History Thread!

[A True Kaniggit]

Loving the discussion about the Mongols. That's one empire that I don't know much about and need to do some research on.

But I came here to discuss Benedict Arnold. What do y'all think about him? In school Americans are taught that he is "The Greatest Traitor in American History". But before he tried to sell out West Point he was a hero of the revolution. He was instrumental in two major American victories during the revolution (Ticonderoga and Saratoga) It was only after being passed over for promotion multiple times for political reasons and the loss of his leg (I can't remember, was it amputated or was he just crippled?)  that he decided to turn traitor.

The guy gets shit on probably more than he deserves.

[Maithanet]

5 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Loving the discussion about the Mongols. That's one empire that I don't know much about and need to do some research on.

But I came here to discuss Benedict Arnold. What do y'all think about him? In school Americans are taught that he is "The Greatest Traitor in American History". But before he tried to sell out West Point he was a hero of the revolution. He was instrumental in two major American victories during the revolution (Ticonderoga and Saratoga) It was only after being passed over for promotion multiple times for political reasons and the loss of his leg (I can't remember, was it amputated or was he just crippled?)  that he decided to turn traitor.

The guy gets shit on probably more than he deserves.

If he'd died of his wounds at Saratoga, he'd probably be on our money today.  But turning traitor is a pretty unforgivable move.  Good riddance. 

[A True Kaniggit]

1 minute ago, Maithanet said:

If he'd died of his wounds at Saratoga, he'd probably be on our money today.  But turning traitor is a pretty unforgivable move.  Good riddance. 

Traitor to the traitors?

[Maithanet]

7 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Traitor to the traitors?

If he'd stayed with the British from the start, he would be remembered just fine in history.  Most of the die hard loyalists during the revolution are mostly forgotten these days, not reviled.  But changing sides because he wasn't getting sufficient "credit" for his achievements is loathsome. 

[A True Kaniggit]

17 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

If he'd stayed with the British from the start, he would be remembered just fine in history.  Most of the die hard loyalists during the revolution are mostly forgotten these days, not reviled.  But changing sides because he wasn't getting sufficient "credit" for his achievements is loathsome. 

But this doesn't take into the fact he was maimed during his service. I've heard that sort of injury can turn a person bitter.

I mean, imagine if you helped win a battle and your leg got completed fcked up during the fighting. Some political jerkoff (Gates) takes all the credit for the victory, and then your government censures you for other reasons.

Now the war is only a few years old, and at this point you're actually a traitor to the British. Why wouldn't you go back to the home team?

Edit: I used your/you're wrong twice. Had to fix it.

[Maithanet]

16 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

But this doesn't take into the fact he was maimed during his service. I've heard that sort of injury can turn a person bitter.

I mean, imagine if you helped win a battle and your leg got completed fcked up during the fighting. Some political jerkoff (Gates) takes all the credit for the victory, and then your government censures you for other reasons.

Now the war is only a few years old, and at this point you're actually a traitor to the British. Why wouldn't you go back to the home team?

Excuses are like assholes: presumably Benedict Arnold had one. 

[A True Kaniggit]

4 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Excuses are like assholes: presumably Benedict Arnold had one. 

Which brings me back to my main point. 

Benedict Arnold is known as "The Greatest Traitor in American History" by the general populace when, after a few years of fighting in a rebellion, achieving several victories for said rebellion, getting his leg fckd up in said rebellion, while being shit on by leaders of said rebellion, he decides to quit being a rebel.

[Clueless Northman]

On ‎02‎.‎02‎.‎2018 at 6:06 PM, Corvinus said:

Quite impressive. It would have been interesting to know what would have happened if he and Napoleon had met on the battlefield. It's one of those "ifs" that historians like to ponder.

At least, we know from Napoleon himself that there's one general that would've beaten him, had he been younger and alive at his time, it's Frederick the Great. He was quite clear that he would've stopped him way before he came close to Berlin. So, by Napoleon's own admission, any list of the best generals who includes him should put good old Fritz above him in ranking.

As for Benedict Arnold, he should probably fit with the likes of Coriolanus and Alcibiades, who were upset at their home towns for being ungrateful and went to help the other side.

 

On ‎03‎.‎02‎.‎2018 at 9:25 PM, Knight Of Winter said:

I'd like to discuss this idea - that Mongols would have been impeded or stopped while encountering countries of central and western Europe, because almost everything I know about them suggests quite a different scenario. They fought over large number of terrains and climates, against enemies great and small - and always ended up on the winning side. What makes you think e.g. HRE or France would fare any differently?

There are cases of Mongols invading, beating their enemies, and eventually withdrawing. They annihilated the Bagan kingdom, which ruled over most of Burma and was apparently really wealthy. They did it because they attacked during the dry season. Then the heat came, and the monsoons, and that was way too much for them to endure, and they all went back to China never to come back, leaving a totally destroyed country that took ages to rebuild from near-scratches. Odds are that some European countries could've faced a similar fate - for a starter, because they hadn't any steppe close at hand to supply horses, just like in the Levant where they eventually couldn't prevail.

 

On ‎28‎.‎01‎.‎2018 at 11:53 PM, Pony Queen Jace said:

The most important one. How and why the Roman Republic fell into despotism.

There wasn't any real solid constitutional order in the Roman Republic, most of the institutions were made up as they went without a real plan. Livy is quite clear on this, even the Tribunes were created by pressure outside of the original legal order, and that was a few decades after the end of the monarchy. The real question should rather be how the Republic survived for so long, for literally centuries, without crumbling into anarchy or turning into a dictatorship.

On the other hand, the original order was an oligarchy, not a democracy, and would probably not have lasted a hundred years, had the Senate not compromised and shared  bit of the patricians' power.

Sulla actually stepped down, so in a way, even he was of the opinion that one shouldn't be dictator for life.

[Yukle]

2 hours ago, Clueless Northman said:

There wasn't any real solid constitutional order in the Roman Republic, most of the institutions were made up as they went without a real plan. Livy is quite clear on this, even the Tribunes were created by pressure outside of the original legal order, and that was a few decades after the end of the monarchy. The real question should rather be how the Republic survived for so long, for literally centuries, without crumbling into anarchy or turning into a dictatorship.

On the other hand, the original order was an oligarchy, not a democracy, and would probably not have lasted a hundred years, had the Senate not compromised and shared  bit of the patricians' power.

Sulla actually stepped down, so in a way, even he was of the opinion that one shouldn't be dictator for life.

There was what was the mos maiorum, or the way of the ancestors. These were the conventions surrounding public affairs that were considered the original spirit of the law. All societies have these: laws that it didn't occur to write down because nobody would ever think to flout them. For instance: it's a convention in Australia that when a Senator dies or is promoted out of their office, the vacancy is filled by a member of their party. However, in 1975 the Premier of Queensland didn't do this, and therefore stopped a government from having stability.

In Rome, the Republic was a deliberate response to Greece's democracy, that was seen to address some of what Romans saw as democracy's flaws. For instance, they liked the idea of each geographic region being represented. They did not, however, like the idea of choosing victors at random from a pool of elected candidates. They liked the idea of public participation, but not the idea that the general public could have the same representation as the aristocracy.

They also didn't like the idea that power couldn't be hurriedly concentrated in times of emergency, which was the purpose of the dictator.

It's true that Sulla stepped down, but it's also true that what he did while in power was reprehensible. He committed genocide by wiping out the ethnic Samnites who opposed him, murdered all of his enemies in Rome and took their property from their families, expanded the Senate but only included his partisans and removed the power from all of the aspects of government open to the common person.

Similarly, Sulla wrote the terms of his dictatorship. Originally, the office had a six-month expiry and it had very limited scope. Anything a dictator did outside of his specific reason for being in office wasn't allowed, was subject to tribune veto and was liability to prosecution once his imperium expired. Sulla didn't have any of those clauses in his term, which set a dangerous precedent. It also showed flagrant disregard for the Republic's mos maiorum.

 It wasn't necessarily his dictatorship that ruined Rome, or the length of it. It was the fact that he came into power by taking his army to the city and forcing the Senate to make him dictator. And once in power, he was extremely violent. It was impossible to properly use the rule of law in Rome ever again because from now on, the message was that as long as you don't lose, you should use an army to get your way.

Hence, Pompey and then Caesar did the same thing. Neither were as evil as Sulla (and neither of them carried out a bloody reign), but it's also worth noting that both of them died violent deaths. So when Augustus came along, he didn't follow Caesar's model of clemency, but Sulla's model of tyranny: and within a few years of consolidating power, all of his opponents were dead.

[Zorral]

3 hours ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Loving the discussion about the Mongols. That's one empire that I don't know much about and need to do some research on.

But I came here to discuss Benedict Arnold. What do y'all think about him? In school Americans are taught that he is "The Greatest Traitor in American History". But before he tried to sell out West Point he was a hero of the revolution. He was instrumental in two major American victories during the revolution (Ticonderoga and Saratoga) It was only after being passed over for promotion multiple times for political reasons and the loss of his leg (I can't remember, was it amputated or was he just crippled?)  that he decided to turn traitor.

The guy gets shit on probably more than he deserves.

He turned traitor for money, and that makes him forever historically persona non grata for redemption by either side.

The Brits laughed their brains out at the amounts he demanded for turning traitor and then how little he settled for.

As far as being mistreated by the Continental Congress, he was in a very large club, that included Washington.  Losing his fortune in this Revolution?  That too was a very large club, that included Washington.  And, as we see how quickly Arnold was able to recoup and increase his fortune in Canada after the peace, he was immeasurably better off than very many in that regard.  Many people were hurt, maimed permanently in the war, and many lost their lives, so there's another very large club that wasn't exclusive to him. 

He was a bully, vainglorious, blowhard and concerned only with himself, wanting desperately to be considered a gentleman while constantly behaving in non-gentlemanly manner -- and this was true before the war already. It wasn't any injury that embittered him -- he was bitter from the gitgo because he wasn't born into the ruling class.

[Jace, Extat]

3 hours ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Loving the discussion about the Mongols. That's one empire that I don't know much about and need to do some research on.

But I came here to discuss Benedict Arnold. What do y'all think about him? In school Americans are taught that he is "The Greatest Traitor in American History". But before he tried to sell out West Point he was a hero of the revolution. He was instrumental in two major American victories during the revolution (Ticonderoga and Saratoga) It was only after being passed over for promotion multiple times for political reasons and the loss of his leg (I can't remember, was it amputated or was he just crippled?)  that he decided to turn traitor.

The guy gets shit on probably more than he deserves.

 

3 hours ago, Maithanet said:

If he'd died of his wounds at Saratoga, he'd probably be on our money today.  But turning traitor is a pretty unforgivable move.  Good riddance. 

Yeah, it really is a shame. That dude was like THE American standard before America was even a real country.

But when you make bad decisions, 'Merica gonna fuck you up. I am actually going to look up how many comparably aged democracies (there's only like one, and it's the FRENCH!?!) have only charged 3 people to Treason in their history.

9 minutes ago, Yukle said:

T

Fuck, if someone like you had been in a Texas school room in the mid aughts... You keep on keepin' on! I seriously like you! Infinite likes!

I didn't want to get into the weeds talking about how the Constitution worked in Rome (Remember that old guy in the HBO Show? I always liked that), but yeah it was Sulla who took the step that couldn't be undone. Jace is actually within range of the theory that Caesar was going to save the Republic and was a genuine hero of the Pleb.

NOT saying I believe that.

I'm just saying that I can see that argument from where I chill on the spectrum.

8 minutes ago, Zorral said:

He turned traitor for money, and that makes him forever historically persona non grata for redemption by either side.

The Brits laughed their brains out at the amounts he demanded for turning traitor and then how little he settled for.

As far as being mistreated by the Continental Congress, he was in a very large club, that included Washington.  Losing his fortune in this Revolution?  That too was a very large club, that included Washington.  And, as we see how quickly Arnold was able to recoup and increase his fortune in Canada after the peace, he was immeasurably better off than very many in that regard.  Many people were hurt, maimed permanently in the war, and many lost their lives, so there's another very large club that wasn't exclusive to him. 

He was a bully, vainglorious, blowhard and concerned only with himself, wanting desperately to be considered a gentleman while constantly behaving in non-gentlemanly manner -- and this was true before the war already. It wasn't any injury that embittered him -- he was bitter from the gitgo because he wasn't born into the ruling class.

See, this is why he's such a cool dude though! You're describing the penultimate American. Like Tom Brady with a limp, man.

This dude was the real deal. And he got fucked (like a lot of people) and he lacked the resolve to see it through and literally betrayed the Rebellion.

WHAT!?! THAT'S AWESOME!

Seriously, I fucking LOVE HISTORY because of these kind of little details.

Arnold is like Darth Vader man, he's a tragic hero!

America is so badass that we had like 35 giant dicked slave owners sign their names to a document renouncing the greatest Empire on Earth, then a randomly picked General who couldn't win a battle, a congress that thought it was great to not have an actual functioning treasury, and top it all off with a couple of misfit European Drill Experts and a literal fallen hero.

That story is AWESOME!

[Yukle]

8 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Arnold is like Darth Vader man, he's a tragic hero!

America is so badass that we had like 35 giant dicked slave owners sign their names to a document renouncing the greatest Empire on Earth, then a randomly picked General who couldn't win a battle, a congress that thought it was great to not have an actual functioning treasury, and top it all off with a couple of misfit European Drill Experts and a literal fallen hero.

That story is AWESOME!

This is the most exciting summary of the revolution I've seen.

[A True Kaniggit]

6 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

 

America is so badass that we had like 35 giant dicked slave owners sign their names to a document renouncing the greatest Empire on Earth, then a randomly picked General who couldn't win a battle, a congress that thought it was great to not have an actual functioning treasury, and top it all off with a couple of misfit European Drill Experts and a literal fallen hero.

That story is AWESOME!

Yo. At least America had Morgan. There's a guy who knew how to deploy the forces under his command. 

Weakest up front, best in the back. 

[Yukle]

6 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Yo. At least America had Morgan.

It's also worth mentioning that Washington was terrible at tactics, but not in strategy or logistics. Notice how he lost battles but still had an army to command afterwards? Normally losing in those circumstances meant being slaughtered in retreat, being taken captive or slowly starving in the wilderness.

He could undergo a strategic retreat in sound order and still have steady supply lines. Also, his overall strategy for defeating the British was sound - he just didn't have the military skills to pull it off. Let's not forget, America won.  

[Jace, Extat]

8 minutes ago, Yukle said:

It's also worth mentioning that Washington was terrible at tactics, but not in strategy or logistics. Notice how he lost battles but still had an army to command afterwards? Normally losing in those circumstances meant being slaughtered in retreat, being taken captive or slowly starving in the wilderness.

He could undergo a strategic retreat in sound order and still have steady supply lines. Also, his overall strategy for defeating the British was sound - he just didn't have the military skills to pull it off. Let's not forget, America won.  

Fuckin' right man. You ever seen Rocky III? Rocky IV?

That was the American Revolution. Just getting punched in the fucking face for the whole fight before Apollo Creed hopped in the ring too.

[Zorral]

37 minutes ago, Yukle said:

It's also worth mentioning that Washington was terrible at tactics, but not in strategy or logistics. Notice how he lost battles but still had an army to command afterwards? Normally losing in those circumstances meant being slaughtered in retreat, being taken captive or slowly starving in the wilderness.

He could undergo a strategic retreat in sound order and still have steady supply lines. Also, his overall strategy for defeating the British was sound - he just didn't have the military skills to pull it off. Let's not forget, America won.  

ONLY because of the French, and to a lesser degree, the Spanish.  Never ever think the Liberty and Equality guys did it alone.  Not to mention the utterly necessary assistance of John Adams and Franklin abroad, in England, in France, in the Netherlands.

What Washington did have, which is equally necessary for a successful general as tactical skills or logistics, which is unwavering courage, the ability to inspire talented people at every level to their greatest efforts for the cause, keep for the most part their personal loyalty (Hamilton, among some others, certainly wavered at times, but they always came back -- except for Arnold who was so bitterly jealous of Washington --  and really good luck.  Like all these generals from days when generals led from the front -- Grant, Caesar, Napoleon -- he would be in the very thick of the battle, have horses shot out from under him, people dropping in front, around him, and behind him, and he never got hit.

IOW, he had all the golden qualities of leadership.  Arnold -- not.   Which is why Arnold is not a tragic hero.  He's no hero of any kind, and never was.

[Jace, Extat]

3 minutes ago, Zorral said:

ONLY because of the French, and to a lesser degree, the Spanish.  Never ever think the Liberty and Equality guys did it alone.  Not to mention the utterly necessary assistance of John Adams and Franklin abroad, in England, in France, in the Netherlands.

What Washington did have, which is equally necessary for a successful general as tactical skills or logistics, which is unwavering courage, the ability to inspire talented people at every level to their greatest efforts for the cause, keep for the most part their personal loyalty (Hamilton, among some others, certainly wavered at times, but they always came back -- except for Arnold who was so bitterly jealous of Washington --  and really good luck.  Like all these generals from days when generals led from the front -- Grant, Caesar, Napoleon -- he would be in the very thick of the battle, have horses shot out from under him, people dropping in front, around him, and behind him, and he never got hit.

IOW, he had all the golden qualities of leadership.  Arnold -- not.

You're GODDAMN RIGHT HE DID

That m'fucka changed the meaning of a Wood Grille

[Spring Bass]

4 hours ago, Yukle said:

It was impossible to properly use the rule of law in Rome ever again because from now on, the message was that as long as you don't lose, you should use an army to get your way.

Hence, Pompey and then Caesar did the same thing. Neither were as evil as Sulla (and neither of them carried out a bloody reign), but it's also worth noting that both of them died violent deaths. So when Augustus came along, he didn't follow Caesar's model of clemency, but Sulla's model of tyranny: and within a few years of consolidating power, all of his opponents were dead.

In fairness to Augustus, he made some long over-due reforms that needed to be done (particularly professionalizing the army for real, so that its payroll came from the empire instead of whoever happened to be commanding them). But otherwise I agree, both on his model of governance and on what Sulla's dictatorship led to. 

I don't think Sulla had to be a turning point, but it ended up being one because the Roman Republic didn't do much to ensure that another such dictator could never arise again. The same issues that let Sulla take over power and act with virtual impunity were still there, and suddenly the stakes of being on the losing end of such a person's rise to power were even more devastatingly dangerous (a lesson Julius Caesar probably learned well, given that he ended up on Sulla's proscription lists). 

RE: American Revolution

I read Alan Taylor's American Revolution, and it totally changed up my view of it. It was a lot messier and more violent than I thought. Even before open war broke out, there was a ton of organized street violence to back up the boycotts. 

Also a ton of class conflict. Fun fact - the word "regulator" in the American context originally referred to groups of vigilantes and farmers forming up to defend themselves against crooked courts and law enforcement that was overly friendly to wealthy speculators trying to extract land and rent via dubious land claims. And land speculation was huge in the colonies and American afterwards. 

[Jace, Extat]

6 minutes ago, Fall Bass said:

In fairness to Augustus, he made some long over-due reforms that needed to be done (particularly professionalizing the army for real, so that its payroll came from the empire instead of whoever happened to be commanding them). But otherwise I agree, both on his model of governance and on what Sulla's dictatorship led to. 

I don't think Sulla had to be a turning point, but it ended up being one because the Roman Republic didn't do much to ensure that another such dictator could never arise again. The same issues that let Sulla take over power and act with virtual impunity were still there, and suddenly the stakes of being on the losing end of such a person's rise to power were even more devastatingly dangerous (a lesson Julius Caesar probably learned well, given that he ended up on Sulla's proscription lists). 

RE: American Revolution

I read Alan Taylor's American Revolution, and it totally changed up my view of it. It was a lot messier and more violent than I thought. Even before open war broke out, there was a ton of organized street violence to back up the boycotts. 

Also a ton of class conflict. Fun fact - the word "regulator" in the American context originally referred to groups of vigilantes and farmers forming up to defend themselves against crooked courts and law enforcement that was overly friendly to wealthy speculators trying to extract land and rent via dubious land claims. And land speculation was huge in the colonies and American afterwards. 

The Republic was too happy to let oligarchs rule, 'cause they were the oligarchs, to administer real limits on the power one of their descendants might acquire.

[Yukle]

 

5 hours ago, Zorral said:

ONLY because of the French, and to a lesser degree, the Spanish.  Never ever think the Liberty and Equality guys did it alone.  Not to mention the utterly necessary assistance of John Adams and Franklin abroad, in England, in France, in the Netherlands.

Absolutely, it was far from a one-man show. Records of Benjamin Franklin's involvement suggests that it was the hope that if America held out long enough, the French and Spanish would see it a likely bet to back them. Part of Benjamin Franklin's tireless negotiations centred on the fact that the French offered support in exchange to exclusive shipping rights - but that was a huge aspect of why they were rebelling against the British Crown in the first place.

1 hour ago, Fall Bass said:

I read Alan Taylor's American Revolution, and it totally changed up my view of it. It was a lot messier and more violent than I thought. Even before open war broke out, there was a ton of organized street violence to back up the boycotts. 

Also a ton of class conflict. Fun fact - the word "regulator" in the American context originally referred to groups of vigilantes and farmers forming up to defend themselves against crooked courts and law enforcement that was overly friendly to wealthy speculators trying to extract land and rent via dubious land claims. And land speculation was huge in the colonies and American afterwards. 

Also interesting to note is that at first the Americans weren't after independence. Their initial riots were against a Crown they saw wasn't giving them their due rights as British subjects.

And, as you'd expect from a British culture, there was an established class system. You're right to point out the role that class played in the revolution. It explains quirks such as the decision to limit the Senate to men over 35, and to have an Electoral College that can override the will of the popular vote (assuming, of course, that if such an eventuality arose, like, for instance, and this is just hypothetical, a colossally inept reality TV star spouting hardcore racism was elected, there would be an aristocratic failsafe designed to prevent him actually being inaugurated).

There was also a strong sense of patriotism to Britain and America held by common American citizens. One of the tragedies of the initial violence (and the subsequent war) was of course the fact that it pitted family members against each other. It's very hard to pick a side in a war when you identify with both causes without wanting either to actually "win" as such.