History questions not worth their own thread

[vogtmurr]

London told the Americans not to expand into the Natives' territories, which to them, downplayed all of their sacrifices in the Seven Years' War; and is also a primary reason why Quebec joined the colonists.

huh - Quebec joined which colonists ?

The second is on critical errors made by army commanders, and battles where they were committed. I'm tossing around seven: predictability (Kursk), timidry (Chancellorsville), immobility (Cannae), uncoordination (Tannenberg), underestimation or overconfidence (Carillon), cowardice (Gaugemela), and conservatism in tactics (Leuctra, or perhaps some battle against Sweden in the Thirty Years' War).

I think Carrhae 53 BC and Tiberias 1187 could be considered the wrong choice of battlefield, foot soldiers in the open desert or plains without water, against horse and missile troops.

What is Carillon ? I think Hastings is a good example of lack of discipline, breaking ranks to pursue the enemy too far. I'm not sure Singapore qualifies as such, Malaya was more of a debacle due to underconfidence and poor leadership.

 

[LightSpectra]

huh - Quebec joined which colonists ?

Did not, rather. They were given ample land to expand into. The colonists were frustrated as Quebec fought against Britain, and were given new territory; whereas they fought for the Empire and were given nothing.

 

[Atticus]

What do you mean by "restoring the Senate"?

 

[Dachs]

What do you mean by "restoring the Senate"?

Yeah, the Senate still definitely existed.

 

[frekk]

Did not, rather. They were given ample land to expand into. The colonists were frustrated as Quebec fought against Britain, and were given new territory; whereas they fought for the Empire and were given nothing.

That's an American myth.

New France on the eve of the conflict:

British colony of Quebec created after the Seven Year's War:

As you can see, it's actually signifigantly smaller. Rupert's Land, the Hudson Bay Company's lands, were expanded around James Bay, and they received all the land of New France in present-day southern Manitoba. Everything south of the Ohio was lopped off, and given to Britain's native allies. Basically it was stripped of the present-day areas of northern Ontario, southern Manitoba, New Brunswick, Kentucky, part of Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississipi, Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. They didn't receive any land that they didn't have prior to the war.

 

[sydhe]

The fact that some people invited the invasion doesn't stop it from being an invasion. If, during WWII, Oswald Mosley had written to Hitler inviting him to invade Britain and it had happened, it would still have been an invasion.

I'd compare it in that respect to the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956 or Czechoslovakia in 1968. A bit more popular, of course.

 

[LightSpectra]

What do you mean by "restoring the Senate"?

It was under Caesar's thumb as long as his army controlled Italy. Did Pompey legitimately want the Republic to come out on top, or was he just Caesar's rival for control of Rome?

They didn't receive any land that they didn't have prior to the war.

Excuse me, I misspoke. I meant to say that it seemed, to the colonists, that they acquired nearly nothing from the Seven Years' War, whereas London was sponsoring Quebec and the Natives, who fought against the Crown in the war.

 

[Dachs]

It was under Caesar's thumb as long as his army controlled Italy. Did Pompey legitimately want the Republic to come out on top, or was he just Caesar's rival for control of Rome?

So...you didn't answer the question, because "Republic to come out on top" is rather meaningless in this context. What, exactly, would such a "restored" Senate be like?

 

[LightSpectra]

So...you didn't answer the question, because "Republic to come out on top" is rather meaningless in this context. What, exactly, would such a "restored" Senate be like?

Restored to its power from before the civil war. That is, the heads of government are two elected consuls.

Another quick question. When Frederick IV of Prussia turned down the crown of Germany from the 1848 revolutionaries, did he do so purely out of a reactionary opposition to liberalism, or did he do so because it would've provoked a war with Austria or the southern German states?

 

[Atticus]

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but senate wasn't the democratic or republican institution in Rome, it was one of the many. Roman senate is not equivalent to, say, senate or parliament of US. There was no senator elections. To become senator was first birth right, and later it was extended to include former officials (consuls, censors &c) and some people were nomitaed as senators. Consuls, censors and such were chosen by the people, and senate had little to do with those elections.

One political factor you must also notice is the tribune of the people, whose duty was to see that common people were considered in the matters of the state, and who had right to overturn any decision by just saying "I forbid", that is "veto". The class struggle was incarnate in the senate and the tribunus plebis. For example the famous Gracchus brothers both lose their lives in this struggle, Gaius in demonstrations against senate putting on a puppet candidate against him, and older, Tiberius, was beaten dead by senators themselves!

So when you take account on the whole Roman political system, the optimates didn't support democracy, but rather aristocracy.

Caesar fits the story only by putting the weight on the people's side. As far as I know, he didn't change any political institution, just put Juppiter's fear in senators. (Well, except being chosen to be lifetime dictator, but that was long after Pompey's death anyway).

I understand though the confusion, as popular culture often is lazy on these matters, take Gladiator for example. And also, don't trust me on any these things, but find out for yourself, I'm a liar and a cheat.'


EDIT:Good lord that was poorly written, and I'm too tired to edit it, so I'll just hope you get something out of it.

 

[LightSpectra]

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but senate wasn't the democratic or republican institution in Rome, it was one of the many.

Was this directed at me? I'm entirely aware of this; it doesn't have much bearing on whether or not Pompey was legitimately for the Senate or not.

 

[Agent327]

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but senate wasn't the democratic or republican institution in Rome, it was one of the many. Roman senate is not equivalent to, say, senate or parliament of US. There was no senator elections. To become senator was first birth right, and later it was extended to include former officials (consuls, censors &c) and some people were nomitaed as senators. Consuls, censors and such were chosen by the people, and senate had little to do with those elections.

One political factor you must also notice is the tribune of the people, whose duty was to see that common people were considered in the matters of the state, and who had right to overturn any decision by just saying "I forbid", that is "veto". The class struggle was incarnate in the senate and the tribunus plebis. For example the famous Gracchus brothers both lose their lives in this struggle, Gaius in demonstrations against senate putting on a puppet candidate against him, and older, Tiberius, was beaten dead by senators themselves!

So when you take account on the whole Roman political system, the optimates didn't support democracy, but rather aristocracy.

Caesar fits the story only by putting the weight on the people's side. As far as I know, he didn't change any political institution, just put Juppiter's fear in senators. (Well, except being chosen to be lifetime dictator, but that was long after Pompey's death anyway).

That's a bit simplistic: Populares ("favoring the people", singular popularis) were aristocratic leaders in the late Roman Republic who relied on the people's assemblies and tribunate to acquire political power. They are regarded in modern scholarship as in opposition to the optimates, who are identified with the conservative interests of a senatorial elite. The populares themselves, however, were also of senatorial rank and might be patricians or noble plebeians.

Two remarks: by the time of Caesar street violence had become endemic in Roman politics, and speaking of "democracy" with regards to the Roman republic is quite anachronistic; the only notion of democracy known in those days would have been the Athenian democracy. Rome was thoroughly aristocratic, even during the emperors, when the senate remained an important factor (there were senatorial and imperial provinces) well into the 3rd century. What inspired fear into many senators was not the fact that he was a popularis, but rather that he might have monarchical ambitions, i.e. aspired to be sole leader of the res publica; it was Caesar's ambition that triggered the 'civil war' with the senate - and Pompey - and ultimately led to his murder in 44 BC.

 

[innonimatu]

Two remarks: by the time of Caesar street violence had become endemic in Roman politics, and speaking of "democracy" with regards to the Roman republic is quite anachronistic; the only notion of democracy known in those days would have been the Athenian democracy.

You're being too radical. Many city-sates besides Athens had at some time political institutions where the role of popular assemblies was prominent.

Rome was thoroughly aristocratic, even during the emperors, when the senate remained an important factor (there were senatorial and imperial provinces) well into the 3rd century.

More aristocratic after it settled into the pricipate, when the comitia were stripped of its powers. And even then it was becoming more oligarchic than aristocratic: entrance into the senatorial order was possible for outsiders, wealth (and endorsement of its class interests, obviously) being the main requisite.

Before the principate there was a precarious balance between democratic institution and aristocratic ones - with the aristocrats still controlling the institutions (they traditionally provided most of the important magistrates) but generally on the defensive. The comitia had, there as in the greek city-states, even wrestled away from the praetors (which is to say, from the senatorial class) the politically important power of acting as the ultimate court of appeal.

 

[Atticus]

Was this directed at me? I'm entirely aware of this

Ok, I just wanted to make sure what we are speaking about here. These passages suggested that you might not be aware of it:

Did Pompey legitimately want the Republic to come out on top

That is, the heads of government are two elected consuls.

So what I wanted to say was that:
1. Caesar had not overthrown the republic, just shifted the balance of power. But on the other hand it probably didn't look like that to Pompey & co, so your choice of words is legimate.
2. Consuls being the head of the government didn't have much to do with restoring the senate, since they were mostly independent institutions. You could say that Caesar was defending the power of consuls, as he was one when he marched to Rome and during his reign, although you could say he was single consul, since the other one had no power (that was not unusual before the civil war either btw). So "restoring senate" was quite opposite thing to restoring the power of consuls.

Was your intention to ask "did Pompey want to restore the republic" or "did Pompey want to restore the senate"?

We should also reach some understanding of what Caesar was doing and what his intentions were. I don't believe any factual evidence can answer that, those who have negative view of him think that all his good deeds were propaganda and cheap tricks to gain popularity. Each one makes his own mind based on his intuition about it (and own political preferences too).

Considering that question also reveals the impossibility to answer yours: if we can't be sure what were Caesar's intentions, how could we be of Pompey's, as he never showed what Rome would be like after his victory?

That's a bit simplistic: Populares ("favoring the people", singular popularis) were aristocratic leaders in the late Roman Republic who relied on the people's assemblies and tribunate to acquire political power.

Well yes, I never said the populares were plebeians. If I remember correctly plebs weren't even allowed to stand as candidates in elections, so that would be impossible.

 

[West 36]

How did Armenia move so much from where it was to where it currently is?
Can I see some other examples of nations moving like this?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

It was stuck between Russia and Turkey for centuries.

Poland shifted west after World War II.

 

[Masada]

How did Armenia move so much from where it was to where it currently is?

I wonder if "Armenian people" might be a better descriptor since historical Armenia is quite distinct from Cilician Armenia, and modern Armenia.

 

[carmen510]

Anyone have a list of Vichy French officers?

Also, does anyone have a list of important far right-wing French people (Ministers, officers, journalists, etc.) living in the early 1950s?

I would greatly appreciate any helping effort.

 

[flyingchicken]

Just invent names.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

How long did the Cherokee live where they did before the Trail of Tears?