Mind you, I add that even after Fritzmania, Macaulay of the "Fritz is my problematic fave" has no problem saying Fritz was 100% wrong when he fought against the British (invasion of Silesia, first 2 Silesian wars), and 100% innocent victim of MT when he fought alongside the British (7 Years' War). And what a coincidence. The British are always right!
...Uh huh.
Naturally. This reminds me of reading a review of the Tory governments of the recent decades changing the more critical takes in school books back again to that image of glorious Britain never having been invaded and conquered since William the Conqueror...:
French who invaded successfully when John was King: *cough* William of Orange and Dutch nation: *major cough*
....never fighting unjust wars:
Everyone else, especially in former colonies: *doesn't stop coughing*
...and winning singlehandedly, see also the way Napoleon's defeat is presented in Britain to how it presented in the rest of Europe (basically: group effort, also the Prussians saved Wellington's butt at Waterloo), not to mention WWII. (Enough said.)
I've also read the theory that the reason why the image of Germans changed from impractical poets and lazy jolly innkeepers (18th century, early 19th century) so super efficient soulless bureacrats and killing machines (later 19th century onwards) wasn't just due to the rise of Prussia to the point where Germany = Prussia in public perception but because the Brits, after the 19th century Franco-Prussian war resulting in France defeated within months, having to explain to themselves why their own wars against the French lasted for (a hundred) years, and hitting on the "the Germans are the most efficient soulless killing machines, that's the only reason!" explanation.
This reminds me of reading a review of the Tory governments of the recent decades changing the more critical takes in school books back again to that image of glorious Britain never having been invaded and conquered since William the Conqueror...:
Huh. I didn't realize this had ever been abandoned in England; it was what I (in the US) was uniformly taught in both school and my reading. William of Orange was passed off by my teacher as an internal revolution (he was invited!) and John who? :P
having to explain to themselves why their own wars against the French lasted for (a hundred) years, and hitting on the "the Germans are the most efficient soulless killing machines, that's the only reason!" explanation.
Speaking of the Hundred Years' War lasting...116 years, one of my history teachers in school was very pro-English and anti-French, and because I was extremely contrary, I would naturally argue the opposite position. One day, after school, we had this exchange:
Teacher: The French were so weaksauce they needed a sixteen-year-old girl to lead them! Me: She was sevent--wait a minute. The English were so weaksauce they got their butts kicked by a sixteen-year-old French girl! Teacher: Don't you have a bus to catch? Me: They ran when they saw her coming! Teacher: Your bus is leaving soon, Mildred!
I say I won that exchange. :P
So yes, I'm in favor of the English needing a reason for why the Germans didn't get their butts kicked by a French teenage girl. ;)
Note: we don't actually know how old Joan of Arc was; like many peasants, she didn't know herself, and she made her best guess at her trial. Young, anyway!
I applaude your debate skills, and you definitely won that exchange!
I once read an (US) book on history as present in the movies, and in one chapter, the author muses on the weirdness of "the same noble English you root for when watching Henry V are the guys you root against not twenty years later in just about any adoption of the Joan of Arc story".
(Well, not La Pucelle, one assumes. BTW, I read in one of the biographies that Voltaire wrote an essay to make it clear he actually respects and admires historical Jeanne, he just had to have a go on the way her legend is used, and I get that, given in Voltaire's day as well as in ours hte most bigoted and nationalistic crowd abuses Joan as a symbol. She and Fritz have Worst Fanboys in common.)
But the English hang-up about the French is really weird. When it's not "rarr rarr Agincourt!" it's "Waterloo!" (presented as a Wellington solo effort, which, see above), or "OMG you surrendered and we stood firm in WWII".
Meanwhile, yours truly: hang on, guys. First you were conquered by Normans. Then you had Angevins ruling you for the next two centuries. Then it was a Welshman majorly supported by French-Breton troops who won at Bosworth. After the Tudors, you got the Stuarts, and as Charles II, one of the few charming ones, put it in "Horrible Histories", "I'm Scottish-French-Italian, a little bit Dane"... Then there was the Dutch interlude. (Statement by Dutch person I know: That time the Netherlands concquered Britain, and no one but a bunch of Northern Irish fundies ever remembers!)
And then we exported the Hannovers to you. As I was reminded just a few months ago, E2's father was the first King of England since the Georges arrived who actually did not marry another German (or Dane, in one case). So, about that unconquered island....
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: Johnsonia
Date: 2021-02-28 07:36 am (UTC)...Uh huh.
Naturally. This reminds me of reading a review of the Tory governments of the recent decades changing the more critical takes in school books back again to that image of glorious Britain never having been invaded and conquered since William the Conqueror...:
French who invaded successfully when John was King: *cough*
William of Orange and Dutch nation: *major cough*
....never fighting unjust wars:
Everyone else, especially in former colonies: *doesn't stop coughing*
...and winning singlehandedly, see also the way Napoleon's defeat is presented in Britain to how it presented in the rest of Europe (basically: group effort, also the Prussians saved Wellington's butt at Waterloo), not to mention WWII. (Enough said.)
I've also read the theory that the reason why the image of Germans changed from impractical poets and lazy jolly innkeepers (18th century, early 19th century) so super efficient soulless bureacrats and killing machines (later 19th century onwards) wasn't just due to the rise of Prussia to the point where Germany = Prussia in public perception but because the Brits, after the 19th century Franco-Prussian war resulting in France defeated within months, having to explain to themselves why their own wars against the French lasted for (a hundred) years, and hitting on the "the Germans are the most efficient soulless killing machines, that's the only reason!" explanation.
Re: Johnsonia
Date: 2021-02-28 01:05 pm (UTC)Huh. I didn't realize this had ever been abandoned in England; it was what I (in the US) was uniformly taught in both school and my reading. William of Orange was passed off by my teacher as an internal revolution (he was invited!) and John who? :P
having to explain to themselves why their own wars against the French lasted for (a hundred) years, and hitting on the "the Germans are the most efficient soulless killing machines, that's the only reason!" explanation.
Now that's hilarious. I want this to be true!
Re: Johnsonia
Date: 2021-02-28 05:26 pm (UTC)Re: Johnsonia
Date: 2021-02-28 06:01 pm (UTC)Teacher: The French were so weaksauce they needed a sixteen-year-old girl to lead them!
Me: She was sevent--wait a minute. The English were so weaksauce they got their butts kicked by a sixteen-year-old French girl!
Teacher: Don't you have a bus to catch?
Me: They ran when they saw her coming!
Teacher: Your bus is leaving soon, Mildred!
I say I won that exchange. :P
So yes, I'm in favor of the English needing a reason for why the Germans didn't get their butts kicked by a French teenage girl. ;)
Note: we don't actually know how old Joan of Arc was; like many peasants, she didn't know herself, and she made her best guess at her trial. Young, anyway!
Re: Johnsonia
Date: 2021-02-28 06:17 pm (UTC)I once read an (US) book on history as present in the movies, and in one chapter, the author muses on the weirdness of "the same noble English you root for when watching Henry V are the guys you root against not twenty years later in just about any adoption of the Joan of Arc story".
(Well, not La Pucelle, one assumes. BTW, I read in one of the biographies that Voltaire wrote an essay to make it clear he actually respects and admires historical Jeanne, he just had to have a go on the way her legend is used, and I get that, given in Voltaire's day as well as in ours hte most bigoted and nationalistic crowd abuses Joan as a symbol. She and Fritz have Worst Fanboys in common.)
But the English hang-up about the French is really weird. When it's not "rarr rarr Agincourt!" it's "Waterloo!" (presented as a Wellington solo effort, which, see above), or "OMG you surrendered and we stood firm in WWII".
Meanwhile, yours truly: hang on, guys. First you were conquered by Normans. Then you had Angevins ruling you for the next two centuries. Then it was a Welshman majorly supported by French-Breton troops who won at Bosworth. After the Tudors, you got the Stuarts, and as Charles II, one of the few charming ones, put it in "Horrible Histories", "I'm Scottish-French-Italian, a little bit Dane"...
Then there was the Dutch interlude.
(Statement by Dutch person I know: That time the Netherlands concquered Britain, and no one but a bunch of Northern Irish fundies ever remembers!)
And then we exported the Hannovers to you. As I was reminded just a few months ago, E2's father was the first King of England since the Georges arrived who actually did not marry another German (or Dane, in one case). So, about that unconquered island....