History questions not worth their own thread IV

[Glassfan]

Whenever I read about the Civil War battles, I always wonder why the Confederate commanders frequently seem to outrank those of the Union.

During the Seven Days, it was General Lee and Major Generals Longstreet, Stonewall Jackson, Magruder and A.P. Hill against Major General McClellan, and Brigadier Generals Sumner, Keyes, Fitz John Porter and Franklin.

At Shiloh it was Confederate Generals Johnston and Beauregard attacking Union Major Generals Grant and Buel.

At Vicksburg it was Lt. General Pemberton versus Major General Grant.

At Gettysburg it was General Lee and Lt. Generals Longstreet, Ewell and Hill against Major Generals Meade, Hancock, Sickles, Howard, Slocum and Pleasenton.

And at Chickamauga, General Braxton Bragg and Lt. Generals Longstreet and Polk versus Major Generals Rosecrans, Thomas, McCook and Crittenton.

After Chattanooga, President Lincoln got US Grant promoted to Lt. General, the only one in the North, and Commanding General of the Army, yet his rank was only that of a Confederate Corps Commander.

Any ideas explaining this disparity?

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm not saying William wasn't the King of England. I'm just saying that it's ludicrous on several counts to trace the current English monarchy past 1688 as if it were the same entity.

By that reckoning, the Japanese monarchy dates back to no later than 1947.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Secondly, the Anglo-Saxon monarchy was indisputably annihilated in AD 1066 during the Norman invasion, and the dynasty of kings beginning with William can in no way be considered part of the same monarchy.

Well, William would dispute that

 

[Lord Baal]

Define "became monarchies".

Meh, became recognisable as a monarchy. It's a fairly vague concept to begin with, I'm not silly enough to try to define it.

 

[LightSpectra]

By that reckoning, the Japanese monarchy dates back to no later than 1947.

Arguably the institution itself is not the same, though it's the same dynasty, which is only thing the traditionalists care about considering its mythological origins.

 

[W|M]

Secondly, the Anglo-Saxon monarchy was indisputably annihilated in AD 1066 during the Norman invasion, and the dynasty of kings beginning with William can in no way be considered part of the same monarchy.

Edward the Confessor declared William the Bastard to be his rightful successor, and William was distantly related through marriage to both Sweyn Forkbeard and Ethelred the Unready.

 

[madviking]

Edward the Confessor declared William the Bastard to be his rightful successor, and William was distantly related through marriage to both Sweyn Forkbeard and Ethelred the Unready.

Ehhhhhhhh. The whole story behind Edward the Confessor's succession is murky at best. I'll post something more substantial than this later, but bottom line, his death gave way for three relatively strong claimants.

 

[Plotinus]

When it comes to the English monarchy being broken, never mind 1066, what about 1689? Or, come to that, 1485, or indeed 1399. If 1066 counts as a break in the institution so do the others; if the others don't count, neither does 1066.

The more important point is that it's impossible to determine precisely when the English monarchy actually began, because what we now call "England" coalesced rather slowly. It's especially problematic given that it was standard practice for kings of various Anglo-Saxon kingdoms to claim kingship of all them, if they happened to be the most powerful one at the time, and if you take that seriously it means that the "monarchy" of England actually hopped about from kingdom to kingdom as they waxed and waned. It seems silly to suppose that Raedwald of East Anglia was really a king of England, but what about Offa of Mercia? Where is the line drawn?

 

[Arakhor]

I believe that Aethelstan, Alfred's grandson, was the first king of a unified England, though it was probably closer to Engla-lond at the time. Old English is a devil to read.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Meh, became recognisable as a monarchy. It's a fairly vague concept to begin with, I'm not silly enough to try to define it.

Oh, in that case the monarchy of Japan definitely predates Japanese History. Not recorded history, but the history of the Japanese people.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Edward the Confessor declared William the Bastard to be his rightful successor, and William was distantly related through marriage to both Sweyn Forkbeard and Ethelred the Unready.

Yeah, I don't buy the story for a second, but there's at least a story claimed, which is usually enough for dynastic legitimization. And didn't at least the Pope agree that William was the legitimate King? The relation to Emma goes a little bit further (and, imo, was an indication of the growing Normanization of England during this time even without the Conquest).

 

[Cutlass]

Whenever I read about the Civil War battles, I always wonder why the Confederate commanders frequently seem to outrank those of the Union.

During the Seven Days, it was General Lee and Major Generals Longstreet, Stonewall Jackson, Magruder and A.P. Hill against Major General McClellan, and Brigadier Generals Sumner, Keyes, Fitz John Porter and Franklin.

At Shiloh it was Confederate Generals Johnston and Beauregard attacking Union Major Generals Grant and Buel.

At Vicksburg it was Lt. General Pemberton versus Major General Grant.

At Gettysburg it was General Lee and Lt. Generals Longstreet, Ewell and Hill against Major Generals Meade, Hancock, Sickles, Howard, Slocum and Pleasenton.

And at Chickamauga, General Braxton Bragg and Lt. Generals Longstreet and Polk versus Major Generals Rosecrans, Thomas, McCook and Crittenton.

After Chattanooga, President Lincoln got US Grant promoted to Lt. General, the only one in the North, and Commanding General of the Army, yet his rank was only that of a Confederate Corps Commander.

Any ideas explaining this disparity?

I think it's a matter of politics and institutional inertia. The US Army wasn't big before the ACW, but it had a history of doing things a certain way. And those ways give way only with difficulty to changing circumstances. The Confederate Army, on the other hand, was a newly created institution. And as such they could assign any rank they pleased to the officers that they chose. So the Union was assigning and promoting ranks within an existing structure, and the Confederacy was creating a structure, if not from the ground up, certainly with fewer institutional and traditional constraints.

 

[privatehudson]

Its also worth bearing in mind that in many cases* a Confederate Corps commander was in charge of a much larger force than a Union Corps commander. Longstreet's 1st corps for example numbered more than 20,000 effectives at Gettysburg, whereas the largest Union corps present (Sedgewick's 6th) was less than 14,000 strong, but the average was probably more like 11,000.

*Which isn't to say all cases of course, especially as the war dragged on and attrition started to thin out the Southern ranks

 

[madviking]

Ehhhhhhhh. The whole story behind Edward the Confessor's succession is murky at best. I'll post something more substantial than this later, but bottom line, his death gave way for three relatively strong claimants.

Okay, let me start this by introducing a cast of notable characters surrounding events in 1066.

- Edward the Confesser (aged ~62) - current ailing king of England. His wife, Emma, was Duke William's great-aunt.
- Harold Godwinson (aged ~42) - right-hand man of Edward, effective ruler in Edward's illness.
- Tostig Godwinson (aged ~40) - Earl of Northumbria, Harold's younger brother, probably insane.
- Duke William (aged ~37) - Duke of Normandy.
- Harald Hardrada (aged ~50) - King of Norway

The backstory to events in 1066 start with Edward the Confessor's "trip" to Normandy. I use quotes around trip since it is not known whether this trip was planned or accidental. Nevertheless, Duke William, according to some unreliable (read: Norman) sources, managed to have King Edward swear upon the bones of two Norman saints that he, William, will be the next king of England. The unreliability comes from the Norman's obvious bias (trying to substantiate their claim to the throne) and their general pomp. Other, non-Norman, sources say that this swearing did not occur or was forced.

Fast-forward to 1066. Edward the Confessor dies on 4 January. The witan, a group of Anglo-Saxon nobles which amounted to something like a cabinet, had to find a successor (not automatically closest heir!). The witan had four criteria for selecting the next king:

1. "Proper character to rule with strength and justice."
2. Be of royal blood
3. Be "English" (quotes mine)
4. A respected king's choice as heir was favored among the witan

However, according to most accounts, Edward left very much to be desired when he didn't name his heir. But still, there were six relatively logical choices, ranked by claim strength:

1. Edgar, young, but he was the only male royal (he's the great-grandson of Æthelred [through Edmund Ironside and Edward the Exile])
2. Harold Godwinson, then Earl of Wessex, brother-in-law to Edward [through his sister, Edith, also Edward's wife]
3. Tostig Godwinson, ex-Earl of Northumbria (deposed in rebellion), though was a favorite of Edward's
4. Swein, king of Denmark
5. Harald Hardrada, king of Norway
6. Duke William

But Edward, on his deathbed, named Harold his successor, more or less.

Now William was outraged at Edward's apparent betrayal of trust. He got papal permission to invade England since Harold was a "heretic". Meanwhile, the mentally-unstable ex-earl Tostig sailed up to Norway, and managed to entice Harald Hardrada to invade England. Harald Hardrada invaded Yorkshire and was defeated at Stamford Bridge. William invaded Sussex and defeated Harold Godwinson at Hastings. And the rest is history.

All of the information is from 1066, by David Howarth, something I very highly recommend.

 

[privatehudson]

The backstory to events in 1066 start with Edward the Confessor's "trip" to Normandy. I use quotes around trip since it is not known whether this trip was planned or accidental. Nevertheless, Duke William, according to some unreliable (read: Norman) sources, managed to have King Edward swear upon the bones of two Norman saints that he, William, will be the next king of England. The unreliability comes from the Norman's obvious bias (trying to substantiate their claim to the throne) and their general pomp. Other, non-Norman, sources say that this swearing did not occur or was forced.

Iit was Harold Godwinson who visited Normandy and may or may not have sworn on the bones of a saint, not Edward the Confessor. Edward did spend a lot of time in Normandy whilst in exile though.

 

[madviking]

Iit was Harold Godwinson who visited Normandy and may or may not have sworn on the bones of a saint, not Edward the Confessor.

Ah yes, it was Harold. I was writing that part from memory and got it wrong.

 

[Louis XXIV]

It's also worth pointing out that succession wasn't hereditary but decided by a counsel. Even if Edward had promised William the throne, this wouldn't have been necessarily binding.

 

[LightSpectra]

Who are some pre-modern figures that leftists typically retroactively idealize as being protosocialists? Such as Savonarola, the Christian apostles, the Gracchi brothers and Spartacus.

 

[Lord Baal]

Who are some pre-modern figures that leftists typically retroactively idealize as being protosocialists? Such as Savonarola, the Christian apostles, the Gracchi brothers and Spartacus.

The Levelers?

 

[Plotinus]

Who are some pre-modern figures that leftists typically retroactively idealize as being protosocialists? Such as Savonarola, the Christian apostles, the Gracchi brothers and Spartacus.

Jesus. There's a marvellous quotation by Keir Hardie about Jesus "the first communist".

Also of course Francis of Assisi and, I wouldn't be surprised, similar figures such as Peter Waldo.

All of which is quite anachronistic, but there you go.

The Jesuits of the Thirty Reductions of (roughly) Paraguay are sometimes held up as an early form of socialism or even communism, which in my opinion is much more convincing. I don't know if they quite count as "pre-modern" though.