Who was Napoleon Bonaparte and what were the main events of his early life? Entry 26

Napoleon Bonaparte (1769–1821), later Emperor Napoleon I of France, was one of the pivotal figures in the history of modern Europe. A product of the French Revolution, he consolidated many of its reforms while simultaneously establishing an increasingly authoritarian state and eventually an imperial dynasty. His armies spread French political and legal institutions across much of continental Europe, while also stimulating powerful reactions in the form of nationalism and resistance to French domination.

Some historians have portrayed Napoleon as an ambitious authoritarian or even a megalomaniac; others have emphasized his role in spreading the principles of legal equality, secular government and meritocratic advancement associated with the Revolution. Both interpretations contain elements of truth. What is beyond dispute is that Napoleon dominated European affairs from his seizure of power in 1799 until his final defeat in 1815, helping to shape the political landscape of nineteenth-century Europe.

Napoleon was born on 15 August 1769 in Ajaccio, Corsica, only a year after the island had been transferred from the Republic of Genoa to France. His family belonged to the minor Corsican nobility. The Bonapartes were of Italian origin, having roots in Tuscany before settling in Corsica. Napoleon was the second of eight surviving children, with five brothers and three sisters: Joseph, Lucien, Elisa, Louis, Pauline, Caroline and Jérôme.

His Corsican upbringing remained an important part of his identity, particularly during his early years. In 1779, at the age of nine, he was sent to the military school at Brienne-le-Château in mainland France. He was reportedly teased by some of his fellow students for his Corsican accent and background. He nevertheless distinguished himself academically, particularly in mathematics, a subject that would serve him well in his chosen branch of the military.

In 1784 he was admitted to the École Militaire in Paris, where he specialized in artillery. He graduated in 1785 after an accelerated course of study following the death of his father, Carlo Bonaparte. Napoleon received his commission as a second lieutenant of artillery in the French army at the remarkably young age of sixteen.

The outbreak of the French Revolution in 1789 transformed Napoleon's career. Initially, he remained deeply attached to Corsica and supported the Corsican revolutionary movement. His political allegiance eventually brought him into conflict with Pasquale Paoli, the prominent Corsican nationalist leader. As relations between France and Paoli deteriorated, the Bonaparte family was forced to leave Corsica in 1793 and settled in mainland France.

Napoleon's first major military opportunity came at the Siege of Toulon in 1793. Toulon had rebelled against the revolutionary government and had been occupied with the assistance of British and other allied forces. Napoleon, then only twenty-four, served as an artillery officer and played an important role in developing the strategy that enabled Republican forces to capture the key forts overlooking the harbour. Toulon fell in December 1793, and Napoleon's performance earned him promotion to brigadier general.

His rapid rise was interrupted by the political upheavals of the Reign of Terror. Following the fall of Maximilien Robespierre in July 1794, Napoleon was briefly arrested and investigated because of his previous association with the Jacobins and his connections to figures who had supported Robespierre. He was released without being charged, but his career temporarily stalled.

His fortunes changed dramatically in October 1795. A Royalist uprising threatened the revolutionary government in Paris, and Napoleon was appointed to help defend the government. On 13 Vendémiaire Year IV in the Revolutionary calendar—5 October 1795—his forces used artillery and concentrated fire to disperse the insurgents. The episode became famous for the phrase “a whiff of grapeshot.” His successful defence of the government established him as an important military figure and brought him into the political orbit of the Directory.

In 1796, Napoleon married Joséphine de Beauharnais, a well-connected widow whose social and political connections helped introduce him into influential circles in Paris. That same year he was appointed commander of the French Army of Italy, marking the beginning of the military career that would make him famous throughout Europe.

The Italian Campaign of 1796–1797 was the decisive turning point in Napoleon's early career. Despite being poorly supplied and initially regarded as a secondary French army, his forces defeated the Austrians and their allies in a series of brilliant operations. Among the most important victories were Montenotte, Lodi, Castiglione, Arcole and Rivoli. Napoleon demonstrated an ability to move armies rapidly, concentrate forces against vulnerable points and exploit victories before his opponents could reorganize.

His successes forced Austria to negotiate. On 17 October 1797, France and Austria signed the Treaty of Campo Formio, which effectively ended the War of the First Coalition. France gained significant territories, including the Austrian Netherlands and substantial influence in Italy, while Austria received compensation elsewhere. Napoleon also agreed to the transfer of Venice and its territories to Austria. The ancient Venetian Republic, which had existed for more than a millennium, thereby came to an end. French forces had occupied and looted Venice before the transfer.

Napoleon returned to Paris in December 1797 as a national hero. His victories had dramatically strengthened French influence in continental Europe and had established him as perhaps the most celebrated military commander of revolutionary France.

Yet Napoleon's ambitions were only beginning. Within two years he would embark on the Egyptian Campaign, return to France amid political crisis, and overthrow the Directory in the coup of 18 Brumaire in 1799. That coup would transform him from a celebrated general into the dominant political figure in France and eventually lead to his coronation as Emperor of the French in 1804.

Napoleon's early life therefore illustrates the extraordinary opportunities created by the French Revolution. A minor nobleman from Corsica, initially an outsider in French society, was able to rise through the military hierarchy largely on the basis of talent and opportunity. By the end of the 1790s, the young artillery officer had become one of the most powerful figures in Europe, setting the stage for the Napoleonic era.

What were the causes of the French Revolution? Entry 25

 In brief, the French Revolution was a period of radical political and social transformation that ended the Ancien Régime, contributed to the development of our contemporary understanding of political philosophy, and established the French Republic. It is often regarded as a starting point in the transition to modern Europe and, in one respect, represents a fulfilment—although not always a positive one—of the ideals of the Enlightenment. The events that followed had far-reaching consequences during the Napoleonic era and contributed to the development of the nation-state system that would come to define Europe throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. 

So what were its causes?

Several interconnected factors contributed to the outbreak of the French Revolution.

One of the most important was the financial crisis of the French state. France had accumulated enormous debts as a result of costly wars, most notably the Seven Years’ War and France’s involvement in the American War of Independence. By the late eighteenth century, the government was struggling to service this debt, while a large portion of its revenue was already committed to paying interest. France was, in effect, drowning in debt, and attempts to reform the financial system repeatedly encountered resistance.

At the same time, the ideas of the Enlightenment were increasingly challenging the foundations of the existing political and social order. Enlightenment thinkers criticized aspects of absolute monarchy, arbitrary authority, religious intolerance, and the privileges enjoyed by established institutions. Philosophers such as Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Baron de Montesquieu, and Denis Diderot promoted ideas concerning reason, individual liberty, political representation, constitutional government, and the reform of society. Rousseau, particularly through The Social Contract, questioned traditional political authority and argued that legitimate government should be based on the will of the people. Montesquieu advocated the separation of powers and admired aspects of the English constitutional system, while Diderot played a central role in the publication of the Encyclopédie, a monumental project that sought to collect and disseminate knowledge. The American Revolution also demonstrated that Enlightenment principles could be translated into a new political order, further encouraging demands for reform in France.

The inequities of the French tax system deepened the crisis. French society was formally divided into three Estates: the First Estate, consisting of the clergy; the Second Estate, consisting of the nobility; and the Third Estate, which included everyone else, from the bourgeoisie to peasants and urban workers. Although the Third Estate represented the overwhelming majority of the population, it carried a disproportionate share of the tax burden. The privileged Estates enjoyed important exemptions and privileges, while attempts to introduce broader tax reforms faced resistance from groups determined to protect their traditional advantages. This system created not only economic inequality but also profound resentment toward the privileged orders.

There was also an increasingly important social conflict between the rising bourgeoisie and the aristocracy. Members of the bourgeoisie—merchants, professionals, lawyers, financiers, and other prosperous members of the Third Estate—were becoming wealthier and more educated. Yet their growing economic importance was not matched by equivalent political or social privileges. Many resented a system in which birth and inherited status could determine access to offices, influence, and prestige. The bourgeoisie therefore developed increasingly strong demands for political representation, equality before the law, and an end to aristocratic privilege.

The monarchy itself contributed to the crisis through political weakness and ineffective leadership. Louis XVI faced the difficult task of reforming a deeply entrenched political and social system while confronting opposition from privileged groups and institutions, including the provincial parlements, which could obstruct or resist royal attempts to implement reforms. The king's inability to resolve the financial crisis or build sufficient political support for reform gradually weakened confidence in the monarchy.

Finally, food shortages and economic hardship intensified popular discontent. A series of poor harvests contributed to rising grain and bread prices, placing enormous pressure on ordinary people, for whom bread was a basic necessity. The resulting hardship was particularly severe among the urban poor and peasants. The monarchy and political elites proved unable to adequately address the growing economic crisis, further undermining their legitimacy.

These factors did not operate independently. Financial crisis, social inequality, Enlightenment ideas, political weakness, aristocratic privilege, and food insecurity reinforced one another, creating a situation in which demands for reform increasingly became demands for fundamental political and social transformation. By 1789, the existing system was no longer able to contain these pressures, setting the stage for the outbreak of the French Revolution.

What was the Byzantine Emperor and how did its history play out? Entry 22

The Byzantine Empire, more accurately described as the Eastern Roman Empire, had its origins in the ancient Greek city of Byzantium, which Constantine the Great selected as the site of his new imperial capital. The city was extensively rebuilt and formally dedicated as Constantinople in 330 CE. Its strategic location between Europe and Asia, and its proximity to the empire's eastern frontier, allowed it to develop into one of the most important cities of the Roman world.

Following the death of Theodosius I in 395 CE, the Roman Empire was permanently divided for administrative purposes between its eastern and western halves. Unlike the Western Empire, which traditionally is considered to have fallen in 476 CE, the Eastern Roman Empire survived for almost another thousand years. Its inhabitants continued to regard themselves as Romans, while the term “Byzantine Empire” was a later designation adopted by modern historians.

The greatest of the Byzantine emperors was arguably Justinian I, who ruled from 527 to 565 CE. Justinian sought to restore Roman control over territories that had been lost in the West. His armies, commanded by generals such as Belisarius and Narses, reconquered North Africa from the Vandals, much of Italy from the Ostrogoths, and parts of southern Spain from the Visigoths. For a brief period, Justinian's empire once again stretched across large portions of the old Roman Mediterranean world.

Justinian's legacy extended well beyond military conquest. His reign produced the Corpus Juris Civilis, or Body of Civil Law, a comprehensive compilation and reorganization of Roman law carried out under the direction of the emperor's legal advisers. The work became enormously influential and eventually formed the foundation of many European legal traditions He also commissioned the construction of the magnificent Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. Completed in 537 CE, the enormous domed church became one of the greatest architectural achievements of the late Roman and Byzantine worlds. It remained a Christian cathedral for centuries, was converted into a mosque after the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453, later became a museum, and was again designated a mosque in the modern era.

Justinian's territorial gains, however, proved difficult to maintain. The Lombards invaded Italy in 568 CE, only a few years after Justinian's death, and captured large portions of the peninsula. Byzantine authority survived in several important regions, including Ravenna, Rome, and parts of southern Italy, but the empire never again controlled Italy as completely as it had under Justinian.

During the seventh century, the Byzantine Empire faced an even greater challenge from the rise of the Arab Muslim caliphates. Beginning in the 630s, Byzantine territories in Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and parts of Mesopotamia were conquered by Arab Muslim armies. Egypt, one of the empire's wealthiest provinces and an important source of grain, was permanently lost.

The character of the Eastern Roman Empire also changed during this period. Heraclius (610–641 CE) presided over a major transformation of the imperial state. Greek had long been widely used throughout the eastern Mediterranean, but during and after Heraclius's reign Greek increasingly replaced Latin as the principal language of imperial administration and culture. This transition reflected the changing character of the empire, which was becoming increasingly Greek-speaking and eastern Mediterranean in its identity, even while its people continued to regard themselves as Romans.

The Muslim conquests continued to threaten the empire from both land and sea. Constantinople itself endured major sieges, most famously in 674–678 CE and 717–718 CE. The failure of the Arab forces to capture the city was enormously significant. Constantinople's formidable walls, Byzantine naval power, and the use of Greek fire helped protect the city and prevented the early Islamic caliphates from destroying the Byzantine state.

Although the empire lost enormous amounts of territory, Asia Minor became the heartland of the Byzantine state. Byzantine armies gradually stabilized and, at times, expanded their position there and along the empire's eastern frontier.

Another major internal conflict concerned the use of religious images, or icons. In 726 CE, Emperor Leo III began a campaign against the veneration of icons, arguing that their use encouraged idolatry. This initiated the long and bitter Iconoclast Controversy, which divided Byzantine society and produced periods of persecution and political conflict.

Icon veneration was eventually restored in 843 CE under the empress Theodora, an event celebrated as the Triumph of Orthodoxy. The controversy demonstrated the close relationship between religion and imperial authority within Byzantine society.

During the tenth century, the Byzantine Empire experienced a significant revival. One of its principal enemies was the Bulgarian Empire, which repeatedly challenged Byzantine authority in the Balkans and at times threatened Constantinople. The Byzantines also came into conflict with the Rus', whose forces launched several attacks against Constantinople. In 941, however, a Rus' fleet suffered a major defeat, partly through the Byzantine use of Greek fire.

The empire's military revival reached one of its greatest heights under Basil II (976–1025 CE). Basil waged prolonged campaigns against the Bulgarians and eventually destroyed the Bulgarian state as an independent power. Following the Battle of Kleidion in 1014, Byzantine forces captured thousands of Bulgarian soldiers. Later accounts claim that Basil ordered many of them blinded, leaving one man in every hundred with a single eye so that they could find their way home. This story is probably embellished, but it contributed to Basil's famous epithet Bulgaroktonos, meaning “Bulgar-Slayer.”

Despite Basil's achievements, the Byzantine Empire entered another period of difficulty after his death. The empire struggled with internal political divisions, military pressures, and the rise of new enemies. In 1071, the Byzantines suffered a catastrophic defeat at the Battle of Manzikert against the Seljuk Turks. Although the defeat did not immediately destroy Byzantine control of Anatolia, it accelerated the loss of much of Asia Minor, which had been the empire's principal military and economic heartland.

The Byzantines also lost most of their remaining possessions in southern Italy to the Normans during the eleventh century, with the final Byzantine strongholds disappearing by the 1070s. The Seljuk Turks subsequently established themselves across much of Anatolia, fundamentally altering the strategic position of the empire.

The Byzantine Empire experienced periods of recovery, particularly under the Komnenian emperors, and it would be inaccurate to suggest that all of its territory was simply lost in a continuous decline after Manzikert. Nevertheless, the empire remained increasingly vulnerable to both external enemies and internal political struggles.

One of the greatest disasters came not from a traditional enemy of Byzantium but from fellow Christians in Western Europe. During the Fourth Crusade, Western European crusaders and Venetian forces diverted their expedition toward Constantinople. In 1204, they captured and brutally sacked the city, establishing the Latin Empire in Constantinople.

The Byzantine Empire fragmented into several successor states, including the Empire of Nicaea, the Despotate of Epirus, and the Empire of Trebizond. In 1261, forces from the Empire of Nicaea recaptured Constantinople and restored the Byzantine Empire.

The restored empire, however, was only a shadow of the vast Roman state that Justinian had once controlled. Byzantine territory continued to shrink as the Ottoman Turks expanded across Anatolia and into the Balkans.

Finally, in 1453, the Ottoman sultan Mehmed II launched a massive assault on Constantinople. After a siege lasting several weeks, Ottoman forces breached the city's defenses on 29 May 1453. The last Byzantine emperor, Constantine XI Palaiologos, died fighting alongside his defenders.

The fall of Constantinople brought an end to the Eastern Roman Empire, more than 1,100 years after Constantine had established his new capital. The Ottoman conquest also marked the end of the last major political state that directly claimed the legacy of ancient Rome.

Yet the Roman legacy did not disappear. Byzantine scholars preserved and transmitted Roman law, Greek philosophy, Christian theology, classical literature, art, and Roman historical traditions. Byzantine civilization profoundly influenced the Orthodox Christian world, particularly Russia and the Balkans, while its intellectual legacy also contributed to the cultural transformation of Western Europe.

The empire that began with Constantine's transformation of Byzantium into Constantinople had therefore survived invasions, religious conflicts, civil wars, territorial losses, and the fall of its western counterpart. By 1453, however, the Roman Empire that had once dominated the Mediterranean had finally disappeared as a political entity.

Rome had fallen in the West nearly a thousand years earlier, but its eastern Roman successor had endured until the walls of Constantinople finally fell.

Who were the Merovingians? Entry 21

The Merovingians were the first long-lasting royal dynasty of the Franks and ruled much of what is now France and parts of neighboring regions from the fifth to the eighth centuries CE. The dynasty emerged from the Salian Franks during the period following the collapse of Roman authority in Gaul. Its name derives from Merovech (Meroveus), a semi-legendary fifth-century Frankish leader who was traditionally regarded as the ancestor of the dynasty. The first Merovingian ruler for whom we have relatively substantial historical evidence was Childeric I, while his son, Clovis I (c. 481–511 CE), became the dynasty's most important and influential king.

Clovis inherited a kingdom centered in northern Gaul and rapidly expanded Frankish power. In 486, he defeated Syagrius, the Roman military commander who controlled a territory around Soissons and who is sometimes described as the ruler of the last significant Roman enclave in northern Gaul. Clovis's victory brought this territory under Frankish control and greatly expanded his power. He subsequently fought against several neighboring Germanic peoples, including the Alemanni. The traditional date for his major victory over the Alemanni is 496, although the precise circumstances and date of the conflict remain uncertain. Clovis's victories enabled him to consolidate Frankish authority across much of northern Gaul.

He later came into conflict with the Visigoths, who controlled a large kingdom in southwestern Gaul. In 507, he defeated the Visigothic king Alaric II at the Battle of Vouillé, significantly expanding Frankish control southward. The Visigoths retained their territories in Septimania and beyond, but Clovis's victory established the Franks as the dominant political power over much of Gaul.

Clovis is remembered not merely for his military conquests but also for his conversion to Nicene Christianity, traditionally dated to the late fifth century. His wife, Clotilde, was already a Christian and is traditionally credited with encouraging his conversion. According to the account of the sixth-century historian Gregory of Tours, Clovis converted after seeking divine assistance during a battle and subsequently received baptism from Remigius, bishop of Reims. The precise circumstances surrounding his conversion are difficult to establish, and the traditional account contains elements of religious interpretation and later hagiography. Nevertheless, Clovis's adoption of Nicene Christianity was historically significant. Unlike several other Germanic rulers who adhered to Arian Christianity, Clovis aligned himself with the Nicene Christian tradition that was dominant among the Gallo-Roman population and supported by the bishops of Gaul. His conversion therefore helped strengthen the relationship between the Frankish monarchy, the Roman Christian population, and the Catholic episcopate.

The Merovingians also developed a distinctive royal culture. Their kings were traditionally associated with long hair, in contrast to the shorter hairstyles commonly associated with other Frankish warriors. Long hair appears to have carried symbolic significance and may have been regarded as a visible marker of royal status. Later accounts sometimes portray the Merovingian kings as possessing quasi-sacred or supernatural characteristics. Stories surrounding their origins, miracles, royal legitimacy, and unusual personal characteristics contributed to a body of legend and hagiography that grew over time. These traditions should be treated cautiously, since much of the surviving material was written by Christian authors generations after the events described.

The Merovingian kingdom was not a centralized nation-state in the modern sense. The realm was repeatedly divided among different branches of the royal family, particularly following the death of a king. Because Frankish succession traditions permitted a king's territory to be divided among his sons, the kingdom frequently fragmented into competing realms centered on areas such as Neustria, Austrasia, Burgundy, and Aquitaine. Although the Merovingian kings retained considerable prestige and formal authority, repeated internal divisions weakened the dynasty and encouraged the rise of powerful aristocratic families.

By the seventh and early eighth centuries, the political authority of many Merovingian kings had declined considerably. The Mayors of the Palace (maiores domus), originally senior officials responsible for managing the royal household, gradually accumulated much greater political and military power. The position became particularly powerful within the Frankish kingdom of Austrasia under the Pippinid, or Carolingian, family. Charles Martel, the most famous of the early Carolingian leaders, effectively governed the Frankish realms while several Merovingian kings remained on the throne.

In the mid eighth century, the distinction between the nominal authority of the Merovingian kings and the practical authority of the Carolingian Mayors of the Palace had become increasingly pronounced. Pepin the Short, son of Charles Martel, eventually decided to formalize this transfer of power. In 751, with the support of the Frankish aristocracy and the approval of Pope Zachary, Pepin deposed Childeric III, the last Merovingian king, and became king of the Franks. Childeric was subsequently tonsured and placed in a monastery.

Pepin's accession marked the beginning of the Carolingian dynasty, which would reach its greatest prominence under his son Charlemagne. The transition from Merovingian to Carolingian rule therefore represented more than simply a change of royal family. It reflected the gradual transformation of political power within the Frankish kingdom, as military and administrative authority shifted from the traditional Merovingian kings toward the increasingly powerful Carolingian family.

The Merovingians thus occupy a crucial place in the history of early medieval Europe. They emerged from the world created by the decline of Roman authority in Gaul, transformed the Franks into the dominant political power of much of Western Europe, and under Clovis established a lasting connection between the Frankish monarchy and Nicene Christianity. Although their later kings increasingly became figureheads, the dynasty provided the political foundations upon which the Carolingian Empire would subsequently be built.

How did Europe become so dominant historically? Entry 6

The Ancient Greeks and Romans were both powerful players in Europe and various parts of Asia and North Africa. However for much of the time period between the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century AD and the 15th century, Europe as a continent (or a peninsula of Asia) was largely a bit player. The locus of power shifted to China, India and to some extent the Middle East. Nevertheless the European footprint was still felt through the conduit of the Byzantine Empire.

Advances in technology, warfare, flexibility of labour, maritime exploration, free enterprise and trade economics helped swing the pendulum back in Europe’s favor from 1450 onward with Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, England and France significantly spreading European influence across the planet. Each of these powers demonstrated their prowess through an expanded Dominion or Empire. Later players such as Germany and Italy also had an elevated presence.

Enlightenment era breakthroughs in science, government and legal theory helped magnify this growing dynamism of European civilization that would peak in the late 1800s with the Industrial Revolution, before declining in the 20th century as a consequence of the energy and life sapping World Wars.

During the Cold War (1945–1991) Europe functioned as a tool in the ideological battle between the United States and the Soviet Union. Many of the Western European countries still charted paths of political, social and economic distinction but the emergence of the Asian tigers, the juggernaut of the American enterprise and continued globalization have largely relegated Europe to a historically significant, but far from dominant player in contemporary geopolitics.

Declining birth rates, ever broadening welfare state politics, stifling top down bureaucracies and low economic growth profiles will likely see Europe slide even further in terms of relative strength

Did France lose every war they fought over the last hundred years?

(My answer in Quora)

No, the Free French with immense Allied support emerged on the victorious side of WWII. France give or take some hair raising moments was also on the right side of the winning divide during the Cold War. Having said that the French were humiliated in the 1950s in its struggle to maintain control of French Indochina (check out the Battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954) and suffered defeat (somewhat self-inflicted) in the Algerian War (1954–1962). 

Nevertheless France did secure victory for Chadian forces in its war against Libya (1978–1987) and helped defeat Islamist insurgents in Mali (2013–2014) during Operation Serval. France in Alliance with Britain and Israel defeated the Egyptians tactically in the Suez Canal War (1956) but like its Allies was lulled into a strategic ‘defeated’ by the US who feared the broader ramifications of a direct war with the Soviet Union at the time.

Why couldn't Charles X remain as king of France?

 My answer on Quora.

He was too much of an absolutist in his thinking and was strongly opposed to constitutional monarchy. Charles was a reactionary throwback to the Ancien Regime who sought to turn back the clock to the pre-Revolution period. He fell afoul of the dominant force of Liberalism and was eventually overthrown in the July Revolution of 1830 that saw Louis Philippe (the Citizen King) come to power. Charles does have the distinction of being the last member of the senior Bourbons to hold sway in France. Louis Philippe was associated with the Bourbon-Orléanist line and would reign until 1848

Could Napoleon have won if he attacked Moscow instead of retreating?

Napoleon actually reached Moscow and indeed occupied it. However it was a Pyrrhic victory. The Russians had burnt much of the city to the ground denying the Corsican the spoils of war. However this was only part of the problem. As the cliche goes an Army marches on its stomach and the Russian scorched Earth policy had seen to it that the Grand Army’s supply lines were not sustainable. Faced with hunger, General Winter and effective Cossack hit and run strategies he had no option but to retreat. What defeated Napoleon wasn’t Russian military prowess but Mother Nature’s icy hand holding down the scale on the necessities for life.

Snappy Answers to History Questions VII

Why didn't the crusaders invade Egypt?

They actually did. The Fifth, Baron’s and Seventh Crusades each had a significant Egyptian component to them. The Baron’s Crusade in fact was defeated by the Ayyubid Egyptians at the Battle of Gaza in 1239. The Earlier Fifth Crusade (1217–1221) proved to be a failure and the Seventh (the first of Louis IX’s two Crusades) saw the Crusaders routed by the Egyptians at Mansurah and Fariskur (both in 1250).

Why was John Hus convicted of heresy?

The Czech Jan Hus was one of the early church theologians who was associated with the Bohemian Reformation and the Hussite Movement (named after him). He lived between 1372 and 1415 and was the predecessor to later Protestant reformers - Luther, Calvin and Zwingli.

His main heresy from the perspective of Rome was that he spoke out against Pope Alexander V and the Antipope John XXIII over the selling of indulgences. For his troubles he was excommunicated, exiled, then asked to recant (which he refused), imprisoned and then burnt at the stake. His famous line was "I would not for a chapel of gold retreat from the truth!".

After his death pro and anti-Hussite factions (largely championed by the Catholic Church) would clash in what became known as the Hussite Wars (1420–1431) with the followers of Huss eventually growing to become a majority in Bohemia and Moravia.

Hus was also critical of other aspects of the Catholic church including ecclesiology and the Eucharist.

Snappy Answers to History Questions V

Why did France lose to England in the Hundred Years War? What were some turning points that led to the French defeat?

Actually France won the Hundred Year War (1337–1453). Yes I know they lost many of the well known battles (Crécy, Poitiers and Agincourt) but the war was a marathon not a sprint. England (who certainly enjoyed the lion’s share of early success) was left in turmoil after the death of Henry V in 1422. A French revival was initiated by Joan of Arc at the siege of Orleans in 1429. The Burgundians, a key ally of the English, would eventually desert and this strengthened the French position. Later French victories took place at Rouen, Formigny and Castillon with the Gallic cannons being instrumental such a change of fortune.

At the end of the war England was reduced to one possession in France, Calais, that they would eventually cede to the French in 1558. This was far less territory than that enjoyed by the Plantagenet dynasty of earlier times.

Did Napoleon expect to conquer Britain?

If Napoleon's fleet had succeeded at the Battle of Trafalgar (1805) then I believe that he may have seen conquest of Britain as a possibility. It certainly would have consolidated his hegemony in Europe by ensuring dominance of Bonapartist ideology (a mixture of French Revolution humanism, nationalism and a strong central state) over English Liberalism. However the loss at Trafalgar effectively negated his aspirations in a way that was not too different to the damage done to Operation Sea Lion by Germany’s defeat at the Battle of Britain (1940).

Napoleon saw Britain as a gigantic thorn a thorn that could be extracted later by weakening Britain through his Continental System of blockades and economic warfare. What he underestimated though was the ability of his so-called ‘allies’ to enforce such a strategy as well as the zeal that the British demonstrated (thanks to the Royal Navy and its colonial Empire) in thwarting such ambition.

Did President Nixon ever meet with Leonid Brezhnev?

Yes they met at the Washington Summit in June 1973. The Agreement on the Prevention of Nuclear War was signed representing the peak of Détente. In the Soviet Union the press referred to Détente as a relaxing of tension. The Washington Summit followed on the heels of the Geneva Summit (1955) and SALT I (1972). Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Alexei Kosygin (Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union) were key players in the Washington Summit as well.

Snappy Answers to History Questions I

 From Quora (my answers)

What was the cause of  Anti-German sentiment in France? Was it WWI or WWII?

These events certainly worsened the situation but the sentiment likely goes back even further to the Franco-Prussian War (1870–1871) when France was well defeated by its Prussian rival. One could even make the case that both sides had sown the seeds of a great deal of mistrust during the events of the Napoleonic Era and the Concert of Europe that existed afterward.

What was the difference between Marat and Robespierre? Why were each considered radical?

Both were radical authoritarians who believed that they spoke for the will of the people. Where have we seen that before? Robespierre was more of a sophisticated lawyer who in his early days could indeed be confused for an authentic liberal (this didn’t last long). Marat was a hard hitting journalist with a particular nasty streak to him. Both had no qualms about using violence to defeat their enemies and bend the will of the nation to their vision. Terror was a means to an end. Robespierre’s demise was that he alienated his own party base. Marat underestimated his opponents and picked and invited the wrong person into his room when taking a bath.

Have France and Britain always despised Germany?

No. Both France and Britain formed alliances with various German kingdoms and states as they saw fit for much of modern European history. This all changed in 1871 when a recently unified Germany crashed the global hegemony party that for sometime looked to be the sole preserve of both France and Britain. Three was way too much of a crowd.

Did the German Empire ever form an alliance with Russia?

Yes. The Dreikaiserbund (Union of the Three Emperors) signed between Germany, Russia and Austro-Hungary between 1873 to 1887. Bismarck actually renewed Germany’s ties with Russia with the Reinsurance Treaty but after he was dismissed from office by the Kaiser the alliance collapsed.France would the move closer to Russia. This would have huge implications in the march to WWI. Worth noting is that Dreikaiserbund had some precedent in the Holy Alliance signed by Russia, Austria-Hungary and Prussia in 1815 (following the Napoleonic Wars)

What was Otto von Bismarck's policies towards France and  Austro-Hungary?

He needed both sufficiently weakened by both war and diplomacy so that neither could stand in the way of eventual German Unification under the auspices of Prussia. The Austro-Prussian War (1866) dealt with Vienna and the Franco-Prussian War (1870–1871) put to bed - temporarily at least - the threat from the West.

What happened to Tsar Alexander I of Russia?

(My answer on Quora)

He died of typhus in December 1825 and since he had no legitimate heirs (his two daughters died in childhood) a succession crisis following his passing. This was complicated by the military supporters of the Decembrist revolt who favored Tsar Alexander’s earlier liberal reforms. The revolt failed and the Tsar was eventually succeeded by his reactionary brother Nicholas I.

It is worth noting that Alexander I ruled between 1801–1825. He was the same Tsar that helped turn Napoleon’s 1812 invasion of Russia into a disaster for the Corsican. Although Alexander introduced reform in the early part of his reign he became increasingly despotic in the latter portion of his life and was dominated by a religious zealotry that was becoming increasingly regressive. Rumors persisted after his death that he was actually alive and was living as a hermit in Siberia. This hasn’t been substantiated.

Babi Yar

There seems to be a historical rewrite today transforming Babi Yar (or Babyn Yar) into a specifically Ukranian tragedy (that has been highlighted by the recent Russian bombing at or near the memorial). However it is important to place all of this in context.

Picture source: Times of Israel

Between the 29th-30th September 1941, 33,771 JEWS (29 survived) were massacred by the Ordnungspolizei (Nazi Order Police), the Ukranian Auxillary Police and the Einsatzgruppen. This was essentially the Holocaust with bullets. Many of these Jews were identified as such by Ukranian collaborators. The evil was specifically directed at Jews. Yes the Jews were Ukranian nationals but they were not killed because they were Ukranians but because they were Jews.

It is also worth noting that the Nazis tried to cover this up using the Sonderaktion 1005 action plan with the same cast of victimizers working together once again.

Now it is true that the total number of people killed at the site during the duration of the war likely numbered somewhere between 100,000-150,000 (a figure that includes more Jews, Soviet prisoners of war, Ukranian nationalists and Romany) but this should not detract on the origins of Babi Yar as a testament to the mass genocide of Jews, a tragedy that would not be possible to the same extent without the help of local collaborators

Source: Karel C. Berkhoff (2008). Babi Yar Massacre The Shoah in Ukraine: History, Testimony, Memorialization.

On the Ukraine-Russia situation.

My unpopular opinion is that a great deal of the opposing takes on this complex issue can all be true at the same time. This never sits well with those who want such a complex dynamic boiled down into a convenient dichotomy.

So what are these realization? Remember that the truth value of each is not mutually exclusive.

source: legalinsurrection

• The Western world is correct in standing behind Ukraine. They are a sovereign nation with a democratically elected government that was attacked by a neighboring power.
• Putin has an expansionist mindset. We have already seen this in Georgia (2008) and Crimea (2014).

Russia says Georgia war stopped NATO expansion

NATO would have expanded by now to admit ex-Soviet republics if Russia had not invaded Georgia in 2008 to defend a rebel region, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said on Monday.

https://www.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-60645720111121

Crimea: Six years after illegal annexation

Six years after Russia illegally annexed Crimea, Ukraine lacks the leverage to restore sovereignty over the region, but the West should not accept it since doing so would only encourage Russia to believe it can get away with annexing territory from other countries.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/03/17/crimea-six-years-after-illegal-annexation/

• The invasion of the Ukraine is likely not going to plan. The Ukranians appear to be putting up a stiffer resistance to Russians forces in the north and east of the country in particular. The invaders have made substantial progress in the south.
• Ukraine and Russia are both corrupt countries. Unscrupulous western interests have benefited from this corruption. Nevertheless Zelenskky has served his country well, far better than the last Afghan President that fled the country before the Taliban takeover. He may go down as a modern day Churchill but it is far too early to tell.
• In retrospect a great deal of this problem can be traced back to the 1994 Budapest Memorandum (championed by the US State Dept) whereby the Ukrainians gave up their nuclear arsenal in exchange for security assurances. Naturally with hindsight this begs the question would Putin have been so fold if faced with a Nuclear armed Ukraine? Methinks not.

What is the Budapest Memorandum and how does it impact the current crisis in Ukraine?

In 1994, Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in return for security assurances from Western countries that its sovereignty will be respected from Russian threat. CTVNews.ca looks at the Budapest Memorandum and its impact on the current crisis in Ukraine.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/what-is-the-budapest-memorandum-and-how-does-it-impact-the-current-crisis-in-ukraine-1.5804369

• The Russians have a legitimate claim to being threatened by NATO expansion. Washington would feel the same way if a government hostile to the US took power in Mexico. We already saw this with Cuba during the Cold War. One cannot expect to keep poking a bear and expect it to sit there.
• NATO’s expansions have established a series of trip wires that if triggered could have dangerous consequences. We are on the verge of witnessing that right now. Lets hope this doesn’t come to fruition. Cooler heads must prevail.
• If a No-Fly zone or a red line within the Ukraine is established by NATO it will likely bring the alliance into direct conflict with Russia. The idea should be avoided unless there are no other options. Zelenskyy is pushing for such action but NATO needs to exercise caution. Russia is not Iraq. Moscow for one is a nuclear power. We cannot afford to be cavalier.
• Sanctions will not harm Russia as much as its leading proponents claim it will. To begin with the Chinese will undercut the sanctions and the Russians will find others ways of selling their resources. They will likely use Iran or Venezuela as a way of laundering their oil.
• The war will have many winners regardless of the military outcome. This is a boom for the Military Industrial Complex globally. It also serves the Green Lobby well in the United States who are looking to use the rising oil prices as a way of force a restructure in our energy profile. It has helped the Biden Administration well as it detracts from the administration’s problems on the domestic front. There is an uncanny convergence of selective wins here, I don’t believe it to be coincidental.The establishment always needs a bogeyman and in Putin they have found the perfect character.
• Stinger and Javelin missiles will likely be the saving grace for the Ukrainian forces. We could be seeing the end of the tank as the primary land weapon of war.
• Germany under Olaf Scholz is emerging as the de facto leader of Europe on more than just an economic level. What this heralds for the future remains to be determined but I am heartened to see that the continent as a whole is starting to take greater responsibility for its own security. For far too long they have delegated this role to the US taxpayer. The Germans will likely, by pure necessity, be forced to rethink their ill-conceived anti-nuclear policy.

Inside Olaf Scholz’s historic shift on defense, Ukraine and Russia

The German chancellor’s big moves were the result of pressure, panic and a painful recognition of past failure.

https://www.politico.eu/article/olaf-scholz-historic-shift-defense-ukraine-russia-war/

• The Biden leadership’s handling of the issue has been poor. They claimed to have been aware for a while (months in fact) about Putin’s intentions but do not appear to have acted with any authority in utilizing that information pro-actively. The White House took their time over SWIFT and were hesitant to initiate oil sanctions even though the US had far less to lose than many of its NATO allies. The idea of using Venezuela and Iran to meet oil shortfalls, instead of loosening domestic restrictions, is a move that is both deplorable and morally questionable. It will likely create more folly on the international front. These pariah regimes should not be empowered. Once again the vision from Washington is lacking.
• Enthusiasm for the war is breaking down along class lines in the US. The ‘Chicken-hawk’s in the Establishment (including a resurgent neocon arm) are cheering on tough action. The lower classes are showing more resistance to further involvement which is understandable as they will likely bare the cost of any high level decision making. Ukraine should not be allowed to become a meat grinder for American lives.
• Upping military supplies though to the Ukrainians on a go forward basis makes sense. The Ukrainians need to bog down the Russians as much as possible in a war of attrition. They may not win on the battle field but they will succeed if they force the cost beyond the acceptable Russian tipping point. This happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan.
• Reporting on war deaths is very much source dependent with figures differing by a factor as high as ten. Making a judgement on these values should be contingent on the acknowledgement that such an evaluation carries with it a high degree of error. This is rarely spoken about by the various talking heads framing a particular narrative.
• The refugee crisis, rather than the advancing Russian forces, is more of a concern to the surrounding NATO countries at this point in time. Indeed the crisis may be Putin’s best method of destabilizing the NATO front.
• I have no idea how this will end but it would not shock me if the going gets rough that the Russians cut a face saving deal, brokered by the Western powers, that will also boost the public relations images of the NATO leaders, making them look more competent than they really are.