Meanwhile, in gay history ... :P
I just finished an old biography of Prince Eugene of Savoy, the famous general of Austria (buddies with the Duke of Marlborough in the War of the Spanish Succession).
What an odd life story this guy had. Modern royal scandals are tiresomely dull by comparison.
His mom was kicked out of France for alleged poisioning and Satanism, leaving young Eugene behind; Louis XIV refused his request to join the army, because (a) the teenaged Eugene was so puny and ugly; and (b) he supposedly belonged to a set that went in for transvestitism and associated pleasures. So, naturally, with that family background and 'look', Louis insisted he become a priest!
Eugene left France in a snit or huff for Austria, where he set out to prove Louis was wrong about him ... by smashing his armies.
Which, with a little help from gigolo-turned-general Marlborough, he did. Apparently, the history of warfare discloses few examples of two genius-level generals working so harmoniously together (despite the fact that they were working for different countries whose interests were not, in many ways, alligned; England was to betray Austria quite comprehensively and seek a seperate peace).
I wonder if the famously (even infamously) handsome Marlborough's looks made him more appealing to Eugene? ;)
For every pointless gay thread from Malthus, do I get a free Jew thread? :P
Quote from: garbon on February 19, 2013, 11:14:11 AM
For every pointless gay thread from Malthus, do I get a free Jew thread? :P
:yes:
Anyway, I'm hoping a board full of history nerds at least knows who Eugene of Savoy was. :lol:
I had no idea Clive Davis was unknown. :weep:
Where's GF's picture?
I'd rather see a pic of gf's gf.
Back Room & Facebook.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 19, 2013, 11:32:55 AM
Where's GF's picture?
Not sure why GF's picture should be expected to grace this thread ... :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on February 19, 2013, 11:41:17 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 19, 2013, 11:32:55 AM
Where's GF's picture?
Not sure why GF's picture should be expected to grace this thread ... :hmm:
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 19, 2013, 11:23:45 AM
I want to add a point to that set of rules to.
While I know who Clive Davis, and Eugene of Savoy, is; POST A DAMN PICTURE.
Quote from: Malthus on February 19, 2013, 11:17:27 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 19, 2013, 11:14:11 AM
For every pointless gay thread from Malthus, do I get a free Jew thread? :P
:yes:
Anyway, I'm hoping a board full of history nerds at least knows who Eugene of Savoy was. :lol:
The Italian who fled France and fought Turks in order to keep Hungary Austrian. :P
I am currently reading a book about Marlborough. :smarty:
Quote from: The Brain on February 19, 2013, 11:58:49 AM
I am currently reading a book about Marlborough. :smarty:
Smoking is bad for you.
Quote from: Syt on February 19, 2013, 12:00:45 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 19, 2013, 11:58:49 AM
I am currently reading a book about Marlborough. :smarty:
Smoking is bad for you.
I spent my teen years in Marlborough.
Quote from: The Larch on February 19, 2013, 11:56:40 AM
The Italian who fled France and fought Turks in order to keep Hungary Austrian. :P
Continental history around the time of the War of Spanish Succession is one of the more interesting periods that seems to be overlooked. You have these epic wars, but it is the era before nationalism and after the religious wars. To a certain extent most people were just opportunists.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 19, 2013, 12:04:06 PM
Continental history around the time of the War of Spanish Succession is one of the more interesting periods that seems to be overlooked. You have these epic wars, but it is the era before nationalism and after the religious wars. To a certain extent most people were just opportunists.
Agree that it is an interesting period that tends to be overlooked. Primarily I think because the results of most of the wars was status quo ante. Unless you look further east, to the beginning of the Ottoman decline and the rise of Russia.
Western European armies were fairly poor at the time. Civilian artillery drivers? Buying and selling colonelcies?
Quote from: Caliga on February 19, 2013, 12:35:40 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 19, 2013, 12:02:18 PM
I spent my teen years in Marlborough.
:console:
True story but then I guess it was a pretty safe and fairly wholesome place to grow up*.
*Particularly my neighborhood.
:blush:
Cal lived on Powite and grab lived on Richblack.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 19, 2013, 12:43:51 PM
Cal lived on Powite and grab lived on Richblack.
Actually Cal lived in Poor Brazil and I lived in Rich White - though there was a black family and one latino family that moved in by the time I was going off to college.
Quote from: garbon on February 19, 2013, 12:46:37 PM
though there was a black family and one latino family that moved in by the time I was going off to college.
GODDAMNIT IT EDITH THERE GOES THE NEIGHBORHOOD
Quote from: Caliga on February 19, 2013, 12:47:38 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 19, 2013, 12:46:37 PM
though there was a black family and one latino family that moved in by the time I was going off to college.
GODDAMNIT IT EDITH THERE GOES THE NEIGHBORHOOD
We used to have the cops regularly drive through until the ex-fire chief moved away (rumor was money troubles). Instead a white family with like 7 kids moved in.
Quote from: The Larch on February 19, 2013, 11:56:40 AM
The Italian who fled France and fought Turks in order to keep Hungary Austrian. :P
:D
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 19, 2013, 12:11:04 PM
Agree that it is an interesting period that tends to be overlooked. Primarily I think because the results of most of the wars was status quo ante. Unless you look further east, to the beginning of the Ottoman decline and the rise of Russia.
Also it is rather difficult to get jazzed up about what they were fighting over. The War of Spanish Succession was the main event of the era (at least until the War of Austrian Succession), and every side was just making their own power plays (including prominent leaders such as Prince Eugene).
Quote from: alfred russel on February 19, 2013, 01:17:40 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 19, 2013, 12:11:04 PM
Agree that it is an interesting period that tends to be overlooked. Primarily I think because the results of most of the wars was status quo ante. Unless you look further east, to the beginning of the Ottoman decline and the rise of Russia.
Also it is rather difficult to get jazzed up about what they were fighting over. The War of Spanish Succession was the main event of the era (at least until the War of Austrian Succession), and every side was just making their own power plays (including prominent leaders such as Prince Eugene).
What makes it interesting to me is the sheer wierdness of the personal stories of most of the prominent figures.
I mean, a former gigolo (Marlborough) and the runty, gay son of a Satanist poisoner (Eugene) are the heroes of a war caused by the question of succession of a man so racked by inbreeding that he was held up by strings as a child like a human marionette (Carlos 'the Sufferer') and spends his adult life literally longing for death. ;)
But I disagree that the issues were unimportant. The real issue was whether Louie the 14th was going to dominate Europe like a bewigged, platform-shoe-wearing collossus, creating a sort of chic Roman Empire, and forcing the Dutch to indulge in unspeakable frivolities (such as Catholicism) with dragonnades. ;)
The giants of the age were to be found in the North and East. An Olympian defending his realm against a Titan (and the Titan's friends).
Quote from: Malthus on February 19, 2013, 01:32:07 PM
What makes it interesting to me is the sheer wierdness of the personal stories of most of the prominent figures.
I mean, a former gigolo (Marlborough) and the runty, gay son of a Satanist poisoner (Eugene) are the heroes of a war caused by the question of succession of a man so racked by inbreeding that he was held up by strings as a child like a human marionette (Carlos 'the Sufferer') and spends his adult life literally longing for death. ;)
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.
QuoteBut I disagree that the issues were unimportant. The real issue was whether Louie the 14th was going to dominate Europe like a bewigged, platform-shoe-wearing collossus, creating a sort of chic Roman Empire, and forcing the Dutch to indulge in unspeakable frivolities (such as Catholicism) with dragonnades. ;)
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.
Quote from: Caliga on February 19, 2013, 12:47:38 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 19, 2013, 12:46:37 PM
though there was a black family and one latino family that moved in by the time I was going off to college.
GODDAMNIT IT EDITH THERE GOES THE NEIGHBORHOOD
I laughed.
Quote from: Malthus on February 19, 2013, 01:32:07 PM
succession of a man so racked by inbreeding that he was held up by strings as a child like a human marionette (Carlos 'the Sufferer') and spends his adult life literally longing for death.
In "Pursuit of Glory" there's a passage explaining his state and that he would often refuse to leave the bed for long periods of time. Not even for bowel movements. :x Supposedly one of the few things that could cheer him up was when the famous castrato Farinelli sang in the adjacent room for him.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 19, 2013, 01:46:47 PM
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? :D
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".
QuoteI 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.
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.
Quote from: Gups on February 19, 2013, 02:14:13 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on February 19, 2013, 02:07:05 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on February 19, 2013, 02:07:05 PM
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? :D
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?
Quote from: alfred russel on February 19, 2013, 02:23:34 PM
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.
QuoteEngland 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 :P), history would be very different!
Austria was never in a position to seriously make a bid for hegemony at this time.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 19, 2013, 02:26:41 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on February 19, 2013, 11:17:27 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 19, 2013, 11:14:11 AM
For every pointless gay thread from Malthus, do I get a free Jew thread? :P
:yes:
Anyway, I'm hoping a board full of history nerds at least knows who Eugene of Savoy was. :lol:
Never heard of him. :smarty:
Quote from: Malthus on February 19, 2013, 02:56:21 PM
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.
Quote from: mongers on February 19, 2013, 03:06:07 PM
Never heard of him. :smarty:
Ever heard of the Duke of Marlborough?
As far as you Brits are concerned, he's the Duke's ugly, Austo-Italian sidekick. :P
Quote from: Malthus on February 19, 2013, 02:56:21 PM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 19, 2013, 03:11:01 PM
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". :D
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.
Quote from: Malthus on February 19, 2013, 02:56:21 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on February 19, 2013, 03:21:57 PMEnglish 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...
Quote from: Malthus on February 19, 2013, 03:21:57 PM
Well, Hitler's "ideological motivation" seems to have been nothing more coherent than "wanting power". :D
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 19, 2013, 03:33:09 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 19, 2013, 03:21:57 PM
Well, Hitler's "ideological motivation" seems to have been nothing more coherent than "wanting power". :D
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.
Quote from: Malthus on February 19, 2013, 04:02:57 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on February 19, 2013, 04:02:57 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on February 19, 2013, 04:02:57 PM
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. :P
Quote from: Valmy on February 19, 2013, 04:11:52 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 19, 2013, 04:02:57 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on February 19, 2013, 04:23:15 PM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 19, 2013, 04:16:21 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 19, 2013, 04:02:57 PM
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. :P
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. :P
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. ;)
Quote from: Valmy on February 19, 2013, 04:26:02 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 19, 2013, 04:23:15 PM
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! :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on February 19, 2013, 04:26:02 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 19, 2013, 04:23:15 PM
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?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2013, 04:33:02 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 19, 2013, 04:26:02 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 19, 2013, 04:23:15 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Malthus on February 19, 2013, 04:28:24 PM
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. :P
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.
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.
Quote from: Malthus on February 19, 2013, 04:29:29 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 19, 2013, 04:26:02 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 19, 2013, 04:23:15 PM
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! :lol:
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 19, 2013, 09:47:35 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 19, 2013, 04:28:24 PM
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. :P
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 19, 2013, 10:01:28 PM
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! :menace:
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!"]
Quote from: Gups on February 20, 2013, 03:44:20 AM
Quote from: Malthus on February 19, 2013, 04:29:29 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 19, 2013, 04:26:02 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 19, 2013, 04:23:15 PM
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! :lol:
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. :D
The deed's done: ORDERED
Quote from: Valmy on February 19, 2013, 04:34:36 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 19, 2013, 04:33:02 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 19, 2013, 04:26:02 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 19, 2013, 04:23:15 PM
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. :( :blush:
I'm sure there's a pop-up version around.
Quote from: garbon on February 20, 2013, 10:15:45 AM
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. :( :blush:
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.
Quote from: Malthus on February 20, 2013, 10:01:36 AM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 20, 2013, 10:33:48 AM
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.
A Jew defending Hitler?
Quote from: Malthus on February 20, 2013, 10:56:26 AM
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).
Quote from: alfred russel on February 20, 2013, 11:29:34 AM
Quote from: Malthus on February 20, 2013, 10:56:26 AM
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.