Eugene of Savoy: General, Gay Icon

[Malthus]

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.

Well, he also fought out of spite. That'll show old Louie for booting out mom and making fun of his gayness and ugliness! 

Apparently, Eugine at Blenheim shot two of his own soldiers who tried to flee personally. [Marlborough, on the other hand, in the same battle, used that ultimate Baroque nobleman's weapon on fleeing soldiers: sarcasm. "Sir, you are mistaken. The enemy is that-a-way!"] 

[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! 

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.

I must say I've never seen a more unanimous Languishite opinion on any book. 

The deed's done: ORDERED

[garbon]

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.

Well I guess I can honestly say I hate description of a scene. I just looked at a sample (which had at least several pages of that opening chapter) and my eyes glazed over.

[The Brain]

I'm sure there's a pop-up version around.

[Gups]

Well I guess I can honestly say I hate description of a scene. I just looked at a sample (which had at least several pages of that opening chapter) and my eyes glazed over.

I'm the same - I find Hardy virtually unreadable. The rest of the book isn't like that at all, it's very much driven by its narrative.

[alfred russel]

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.

So I think we have been talking past each other to some extent...you are focusing on the nature of the alliances, whereas I've been focusing on internal motivations of each participant.

For example, in WWII, if I am a fascist, communist, slav, jew, gypsy, homosexual, etc, I have a clear dog in the fight during WWII. If I am an ardent supporter of democracy, even though the USSR was arguably just as bad as Nazi Germany, I would also have a dog in the fight as Nazi Germany was the side letting its panzers run free over the democracies of Europe.

In the War of Spanish Succession, such dynamics didn't exist. I'll concede that locally they did to an extent: the Netherlands for instance was quite concerned about aggressive actions from France and thus joined the alliance against them--and French religious policy played a role in this. But that was only because France posed more of a threat to them--within living memory of that war, when the balance of power was a bit different--they allied with France against the Habsburgs.

There are a couple of other differences. First, there wasn't a clear aggressor in the War of Spanish Succession (in fact France could probably be defined as the defender considering the Spanish court favored their claim to the throne). Second, consider the assessment of the war's conclusio in the case of the UK. In WWII, the British Empire was perhaps decisively weakened, but the nation is considered to have won the war, as it ideologically truimphed. In the War of Spanish Succession, however, it won its strategic aims in terms of power politics, but I don't know if it accomplished anything ideologically (France didn't revoke the Edict of Nantes, Spain continued the Inquisition). However, that war is still considered successful for them.

[Malthus]

So I think we have been talking past each other to some extent...you are focusing on the nature of the alliances, whereas I've been focusing on internal motivations of each participant.

For example, in WWII, if I am a fascist, communist, slav, jew, gypsy, homosexual, etc, I have a clear dog in the fight during WWII. If I am an ardent supporter of democracy, even though the USSR was arguably just as bad as Nazi Germany, I would also have a dog in the fight as Nazi Germany was the side letting its panzers run free over the democracies of Europe.

In the War of Spanish Succession, such dynamics didn't exist. I'll concede that locally they did to an extent: the Netherlands for instance was quite concerned about aggressive actions from France and thus joined the alliance against them--and French religious policy played a role in this. But that was only because France posed more of a threat to them--within living memory of that war, when the balance of power was a bit different--they allied with France against the Habsburgs.

There are a couple of other differences. First, there wasn't a clear aggressor in the War of Spanish Succession (in fact France could probably be defined as the defender considering the Spanish court favored their claim to the throne). Second, consider the assessment of the war's conclusio in the case of the UK. In WWII, the British Empire was perhaps decisively weakened, but the nation is considered to have won the war, as it ideologically truimphed. In the War of Spanish Succession, however, it won its strategic aims in terms of power politics, but I don't know if it accomplished anything ideologically (France didn't revoke the Edict of Nantes, Spain continued the Inquisition). However, that war is still considered successful for them.

I don't agree with your conclusions. If you were a Protestant, you clearly wanted the allies to win the WSS - even though Austria was harsh on Protestants; moreover, the allies - the English and the Dutch - both stood for a limited and more consent-based form of government  (not "democracy" than certainly more free than either France or Austria). So those that valued (comparative) political freedom versus absolutist monarchy would be rooting for them. The "Glorious Revolution" which put William on the English throne was certainly considered in this light. William = consent-based, Protestant, eneny of France; James II = absolutist, Catholic, ally of France.

It isn't for nothing that William of Orange was known as "the Protestant Champion of Europe" in his struggle with Louie.

Naturally, these characterizations are eggagerated, but the important thing is that people at the time believed in them. This gave the struggle with Louie, and the WSS, its "ideological" focus (although again, one can also see it as nothing but a big-power struggle). 

Similarly, in WW2, those who valued democracy were generally rooting for the allies in spite of the fact that they were allied to the Soviets, who had nothing but contempt and hatred for democracy and imposed virual slavery for 50 years over half of Europe at the conclusion of the war.

I also disagree that France was not the aggressor. The event that launched the chrisis was France reneging on its promise to keep the crowns of France and Spain seperate. In context of French aggression over the preceeding decades, no-one in their right mind could interpret that as anything other than aggressive. It was the last straw, much like how the invasion of Poland was taken as aggressive towards France even though Poland is nowhere near France. Remember it was France and the UK that declared war on Germany in WW2, not the other way around. So "in a sense" the Allies were the aggressors in both wars!

Similarly, the Dutch were "winners" of the WSS even though it left them terminally weakened and allowed England to overshadow them - the fate of the Brits vs. the US in WW2.

[The Brain]

A Jew defending Hitler?

[alfred russel]

I don't agree with your conclusions. If you were a Protestant, you clearly wanted the allies to win the WSS - even though Austria was harsh on Protestants; moreover, the allies - the English and the Dutch - both stood for a limited and more consent-based form of government  (not "democracy" than certainly more free than either France or Austria). So those that valued (comparative) political freedom versus absolutist monarchy would be rooting for them. The "Glorious Revolution" which put William on the English throne was certainly considered in this light. William = consent-based, Protestant, eneny of France; James II = absolutist, Catholic, ally of France.

It isn't for nothing that William of Orange was known as "the Protestant Champion of Europe" in his struggle with Louie.

Naturally, these characterizations are eggagerated, but the important thing is that people at the time believed in them. This gave the struggle with Louie, and the WSS, its "ideological" focus (although again, one can also see it as nothing but a big-power struggle). 

Similarly, in WW2, those who valued democracy were generally rooting for the allies in spite of the fact that they were allied to the Soviets, who had nothing but contempt and hatred for democracy and imposed virual slavery for 50 years over half of Europe at the conclusion of the war.

I also disagree that France was not the aggressor. The event that launched the chrisis was France reneging on its promise to keep the crowns of France and Spain seperate. In context of French aggression over the preceeding decades, no-one in their right mind could interpret that as anything other than aggressive. It was the last straw, much like how the invasion of Poland was taken as aggressive towards France even though Poland is nowhere near France. Remember it was France and the UK that declared war on Germany in WW2, not the other way around. So "in a sense" the Allies were the aggressors in both wars!

Similarly, the Dutch were "winners" of the WSS even though it left them terminally weakened and allowed England to overshadow them - the fate of the Brits vs. the US in WW2.

If you were a protestant, you probably did want the allies to win. But then if you were a Turk you probably wanted France to win. I'd argue that in both cases it was due considerations of who was providing the greatest threat to the security of your state (or state sponsor).

Take the case of Bavaria--the significant French ally. I don't believe they sided with the French because the Habsburgs weren't catholic enough, but because they were making a power play within the politics of the Holy Roman Empire.

The Netherlands "won" the war because Louis XIV's regime posed a serious threat to them, and indeed well into their decline they paid for and I believe staffed many of the forts of their old rivals the Austrian Habsburgs at the borders of France. Again not because they supported the Austrian version of governance over the French, but because they were a remarkably wealthy region with a limited army that was a nice target for a nearby power.

I can't speak to the ins and outs of the causes of the War of Spanish Succession. But I don't think characterizing it as a religous war is accurate (even though it, like most wars certainly through WWII, had religious overtones to them).

[Malthus]

I don't agree with your conclusions. If you were a Protestant, you clearly wanted the allies to win the WSS - even though Austria was harsh on Protestants; moreover, the allies - the English and the Dutch - both stood for a limited and more consent-based form of government  (not "democracy" than certainly more free than either France or Austria). So those that valued (comparative) political freedom versus absolutist monarchy would be rooting for them. The "Glorious Revolution" which put William on the English throne was certainly considered in this light. William = consent-based, Protestant, eneny of France; James II = absolutist, Catholic, ally of France.

It isn't for nothing that William of Orange was known as "the Protestant Champion of Europe" in his struggle with Louie.

Naturally, these characterizations are eggagerated, but the important thing is that people at the time believed in them. This gave the struggle with Louie, and the WSS, its "ideological" focus (although again, one can also see it as nothing but a big-power struggle). 

Similarly, in WW2, those who valued democracy were generally rooting for the allies in spite of the fact that they were allied to the Soviets, who had nothing but contempt and hatred for democracy and imposed virual slavery for 50 years over half of Europe at the conclusion of the war.

I also disagree that France was not the aggressor. The event that launched the chrisis was France reneging on its promise to keep the crowns of France and Spain seperate. In context of French aggression over the preceeding decades, no-one in their right mind could interpret that as anything other than aggressive. It was the last straw, much like how the invasion of Poland was taken as aggressive towards France even though Poland is nowhere near France. Remember it was France and the UK that declared war on Germany in WW2, not the other way around. So "in a sense" the Allies were the aggressors in both wars!

Similarly, the Dutch were "winners" of the WSS even though it left them terminally weakened and allowed England to overshadow them - the fate of the Brits vs. the US in WW2.

If you were a protestant, you probably did want the allies to win. But then if you were a Turk you probably wanted France to win. I'd argue that in both cases it was due considerations of who was providing the greatest threat to the security of your state (or state sponsor).

Take the case of Bavaria--the significant French ally. I don't believe they sided with the French because the Habsburgs weren't catholic enough, but because they were making a power play within the politics of the Holy Roman Empire.

The Netherlands "won" the war because Louis XIV's regime posed a serious threat to them, and indeed well into their decline they paid for and I believe staffed many of the forts of their old rivals the Austrian Habsburgs at the borders of France. Again not because they supported the Austrian version of governance over the French, but because they were a remarkably wealthy region with a limited army that was a nice target for a nearby power.

I can't speak to the ins and outs of the causes of the War of Spanish Succession. But I don't think characterizing it as a religous war is accurate (even though it, like most wars certainly through WWII, had religious overtones to them).

The WSS was not a "religious war" any more than WW2 was a war "to defend democracy".

Both had overtones and were characterized as such when convenient; both were "really" about doing down a perceived predator. In both cases, allies were made that completely contradicted the alleged ideological motivations of the western powers.