History questions not worth their own thread

[LightSpectra]

Really? I was sure that back in the old days of Lincoln the republicans of then would be democrats today, and the democrats of then would be republicans today

Not even close. Politics in the late 19th century were nothing like politics of today. If you want to know when the line between "conservative" and "liberal" began in the U.S., it was during the New Deal, when FDR's critics rallied behind Robert A. Taft. Before then, the line was moreso between being pro- or anti-foreign intervention, with the Republicans being mostly for intervention (McKinley/Roosevelt/William H. Taft) and Democrats being against (with the exception of Wilson, who initially ran on a campaign of not entering World War I).

 

[Kraznaya]

Not even close. Politics in the late 19th century were nothing like politics of today. If you want to know when the line between "conservative" and "liberal" began in the U.S., it was during the New Deal, when FDR's critics rallied behind Robert A. Taft. Before then, the line was moreso between being pro- or anti-foreign intervention, with the Republicans being mostly for intervention (McKinley/Roosevelt/William H. Taft) and Democrats being against (with the exception of Wilson, who initially ran on a campaign of not entering World War I).

This is of course completely ignoring the uncanny resemblance of the electoral maps of the last decade to that of the civil war.

 

[LightSpectra]

This is of course completely ignoring the uncanny resemblance of the electoral maps of the last decade to that of the civil war.

Yes, it's not like different regions have different political interests or anything. Should we say that Eisenhower was a super liberal because the only states he didn't win were the deep south? Was JFK a segregationist conservative-liberal because he won both the north east and most of the South? How about that Carter was a conservative for winning the South?

If you want to play this game, I point out that Lincoln described himself as a conservative, berating the pro-slave forces.

 

[LightSpectra]

By the way, who was it that said that "nothing will make a historian's blood pressure rise faster than to read about George McClellan?"

Because I find that exceedingly true.

 

[Cutlass]

Don't forget that shortly after the Civil War the Republican party became firmly the pro-big-business party. That part had a few fits and starts, but never really changed.

 

[Yui108]

1. Could the Mongols have conquered Egypt after a victory at Ain Jalut?
2. How bloody was the civil war between the Ilkhanate and the Golden Horde. Who did the Great khan side with?

 

[vogtmurr]

1. Could the Mongols have conquered Egypt after a victory at Ain Jalut?
2. How bloody was the civil war between the Ilkhanate and the Golden Horde. Who did the Great khan side with?

May I take a shot at it ?

1. The Mongols could have conquered Egypt even after a defeat at Ain Jalut, but only with a major effort. Hulagu threatened a lot more than was actually sent to Ain Jalut under a Nestorian Turk. It turned out to be succession time again - Batu Khan had died I believe and the majority of Hulagu's host went east. Once again, how convenient for both Europe and the Middle east ?

The Mamelukes showed themselves capable of meeting them on equal terms, but even against a smaller force of Mongols at Elbistan in Asia Minor, Baibars was nearly routed. If Hulagu had returned with even half of his Mongol horsemen plus allies - There is also a very strong possibility that the Crusaders would have sided with them willingly or not.

2. I think the Ilkhanate was fatally weakened but maybe it never flourished or had as much as the others to begin with. They inherited the unhappy wasteland they made out of Persia. I think Kublai Khan made some noise about reigning his brothers in but it was beyond his influence or immediate interest. He sided with Hulagau though. The 'little' Chagatai Khanate in the middle of Central Asia, native territory for these sons of the saddle, stood the most to gain from this civil war.

 

[Yui108]

Thanks much Vogtmurr. I'm considering a situation where Kitbuqa (forementioned Nestorian turk, and commander of the Mongols at Ain Jalut) conquers Egypt and makes the Kingdom of Jerusalem a semi-vassal state.

 

[vogtmurr]

By the way, who was it that said that "nothing will make a historian's blood pressure rise faster than to read about George McClellan?"

Because I find that exceedingly true.

Why is that ? Is it because McClellan is often treated unfairly in the books, or because it is hard to read about his ineptitude ?

 

[Dachs]

Why is that ? Is it because McClellan is often treated unfairly in the books, or because it is hard to read about his ineptitude ?

The latter. Anybody that can claim that what McClellan did in the Seven Days and at Antietam is anything but the most outrageous incompetence either doesn't know what he or she is talking about, or is lying.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I get that when I read about Gallipoli - because there were so many screwups that I start thinking it could have worked had it been done completely differently.

 

[civver_764]

Noob question .

How long had the Germanic tribes existed in Europe? Who did they descend from?

 

[holy king]

the protogermanic tribes.

who are on about the same level as the sea people.

 

[civver_764]

Sea people?

 

[holy king]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_peoples

 

[Crime Doesn't Pay]

Was Napoleon Bonaparte an atheist?

 

[LightSpectra]

Don't forget that shortly after the Civil War the Republican party became firmly the pro-big-business party. That part had a few fits and starts, but never really changed.

Both modern political parties are pro-big business, the GOP is just more honest about it.

Why is that ? Is it because McClellan is often treated unfairly in the books, or because it is hard to read about his ineptitude ?

The latter. He would constantly overestimate the enemy's forces, make several excuses for why he can't act, blame others for his defeats which were obviously his fault, go out of his way just to spite Lincoln and other generals, etc. etc.; and then he managed to pin the blame on Lincoln for most of his own shenanigans. Lincoln sadly couldn't remove McClellan because he was too popular with the troops; he only had the political force to do that after Antietam.

And then he was replaced by Ambrose Burnside, to the agony of sympathetic historians.

Was Napoleon Bonaparte an atheist?

Not publicly, if he was. Most his actions seem to signify that he was either entirely apathetic or a deist.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The latter. Anybody that can claim that what McClellan did in the Seven Days and at Antietam is anything but the most outrageous incompetence either doesn't know what he or she is talking about, or is lying.

Incompetence, or carefulness? Remember, McClellan was a foreign observer during the Crimean War, he knew what catastrophes could result in committing large numbers of infantry against entrenched positions, and was also very fond of his men. If that meant he was too timid, so be it, but we can look elsewhere in the war to see the meat grinder that such an even can create, and we can only speculate about the ultimate effect of removing McClellan's timidity.

 

[Zardnaar]

I get that when I read about Gallipoli - because there were so many screwups that I start thinking it could have worked had it been done completely differently.

Probably not. A pipe dream from the get go IMHO.

 

[LightSpectra]

Incompetence, or carefulness?

Too much of the latter is a symptom of the former. Fortune favors the bold, remember. But his carefulness wasn't his only problem; he was an idiot in everything save for organizing and morale, both of which he tossed out the window in the middle of his tenure as general. (He thought his actions at Antietam were a "tactical masterpiece.") He could never accept responsibility for his mistakes, which were many, and his reasons for not engaging the enemy were anything from "dubious" to "brain dead."

Now, like you said, some are sympathetic to McClellan because he loved his troops and didn't want to cause them harm. But that ultimately resulted in more deaths; the war could've ended in '62 had he decided to throw his reserve corps at Lee's retreating force. Simply, the Confederates were fairly satisfied with turning the war into a meat grinder since it was for the most part working. It only stopped working when generals like Grant and Sherman were willing to counter it with superior numbers and not back down at the prospect of violence.