|
I wasn't aware Korea, Japan, Russia, or European countries were the powerhouses of the day, I thought that was mainly China and the US
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 14:28 |
|
|
Cyrano4747, about the drinking Germans, I read a petition to the Elector of Saxony where a condemned man's company asks that he not be executed because:
However, while drinking is common, it seems like inhabitants of the Holy Roman Empire drink more than the Spanish. Spanish diplomatic things from the mid-late 1500s are full of surprise and some distaste when they encounter Imperial drinking culture--Philip II barely drank at all, and getting hammered is gross to them but not to Germans and Bohemians. One diplomat mentions calling on the Elector of Saxony at seven in the morning, by which time he already could barely stand, but every Wettin on earth was a heavy drinker; that was the dynasty that produced Augustus the Strong. (Other things that are wrong with the HRE: religious pluralism weirds us out, it is too goddamn cold over there, Prague is too hilly, and the prices are too high--which coming from Spaniards is insane, I can only assume that people on the diplomat circuit have started overcharging and it's not like everyone in the Tyrol spends the equivalent of half a musketeer's monthly wages on a plate of bread.) HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 15:07 on Oct 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 15:02
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:(Other things that are wrong with the HRE: religious pluralism weirds us out, it is too goddamn cold over there, Prague is too hilly, and the prices are too high--which coming from Spaniards is insane, I can only assume that people on the diplomat circuit have started overcharging and it's not like everyone in the Tyrol spends the equivalent of half a musketeer's monthly wages on a plate of bread.) Actually early modern monarchs didn't pay the ambassadors they sent to foreign courts, the nobles in question had to pay for everything themselves, with the understanding that the monarch - or their successor - would eventually pay the ambassador - or his descendants - back in some form. This leads to hilarious amounts of feet-shuffling and excuse-making whenever the monarch needs an embassy to a foreign court because holy poo poo that is a lot of money. We're talking about a party of several dozen people traveling across half of Europe plus gifts for the foreign court. So I would guess the Spaniards are just reminding their king that this poo poo costs, like, way too much and please remember this when it comes to paying the bills (Why no we don't have, like, any actual bills why do you ask?). Joke's on them, though, giving their grandson a commission in the army is perfectly okay as payback. If he dies on his first campaign them's the breaks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Actually early modern monarchs didn't pay the ambassadors they sent to foreign courts, the nobles in question had to pay for everything themselves, with the understanding that the monarch - or their successor - would eventually pay the ambassador - or his descendants - back in some form. This leads to hilarious amounts of feet-shuffling and excuse-making whenever the monarch needs an embassy to a foreign court because holy poo poo that is a lot of money. We're talking about a party of several dozen people traveling across half of Europe plus gifts for the foreign court. So I would guess the Spaniards are just reminding their king that this poo poo costs, like, way too much and please remember this when it comes to paying the bills (Why no we don't have, like, any actual bills why do you ask?). Also, apparently, ambassadors were supposed to bribe foreign ministers and court members for meetings out of their own pockets, there wasn't necessarily an official fund for doing so. Later on, when things get a bit more formalized (18th/19th century), ambassadors can recoup some of the costs by charging fees for their services, but I don't know how common that was in the 17th century.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
sullat posted:Also, apparently, ambassadors were supposed to bribe foreign ministers and court members for meetings out of their own pockets, there wasn't necessarily an official fund for doing so. Later on, when things get a bit more formalized (18th/19th century), ambassadors can recoup some of the costs by charging fees for their services, but I don't know how common that was in the 17th century. Leading to the famous* XYZ affair, in which American diplomats got huffy that they had to bribe their nominal allies in France just to hold a meeting. *In America** **for those of us who took the AP's.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Actually early modern monarchs didn't pay the ambassadors they sent to foreign courts, the nobles in question had to pay for everything themselves, with the understanding that the monarch - or their successor - would eventually pay the ambassador - or his descendants - back in some form. This leads to hilarious amounts of feet-shuffling and excuse-making whenever the monarch needs an embassy to a foreign court because holy poo poo that is a lot of money. We're talking about a party of several dozen people traveling across half of Europe plus gifts for the foreign court.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
"bribe" is such an ugly word. Modern historians prefer the term gifts. Seriously the gifting economy in Early Modern Europe was amazingly complicated because on the one hand everyone knew those gifts were supposed to be a form of payment, but you can't sell off gifts too openly or it's an insult. So the Prussian Kings, for example, always liked to use the Dutch as middlemen to monetize the gifts they got. Also a fun fact is that a large part of stuff that was/is shown in Austria as "Captured from the Turks in the war of XXXX" was apparently a gift from the Ottoman court to Austrian embassies. Tents in particular.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
We associate bribes with something illegal. Fun fact: it often wasn't. The Swedish parliament members in the 18th century supported themselves on Russian and French bribes because being a MP didn't actually have a salary attached to it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Wasn't the entire Chinese Imperial system built on gift giving/receiving?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:We associate bribes with something illegal. Fun fact: it often wasn't. The Swedish parliament members in the 18th century supported themselves on Russian and French bribes because being a MP didn't actually have a salary attached to it. Hell, British MPs were still unpaid well into the twentieth century. Part of the reason Churchill wrote so many books was the need to maintain an independent source of income so he could stay in Parliament.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:"bribe" is such an ugly word. Modern historians prefer the term gifts. Seriously the gifting economy in Early Modern Europe was amazingly complicated because on the one hand everyone knew those gifts were supposed to be a form of payment, but you can't sell off gifts too openly or it's an insult. So the Prussian Kings, for example, always liked to use the Dutch as middlemen to monetize the gifts they got. I've never heard about the tents that are on display here being gifts, but there are some curiosities in the Rüstkammer that are gifts. Among them a suit of european style knightly armour made in Istanbul.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Hell, British MPs were still unpaid well into the twentieth century. Part of the reason Churchill wrote so many books was the need to maintain an independent source of income so he could stay in Parliament. British MPs used (and are) to be rather well off though. The old Swedish parliament had representatives from the peasant estate who pretty much had to pass their hat around in their constituency to even afford to travel to Stockholm.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
How did it work out for Sweden? That's a very polska sejmen style policy, and in polska sejmen it didn't end well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:I've never heard about the tents that are on display here being gifts, but there are some curiosities in the Rüstkammer that are gifts. Among them a suit of european style knightly armour made in Istanbul. That's what they want you to know 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
Because I'm in the mood for stupid questions, and because the OP only prohibits "impossible to answer" what-ifs, how weak were the Nationalists during the Chinese Civil War? What if the US had invaded China to assist them? That seems actually sane and possible compared to stuff like invading Russia after WW2 or whatever the gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
The US actually did land troops in China to oversee the surrender of Japanese troops there and turn over the territory, plus significant amounts of supplies, to the Nationalists when they left IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
Yeah I know, but I mean more Korean War style. IIRC the Soviets didn't actually support Mao and his party and only did so after they won out of pragmatism. How strong were the Communists and the Nationalists exactly after the war? I guess you can turn this into a general question about the Chinese Civil War as opposed to a terminally stupid what-if question
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:British MPs used (and are) to be rather well off though. The old Swedish parliament had representatives from the peasant estate who pretty much had to pass their hat around in their constituency to even afford to travel to Stockholm. That's the point I was making, though. Only the rich could afford to be MPs, and the political consequences of this were exactly what you'd expect. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Oct 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
100 Years Ago Our bouncing baby war is now two months old. The new British 7th Division finishes forming up and marches out of camp towards the ports. It'll arrive 36-48 hours after the Royal Naval Division (still on a train, still extremely disgruntled). Their commanding officer, General Capper, will travel ahead in a destroyer to assess the situation before ordering his men towards Antwerp. There's perhaps a glimmer of hope for the redoubt, if it can be saved; the Germans are continuing to wear it down and the garrison won't be able to hold out much longer. Every day they hold out is a day more for their mates to arrive and defend the Channel ports. Around Arras, it's the French who are the first to notice the gap in their line, and with reinforcements pouring into the area, the situation is quickly rectified. Seeing that a breakthrough is no longer possible, the Germans recalculate their priorities and drive towards Vimy Ridge, achieving a vital (but dearly-won) toehold on the high ground. Major operations here are over, although vigorous local fighting will continue for some days; once again, attention shifts northwards. Both sides are starting to run out of continent to fight in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Yeah I know, but I mean more Korean War style. IIRC the Soviets didn't actually support Mao and his party and only did so after they won out of pragmatism. How strong were the Communists and the Nationalists exactly after the war? I guess you can turn this into a general question about the Chinese Civil War as opposed to a terminally stupid what-if question The US did support the Nationalists, on a massive scale. It's just that embezzlement, fraud, and outright waste meant that most of the support was either lost or ended up in the hands of the communists. Stilwell, I think, at one point said that stopping US aid would hurt the Commies more, since they were ending up with most of the weapons and supplies. If you're thinking of an American invasion, well, people like MacArthur did call for that during the Korean War, but prior to that the KMT would have absolutely refused American military on the ground, at least not until things went all wrong in 1948-9, by which time it was too late.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:100 Years Ago Is this the first time Vimy appears in the war? Will they hold it uninterrupted? (Why yes, I'm  , how did you tell?)
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
My impression of the Chinese Civil War was that it wasn't a Korean-style conventional conflict where a few US tank divisions could turn the tide, but rather a situation where the Nationalists had basically lost the loyalty of most of the country and indeed much of the army. Given the prevailing attitude towards outsider interference, direct US support would merely have solidified opposition, eventually leading to a Vietnam style nightmare decades early. It is also unthinkable that immediately after WW2 the US public would accept large numbers of US troops being put in jeopardy to prop up an unpopular militarist dictator.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
Pornographic Memory posted:The US actually did land troops in China to oversee the surrender of Japanese troops there and turn over the territory, plus significant amounts of supplies, to the Nationalists when they left IIRC. Are there any good sources on the American presence in China in the immediate postwar period? My knowledge on the subject is pretty much nil. EDIT: Actually, can anybody recommend a good book on the Chinese Civil War in general?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
Fangz posted:My impression of the Chinese Civil War was that it wasn't a Korean-style conventional conflict where a few US tank divisions could turn the tide, but rather a situation where the Nationalists had basically lost the loyalty of most of the country and indeed much of the army. Given the prevailing attitude towards outsider interference, direct US support would merely have solidified opposition, eventually leading to a Vietnam style nightmare decades early. It is also unthinkable that immediately after WW2 the US public would accept large numbers of US troops being put in jeopardy to prop up an unpopular militarist dictator. Yeah, if Truman tried to assist the Kuomintang the only thing that would've changed would be President Dewey pulling out the troops in 1949.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
Fangz posted:My impression of the Chinese Civil War was that it wasn't a Korean-style conventional conflict where a few US tank divisions could turn the tide, but rather a situation where the Nationalists had basically lost the loyalty of most of the country and indeed much of the army. Given the prevailing attitude towards outsider interference, direct US support would merely have solidified opposition, eventually leading to a Vietnam style nightmare decades early. It is also unthinkable that immediately after WW2 the US public would accept large numbers of US troops being put in jeopardy to prop up an unpopular militarist dictator. Pretty sure a full-fledged US intervention for the KMT would be an order of magnitude worse than Vietnam - the Japanese Army sent a couple million men into China during WWII compared to half a million Americans in Vietnam.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
Fangz posted:My impression of the Chinese Civil War was that it wasn't a Korean-style conventional conflict where a few US tank divisions could turn the tide, but rather a situation where the Nationalists had basically lost the loyalty of most of the country and indeed much of the army. Given the prevailing attitude towards outsider interference, direct US support would merely have solidified opposition, eventually leading to a Vietnam style nightmare decades early. It is also unthinkable that immediately after WW2 the US public would accept large numbers of US troops being put in jeopardy to prop up an unpopular militarist dictator. Yeah. To be fair, I think Chiang Kai-Shek and particularly his wife were quite popular in the US and the KMT was seen as the legitimate ruler- hence the fury at having "lost" China in 1949- but that had a lot to do with the silencing of US diplomatic voices trying to tell the White House "these guys are really bad and we need to re-evaluate who we're supporting here."
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Yeah, in addition to the bribes, imagine how much money it would take to keep four dozen Spaniards in black silk, black velvet, black damask, dark anthracite, coal, midnight, ebony, sable, dark black, and slightly darker black clothing for a year or two. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT5Gpp4W1cA
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
Don't be fat or you're gonna get killed by the French.the Battleof Bonchurch posted:after heavy casualties were sustained by both sides, the English line broke and the militia routed as a result of the second attack by the French...Captain Robert Fyssher...is reported to have shouted out, as the militia routed, offering £100 for anyone who could bring him a horse, because he was too fat to run. A quote by Sir John Oglander is recorded, which reads that “but none could be had even for a kingdom”. The captain was never heard from again, and the account states that he was either killed, or captured and then buried at sea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bonchurch
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
Who'd die for a weird rear end future currency system that doesn't exist anyway now. Dude should have offered silver or something else.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:How did it work out for Sweden? That's a very polska sejmen style policy, and in polska sejmen it didn't end well. The Parliament of the Estates worked in a way that gave most of the actual power to the nobles and the clergy, and while the burghers and the peasants had representation, they had almost no influence in foreign policy which was the big deal. It worked reasonably well most of the time. The basic way of doing parliament arose in the 15th century and the Estates were abolished during the 19th century during parliamentary reform. Sweden's again here a nice exception because pretty much nowhere else did the peasants have any sort of representation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 08:58
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Sweden's again here a nice exception because pretty much nowhere else did the peasants have any sort of representation. That is somewhat correct if overly simple. Basically, most of Europe had Parliaments of some kind that were usually divided into three sections: nobility, clergy and everybody else. The most important thing these estates did was grant the monarch money, which, given the way war works, was increasingly important in Early Modern Europe because everyone was always at war with each other (if they weren't fighting a civil war at the time, and sometimes even then). Of course, the estates didn't give over money readily, mostly because they were the ones who had to pay for it. At the very least, the monarch could expect to be presented with a long list of things that were going wrong in his realm and the expectation to fix them. Therefore, monarchs always tried to minimize the times they had to call for the estates to assemble. The French just decided to say gently caress it and run the entire state off of selling titles and debt until that kinda blew up on them in 1789. The Prussians cut a deal with the nobility, giving the nobles free reign to do whatever they wanted to the peasants in return for an annual sum of money to the Prussian kings. Of course, due to the nature of the beast, the people sent to the estate meetings were the ones who could afford to spend the time, usually the mayors and rich burghers. Actual no-poo poo "I have to be back before the harvest starts so let's get this over with" peasants were rare, but of course they would send in their own complaints when they heard an estate gathering was being called, and the delegates of the third estate were usually willing to take them as ammunition in the budget battles. So in a way, peasants could still get their voice heard in the main political institution of the day, even if they weren't sitting in it directly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
100 Years Ago It's that man again! That's right, not content with his starring role in a later war, Winston Churchill is insistent on buggering around in this one, too. Never a man to ask anyone to do something he wasn't prepared to himself, today he pops up in Antwerp, of all places. He's determined to see in person whether his mildly hare-brained scheme with the Royal Naval Division (still on the train, and if they weren't ready to kill before, they certainly are now) is going to pay off. And, being Churchill, he isn't content with just sitting and watching. He writes to London, suggesting that he personally be given an appropriate military rank so that he can take command of the defence. This suggestion allegedly gained the approval of Lord Kitchener, but the rest of the Cabinet meets it with the gales of laughter that it undoubtedly deserves. The Germans are blissfully unaware of all this hilarity, preoccupied as they are with starting to move their infantry forward through the wreckage of the outer forts. The situation is desperate, and the Belgians are in desperate need of more reinforcement than one upper-class twit and the prodigious moustaches of the Royal Marines. Meanwhile, even more comedy down in the Indian Ocean, at the Chagos Islands. The remote (and subsequently infamous) British colony of Diego Garcia receives a rare visit from a naval cruiser, and they dutifully give it all the welcome and honours that its station demands. Unfortunately for them, the cruiser is SMS Emden. The colony is so remote that it has no radio, and therefore no means of communication with the outside world. Nobody's dropped by to check on them in the last few months. They have no idea that they're supposed to be at war with the friendly German sailors, and for some strange reason Captain Muller is not in a hurry to correct this impression. Instead, they spend a pleasant week repairing Emden's damage, careening her hull, providing her with coal, and selling odds and sods to the crew.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:The most important thing these estates did was grant the monarch money, which, given the way war works, was increasingly important in Early Modern Europe because everyone was always at war with each other (if they weren't fighting a civil war at the time, and sometimes even then). Of course, the estates didn't give over money readily, mostly because they were the ones who had to pay for it. Interestingly, the peasants were kept out of the Secret Committee (foreign affairs) in the Swedish parliament because the peasants almost never supported war. Between 1718 and 1772 the monarch was stripped of all powers and the parliament ran the country. The parliament even decided to have the authority to sign laws in the monarch's name (using a quite literal rubber stamp) which didn't sit well with some people. However, a pretty disastrous war got the people on the side of absolutism again so Gustavus III carried out a coup with the support of the military. And then his son turned out to be a more or less crazy Jesus freak which led to him pissing off Russia on a constant basis. And that's how Sweden lost Finland.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Meanwhile, even more comedy down in the Indian Ocean, at the Chagos Islands. The remote (and subsequently infamous) British colony of Diego Garcia receives a rare visit from a naval cruiser, and they dutifully give it all the welcome and honours that its station demands. Unfortunately for them, the cruiser is SMS Emden. The colony is so remote that it has no radio, and therefore no means of communication with the outside world. Nobody's dropped by to check on them in the last few months. They have no idea that they're supposed to be at war with the friendly German sailors, and for some strange reason Captain Muller is not in a hurry to correct this impression. Instead, they spend a pleasant week repairing Emden's damage, careening her hull, providing her with coal, and selling odds and sods to the crew. Oh my god the kriegsmarine owns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Oh my god the kriegsmarine owns. Kaiserliche Marine, kamerad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
I would say that's got to be the most awkward shore visit ever but I'm pretty sure history would disprove me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:The Parliament of the Estates worked in a way that gave most of the actual power to the nobles and the clergy, and while the burghers and the peasants had representation, they had almost no influence in foreign policy which was the big deal. It worked reasonably well most of the time. The basic way of doing parliament arose in the 15th century and the Estates were abolished during the 19th century during parliamentary reform. Sweden's again here a nice exception because pretty much nowhere else did the peasants have any sort of representation. I might have gotten a slanted view in Swedish History, but wasn't Sweden rather unique in the degree to which peasants owned the land they worked in the Middle Ages?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Hunterhr posted:I would say that's got to be the most awkward shore visit ever but I'm pretty sure history would disprove me. I actually suspect that sort of thing happened all the time back in the day. I'm pretty sure von Spee's ships were doing the same thing out in the Pacific, and a similar thing happened at the Capture of Guam during the Spanish-American War. USS Charleston had orders to go off and capture Guam, but when he arrived the local authorities had no idea there was even a war on. Charleston fired 13 rounds at an old fort to no effect, the Spaniards assumed it was a salute of sorts, and a weird little comedy played out over the next two days with the Captain of Charleston trying to induce the Spanish governor to surrender. In any event, I seem to remember reading that the fort was out of gunpowder anyway  . You could probably write an amusing play about it if you were so inclined.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 00:14
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Groda posted:I might have gotten a slanted view in Swedish History, but wasn't Sweden rather unique in the degree to which peasants owned the land they worked in the Middle Ages? The no serfdom thing is strictly not unique, but somewhat exceptional though owning land is a different sort of animal. Landowning tended to fluctuate a lot in general in a cycle of nobles being the biggest landowners -> reduction. At any given time, a large number of peasants worked either the land of some noble or the crown's land and at times one or the other was more beneficial to them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 14:28 |
|
|
Yeah, von Spee pulled off a similar stunt during his crossing of the South Pacific.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 09:34
|
|
