Eugene of Savoy: General, Gay Icon

[Malthus]

I think a lot of those have to be taken with a grain of salt. Maybe Marlborough used his charms with the ladies to his advantage, but I think calling him a gigolo is a bit much. Eugene's characterization probably has a bit of historical slander in it.

As a young man, Marlborough used his charms to the tune of 5,000 pounds, and earned a personal rebuke from Charles II for being caught in his mistresses' bed - he was forgiven because, to quote, "you do it to earn your bread". 

Who am I to doubt the assessment of a pro like Charles II?

As for Eugene, no doubt his ... exploits ... as a young man were tinged with French slander. But his mom was certainly chased out of France with allegations of being part of the infamous "affair of the poisions".

I agree they were definitely important (BB and I once had an argument started by my assertion that the War of Spanish Succession was one of the most important in history). But ultimately they were just about power: and everyone wanted to dominate. The ultimate result that no one did is important, but it doesn't lend itself to a very engaging narrative for the casual history reader.

I disagree on that ... it was about more than mere power. The Allies wanted gains for themselves of course, but they were not equal but opposite to the French - the French were making a genuine bid for eventual European hegemony. The various allies did not have such pretentions (though the series of wars starting with this one were to pave the way for British pretentions of hegemony, on a world scale).

Moreover, one of the fuels firing this war was a genuine fear that Protestants everywhere would fall under the sway of France or its puppets (like the Stewart kings) end up treated like the Hugenots.

While the war was a "typical" ballance-of-power European conflict, it more resembled WW2 than WW1 - the allies may have been grasping and unsympathetic in their greed and dishonesty, but their enemy was worse.

[Gups]

Just finished Massey's biog of Peter the Great. Fantastic narrative history with good short portraits of other leaders around at the time including Eugene, Churchill, William of Orange and of course Charles XII.  It's a great period of history.

[Malthus]

Just finished Massey's biog of Peter the Great. Fantastic narrative history with good short portraits of other leaders around at the time including Eugene, Churchill, William of Orange and of course Charles XII.  It's a great period of history.

Looks good. I'm adding it to the list.

http://www.amazon.ca/Peter-Great-His-Life-World/dp/0345298063

Peter's another guy you whose life story and personal characteristics you could not invent in fiction.

[alfred russel]

I disagree on that ... it was about more than mere power. The Allies wanted gains for themselves of course, but they were not equal but opposite to the French - the French were making a genuine bid for eventual European hegemony. The various allies did not have such pretentions (though the series of wars starting with this one were to pave the way for British pretentions of hegemony, on a world scale).

Moreover, one of the fuels firing this war was a genuine fear that Protestants everywhere would fall under the sway of France or its puppets (like the Stewart kings) end up treated like the Hugenots.

While the war was a "typical" ballance-of-power European conflict, it more resembled WW2 than WW1 - the allies may have been grasping and unsympathetic in their greed and dishonesty, but their enemy was worse.

If we look at it as a three sided conflict: France, Austria, and England; France obviously had a major opportunity to achieve European dominance: an opportunity that may have only come 4-5 times to any country in the modern era. They were fighting to capitalize on that. I find it hard to imagine that if presented France's opportunity, England and Austria wouldn't have gone for it.

England and Austria started in a tight alliance to prevent French dominance. But England was really just making sure Europe stayed divided--its play was overseas. Toward the end of the war, Austria had an opportunity for a gaining a chance at a dominant European position, and England pulled the plug.

[alfred russel]

As a young man, Marlborough used his charms to the tune of 5,000 pounds, and earned a personal rebuke from Charles II for being caught in his mistresses' bed - he was forgiven because, to quote, "you do it to earn your bread". 

Who am I to doubt the assessment of a pro like Charles II?

As for Eugene, no doubt his ... exploits ... as a young man were tinged with French slander. But his mom was certainly chased out of France with allegations of being part of the infamous "affair of the poisions".

That Charles II quote is memorable, but did it really happen? And if it did, was it a statement of the true condition, or was it witty insult highlighting his superiority over an upstart officer?

[Malthus]

IIf we look at it as a three sided conflict: France, Austria, and England; France obviously had a major opportunity to achieve European dominance: an opportunity that may have only come 4-5 times to any country in the modern era. They were fighting to capitalize on that. I find it hard to imagine that if presented France's opportunity, England and Austria wouldn't have gone for it.

Perhaps ... but the same sort of logic can be used of Hitler's Germany. With the benefit of hindsight, WW2 can be presented as just another attempt by one of the European powers to gain hegemony, being thwarted by equally self-interested rivals.

The parallels go deeper, as France at the time had a nasty reputation for suppressing minorities - the Hugenots. Admittedly no death camps, but being sent to the galleys was sorta similar - you weren't seriously expected to survive.

England and Austria started in a tight alliance to prevent French dominance. But England was really just making sure Europe stayed divided--its play was overseas. Toward the end of the war, Austria had an opportunity for a gaining a chance at a dominant European position, and England pulled the plug.

There is no doubt that England cynically betrayed the alliance. But this had far more to do with war-weariness and internal politics in England than with any concerted English plan to benefit.

If Sarah Churchill had been a little nicer to Queen Anne (maybe let her use the strap-on once in a while  ), history would be very different!

Austria was never in a position to seriously make a bid for hegemony at this time.

[Malthus]

That Charles II quote is memorable, but did it really happen? And if it did, was it a statement of the true condition, or was it witty insult highlighting his superiority over an upstart officer?

Well, the quote feeds into a perception during his lifetime that Marlborough would do nearly *anything* for money ... and he *did* get 5,000 pounds out of the mistress (who was admittely also his cousin).

It was just family tradition for the Churchills - his sister Arabella was famously one of James II's mistresses, and was paid very well for it.

What is really remarkable is that after he meets Sarah he ceases his womanizing. Allegedly, Sarah was the biggest bitch in the universe, but she must have had something to tie people like Queen Anne and Marlborough to her.

[mongers]

For every pointless gay thread from Malthus, do I get a free Jew thread?

Anyway, I'm hoping a board full of history nerds at least knows who Eugene of Savoy was. 

Never heard of him.   

[alfred russel]

Perhaps ... but the same sort of logic can be used of Hitler's Germany. With the benefit of hindsight, WW2 can be presented as just another attempt by one of the European powers to gain hegemony, being thwarted by equally self-interested rivals.

The parallels go deeper, as France at the time had a nasty reputation for suppressing minorities - the Hugenots. Admittedly no death camps, but being sent to the galleys was sorta similar - you weren't seriously expected to survive.

I certainly disagree. Hitler had an ideological motivation: Louis XIV just wanted power (like everyone else). Yes France suppressed the Hugenots, but I don't think they outclassed the Habsburgs in terms of protestant suppression.

The protestant lands in the Holy Roman Empire near France certainly had more to fear from France than Austria, but the relative ability to project power in the region was the cause of that. See ~50 years earlier, when Austria was the one threatening those states.

It wasn't all fun and games for Catholics in England either.

[Malthus]

Never heard of him.   

Ever heard of the Duke of Marlborough?

As far as you Brits are concerned, he's the Duke's ugly, Austo-Italian sidekick. 

[alfred russel]

Austria was never in a position to seriously make a bid for hegemony at this time.

Had Austria added the Spanish kingdom to its domains, it would have been in a dominant position--especially if France was seriously damaged in the war. They controlled much of central europe already, the Ottoman Empire in Europe was dangerously close to collapse in 1700, and while the Holy Roman Empire was a weak institution, if a neutered France could not effectively support the smaller states, it have been a framework to reassert power through Germany.

That wouldn't have made it a hegemonic power, but there was danger there.

[Malthus]

I certainly disagree. Hitler had an ideological motivation: Louis XIV just wanted power (like everyone else). Yes France suppressed the Hugenots, but I don't think they outclassed the Habsburgs in terms of protestant suppression.

The protestant lands in the Holy Roman Empire near France certainly had more to fear from France than Austria, but the relative ability to project power in the region was the cause of that. See ~50 years earlier, when Austria was the one threatening those states.

It wasn't all fun and games for Catholics in England either.

Well, Hitler's "ideological motivation" seems to have been nothing more coherent than "wanting power". 

Agreed that being a religious minority pretty well anywhere in this period sucked, but it's a matter of degree - English Catholics weren't being raped by dragoons or sent to the galleys en mass.

[Valmy]

The parallels go deeper, as France at the time had a nasty reputation for suppressing minorities - the Hugenots. Admittedly no death camps, but being sent to the galleys was sorta similar - you weren't seriously expected to survive.

It was their tolerance of the Hugenots that nearly brought them down earlier.  Fanatical Calvinists are dangerous to have around, but I think Louis XIV was more annoyed by having to pay money to protect their communities more than anything else as they had been pretty defanged by the time he decided to start supressing them.  But it was not like France suppressed minorities that hadn't caused major civil wars or drained the state of resources.  I believe Louis added Lutheran subjects to France as he expanded the Kingdom but didn't mess with them much.

[Valmy]

English Catholics weren't being raped by dragoons or sent to the galleys en mass.

They might have.  Fortunately they were not numerous or stupid to cause anybody to fear them much.  The Irish Catholics on the other hand...

[alfred russel]

Well, Hitler's "ideological motivation" seems to have been nothing more coherent than "wanting power". 

Agreed that being a religious minority pretty well anywhere in this period sucked, but it's a matter of degree - English Catholics weren't being raped by dragoons or sent to the galleys en mass.

Hitler had a bit more motivation than that: in fact his insistence on killing jews and displacing slavs for Germans may have ultimately undone his quest for power.

Also, large portions of the English colonies were settled by persecuted religious minorities--Maryland in particular was settled by Catholics. They didn't flee across the ocean just for the heck of it.