cahn: (Default)
cahn ([personal profile] cahn) wrote2021-10-04 10:27 pm
Entry tags:

Frederick the Great and Other 18th-C Characters, Discussion Post 31

And in this post:

-[personal profile] luzula is going to tell us about the Jacobites and the '45!

-I'm going to finish reading Nancy Goldstone's book about Maria Theresia and (some of) her children Maria Christina, Maria Carolina, and Marie Antoinette, In the Shadow of the Empress, and [personal profile] selenak is going to tell us all the things wrong with the last four chapters (spoiler: in the first twenty chapters there have been many, MANY things wrong)!

-[personal profile] mildred_of_midgard is going to tell us about Charles XII of Sweden and the Great Northern War

(seriously, how did I get so lucky to have all these people Telling Me Things, this is AWESOME)

-oh, and also there will be Yuletide signups :D
selenak: (Default)

Re: Swedish Genealogy and Succession Crises

[personal profile] selenak 2021-11-03 02:09 am (UTC)(link)
Well, the Jacobite conflict wasn‘t the only one in the 18th Century bearing traces of what‘s to come. The 7 Years War was also a propaganda war, with Prussia very much styling itself as a) defender of Protestants against evil oppressive Catholics (never mind that of the four opposing monarchies, one was Sweden and one was Russia), and b) defender of Germans against invading foreigners whereas the Austrians were teaming up with them. This, btw, makes for a crossover of the preceding century where the 30 Years War of course started as a gigantic war of religion and the upcoming one with its rise of nationalism. It also was pretty successful with the majority of German speaking writers at least, who are the ones leaving behind pamphlets, articles and poetry.

(Not to mention, of course, that in the 19th Century once Prussia had completed its rise to the top the Prussian pov became the official German pov of history, and it took eons until this changed again.)

And then, near the end of 18th century, you get the French Revolution, and subsequently Napoleon, at which point it‘s both ideology and rising nationalism time everywhere. The war against revolutionary France after the executions of their royals was very much the antithesis to all those succession wars that dominated the first half of said century, and if you look at the text of the Marsaillaise, written during this time, you get the wish for the blood of the invaders to drench the acres of France and la patrie and what not. Which fits - here, you had to motivate and mobilize a great number of underequipped people, and then they actually won, to the great surprise of the monarchies allied against them. And then, of course, once Napoleon makes it to the top, he explicitly frames his territorial go getting in terms of France „liberating“ other countries via exporting the revolution‘s gains to them, while the fight against him gets increasingly framed in modern national and ideological terms in Spain, Russia and Germany, and the connection of having to motivate an ever greater number of less and less illiterate people is most definitely there!
mildred_of_midgard: (Default)

Re: Swedish Genealogy and Succession Crises

[personal profile] mildred_of_midgard 2021-11-03 09:30 pm (UTC)(link)
. And then, of course, once Napoleon makes it to the top, he explicitly frames his territorial go getting in terms of France „liberating“ other countries via exporting the revolution‘s gains to them

Which predates Napoleon: the revolutionaries were already "liberating" other countries in the first half of the 1790s. It started with local protests in Alsace and Avignon to join with revolutionary France, and the leaders of the revolution decided that the "will of the people" trumped any treaties made decades ago by old regime monarchs with old regime monarchs. Then it quickly evolved to "If the people of other countries are too stupid to know they want freedom, we will have to 'liberate' them! Invade!"
luzula: a Luzula pilosa, or hairy wood-rush (Default)

Re: Swedish Genealogy and Succession Crises

[personal profile] luzula 2021-11-03 09:58 pm (UTC)(link)
Thanks for elaborating! Interesting.

I have got the impression that in most of the 18th century, religion and not politics was the great divider. Like, politics was something most people were pragmatic about, and you could associate with someone of a different political party socially. But for a Protestant to socialize with a Catholic could be shocking, or for someone from a more radical Protestant movement to socialize with a more conservative one.

Whereas today, who really cares that Joe Biden is a Catholic and not a Protestant; what people care about is whether he's a Democrat or a Republican.

But on the third hand, weren't there also a fair number among the 18th century elite who weren't actually particularly religious? Enlightenment, and cynicism about religion...

(Er, sorry about all my general questions and musings!)
mildred_of_midgard: (Default)

Re: Swedish Genealogy and Succession Crises

[personal profile] mildred_of_midgard 2021-11-05 06:17 pm (UTC)(link)
Agreed! The alchemy requires question asking, because the one thing I really suck at is asking questions.

That said, the reason I haven't replied to this wonderful question is that I've been waiting for [personal profile] selenak. She's much better at putting her knowledge into a big-picture summary than I am. It's not that I don't have the knowledge, it's that organizing it into a big picture take is like pulling teeth for me, always has been. So part of the alchemy is that Selena and I make a good team with our different focuses. (I suspect many of the things I do would be like pulling teeth for her, that's why salon is so great.

I have the same alchemy at work with my new boss, where he's prioritizing what projects get done when based on business needs, while I'm busy making sure all the boxes get checked and t's get crossed when we work on whatever we work on.)

Question-asking is also like pulling teeth for me, that's why it's so great to have people who I admire for just doing it!

My strength is "So where exactly was the Brüner Tor located in Wesel?" i.e. what we call detective work, which you saw in action when I tracked down the text of the bill that told us exactly what legal stance a captured BPC would have had in 1746. :)

And the questions you ask are not necessarily questions I would ask (Me: Can I have more gossip on X, Y, and Z? lol, I am a simple woman)

LOL! If not for your dedicated pursuit of the gossip, would the three of us have sustained a 2.7 million word interest over the last 2+ years? I beg leave to doubt it. :D
luzula: a Luzula pilosa, or hairy wood-rush (Default)

Re: Swedish Genealogy and Succession Crises

[personal profile] luzula 2021-11-06 09:52 am (UTC)(link)
Well, my question here was maybe too vague, as of course that sort of thing (attitudes towards religion and politics) varies over time and between places, and "religion" and "politics" are huge and varied things in themselves! But yeah, I get the point: asking questions is good. : )

My strength is "So where exactly was the Brüner Tor located in Wesel?" i.e. what we call detective work, which you saw in action when I tracked down the text of the bill that told us exactly what legal stance a captured BPC would have had in 1746. :)

I was quite impressed by that! : ) I mean, it wasn't obvious that the answer would be in a bill at all, it all could just have been contained in informal discussions between the main Hanoverian actors so that we would never know, or was contained in archived letters. But nope, actually debated in Parliament.

Meanwhile, I am getting nowhere on your question about the primary sources for BPC:s conversion to Anglicanism. : ( Searching Google books and Google scholar for keywords gets me nothing, but what I can say is that pretty much every book about BPC contains this claim, including lots of books from after the 90's, which is when you heard doubts of it. Most often there are no references for the claim. When there are, it's to some older book which I can't get hold of. The closest I've come to primary sources is Duffy, who quotes a letter from William King, who is one of the people who met BPC on his visit to England in 1750. But the letter doesn't directly mention his conversion, it's just about King's opinion on BPC in that meeting in general.

At this point I think I'd have to email one of the historians involved to ask what the primary sources are. I myself am inclined not to doubt it--it seems quite reasonable that if several people met BPC in London in 1750 and one of them was an Anglican priest who witnessed his conversion, that they would leave letters or other writings behind which confirm it, especially as I've seen quotes from a letter from one of these people. It seems unreasonable to me that reputable historians would keep claiming it if the evidence wasn't there, if it was questioned in the '90:s--but maybe I'm too trusting that historians will do their job. : )

I have also now read that BPC re-converted back to Catholicism around 1760 when he wanted the papacy to pay his bills.