FinermanWorks

December 2, 1805:  The French Get a Name for a Train Station

A congratulatory hug to any French friends (Catherine Deneuve and Marion Cotillard –if only they would let me) on the anniversary of Austerlitz.

Napoleon considered it his greatest victory; it certainly was his most obnoxious one.

To put it in Jeopardy terms, Napoleon allowed Russia and Austria to pick the categories AND ring in first. And he still smashed them.

Napoleon was inviting and begging the Russians and Austrians to attack; in fact, he seduced them. The French line had initially been situated on a plateau, an excellent defensive position that deterred the Austrians and the more competent Russian officers. So the accommodating Corsican withdrew his forces from the plateau. His enemies gratefully occupied the heights and advanced their lines.

Of course, the Austrians and Russians might have been a little wary about Napoleon’s gift. The eastern side of the plateau formed a formidable defense; however, the west side had the kind of gentle, charming slope that is advertised in real estate brochures. The French had little difficulty charging up the plateau, pushing the Russians and Austrians off the heights. Having smashed the center of the Allied line and regained the heights, the French were then very unkind to the exposed Russian left flank; it was driven into a lake.

The Russians and Austrians lost 27,000 men–one third of their army–at Austerlitz. The Emperor of Austria wrote his wife, “things did not go well today.”

Leo Tolstoy was a little more descriptive. His account of Austerlitz in “War and Peace” was probably longer than the battle.

Here is my abridged translation:

Prince Bolkonsky and Count Bezukhov were so preoccupied in a discussion of life, the soul and agricultural management that they had not noticed that their regiments had been massacred.

A furious General Kutuzov rode up to his esoteric officers and shrieked, “Why didn’t your troops occupy the defensive positions?”

Bezukhov waxed, “The Russian soul longs for suffering as a means of redemption. We gave the orders but those sturdy pure peasants stood in a stoic resignation.”

The exasperated commander asked, “Did you give the orders in Russian?”

Prince Bolkonsky shrugged, “Pourquoi?”

November 28, 1912:  T.E. Lawrence Lost His Chance to Be Lawrence of Albania

Today is Independence Day in Albania. Let’s celebrate its sovereign obscurity.

Albania, like Bulgaria, is generally regarded as a fictional country because no one ever seems to be from there. This anonymity is actually encouraged by the Albanians to avoid conquest. Unfortunately for the Albanians, it is only the second worst place in the Balkans, so invaders do show up–even if it is never worth the effort.

(By the way, Montenegro has the distinction of being the worst. The Turks did not bother to invade.)

Among Albania’s conquerors were the Romans, the Byzantines, the Slavs, the Byzantines again, the French (after the 4th Crusade pillage extravaganza) the Serbs (Slavs with Byzantine culture), and the Ottomans. In a gesture of sycophany that surpasses even the French, the Albanians converted to Islam. It spared the Albanians the infidel tax, but the Turks weren’t particularly impressed. Albania would remain the Mississippi of the Ottoman Empire.

Defeated in the Balkan War of 1912, the Turks were forced to cede–on this day in 1912– Northern Greece, Macedonia and (as if they cared) Albania, Now independent, it took Albania almost a decade to form a government; that is say, find a willing and reasonably competent dictator. The resultant leader was that great trivia question: King Zog.

Zog’s glorious reign ended in 1939, when Fascist Italy invaded Albania. Yes, that was Albania’s ultimate humiliation. Being conquered by Mussolini’s “Iron Legions” is like punched out by a Quaker.

After World War II, Albanian Communists seized the country. (No one else probably cared.) It must have been considerable solace to Stalin that, even if he lost Yugoslavia, he still had Albania. It was isolated from the rest of the Soviet bloc, however. Indeed, the British and CIA attempted covert operations to overthrow the Albanian communists. Unfortunately, the British Secret Service was also the Cambridge branch of the KGB, so those covert operations always failed. With Stalin’s death and the Kremlin’s subsequent denunciation of him, Albania felt even more isolated. The Soviet Union was now too liberal for Albania. So, Albania offered to be Communist China’s ally in Europe. In a rare demonstration of Chinese humor, Mao agreed. So, for over three decades, an impoverished, Slavic/Moslem enclave would broadcast (where there was electricity) the quotations of Mao. During this period, Albania lived in xenophobic isolation from the rest of Europe. It is probable that Europe never noticed.

Today, however, Albania is an impoverished Slavic/Moslem enclave that welcomes tourists. Gypsies flee there to avoid extradition to Italy.

Last year, on the anniversary of Agincourt, the New York Times decided to disillusion us.  According to the newspaper, a  number of modern historians are disputing the hallowed account of the battle.  In the traditional account of Agincourt, a dog-weary English army–outnumbered five-to-one–triumphed over the haughty French host.  However, the revisionist historians have researched Michelin receipts and so deduced that the French force was no more than twice the size of the English.  So the English victory hardly counts.

Of course, you would expect French historians to downplay the dimensions of the French humiliation.  They might deny the battle ever occurred or somehow blame the Americans.  However, many of these revisionists are British!  Are they traitors?  Yes, but they also might be right.  Besides, historians are a desperate lot.  First, they have to come up with a fresh topic for their doctorate–“Flax production in 14th century Kent”–and then they have to keeping churning out NEW research if they hope to get and keep a decent niche at an university.  “Flax production in 15th century Kent–the sequel” is not a guaranteed claim to fame or tenure.  But come up with an iconclastic view of a cherished event–and you can make the New York Times and at least get a free lunch from The History Channel.

Now I will concede that Henry V could not have made that glorious St. Crispin’s Day speech.  First, it would have been in Middle English–which no one ever understood.  Furthermore, the speech–in that form–would never have survived the departmental approval procedure.  Before delivering the St. Crispin’s speech, Henry–or his speechwriter–was required to submit a draft to the legal department and human resources.

In 1415, that editorial inquisition was in the hands of Lord Chancellor Beaufort and the King’s brother, the Duke of Bedford.

Beaufort:  “We few, we happy few…”  Too many pronouns, too many adjectives.  “We” is too vague a term, too easy to misintepret.  A positive and specific identification is necessary, if only to avoid trademark disputes in future treaties. “Few” has a negative context, as if the English army were conceding an inadequate number for this campaign.  If Henry survives the battle, he would never survive the litigation.  Come up with a more positive description of our army’s size.

Bedford:  And “Happy”?  Really, that is unprofessional and inappropriate to a war.  If we must have an adjective, let’s make it a serious one.   And “band of brothers?”  I am the king’s brother and I have no idea what that means.  Is he promising everyone can be a duke like me?

Beaufort:  Carried away by alliteration, completely irresponsible.   There has to be a concise and practical definition of the relationship between the king and his soldiers.

Bedford:  “For he today that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother …”

Is he criticizing our healthcare policy?  We certainly do cover wounds–at least battle-related ones–and the men will receive appropriate bandages rather than this unsolicited affection.  You know, that could actually be viewed as a form of harassment….

So, on October 25, 1415,  Henry V assured his beleaguered men:

“This adequately numbered English army, this proactive English army

This armed association

For anyone who, in this specific time period, should acquire a work-related decoagulating condition

Would be entitled to appropriate coverage from this association.”

And if Henry said anything more, no one was listening.

October 21, 1805:  Trafalgar–Not Bad For a One-Eyed, One-Armed Man

Today is the anniversary of Trafalgar and here is how you can reenact Lord Nelson’s spectacular victory in 1805. In a swimming pool set afloat 33 loaves of French bread to represent the French/Spanish fleet. To represent the British fleet, have twenty-seven people with shotguns firing at the bread. That accurately represents France’s chances at Trafalgar.

The British make much of the fact that Nelson’s fleet was smaller: Britain’s 27 ships of-the- line against 33 French and Spanish ships. Of course, the British fleet was superior in every way. The French fleet may have had newer ships…if only to replace the vessels sunk or captured by the British. (And the French sailors were newer, too…for the same reason.) But that veteran English fleet was the best in the world and led by one of history’s greatest admirals. The English victory was never in doubt; the extent of the triumph was remarkable. The French and Spanish lost two-thirds of their fleet.

Nelson likely was more fearful of the accountants at the British admiralty. At the time, naval warfare was expected to be profitable. The fleet was maintained and the crews were paid by the proceeds of captured ships and plundered cargos. The cannons were aimed to knock down masts or shred sails, leaving the enemy ship dead in the water–and ripe for looting. Sinking the ship would have ruined this financial system.

Unfortunately, in 1798 at the Battle of Nile, Nelson had proved to be somewhat extravagant. Under unerring British bombardment, the French flagship blew up. I can only imagine how the accounting office at the Admiralty reacted to that lost fortune….

“We suppose that you expect to be congratulated, Admiral Nelson. But who is going to pay for your pyrotechnics? We no longer have those 13 colonies to tax, and it is because of spendthrifts like you we don’t!”

With the proceeds of the captured fleet, Lord Nelson made a fortune at Trafalgar. Unfortunately, he didn’t live to enjoy it. A sniper demonstrated the only French marksmanship that day. Contrary to Nelson’s wishes, the money went to his widow instead of his mistress.

And but for that French sniper, Nelson might have commanded the British fleet in the attack on Ft. McHenry.

In that situation, I imagine that Francis Scott Key would have written “The White Flag Rag.”

October 20, 1803:  The U.S. Senate Knows A Bargain

In 1803 Napoleon realized that even he needed more than charisma to wage war. Money was required. To raise it, Napoleon offered to sell the Louisiana Territory to the United States.

American diplomats in Paris might have seen this embarrassing spectacle….

Napoleon: Everyone loves New Orleans. Imagine owning it for just ten million dollars!

Talleyrand: Just ten million! I knew that you were a megalomaniac but I didn’t think that you were crazy. What a bargain!

Napoleon: I’ll show you how crazy I am. What if I include the entire Louisiana Territory for an additional five million dollars? That’s right: 800,000 square miles for only $15,000,000!

Talleyrand: Just $15,000,000? I would have charged that much in bribes! What a bargain!

Napoleon: The entire Louisiana Territory for only $15,000,000. But only if you order now!

France could afford to be so generous. Of those 800,000 square miles, France actually controlled only ten percent of the territory: the area comprising modern Louisiana and Arkansas. The rest of that realm was based on tenuous claims: boundaries based on where a French trapper thought that he left an Indian wife.  (Eight or nine wives were about the average for a trader.)

In fact, Spain and Britain had claims to part of that territory and could have disputed the Purchase. However, Spain preferred not to offend Napoleon. For its part, England preferred to fight Napoleon in Europe rather than Thomas Jefferson in Minnesota. Of course, the native Americans also had claim to the territory; but no one was listening to them. So, in a transaction based on French pretension and American wishful thinking, the geographic dimensions of the United States doubled overnight.

The Purchase was made on April 30, 1803. As his many creditors could verify, Thomas Jefferson was an impulse buyer. The Senate actually had to approve the Purchase, and it finally did so on this day in 1803.

But it is unlikely that Napoleon waited to cash the check.

October 15, 1894: France Needs a Scapegoat

On this day in 1894, Captain Alfred Dreyfus was arrested for espionage, accused of giving France’s military secrets to Germany. The charge itself seems incredible. What would the vastly superior German army learn from spying on the French.  Souffle recipes?  The Germans would have ruined them anyway by adding sausage and potatoes.

Dreyfus also happened to be innocent. However, the Army had reached its verdict before the courtmartial, and any inconvenient contradictions–such as the evidence–were considered an insult to the image of the army.  Dreyfus had to be guilty, and the facts were irrelevant.   The Conservatives of the time were indignant that anyone would weight the innocence of one man (and a circumcized bourgeois at that) against the honor of the Army.   

Here is the updated version of the reactionaries’ reactions:

Michael Medved: The skewed liberal perspective is missing the real story. This situation really is a compliment to the French Army. A Jew can be an officer! I am thrilled to know that. What a tribute to this country! Every Jewish boy in France can grow up to be a Captain Dreyfus!

Bill O’Reilly: What is Dreyfus’ problem? If he didn’t want to be a scapegoat, why is he Jewish? It is what these people are good at, that and violins. Talk about an easy job, for doing nothing, he is going to spend a few years at a tropical resort. You and I should be so lucky, but we have to work for a living.

Ann Coulter: Of course, Dreyfus is guilty. The army ordered him to be guilty and he refused. That is the definition of treason.

Glen Beck:  You can see the pattern.  Alfred, Alsace, alien, Allemagne, allied to the Ottoman Empire which worships Allah.  And what kind of name is Ottoman?  Otto is definitely German.  So Germany and the Ottoman Empire are actually the same country, and Alfred Dreyfus is really a Moslem.

October 14, 1066:  William of Normandy Saves the English Language From Sounding Too German

This day is the anniversary of the Battle of Hastings.  You can commemorate this day by singing this musical tribute to the loser of the battle, the late King Harold Godwinson. (I have borrowed the melody of “Smoke Gets in Your Eyes” so expect the great-grandchildren of Jerome Kern to sue me.)

Harold’s Song

‘Gainst Bill of Normandy,
Anglo-Saxony’s
Bravest earls and thralls
Stood against the Gauls’
Claims to monarchy

When Angle-Saxons strive
They’re allowed to try
Axe or sword for duels,
But they’ll break the rules
Arrowing an eye.

On our side
By this rule we’d abide.
Eye gouging is just done.
But Norse code
Allows that ghastly mode:
Shooting a hole in one.

Now Norman lords deride
Angle-Saxon pride.
What’s more I won’t see
Bayeux’s tapestry
Arrowed in the eye.

And now the pedantics….

On this day in 1066, William the Bastard won the battle of Hastings and improved his nickname. Ironically, the Conqueror could have done just as well in a probate court. William had a better claim to the English throne than the English king did. (Yes, possession is nine tenths of the law; but William’s one tenth included a better army.) The legal wrangling and the bloodshed all stemmed from the inability to the late Edward the Confessor to make up his mind. Who would succeed the childless monarch? Edward apparently promised everyone the throne.

He had promised both his cousin William and his brother-in-law Harold Godwinson. His half-greatnephew Edgar also thought he was in line to the throne. King Edward’s Christmas cards probably read, “You May Already Be a Winner.” Fortunately, few people could read at the time; otherwise there might have been some 200 claimants to the English throne. (That didn’t happen until the 15th century and the Wars of the Roses.)

When Edward died on January 5, 1066, the council of English nobles chose Harold to be the next king. Harold was the most powerful noble in England and he was a distinguished soldier; in fact, Harold had been the de facto ruler during the reign of his ineffectual brother-in-law–whose only real skill apparently was praying. Since he was already doing the work, Harold would seem entitled to the formalities and its perks; besides, why shouldn’t the English have an English king? That would be fair and democratic, and completely anachronistic and wrong.

The council of nobles did not have the right to choose a king. Besides, where did you get the idea that Harold Godwinson was English? Does the name Harold tell you anything? Do real Angle-Saxon names end with “son”? Remember, the Vikings did get around. Eastern England was inundated by the Norse invaders; York was originally pronounced Jorvik. In the 11th century, England already had three Danish kings: Knut, Harold I and Hardicanute. So Mr. Godwinson would have been the fourth.

Being Norwegian and French, William of Normandy felt that he had as much right to the English throne as a Dane. Furthermore, William actually was related to Edward the Confessor. A cousin outranks a brother-in-law, especially when the marriage probably was never consummated. (Edward did have something to confess.) Finally, William could claim to be the overlord of Harold Godwinson. When Godwinson had visited Normandy in 1064, he had received a complimentary knighthood from William. That turned out to be more than a friendly gesture; from a legal perspective, Harold had made himself William’s vassel. Of course, any graduate of Constantinople University (which was the nearest law school in the 11th century) would have found the loophole: Harold only would be a vassal in Normandy, so just stay out of France.

Unfortunately, Harold did not think of hiring a smart Greek lawyer. In fact, he was unrepresented when William went to court. The Norman duke sent a delegation to the Pope, hoping to finagle Rome’s endorsement. Pope Alexander II was very flattered. Few rulers ever showed the Pope any respect–certainly not those imperial thugs in Germany. Alexander was usually preoccupied trying to enforce celibacy on the clergy. But here was a chance to determine the fate of a kingdom. The Pope considered the weight of the Norman’s claims (and bribes); not hearing any English arguments, Alexander decided in William’s favor. So William invaded England, with the blessing and authorization of the Pope.

Having cavalry and God on his side proved decisive for William. While the cavalry was more useful at Hastings, the Pope’s endorsement stifled further opposition from the English.  Obedient to Rome, the clergy of London delivered the city to William.  Besides, the English were getting used to the idea that their kings would be foreigners.

And they now have had 1000 years of practice.

October 12, 1492:  The Great Cultural Exchange

Christopher Columbus offered this introduction to the New World: “Hi, we’re here to trade small pox for syphilis.”

October 12, 1216:  The Further Misadventures of King John

On this day in 1216, King John lost the crown jewels in a flood. John was fleeing from his nobles; they seemed a bit upset after he reneged on the Magna Carta. The barons had decided to oust the little weasel and invited the French crown prince Louis (what else) to be king of England.

In his flight from the realm of England’s Louis I, John took a route along the eastern coast. Unfortunately, he had not quite mastered the concept of incoming tides. In an estuary known as the Wash, John’s baggage train was washed away.

John had an obvious talent for losing. Understandably the least favorite child of Eleanor of Aquitaine, John also had lost Normandy to the French, and his power to the barons. He would have lost the throne, too but for his rare instance of decisive initiative. He dropped dead. The death was suitably ridiculous: a surfeit of peaches and ale. Yet, it effectively ended the rebellion.

(The barons realized that John’s heir, his nine year-old son Henry, would make a much more malleable king than an adult French prince. In return for the barons’ allegiance, the regency of Henry III un-reneged the Magna Carta.)

Yet, for all of John’s losing, he could keep a woman. John and Isabelle d’Angouleme had an unique courtship. Upon seeing the beautiful twelve-year-old, John was so obsessed that he kidnapped her and coerced her into marriage.

For some reason, John never quite trusted her. He suspected that she was having an affair with a young noble, so the King arranged a surprise for his queen. She found the murdered noble hanging in her bedchamber.

Queen Elizabeth is a descendant of this happy union.

October 10, 732:  Western Europe Is Stuck With Roman Numerals for Another 500 Years

The battle of Tours, fought this day in 732, is listed among the most important battles in history. It certainly is the only time that the French were underestimated. Having brushed aside the lumbering Visigoth clods in Spain, the Arabs assumed that the Franks would be just another trifle. And in theory, they were right. In the 8th century, Gallia was once again in three parts: two independent dukedoms and a weak kingdom fighting with each other. In planning their invasion of France, the Arabs discounted the possiblity of any real and organized resistance.

The Duchy of Aquitaine did not contradict the Arabs’ contempt. Southwestern France was quickly conquered. The most significant Arab losses were from hernias carrying the loot. Indeed, the sheer amount of plunder slowed down the Arabs’ invasion of central France. Their light cavalry had become quite heavy. That delay gave the desperate French two advantages. The first was weather. October in France would not seem a problem to most invaders; the Russians would be in bathing suits. But the Arabs were miserably cold; and their French loot evidently did not include long underwear. Thirty thousand sneezing Arabs are a less formidable foe, but the French still had to fight them.

The slow pace of the Arab invasion allowed the French time to gather an army, but this force was not the typical medieval ensemble of jealous nobles and undisciplined peasants. No, this was a real army with a capable leader. In fact, the French commander was not even a noble, at least a legitimate one. Being a bastard Charles Martel had worked his way up, surviving battles and court politics. He had the earned the rank of Mayor of the Palace. which was more important than it sounds. He was the military commander of the Franks and wielded far more power than the actual king, the incredibly trivial Theuderich IV.

To protect France–and himself–Charles had established a professional, full-time army. (Charles had financed this army by expropriating Church property. None too thrilled, the Church threatened to excommunicate him but decided that he was a lesser evil than an Arab invasion.)

The Arab army was sluggishly advancing on the city of Tours and was surprised to find Charles’ army, along with the reinforcements from the rest of France, standing in the way. As a further inconvenience to the Arabs, Charles used tactics, positioning his army on a wooded ridge. Arab cavalry, riding uphill through trees, was at a definite disadvantage. In fact, the disadvantage was so obvious that the Arab commander spent six days trying to come to a decision: should he attack or withdraw? It was not a pleasant choice. If he withdrew, the Caliph would probably kill him. If he attacked, the French would probably kill him. Of course, if he attacked and–with Allah working overtime–won….So, he did attack; unfortunately, a sizeable portion of his army did not. These Arabs were too intent on guarding their plunder from the possibility of French pillagers (pickpocketing mimes, etc.) that they abstained from the battle. They were willing to live with the shame…and the loot. And they did live with both. The commander was not so lucky, and much of the Arab army died with him.

Because the Arab strategists (Paleo-Cons?) back in Spain had never considered the possibility of defeat, the Arab invasion had not even organized a clear chain of command. There was no one to succeed the dead commander. With the officers feuding and the army battered, the Arab force averted complete disintegration only by retreating back to Spain. The Arab threat to Western Europe was over, at least until O.P.E.C.

France was saved–but so were the Dark Ages.

Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

The Nobel Committee awarded him the Prize simply for not being George Bush. Nonetheless, I think that the award was premature. Perhaps he should have been given half the Peace Prize now; he could get the other half once he actually accomplishes something.

To be honest, I think that I deserved this year’s Peace Prize.  Consider the heroic self-control I demonstrated.

It has been 40 years since I survived my high school–the Yiddish production of “Lord of the Flies.”  I received repeated telephone calls from the chronic organizer of  my class reunions.  (He was a complete mediocrity in high school, but apparently he is nostalgic for a past that he never had.)  As you may have discerned, I don’t share his sentimentality or morbidity.  Do I really want to count toupees or see which cheerleaders now weight more than me?    So I didn’t return the first two calls. After his third attempt, however, I felt guilty enough to call back if only to tell him that I was not interested in attending.   The news must have shocked him; he must have overestimated his charisma, too.  In his disbelief, he kept saying, “Well, that’s your right…”  (Yes, and that right was guaranteed by the Magna Carta–clause 43.  Of course, in 1215 the British barons only wanted to avoid Oxford University class reunions.) I politely said nothing, but I was seething.  “Blessed are the peacemakers”–obviously not my Testament.

Recently I ran into another high school classmate and he asked me if I was going to the reunion.  I replied, “Only if I have Ebola.” 

And now we resume our usual pedantics…
October 9, 1003:  Leif Erikson Lands in North America and Earns a Holiday in Minnesota

The Vikings are notorious for this vices, but they apparently possessed one fatal virtue: hygiene. Whether it was their fondness for saunas or the antiseptic cold of Greenland, the Vikings’ cleanliness ruined their chance to colonize North America. Starting with Leif Ericson in 1003, the Norse attempted to settle “Vinland.” Of course, the original inhabitants objected but the Vikings were never shy about other people’s property. Beyond their extrovert personalities, the Norse also had the tactical advantages of iron and steel armaments. The native American arsenal was still in the stone age. Nonetheless, the sheer number of the natives (Skraeling was the Viking name for them) made the prospect of slaughtering them rather demoralizing. And the Vikings’ damn hygiene eliminated the most effective weapon for depopulation: disease.

The Norse had nothing to infect their opponents, not a single small pox to share. Even their livestock was healthy. The “Skraelings” would have had no resistance to European germs; measles would have been a fatal plague. The Vikings then could have had Vinland to themselves. Just imagine how history would have changed: North America could have been one vast Minnesota. But the Vikings were too clean to succeed.

The Skraelings had a 500-year reprieve before they were introduced to the Spanish, French, English and small pox.