the thirty years war

wedgwood is a big GIIA fan, not unreservedly so but hes clearly the most impressive to her

and xxp fair enough, but it does seem to me that the 30yrs War crystallised this feeling a great deal, could be wrong tho...

re. Otto von Habsburg, did you hear the KFR about how somebody once asked him about how the Austria Hungary football match was going to go, and he replied absentmindedly "who are we playing?"

With all that dynastic v. national stuff, I am always struck by how England became a "modern" country long before everywhere else did - yet, wierdly, the United Kingdom retain such odd pre-modern things as having different legal systems in different parts of the country and still being more than completely notionally comprised of separate sub-units that only happen to lie together.

somebody once asked him about how the Austria Hungary football match was going to go, and he replied absentmindedly "who are we playing?"

This took me about 45 seconds to get but wow.

xp not sure that's true for "England", arguably the case for Britain/ United Kingdom/ British Isles though...

Sounds about right, Neil. Hating foreigners together is, sadly, a very efficient way of forging national identity.

I think that Italy and Germany have routinely gone through various periods of national yearning and national apathy since the end of the classical era. Germany had to shed Switzerland and Austria to make it happen in 1870 but it was still a pretty good deal to them. Italy is about as disillusioned as possible about unity right now, as far as I can tell.

Marquis de Feuquieres †

^^ this guy is pretty great btw, even more wily than richelieu

the United Kingdom retain such odd pre-modern things as having different legal systems in different parts of the country and still being more than completely notionally comprised of separate sub-units that only happen to lie together.

Never conquered by Napoleon or undergone a post-1789 style revolution.

and introducing parliamentarianism 200 years before everyone else helped.

one of the key questions of English history is "why no revolution?", though of course you might view France (and, later, Russia) as being the anomalous examples, and the slow evolution of English institutions as (generally) the norm across, at least, Northern and Western Europe.

"why no revolution?"

Dissolution of monasteries, Civil War and Dictatorship, Glorious Rebellion, Reform Acts of '32 and '67

neither side likes to see it this way, really, but the american revolution WAS the english revolution: geographical and socio-political constraints ensured the convulsion was limited to "britain west", and that half the sundered entity continued in one pre-revolutionary fashion, and the other became what it became -- those who favoured the transformation (eg paine; cobbett) either moved entirely to the new regime, or moved and then returned and tried to re-import some of its elements

The Cousins' Wars

FWIW, a very Catholic historian friend of mine thinks the book has an enormous pro-Protestant bias -- "and then the noble Protestants attacked and seized Prague, but the cowardly, treacherous Catholics got it back" etc.

Protestant bias from England?!

it has... something of a protestant bias. but not that extent by any means!

it has a much stronger "pro-peace" and "anti-prolonging this useless war" bias

she tends to have very kind words for ferdinand

everyone has kind words for ferdinand

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_5uTl8P_QI5c/TBf6QsgTzUI/AAAAAAAAH0w/9BSzhIjty3U/s400/ferdinand2.jpg

except franco

FWIW, a very Catholic historian friend of mine thinks the book has an enormous pro-Protestant bias -- "and then the noble Protestants attacked and seized Prague, but the cowardly, treacherous Catholics got it back" etc.

the Catholics are the bad guys in that war, though, with their popery and wanting to bring everyone under the Habsburg yoke. Nearly all the others are also the bad guys, though. I love how the Lutherans revolt against the strictures of popery, and then start laying into other types of Protestant for not following their particular line.

I think in one of CVW's books about the English/Irish/Scottish civil wars she talks about the Marquis of Montrose's army as a wonderful example to the world, because it contained people of all kinds of different faith. One of the things that is always striking about the 17th century is how long it takes people to register that society might just work better for everyone if you just let people follow whatever religion they like.

she tends to have very kind words for ferdinand

in general doesn't CVW tend to have kind words for everyone? She keeps falling over herself to defend that drunken waster John of Saxony, and even feels a little bit sorry for poor Tilly after his soldiers have massacared 30,000 people at Magdeburg.

CVW's tendency to sympathise with everyone is even more notable in her brilliant books "The King's Peace" and "The King's War", about the wars in England/Ireand/Scotland in the mid 17th century

oh no, missing full stop.

its true! shes likes everyone, mostly

she would vote for g2a in this poll

The best bit in that book is the description of Johann Georg of Saxony having dinner, so I will have to vote for him.

John George, who scorned foreign delicacies, had been known to sit at table gorging homely foods and swilling native beer for seven hours on end, his sole approach at conversation to box his dwarf's ears, or pour the dreges of a tankard over a servant's head as a signal for more. He was not a confirmed drunkard; his brain when he was sober was perfectly clear, and he drank through habit and good fellowship rather than weakness. But he drank too much and too often. Later on it became the fashion to say that whenever he made an inept political decision that he had been far gone at the time, and the dispatches of one ambassador at least are punctuated with such remarks as, 'He began to be somewhat heated with wine', and 'He seemed to me to be very drunk'. It made diplomacy difficult.

you only really need the first sentence there to see what a stand-up fellow he was.

I seem to remember visiting Wallenstein's house when I was in Prague. Only they call him Waldstein there.

I can't really even think about this subject w/o thinking of Jacques Callot's famous series of etchings, Les Grandes Misères de la guerre.

La bataille

http://images.clevelandart.org/prd1/ump.secure_uma?surl=1823977022ZZSFTVBEJHIW&version=4&enc=E553DA32447E0C1F83D8A3AF4014CD5B&f=1923.277.3.jpg

Pillaging

http://images.clevelandart.org/prd1/ump.secure_uma?surl=1823977022ZZSFTVBEJHIW&version=4&enc=2730541D94341051FDF866F316FD220D&f=1923.277.5.jpg

The Hanging

http://images.clevelandart.org/prd1/ump.secure_uma?surl=1823977022ZZSFTVBEJHIW&version=4&enc=85212A230200210F020AE76034486D39&f=1923.277.10.jpg

Pillaging and burning a village

http://images.clevelandart.org/prd1/ump.secure_uma?surl=1823977022ZZSFTVBEJHIW&version=4&enc=688E81C4B32DF2D79048920E48784400&f=1923.277.6.jpg

reminds me of Goya, he had presumably seen these...

the great cover to the NYRB edition has a detail from "the hanging"

reminds me of Goya, he had presumably seen these...

He owned a copy of these and they are widely cited as an influence on his Los Desastres de la Guerra.

re why no revolution in England.
I always thought it was agreed that a primary reason for the absence of a revolution in England (and specifically in the 19th century) was because of the rise and pervasiveness of the Methodist Church amongst the English working-classes.
ie the Methodist Church siphoning off the energies of a large proportion of the most of intelligent and outspoken members of the English working-class. It being particularly strong in the industrial areas of Lancashire and Yorkshire as well as with the rural poor in the West Country.
After all its often said that the rise of socialism in England was based more on Methodism than Marx.

to be honest, there weren't really revolutions in that many places... maybe the focus should be on why there were revolutions in places rather than the other way around.

Found the question a bit odd in a thread about a c17th war - seems like a c19th question, & idea of revolution. But did anyone read the recent Steve Pincus book that claims 1688, rather than the French, is the first modern revolution?

if methodism is being cited as a reason, the fact of america as "britain west" must also be: emigration to these particular colonies -- many settlements were explicitly set up with a religious-political basis -- filtered off generations of more radical protestant activism, working but especially middle class -- it's "where you went" if you felt the restoration/glorious revolution had turned the wrong way; it;s where you went if you didn't want kings up in your business (they were much further away etc

thus when methodism arose, it wasn't having to compete with a whole slew of more militant protestant-political activism: i;d also argue that the long century of torpid corruption essentually had to manage much less prickly protest "at home" because people likely to be pissed off had somewhere to travel to -- and overseas their energies were otherwise engaged, in survival, in self-establishment etc. And ultimately, come 1760 or so, in rebellion.

the first modern revolution is 1640-41: it was about money

LET US GET BACK TO THE 30 YEARS WAR.

What is your favorite battle in the war?

OK IN A MINUTE

40/41: money kicks it off, but the actual revolutionary-looking stuff 8 or so years later - execute the king in a (pretend) court, set up a commonwealth - had long ceased to be about that imo (all mixed up in it: religion; constitution; local beefs in the shires; charles I being a dick).

agree on Britain west & radicalism, tho' also Anglican church maybe a factor in non-revolution - latitude tradition means its a well-padded institution, can soak up, deaden some radical energies (when does Methodism split?)

OK 30YW

I started the Wedgwood book. She's so readable! I forgot how good she is at sweeping state-of-play summaries.

I can't believe we have to wait ELEVEN MONTHS to find out who wins this.

Would read a 400pp CV Wedgwood summary of A Song of Ice and Fire.

ilx technology does not allow polls that close in 30 years

:[

But did anyone read the recent Steve Pincus book that claims 1688, rather than the French, is the first modern revolution?

I think Thatcher made a very similar statement when the French were celebrating the bicentennaire of their revolution in 1989.

If this is the Thatch quote:

Human rights did not begin with the French Revolution; they stem from a mixture of Judaism and Christianity. We had 1688, our quiet revolution, where Parliament exerted its will over the King. It was not the sort of Revolution that France’s was. ‘Liberty, equality, fraternity’ — they forgot obligations and duties I think. And then of course the fraternity went missing for a long time.

I think that's just a v trad Whig view - afaict Pincus is making some more challopsy claims (it's a very bloody revolution seems to be the big one), tho' it does still look like a whiggish kick against those Dutch invasion, dynastic politics, aristo coup views of 1688 that have been strong over the last 10-20 years. Maybe I'll read it.

Isn't 1688 the triumph of the Whigs, though?

since my view of the english revolution is that it began with the lollards and still isn't completed, i can simultaneously out-bloody and out-whig allcomers