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

And in this post:

-

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

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)!

-

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

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only | Expand All

From:

cahn

The '45!

Is "RN" Royal Navy?

If BPC had not invaded England right then (in the winter??) would it have turned out better for him?

The Butcher of Cumberland! He's the only person in this whole thing that I'm very vaguely familiar with (or at least was before last post), as

selenak's been telling us about the Hanovers. But it's interesting to finally see how he got that soubriquet...

(argh, I promise I'll reply more later, I have to sleep)

From:

luzula

Is "RN" Royal Navy?

Er, yes, sorry.

If BPC had not invaded England right then (in the winter??) would it have turned out better for him?

Opinions differ? And of course it's hard to know. But I think they saw the winter as something that would favor them, since the Highlanders were used to harsh conditions and the ordinary British army weren't used to fighting in winter. And if they had waited, the Hanoverians would have had more time to gather their forces. Speed is how William of Orange managed his coup, and then most of the army just accepted a fait accompli. BPC:s attempt was a gamble from the start, but speed was his hope, too--the British army was much larger than what he could hope to gather. (Although actually the Hanoverians were worried about the loyalty of some of the Scottish regiments especially.)

It seems like a lot of ordinary people were just keeping their heads down. Like, who cares who's on the throne, the Hanoverians haven't done much for me, but I'm not going to stick my head out for this Stuart either?

(argh, I promise I'll reply more later, I have to sleep)

No worries, definitely prioritize sleep. : )

From:

cahn

Oh, yeah, of course it's hard to know, but I thought you'd have an opinion :) And that makes sense that maybe it was a long shot but this way gave them the best odds (although it does sound from your description that not everyone agreed with this).

It seems like a lot of ordinary people were just keeping their heads down. Like, who cares who's on the throne, the Hanoverians haven't done much for me, but I'm not going to stick my head out for this Stuart either?

Heh, very fair!

From:

mildred_of_midgard

It seems like a lot of ordinary people were just keeping their heads down. Like, who cares who's on the throne, the Hanoverians haven't done much for me, but I'm not going to stick my head out for this Stuart either?

This is why it's hard for me to read about the Targaryens without thinking about the Stuarts. Because:

Dany rode close beside him. "Still," she said, "the common people are waiting for him. Magister Illyrio says they are sewing dragon banners and praying for Viserys to return from across the narrow sea to free them."

"The common people pray for rain, healthy children, and a summer that never ends," Ser Jorah told her. "It is no matter to them if the high lords play their game of thrones, so long as they are left in peace." He gave a shrug. "They never have."

Re "from across the narrow sea," I will take this opportunity to tell

cahn that the traditional way to toast the Stuart king if you were in Britain was to toast the "King Over the Water." If you didn't want to say it out loud, you could raise your glass of wine over a glass of water and toast "the King." (Though whether this was actually done during the Jacobite years or was one of those "traditions" invented in the romanticizing period later, I don't know; I didn't have access to much by way of primary sources back in the day.)

From:

cahn

Interesting, do you think that Martin was thinking about the Stuarts? I read a blog of GoT a long time ago that argued that he was pulling a LOT from history, though I can't now remember what the name of the blog was.

From:

mildred_of_midgard

He might well have been! I have this habit, though, where some author will do something that reminds me of some historical figure, and then I think, "Author must have based this on X!", when in reality, plenty of other historical figures (or none) could have inspired this. Because history may not repeat itself but it *does* rhyme.

See also KJ Parker, Duke Valens, and Fritz. ;)

Btw, I made a typo at the end of that quote: "They never have" should be "They never are," i.e. left in peace.

From:

luzula

I have not read/watched Game of Thrones, but I remember reading at some point that Martin was inspired by the massacre of Glencoe, among other things!

Which I can tell

cahn about: it was part of the 1690's Jacobite history. After the failure of "Bonnie Dundee"/"Bluidy Clavers" rising in 1689 (choose name according to politics), William of Orange's government in Scotland was still very weak. Not that he actually cared about Scotland, he wanted to make war on the continent. So in order to pull troops from Scotland, he needed to pacify the Jacobite chiefs in the Highlands. They were bribed with cash and offered an indemnity in return for swearing loyalty to William, and most of them agreed (not that they necessarily took that oath very seriously).

But MacDonald of Glencoe was late meeting the deadline because of something that wasn't his own fault, and the secretary of state for Scotland decided to make an example of him, with William's knowledge. He sent Campbell troops to Glencoe (the Campbells were a rival clan, but this wasn't a clan conflict), and when the soldiers were enjoying the (perhaps forced) hospitality of the Glencoe MacDonalds, they began killing them, though a lot of them got away into the snow. This was in February 1693, and you can hear about it in this song. I have never heard anyone pronounce the word "rape" with such relish--I guess it's the Scottish "r".

Anyway, this backfired. The massacre was a gift to Jacobite propaganda, and destroyed the credibility of the government in the Highlands.

From:

mildred_of_midgard

Oh, right, I *have* read that the Red Wedding was inspired by the Massacre of Glencoe!

The other suspicion I have for a possible historical Scottish inspiration for a GoT character is Simon Fraser, Lord Lovat for Walder Frey. Admittedly, much of my sense of Lovat's personality comes from Diana Gabaldon. *But*, Dragonfly in Amber was published in 1992 and GoT only in 1996, so even if some of her depiction is fictional, GRRM may have been inspired by her too. (Alternatively, maybe the Lovat traits that I haven't come across in nonfictional sources are in fact historical and it's just that Gabaldon and GRRM found them and I didn't.)

From:

luzula

The Jacobite Clans of the Great Glen 1650-1784 by Bruce Lenman (1984) has a lot of info about Simon Fraser.

the Lovat traits that I haven't come across in nonfictional sources

What are those?

By the way, I haven't actually read/watched Outlander--in fact, I've sort of avoided it. Do you think it's good? And (I suppose a partly separate question) did the author do good research?

From:

mildred_of_midgard

The Jacobite Clans of the Great Glen 1650-1784 by Bruce Lenman (1984) has a lot of info about Simon Fraser.

Cool, thanks!

the Lovat traits that I haven't come across in nonfictional sources

What are those?

I was vague because it's hard to pin down. Old-man lechery is the easiest one to put into words. Being remarkable among their contemporaries for cunning and pursuit of self-interest.

And even harder to explain: the *attitude* in their dialogue in the respective books. Idk, Frey just pinged me as Lovat (and it took me embarrassingly long to realize that "Frey" *might* come from "Fraser", if I'm not imagining this).

By the way, I haven't actually read/watched Outlander--in fact, I've sort of avoided it. Do you think it's good? And (I suppose a partly separate question) did the author do good research?

I haven't watched it (I don't really like to watch things), but I've read all the books. I don't like all the books, but especially the first few, I like a lot and I reread them constantly. I'll be buying book 9 when it comes out next month. They've never made it to the point of triggering fannishness with me, though. I don't obsess about them, I don't make up stories about the characters in my head, I don't have feels about the characters when I'm not reading the book, and I don't read fanfic.

Are they good? That's a different question. :P Gabaldon does a lot of things really well, but whether or not you like the overall effect really depends on the reader. A lot of people really hate these books, or, judging by reviews, seem to have gone in expecting one kind of book and been very confused by getting a different kind.

If you're the kind of person who demands strict historical accuracy, you will be disappointed and possibly, like one person who was ranting at me, throw the first book violently across the room within a couple chapters and then rant at online strangers about it years later. :D

To her credit, Gabaldon did a *lot* of historical research, and the books are overflowing with period detail and a ton of characters, events, and practices that I myself don't know as much about as she does.

But she makes *so* *many* divergences from history, from creative license of the "this is the story I want to tell, accuracy be damned" sort to rookie ones for no apparent reason, like Louis XV as the grandson of Louis XIV, that even when I read these books as a teenager (when I cared a lot more than I do now about historical accuracy), I was outraged.

Apparently her depiction of 1945 Scotland was so, so inaccurate that the British publishers had her change it to 1946 just to make it less egregiously wrong, because no self-respecting Brit would be able to maintain suspension of disbelief. 1945 Scotland is not something I know anything about, but the person who was ranting at me about it on the internet was so furious that they were never able to read any further than this part. (For my own edification, I tried to get them to give me examples of inaccuracies, but they were like, "EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING in the opening chapters is wrong." So I learned nothing.)

I've gotten to the point where historical accuracy in fiction matters very little to me. I'd rather read something with characters I care about and a plot where I want to know what happens next, than read something less interesting set in a place and time that precisely matches what we know of the historical time and place. I just tell myself going in that all historical novels are set in a parallel universe, and I spare myself a lot of frustration that way. It's all the easier in a series like Outlander, where there's magic, time travel, and dinosaurs (okay, one dinosaur, but still). If Herodotus wrote multiple works in
this universe, sure, why not.

If your reaction to my strategy is, "You don't have to make excuses for the author's fuckups," which was the reaction of that person who was ranting at me, then historical accuracy is going to be a dealbreaker for you in these books. If your reaction is that it's more important that the worldbuilding feel real than that it be accurate, and that Homer and Shakespeare didn't exactly stick to the historical facts either, then you might like them.

(There are other things, like the graphic rape and torture, that don't bother me but might bother you.)

Edited Date: 2021-10-16 01:42 pm (UTC)

Re: Outlander

From:

luzula - Date: 2021-10-19 07:20 pm (UTC) - Expand

From:

From:

cahn - Date: 2021-10-23 05:10 am (UTC) - Expand

From:

mildred_of_midgard

If BPC had not invaded England right then (in the winter??) would it have turned out better for him?

Agree with

luzula that the element of speed and surprise was key. If he had any chance of winning, I'm not convinced it would have been starting a drawn out civil war by hanging out in Scotland and hoping for more support. (Admittedly, it's been 20 years since I was fluent with the military situation, but firm in my memory is the discrepancy in numbers between what he could command and what G2 could command. And that the English still had garrisons, like Edinburgh Castle, which the Jacobites never captured. And I have no reason to believe that enthusiasm for the Stuarts was strong enough that he could have made up the difference. That said, a number of his supporters disagreed, and they were actually there!)

What's interesting is the question of whether pushing on from Derby would have worked or not. The consensus of the authors I read 20 years ago was that it wouldn't have, they just would have gotten slaughtered some time before April of 1746. That the royal family wasn't really preparing to flee, that that was a rumor based on wishful thinking. But Horowski and other, more recent authors I've read since then have espoused the opinion that pushing on would likely have worked in the same way that 1688 worked for William.

I haven't read enough primary sources to have a well-informed opinion, but I can tell you that pushing on from Derby was the turning point in my long-ago fic for a reason. ;)

The Butcher of Cumberland!

Small nitpick: he's "Butcher Cumberland", in the same way that I'm "Detective Mildred" and not "Detective of Mildred". Because Cumberland was his name (he was the Duke of Cumberland) and not the place he butchered. (Cumberland being in England.)

Also called "Butcher Billy."

because at a council the Jacobites decided to turn around, possibly affected by the testimony of the Hanoverian spy Dudley Bradstreet who told them there was yet another army between them and London.

See, this is when a time traveler from the 23rd century shows up and tells them, "Don't believe him, it's a trick!" and for some reason, people listen to her and next thing you know, she's leading armies and defeating her enemies in a way that would make Alexander the Great turn green.

(The research for this fic was an extremely useful way to spend the time, even if the writing was...we'll call it good practice for a teenager. ;))

Edited Date: 2021-10-09 08:04 pm (UTC)

From:

luzula

But Horowski and other, more recent authors I've read since then have espoused the opinion that pushing on would likely have worked in the same way that 1688 worked for William.

What books/articles have you read on the topic? *curious* But yeah, I've seen authors arguing for this, as well. Even if G2 didn't intend to flee, the forces around London itself don't seem to have been large enough to withstand them (also it included the Black Watch which might well have changed sides), and then the question is whether Cumberland, coming several days behind, could have taken it back or not.

I haven't read enough primary sources to have a well-informed opinion, but I can tell you that pushing on from Derby was the turning point in my long-ago fic for a reason. ;)

Ha, yes, this happened in my AU as well, though the Jacobite force was a bit larger because of events previous in the story. As for primary sources, in general I've managed to get hold of some in digitized versions, but so much of what authors refer to is inaccessible material from archives. So I don't feel like I'd be able to inform myself enough that way.

From:

mildred_of_midgard

What books/articles have you read on the topic? *curious*

Well, none intentionally, due to my desire to avoid getting sucked back in. ;) I only ran into mentions of this while reading up on other topics, which is why I'm not going to remember which ones they were, unfortunately. I'm *reasonable* sure one was Horowski's Europa der Könige (highly recommended if your German's up to it), but as for the other mentions, I don't remember.

so much of what authors refer to is inaccessible material from archives. So I don't feel like I'd be able to inform myself enough that way.

Ah, too bad. We're definitely impeded in the Fritz fandom by lack of archive access and lack of necessary skills to make good use of archives, but so much has been digitized or at least published that we're doing fairly well on the primary source front. Orders of magnitude better than I was as a high school student circa 2000!

From:

luzula

Heh, my German is non-existent. BTW, if you need any help with Swedish while reading up on Charles XII, let me know. Though despite being Swedish, I don't know much about him--my main association is that unfortunately he has been adopted as a mascot by Nazis over here.

Orders of magnitude better than I was as a high school student circa 2000!

I can imagine! Yes, there's certainly a lot of primary sources available, though not always the ones one is looking for. I just finished reading Burt's Letters from the North of Scotland from the 1730's, for general context. It has some great descriptions of the building of Wade's roads!

From:

mildred_of_midgard

BTW, if you need any help with Swedish while reading up on Charles XII, let me know.

Oh, neat! Thanks, I will. (You don't happen to know any Russian, do you? Because while I might have a prayer at making heads or tails of Swedish, Russian is way out of my league.)

my main association is that unfortunately he has been adopted as a mascot by Nazis over here.

Ugh. This is what in the Fritz fandom we call "The Worst Fanboys."

From:

luzula

Sorry, no Russian! I have a number of Russian colleagues, but I don't know them well enough to ask such a thing...

From:

mildred_of_midgard

It was a long shot! (There's a Russian Peter III fan on DW/A03 I keep trying to get to join salon, or at least recommend me some books about Russian history, but she hasn't been inclined to do either.)

From:

cahn

Oh, okay, I've seen it both ways in previous salon posts and just picked one at semi-random. (But wouldn't the proper analogy be "Detective of Midgard" rather than "Detective of Mildred"? ;) ) But don't the Duke of Buckingham/Cumberland/etc. have a duchy of Buckingham/Cumberland/etc. that's associated, or does this work differently with English peerages? In the former case, "Butcher of Cumberland" can parse to me as "Butcher from/associated with Cumberland," which is the sense in which I meant it.

...But then there's "Prince of Wales," which I do know is entirely ceremonial, and I'd never say "Butcher of Wales" for exactly the reason you give, because then it sounds like he butchered Wales. So idk, that's interesting that I have different reactions to those things :)

From:

mildred_of_midgard

Oh, okay, I've seen it both ways in previous salon posts and just picked one at semi-random.

My search function tells me Selena has said "Butcher Cumberland" 3 times and "Butcher of Cumberland" 1 time. I only have memories of seeing "Butcher Cumberland" in my reading, though it's possible reputable sources do use "Butcher of Cumberland" and I either haven't encountered them or my memory is failing me.

(But wouldn't the proper analogy be "Detective of Midgard" rather than "Detective of Mildred"? ;) )

Ha! I knew you were going to say that. ;) They feel different to me, because the "of" in "Duke of X" isn't the same as the "of" in "Mildred of X": one is "[title] [over] [domain]" and the other "[person] [from] [place]". My impression has always been that "Duke of Cumberland" was like "Prince of Wales," in the sense that it was granted to members of the royal family who were of the appropriate rank and needed a title to go with their rank. I don't think William was associated with Cumberland much more than Frederick was with Wales. I mean, maybe he was granted an estate and some income from the region? but I don't think he spent time there when not crushing a Jacobite rebellion. Saying "of" to mean "from" would feel weird to me in his case.

Wikipedia says:

Duke of Cumberland is a peerage title that was conferred upon junior members of the British Royal Family, named after the historic county of Cumberland.

The dukedom was created in the Peerage of England in 1644 for Prince Rupert of the Rhine, nephew of King Charles I. When he died without male heirs, the title was created again in the Peerage of England in 1689 for Prince George of Denmark, husband of Princess Anne, younger daughter of King James II. He also died without heirs, in 1708. Neither of these men, however, was usually known by his peerage title.

The third creation, in the Peerage of Great Britain, was for Prince William, the third son of King George II. Other titles granted to Prince William were Marquess of Berkhampstead, Earl of Kennington, Viscount Trematon and Baron Alderney. Since the Prince died unmarried and without children, his titles became extinct at his death.

I agree that if we're talking about like the Duke of Brunswick, I would have a different reaction to "of", since the dukes actually lived there and/or came from there, in addition to having the title. Though that's almost entirely because I would be able to say "Ferdinand of Brunswick" (just like Rupert of the Rhine, George of Denmark) in a way that "William of Cumberland," without the "Duke".

I am open to counterevidence, though! I'm not a hundred percent sure here. (Except that I've definitely seen "Butcher Cumberland" way more than "Butcher of Cumberland," even if someone proves the latter does exist.)

From:

cahn

HUH. I guess I'd always thought English peerages were titles tied to a demesne, like I learned about when I learned about the feudal system and everything! English peerages are weeeeeird!

From:

luzula

In Scotland, the "of Placename" naming system was used for gentry (even if you just owned a small farm), not just for the peerage. And you were generally adressed as Placename. For example, if your name is Ewen Cameron, then there are probably hundreds more with the same name, so using either first or last name doesn't help much. But if you are also laird of Ardroy, then it makes sense to adress you by that as your name. (Ewen of course also has a hereditary Gaelic chieftain title "Mac 'ic Ailein" = "son of Allan", and a Gaelic form of his name, Eoghan, and also a Gaelic nickname to distinguish himself from other Eoghans, "Eoghan Mor", or "Tall Ewen".)

If someone doesn't have that sort of name (such as BPC's military officer Lord George Murray) you can tell that he's not a landowner and thus a younger son.

ETA: Actually you will not see Ewen adressed as "Eoghan Mor", but "Eoghain Mhoir", which is in the vocative. Guess how glad I am to have an Irish person who knows Gaelic in the fandom! Very happy, that's what. Oops, this somewhat sidetracked into Flight of the Heron stuff...

Edited Date: 2021-10-11 10:13 pm (UTC)

From:

cahn

For example, if your name is Ewen Cameron

just as a TOTALLY RANDOM EXAMPLE :D

...I am glad you said that because I was confused as to why sometimes he was called Cameron and sometimes Ardroy!