Re: Why was Henry V the greatest English king ?
a425couple
> Source: "Heroes", Paul Johnson, Harper Collins, New York, 2007.
>
> 1. He regarded victory at Agincourt as God
> given, and this humbled him for life because
> he was heavily outnumbered. He was never
> arrogant after that battle.
>
> 2. His self confidence as God's chosen was
> absolute, and this radiated outward to his own nobles, to Parliament,
> to the nation and even to the enemy camp. He was the King of France
> for one year...1421.
>
> 3. He never pushed his luck. He remained
> realistic about taxes and other demands.
> He built up an excellent working relationship
> with the nobility, the knights of the Shires,
> the burghers of the towns, and even the
> peasantry. His control of the treasury and the
> exchequer was firm and secure. His taxes
> and surcharges were reasonable, and he
> was always able to prove that the monies
> were sensibly spent.
>
> 4. He played the nationalist card with great
> skill.He would not tolerate French speaking
> Abbeys nor their repatriation of revenues to
> France. (His intolerance of French monks
> set the precedent for a later Henry to seize
> all monasteries which owned one fifth of the
> land. )
>
> 5. He was the first English king to speak
> English habitually and to write it fluently
> and idiomatically. His letters are nearly
> always in English. His nobles also began
> to write their letters in English.
> Cheers, David H
6. He inspired a later writer to give us the phrases:
"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; ---
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us ---"
Singanas@Texasgulfcoast
> "Singanas@Texasgulfcoast" <davidholi...@yahoo.com> wrote in...
~~~~~~~~~~~
Wow, good quote. I think this was used to inspire the Brits to
fight the Germans after the bombing of the London docks in September
1939. I believe the majority of Churchill's cabinet ministers wanted
to
surrender to the Jerries....until that sneak attack on the docks by
the
Luftwaffe.
Cheers, David H
~~~~~
William Black
So few words, so many mistakes...
1. Churchill wasn't Prime Minister in 1939.
2. That's ok though, the London docks weren't bombed until 1940.
3. Olivier's 'Henry V' was made and released in 1944.
4. At no point in WWII did any majority of UK cabinet ministers wish to
surrender.
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
erilar
William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> 3. Olivier's 'Henry V' was made and released in 1944.
Shakespeare wrote it a good deal earlier than that, however.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
William Black
> In article <hfm86n$962$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> 3. Olivier's 'Henry V' was made and released in 1944.
>
> Shakespeare wrote it a good deal earlier than that, however.
>
As propaganda for another war...
But it didn't really enter the national consciousness until Olivier's movie.
Olivier was undoubtedly the great populariser of Shakespeare in the last
century in England and his film adaptations stand head and shoulders
above just about all the others.
Paul J Gans
>~~~~~~~~~~~
Have I wandered into alt.history.intoxicated?
--
--- Paul J. Gans
erilar
William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> erilar wrote:
> > In article <hfm86n$962$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> 3. Olivier's 'Henry V' was made and released in 1944.
> >
> > Shakespeare wrote it a good deal earlier than that, however.
> >
>
> As propaganda for another war...
>
> But it didn't really enter the national consciousness until Olivier's movie.
You mean the Bard was neglected there, too?
Stanley Moore
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hfmj4b$al3$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> erilar wrote:
>> In article <hfm86n$962$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> 3. Olivier's 'Henry V' was made and released in 1944.
>>
>> Shakespeare wrote it a good deal earlier than that, however.
>>
>
> As propaganda for another war...
>
> But it didn't really enter the national consciousness until Olivier's
> movie.
>
> Olivier was undoubtedly the great populariser of Shakespeare in the last
> century in England and his film adaptations stand head and shoulders above
> just about all the others.
Kenneth Branagh has takesn up the cudlges in our time. Hes rendition of the
St. Crispin's Day speech is thrilling. It will send thrills up your spine.
Take care
--
Stanley L. Moore
"The belief in a supernatural
source of evil is not necessary;
men alone are quite capable
of every wickedness."
Joseph Conrad
Stanley Moore
Though at least some of the royal family certainly had German sympathies
notably the abdicated King. A couple dukes and earls were probelmatic as
well. <G>
Ray O'Hara
"Stanley Moore" <smoo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:qdednYuXiuxya4PW...@giganews.com...
they had german ancestry but not sympathies.
Stanley Moore
"Ray O'Hara" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hfn2h9$9rb$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Not even the Duke of WIndsor? Wikipedia says he and the Duchess gave full
Nazi salutes during a visit to Germany. Now you may consider this no more
serious than bowing to kings and emperors in some sort of abasement but it
certainly wasn't looked upon the same way in Britain.
And it also quotes Hitler on the abdication, "I am certain through him
permanent friendly relations could have been achieved. If he had stayed,
everything would have been different. His abdication was a severe loss for
us" During the war Chruchill threatened to have him courtmartialled for
working against Brittain in showing sympathy with the Nazi occupation of
France.
To this day the Nazi tendencies if the royal family are an embarrassment.
Look at the brouhaha when Prince Harry wore the Nazi unforom to a fancy
dress ball. It wasn't even a good uniform. Had I ben he and decided to wear
the thing I would have gotten a nicer costume. I wonder where his advisors
were, Surely thye might have counselled him against wearing that costume.
Nightjar
...
> 4. At no point in WWII did any majority of UK cabinet ministers wish to
> surrender.
It was a close run thing. The decision would have been made by the War
Cabinet, not the full Cabinet, and, at the start of the war, two of the
five War Cabinet ministers wanted to make peace on just about any terms.
Colin Bignell
Stanley Moore
"Nightjar <"cpb"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote in message
news:w5adnQWFrbzOqILW...@giganews.com...
Friends of CHamberlain I guess. Take care
Renia
Edward VIII did have sympathies with the Nazis. He wasn't a Nazi, but
was a bit ignorant of what they were really about. He was also extremely
lax about security and left secret documents lying around, which anyone
could read after they had used them as coasters at their cocktail parties.
William Black
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:hfmj4b$al3$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> erilar wrote:
>>> In article <hfm86n$962$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 3. Olivier's 'Henry V' was made and released in 1944.
>>> Shakespeare wrote it a good deal earlier than that, however.
>>>
>> As propaganda for another war...
>>
>> But it didn't really enter the national consciousness until Olivier's
>> movie.
>>
>> Olivier was undoubtedly the great populariser of Shakespeare in the last
>> century in England and his film adaptations stand head and shoulders above
>> just about all the others.
>
>
> Kenneth Branagh has takesn up the cudlges in our time. Hes rendition of the
> St. Crispin's Day speech is thrilling. It will send thrills up your spine.
> Take care
Branagh's Henry V was a naturalisation of the play, Olivier's was a
deliberate attempt to produce a formalised version. The prologue was
set in a Tudor theatre, most of the rest is set in scenes that are
direct 'lifts' from the 'Tr�s Riches Heures' and other contemporary
manuscripts. It's a conscious attempt to produce something that looks
like a period artefact on film.
The Branagh version is, to an extent, a reaction to Olivier
William Black
> "Nightjar <"cpb"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote in message
> news:w5adnQWFrbzOqILW...@giganews.com...
>> William Black wrote:
>> ...
>>> 4. At no point in WWII did any majority of UK cabinet ministers wish to
>>> surrender.
>> It was a close run thing. The decision would have been made by the War
>> Cabinet, not the full Cabinet, and, at the start of the war, two of the
>> five War Cabinet ministers wanted to make peace on just about any terms.
>>
>> Colin Bignell
>
> Friends of CHamberlain I guess. Take care
1. The War Cabinet in 1939 consisted of nine people.
2. In 1940, when it was five people, they were Winston Churchill
Neville Chamberlain, Clement Atlee, Lord Halifax and Arthur Greenwood.
When German peace feelers were put out in 1940 both Chamberlain and
Halifax wanted to negotiate but, pretty obviously, didn't get their
way and were given the sack reasonably quickly afterwards.
As far as I can make out neither man advocated 'peace at any price'.
William Black
During the war Chruchill threatened to have him courtmartialled for
> working against Brittain in showing sympathy with the Nazi occupation of
> France.
Now that is interesting.
Any proof?
Singanas@Texasgulfcoast
> Stanley Moore wrote:
>
> During the war Chruchill threatened to have him courtmartialled for
>
> > working against Brittain in showing sympathy with the Nazi occupation of
> > France.
>
> Now that is interesting.
>
> Any proof?
>
> --
> William Black
>
As the facilitator of this thread, I may say we can all agree that the
best way to get William Black to post is to make a mistake or two
about U.K. history in our commentaries.
Cheers, David H
~~~~~
am...@hotmail.com
Probably:
Unless I miss something, Henry V had been waging aggressive war
against France (on the French soil). Analogy with the Brits being
bombed by the Germans in WWII eludes me. Well, to think about it,
Hitler was also talking a lot about _his_ historical mission (not sure
if he used "God's chosen" phrase) and, IIRC, Henry was credited with
the statement that the war without burning is like sausages without a
mustard.
[This is not to say that I did not like Olivier's movie]
Stanley Moore
> Stanley Moore wrote:
>
> During the war Chruchill threatened to have him courtmartialled for
>> working against Brittain in showing sympathy with the Nazi occupation of
>> France.
>
> Now that is interesting.
>
> Any proof?
>
I do not have proof bute there are references in the Wikipedia article. Take
Stanley Moore
> Stanley Moore wrote:
>> "Nightjar <"cpb"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote in message
>> news:w5adnQWFrbzOqILW...@giganews.com...
>>> William Black wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> 4. At no point in WWII did any majority of UK cabinet ministers wish
>>>> to surrender.
>>> It was a close run thing. The decision would have been made by the War
>>> Cabinet, not the full Cabinet, and, at the start of the war, two of the
>>> five War Cabinet ministers wanted to make peace on just about any terms.
>>>
>>> Colin Bignell
>>
>> Friends of CHamberlain I guess. Take care
>
> 1. The War Cabinet in 1939 consisted of nine people.
>
> 2. In 1940, when it was five people, they were Winston Churchill
> Neville Chamberlain, Clement Atlee, Lord Halifax and Arthur Greenwood.
>
> When German peace feelers were put out in 1940 both Chamberlain and
> Halifax wanted to negotiate but, pretty obviously, didn't get their way
> and were given the sack reasonably quickly afterwards.
>
> As far as I can make out neither man advocated 'peace at any price'.
>
> --
But earlier Chamberlain advocated peace at the price of Czechoslovakia <G>.
The Czechs ended up paying heavily. Take care
Paul J Gans
>Probably:
Well, the claim was that Henry V was England's greatest king.
I dunno. He left no particular lasting conquests, nor did
he leave England in a stable state. It was, in general, not
a peaceful time in England.
Greatness often is granted on the basis of either conquest or
stability. I'm not sure he fits either one.
>[This is not to say that I did not like Olivier's movie]
I rather liked it myself. Complete with derrick for hoisting
knights onto their horses.
William Black
There's a difference between giving up Czechoslovakia in peacetime,
especially when your defences are not yet in place, and ending a war
that is already running.
Especially as there was an election due the moment it looked like the
shooting was going to stop.
Any British government that signed a peace treaty with Germany in 1940
becomes horribly unelectable instantly.
As Churchill, Chamberlain and Halifax were members of the party that was
going to get mulched I very much doubt they'd surrender, it would have
been political suicide.
William Black
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:hfo517$gsb$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Stanley Moore wrote:
>>
>> During the war Chruchill threatened to have him courtmartialled for
>>> working against Brittain in showing sympathy with the Nazi occupation of
>>> France.
>> Now that is interesting.
>>
>> Any proof?
>>
>
> I do not have proof bute there are references in the Wikipedia article. Take
> care
Which Wikipedia article?
There are more than one...
William Black
> Well, the claim was that Henry V was England's greatest king.
> I dunno. He left no particular lasting conquests, nor did
> he leave England in a stable state. It was, in general, not
> a peaceful time in England.
>
He left England with an infant king, always a recipe for trouble.
But as he died at the age of 35 that's hardly his fault.
As for lasting conquests, where, except for Wales, ever was?
Gibraltar possibly...
As for 'greatest king'?
Well, Charles I ushered in an English republic...
All else pales after that...
Elizabeth I was cool though...
Stanley Moore
> Stanley Moore wrote:
>> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:hfo517$gsb$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Stanley Moore wrote:
>>>
>>> During the war Chruchill threatened to have him courtmartialled for
>>>> working against Brittain in showing sympathy with the Nazi occupation
>>>> of France.
>>> Now that is interesting.
>>>
>>> Any proof?
>>>
>>
>> I do not have proof bute there are references in the Wikipedia article.
>> Take care
>
> Which Wikipedia article?
>
> There are more than one...
>
Sorry. It was the one on Eedward VIII.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_VIII_of_the_United_Kingdom
The referencee to Churchill and the court martial was:
"During the occupation of France, the Duke asked the German forces to place
guards at his Paris and Riviera homes: they did so.[68] A "defeatist"
interview with the Duke that was widely distributed may have served as the
last straw for the British government: Prime Minister Winston Churchill
threatened the Duke with a court-martial if he did not return to British
soil."[69]
Reference 69 is"
1.. ^ Bloch, The Duke of Windsor's War, p. 93.
Stanley Moore
But didn't you just say that Halifax and Chamberlain were in favor of coming
to terms with Hitler? Knowing they would be unelectible would seem to be
"peace at any price", at least the heaviest price a politician could be
expected to pay. <G>.
Tale care
--
Stanley L. Moore
"Victory at all costs, victory
in spite of all terror, victory
however long and hard the
road may be; for without victory,
there is no survival."
Winston Churchill:
speech, May 13, 1940
am...@hotmail.com
Well, if he was, this leaves us guessing who bad was the rest of
them. :-)
> I dunno. He left no particular lasting conquests, nor did
> he leave England in a stable state. It was, in general, not
> a peaceful time in England.
>
> Greatness often is granted on the basis of either conquest or
> stability. I'm not sure he fits either one.
He does not.
>
> >[This is not to say that I did not like Olivier's movie]
>
> I rather liked it myself. Complete with derrick for hoisting
> knights onto their horses.
I strongly suspect that this one was not quite "historical" but it was
funny, indeed (humor was an important part of Olivier's movie but is
totally absent from the recent version making it, as far as I'm
concerned, unbearably pompous and boring).
William Black
No.
I said they seem to have been in favour of negotiations.
At no point did I make the suggestion that any agreement was possible,
and neither has anyone else I can find.
They wanted to talk.
They may have wanted to do so 'for the record' because they certainly
weren't going to get their way in this case. The Labour men and
Churchill had a pretty good idea of what would happen to them if Hitler
triumphed.
Mike Stone
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hfot2o$p5l$4...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> William Black
> >
> > But didn't you just say that Halifax and Chamberlain were in favor of
coming
> > to terms with Hitler?
>
> No.
>
> I said they seem to have been in favour of negotiations.
>
> At no point did I make the suggestion that any agreement was possible,
> and neither has anyone else I can find.
>
> They wanted to talk.
>
> They may have wanted to do so 'for the record' because they certainly
> weren't going to get their way in this case. The Labour men and
> Churchill had a pretty good idea of what would happen to them if Hitler
> triumphed.
>
Istr from Martin Gilbert's _Finest Hour_ that even Churchill discussed peace
negotiations with Hitler - but only as a _very_ theoretical possibility.
As near as I can remember, Gilbert quotes Churchill as saying that if Hitler
agreed to withdraw from the occupied countries in return for keeping
Germany's _1914_ borders in Europe (plus Austria and Sudetenland) and
regaining Germany's former colonies, he would have to recommend acceptance,
since the chances of getting better terms than that by continuing the war
would be so problematic. However, Churchill went straight on to add that the
chances of Hitler being as moderate as this in his demands were so remote
that the matter wasn't really worth serious discussion.
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough, England
"Freddie experienced the sort of abysmal soul-sadness which afflicts one of
Tolstoy's Russian peasants when, after putting in a heavy day's work
strangling his father, beating his wife, and dropping the baby in the
reservoir, he turns to the cupboard only to find the vodka bottle empty".
P G Wodehouse - Jill the Reckless
95 Thesen
~~~~~~~~~~
You say the Germans did not bomb the docks until 1940.
I say the Germans hit the London docks in September 1939.
Cheers, David H
~~~~~
Mike Stone
"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:hfol8e$192$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>
> Well, the claim was that Henry V was England's greatest king.
> I dunno. He left no particular lasting conquests, nor did
> he leave England in a stable state. It was, in general, not
> a peaceful time in England.
>
The generation after Henry V's death was about as peaceful as things ever
got in the Middle Ages.
After all, things were orderly enough that the government continued to
function despite the longest royal minority of all time. Things didn't start
to fall apart until the late 1440s, after his incompetent son had taken up
the reins of government.
Trouble was that the internal peace had been bought essentially by
"exporting" the disorder across the Channel - all the violent types could do
their thing in France. Once the French war was lost, of course they came
back to England - and promptly started up the Wars of the Roses.
William Black
There seems to be some sort of misunderstanding here.
There is no doubt that the Germans put out peace feelers in early 1940
after the fall of France.
There is no doubt that the War Cabinet discussed these and that two
members of the War Cabinet were in favour of discussions and three were
against.
Nobody ever discussed surrender and nobody seems to have even considered
any sort of accommodation with Germany short of the end of hostilities
and German withdrawal to their pre war borders.
William Black
That's a new one.
Cite please.
Paul J Gans
>"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:hfol8e$192$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>>
>> Well, the claim was that Henry V was England's greatest king.
>> I dunno. He left no particular lasting conquests, nor did
>> he leave England in a stable state. It was, in general, not
>> a peaceful time in England.
>>
>The generation after Henry V's death was about as peaceful as things ever
>got in the Middle Ages.
>After all, things were orderly enough that the government continued to
>function despite the longest royal minority of all time. Things didn't start
>to fall apart until the late 1440s, after his incompetent son had taken up
>the reins of government.
>Trouble was that the internal peace had been bought essentially by
>"exporting" the disorder across the Channel - all the violent types could do
>their thing in France. Once the French war was lost, of course they came
>back to England - and promptly started up the Wars of the Roses.
That's one way to look at it. But if you go that route
you'd have to think of the early Henry's, I and II. Things
were fairly peaceful in England during their reigns.
Stanley Moore
But surely such a deal was impossible, Even by 1940 Britain was still so
weak militarily Hitler would never consent to something like this especially
when he held the whop hand in Europe. Taje care
--
Stanley L. Moore
Renia
> ~~~~~~~~~~
> You say the Germans did not bomb the docks until 1940.
> I say the Germans hit the London docks in September 1939.
Then you'd be wrong.
95 Thesen
~~~~~
Well then I confess it was a PBS documentary
which misled me. Was it September 1940 for the
first London docks raid ? I heard that the day was the
same as Saint Mary's birthday.
As for the split in Churchill's cabinet, the documentary claimed that
"the majority" of the cabinet favored negotiations.
All bombed out,
David H
~~~~
Michael Siemon
<5dfb54f9-447b-45bd...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
95 Thesen <davidh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Never believe _anything_ you see on a network television "documentary"
-- unless you know the entire history of the particular program and
the CV of all parties responsible for the final product. "Production
values" always trump mere truth.
Allan
"95 Thesen" <davidh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5dfb54f9-447b-45bd...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 12, 8:44 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
> 95 Thesen wrote:
> > ~~~~~~~~~~
> > You say the Germans did not bomb the docks until 1940.
> > I say the Germans hit the London docks in September 1939.
>
> Then you'd be wrong.
>
> http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/blitz.htm
~~~~~
Well then I confess it was a PBS documentary
which misled me. Was it September 1940 for the
first London docks raid ?
****************************
The first air raid on Britain in WWII was I think in October 1939 but that
was a hit on naval targets in the Firth of Forth near Edinburgh.
Allan
William Black
The major British problem was mobilising the Empire and Dominions.
They constituted a massive economic and military power that far
outstripped Germany in just about every way.
The British had also worked out that the Germans had no real chance of
launching a successful invasion and assumed that the Germans had worked
that out as well.
But the Germans hadn't...
They still thought that they could defeat the RAF, then sink the Royal
Navy, then invade.
The British knew they might manage the first, but that the second was
certainly beyond their capability and that the economic 'facts of life'
meant that the Germans would lose eventually, even if they didn't attack
the USSR, but it could be a very long process.
When discussing the period it is always very important to be aware that
the really important date is in March 1940, before the Fall of France,
when the Frisch�Peierls memorandum was made available to the British
government.
It reads, in part:
-------------------------------------
Strictly Confidential
Memorandum on the properties of a radioactive �super-bomb�
The attached detailed report concerns the possibility of constructing a
�super-bomb� which utilizes the energy stored in atomic nuclei as a
source of energy. The energy liberated in the explosion of such a
super-bomb is about the same as that produced by the explosion of 1000
tons of dynamite. This energy is liberated in a small volume, in which
it will, for an instant, produce a temperature comparable to that in the
interior of the sun. The blast from such an explosion would destroy life
in a wide area. The size of this area is difficult to estimate, but it
will probably cover the centre of a big city.
In addition, some part of the energy set free by the bomb goes to
produce radioactive substances, and these will emit very powerful and
dangerous radiations. The effect of these radiations is greatest
immediately after the explosion, but it decays only gradually and even
for days after the explosion any person entering the affected area will
be killed.
Some of this radioactivity will be carried along with the wind and will
spread the contamination; several miles downwind this may kill people.
----------------------------------
The British knew an atomic bomb was possible and they thought they could
build one.
When they got hold of Bohr in late 1941 they knew they were well ahead
of the Germans, but that's another story...
William Black
> As for the split in Churchill's cabinet, the documentary claimed that
> "the majority" of the cabinet favored negotiations.
If a majority had favoured negotiations then they'd have negotiated.
That's how cabinet government works...
Andrew Chaplin
@news.eternal-september.org:
> The major British problem was mobilising the Empire and Dominions.
>
> They constituted a massive economic and military power that far
> outstripped Germany in just about every way.
Not for nothing did KGVI and Queen Elizabeth come to Canada before visiting
the U.S. in 1939. The royal visit was key to mobilizing public opinion
here. At the time, all that was considered was the provision of token
forces (IIRC, 1st Cdn Division, 1 Sqn, RCAF, and any and all warships based
in Slackers) and materiel; helping to victual and re-arm the U.K. was a way
to recover from the depression in which Canada had been mired. A
significant percentage of Canada's agricultural and industrial capacity had
been unused since 1930.
India, I think, would be difficult to mobilize, entangled as it was in its
own process of becoming something other than "the jewel in the Crown."
Australia and New Zealand, leery as they were of the Japanese, were more
likely to respond to the touch.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
William Black
> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in news:hg2piv$v75$1
> @news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> The major British problem was mobilising the Empire and Dominions.
>>
>> They constituted a massive economic and military power that far
>> outstripped Germany in just about every way.
>
> Not for nothing did KGVI and Queen Elizabeth come to Canada before visiting
> the U.S. in 1939. The royal visit was key to mobilizing public opinion
> here. At the time, all that was considered was the provision of token
> forces (IIRC, 1st Cdn Division, 1 Sqn, RCAF, and any and all warships based
> in Slackers) and materiel; helping to victual and re-arm the U.K. was a way
> to recover from the depression in which Canada had been mired. A
> significant percentage of Canada's agricultural and industrial capacity had
> been unused since 1930.
>
> India, I think, would be difficult to mobilize, entangled as it was in its
> own process of becoming something other than "the jewel in the Crown."
> Australia and New Zealand, leery as they were of the Japanese, were more
> likely to respond to the touch.
And yet the largest national contingent from any Allied country was the
Indian contingent.
Surreyman
>
> - Show quoted text -
I suspect the war wasn't continued for mere electoral
concerns ........
Anyway, a National Coalition Government of all major parties was in
place during the war. Elections weren't a consideration until 1945.
Surreyman
Andrew Chaplin
> Andrew Chaplin wrote:
>> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
>> news:hg2piv$v75$1 @news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>> The major British problem was mobilising the Empire and Dominions.
>>>
>>> They constituted a massive economic and military power that far
>>> outstripped Germany in just about every way.
>>
>> Not for nothing did KGVI and Queen Elizabeth come to Canada before
>> visiting the U.S. in 1939. The royal visit was key to mobilizing
>> public opinion here. At the time, all that was considered was the
>> provision of token forces (IIRC, 1st Cdn Division, 1 Sqn, RCAF, and
>> any and all warships based in Slackers) and materiel; helping to
>> victual and re-arm the U.K. was a way to recover from the depression
>> in which Canada had been mired. A significant percentage of Canada's
>> agricultural and industrial capacity had been unused since 1930.
>>
>> India, I think, would be difficult to mobilize, entangled as it was
>> in its own process of becoming something other than "the jewel in the
>> Crown." Australia and New Zealand, leery as they were of the
>> Japanese, were more likely to respond to the touch.
>
> And yet the largest national contingent from any Allied country was
> the Indian contingent.
When you mobilize a small fraction of a huge population, it will still
run larger than anybody else.
Mike Stone
"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:hg0jqq$74r$8...@reader1.panix.com...
But as you note you have to go back a very long way to find such a case. The
Norman kings (except Stephen) kept the lid on, but even they had the benefit
of a lot of troublesome barons exporting themselves on Crusade. Henry II
restored order, but only until his sons grew up. Then it was back to normal.
Thereafter, it was essentially a choice of violence at home or violence
abroad, until the Tudors managed to break the cycle.
Paul J Gans
Hmm. Billy the Bastard had to fight a number of actions
in England *after* the Conquest. The Harrowing of the North
comes to mind. William Rufus did not reign for very long and
had one rebellion to put down and totally lousy relations with
the church.
Henry I, on the other hand, ruled for a long time. The only
real fighting that he did was with his brother Robert. He
is known for the way he ran England.
Stephen spend much of his early reign fighting serious civil
war. Henry II reigned for about as long as Henry II. And while
it is true that he faced several "wars" on the continent caused
by his children, they were no real threat to him and did not
harm the "peace" in England to any extent. Like his grandfather,
Henry I, he was known for improving the system of justice and
keeping the church under control, the murder of Becket not
withstanding. He also, like his grandfather. kept control
of his nobles.
After that, things went downhill for a while, though John
is probably due for rehabilitation.
And yes, I've ignored wars with Scotland and Wales.
Anyway, that's my defense of my choices of either of
the two first Henrys.
William Black
> After that, things went downhill for a while, though John
> is probably due for rehabilitation.
>
That'll be the third time in my lifetime.
He runs from being 'complete shit' then to 'competent but unlucky
administrator' and on to 'As good a soldier as his brother and he
actually lived here and ran the place' every twenty five years or so...
Paul J Gans
>Paul J Gans wrote:
>> After that, things went downhill for a while, though John
>> is probably due for rehabilitation.
>>
>That'll be the third time in my lifetime.
>He runs from being 'complete shit' then to 'competent but unlucky
>administrator' and on to 'As good a soldier as his brother and he
>actually lived here and ran the place' every twenty five years or so...
At a regional conference several years back I heard a well-respected
medieval historian claim that John inherited a bad economy in
England, still reeling from the cost of Richard's ransom. He
then lost a great deal of money in various ways, including a
large chunk of the royal treasury in the Wash. And at the
conclusion of his realm, England was one of the richest nations
in Europe.
How much of this is true, I cannot say, but clearly *some* of
the accusations against John can't be completely true.
William Black
It does make you wonder where they all came from in the first place.
His son was a disaster area, child king followed by civil wars followed
by a country run by his 'overmighty subjects'.
His grandson was obviously trying to be the 'hero king', and who turned
out to be obsessed with 'the vision thing' with his attempts to make
Britain a single administrative unit and a huge change in the way the
country was won.
I can see his propagandists going around saying 'Things were much worse
in King John's days, what we need is a proper system for good
government'...
William Black
'Run', the way the country was RUN...
VtSkier
I once read a novel (yes fiction) in which John
and Llewelyn the Great of Wales were the main
characters. In it John is portrayed pretty well
but was apparently pretty hard on the chuch, taking
properties here and there when it suited him, etc.
He is quoted in the book as saying something to the
effect, "I have been hard on the church and so I
won't be treated well by history because churchmen
write the histories."
Is that possibly true?
Stanley Moore
"Surreyman" <alandavi...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:9a7dfae9-328f-4168...@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Surreyman
*********************************************
At which time Churchill was promptly chucked out, sacked, and dismissed by
a grateful nation. Take care
Paul J Gans
The actions of any medieval king interest me. But if we are
to decide "best" in any sense, my criteria tend to lie around
picking a peaceful nation (internally), a decent system of
justice, and a local governmental structure that allowed the
economy to flourish.
As a result it seems hard to judge kings from different eras
together and it seems to favor long reigns over short ones.
That last is not really a difficulty as a new king is almost
always tested; the peace comes after the test fails, if it
does.
We have even more fun in the US trying to pick "great presidents".
I can't tell you how many changes I've seen in such lists in
my lifetime.
Paul J Gans
>Is that possibly true?
Yes, possible, but not likely here.
What we know of earlier reigns, even those preceding William
the Conqueror, often come only from church sources, mainly
monastic. And there is little doubt that they wrote not
history, but books detailing the workings of God's will on
man.
It was their job to do this, and they did it.
As time progressed, there were more and more books written by
people more distant from the church and eventually also by
lay sources.
In addition, more and more records survive from later reigns.
These include deeds, charters, proclamations (the Magna Carta
dates from John's reign) etc., They add a lot to the picture.
So it is less likely that churchly views *determined* the more
or less standard view of John as opposed to, say, Willima Rufus
(William II) who was roundly *hated* by the church.
a425couple
> VtSkier <vts...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>>Paul J Gans wrote:
>>> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Paul J Gans wrote:
>>> At a regional conference several years back I heard a well-respected
>>> How much of this is true, I cannot say, but clearly *some* of
>>> the accusations against John can't be completely true.
>>I once read a novel (yes fiction) in which John
>>and Llewelyn the Great of Wales were the main
>>characters. In it John is portrayed pretty well
>>but was apparently pretty hard on the chuch, taking
>>properties here and there when it suited him, etc.
>
>>He is quoted in the book as saying something to the
>>effect, "I have been hard on the church and so I
>>won't be treated well by history because churchmen
>>write the histories."
>>Is that possibly true?
>
> Yes, possible, but not likely here.
> What we know of earlier reigns, even those preceding William
> the Conqueror, often come only from church sources, mainly
> monastic. And there is little doubt that they wrote not
> history, but books detailing the workings of God's will on
> man.
> It was their job to do this, and they did it.
> As time progressed, there were more and more books written by
> people more distant from the church and eventually also by
(A bit tongue in cheek, maybe not totally)
So, it then makes some sense, or there is thus some justification,
when at a recent lutefisk dinner:
One person was proclaiming that his Viking ancestors (800 - 1100AD)
were almost innocent victims of a prolonged, nasty public relations job
done on them by the monks (who could and did write!).
His claim was that most Vikings were just good sailors,
fishermen, traders, and settlers (but perhaps, a few when
frustrated by people trying to cheat them with bad trades,
did resort too easily to force of arms!)
erilar
"a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> (A bit tongue in cheek, maybe not totally)
> So, it then makes some sense, or there is thus some justification,
> when at a recent lutefisk dinner:
> One person was proclaiming that his Viking ancestors (800 - 1100AD)
> were almost innocent victims of a prolonged, nasty public relations job
> done on them by the monks (who could and did write!).
> His claim was that most Vikings were just good sailors,
> fishermen, traders, and settlers (but perhaps, a few when
> frustrated by people trying to cheat them with bad trades,
> did resort too easily to force of arms!)
You didn't already know that??? 8-)
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
Paul J Gans
Well, uh, maybe. This is a case of the losers getting to write
the history. I know that isn't supposed to happen, but it does.
There is no doubt that there were serious Viking armies about
England here and there, taking control of large quantities of
land. And there were raids, probably as vicious as reported.
On the other hand, that was more or less bog-standard raiding
practice. What's the point of risking your life raiding if
you couldn't have a pretty girl or two?
In addition to all this there is no doubt that many, if not
most of the Norse and Danish "immigrants" were farmers. And
for a long time, many if not most were NOT Christians.
What was a good monk to do but to regard them as the punishment
of God for the sins of the English.
Surreyman
>
> - Show quoted text -
Trouble is, we still have too many of these ravaging hordes oop norf!
Lucky we pseudo-French southerners came in and tamed some, at least.
Surreyman
Weland
No. While there is certainly propaganda, and embellishment of the
situation by those most affected (the monks), the historical and
archeaological record bear witness that the Vikings for whatever reason
they came (some came to find new land to farm), they were an effective
military force that earned their reputation. And of course we usually
distinguish phases of the Viking incursions: the raider/trader period
early on, the settler period, the carving of new kingdoms period. So,
while there is certainly some embellishment by those monks, "correcting"
it by an equally erroneous "nicing up" isn't any better.
Paul J Gans
Perhaps someone needs a good harrowing eh? ;-)
Martin
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hfmj4b$al3$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> erilar wrote:
>> In article <hfm86n$962$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> 3. Olivier's 'Henry V' was made and released in 1944.
>>
>> Shakespeare wrote it a good deal earlier than that, however.
>>
>
> As propaganda for another war...
>
> But it didn't really enter the national consciousness until Olivier's
> movie.
>
> Olivier was undoubtedly the great populariser of Shakespeare in the last
> century in England and his film adaptations stand head and shoulders above
> just about all the others.
Yes, and the Shakespeare text was somewhat edited - check out Olivier's
speech at the walls of Harfleur Vs the original!
Martin
"a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hfm10...@news6.newsguy.com...
> "Singanas@Texasgulfcoast" <davidh...@yahoo.com> wrote in...
>> Source: "Heroes", Paul Johnson, Harper Collins, New York, 2007.
>>
>> 1. He regarded victory at Agincourt as God
>> given, and this humbled him for life because
>> he was heavily outnumbered. He was never
>> arrogant after that battle.
>>
>> 2. His self confidence as God's chosen was
>> absolute, and this radiated outward to his own nobles, to Parliament,
>> to the nation and even to the enemy camp. He was the King of France
>> for one year...1421.
>>
>> 3. He never pushed his luck. He remained
>> realistic about taxes and other demands.
>> He built up an excellent working relationship
>> with the nobility, the knights of the Shires,
>> the burghers of the towns, and even the
>> peasantry. His control of the treasury and the
>> exchequer was firm and secure. His taxes
>> and surcharges were reasonable, and he
>> was always able to prove that the monies
>> were sensibly spent.
>>
>> 4. He played the nationalist card with great
>> skill.He would not tolerate French speaking
>> Abbeys nor their repatriation of revenues to
>> France. (His intolerance of French monks
>> set the precedent for a later Henry to seize
>> all monasteries which owned one fifth of the
>> land. )
>>
>> 5. He was the first English king to speak
>> English habitually and to write it fluently
>> and idiomatically. His letters are nearly
>> always in English. His nobles also began
>> to write their letters in English. Cheers, David H
>
> 6. He inspired a later writer to give us the phrases: "We few, we happy
> few, we band of brothers;
> For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
> Shall be my brother; ---
> And gentlemen in England now a-bed
> Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
> And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
> That fought with us ---"
When in fact all he said was "let's go lads!"
The plain and simple answer is that (like JF Kennedy) he died before he
managed to make any monumental cock ups....
He was not the greatest English King anyway... that was probably King
Harold, who was also the last English King!
Martin
"Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:hgnvi4$mf9$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
You do trust in the most unlikely people Larry!
Our entire recorded history has been bent, twisted and misrepresented by
dishonest churchmen, who had a monopoly on reading and writing. This is a
known fact - why are you so reluctant to accept ir?
Mike Stone
"Martin" <martin147...@outgun.com> wrote in message
news:6IJ_m.3954$%f3....@newsfe03.ams2...
>
> The plain and simple answer is that (like JF Kennedy) he died before he
> managed to make any monumental cock ups....
>
And perhaps more relevantly, _unlike _ Edward III, dying before his powers
started to fail and/or the tide of war could turn against him.
> He was not the greatest English King anyway...
Agreed. He was an able soldier, but (as with Richard I) it's not clear that
the country profited much, in the long run, from having him.
>that was probably King
> Harold, who was also the last English King!
>
One can feel tremendous sympathy for him, but reigning for nine months and
then suffering the most disastrous defeat in English history hardly
qualifies as "greatness". Even had Harold won Hastings and enjoyed a long
reign, would he have been any greater than Edgar or Canute?
Surely the greatest English king has to be Alfred. There's darned good
reason why he's the only one to be styled "Great" at all. Without him there
probably wouldn't even _be_ an England.
Martin
"Mike Stone" <mws...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7q1lpk...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> "Martin" <martin147...@outgun.com> wrote in message
> news:6IJ_m.3954$%f3....@newsfe03.ams2...
>>
>
>> The plain and simple answer is that (like JF Kennedy) he died before he
>> managed to make any monumental cock ups....
>>
>
> And perhaps more relevantly, _unlike _ Edward III, dying before his powers
> started to fail and/or the tide of war could turn against him.
>
>
>
>> He was not the greatest English King anyway...
>
> Agreed. He was an able soldier, but (as with Richard I) it's not clear
> that
> the country profited much, in the long run, from having him.
>
>
>>that was probably King
>> Harold, who was also the last English King!
>>
>
> One can feel tremendous sympathy for him, but reigning for nine months and
> then suffering the most disastrous defeat in English history hardly
> qualifies as "greatness". Even had Harold won Hastings and enjoyed a long
> reign, would he have been any greater than Edgar or Canute?
>
> Surely the greatest English king has to be Alfred. There's darned good
> reason why he's the only one to be styled "Great" at all. Without him
> there
> probably wouldn't even _be_ an England.
Surely you mean Arthur? He must surely have featured in the most films - a
sure sign of greatness?
VtSkier
There never was an Arthur, there surely was Alfred.
Mike Stone
"VtSkier" <vts...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:12644379...@r2d2.vermontel.net...
>
> There never was an Arthur, there surely was Alfred.
And there's the little matter that Arthur failed in the end. Alfred
succeeded.
Singanas@Texasgulfcoast
> "VtSkier" <vtsk...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
~~~~~~~
Hear, hear !
Three cheers for Alfred as the greatest rex britannicus
with the greatest navy in that era before the Norman invasion.
David H
~~~~~
Martin
"VtSkier" <vts...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:12644379...@r2d2.vermontel.net...
Surely not? He wrote his name on that bridge! So they say...
Gordon Johnson
> Our entire recorded history has been bent, twisted and misrepresented by
> dishonest churchmen, who had a monopoly on reading and writing. This is a
> known fact - why are you so reluctant to accept ir?
>
records of the "state" tend to agree with the basic facts as told by the
religious historians. It is just the PR slant that is questionable.
There are a number of histories after the period of Viking incursions,
when Norsemen had settled as local rulers, and these rulers don't seem
to have taken issue with the churchmen's histories.
Gordon.