Discussion in 'World History' started by Plotinus, Mar 28, 2010.
A continuation of the original thread here.
For the record, the correct term for William the Conqueror in France is sometimes given as Guillaume le Batard (William the Bastard), because of his bastardry.
However, it has become more common to call him Guillaume le Conquerant (William the Conqueror) or Guillaume, Duc De Normandie.
This didn't mean I didn't make gratuitous use of the word "Bastard" in my law essay when describing him.
In answer to the original question, I think that it is true that calling him a bastard does indeed date back to the 11th century.
Why did UkraineSSR get it's own seat in the UN following WWII even tough it wasn't a country at the time?
Because India and the Philippines got seats which were British and American colonies at the time. I believe a second Republic also got its own seat.
I believe they also used the theory that all the Soviet Republics were officially independent, which was responded to by the US saying the same thing about each State saying that if the Soviets got 15 seats, the US would get 48. And like everything it turned into negotiations that became rather pointless (two votes meant next to nothing, even back then before decolonization).
Because it was, just as Belorussia was, and got a seat accordingly.
Why we spell Byelorussia as a part of Russian Empire or Soviet Union, but Belarus as independent?
Russian vs Belorussian I assume (similar to Kiev vs Kyiv), or possibly a more modern transliteration.
I've often wondered this myself. Montgomery was quite clearly incompetent. He had Rommel on the ropes and let him damn near pull a victory out in Tunisia, Market Garden was an incredibly stupid idea, and he was just generally a timid - not "overly cautious" as he's been described, but timid - military commander with highly impractical ideas.
That being said though, he was very popular among the troops and had a lot of personal charisma. He also comes from the Douglas MacArthur mould in that he was miraculously capable of covering his own arse and retaining popularity and power despite all his frequent cock-ups. I think Montgomery was just a masterful manipulator of public opinion and had a lot of political acumen. He's the English Douglas MacArthur, and anyone who's been here long enough knows my opinion of MacArthur. Incompetent yet beloved due to his own manipulation of the facts and having his head too far up his own arse to recognise his own errors.
Other notable war leaders of the popular-but-stupid school include McClellan, Lee, and Pompey.
Belorussian SSR and Ukrainian SSR because the new United Nations was seen by the Soviets as being biased against capitalist countries. Both republics suffered the most damage out of all the Soviet republics during World War II and the USSR managed to lobby the Western Allies to get seats for both. The Ukrainian SSR and Byelorussian SSR act as sovereign states while at the UN but weren't in control of their foreign policy. Effectively, the USSR got two extra seats at the UN.
The Philippines was by then a self-governing commonwealth of the United States. India is a special case, being a founding member of the League of Nations as well.
Byelorussia is Russian, Belarus is Belarussian. When Belarus became independent they made Belarus the country's official name by law, to distinguish themselves from the Soviet past.
Pompey was certainly stupid. I assume the Lee you refer to was the one in the American Civil War? I don't know much about him. Who is McClellan? I know the name, but can't place it. Possibly because there's a writer in the local newspaper named McClellan, and it's throwing me off.
[wiki]George B. McClellan[/wiki] was Lee's counterpart, a Union general who was good at inspiring his troops but not so good at actual fighting.
What makes Byelorussia a Soviet thing? Its been called White Russia for hundreds of years.
Anyway, I fail to see how Belarus could want to "distance" themselves from the Soviet past, as they 1. hold the CIS headquarters and 2. their economy is essentially Gorbachevist, to coin a new word.
Thanks. Interesting to have two similarly dumb generals on opposite sides in that war. Maybe the US just excelled at poor generalship at the time. Canada did kick your arses, after all.
Meh, the Civil War was a generation after our last go at Canada. If we could have just gotten the North and the South to gang up on them . . .
Seriously, it is interesting that McClellan's reputation now is so much worse than Lee's - Lee is still seen as a hero throughout the South and "the only good Confederate" in a lot of the North.
The Civil War was also a showcase for excellent American military leadership on both sides of the field; men like Hancock, Gordon, Thomas, Sherman, Sheridan, and Forrest were quite up to par with Europe's varsity like Constantin von Alvensleben, Skobelev, and the elder Moltke. America had plenty of solid professional officers as well, men like Grant or Meade. There were plenty of poor military leaders in European contemporary armies as well, and not just the oft-decried Bazaine and Benedek - the Prussians had their fair share of blunderers, such as Karl von Steinmetz and Friedrich von Wrangel.
The United States also produced superlative naval leaders such as Porter and Farragut; as far as individual leadership went, their only contemporary in Europe was the Austrian Wilhelm von Tegetthoff.
Other Soviet republics didn't, however, despite Stalin wishing all of them to have a UN seat. Today, all of them have their seats, so I guess Stalin's wish was posthumously granted. Sure, they are no longer Soviet, but who cares about such a trifle?
What makes Pompey stupid?
It's more of a joke answer, combined with my personal opinion that, outside of his excellent organizational abilities, all of the heavy lifting as far as fighting goes was done for him by Lucullus anyway. And in Spain, he couldn't take down Sertorius until the man was already dead...
Separate names with a comma.