Comments on: The Tudor Occupation of Boulogne: Conquest, Colonisation and Imperial Monarchy, 1544-1550

By: Callan Hass

Callan Hass — Sat, 12 Feb 2022 00:19:33 +0000

Tyler, this is a very well structured and thorough review. I liked that you included a little bit of Murphy’s background but I am interested in how his background influences this work. Were more of his sources French rather than English? Do you feel that there was bias within the book that favored the French over the English? I always like to read up on the author in order to understand the work though their lens. I really appreciate your dissection of sources and emphasis on the lack of primary sources utilized. Primary sources tend to bolster an argument much better than a secondary source, which tends to be another scholar‘s interpretation. I will play devils advocate and challenge your conclusion paragraph though. I truly think this book needs prior knowledge of the Tudor dynasty and a familiarity with early modern French history. Murphy does a lot of name dropping without any real background information or in depth introductions. I found myself googling people more than once so that I could make sense of all the characters. Do you think it would be appropriate for a brief synopsis on individuals as they are introduced despite this being a definite scholarly source? Would that make it easier to digest as a generic reader?

I know my post is terribly late as that we covered much of my comment in class last night. I have been having technical difficulties with the site, but all is well now!

By: Dr. Otis

Dr. Otis — Thu, 10 Feb 2022 17:32:27 +0000

In reply to Edward Kirsch.

It used to be more accepted in the field that you “updated” your quotes to be readable for a modern audience, but the linguistic turn in the late 20th century brought new awareness of the importance of original words/spelling/language and since then it’s become normal to leave the original language intact unless you’re writing for a student or popular audience. (The quotes aren’t actually Old English, it’s basically modern English but 16th century *spelling* is not standardized yet. It’s best thought of phonetic spelling, they’re writing what it sounds like to them.)

By: Logan Skorupa

Logan Skorupa — Wed, 09 Feb 2022 23:53:58 +0000

I definitely agree that Murphey is showing how the English invasion of Ireland was neither the ‘first’ example of English colonization nor were its tactics uniquely implemented against the Irish. However, I particularly noticed the passage “Yet the resettlement of conquered lands with soldiers and farmers had been used since the very beginnings of the English empire in the late eleventh century” at the end of the last chapter (the online version I used has no page numbers) which ties these colonial efforts in Boulogne and Ireland in the 16th century all the way back to the Norman conquest of England. To me, this book seems to be arguing that the colonization efforts of England in the 16th century were more of a return to the more ’traditional’ way the English waged war, with the attempts to claim the French kingdom being the exception.

By: RadGradReviewer

RadGradReviewer — Wed, 09 Feb 2022 23:03:30 +0000

I appreciate your review with the careful attention to the author’s argument and the book’s historiographical addition. In terms of empire and military history, I thought it fascinating that Murphy approached the topic in terms of English methods to legitimate dominance over Boulogne. For instance, as you mentioned, there was the “scorched earth” tactic that the English utilized (4).
I would love to hear more about Murphy’s considerable reliance on secondary sources. Do you believe there was negligence or just a lack of overwhelming primary source evidence? Also, I find it fascinating that the author primarily studies France rather than England. I wonder how this differing national focus informed his writing. I wonder to what extant (if at all) the sourcing issue that you mention occurred due to the author’s focus on France over England.

By: Edward Kirsch

Edward Kirsch — Wed, 09 Feb 2022 19:20:25 +0000

As noted by Tyler, Murphy makes extensive use of primary sources from both English and French archives. When quoting an English source such as the State Papers of Henry VIII (abbreviated “StP”, xvii), or the National Archives at Kew (“TNA”), Murphy quotes the Old Sixteenth century English text verbatim. However, when quoting a French source he provides a modern translation followed by a quote of what appears to be the original text in either a nearby parenthesis or a footnote. (e.g., 50-52, 73) I concur with Tyler that this approach renders his English evidence difficult for a modern reader to interpret. The book would be more readable if he placed the Old English in a footnote and provided a modern translation as with the French evidence he used. This aspect of Murphy’s approach seems to further mark his work as a text intended for an academic audience of period scholars. I am interested in the Professor’s view as to the expected practice among professional historians as I encountered this issue in my research on Medieval Mappaemundi.
Tyler also notes that Murphy argues Henry VIII’s Boulogne campaign “foreshadowed those that were taken in Ireland and Scotland” in the 1570s (Tyler), and stands contrary to the view that the “English employed special methods of violence against the Irish.” (4) I concur with Tyler as to the strength of Murphy’s argument. English practices in Ireland were not a sharp departure and also did not fall outside the laws of war, as characterized by other historians. France was the template and “training ground” for colonialism in Ireland and beyond. Murphy identifies key features of the Boulogne conquest and occupation that were employed subsequently in Ireland, often by the same personnel, including the confiscation of property, killing of civilians (32), stripping to cause death by exposure (28); destruction of crops, corn, and livestock to induce famine, disease and depopulation (41, 56); the attempt to establish self-sufficient colonial settlements with English arable farmers (106, 120); the use of maps as a tool of territorial expansion (86), introduction of English law, the imposition of the English language (140-42); and English worship (160-61).

By: William/Bill

William/Bill — Wed, 09 Feb 2022 18:51:58 +0000

Murphy analyzes Henry VIII’s capture of Boulogne and the surrounding area, the ‘Boulonnais,’ in 1544 to support his thesis that Britain’s imperial origins precede the Scottish and Irish colonial projects. Further, he shows that England used the types of warfare and forms of colonial administration in France that much of the existing literature argues originated only later in Scotland and Ireland. Murphy also shows that “total war” against enemies, including civilians, was considered legitimate and widely practiced during the Hundred Years War and other conflicts of the medieval period. Our reviewers capture these key elements of Murphy’s argument.

Thompson says that “Murphy is filling a gap in the historiography and is challenging other scholarship….” He reinforces Murphy’s main argument: “The English expansion into Northern France was the first step for the English to create an empire that would span across oceans. Before England expanded into Scotland and Ireland, Henry VIII experimented with colonial conquest in Northern France.”

Cervone relates the effects of Henry’s clearing of the Boulonnais and the use of cartography to enable occupation of the cleared area by English settlers: “Mapping was another way that Henry and the British ruled over the area, they would change the landscape in the Boulonnais to support their occupation.” His review notes that occupation was essential to the success of the colony – the garrisoned soldiers needed food and clothing and Henry’s subjects were unhappy with the costs of the French excursion.

Both reviewers noted the difficulties posed by the source materials that Murphy used, not least the languages used and the importance of contextual knowledge for assessing the relevance of any given source. But each concluded that Murphy has provided a valuable contribution to our understanding of Henry’s Boulogne conquest and its significance for the larger literature of the origins of British imperial adventures.

By: Matthew Inman

Matthew Inman — Wed, 09 Feb 2022 15:20:25 +0000

Tyler – This is a well-structured review; I will particularly point out the strength of stating the book’s overall conclusion in the opening, which I think is important in a review. You’ve also done a good job of pulling relevant quotes from the book strategically, which helps to establish your main points.
The review rightly points out that Murphy is filling a historiographical gap, or reassessing an event that has been overlooked, which might be a good reason for someone to read the book. Also, your focus on Henry VIII’s strategy of claiming Boulogne under the right of conquest, as opposed to a claim to the French throne, seems to be the primary point that Murphy is making. It foreshadows the future British Empire, which seemed to be built more upon the idea that ‘might makes right’ rather than on the inherent sovereignty of the British monarch.