History questions not worth their own thread III

Status
Not open for further replies.
He didn't ask about troop numbers, he asked about cash, and a campaign in the 1870s was much more expensive than one sixty years prior, especially considering the Army was fighting in winter most of the time and relying on railroad construction for a lot of logistical support. :p
 
Washington had three expeditions against Little Turtle who defeated the first two rather handily. Washington may well have spent the most resources proportional to the size of the nation at the time.
 
He didn't ask about troop numbers, he asked about cash, and a campaign in the 1870s was much more expensive than one sixty years prior, especially considering the Army was fighting in winter most of the time and relying on railroad construction for a lot of logistical support. :p

Even so, mobilizing 1,000 troops in 1870 probably constituted a smaller percentage of the federal government's budget than mobilizing 1,000 troops in 1790. The way he phrased his question makes me think it's more fitting to consider the relative proportion, rather than the dollars spent.

Even considering that, I'm pretty sure it was four or five times as many troops used in the War of 1812 than anything after the American Civil War.
 
My first thought when reading that question was that someone's gonna pick George W. Bush someone else Barack Obama, and we're going to have multi page argument which one.
 
I'm guessing that he's implying there was going to be some argument about illegal immigration or Obama's birth certificate, or some other irrelevant drivel.
 
I was just sure that those two president were so powerful in the Evil that they'd lead in this respect too. (Don't know with what exact argumentation though).

Yeah, but sorry for derailing.
 
what about Andrew Jackson - maybe not just in his presidency - but in his career; weren't the Creek, Seminole and other southern Indian wars pretty big ?
 
what about Andrew Jackson - maybe not just in his presidency - but in his career; weren't the Creek, Seminole and other southern Indian wars pretty big ?

That wasn't the question. It was under whose presidency, and all of the Native conflicts contemporaneous to the War of 1812 were under Madison's presidency (and a little but under Monroe's).
 
Where are the "Prussian" aristocracy from before WWI these days. What happened to them over the last 100 years or so. Are they still around, with their hereditary titles etc. ?
 
Where are the "Prussian" aristocracy from before WWI these days. What happened to them over the last 100 years or so. Are they still around, with their hereditary titles etc. ?

No, the abolition of nobility was one of terms pushed upon Germany as part of the Treaty of Versailles. Though some people have been allowed to retain their titles (without any sort of legal privilege, of course).
 
Out of curiosity, did they tend to maintain their status (socially and economically) through the Nazi regime and splitting of Germany?
 
No, the abolition of nobility was one of terms pushed upon Germany as part of the Treaty of Versailles.
I never read any of that ... All I have been reading was that the "reparations" was the cause of the hostility towards the west ... this puts a different light on events.

I think many of the ex-aristocracy, saw in Hitler (albeit a commoner), as a way to get their status back. So while Hitler was winning over the masses, the aristocracy was quietly supporting him and his party. Of course once he did take power, he remained suspicious of the ex-aristocracy and preferred his own party members for leading roles. Would that be an accurate view of events ?

I need to read a bit more on this. Its amazing how your view can be skewed by reading only western (victors) literature.

I just purchased "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" - William Shirer, which should give me more background on this - I hope. As it was mentioned in Wikipedia article referenced in the link you gave me above.
In his book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, historian William Shirer described the Weimar Constitution as "on paper, the most liberal and democratic document of its kind the twentieth century had ever seen ... full of ingenious and admirable devices which seemed to guarantee the working of an almost flawless democracy." Yet, the Weimar Constitution had fundamental flaws.
 
No, the abolition of nobility was one of terms pushed upon Germany as part of the Treaty of Versailles. Though some people have been allowed to retain their titles (without any sort of legal privilege, of course).
Not entirely correct. Titles as such were abolished, but at least in Germany it was still allowed to carry them as part of your name. So Freiherr Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg became Karl-Theodor Freiherr zu Guttenberg, with "Freiherr zu Guttenberg" as a whole being a last name (but you really had to pick the most obnoxious "noble" as an example, right? :rolleyes:). Iirc Austria didn't allow even that, so the titles were gone even in name.

Out of curiosity, did they tend to maintain their status (socially and economically) through the Nazi regime and splitting of Germany?
Well, for the post '45 period I can definitely say that in the GDR the "junkers" whose moderate wealth relied heavily on their large ground possession lost their status with the land reforms and incorporation of the agrarian industry.

In the west it was more like a mixed bag. Those who invested their remaining wealth wisely were able to stay rich, others faded into obscurity; just like any "old money" really. They're still over-proportionally represented as politicians, especially in the CDU, among them former President Richard von Weizsäcker, but this is rarely emphasized (many even make a point in dropping the nobility-indicating "von").

I think many of the ex-aristocracy, saw in Hitler (albeit a commoner), as a way to get their status back. So while Hitler was winning over the masses, the aristocracy was quietly supporting him and his party. Of course once he did take power, he remained suspicious of the ex-aristocracy and preferred his own party members for leading roles. Would that be an accurate view of events ?
There are certainly people who're better versed in Weimar Republic politics, but the general idea is correct. The whole Weimar constitution was oriented to provide an "Ersatzkaiser" with a powerful 7-year-term president who was directly elected. The election of Paul von Hindenburg further catered to that notion. As far as I know, the nobility wasn't rather fond of the populist Hitler, but with the influence of their preferred Nationalist and Catholic parties waning, they saw him as a lesser evil than SPD or even KPD.
 
I think many of the ex-aristocracy, saw in Hitler (albeit a commoner), as a way to get their status back. So while Hitler was winning over the masses, the aristocracy was quietly supporting him and his party. Of course once he did take power, he remained suspicious of the ex-aristocracy and preferred his own party members for leading roles. Would that be an accurate view of events ?
He was supposed to be more of a useful idiot, and ended up being something of a last resort for Franz von Papen and his conservative camarilla in 1932 once Kurt von Schleicher's government was obviously screwed, not a long-term ally. He turned out to be smarter than they gave him credit for once he actually did get to form a government.
 
I never read any of that ... All I have been reading was that the "reparations" was the cause of the hostility towards the west ... this puts a different light on events.

I think many of the ex-aristocracy, saw in Hitler (albeit a commoner), as a way to get their status back. So while Hitler was winning over the masses, the aristocracy was quietly supporting him and his party. Of course once he did take power, he remained suspicious of the ex-aristocracy and preferred his own party members for leading roles. Would that be an accurate view of events ?

I need to read a bit more on this. Its amazing how your view can be skewed by reading only western (victors) literature.

I just purchased "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" - William Shirer, which should give me more background on this - I hope. As it was mentioned in Wikipedia article referenced in the link you gave me above.
As said previously, you're not far off the mark. Hitler was put in power by the conservative authoritarians - which largely included the former aristocracy, as well as military leaders - to be a puppet. Some even planned to use him to bring back the Kaiser, or at least reinstate the position with another Hohenzollern in power. As it was, Hitler was far more adept at using the conservatives and nationalists than they were at using him.

Shirer's book is very good, although slightly dated and too subjective for my tastes. I'd suggest Richard J. Evans' books on Germany during the Weimar and Nazi periods, notably his excellent The Third Reich trilogy (The Coming of the Third Reich, The Third Reich in Power, and The Third Reich at War). These are among my favourite history books in any category, they're so well-researched and written.
 
Take a look at Josef II sometime. :p

Read about his security apparatus that he had going! Neat stuff, plus he was around for a while and saw Europe shift before him by the time of his death.

Still though, the some of the correlation I was drawing between Revolutionary/Napoleonic France & say, fascist Italy was the whole promotion by merit thing within their respective armies.

Before you say anything, I am quite aware of Nappy Bone's renege-ing on the promises of the revolution and the handing out of aristocratic titles. Weren't they handed out in the first place for achievements on the battlefield? I realize it's counter intuitive to do that, but hey :confused:

Taking advantage of a growing middle class seems to be something that's common within the dimestore characterizations of fascism (not saying my assessment's any better) and Napoleon seemed to utilize and prop up the middle class through the awarding of contracts and trade deals in France's favor. And then he had to be a dick with that whole Continental System.

Let's see, he quashed the press through secret police. But Josef already did that.

He repealed the more zany aspects of the French Revolution, like the Calendar, the abolition of the Church and clergy and then used them as a base for legitimacy and to appeal to the center, like what has happened with certain Latin American dictatorships and Franco.

There's probably more, but they don't come to me mind or you'd turn them around on me and shove them down my throat :mischief:

Here's a follow-up question, not related, and I don't want to start a thread on it for fear of getting banned:

What are some leaders, politicians, and generals who have/had consumed cannabis? I ask because I'm tired of the only cannabis-using leaders ever being mentioned being the last 3 presidents.

I'm looking for stuff like Harun al-Rashid enjoying some hash, Victoria getting lifted on some tinctures and, Idk, a cuneiform of Hammurabi smoking a Philley?
 
Not sure why this should matter to you, that the club of confirmed cannabis users in royalty/leadership is fairly obscure, but Babur was a raging drunk who turned to hashish in later years, so Idk u might find more of that in central asia/turkic lands. The Assassin sect (Hashashim) were pretty well known, and I have to wonder about those Mauryans who found 'spiritual enlightenment' late in life after conquering an empire, Chandragupta and Ashoka.
 
There is an Indian drink called bhang which is a sort of milkshake mixed with mariuana or opium. It's a pretty old drink so I'm sure some Indian rulers can be found who partook.
 
Wasn't there a recent Sudanese, Sierra Leone or Somalian Warlord (I'm sure it starts with 'S') who was always wacked out on Khat? He used to just randomly shoot his men with a gold AK-47 when on a bender.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom