader should find sufficient detail to explain why The Glorious Revolution had such a profound impact on Anglo-French relations, but readers with more of a grasp of either country’s history won’t find themselves trudging through familiar territory for too much time. And there are some genuine surprises: I found in particular that the background to the French position over Blair’s Iraq war was new to me – surprisingly so, given that much of the British press were very gung-ho for the war and might have been inclined to undermine the seemingly principled opposition coming from the continent. These revelations do much to give value to the work.
What adds heft to Tombs’ work is that he explores not only the military and political angles of our shared history, but the cultural. So, we see how French and British writers regarded each other or how those travelling for work or leisure in more recent times reflect on the overall picture of the relationship. This is both the strength and the weakness of the work, because whilst there are many interesting nuggets to be found, Tombs has a tendency to examine too many examples. If you compare with Dominic Sandbrook’s modern histories, Sandbrook is a master of cherry-picking cultural touchstones to give a flavour of an era – you sometimes feel with Tombs that were he writing about the early 1980s, every New Romantic band would get a namecheck.
Each era also ends with a series of short opinions showing how the British and French view of history differs – Tombs’ wife providing the latter. When the idea of a French perspective was trailed in the book blurb, I admit to having been genuinely interested in this idea. Unfortunately, the idea works better in theory than in practice, because Isabella’s positions sometimes come across as somewhat nonsensical – regarding it as Britain’s role to expend men and materiel in the name of France, for example – and, because of the brief nature of these exchanges, her positions invariably go unchallenged. In all but the last section, the French are given the final word – and in the last section there is more or less agreement.
Ultimately, That Sweet Enemy is something of a slightly missed opportunity. An interesting read, for the most part, but a little stodgy in places and not making the most of the author’s marital position. Had the book instead factored the differing perspectives more into the main narrative and sacrificed a few of the cultural references in favour of a clearer view of a few more representative voices, I think it could have been a classic.
April 1, 2020
By focusing on these two "characters," time telescopes in a way. The final chapter - written after France rejected the European Constitution, but before the UK left the EU - has a sense of dramatic irony. And coming at the end of a 300-year-long history highlights how momentary current events can be.
April 20, 2021
Fascinating. I can't wait for the sequel ( brexit, etc...)
Currently reading
November 13, 2022紙本有1200頁，不知道今年可不可以看完...
June 23, 2023
A magnificent book that really does explore the history of a relationship--both national and personal--, as it is written by the husband-wife team of Robert (British) and Isabelle (French) Tombs. The actual prose itself is wonderfully readable, but at the end of each chapter the two of them give their own perspectives, taking the side of their birth nationality and arguing the case. The French-British relationship is such an interesting one. So close yet so not.
March 1, 2015
A general social/political history of the relationship between France and Britain (mainly England) and the French and the British themselves, from the 17th century to now.
It is the story of a love-hate relationship between two countries and two peoples who have so much in common but like to point the finger and laugh at the little differences.
Interesting read. Loses a bit of structure towards the end when it gets bogged down in modern politics, but that is almost to be expected. First half is very good, with quite a few little nuggets.
Not a short read, though.
Rated G (though with some adult themes). 3/5
It is the story of a love-hate relationship between two countries and two peoples who have so much in common but like to point the finger and laugh at the little differences.
Interesting read. Loses a bit of structure towards the end when it gets bogged down in modern politics, but that is almost to be expected. First half is very good, with quite a few little nuggets.
Not a short read, though.
Rated G (though with some adult themes). 3/5
May 8, 2015
Very detailed and interesting account of the long and tempestuous relationship between the British and French over the past 300 or so years.
Covering such aspects as politics, warfare, culture, language, and the mutual admiration/distrust of both countries, it is also notable for being jointly written by a husband and wife, one of whom is French and the other British.
Not a light read by any means, but well written and full of interesting historical information for anyone keen to know more about the subject.
Covering such aspects as politics, warfare, culture, language, and the mutual admiration/distrust of both countries, it is also notable for being jointly written by a husband and wife, one of whom is French and the other British.
Not a light read by any means, but well written and full of interesting historical information for anyone keen to know more about the subject.
April 28, 2013
Holy details batman- the only thing missing was the recipes for the meals the subjects ate! But still a very interesting read for any British an European history buffs .
Read
November 6, 2016Very interesting and detailed.
April 8, 2009
This is a roller coaster of history...It's the most entertaining scholarly work I have ever read.
owned-reference
September 24, 2017Did not finish - I don't understand how you could write a book about France and England's relationship without talking about Agincourt and how you can make it boring. Keeping for reference only.
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews