History questions not worth their own thread III

[Ajidica]

In the English-speaking world, eighteenth-century deists typically regarded themselves as reforming Christians. It was French-speaking deists who typically regarded themselves as anti-Christian.

Any particular reason for that difference?

 

[Louis XXIV]

Why were the British not interested in acquiring Alaska? It would seem a strategically useful territory for them, especially with growing US power to the south.

Probably because everybody thought it was a waste. People didn't call it Seward's folly for no reason. If it weren't for gold (and later oil) being discovered, it would still be viewed as a waste of money. The UK had already enough frozen wasteland to the east.

 

[LightSpectra]

Any particular reason for that difference?

That's just how those particular schools of philosophy branched out. The English speaking world got people like John Locke and David Hume whereas the French got Baron d'Holbach and Montesquieu.

 

[Leoreth]

I've heard somewhere that the Iron Cross was initially made of iron because Prussia was short on money for precious metals when it was established. Myth or fact?

 

[LightSpectra]

I've heard somewhere that the Iron Cross was initially made of iron because Prussia was short on money for precious metals when it was established. Myth or fact?

During the Sixth Coalition when Prussia was verging on bankruptcy, the monarchy allowed people to trade their precious jewels for the Eisernes Kreuz as a symbol of patriotic sacrifice. It eventually became an award for soldiers like the Medal of Honor.

 

[Dachs]

Why were the British not interested in acquiring Alaska? It would seem a strategically useful territory for them, especially with growing US power to the south.

Part of the reason the Americans were in line for Alaska was their excellent relationship with the tsarist state. Russia's closest allies in the 1860s were, in order, Prussia and the United States, and the United States was a surer bet with Bismarck at the helm in Berlin. It's hard to conceive of Aleksandr II approving a sale to Britain after the Crimean War estranged the two powers (and the British compounded the bad relationship with their response to the Polish rebellion of 1863).

 

[say1988]

From what I understand the Russian government specifically went to both the British and the Americans, but the British had no interest. Of course the possibility remains that they just wanted the British and Americans to bid against each other with no intent to sell to Britain anyway.

Probably because everybody thought it was a waste. People didn't call it Seward's folly for no reason. If it weren't for gold (and later oil) being discovered, it would still be viewed as a waste of money. The UK had already enough frozen wasteland to the east.

Wasn't it just a vocal minority in opposition? With most people actually in support. And a major reason that Americans did support it was that it put them in a better position to take British Columbia, which seems distinctly against British interests as it represented their only ports on that side of the Pacific. And there was a distinct fear that Americans would be moved to colonize parts of British North America with similar results to Texas.

 

[Dachs]

From what I understand the Russian government specifically went to both the British and the Americans, but the British had no interest. Of course the possibility remains that they just wanted the British and Americans to bid against each other with no intent to sell to Britain anyway.

Yes, the point of that was to simply up the price the Americans would eventually pay. Much of the reason Alaska was to be sold was, after all, to keep it out of British hands.

 

[say1988]

OK, I was under the impression it was less to keep it out of British hands and more just to get something in return.

 

[Dachs]

Well, yeah, obviously they wanted an RoI of some kind. But selling Alaska to the British - apart from the fact that it would be the British who got it - was bad because it would give the British a jump-off point to attack even more Russian territory in the Far East. Not the best plan.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Wasn't it just a vocal minority in opposition? With most people actually in support. And a major reason that Americans did support it was that it put them in a better position to take British Columbia, which seems distinctly against British interests as it represented their only ports on that side of the Pacific. And there was a distinct fear that Americans would be moved to colonize parts of British North America with similar results to Texas.

I can't speak if it was a minority opinion or not. It's certainly the often reported story. As I understand it, the dispute over Oregon territory (which would have included British Columbia) was more or less settled by this point. Also, while he was in favor of US expansion, I'm not sure if antagonism with the UK was on William Seward's mind.

 

[Lord Baal]

I can't speak if it was a minority opinion or not. It's certainly the often reported story. As I understand it, the dispute over Oregon territory (which would have included British Columbia) was more or less settled by this point. Also, while he was in favor of US expansion, I'm not sure if antagonism with the UK was on William Seward's mind.

Seward was influenced by the then-prevailing trend in US naval thought, which posited the necessity of force projection as a means to prevent attacks on the Continental US. Alaska was far less important than Hawaii for this purpose, but it did provide a coking station capable of intercepting any potential Russian assaults on the US in the future, as well as forcing the British to watch their rear in Canada should they become belligerent in the future.

 

[say1988]

the dispute over Oregon territory (which would have included British Columbia) was more or less settled by this point.

That dispute was settled, but much animosity remained between the British and US (especially through the Civil War) and pushing to incorporate British North America into the Union was a political crutch used for decades. And Johnson certainly had no great fear of antagonizing the British, at the very least turning a blind eye to the Fenians.

For BC on its own, there were signigicant American populations in the colony following various gold rushes and it was far more closely linked to San Francisco than to ottawa or any other British possession. Further it was facing economic problems and crushing debt. Make its strategic position completely untenable with Americans to the North and South and a whole lot of nothing to the East and West and many viewed US annexation quite favourably. But Canada bought them off by assuming their debt and promising a railroad.

Not saying it was the intention of Seward or anyone else directly involved, but it was seen as a benefit.

There was also a definite, and justifiable, fear that Americans would try and settle Western Canada and those settlers would turn from the British and join the US (as occurred in Texas and California).

 

[Ajidica]

Part of the reason the Americans were in line for Alaska was their excellent relationship with the tsarist state. Russia's closest allies in the 1860s were, in order, Prussia and the United States, and the United States was a surer bet with Bismarck at the helm in Berlin. It's hard to conceive of Aleksandr II approving a sale to Britain after the Crimean War estranged the two powers (and the British compounded the bad relationship with their response to the Polish rebellion of 1863).

Why did Britain get involved in the Crimean War against Russia? I was under the impression that Britain and Russia had generaly amicable relations. I find it odd that Britain would throw that away to keep Russia from grabbing a warm water port/prop up the Ottomans.

 

[Dachs]

Why did Britain get involved in the Crimean War against Russia? I was under the impression that Britain and Russia had generaly amicable relations. I find it odd that Britain would throw that away to keep Russia from grabbing a warm water port/prop up the Ottomans.

Recently discussed this more fully in another thread. Follow the links for the whole conversation; here are a few specifics:

Why did they go along with it? I understood there to be an overriding desire to prevent Russia from getting Constantinople, but that certainly seems to be a British goal more than a French goal.

Irrational fear of Russia 'getting' Constantinople was one thing. But these were the same sort of balance-of-power politics Palmerston had been advocating for some time. Russia could not, apparently, be cooperated with (even though Nikolai I built his whole foreign policy on cooperation with Britain) - it had to be treated as a rival for ultimate power, and crushed in any bid for same. The barely-sensible hysterics employed by Russell in the Commons - "fight the Russians on the Danube lest they need be fought on the Indus" - simply illustrate the point better. For many Britons, the Crimean war was 'a crime', and rightly so; for much of the government, it was a simple extension of an absurd foreign policy.

 

[General Pilates]

I have a question regarding Persian names, specifically that of Khosrow. I have seen it spelled about in as many different ways as Gaddafi's name, such as 'Chosroes', 'Khusrau', 'Khusrow' and even 'Xusro' by Dachs in the thread regarding when the Byzantine empire could have been saved. So, this is pretty much two Questions: Why are there so many different interpretations of his name? And secondly, what would be the most 'correct' translation, if there is in fact one?

 

[J. pride]

Could the Ottomans have survived if the British/French were not involved in the Crimean War? And i was under the impression that the Crimean War had long term consequences on the Ottoman; like increased European interference and absurd trade rights?

 

[LightSpectra]

The Ottoman Empire's destruction wasn't inevitable because of the Crimean War. Remember that they technically did end up on the winning side.

If you must classify an empire's existence in "rise, stagnation and decline", then its final phase assuredly began in 1877, not 1856.

 

[Dachs]

I have a question regarding Persian names, specifically that of Khosrow. I have seen it spelled about in as many different ways as Gaddafi's name, such as 'Chosroes', 'Khusrau', 'Khusrow' and even 'Xusro' by Dachs in the thread regarding when the Byzantine empire could have been saved. So, this is pretty much two Questions: Why are there so many different interpretations of his name? And secondly, what would be the most 'correct' translation, if there is in fact one?

Transliterations of names in a different alphabet are always going to be wacky. I prefer "Xusro" because, frankly, it looks coolest. (And also, because that's the way I learned it first.) You run into the same problem with Greek, Chinese, and Arabic. There really is no 'most correct' transliteration. "Chosroes" is perhaps least correct because it's actually the Greek version of his name, so it's doubly transliterated. Kh(o/u)srau is probably the most widely understood outside of that one.

Could the Ottomans have survived if the British/French were not involved in the Crimean War? And i was under the impression that the Crimean War had long term consequences on the Ottoman; like increased European interference and absurd trade rights?

The Ottoman Empire died because of the First World War, not because of the British and French saving it in the Crimean War. It's clear that plenty of people still cared about the idea of Ottomanism quite late in the game. After all, Enver's 1913 coup was designed to revitalize the empire, and although Enver himself was possessed of pretty wacky pan-Turanian ideas, the Committee of Union and Progress as a whole was still rooted in the very Muslim, Ottomanist foundations of state. Turkish nationalism as independent from Ottomanism did not come into play until 1918-9.

So the question is kind of a non sequitur: the Crimean War wasn't really a tipping point. While it was certainly not good for the Ottoman exchequer for various foreigners to get capitulations and whatnot, the loans provided by Western powers helped the country to industrialize and improve its military.

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

Is it true that some states in early US history required that elected officials be professing Christians? How did they manage to get away with this?

Re-read the first amendment. It only says what Congress may do, and nothing about what states may or may not do. I noticed that the first time I read it, and I've always wondered whether it was specifically designed to avoid upsetting the applecart in states with established Christianity.