the thirty years war

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

As a political term, Tory entered English politics during the Exclusion Bill crisis of 1678–81. The Whigs (initially an insult: 'whiggamore,' [a term meaning "cattle driver" used to describe western Scots who came to Leith for corn]) were those who supported the exclusion of James, the Duke of York from the succession to thrones of Scotland and England & Ireland (the 'Petitioners'), and the Tories (also an insult, derived from the Middle Irish word tóraidhe, modern Irish tóraí — outlaw, robber, from the Irish word tóir, meaning 'pursuit', since outlaws were "pursued men") were those who opposed the Exclusion Bill (the Abhorrers).

630 year old slow burn revolution - how British!

I've heard the derivations many times and of course there evolves something relatively coherent which we can call Whiggery, but W&M and then Anne were forced to rely rather extensively on the Junto Whigs and it was their aversion to a Catholic on the throne that led to 1688.

having a similar discussion on another board about a month ago: an actual real professional historian of the period said that pretty much everyone from 1690-1810 considered themselves some sort of whig: that actually existing politics was internal to whiggery

interesting also that the two main factions in a nascent global empire devise lasting insult-names for one another via terms for somewhat lowly inhabitants in two of the earliest nations to be swallowed up in said empire

xps

yes, but over the last 20 years this kind of reading has pushed forward (in some diff forms) & it tends to undermine what the Whigs have been taken to represent (trade, constitutional, bourgeois, parliamentary, 'popular' etc etc).

pretty much everyone from 1690-1810 considered themselves some sort of whig

this is horrible. Rockingham Whigs vs Chatham whigs, totally lost up that end of the century.

Part of the problem is that Tories tend to be shadowed by Jacobitism through to the middle of the 18th (not helped by eg Bolingbroke running off to St Germain, many of them had a side bet on Jamess II/III etc) - and Whigs are confusingly factional all on their own.

I kind of think that position is making-work-for-historians BS. Sure, I can see wanting to link the Anglo-Dutch wars and the western, bourgeois, Protestant, commercial rivalries of the Netherlands and Britain but Mary was a Stuart (and unlike Monmouth, of direct, legitimate birth), the country was steadfastly opposed to a Catholic, they'd just had a murderous civil war and subsequent military tyranny, and James was fucking idiot... Otherwise William wouldn't have been able to seize the throne and speaking of which, he and his wife were co-rulers. The only time in English history where there is a bi-partite sovereign.

Tories tend to be shadowed by Jacobitism

Thankfully James and brood were fools in the pay of the much-loved-in-Britain monarch of France. I think even Marlborough kept a correspondance w/James, though, for a while at least.

i'm a bit lost in all the xposts: what's horrible, that position i posted? and what's "making-work-for-historians BS"?

i think he was making a kind of Very Serious People argument about the "art of the possible" -- also to be fair, i added those dates, i can't now recall exactly when he was referring to, it may not have been as sweeping, though i think it reached into the 19th century

i don't really know enough abt 18th century parliamentary politics to defend or attack his position

what's "making-work-for-historians BS"?

Revisionist dutch-invasion position.

what's horrible, that position i posted

Sorry Mark, the 'horrible' was not a 'WRONG' just a shudder of horror/recognition from me, remembering old attempts to follow 18th century politics and realising everyone was a whig and I couldn't keep it all straight.

it was YES if anything

Mary was a Stuart (and unlike Monmouth, of direct, legitimate birth)

But Mary was James's daughter. She shouldn't be on the throne if her dad's alive and hasn't explicitly abdicated. Legitimising the revolution is trickier and more contentious than it at first seems, see for instance Edmund Bohun.

the country was steadfastly opposed to a Catholic

they'd just had a murderous civil war and subsequent military tyranny

and James was fucking idiot

Basically I don't think Dutch invasion is a BS position, but it's a bit narrow: it's a useful corrective to triumphal whiggism, and I think makes one look more carefully at England in 88, but it's wilfully blind to the successes of a trade-modernising interest in England.

And a lot of people would rather have the sitting king, catholic or no, than any kind of upset

one thing I have read about the "Glorious" "Revolution" is that the elite wanted rid of James but were very hostile to the idea that Kings could formally be got rid of - the last thing they wanted was to start the idea that Britain had an elective monarchy or one where the king could be removed for bad behaviour. So they seized on the idea that actually James had abdicated and so left the throne vacant for King Williamandmary.

yeah, it's a bit of a mess: the elite were divided, I think, but the sort-of-abdication justification (which has to cover James's son James too, forgot about him yesterday) is a good-enough theoretical fudge for the whole business - it just has not look like rule by conquest, or election, or a rebellion. It's p incoherent really, especially given the conditions William II puts on taking the throne.

William III.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/03/Death_of_William_Rufus.JPG/250px-Death_of_William_Rufus.JPG

xp
yes William III there typo, whoops

SO YES, BACK TO 30 YEARS' WAR

What were some good battles in the war? I only really remember the Battle of the White Mountain.

Are there 30 Years' War reenactment societies in Germany (ie like the Sealed Knot in the UK)?

both die in horse-related accidents of course, spooky.

I suspect that the lack of army uniforms deters reenactments. Also reenacting something like the sack of Magdeburg would be a bit unedifying.

Some important battles:

White Mountain: Imperial stormtroopers crush Bohemian rebel alliance.

[Battle I can't remember the name of]: Wallenstein leads Imperials to crushing victory over Danish shetland ponies.

Breitlingen: Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden crushes Bavarian and Imperial army; John George of Saxony's army runs away.

Sack of Magdeburg: Bavarian/Imperial army reduces civilian population of Magdeburg from 30,000 to 300, turning the town to ash in the process.

Lutzen: Gustavus Adolphus crushes Wallenstein but dies in the process - catching a stray bullet or murdered at the behest of allies who think he is getting too big for his boots?

After that I do not remember the battles so much, and maybe the war largely turns into mobs of soldiers charging around the country smashing up stuff and avoiding combat, a bit like the current war in the Congo. Two battles I remember are:

Nordlingen: combined Spanish/Imperial army adminster thrashing to Swedes.

Rocroi: French crush Spanish.

So now nearly everyone has defeated everyone else at least once, so everyone is happy.

having just been reading Brecht's Mother Courage and Her Children, I am wondering how to vote for "all of these people are terrible and the only real heroes were long-suffering peasants"

I seem to recall that De Sade's "1000 Nights of Sodom" is set during the 30 Years War, and the pervs who have abducted the people on him they will vent their foul lusts are in some way symbolic of the warlords who laid waste Germany at that time.

both die in horse-related accidents of course, spooky.

So did William the Conqueror

"horses are the survivors of the age of heroes"

william iv really letting down the otherwise bulletproof king-william-horse-curse theory.

OK i'm diving into the wedgwood on the strength of this thread and :D

who wants to write the HBO series with me, this thing can run and run

by the way: ORNALDO BLOOMPS FOR ELECTOR PALPINTIN

God this thing is the 30 years poll.

warning - might start to lose viewers after the death of Wallenstein, things start to drag a bit.

I'm very glad I read this. Thanks max + this thread. Incredibly readable, & sort of double-perspective heartbreaking - one old tragedy, & Wedgwood in 1938 trying to tell Europe not to do this again.

& Wedgwood in 1938 trying to tell Europe not to do this again.

So sad

thank ta-nehisi coates, who convinced me to pick this up at 40% off at borders

the death of wallenstein would make for a FANTASTIC season finale

heres a nice thing about wedgwood and the way she works both sides of "great man" vs "slaves of history"

http://slawkenbergius.blogspot.com/2011/10/fatal-flaws.html

who wants to write the HBO series with me, this thing can run and run

This is seriously a genius idea.

This a watershed period in Western history and it would also make compelling viewing.

i haven't read this, but from what i know, it would be great tv

i'd love it in some super stagey peter greenaway/peter brook style. with a metal soundtrack.

wedgwood's books on the english civil war are masterful.

plus 'cecily veronica wedgwood' has to be one of my favorite names ever.

This is my favorite era of European history, I can't get enough of it. I bought 'Europa Universalis 3' a computer grand strategy game that covers this era with many excellent player created mods that enhance gameplay and it has eaten an embarrassing amount of my time. I like to pick some statelet on the periphery of the Holy Roman Empire like The Palatinate and try to assert an independent national autonomy in the face of imperialism and the clusterfuck of the reformation.

I feel that in a few weeks, I will be cursing you for bringing this game's existence to my attention.

thank ta-nehisi coates, who convinced me to pick this up at 40% off at borders

haha i also read this a couple months ago because of tnc

no axel oxenstierna no cred tho

The Hundred Years' War, 1336-1453

heres a nice thing about wedgwood and the way she works both sides of "great man" vs "slaves of history"

http://slawkenbergius.blogspot.com/2011/10/fatal-flaws.html

i can't really get with this.

- wedgwood often focuses on the weaknesses and failures of decision-making as being the drivers of change - of history - which is a totally fascinating way to look at things, but that's squarely within the "great men" tradition. whether it's their weaknesses or their strengths, we're still focusing on conventional leaders, men of power and prestige.

- the main critiques of "great men" thinking say you should look at economics, at cultural exchanges that produce bottom-up societal effects, that "great men" often have their hands forced by larger tides beyond any individual's control. personally while i love wedgwood's book it would be illuminating to learn more about the economics and culture of the time. for instance, the first part of benedict anderson's "imagined communities" is specifically about... german coffee house culture in the 17th century as the cradle of "print democracy", a development which basically gives birth to the entire concept of the public sphere. how does that connect with emergent religious ideas, nationalistic ideas?

- "we're somehow always being encouraged to 'leave room for agency,' an admonition that is current only as long as that agency involves otherwise powerless brown people ... in the contemporary view, people have agency, and that agency is important, as long as nobody is actually accomplishing anything"

i mean ...

the whole point of great tranches of non-great-men histories is specifically to show that repressed, devalued, or otherwise overlooked populations actually DID accomplish things (even if in the end they were defeated on key issues) - to rediscover the conflict beneath the veneer of victor-written consensus

while wedgwood is simply outside any sort of tradition or training that would allow her to "go there" or to benedict anderson's world, there are all kinds of enticing hints at to the swirl of a public starting to be aware of its own existence, both in the broad sense of religious radicalism and its deep connection with emergent ideas of nationalism (the "german liberties"; the bohemian "letter of majesty"; though it's questionable how much either of these were any sort of humanistic guarantee as opposed to simply a way to bribe the right princes)

all that said, the approach needs to be suited to the subject matter. and it's arguable that of any time and place, 17th century europe is most amenable to a "great man" view. there was extremely low literacy. there were very few outlets for expressions of public sentiment. princes, kings, etc really did have enormous power to act on their whims and instincts.

- "It's a bit like Jackson Pollock. There must be people out there who think Jackson Pollock is a good artist for excellent reasons. I suspect, however, that there are more people like me: people who secretly have no idea why anyone thinks Jackson Pollock is a good artist but, for social and cultural-capital kinds of reasons, don't want to discuss their qualms with anyone"

courageous challops my friend!

thats not challops! hes not saying jackson pollock is BAD, just that he doesnt know why jackson pollock is GOOD, which is a pretty okay thing to say, id think?