"WHAT MADE THE WARS OF THE AGE OF REASON REASONABLE?" Topic
23 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the 18th Century Discussion Message Board
Areas of Interest18th Century
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Profile ArticlePart II of the Gates of Old Jerusalem.
Featured Book Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
OSchmidt | 11 Mar 2014 9:50 a.m. PST |
I have no doubt that this question has been done before in another way and another time, but one never looks at a great work of art once, and it's a good topic to spark some interesting thought. The starting hypothesis I will throw out to get the ball rolling is that all of the wars from say 1683 to 1789 were fought for limited objectives and such objectives were limited in that they were for very specific and definable things. This province, that fortress, this trade route, that crown. None of them were for ill-defined and open ended things like "God." "religion," "Philosophical Principles" or "Nationalism", the latter of which is essentially the same as religion only in this case God is the state or the nation. Nor were any of the objectives unrealizable or undefinable, like "Europe," "the World," etc. Even for all its declaration of independence, the battle was for the 13 colonies, that is concrete and definable objects. Therefore, as these things could be defined and created into discernible objects, one could know when one had attained the objective of the war, or was unable to. There it is, have at it. |
daubere | 11 Mar 2014 10:11 a.m. PST |
Most wars begin with limited objectives, they just get bigger once the ball starts rolling
It's arguable that the SYW was the first world war. The wars between the French and British in North America were all about expanding empires. So were the wars between the Turks and the Austrians, and Frederick the Great may have been fighting to save his crown but he did so at the expense of several other nations. |
OSchmidt | 11 Mar 2014 10:17 a.m. PST |
Dear Daubre You didn't answer the question. You're arguing with the question. What made the wars the way they were, not what latter ages think they see in the wars. |
YogiBearMinis | 11 Mar 2014 10:44 a.m. PST |
The label Age of Reason has little to do with warfare per se, it is a label for the intellectual and cultural climate of the century as defined by historians of the so-called "Enlightenment". The wars of this century are not called the "Wars of the Age of Reason" because the wars themselves were or were not reasonable. |
khurasanminiatures | 11 Mar 2014 11:14 a.m. PST |
I would argue with the question as well, because it's not called "The Age of Reason" due to the wars fought during the period being reasonable. |
OSchmidt | 11 Mar 2014 11:43 a.m. PST |
Dear Khurasan miniatures and RwPhillips. Well you still haven't answered the question. Just proved you are argumentative. The question really is what gives the observable conduct of the war it's characteristic style, conduct and methodology. Why is war in what we call "The Age of Reason" the way it is? That's what my case was aimed at. |
Sir Samuel Vimes | 11 Mar 2014 12:35 p.m. PST |
I would say that is a product of the times. Wars of Religion, like the 30 years war, could be sprawling, wretched and disastrous. I think that would have left a mental scar of sorts and made more focussed and limited war with more easily defined goals more attractive. I think smaller and more professional armies are a bi product of the goal. Much of the intellectual "spirit of the century" seems geared towards the idea that there was a proper form to be followed in all things and that discovering and perfecting the right way to do a thing was a worthy thing to do in life. This extends to all arts and sciences, including the art of war. Very much a time for orderly and linear progress as an aspirational design element of life. At the street level, for the common man or woman, well, I'd guess that it was much the same chaos; looting, rape, turmoil and costumed homicide as before. |
Delbruck | 11 Mar 2014 12:40 p.m. PST |
Since the original poster insists on rating the answers, let's rate the question, your choices are: A. Unintersting B. Boring C. Tedious D. Monotonous E. Dull F. |
khurasanminiatures | 11 Mar 2014 2:02 p.m. PST |
Dear Khurasan miniatures and RwPhillips.Well you still haven't answered the question. Just proved you are argumentative. It's not being argumentative to point out that the premise of a question is not necessarily correct. If I ask, "why does 1+1 equal 3," you wouldn't be argumentative by pointing out that 1+1 does not = 3. |
abdul666lw | 11 Mar 2014 3:17 p.m. PST |
No passion (ideological, patriotic, religious) hence no hatred. No frenzied mobs, no (or little) conscription, no masses of boys and husbands teared away from their families, no 'little daddies forcefully disguised as soldiers' who have to be intoxicated with hatred to stand the bloodbath. War fought mostly by professionals, the officers striving to behave elegantly, courteously, their 'gentlemanly' attitude rubbing on the regular troops. The reasons of the wars were 'far above' and thus largely indifferent to those doing the fight. Wars fought, for the military, for duty and honor, with zeal but without passion. No nationalism: officers could gain experience in the service of another country, and for the troops (with the changing alliance and enlistment of deserters) the enemy of to-day could be the comrade-in-arms of the next day. All in all an atmosphere not dissimilar to that of, say, football (soccer) to-day: it's perfectly admitted that a coach from a country can train a team in another country, that men of a nationality play in the team located in another country, that a player who is an opponent to-day could be a member of your team to-morrow. |
Musketier | 12 Mar 2014 4:04 a.m. PST |
"At the street level, for the common man or woman, well, I'd guess that it was much the same chaos; looting, rape, turmoil and costumed homicide as before." A lot less than during the Thirty Years' War, as you quite rightly note yourself. Frederick the Great is credited with the aspiration at least that "the good burgher must not notice that the soldier is fighting". |
OSchmidt | 12 Mar 2014 4:55 a.m. PST |
Dear Jean Louis You have certainly outlined the highlights of the character of the war. No Massacre as a rule from the previous century- no Magdeburgs or Heidelbergs, and certainly there was not the scourge of nationalism (which I hold to be quite different from patriotism) as in the next and certainly the 20th centuries. But what do you think was the cause that caused this conduct to be pursued? Certainly there were murders, rapes, lootings, and crimes, but they seem to have been on a small scale and not a matter of policy. Granted to the person murdered or raped or looted the degree of difference between similar victims in the 17th and 19th centuries was not noticeable, but there was a general difference. I can't help but think that the marginalization of religion and the generalization of the attitudes of the "politiques" in France (that a Protestant and Catholic could still be a good Frenchman) and the development of what a "Gentleman" was had a hand in it. Also, I think that while Patriotism was on the rise, Patriotism is not the same as "nationalism" which for this discussion I define as "A belief that only the members of ones political nation are human and the rest of the world somewhat less so. |
abdul666lw | 12 Mar 2014 2:18 p.m. PST |
While it's certainly true that *ultimately* in Western Europe wars in the 18th C. were more controlled than in the previous and next centuries because they were not wagged for 'great causes' (only 'wars of succession' between the previous 'wars of religions' and the 'wars of revolution' and 'wars of secession' to come), the determining factor in practice, in the field, was that those who fought these wars did not care about their reasons. They fought for reasons of their own: money, of course (though most noble officers thought they were paying the generational 'blood tax' of their family, doing the service that justified their 'aristocratic' status; and if they were honest, given the prevarications of the Commissariat it *cost* them money to keep their company or regiment well fed and equipped). But also, and perhaps even more (even for the troops) for *pride*; personal, familial, regimental pride. They strove to deserve their self-esteem and that of their comrades, to bring honor to the name of their family and their regiment. They took the king's coin, but for a service which, since the emergence of a warrior nobility, was deemed 'noble', and they tried to act 'nobly', each at his own level. It was a time when soldiers dressed in their best uniform to go the 'dancing party', to the 'feast', and preferred esteem their 'enemy'. Sounds rather silly in our time where only result matters, and the 'Lace Wars' appear to our modern eyes almost artificial, theatrical. Fontenoy: 'Shoot first, gentlemen, I pray you!'
Louis XV to his son: 'The blood of the enemy also is human blood.'
--- PS: off-topic since TMP is not the place for such debate, *according to my experience* sentences like 'The patriot loves his country, the nationalist hates all other countries', the positive connotations attached to patriotism and the negative ones attached to nationalism, are the exact opposite truth. Nationalists just wish for people feeling they belong to the same 'nation' to live together on a land of their own (an aspect of the 'Droit des Peuples à disposer d'eux-même, right of the peoples to self determination) and have no problem, no quarrel with other 'nationalities' and 'nationalists' except where History left a mosaic of community. 'Patriots' on the other hand are too often chauvinistic, revanchist and xenophobic.
|
Westerner | 12 Mar 2014 2:26 p.m. PST |
With petty dynastic struggles still dominating European politics, the question might best be "how enlightened was your despot?". Parliamentary democracy, on the other hand, that's reasonable. So, clearly, it was Britain that made the Age of Reason reasonable. All we wanted was to promote trade and to preserve the balance of power in Europe. All very reasonable. If only the French had not tried to keep India and North America for themselves, no one would have got hurt
God save the King! |
Nadir Shah | 17 Mar 2014 11:02 p.m. PST |
Good grief man its not nationalism that is defined as all other peoples are not human, that is National Socialism your describing, which is different to fascism and different again to nationalism. Patriotism and nationalism are the same thing. Obtuse nationalism is fascism and ideological nationalism based on superior humans is Nazis (National Socialism). As for Patriotism, the only truly patriotic forces were the Rebellious peoples of North America, who for various reasons, some justified and others less so – rebelled, re AWI. To justify the rebellion smart men raised the bar patriotic polemic, a new nation, an ideal nation etc. The need to prot3ect the cause for the rebellion drove the polemic being the cry of patriotism. (Now personally its a good thing they rebelled, because the rise of industrialisation etc helped tip the balance again the Germans in WW1 and WW2, so no harm done from one colonial to another. That said that was the pretty much the only time nationalism, patriotism or whatever really arose in the 18th century, or as you like to call it "The Age of Reason" (Hardly reasonable – slavery was at its height, basic human rights were in many countries below par, re Jews, poor classes, etc classism (in its true state not Marxist definition) was rife, the states were ruled by Kings not patriots and the people lived and fought for their kings and ideology, religion, world view, whatever you wish to label it). There is also a personal bias I feel coming through based on a belief that post 18th century was enlightened. Enlightened about what? The wars of religion between Catholic and Protestant were certainly terrible, but then the wars post enlightenment were disastrous as well as – humanism, Socialism and Nazi's beliefs and ideology replacing the former Catholic and Protestant ideology. My personal base is there is no such thing as an age of reason or enlightenment, just one power group replacing another and the lesser powers fighting to stay, free alive or unmolested by the superior powers. Basically all of human history
.. Just my humble opinion :) |
OSchmidt | 18 Mar 2014 3:54 a.m. PST |
Dear Siege Works Studio "Good grief man its not nationalism that is defined as all other peoples are not human, that is National Socialism your describing, which is different to fascism and different again to nationalism" Rally> Read the lyrics to the Marsielles, especially when it talks about cleansing the nation of impure blood." National Socialism is the unavoidable consequence of nationalism. Nationalism says it's something in the water, or something in the culture or something in the blood. Doesn't matter, works out the same. However, you too are arguing the question. You still then have to explain WHY the Wars of the Age of Reason had the peculiar character they did, AND what caused it. |
OSchmidt | 18 Mar 2014 4:11 a.m. PST |
Dear Siege Works Zatso? Let's take a look at two national anthems. La Marseilles and Deutschland Uber alles in their original lyrics. Allons enfants de la Patrie, Arise, children of the Fatherland, Le jour de gloire est arrivé ! The day of glory has arrived! Contre nous de la tyrannie, Against us tyranny L'étendard sanglant est levé, (bis) Raises its bloody banner (repeat) Entendez-vous dans les campagnes Do you hear, in the countryside, Mugir ces féroces soldats ? The roar of those ferocious soldiers? Ils viennent jusque dans vos bras They're coming right into your arms Égorger vos fils, vos compagnes ! To cut the throats of your sons and women! Aux armes, citoyens, To arms, citizens, Formez vos bataillons, Form your battalions, Marchons, marchons ! Let's march, let's march! Qu'un sang impur Let an impure blood Abreuve nos sillons ! Water our furrows! (repeat) Que veut cette horde d'esclaves, What does this horde of slaves, De traîtres, de rois conjurés ? Of traitors and conjured kings want? Pour qui ces ignobles entraves, For whom are these vile chains, Ces fers dès longtemps préparés ? (bis) These long-prepared irons? (repeat) Français, pour nous, ah ! quel outrage Frenchmen, for us, ah! What outrage Quels transports il doit exciter ! What fury it must arouse! C'est nous qu'on ose méditer It is us they dare plan De rendre à l'antique esclavage ! To return to the old slavery! Aux armes, citoyens
To arms, citizens
Quoi ! des cohortes étrangères What! Foreign cohorts Feraient la loi dans nos foyers ! Would make the law in our homes! Quoi ! Ces phalanges mercenaires What! These mercenary phalanxes Terrasseraient nos fiers guerriers ! (bis) Would strike down our proud warriors! (repeat) Grand Dieu ! Par des mains enchaînées Great God ! By chained hands Nos fronts sous le joug se ploieraient Our brows would yield under the yoke De vils despotes deviendraient Vile despots would have themselves Les maîtres de nos destinées ! The masters of our destinies! Aux armes, citoyens
To arms, citizens
Tremblez, tyrans et vous perfides Tremble, tyrants and you traitors L'opprobre de tous les partis, The shame of all parties, Tremblez ! vos projets parricides Tremble! Your parricidal schemes Vont enfin recevoir leurs prix ! (bis) Will finally receive their reward! (repeat) Tout est soldat pour vous combattre, Everyone is a soldier to combat you S'ils tombent, nos jeunes héros, If they fall, our young heroes, La terre en produit de nouveaux, The earth will produce new ones, Contre vous tout prêts à se battre ! Ready to fight against you! Aux armes, citoyens
To arms, citizens
Français, en guerriers magnanimes, Frenchmen, as magnanimous warriors, Portez ou retenez vos coups ! You bear or hold back your blows! Épargnez ces tristes victimes, You spare those sorry victims, À regret s'armant contre nous. (bis) Who arm against us with regret. (repeat) Mais ces despotes sanguinaires, But not these bloodthirsty despots, Mais ces complices de Bouillé, These accomplices of Bouillé, Tous ces tigres qui, sans pitié, All these tigers who, mercilessly, Déchirent le sein de leur mère ! Rip their mother's breast! Aux armes, citoyens
To arms, citizens
Amour sacré de la Patrie, Sacred love of the Fatherland, Conduis, soutiens nos bras vengeurs Lead, support our avenging arms Liberté, Liberté chérie, Liberty, cherished Liberty, Combats avec tes défenseurs ! (bis) Fight with thy defenders! (repeat) Sous nos drapeaux que la victoire Under our flags, shall victory Accoure à tes mâles accents, Hurry to thy manly accents, Que tes ennemis expirants That thy expiring enemies, Voient ton triomphe et notre gloire ! See thy triumph and our glory! Aux armes, citoyens
To arms, citizens
(Couplet des enfants) (Children's Verse) Nous entrerons dans la carrière[12] We shall enter the (military) career Quand nos aînés n'y seront plus, When our elders are no longer there, Nous y trouverons leur poussière There we shall find their dust Et la trace de leurs vertus (bis) And the trace of their virtues (repeat) Bien moins jaloux de leur survivre Much less keen to survive them Que de partager leur cercueil, Than to share their coffins, Nous aurons le sublime orgueil We shall have the sublime pride De les venger ou de les suivre Of avenging or following them Deutschland, Deutschland über alles, Über alles in der Welt, Wenn es stets zu Schutz und Trutze Brüderlich zusammenhält. Von der Maas bis an die Memel, Von der Etsch bis an den Belt, |: Deutschland, Deutschland über alles, Über alles in der Welt! :| Germany, Germany above everything, Above everything in the world, When, for protection and defense, it always takes a brotherly stand together. From the Meuse to the Memel, From the Adige to the Belt, |: Germany, Germany above everything, Above everything in the world! :| Deutsche Frauen, deutsche Treue, Deutscher Wein und deutscher Sang Sollen in der Welt behalten Ihren alten schönen Klang, Uns zu edler Tat begeistern Unser ganzes Leben lang. |: Deutsche Frauen, deutsche Treue, Deutscher Wein und deutscher Sang! :| German women, German loyalty, German wine and German song Shall retain in the world Their old beautiful chime And inspire us to noble deeds During all of our life. |: German women, German loyalty, German wine and German song! :| Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit Für das deutsche Vaterland! Danach lasst uns alle streben Brüderlich mit Herz und Hand! Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit Sind des Glückes Unterpfand; |: Blüh' im Glanze dieses Glückes, Blühe, deutsches Vaterland! :| Unity and justice and freedom For the German fatherland! For these let us all strive Brotherly with heart and hand! Unity and justice and freedom Are the pledge of fortune; |: Flourish in this fortune's blessing, Flourish, German fatherland! :| the Marseilles sounds a lot more National Socialistic with all this cutting of throats and cleasning the nation of an impure blood, of slaughter, of mercenary phalanxes, Oh well these Frenchies always exaggerate and bloviate. On the other hand, I don't hear any of that in Deutschland uber alles. A lot of tong about German women and German wine and German loyalty, but none of this folderol of characterizing the "other" as mercenary phalanxes an almost inhuman beings sent to oppress others.
Of course there were other songs, and yes, Germany was unfortunately the example of National Socialism, but sorry-- the end of nationalism always has to be fascism. In the songs above, Deutschland uber Alles sounds more like Patriotism and the Marseilles like the creed of a rabid dog. Which of course the French Revolution was, the rule of rabid dogs with no idea of liberty.
|
Nadir Shah | 18 Mar 2014 6:36 a.m. PST |
Its interesting to note that both anthems were written post 18th century (well the Marseilles during the revolution, so still post the Age of Frederick and such) The German anthem is about unification of all the German states. You are no longer, Franconian, Baden, Mecklenburg etc but German (well Prussian German in this instance) and the French anthem was inspired by a need to defend the French people, newly liberated from tyranny (although the humanistic violence of the Jacobin etc was no better) against the foreign invaders in this instance the Austrians and Prussians. Again, there is no ability whatsoever of implying the French during this time as National Socialists, which seems to be what you are saying
.. Secondly exactly when does nationalism always end on fascism, the USA, Great Britain and Vietnam are not fascist states and all have been extremely patriotic, the Vietnamese even becoming socialist not fascist! So perhaps a revision of using always is a good idea. Thirdly, I thought I had answered the question, by stating that your post modern reflection of a previous era is stoked in generalizations that did not actually exist at that time. There was no peculiarities of the era than any other era, no enlightened brilliance post shaking of the shackles of Roman Catholicism. (Again a bit of a misnomer, because most of the wars of religion were actually fought to extend control over the German states by France and Austria). There was nothing about the era that was any different to the last 400 years prior (except of course a change in technology and consequent change in military tactics). Small professional armies were hired all through the Renaissance, especially in Italy, but not only thus, the Landsneckt is a good example of this! Basically my point is this – its not up to anyone to prove the era needs to be explained as peculiar and the manifestations involved in that peculiarity, the explaining is up to you to prove that the era was in point of fact peculiar! I certainly see no real differences in the way policy, commerce and identity were expressed during this time than previously! Lastly, I do feel that you have bee listening to some rather shady polemic that does not even fit established ideas regarding nationalism, socialism, fascism and national socialism. I am a little confused by the way you interpret and define these definitions. Just my two cents worth, well maybe half a cents worth :) |
abdul666lw | 18 Mar 2014 6:38 a.m. PST |
Dear Otto, you are precisely illustrating two of my points: - wars ceased to be 'reasonable' as soon as they were wagged, not by cold professionals with a some 'gentlemanly behavior' / 'sportsmanship' ethical requirements, but by frenzied civilian mobs maddened by passion (be it political or religious) and kept such by a brainwashing of hatred. - 'La Marseillaise' is a typical *patriotic* song, and universally deemed as such. By contrast, as 'nationalist' song I'll mention 'Wenn alle untreu werden' link . YouTube link (and yes, I know, as the 'Treuelied' it was adopted by the SS). German nationalism was born in reaction to Napoleonic invasions, and Max von Schenkendorf's beautiful poem, while dedicated to the Austrian Emperor, is an homage to the Prussian resistance under Ferdinand von Schill as well as to the Tyrolean one under Andreas Hofer. Note that there is not a single word of *hatred*, no call to murder. The 'enemy' is not named, and when the poem was made into a song it was on a *French* melody; not surprising in a country where the highest Prussian, then German until 1919, military distinction had a French name and bore a French motto Pour le Mérite. By contrast this other typical and well-known, almost iconic here, *patriotic* French song 'La Stasbourgeoise' link ('The little girl of Strasbourg'), an obscenity of tears-dragging demagogy, is an accumulation of explicitly anti-'Prussian' mantras. And I'm French, btw. |
OSchmidt | 18 Mar 2014 10:07 a.m. PST |
Dear Jean Louis No, I think we are in agreement. I'm arguing with Siege works that it's nationalism Certainly you can ALWAYS find over-the top, treacle or hateful jingoistic songs. I agree with your assessment that "- wars ceased to be 'reasonable' as soon as they were wagged, not by cold professionals with a some 'gentlemanly behavior' / 'sportsmanship' ethical requirements, but by frenzied civilian mobs maddened by passion (be it political or religious) and kept such by a brainwashing of hatred." See we do agree sometimes. I know it's rare. I further would add that they might not have always been "coldly professional with some gentlemanly behavior, sportsmanship, but they were often related to each other." Otto |
Westerner | 20 Mar 2014 4:27 p.m. PST |
|
Keef44 | 22 Mar 2014 3:11 p.m. PST |
I throw into the ring the following quote from the introduction to Dennis Showalter's 'Frederick the Great: A Military History': "Few interpretative structures have been as thoroughly shredded in the past quarter century as the one describing the eighteenth century as an age of limited war. Images of battles fought in vacuums by marginalised men while normal people freely go about their business no longer survive even in textbooks." So I return to the comments of the first few responders – the premise of the question is unsound. The SYW in particular was not fought for limited objectives, but rather for the survival or destruction of the Prussian state. Furthermore, all this stuff about dispassionate gentlemanly behaviour relates only to the officers, and probably only to some of them. I hardly think there was anything dispassionate about charging the enemy in the face of canister and close range musketry, or observing what happened to men and horses when that musketry and canister was received. Indeed I believe Duffy and others have argued that the appallingly concentrated nature of an 18th century battle could produce the kind of traumatic mental breakdown associated with days or weeks of battle in the 20th century. And if I'm not mistaken, this 'shoot first gentleman I pray you!' from Fontenoy is just a legend anyway. Best wishes to all, Keith. |
Keef44 | 22 Mar 2014 3:17 p.m. PST |
And another thing – the idea that "Certainly there were murders, rapes, lootings, and crimes, but they seem to have been on a small scale and not a matter of policy". is not, I believe, supported by the evidence. The destructive policy Frederick adopted towards Saxony is a case in point. |
|