Eugene of Savoy: General, Gay Icon

[Malthus]

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.

Similarly, the horrors following on Louie's revocation of the Edict of Nantes helped to ensure the "Glorious Revolution" in England, whereby England's Catholic king got the boot and was replaced by William - and thus that the power of England would be added to Louie's enemies, as opposed to his friends.

Arguably, this was as significant than Hitler murdering Jews in terms of creating trouble for the instigator.

Note that one of the religious minorities settling the US was the Puritans - their beef with England  seemed to be in part that they weren't allowed to persecute others anymore.  Sure, the lot of religious minorities in England itself was harsh, but it simply can't be compared in scope to what happened to French Protestants.

[CountDeMoney]

Sure, the lot of religious minorities in England itself was harsh, but it simply can't be compared in scope to what happened to French Protestants.

Hugenots should've shopped for boats.

[Valmy]

Similarly, the horrors following on Louie's revocation of the Edict of Nantes helped to ensure the "Glorious Revolution" in England, whereby England's Catholic king got the boot and was replaced by William - and thus that the power of England would be added to Louie's enemies, as opposed to his friends.

Well let's just say the whole ordeal was not to his credit in any respect.

Do you think it was the trauma of The Fronde that played a role in this policy?  I seem to recall that Peter the Great biography you linked suggesting so.

[alfred russel]

Similarly, the horrors following on Louie's revocation of the Edict of Nantes helped to ensure the "Glorious Revolution" in England, whereby England's Catholic king got the boot and was replaced by William - and thus that the power of England would be added to Louie's enemies, as opposed to his friends.

Arguably, this was as significant than Hitler murdering Jews in terms of creating trouble for the instigator.

Note that one of the religious minorities settling the US was the Puritans - their beef with England  seemed to be in part that they weren't allowed to persecute others anymore.  Sure, the lot of religious minorities in England itself was harsh, but it simply can't be compared in scope to what happened to French Protestants.

I notice there are a lot of religious toleration comparisons here between France and England, but not between France and the Habsburgs. 

[Malthus]

Similarly, the horrors following on Louie's revocation of the Edict of Nantes helped to ensure the "Glorious Revolution" in England, whereby England's Catholic king got the boot and was replaced by William - and thus that the power of England would be added to Louie's enemies, as opposed to his friends.

Well let's just say the whole ordeal was not to his credit in any respect.

Do you think it was the trauma of The Fronde that played a role in this policy?  I seem to recall that Peter the Great biography you linked suggesting so.

I haven't actually read that Peter the Great bio yet - it's on the list, because Gups recommended it. 

But yeah, I would not be surprised.

It just seems that Louie took the position, for whatever reason, that religious pluralism = weakness and so set out to root it out.

[Valmy]

I haven't actually read that Peter the Great bio yet - it's on the list, because Gups recommended it. 

It is fantastic.  One of the most enjoyable history books I have ever read.

[Malthus]

Similarly, the horrors following on Louie's revocation of the Edict of Nantes helped to ensure the "Glorious Revolution" in England, whereby England's Catholic king got the boot and was replaced by William - and thus that the power of England would be added to Louie's enemies, as opposed to his friends.

Arguably, this was as significant than Hitler murdering Jews in terms of creating trouble for the instigator.

Note that one of the religious minorities settling the US was the Puritans - their beef with England  seemed to be in part that they weren't allowed to persecute others anymore.  Sure, the lot of religious minorities in England itself was harsh, but it simply can't be compared in scope to what happened to French Protestants.

I notice there are a lot of religious toleration comparisons here between France and England, but not between France and the Habsburgs. 

Yeah, that totally spoils the comparison, because there is simply no way that in WW2 the western allies would *ever* ally themselves to a country equally as hateful as Nazi Germany ... oh wait. 

But seriously ... the Hapsburgs had no trouble rooting out Hungarian Protestants and poo-pooing English protests about it, pointing out what the English did to the Irish. 

[Malthus]

I haven't actually read that Peter the Great bio yet - it's on the list, because Gups recommended it. 

It is fantastic.  One of the most enjoyable history books I have ever read.

Well, shit. In that case, it goes to the *top* of the list.

Watch out credit card, Amazon here I come! 

[CountDeMoney]

I haven't actually read that Peter the Great bio yet - it's on the list, because Gups recommended it. 

It is fantastic.  One of the most enjoyable history books I have ever read.

Which one is this we're talking about?  Robert Massie?

[Valmy]

I haven't actually read that Peter the Great bio yet - it's on the list, because Gups recommended it. 

It is fantastic.  One of the most enjoyable history books I have ever read.

Which one is this we're talking about?  Robert Massie?

Yep.  I still read the opening chapter from time to time, the description of old Moscow was amazing.

[CountDeMoney]

Oh yeah, that's a great book.  Even though he wrote it first, I read it after Dreadnought, I was that impressed with him.

You'll burn right through it, Malthus.

[alfred russel]

Yeah, that totally spoils the comparison, because there is simply no way that in WW2 the western allies would *ever* ally themselves to a country equally as hateful as Nazi Germany ... oh wait. 

But seriously ... the Hapsburgs had no trouble rooting out Hungarian Protestants and poo-pooing English protests about it, pointing out what the English did to the Irish. 

I didn't respond earlier because I wanted to google a few things first...

Anyway, I certainly think the Hitler/WW2 comparison is too much. Hitler wanted jews dead. He was willing to sacrifice a potential slave labor force to kill them and expended political capital to make sure other countries were killing them too.

France expelled the protestants, notably not killing them. A main French policy of the period was keeping the German states weak and divided, which was effectively a pro Protestant policy. When French national interests were at stake, government policy was not determined by religion. The obvious retort from a modern point of view is that the treatment of the French protestants was very much a bigoted move that harmed French interests, but as Valmy mentioned earlier, it isn't clear Louis XIV understood the dynamics that we recognize.

My point in bringing up the Habsburgs was that they are typically considered more religiously stringent than the French. They didn't have a unified policy as they governed a lot of different lands, so generalizing is more difficult, but the Austrian Habsburgs also expelled protestants, and in Spain the Spanish Inquisition was still active in 1700.

The point here isn't to get into the degrees of bigotry and argue which side was worse. It is that there weren't major ideological differences driving the War of Spanish Succession. For some, it was about obtaining power, for others it was about keeping anyone from gaining power that would pose a threat.

[alfred russel]

To bring this back to Prince Eugene, the guy fought for the Austrian Habsburgs. But the reason he did wasn't out of patriotism, ideology, or religion. It is as simple as he needed a job, the French wouldn't give him one, and the Austrians did. From that he becomes one of the heroic figures of the ages (& a gay icon?).

The Austrian monarchy fought because a hyperpowered France + Spain would be a disaster for them, while it would also be nice to pick up land in the low countries, Italy, and maybe even Spain itself.

Prince Eugene fought for vanity(?), glory, and wealth.

Many of the soldiers presumably fought because if they didn't they would get shot.

[Gups]

I haven't actually read that Peter the Great bio yet - it's on the list, because Gups recommended it. 

It is fantastic.  One of the most enjoyable history books I have ever read.

Well, shit. In that case, it goes to the *top* of the list.

Watch out credit card, Amazon here I come! 

It cost me £1.20 on kindle, no idea why it was so cheap.

CdM is right, you'll burn through it. 900 pages and it took me less than a fortnight, despite doing 14 hour working days here.

[Malthus]

Yeah, that totally spoils the comparison, because there is simply no way that in WW2 the western allies would *ever* ally themselves to a country equally as hateful as Nazi Germany ... oh wait. 

But seriously ... the Hapsburgs had no trouble rooting out Hungarian Protestants and poo-pooing English protests about it, pointing out what the English did to the Irish. 

I didn't respond earlier because I wanted to google a few things first...

Anyway, I certainly think the Hitler/WW2 comparison is too much. Hitler wanted jews dead. He was willing to sacrifice a potential slave labor force to kill them and expended political capital to make sure other countries were killing them too.

France expelled the protestants, notably not killing them. A main French policy of the period was keeping the German states weak and divided, which was effectively a pro Protestant policy. When French national interests were at stake, government policy was not determined by religion. The obvious retort from a modern point of view is that the treatment of the French protestants was very much a bigoted move that harmed French interests, but as Valmy mentioned earlier, it isn't clear Louis XIV understood the dynamics that we recognize.

My point in bringing up the Habsburgs was that they are typically considered more religiously stringent than the French. They didn't have a unified policy as they governed a lot of different lands, so generalizing is more difficult, but the Austrian Habsburgs also expelled protestants, and in Spain the Spanish Inquisition was still active in 1700.

The point here isn't to get into the degrees of bigotry and argue which side was worse. It is that there weren't major ideological differences driving the War of Spanish Succession. For some, it was about obtaining power, for others it was about keeping anyone from gaining power that would pose a threat.

My point isn't that France during this period was "as bad as" the Nazis, or worse than the allies for that matter; my point is that if one wanted to, one could see the dynamic at work in both wars as being similar - a set of allies who have nothing ideologically in common and would under other circumstances be enemies, betray each other without a second's thought, and are most definitely motivated by self-interest alone, facing off in a great-power war against an overmighty European nation seemingly hell-bent on acheiving an imperium over Europe and in the process imposing a scary degree of conformity, being willing to use murder and terrorism to enforce this. 

WW2 and the War of the Spanish Succession or "WSS" for short) are both alike in this, while of course they have many, many differences. One has to stretch long and hard to find any ideological similarity between the Soviets on the one hand and the Western allies on the other; just as one has to stretch long and hard to find any common ground between Austria on the one hand and the Brits and the Dutch on the other. In both cases the "allies" were not ideology-driven, they were driven by fear - fear of the aggressor so eager and apparently able to achieve dominance.

You are arguing that the WSS wasn't ideological because the allies in it had nothing in common and the two sides weren't riven by ideology - other than fear of being mastered. I agree. What I suggest you are missing, is that the same holds for WW2. While much is made about the ideology of Nazism, that ideology had no coherence other than the usual drive for European dominance raised to the level of a mania, and German extremism, industry and modern methods put to the purpose of 'cleaning out' non-conforming enemies of the state.

What makes a Euro-villian isn't surpressing or cleaning out enemies of the state (whether defined by religion, race, 'class', or what-have-you) because to some extent pretty well all European nations have done this - England included. What makes a Euro-villian is this process combined with a drive to export it into other nations by invading them and taking them over, thus scaring the other European powers into fighting 'em - even though they usually all hate each other like poision. Purely defensive tyrants who simply murder their own "undesireables" don't get nearly as bad a press as offensive ones, which is in part why Hitler has a worse rep as a villian than Stalin, even though Stalin killed as many people.