text:
tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87839693023152574152016-06-27T00:10:30.838-05:00The Mad Monarchist"They cannot understand as yet that we are not fighting a political party but a sect of murderers of all contemporary spiritual culture."MadMonarchisthttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-48922624366281076552016-06-24T07:40:00.002-05:002016-06-24T07:40:57.226-05:00Royal News Special Report: Thoughts on Brexit

Yesterday, the people of the United Kingdom (or rather the people of England) voted to leave the European Union and reclaim the independence of Great Britain. I must admit, I did not think the British public had it in them any longer but, though it was narrower than I would have liked, the Brits have proven to be made of sterner stuff than I had been giving them credit for. In the face of opposition from basically the entire global ruling class, Britons voted to take back their sovereignty from the meddling bureaucrats and shadowy puppet-masters in Brussels. That is nothing short of historic and it is not because the European Union was some sort of major force in the world. It is basically a continental Ponzi scheme that has been struggling to survive even with extensive assistance. Rather, it is historic because the British voters chose to break with the narrative, to defy the internationalist ruling class of politicians and big business in Washington, London, Brussels and Peking. They defied the ruling class, showed two fingers to "the establishment" and did what all of those with power and influence and celebrity around the world told them NOT to do.

Now, from the monarchist perspective, this was the right decision regardless of the political or economic situation. The United Kingdom, as with any traditional monarchy, is supposed to have *one* sovereign, above which there is no higher, earthly authority. The Queen, represented in law by "the Crown", is the embodiment of the nation and the source for all government authority. All law, authority and legitimacy comes from the Crown and as such there is to be nothing above the Crown. The Queen, as the embodiment of the nation, appoints the prime minister who governs the country and it is the powers of the Crown which the government exercises. Given all of that, the idea that the Westminster Parliament, the British courts and laws given legitimacy by the authority of the Queen could all be overruled by acts of the European Union is a disgraceful and disjointed state of affairs that any loyalist should have been repelled by on principle. U.K. membership in the E.U. was also a snubbing of the Queen's other subjects from Canada to Australia in favor of others to which Britain has no ancestral, cultural or historical connection whatsoever. But the bottom line is that the government of Britain is supposed to be the Queen's government and is supposed to answer to her and not to Brussels.

For myself, the most impressive thing about this outcome was the defiance of the global ruling class. All the celebrities in Britain backed "remain", Tony Blair, Call Me Dave Cameron, all the leading political figures in Britain backed "remain". The rulers of the EU of course warned Britain to "remain", the Japanese wanted Britain to "remain" and President Obama even came to Britain and basically threatened people to vote "remain" and the British had the courage to defy all of these people, to reject their efforts to tell them what to do and also defied the elites of international finance. Yesterday, stocks on Wall Street were up, because everyone expected Britons to vote the way they had been told and this, in my opinion, was also an effort by the financial elites to effect the outcome. As the day went on and into the night (in America) it became clear that the "leave" vote was winning, stocks in Asia and futures in America started to fall. Japan actually shut down the Nikkei for a time for fear there would be a collapse. I don't think this was based on rationality but rather was an outpouring of petulant anger by the leaders of the global economy for the British people defying their wishes and making things more difficult for them. I applaud Britain for showing these people that they are not as all-powerful as they thought they were.

I do not believe the economic consequences will be as bad as people think, or at least they do not need to be because nothing in Britain has changed and some things will likely get better but that all depends on policy going forward. If things do get worse it will be because the international economic elites are trying to punish Britain for their rejection of their domination. Germans are still going to want to sell goods to Britain and Britain has long had a trade imbalance with the rest of the EU. Likewise, Britain has long been in the top ten of countries that buys the most and sells the most to the United States and a 2015 survey found that 90% of Americans have a favorable view of the British. This vote will not change that just as it does not change the fact that the two biggest financial centers of the western world have long been New York and London. Some of the international finance elites may want to punish Britain for the vote, but people still want to make money so they are still going to want to do business with Great Britain and barring any radical, idiotic changes in policy, that is not going to change no matter what the hysterical people say. They are simply upset that their cozy set-up has been inconvenienced.

Again, what happens going forward will depend on the British government, the policies they pursue and what the British people decide going forward (such as in Scotland and Northern Ireland) but I think this is a great day and it offers up a great deal of new possibilities for the future of Great Britain. I would hope that Britain renews and strengthens economic and military ties with the Commonwealth, I would like to see a stronger relationship between the countries of the Anglosphere and I would hope that the whole rotten edifice of the EU will start to collapse. I would welcome an "exit" vote in The Netherlands and Denmark, I would like to see Spain withdraw and draw closer to Latin America. There are things I would like to see for other European countries but for most of them they need to get a traditional, legitimate form of government back as their first priority. After that, and there would in many cases have to be some pain as they face the reality of their economic situation and make the hard choices that have been put off for far too long but, after that, there are plenty of possibilities for things to get better. Many people have highlighted the similarity between "Brexit" supporters and the rise of Donald Trump in America. There is something to that in as far as nationalism versus globalism goes but I want all of these countries to be "great" again and they can be. We know they can be for the simple reason that they have been before and they didn't need the European Union to make that happen.

Congratulations to Great Britain and God Save the Queen!MadMonarchisthttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-89630569721255314502016-06-21T10:15:00.001-05:002016-06-21T10:15:27.172-05:00Obama and America's Royal Allies

When Barrack Hussein Obama first ran for and was elected President of the United States, one could be forgiven for thinking that there was even greater pro-Obama hysteria outside of America than here at home. Around the world he was treated like a celebrity, drawing huge crowds in Britain, Germany and even being awarded a Nobel Peace Prize regardless of the minor detail of not having done anything to deserve it. However, now that his two terms in office are almost over most of that gushing adoration has died down and, looking at his administration, we can better evaluate how Obama has done in terms of dealing with the official and un-official allies of the United States. For our purposes here, we will be looking at Obama's relationship with the monarchies of the world, almost all of which are directly or indirectly allied to the United States. The picture that emerges is, unfortunately, not a pleasant one but not one that most conservatives at least would find at all surprising as they alone seemed interested enough to try to find out what sort of man Obama really is rather than falling in love at first sight with like those on the left, both at home and abroad.

In terms of his dealings with monarchs, one of the first things that grabbed public attention in America was Obama bowing to certain monarchs. If one cares to, one can look back at the archives and see that I stuck up for our president on this occasion, the first instance being when, on a visit to the Imperial Palace in Tokyo, he bowed to His Majesty the Emperor of Japan, albeit rather awkwardly while simultaneously trying to shake his hand. However, that was not the end of it. Many Americans lapsed into exaggerated hysterics about how it was an offense to republican principles for the President to bow to the Emperor of Japan, while the White House responded to the issue by saying the President was simply following local custom. As I said at the time, I had and have no problem with the President showing proper respect and bowing to the Japanese Emperor but I later came to have a problem with Obama's inconsistency on this front. Given what has happened since, I sometimes wonder if he was actually intentionally bowing at all or simply bending low to shake the Emperor's hand, given that the Japanese monarch is considerably shorter than the President.

No, it was not his behavior toward the Emperor of Japan that was a problem for me but rather where things went from there that showed Obama was not simply being fastidious on the issue of protocol. Later, Obama bowed to another monarch, that being the King of Saudi Arabia. He bowed so low in fact that it almost seemed he was about to pick something up off the floor. But, again, no major cause for alarm. However, when he later had formal meetings with other monarchs such as the King of Sweden, the King of Norway or the King of Spain, did he ever bow to any of them? Not that I noticed and Michelle Obama committed a major faux-pas in London by actually putting her hands on the person of Her Majesty the Queen. Obviously, the bowing was not being done in an effort to follow protocol to the last detail. If not, why does it seem that Obama only shows such respect to non-western, non-Christian monarchs? And, the list does not end there as Obama has, in his own behavior and the policies of his administration, done a great deal to show that America's royal friends are no friends of his.

We might as well begin with the United Kingdom which, while not our oldest, has certainly been our closest and most important ally. Despite being widely celebrated in the UK, with even conservatives like Tory MEP Daniel Hannan voicing support for him, Obama made it clear as soon as he took office that he was no great friend of the British. His first act upon moving into the Oval Office was to remove and send back the bust of Sir Winston Churchill that his presidential predecessor had placed there. In their first exchange of gifts, Obama sent the Queen some off-the-shelf items from the White House gift shop and an iPod loaded with his own speeches in an act which even many on the left thought arrogant and in very poor taste. These acts caused more than a few to recall how Obama had, in the books he enjoys writing about his favorite subject -himself-, related stories of how his grandfather in Kenya was supposedly tortured by British colonial authorities during the Mau Mau terrorist insurgency and whether the President might just have a strong anti-British grudge he is nursing. However, there is much more to it than mere symbolic gestures as those above.

Obama referred to the French as America's strongest friend and ally which is language usually reserved for the British with the French traditionally, and correctly, being referred to as America's "oldest" ally. Obama refused five requests for a private meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown (the Israeli PM could sympathize on that one) and later, in another appallingly bad exchange of gifts, sent Brown a set of various films on DVD which would have been bad enough but to add insult to injury they were DVDs that cannot be played in Britain. Are we expected to believe that Obama and his White House team that is bursting at the seams with Ivy League graduates, hailed as the smartest administration in American history, has no knowledge or understanding of region coding? He also, after the BP oil spill and conveniently right around election time, made a point of constantly referring to BP as "British Petroleum" as if to make it more sinister and foreign sounding, regardless of the fact that no one else calls it that anymore, the company having some time ago dropped the name and stuck only with the initials to stand for "Beyond Petroleum".

The most serious issues though, are those that deal with actual foreign policy as it relates to Great Britain. Obama has never wasted an opportunity to show his visceral dislike for the British. His primary cohort in this was his Secretary of State and current favored candidate to succeed him, Hillary Clinton. It was Clinton who pushed for the intervention in Libya only to then adopt the "lead from behind policy" and have Europe do all the heavy lifting involved. When the situation resulted in chaos, Obama was quick to blame the Europeans rather than accepting any responsibility for the actions of his own administration. Likewise, when Obama at least pretended like he wanted to go to war with Syria, he blamed British PM "Call me Dave" Cameron for failing to win a vote in the House of Commons for giving the U.S. Congress an example to follow and thus for every bit of bad news that has come out of Syria since. The one point, though, that I found most outrageous was when Argentina began rattling the saber again over the Falkland Islands in 2010, Obama sent Hillary Clinton to act as mediator and basically take the side of Argentina over Britain. Clinton no doubt agreed as it was her husband, President Bill Clinton, who made Argentina a "major non-NATO ally", and the only one in all of South America, in spite of the fact that this country has an outstanding territorial dispute with Britain, which is already an ally and which the U.S. is obligated to defend.

Finally, we have Obama's latest effort to insert himself into the debate over Britain staying in or leaving the European Union with Obama very publicly urging British voters to vote to stay in the European Union. This, of course, is just the sort of behavior that would infuriate Americans on the left and/or the right if it were done by a foreign leader in regard to an American issue. I am a big fan of the U.K. and as much as I wish that the British would feel the same about the U.S. the fact of the matter is that Britain should tell Obama to mind his own bloody business and not try to tell them how to vote. They should be concerned with what is best for Britain, not what is best for America (that is for Americans alone to worry about). Furthermore, I cannot regard this as yet more evidence of simple bad manners since I am very, very much of the opinion that staying in the EU is bad for Britain and so, taken along with his history in office, cannot dismiss the notion that Obama is purposely advocating something that has had and will have a very negative impact on a country he clearly dislikes. It is no surprise that more than one prominent figure in the 'Brexit' crowd such as Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage (UKIP MEP) have finally been compelled by this to state openly that Obama has been consistently anti-British during his time in office.

Moving beyond Europe, where thanks to the EU national relations between America and individual countries does not count for much anymore as Brussels handles everything, we have the problematic situation in the Middle East where, despite his bowing and scraping, Obama has left the Arab monarchies feeling less than pleased with the United States government. Certainly he has been more attentive to them than to the crowned heads of Europe but for the Arab monarchies there is one overriding issue and that is the Islamic Republic of Iran. For a long time there has been a long-standing tension and recurring open hostilities between Iran and the Arab states over the dominant position in the Middle East (and other than Egypt, the leading Arab states are predominately monarchies; Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Oman). Now, one can certainly question whether or not these Arab states are genuine allies of the United States (they leave plenty of room for doubt) but the facts on paper are that such is the case and they have been greatly alarmed by the Iranians, who already had a pliant ally in Syria, expanding their influence into Iraq and they have been trying to do the same in Yemen.

This has greatly alarmed the Arabs and never have they expressed more diplomatic outrage at the United States than after Obama's notorious "deal" concerning the nuclear program in Iran. This called for the release of billions of dollars to Iran, the lifting of economic sanctions on Iran and left little room for doubt that they will inevitably obtain nuclear weapons. Since the agreement, and in spite of it, they have also been buying more and more conventional weapons from the Russians. Of course, when it comes to Iran, the enemy they like to talk about the most is Israel but since the Islamic Revolution they have made it clear that they are the enemies of the Arab Muslims as well, referring to the Sunnis as the "heretics who hold Mecca". Obama's deal with Iran and his overall indecisiveness in the region so infuriated the Saudis that they turned down a temporary seat on the UN Security Council on the grounds that, thanks to Obama, it doesn't matter anyway. By clearing the way for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, Obama has set the stage for a nuclear arms race in the Middle East with Saudi Arabia and Egypt sure to obtain their own nuclear arsenals to counter that of Iran.

Moving farther to the east, we have the situation with America's most important ally in the East Asia-Pacific region: Japan. Here, a great many people, including a great many Japanese, have been fooled by Obama's empty gestures. He gave, as political pay-back, Japan a "celebrity" ambassador in the person of Caroline Kennedy, never mind that she has no diplomatic experience, could not speak Japanese or any such troubling details, she was a Kennedy after all, she is famous and she was given an uproarious welcome when she came to Japan. However, rather than simply representing the United States in Tokyo, Obama's chosen ambassador said that her primary goal in Japan was to promote greater participation in politics by women in Japan. Because, it seems, that gender roles in the Land of the Rising Sun are still far too traditional for the liberals of the Obama White House. What does it say that a foreign ambassador's stated goal upon being posted is to interfere in the internal affairs of the host country? To represent the American government is her job, to promote Japanese-American friendship is great, to promote American interests is fine but to try to tell Japanese voters what sort of people they need to elect is, again, none of her business and none of Obama's business. And one will notice that none of Obama's ambassadors to countries where women are treated as little more than property ever said anything similar. She has also stuck her nose where it doesn't belong with her comments critical of fishing practices in Taiji and the Prime Minister visiting the Yasukuni Shrine.

Other countries, particularly China and Korea, have a history of protesting any time any Japanese official chooses to worship at Yasukuni Shrine but the U.S. had previously always said nothing about it, considering it an internal matter and, shocking as this may sound, none of their business where and in what way a Japanese prime minister chooses to exercise his freedom of religion. But, all of that was before Obama and thanks to Kennedy's expression of "disappointment" other countries which had previously stayed out of the issue, took the occasion to speak up as well, piling on Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. The idea that someone as far to the left as Obama would find nothing to criticize in a prime minister as far to the right as Shinzo Abe was certainly naïve. What was most outrageous though was something that many in Japan cheered Obama for which was his public statement that the Senkaku Islands, which are Japanese territory but claimed by Communist China, are covered by the Japanese-American security treaty. In other words, if China decides to grab the islands, it will mean big trouble with America.

The Japanese applauded this but it was actually only a re-statement of what was already well established. What many, in all their rejoicing, failed to note was that Obama followed up that comment with the completely asinine statement that the U.S. took no official position on the territorial dispute over the islands between China and Japan. I seem to have been the only one to find this outrageous but I hope I am mistaken in that. Either way you look at it, this was an immensely outrageous thing for Obama to say. By that statement, Obama could only mean one of two things; either he meant that the Senkakus are Japanese territory and we will defend them but that could change at any time depending on how this dispute unfolds, or he just casually announced that he was pledging America's sons and daughters to possibly give their lives in defense of a cause which he is not even sure is the right one! In any case, it shows that Obama's attitude toward Japan has been one of tepid support and unfriendly meddling. An aide to Prime Minister Abe went so far as to say that relations were better when there was a Republican in the White House.

Lastly in the region, there is also the case of Obama's disgraceful record toward the Kingdom of Thailand. The United States and Thailand have been official allies since 1966 but have had friendly relations going back much farther with King Mongkut of Siam famously offering to send President Lincoln a herd of war elephants so he could fight the Civil War properly and illustrated at the worst of times by the United States not responding in kind when Thailand declared war on the United States in World War II. Things began to go wrong when, again, Obama decided to meddle in the affairs of an American ally after the 2014 military coup. Obama's Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton's successor, John Kerry caused great offense in the halls of power in Bangkok when he issued a statement expressing how "disappointed" he was in the actions of the Royal Thai Army and that, "this act will have negative implications for the U.S.-Thai relationship, especially for our relationship with the Thai military".

The Obama State Department has since then made numerous statements and taken actions which have all offended and aggravated our friends in Thailand and all because the military government is out-of-step with Obama's liberal worldview of how things should be done. And it cannot be said that this has nothing to do with the King, a great man revered in Thailand who was born in America and supported the United States during the Vietnam conflict. The King officially appointed the Thai general who led the coup to the office of prime minister in 2014, effectively giving it his endorsement and was totally correct to do so. Not only is the meddling of Obama unseemly and uncalled for, it is also putting him on the wrong side. The military took action because of the violent acts of radical leftists who were upset that their favorite government had been brought down, a government that was marked by corruption and criminal behavior on a rampant scale. By being so critical of the current government in Thailand, Obama has offended a long-standing friend and pushed them closer toward Communist China which is ever looking to increase its influence in Southeast Asia, made all the easier since Russia abandoned Vietnam in favor of the Chinese. Thailand is our only solid friend in the region and Obama, in true, holier-than-thou, Wilsonian fashion, has needlessly antagonized them and made things worse for Thailand as well as the United States.

It is not terribly dissimilar from his actions in regard to the republican government in Egypt where Obama pushed for the removal of an official Arab ally because he did not meet his lofty, liberal standards, only to then see the country fall into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood (an organization so radical even Arab monarchies like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the UAE have labeled it a terrorist organization). If Obama knew anything about Thailand he would know that the occasional coup is not exactly unprecedented and not the harbinger of disaster as it often is in other countries. He would know that the U.S. military and the Royal Thai military have worked closely together for decades and that the leaders of the Royal Thai Army are not power-hungry tyrants-in-waiting but are largely honorable men, loyal to their King, who want the best for their country and took action to save it from the disruptive, even terrorist and disloyal elements that were threatening it.

Then again, perhaps I am being unkind to Mr. Obama. Perhaps he knows the situation better than that. Perhaps he knows what the "red shirts" were all about, perhaps he approved of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his socialist, welfare-state policies, his easy loans and big spending that made Thai farmers dependent on the government, his cronyism, his rampant bribery and the violence and intimidation used by the supporters of the prime minister and his family. Maybe he sees nothing wrong with the extremely dubious loyalty of his crowd to the fundamentals of Thailand. If so, then he is guilty of nothing less than cheering on the ruination of an American ally and is doing the best he can, short of direct intervention, to kill any chance at recovery. However, whether his policy is malicious or simply ignorant, it has certainly been negative for both countries involved and has only served the interests of powers that have only the worst of intentions for both the United States and the Kingdom of Thailand in the long-run.

There are other issues that could be highlighted, such as Obama's killing of the Keystone XL pipeline, even going so far, as he did with BP, to invoke national bigotry by constantly complaining how the pipeline would primarily be to the benefit of Canada rather than the United States but, then again, that was when Stephen Harper was in office and I'm sure now that little Justin Trudeau has taken over his opinion of Canada has greatly improved. However, I think the case has been well made. President Obama has certainly been bad for this country and his constant habit of "reaching out" to our enemies while snubbing or taking sides against our allies, has certainly been well demonstrated and had negative consequences. The only problem I have in pointing this out is that, while it upsets me a great deal, from numerous on-line comments I see on a daily basis, I am also constantly having to face the dilemma that there is so much mindless anti-Americanism out there as to mean that in this twisted, upside-down world where many people seem to hate their friends and admire those who want to kill them, that maybe Obama's antagonistic attitude toward our royal allies will have the opposite effect that it otherwise would have. I hope that is not the case and hope that there is a silent majority out there who wants to be friends rather than enemies but, if that is not the case, change may soon be coming with the next presidential election.MadMonarchisthttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-63949624142940360012016-06-20T03:57:00.001-05:002016-06-20T03:59:05.597-05:00A Word on the Crisis and Opportunity in Brazil

As most of you probably know, Brazil in the midst of a rather serious political crisis at the moment. The whole issue involves corruption to put it simply, that constant hindrance of good government in republics the world over and to which, it is worth noting, monarchs are almost entirely immune. Last year the Brazilian legislature voting to impeach President Dilma Rousseff and currently her presidential powers have been suspended while all of this is sorted out. This has caused a considerable uproar with a great deal of public anger against not only this president but against the Brazilian government in general. Many people, in many other countries, can certainly sympathize with such a sentiment as very few around the world currently seem to feel that they are getting all that they deserve from their governments. There have been large protests in Brazil and in those crowds the monarchists of Brazil have not been unrepresented. That is certainly good to see.

Of course, it should come as no surprise that I would be glad to see the President of Brazil gone from office but not only this president but rather the presidency itself. One would think that people would really start to question the fundamentals of their political system in these liberal democratic republics all over the world when so many people are so unhappy with the people that they themselves elected to high office. In Brazil as in many other places, people revere the idea of democracy while bemoaning the fact that it seems to be constantly failing them. When this is pointed out, they, in my experience, invariably respond that it is simply that there are no good options, that good people do not run for office and even if they do, they do not stay "good people" for very long after achieving it. Well, that in itself should tell you something about the system. Is the current democratic system really all that wonderful when, yes, you get to choose but only between a pre-selected group of bad options?

For Brazil, the situation is even more stark than it is in many other places. Although the economy has been growing in recent years and it has often been identified as one of the "rising powers" of the world (particularly when contrasted with the decline in Europe), most people live below the economic level of those in other advanced countries. Brazil has an immense wealth of natural resources and yet most people always seem to be barely getting by. Much of that, no doubt, has to do with the policies and the priorities of the various governments but overall, Brazil has not lived up to the promise that it once showed and that is where the monarchists of Brazil have an invaluable tool. It was as the Empire of Brazil that the country achieved its zenith and which set the standard that caused so many around the world to expect great things from the country.

Under the monarchy, Brazilian politics was still a rather rough business with governments coming and going in rather quick succession, however, because of the Emperor, this was done in an orderly way rather than the chaos that often broke out after he was gone. The Emperor gave Brazil stability and people can prosper or at least persevere under some significant challenges if only there is stability. During the reign of Dom Pedro II in particular, Brazil was the place where there seemed to be opportunity, it was growing, it was advancing, it overcame challenges from its neighbors and was establishing itself as the most significant power in South America. At its peak it boasted the fifth largest navy in the world with battleships more formidable than those of even the United States. More than any other in the region, it was the country that the rest of the world was keeping an eye on, expecting it to become even greater still.

After the end of the monarchy, chaos quickly became commonplace and Brazil seemed to start falling into the same pattern of so many of her Latin American neighbors. Sometimes things got better, other times worse until Brazil is at the point it is today. There have been efforts to restore the monarchy before, with Brazilian monarchists even managing to put the issue to a vote which is so rare for former monarchies as to be almost unprecedented. That precedent provides at least more hope than might otherwise exist for the monarchists of Brazil to get another chance. Fortunately, the Brazilian Imperial Family is still around, still well thought of in general and, perhaps most importantly, still involved in Brazilian society. I have been more and more impressed with His Imperial and Royal Highness Prince Bertrand over the years who has set an example that I really wish more non-reigning royals would follow. He has not hesitated to advocate for the restoration of the monarchy and has also shown no hesitation in actually taking a position on issues that matter and I have been very impressed by his views on the state of the Catholic Church, his views on politics and his efforts to educate the people of Brazil on the benefits of private property and free markets. All in all, Brazil could not ask for a better potential emperor and I would consider all Brazilians to be very fortunate to have him.

Whether anything will come of this, I cannot say. I can only say what I would most like to see happen in Brazil and that is for the people to finally shed themselves of this succession of presidents that has so badly failed them, restore the monarchy, make Prince Bertrand the Emperor of Brazil, follow his advice in policy matters and then go on to establish ever closer ties with Portugal (hoping that Lisbon might follow their example) and the other Portuguese-speaking communities around the world to make the Empire of Brazil not just a regional power but a voice of influence on the world stage as well. That is my vision, most may not consider it likely to happen, but I can imagine nothing better. Certainly the current system is unworthy of the honorable history that the empire gave to Brazil and only the empire would be worthy of the glorious future I would like to see for the country. So make it happen Brazil! Declare your independence from self-serving politicians and corrupt presidents. Independência ou Morte!MadMonarchisthttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-53323143085582068712016-06-15T13:39:00.001-05:002016-06-15T13:39:15.832-05:00Lies The Iranian Revolutionaries Told You

(Note: This was originally going to be a video for my 'Politically Incorrect Truth About Monarchy' series but the new Windows10 sound recorder is not compatible with the Windows10 movie-making program. Go figure. I only have an outline for those things -because I don't want to sound like I'm just reading things- but I took that and 'fleshed it out' into this piece. Not something I would normally do but since I had already said I was going to do the video, and that is no longer possible, this was the only way to go. -MM)

When it comes to revolutions, many people have an incorrect view of them, an overly romanticized view. However, most manage to get the basic facts across, they simply try to justify the bad points in the name of the greater good of "the revolution". However, the Islamic Revolution in Iran might just stand alone as being the most dishonest revolution in history. Its story is one of lies from beginning to end. For the sake of convenience I have boiled these down to four big categories of lies that the Iranian revolutionaries have told the world. Unfortunately, as time goes on, more and more people seem to give up and accept their dishonest version of events, though the recent declassification of a great deal of reports and correspondence by the U.S. government has shed new light on some of these lies, even some that were clung to by the Carter administration. So, let's get started with:

Lie #1: The Shah was forcing western culture on Iran
This is a total lie. The Shah brought more freedom to Iran and rolled back the policies of his father who actually had tried to force Iran to westernize/modernize. It was his father who actually passed laws forcing men to wear bowler hats (no joke) and forbidding women to wear the veil. The last Shah, his son, did away with that and gave people the freedom to adopt western styles if they wanted to. A woman didn't have to wear a veil, but she could if she wanted to. He also enacted real freedom of religion in Iran, which oddly enough I have even heard some people criticize him for, but remember that the current regime claims to have freedom of religion as well, it is only that everyone knows this is another lie and no one takes it seriously. It should also be remembered that many of the cultural aspects people (especially westerners) associate with Iran is actually not part of Iranian culture at all. Much of it is not really Iranian or Islamic but is simply Arab and dates back to the Arab conquest of the old Sassanid empire.

The Immortals

This is important as, on the cultural front, what really caused the Shah trouble with the radical clerics was NOT that he was making Iran too western but that he was making Iran more Iranian. The Shah worked to revive classical Persian culture in a number of ways, from the military to art and architecture. This was an effort to revive popular awareness of the ancient roots of their country and of the glory days of the Persian Empire when what is now Iran had been the most powerful country in the known world, stretching across three continents. However, the radical clerics despised this effort because it was giving attention to the period in Iranian history before the arrival of Islam and they, like others, preferred to pretend that before Islam there was nothing. They dismissed the Shah's cultural campaign as praising primitive, pagan fire-worshippers when this early period was the time of the zenith of power and prestige for Iran.

This would be like the Christians trying to stamp out all memory of the Roman Empire because it had been pagan. As we know, Christian Europe achieved its greatest cultural flowering when the classical art and literature of pagan Greece and Rome were rediscovered. The Shah was trying to do the same thing in Iran. As an example, one of things that offended the clerics the most was his adoption of a new calendar. Previously Iran had used the Muslim calendar, imported by the Arabs, which marked time starting from the flight of Mohammed from Mecca to Medina. The Shah instituted a new calendar that marked time from the Persian conquest of Babylon (modern Iraq) which was obviously a uniquely Iranian model, focused on the greatest victory in Persian history. The clerics, of course, detested this and his other efforts. However, it is also important to note that, because their accusations were lies, a number of the same policies that the Ayatollah and his kind denounced when enacted by the Shah were quietly retained by the Islamic Republic after they took power. Because many of his modernizations worked and the mullahs all knew that they worked.

Lie #2: The Shah was a puppet of the United States of America
Probably the most widely believed and oft-touted of the lies the revolutionaries tell, mostly because it gains traction the more unpopular the U.S.A. becomes, it is nonetheless untrue. I have long found it very amusing the people who hate America have so much in common with those who worship America. One thinks America does nothing good and the other that America does nothing bad but both believe that America is the center of the world and all life revolves around Washington DC. It is utter nonsense. First of all, this accusation tends to come from the episode in which the Shah was briefly overthrown but was restored to the throne with the assistance of the British and American intelligence agencies. The untold truth here is that the British always had far more interest in Iran than the Americans did. The British had interest in Iran going back a very long time, the British had established most of the oil industry in Iran and it was the British, not the Americans, who were the driving force behind the restoration of the Shah. It is only when British power began to decline and American power began to rise up that the U.S.A. became the great bogeyman.

He who sups with the devil must have a long spoon

The Shah was, of course, friendly with the United States and for the very good reason that he was concerned about the threat of the Soviet Union and the spread of communism. It tends to be forgotten, outside of Iran anyway, that the expansion of the Russian Empire (whose territory was taken over by the Soviets) in the region came at the expense of the old Persian Empire. Even today, while Russia goes on arming the Iranian regime, this is something Iranians have not forgotten. The Shah remembered it and Iranians today do as well, which makes all the assistance they receive from Russia absurdly naïve. The Shah, though friendly with the United States, was often critical of America just as American leaders were often critical of him. He took a great deal of criticism from America over oil prices but it largely depended on which political party was in power in Washington DC. Democrats tended to be very critical of the Shah whereas Republicans were focused on the threat of communism and did not really care how the Shah ruled his country as long as he was on side against the communists.

President Jimmy Carter, for example, stopped the sale of weapons to Iran because he disapproved of the Shah. Also, in a broader context, while Iran was friendly with the U.S. and did recognize the State of Israel, Iran had far more and friendlier relations with the rest of the Islamic community than Iran has today. Under the Shah, Iran was on very good terms with Saudi Arabia and with Egypt (the Shah's first wife was from the Egyptian Royal Family) both of which today are enemies of Iran. When the Shah was in power, American influence was largely absent from the region as he was the 'policeman' of the Persian Gulf and worked to assist royalists against communists in neighboring countries. This was not something that the United States would typically do, usually preferring to back a third option that inevitably failed.

Lie #3: The Ayatollah stood up to the evil Americans
Like the previous lie, the mullahs in Iran have gotten a great deal of mileage out of this lie, particularly as America becomes more unpopular. The Ayatollah Khomeini is portrayed as the courageous man of principle who stood up to the big, bad American wolf. In fact, the Ayatollah was a liar from start to finish who lied to everyone and we now know from recently declassified documents that he actively courted the support of the United States and tried his best to tell American leaders everything they wanted to hear. We also now know that, despite the lies the Carter administration has been telling for years, that they made a conscious decision to abandon the Shah and did not think the Ayatollah would be so bad (which shows how incompetent Carter and crew were, if any more evidence were needed on that front).

The Iranian Imperial Family

Again, it depended on which party was in power in Washington as the Ayatollah knew early on which side was most likely to believe him. We now know that in 1963 he sent a letter of support to President John F. Kennedy (Democrat) but knew better than to waste his time on President Richard Nixon (Republican). The Ayatollah lied, lied and lied again to the American government and, unfortunately, some of them believed him. He said that he wanted MORE of an American presence in Iran, not less, so as to offset the influence of the British and Soviets in the country. We now know that President Carter strongly and bluntly "advised" the Shah to leave the country for a "vacation" and that this would likely mean the end of his regime. They naively hoped for a third option (a familiar song, yes?) between the Shah and the Ayatollah, probably a military figure who would have a new, republican regime with the Ayatollah acting as a sort of pope-like spiritual advisor. Again, the incompetence of the Carter administration staggers the imagination.

For his part, the Ayatollah continued with his lies, telling the Americans he was their friend, promising that he would keep his country "un-aligned" in the Cold War, would continue to do business with America, would keep strong the military ties between the United States and Iran and that he would continue to sell America oil. In fact, he promised to sell oil to everyone with only two exceptions: Israel and South Africa, which is rather interesting. He was most concerned about the Iranian army and the royalist generals who he feared would be able to stop any uprising he could instigate if they really came out in force. However, his Democrat friend in Washington helped him out on this front. As well as condoning the return of the Ayatollah to Iran, the Carter administration passed word to the Ayatollah that most of the Iranian military leadership was not so royalist as everyone believed and that they would likely go along with whoever was able to take power. When the Ayatollah was timid, President Carter gave him the confidence he needed to go ahead.

Lie #4: The Islamic Revolution was a counter-revolution.
This is possibly the most absurd but I have heard it repeated too often, invariably by people on the far-right, not to point it out. This is the lie that claims that the Shah was some sort of radical progressive and that the Islamic Revolution brought things back to normal, made Iran a more traditional and conservative country than had previously been the case. It is hard to even think about it without laughing. This may be a good example of a big lie being more readily believed than a small one because this is a very big lie. The Ayatollah and his crew were revolutionaries plain and simple, in both the political and the religious spheres alike.

Plenty of Ayatollah idolatry

On the religious front, the Ayatollah came late in light to a radically different religious point of view than had ever existed in Shia Islam. As his goal of power came closer, he became more and more megalomaniacal and claimed unprecedented powers for himself. He preached a new brand of religion that even seemed to put himself above Mohammed. The Ayatollah essentially said, particularly after returning to Iran, that he spoke for God and that anyone who went against what he said was an enemy of God. Whereas clerics had always been more important in Shia Islam as compared to Sunni Islam, the Ayatollah and his regime took this to absurd lengths, claiming them to be without sin, spiritually superior beings who had to be obeyed like gods themselves. And, on the political front, the Islamic Revolution actually, in some ways, made Iran more westernized than before. In all their thousands of years of history, Persia/Iran had always been a monarchy, under the Ayatollah they became a republic and they claim (though we know it is a lie) to be democratic, so they got rid of the Shah which was a traditional title unique to Iranian history but retained or brought in political ideas from ancient Greece and Rome.

As mentioned before, they also quietly retained some of the same reforms that the Shah had instituted in their own constitution and which they had previously denounced as being the work of the devil when the Shah did it. These people, or more so their supporters, actually embrace the exaltation of the lie by condemning things the Shah did while praising the regime of the mullahs for claiming to be liberal, democratic, religiously tolerant and respecting of human rights because everyone knows they actually do not. What is more, while the Shah was friendly with the rest of the Islamic world and supported traditional governments, the mullah-regime has made enemies of most Islamic countries and tried to export their radicalism abroad. Which, by the way, is another lie as the Ayatollah specifically promised NOT to do this. He followed the typical revolutionary pattern of waiting for the strong monarch to be removed and then jumping on a liberal, moderate regime which is easily defeated to bring radicalism to power. He lied to the Iranians just as he lied to the Americans and everyone else, it has been nothing but lies from beginning to end.

Theocrat & Atheist, what an odd couple

Finally, what is perhaps most ironic given that the most oft-repeated lie about the last Shah is that he "sold out" his country to the United States, is that the Islamic regime has actually done what they had falsely accused the Shah of doing and even to a far greater extent. The cozy Iranian relationship with Christian Russia may seem bizarre but that is actually the least objectionable. So far, that relationship has been all to the benefit of Iran and the detriment of Russia. They get Russian weapons, they get to sell their oil, driving prices down and hurting the Russian economy and so grow stronger while Russia grows weaker in a region where Iran hopes to regain territory previously lost to the Russians. No, the big sell-out has been to Communist China. How is that for an Islamic Republic, selling-out to an officially atheist regime that persecutes Muslims in Xinjiang.

Chinese oil and gas companies today have far more reach in Iran than the British oil companies ever did. China has been granted billions of dollars worth of extensive contracts over Iranian mineral resources and even, going farther than anyone ever has, over Iranian territory itself. In 2011 Iran agreed to give to China exclusive mineral rights over three large oil and gas fields in Iran. China has total control over these areas, exclusive rights to the energy underground and will do the drilling, bring in Chinese workers to handle things and even have Chinese personnel in charge of security in all of these areas. It was also announced, particularly when there was concern over a U.S. or Israeli attack to take out Iranian nuclear facilities, that these three territories in Iran are considered Chinese and any attack on them would be responded to as an attack on China. Those are the facts. The Shah never "sold-out" Iran but the Ayatollahs and their puppet presidents certainly have. They have sold it out completely and quite literally.MadMonarchisthttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-26229854535715592322016-06-09T02:32:00.002-05:002016-06-09T02:32:24.330-05:00Monarch Profile: King Victor Amadeus III of Piedmont-Sardinia

Prince Victor Amadeus Maria, Duke of Savoy, was born in Turin on June 26, 1726 the son and heir of King Carlo Emmanuel III by his second wife Princess Polyxena of Hesse-Rotenburg. A son from the King's previous marriage had died the year before so the birth of Victor Amadeus, a new heir to the throne, was widely celebrated in the Savoy lands of Piedmont-Sardinia. His childhood and upbringing were very typical for the house of Savoy and the same descriptions would be used for Italian royal sons right to the last king to ever reign. His private tutor was quite strict and his education stressed military subjects, Catholicism and history, particularly the history of the House of Savoy. The emphasis on the army was doubtless even more so given that, even in the ranks of a family with an extremely long martial history, King Carlo Emmanuel III was most known as a "warrior-king", earning laurels in the wars over the Polish and Austrian successions. Prince Victor Amadeus had an upbringing that greatly stressed the importance of the army and, like other Savoy royal heirs, he was kept away from politics until the day he actually came to the throne.

However, Prince Victor Amadeus did not waste his time with frivolity but, as a young man, surrounded himself with scholars, statesmen and various, highly esteemed 'wise men' whose company he could benefit from. Many of this men would go on to serve him when he became king. A man of very conservative politics and with religious views that were very traditionally Catholic, Victor Amadeus nonetheless fostered an atmosphere of openness around him and was gentleman enough to get along well with people who did not share his views. He was confident in his own positions that he had nothing to fear from hearing all sides of an issue. He was also, of course, expected to marry and secure the future of the royal succession. King Fernando VI of Spain reached out to him to arrange a marriage between the Savoy heir and his sister Infanta Maria Antoinetta, the youngest daughter of King Felipe V, the first Bourbon Spanish monarch. The couple were married in 1750 and they had a very happy marriage with the pair growing quite attached to each other. So attached in fact that they had twelve children, so the future of the Savoy dynasty was safe and sound.

In 1773, with the passing of his father, the Duke of Savoy became King Victor Amadeus III of Piedmont-Sardinia on February 20. From day one the administration of his country and the military were his top priorities but that does not mean that he neglected other areas. Because of his conservative and religious nature he has often been accused of being reactionary to the point of being averse to change of any kind, but this is not so. In fact, he was very keen on improving a number of things that needed it. Beneficial change was never a problem for him but change for the sake of change alone, naturally would not be tolerated. For all of the emphasis he placed on the army, he was also certainly not a warmonger and aimed at ensuring the security of his country by peaceful, diplomatic means first and foremost. His marriage to a member of the Spanish Royal Family was part of this, to secure a marriage alliance with Spain after the two powers had been enemies in the War of Austrian Succession (the Savoy having backed the Hapsburg side).

Similarly, he arranged a marriage for his own son and heir with the sister of King Louis XVI of France and several daughters were also married into the French Royal Family. His second son was married into the Hapsburg family (Austria-Este), another daughter to the Electoral Prince of Saxony and his youngest son married a daughter of the Naples branch of the Spanish Bourbons. As such, Piedmont-Sardinia had strong to ties to all its neighbors and several other lands farther a field and his offspring included three future Kings of Sardinia and one, at least nominal, Queen of France (another would have also been a Queen of France but she died before Charles X came to the throne). Because of this, the army that so many claim was his sole focus, had little to do until the very end of his reign. In other, peaceful pursuits, he improved the bureaucracy of his country, improved the infrastructure with new roads, new dams and upgrades to the port of Nice. He established botanical and agricultural institutions with the aim of making the country more self-sufficient and undertook a number of public works projects.

Overall, he carried on with the changes first set in motion by his grandfather which were aimed at making the aristocracy less corrupt and more socially-minded (a common problem of the time) and encouraging greater social mobility for the common people so that they could lift themselves out of poverty by their own talents. In terms of the army though, he did spend a great deal, carrying on the effort to renovate the Piedmontese military along the lines of that of the Kingdom of Prussia which was the example that all small, resource-poor states naturally wished to follow. Given the events of his reign, some have dismissed this as a failure but that requires taking a very narrow view. In fact, the military "culture" of the country was changed and even as late as World War II, a German general serving in Italy remarked on how similar Piedmont was to Prussia in the emphasis placed on the army and in the many years in between not a few foreign observers would refer to Piedmont as 'the Prussia of Italy'. The King is also remembered as the founder of the Gold Medal of Military Valor, the highest Italian combat decoration which is still awarded to this day. He also followed this example himself at home by adopted a more Spartan lifestyle so that the British historian Gibbon, on traveling through the area, wrote about how the Savoy royals lived "with decent and splendid economy".

King Victor Amadeus III would take daily walks, set time aside every Saturday to receive visitors from his humblest subjects and showed his piety when, on every Holy Thursday, he would wash the feet of twelve poor men and then see them off with a gift of money for a fine supper. All in all, life under his rule was good and steadily improving. However, all of it was thrown into the gravest peril by the outbreak of the French Revolution. Being a very traditional, conservative and religious man with several of his children married to French royals, he could not but be appalled by what was happening in neighboring France. Without hesitation he gave safe haven to his sons-in-law the Count of Artois and Count of Provence, fleeing the worsening chaos and repression in their homeland, though this immediately caused cries from the revolutionaries in Paris for retribution against the House of Savoy. Even though the odds against them would be impossibly long, he also did not hesitate to pledge his small, prized army to the royalist cause in 1793, working in cooperation with the Austrians as part of the First Coalition.

The French republicans were quick to attack Piedmont, vowing to make northern Italy a satellite republic, but the Savoyard troops, along with a contingent of Austrians, fought fiercely and succeeded in repelling the initial invasion. The French met a similar fate on other fronts and when they tried to enlist the United States to come in on their side, the American government flatly refused and considered the alliance made with the late King Louis XVI to have died with him. Royalist counter-revolutionaries were also rising up and achieving successes. However, the French responded by ordering the conscription of every adult male in the country and soon they had turned the war situation around, swamping their enemies with what was often simply a huge, armed and radicalized mob.

After four years of fighting off superior forces, in 1796 the Savoyard troops of King Victor Amadeus III finally met a foe they could not defeat in the person of a young, up-and-coming French commander named Napoleon Bonaparte. In the Montenotte campaign the "Little Corporal" was able to outmaneuver his foes, separate the Austrian and Piedmontese armies and eventually defeat them both. The Austrians had positioned themselves at too great a distance from the Piedmontese, despite the urgings of the Italian general Michelangelo Alessandro Colli-Marchi and the result would lead to the domination of northern Italy by republican France. After the Battle of Mondovi on April 21, there was no choice left but capitulation and King Victor Amadeus III, in the most painful moment of his life, was forced to sign the Armistice of Cherasco on April 28, 1796, removing the Savoy domains from the First Coalition. The following month he signed the Treaty of Paris, handing over the key fortresses of the country to France, allowing French troops passage through the country to carry on the Italian campaign and ceding Nice and Savoy to France.

In the wake of this fiasco, King Victor Amadeus III was a broken man and his health and spirits only worsened from that point on. Within a year he had an apoplexy and finally died on October 16, 1796 at Moncalieri. A reign that had began with such promise and which had seen many beneficial reforms, had been reduced to ruin in the final years by the horror and bloodshed that were the fruits of the French Revolution. However, the House of Savoy was down but not out and the next three kings to succeed him would all be sons of Victor Amadeus III and they would ultimately see the French defeated, the Savoy flag raised again over Turin and the monarchy restored completely along with some additional lands. The French revolutionaries had won the first round but the sons of Victor Amadeus III would be the ones returning home in triumph while Allied armies marched down the boulevards of Paris.MadMonarchisthttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-88865884747314268862016-06-06T03:05:00.000-05:002016-06-06T03:05:09.160-05:00The Royal American Regiment

During the struggle between France and Britain for control of North America, in the conflict known to Americans as the French and Indian War, the British forces had met with some early disasters that made it clear that some new military units with special skills would be needed to fight this war. A large British force under General Edward Braddock had been wiped out fighting the traditional way, as if they were on a European battlefield, by a much smaller force of French and Indians who used the wooded terrain to their advantage. After word of this humiliation reached London, King George II gave royal assent to the formation of a new regiment for the British army on Christmas Day, 1755. This was the birthday of the 60th Royal American Regiment (originally the 62nd, it was renumbered a few years later) which was to include four battalions, made up of many foreign soldiers with woodland experience, provided they were Protestant of course (so as not to have any risk of sympathy with the Catholic French), for service in North America.

John Campbell, 4th Earl of Loudoun, who was then commander-in-chief of British forces in North America and Governor-General of Virginia, was appointed to the mostly ceremonial post of colonel-in-chief of the new regiment. The idea for the regiment originated with a Swiss soldier and comrade of the Duke of Cumberland named Colonel Jacques Prevost. It was he who suggested that a special unit of men expert at fighting in heavily wooded areas was what was needed in waging war in the wilds of North America. The ranks were to include a large percentage of Germans, some from the German states, others recruited from German-Americans in the colonies. To fully fill out the four battalions, large numbers of Irish were later recruited. These were men who had been rejected for service in other regiments of the Irish establishment for the British army, a point to remember. The battalions formed up in New York but as far as leadership went, this was a regiment 'for' America and not 'of' America to be sure. For the first time ever, the British army also commissioned a number of foreign officers to lead a regular regiment. Out of 101 commissioned officers of the regiment, alongside English, Irish and Scots about half were foreigners, German and Swiss with some Dutch, though none could rise above the rank of lieutenant colonel so as to ensure that a proper Briton was always in command.

The principle behind the Royal American Regiment was not a unique one. Having a force that could fight the French-backed Indians using Indian tactics was also the idea behind the famous Rogers' Rangers from which the current special forces of the U.S. Army claims descent. However, the Rangers were irregular troops and the very nature of their job and how they carried it out ensured that they were a rough, rowdy and undisciplined bunch. With the Royal American Regiment it was hoped that the British army could have a unit that combined some of the backwoods fighting skills of the Rangers with the discipline and reliability of British regulars. Given its background and composition, some have referred to it as a mixture of a colonial regiment and a foreign legion. They were dressed, originally, like any other British regiment save for the fact that they had no lace on their coats, just plain blue turn backs (blue being the traditional color of "royal" regiments). However, they would ultimately look very different in the field than what their original appearance was.

Colonel Prevost had suggested a short jacket, Indian leggings, a leather cap he called a 'bonnet l'Allemand' and even a simple kilt as the sort of outfit best suited to wilderness warfare in America. There is no evidence that they ever wore kilts but much of the rest was eventually how the Royal Americans ended up. The traditional red coat was cut a bit shorter, Indian-style leather leggings did tend to replace the regulation black cloth leggings they were issued and many even took to wearing Indian moccasins in place of their standard shoes. There is some evidence that leather caps such as Prevost described were worn but others wore the usual cocked hat of the period, though after some time in the field these were sometimes cut down to more closely resemble the typical leather cap often worn by light infantry. Among the other regiments of the British army, the Royal Americans had a distinctively 'frontier' look to them, dressed more practically for serious fighting in the woods than for parade-ground panache. What is interesting is that this regiment of American colonists, German and Swiss soldiers of fortune and Irish rejects, proved itself to be one of the best in the British army.

One of the battalion commanders, Henri Bouquet, a Swiss, literally wrote the book on tactics that were later adopted by the whole British army and which remained standard for over a century to come. He and his fellow battalion commanders turned their diverse volunteers, many of whom had less than the best reputation, into true experts at wilderness warfare and the changes to their uniform and their habits reflected that. During the French and Indian War as it carried on, the Royal Americans at first had little opportunity to do what they were best suited for and fought in a number of battles in the traditional style. At that, however, they still did very well and they saw action at the siege of Louisbourg in 1758, the Cape Sable Campaign and the final victory at the battle of Quebec in 1759 as well as the subsequent advance of Montreal. It was at Quebec that their performance earned them the praise of the famous General James Wolfe, from whom they took their official regimental motto "Celer et Audax" (Swift and Bold). However, later, during Pontiac's Rebellion, they were able to prove themselves as experts at frontier fighting particularly as Bouquet led them to victory at the battle of Bushy Run which culminated in a fearsome charge by the Royal Americans that is still remembered.

This victory, won by a few hundred Scots highlanders and the Royal Americans, enabled Bouquet to lift the siege of Fort Pitt and was the turning point in putting down the rebellion. Afterwards, the regiment was moved back to Europe though one battalion always remained on station. After the American War for Independence, this was, of course, in Canada where it remained until 1824. However, the 60th Royal Americans saw action on other battlefields far from where they had intended to serve. During the Napoleonic era they served with distinction in the Peninsular War. A fifth battalion was raised and armed with the superb Baker rifle, acquitting itself very well against the French. The other, musket-armed battalions served in other parts of Europe and around the world in defense of the British Empire such as in the islands of the West Indies. The success of the rifle battalion, however, gained them the most notoriety and more were recruited and they served alongside other famous units like the 95th Rifles and the King's German Legion during the fierce fighting in Spain. Another battalion was even raised specifically for service in the War of 1812, once again, in North America.

Because of the success of the rifle battalions in the struggle against Napoleon, in 1815 their name was changed to the Duke of York's Own Rifle Corps and, in 1830, to the King's Royal Rifle Corps. During the glory days of the British Empire the KRRC served in campaigns all over the world in Egypt, Afghanistan, India, Burma, China, South Africa and Canada. They played a critical part in the Boer War, was heavily expanded in World War I and fought on the western, Greek and Italian fronts. In World War II they were part of the BEF sent to France and elements played a key part in holding off the Germans from wiping out the British during the Dunkirk evacuation. They later fought in Greece, the island of Crete and took part in the doomed Operation Market Garden in The Netherlands after the Allies fought their way back into western Europe. In 1958 they had yet another name change and in recent decades there have been further name changes, renumbering of units and the combination of units as the British army had been continuously downsized. Today, the tradition of the Royal American Regiment technically is held by the 2nd Battalion of "The Rifles", a unit that was formed from 'merging' several regiments.

To the extent that the old 60th Royal Americans are remembered, I am glad that this is the case and one can see traces of their influence in units of the Canadian army still. However, the habit of merging numerous regiments never passed muster with me. One unit simply cannot truly embody and carry on the traditions of so many others and it seems to be a way for politicians to abolish old and glorious regiments without having to admit that they have, for all intents and purposes, been abolished. The Royal Americans, later the King's Royal Rifle Corps, is certainly not the only British military unit to suffer this fate, nor was it the last. It seems a shame after so long and so valorous a record of service to Queen and Country but, alas, recent British governments have had other, higher, priorities than national defense. Britons once had to choose between a welfare state and an empire and they chose the welfare state. Since then, the choice seems to have been between maintaining that state and having a military and, unfortunately in my view, the welfare state has been chosen yet again.MadMonarchisthttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-56790488215424154022016-06-02T17:59:00.002-05:002016-06-02T17:59:33.930-05:00The Battle of Ridgeway

It was on this day in 1866 that republicans and monarchists clashed at the town of Ridgeway, Canada. On the whole, it was not a good day for the monarchists but it was not so bad as it seemed either. This engagement took place during what is known as the Fenian Raids, a series of attacks on Canada by Irish and Irish-American forces, most of them veterans of the Union army in the recently ended Civil War in America calling themselves the "Irish Republican Army" (they were the first to use the term). The Fenians, of course, had been around for some time, trying to unite Irish nationalists for a war of liberation from the British Empire, never with much success. When the American Civil War ended, many Irish republicans saw a golden opportunity. The USA was awash in militant republican sentiment because of the war, was very cross with Britain over the perception of British sympathy for the Confederates and the use of British-built ships by the Confederate Navy to raid Union shipping. There were also large numbers of Irish and Irish-American soldiers who had fought in the war, mostly on the Union side, and who were experienced, veteran soldiers with little to do after the war was over. The Fenians would give them something to do.

The Fenians hatched a plot to invade Canada from the United States. With anti-British sentiment at such a peak in America, they doubted U.S. authorities would try very hard to stop them on the southern side of the border. Their plan was to invade Canada and conquer some portion of it which they would then, essentially, hold for ransom as a way to force the British to grant independence to Ireland. One could hardly imagine a more hair-brained and far-fetched idea if you tried, yet, to give the Irish republicans their due credit, they did manage to make an effort at it and were rather persistent as a number of these Fenian raids were launched over a number of years though none were ever successful. The Fenian Brotherhood in New York City organized the campaign, recruiting volunteers for their Irish Republican Army and enlisting experienced officers to lead these men. The man they found who would lead the IRA into the Battle of Ridgeway was Brigadier General John O'Neill, a Union cavalry officer and Civil War veteran. Unfortunately for the Fenians, in America just as in Ireland, they were terrible at keeping secrets and the British were very good and finding out what they were up to.

British troops in Canada were put on the alert and the Canadian militia was called out to defend the country. On June 1, General O'Neill and his force of a little over a thousand Irish troops cross the Niagara River into southern Canada. Not everyone was optimistic about their chances for success though and a great many deserted before ever seeing action so that the force O'Neill ultimately led into battle had been reduced to between 6-700 men. Some additional Fenian men and supplies were stopped from crossing the river by U.S. naval forces and efforts to encourage the locals of Ridgeway to join their cause were unsuccessful (today Ridgeway is an unincorporated village of the 'Town of Fort Erie' in Ontario). After approaching the town of Ridgeway, O'Neill's men clashed with a group of 850 Canadian militiamen led by Lt. Colonel Alfred Booker of the 13th Battalion of Hamilton. More British troops were moving in to confront the invaders but, at Ridgeway, it would be Booker and his 850 men that O'Neill and his 6-700 would have to contend with. The Canadian troops were solid fellows but were militiamen and inexperienced. That would prove a critical shortcoming.

As the two forces met and battle ensued, the Crown forces seemed to be having the better time early on. They had their enemy outnumbered and were driving back the skirmishers that O'Neill had in advance of his main line. When the bulk of both sides got into the battle, each seemed to be doing pretty well. However, something went wrong on the Canadian side and historians to this day still debate what precisely that "something" was. In any event something caused confusion on the Canadian side and that confusion spread. General O'Neill spotted this moment of weakness and took advantage of it, ordering a bayonet charge. The Irish troops burst forward and the Canadian militia fell into a panic and retreated, leaving the field to the victorious Fenians.

The Canadians lost 9 killed and 37 wounded in the Battle of Ridgeway while the Fenians lost about 5 killed and 16 wounded. It was a tactical victory for the Irish republicans but not a decisive one. They still had superior British-Canadian forces closing in on them and General O'Neill could see that this invasion was not going to work. In the aftermath, he retreated, abandoning the ground his men had won and withdrawing back across the border to the United States where they were disarmed and taken into custody by the American authorities. In the end, none of the Fenian Raids ever amounted to very much but the Battle of Ridgeway does stand out as one of the few battlefield victories for the Irish republican cause. It should also serve as a lesson to those in other countries, like Canada, of the danger of showing sympathy for their type. I would also add, as I have mentioned before, that I have more respect for the Irish Republican Army of the Fenian Raids than I ever could for the more recent forces to have taken that title. I completely disagree with their overall purpose but I cannot but admire their audacity and, unlike the cowardly killers of the PIRA and their sort, the IRA that fought at Ridgeway were armed men, wearing uniforms, meeting other armed men in uniforms on the field of battle. They were not cowards who hid their faces, blending in with civilians, to make bomb attacks on innocent people. They may not have won, but they did not dishonor themselves by their methods either.MadMonarchisthttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-10116059374928769832016-05-27T17:27:00.000-05:002016-05-27T17:27:04.404-05:00Obama, Japan and Atomic Apologies

President Obama just became the first sitting American president to visit the city of Hiroshima, Japan. In the lead-up to this visit, given his track record, conservatives in America were very concerned that Obama would apologize to Japan for the American atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. At the last minute, the White House made clear that he would not do that but what he ended up saying upset many people on the right almost as much to the point that some are calling for Congress to censure the President for his remarks. I asked some of you if Obama should apologize to Japan or not and most of you said that you thought he should. I disagreed and I know of at least one Japanese person who felt the same way, being of the opinion that she did not want Japan being used by Obama to further his legacy as the apologetic president and that such an apology would be rather meaningless anyway. I am not as upset as some by the President's remarks but I must part company with my readers and say I am glad that he did not apologize and I will explain why.

In the first place, as any long-time readers will know, I have very mixed feelings about the atomic bombings of Japan. Personally, I think that no matter whether you feel it was justified or unjustified, no one should be very strident about their opinion or dismissive of others on this issue. The use of nuclear weapons was such a monumentally horrific event that it bothers me a great deal that anyone could not be troubled by it on the one hand or be so dismissive of what not using it would have meant on the other. How does any leader sacrifice more of the lives of his own people in a conflict in which the outcome is in do doubt rather than save them by taking the lives of the enemy? I have often posed the question as to whether any Japanese Prime Minister could have lived with himself if he could have saved the lives of his people and ended the war by using devastating weapons against Los Angeles or Chicago. How could you look your own people in the eye after that when their husbands, sons or fathers were killed when you could have prevented it?

Of course, using the bombs was a terrible thing that caused immense death and lasting misery to huge numbers of innocent people. Do I regret that it happened? Certainly, just as I regret that Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, attacked The Philippines, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, the East Indies and Australia. I regret that the war happened at all, not only because of how terrible it all was but because I regret the inevitable destruction of the Empire of Japan that this brought about. I regret the turmoil this brought about and the opening it gave for Marxist and radical murderous regimes as the "Bamboo Curtain" descended across East Asia. I wish none of it had happened but it did and dwelling on recriminations does not solve problems or, from what I have seen, make anyone feel any better about what happened. Saying you are sorry without doing something to make things right always seems hollow. Sometimes you cannot make things right and sometimes people try to make things right without saying they are sorry. Which is more important; actions or words? Would Japan have been better off with a post-war apology rather than the huge amounts of money the U.S. pumped into the country to rebuild Japan after the war?

Finally, while I am sure there are always exceptions that can be found, in general I am not big on apologies like these. I am not big on people apologizing for things that they themselves did not do. It makes little sense to me for someone to apologize on behalf of someone else to someone who did not actually suffer the harm being apologized for. In the same way, I have never been fond of the endless calls for Japan to apologize, over and over again, for the actions of previous generations there. What is the point of such apologies? Why make an apology that will not be accepted? Usually, concerning Japan, the typical response of China or Korea (the ones usually demanding apologies) is that the Japanese were not truly sincere in their apology. One could say the same about Obama. Would an apology from him mean that all or even most Americans are sorry that their grandfathers or great-grandfathers used atomic weapons on Japan? I doubt it.

In my opinion, if President Franklin D. Roosevelt were around today, there is much that I think he would have to apologize to Japan for. The same could be said for Secretary Hull. Would he ever do it? Probably not, nor would any of his partisans think that he should. Japan, likewise, did things for which they should be ashamed just as they are also accused of things which they did not do. Some will always think they should apologize more just as others will always think they are blameless and should apologize for nothing. At the end of the day, I do not see what is accomplished by it all. Perhaps it is because I see about 99% of everything any politician says as insincere blathering for the cameras but to me, it just seems like so much pointless picking at old wounds that revolve around issues about which everyone is never going to see eye-to-eye on. As such, I will refrain from joining in with such demands for apologies and save them for the people who are actually responsible for the things that should be apologized for.MadMonarchisthttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-29108745232937506872016-05-20T18:53:00.000-05:002016-05-20T18:53:38.592-05:00Great Christian Monarchs, Not So Long Ago

Today, anyone would be forgiven for regarding Christianity in Europe as a lost cause. The number of people who are active Christians has declined dramatically, particularly since the 1960's, in many countries the majority are atheists and the fastest growing religion is Islam. Even where Christian churches still operate, one would have to be fairly generous to call them actually "Christian" at all. In The Netherlands, the largest Protestant church group claims only 8.6% of the population and even among those, nearly half have said they do not believe God exists and 1 out of every 6 members of the clergy are atheists! In Britain, the Church of England announced not long ago that it would be closing down many rural parishes other than for Christmas and Easter due to lack of worshipers. In the Kingdom of Spain, once the strongest bastion of Catholicism in Europe, while 92% are officially members of the Catholic Church, only 3% regarded religion as one of their most important values. Obviously, things are not what they used to be and this has affected monarchies and republics alike. However, the 'last stand' of traditional monarchy, in a way at least, the First World War, shows us that strongly Christian monarchs were not at all uncommon even in those days.

King Albert I of the Belgians

In Great Britain, King George V would not have seemed too religious compared to some other monarchs but that is mostly because he was not the sort of man to let such things show very easily. He was, unlike his own father but very much like his grandmother Queen Victoria, a faithful husband who took his marriage vows seriously. He had a faith in God that can be seen in his private letters, particularly during times of great difficulty. Queen Wilhelmina of The Netherlands, was a monarch of very sincere faith, even if many did not know the extent of it until after she was gone from reading her autobiography, written at the end of her eventful life. Grand Duchess Marie-Adelaide of Luxembourg, on the contrary, was widely known from the start for being an ardently faithful Catholic. One of her first acts as Grand Duchess was to refuse Royal Assent to a bill that would have removed Catholicism from the schools. After being (quite unjustly) forced to abdicate after the First World War she joined the Little Sisters of the Poor in Italy. King Albert I of the Belgians was another such monarch, a very sincere and devout Catholic whose faith permeated every aspect of his life. He often spoke of a life in the service of God as being the greatest calling of all and impressed upon his children the importance of their Christian faith and that disaster had always befallen those peoples who turned away from God.

Czar Nicholas II of Russia

Among the other monarchs of the major Allied powers, King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy has often been labeled as less-than seriously religious. However, rather like George V, he was not a man who was very easy to understand. In fact, he was a faithful husband (unlike his predecessors) and a practicing Catholic who would challenge anyone who expressed anti-clerical views in his presence. It is true though that there was difficulty in overcoming the decades of unfortunate animosity between the Church and State in Italy. His wife, Queen Elena, was a Catholic convert and had all the zeal of a convert so that she currently has a cause for canonization underway today. One can notice something of a history in the House of Savoy of royal spouses becoming saints. And, of course, no monarch in the ranks of the Allies has had his piety so publicly recognized as Czar Nicholas II of Russia, recognized as a "Passion-bearer" by the Russian Orthodox Church. Czar Nicholas II, like the others mentioned, was a faithful husband and a more extremely devoted husband and father than most. Here again was a man whose sincerity of faith was on display in everything he did and, for a man often criticized for indecisiveness, was one think in his life that he was, to the very last, absolutely unshakable on. Prayer and the Orthodox Church were pillars of his life and reign and he did nothing without them, even to the ultimate end of becoming a martyr with his family for them. Given the political situation as it was and has been in Russia, Nicholas II has been criticized and vilified more than most and yet, it says something that even his worst enemies have been forced to admit that the last Czar was a devout and godly man, a faithful husband and father without blemish.

German Kaiser Wilhelm II

On the side of the Central Powers, Christian monarchs were certainly not lacking either. However, in the case of at least one, that fact might take many by surprise. Very few people are the slightest bit aware of what an openly devout Christian the German Kaiser Wilhelm II was. It is something that is almost always left out of any discussion of the man. Could this be intentional? If one were to go back in time and meet the last King of Prussia, it is probably what would stand out the most. Like the Czar, he had his youthful indiscretions but by the time he married had become a more serious Christian and his life with Kaiserin Augusta Victoria only strengthened that. She was extremely devout as well and the two often prayed together in times of difficulty (which there was plenty of). It is interesting to note that one of the biggest "warning signs" about Hitler and Nazi Germany that the Kaiser noted was the lack of any real bond with Christianity. His fellow Kaiser, Emperor Francis Joseph of Austria, is a case that almost goes in the opposite direction. Whereas most have no idea how staunch a Christian the German Kaiser was, many assume that the Kaiser of Austria had a better relationship with the Church than was actually the case. He had his personal failings of course and was a source of strength for the Church to be sure but relations between the two were not always cordial. He earned papal criticism for violating the territory of the Papal States and earned quite a push-back from Pope St Pius X after he came to the Throne of St Peter following Francis Joseph using his imperial-veto to block the candidate that was originally elected. After that, this special privilege was revoked.

Emperor Charles I of Austria-Hungary

Still, those disagreements were invariably of a political nature and Emperor Francis Joseph was always unwavering in his support of Catholic doctrine and very aware of his duties and responsibilities as a Catholic monarch. He was a staunch Christian and his sincerity only increased with time (and that was a lot for someone as old as he came to be). It was his nephew and successor, Emperor Charles I of Austria-Hungary, who would gain the most recognition for his devout Christian faith. Again, for Charles, it was something strengthened by his family life, something he and his wife, Empress Zita, had in common and worked to instill in their children. They were devoted to each other and helped each other in their devotion to God. You can see his deep Christian faith on display throughout his life and his short reign on the Hapsburg thrones. His effort to make peace may have been ill-advised and doomed to failure, but the fact that he made it at all says much about his character. No one who knew Emperor Charles could not but come away impressed by the sincerity of his devotion to God and this faith sustained him in the time of his exile. The Catholic Church has never made a habit of canonizing monarchs (though it has certainly happened much more often than for presidents, which is 'never') and it says much as well that even in the very anti-monarchy early 21st Century that Emperor Charles would be beatified by Pope John Paul II in 2004. When the Catholic Church wished to hold up to the world an example of Christian leadership in the political sphere, they held up a Hapsburg monarch.

Cases such as the last Czar of Russia or Emperor of Austria may be well known but for the others, sadly, their very open and devout Christian faith is all too often ignored. This should not be the case and, as can be seen, such faith, while not universal, was certainly not a rare exception. Today it can often seem like Christianity is banned from the halls of power, and often times it actually is, but it is then all the more important to remember that this was not always the case and it was not the case not all that long ago. Today, future monarchs are being raised in an environment very hostile to Christianity but even now there are still faithful Christians among the monarchs of Europe, even if they are not allowed to be very open about it. What is important, I think, to take away from all of this is our own responsibility. If we want God to give us good, Christian monarch as in days past, we might first try becoming a good, Christian public or at least aim to make an effort at such similar to how our forefathers did.MadMonarchisthttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-42613790858718862342016-05-13T13:31:00.001-05:002016-05-13T13:31:39.999-05:00The Queen and Communist China

There was recently a bit of a media 'dust-up' over remarks made by HM the Queen about the recent visit by President Xi Jinping of China and other leading Communist Chinese officials. It started when Her Majesty was overheard telling a guest at a recent garden party that the Red Chinese had been "rude" to her ambassador. There was an immediate flurry of media activity about this since the Queen usually keeps virtually all of her opinions to herself and the Royal Family as a whole is under extreme pressure to have no opinion on anything controversial at all. Personally, I was glad to hear Her Majesty speak her mind, even in this very, very small way, about a visit that was such a blatant sell-out of the U.K. by the political class in London eager for Chinese cash. The Chinese Communist government, of course, was very upset by the Queen's brief phrase and proceeded to prove how 'not rude' they are by referring to the west as "barbarians" and assuring the Chinese people that these uncouth foreigners will improve in time as the thousands of years of Chinese civilization rubs off on them. The response was actually funny, considering the source.

The Communist government's response sounded more like something Emperor Qianlong would have said, dismissing a British envoy. It is a sign of how bourgeois modern China has become and I'm sure Chairman Mao is spinning in his mausoleum that one of his successors as dictator of mainland China would ever have anything to do with "class enemy" like the British monarch. It would be only fair as I was rather distressed that Her Majesty would be called upon to receive a pseudo-Marxist tyrant like Xi Jinping in the first place. I thought the ladies of the Royal Family (excluding the Queen) went overboard with their red dresses and I applauded HRH the Prince of Wales for boycotting the state dinner, specifically to show his disdain for the Communist oppression of Tibet. Previously, the Prince also caused a stir by a less than flattering observation he made about the Red Chinese at the handover of the Crown Colony of Hong Kong. What should be the real scandal is the way the British political class have kowtowed to the Communist rulers of China *for decades* enduring far more from them than merely "rude" behavior.

Let the record show that in 1967 Chinese Red Guards attacked an invaded the British embassy in Peking, assaulting the people trapped inside to an extent some would call torture. The Communist government condoned the action and a similar attack on British officials in Shanghai. The same year, troops of the People's Liberation Army fired on British police officers in Hong Kong, killing five, an act most would consider an act of war. Chinese envoys even attacked British police officers in London and in 1982 Deng Xiaoping openly threatened to invade Hong Kong. Yet, after every outrage, the British government has looked the other way, given in to the demands of the Red bandits and gone on with normal diplomatic relations with them as though nothing had ever happened. The Queen was entirely accurate in her remark and, indeed, could have justly used even harsher language in describing such a despicable regime.MadMonarchisthttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-67921447897378518612016-05-11T00:31:00.002-05:002016-05-11T00:31:52.889-05:00Loyalist Holdouts of the Great Ming

It may seem strange to some, with a basic understanding of the Chinese monarchial concept of the "Mandate of Heaven" that there could ever be loyalists of a fallen dynasty. Yet, such a thing was not that uncommon. In Vietnam, for example, well into the reign of the Nguyen Dynasty, there were still those who were loyal to and wished to restore the fallen Le Dynasty. In China, particularly Manchuria of course, most are familiar with the efforts, ultimately successful for a time, to restore the last emperor of the Qing Dynasty to his throne, in China during World War I and later in Manchuria which lasted more than ten years. However, simultaneously with the reign and decline of the Qing Dynasty there were also still loyalist holdouts of the former Ming Dynasty for much longer than most people realized. Their cause was probably helped by the fact that they had nationalism to bolster their cause as the Ming were the last dynasty of the majority Chinese Han nationality before the rise to power of the foreign Qing Dynasty from Manchuria, which had been a totally separate and self-governing country.

Chongzhen, last official Ming emperor

Founded in 1368 the Ming Dynasty reign over China lasted officially until 1644 when the last Ming emperor was overthrown by a Chinese rebel who tried and failed to found his own dynasty. He was quickly defeated by the Manchu and pro-Manchu Chinese forces and the "Great Qing Empire" was formally proclaimed. However, Ming Dynasty loyalists remained, some with powerful armies and in control of extensive territories throughout central and southern China. The last major Ming resistance was carried on under a recently proclaimed kingdom (The Kingdom of Tungning) on the island of Formosa (Taiwan), conquered from the Dutch, until 1683. Previously, the major focus of Ming loyalists had been the city of Nanking which had held out against the Manchu forces until 1645. However, there had been other centers of Ming resistance in several other Chinese cities as well. Their problem was that they lacked unity, having no recognized emperor to rally around. Each faction had their own pretender making a claim on the Ming legacy such as Prince Fu who held court at Nanking, the Prince of Tang later at Foochow, another Prince of Tang later at Canton and finally the Prince of Gui who was ultimately forced to retreat all the way south into Burma. The final major forces attempted to retake Nanking but failed and it was this faction that ultimately invaded Formosa, defeating the Dutch and establishing the island as a base for Ming loyalists until 1683.

Oppose Qing and Restore Ming

The Ming princes not killed in the course of these campaigns ultimately surrendered or were captured by the Manchu armies and were given titles and pensions by the new Qing Dynasty in keeping with accepted custom. However, while the Qing Dynasty was firmly in control and became well established, there were still Ming loyalists who did not go away. With open military opposition having been defeated, these Ming holdouts resorted to more clandestine modes of operation. Some of these joined or made alliance with outlawed secret societies such as the Hongmen or Society of the Heaven and the Earth. Their original proclaimed intent was to "Destroy the Qing and Restore the Ming". They later branched out to form other organizations such as the "Three Harmonies Society". These groups, probably due to a triangle symbol they adopted, came to be known by British authorities as the Triads, probably the most famous Chinese organized crime syndicate in the world still around today.

Three Harmonies Society

The Green Gang of Shanghai, which is not around anymore and so is less well known, was one a major criminal organization which even had ties with the Kuomintang that also, especially early on, contained no small amount of Ming Dynasty loyalists within its ranks. Now, unless any take the wrong impression from this, the Ming had no monopoly on ties to outlawed secret societies and criminal organizations. The massive mobster Chang Yuqing of the Yellow Way Society of Shanghai was a supporter of the last Qing Dynasty monarch, sending a message of congratulations and loyalty when he was enthroned as Emperor of Manchukuo. Oftentimes in such cases, the motivation for such groups and activities tends to become circular. A secret society that is outlawed by the Qing adopts the cause of the Ming in order to oppose the Qing and the Qing pursues them because they support the Ming and so on. In some cases, such clandestine operations began with the clear goal and purpose of restoring the Ming Dynasty, which made them outlaws under the Qing Dynasty, but in order to survive while evading the authorities, they became more and more involved in criminal activity, necessarily so because legitimate business would have been forbidden to them so long as they opposed the ruling dynasty. One of the early leaders of what became the Boxers ("Society of Righteous and Harmonious Fists"), though aimed at reviving the Qing, bolstered his credentials by claiming to be a descendant of the Ming.

One could say that, ultimately, the total hatred of the Qing Dynasty by the Ming Dynasty loyalists was a part of their own failure to realize their goal of seeing a Ming Emperor once more on the Dragon Throne. In effect, many seemed to have become more anti-Qing than pro-Ming. During the 1911 Revolution there were still those who took up the cry of the Ming loyalists, calling for the downfall of the Qing Empire and the restoration of the Ming Empire. However, with the western-educated Sun Yat-sen as the driving ideological force behind the revolutionary movement, that was not going to happen. He ultimately made some token gestures to the Ming Dynasty as the last native imperial line but even that was half-hearted and short-lived. With the downfall of the Qing Dynasty, the Ming loyalists seemed fade away. Some joined the republican movement, some went deeper into organized crime to the point that the original intent of these groups were totally forgotten and so on. Many histories have pointed out that the Ming loyalists seemed to lose focus and their reason for existing with the collapse of the Qing Empire. Few bother delving into much detail to explain why, why after so many years of being committed to ending the Qing and restoring the Ming, they would stop with only half of their mission accomplished.

Whatever their motivations may have been, we are left with the basic fact that inveterate opposition to the Qing Dynasty seemed to outweigh loyalty to the Ming Dynasty and once the Qing Empire was gone, most former Ming loyalists accepted the less traditional systems of government that came after and abandoned any efforts to restore the Ming Empire in full. There seemed to be little, if any, support for the heir of the Ming Dynasty (discussed here earlier), the Marquis of Extended Grace, who lived in poor conditions and who remained loyal to the Qing Emperor throughout the republican period until the end of the Second World War by which point he disappears from the historical record. The republican government eventually withdraw all recognition and support for him and the later communist government went a step further and in their propaganda made a hero of the rebel Li Zicheng who overthrew the last Ming Emperor.

It would be interesting to know how many, if any at all, of the Triads around the world today are aware of their origins among the diehard loyalists of the Ming Dynasty. The same could be asked of the Hongmen who do still exist as a fraternal organization to this day. Some might object to or be repelled by the notion of monarchists being associated with a major force in organized crime such as the Triads but such would be rather selective outrage. It is now a matter of common knowledge that the United States government cultivated numerous ties with the Sicilian mafia during World War II, some of the greatest heroes of the Kingdom of England were pirates once upon a time and bandits such as Emilio Zapata and Pancho Villa are revered national heroes in Mexico to this day (as misguided as that is). After a certain point, most obviously when the pursuit of criminal enterprises overtook or entirely replaced efforts to restore the Ming Emperor, such activities can be soundly condemned. However, hardly anyone can be entirely untainted by association with those deemed "criminals" by the powers-that-be, particularly during a period of "regime-change".

Emperor Hongwu

To the King of France, the revolutionaries were certainly outlaws, according to every law of man and God that France knew at that time. Likewise, those counterrevolutionaries who rose up against the First Republic were, according to the new revolutionary regime and the law of the land as they had devised it, outlaws and treated them as such. For the sake of "full disclosure" I should also add that I tend to be partial to the Qing Dynasty myself, though not for particularly substantive reasons I will be the first to admit, but according to ancient Chinese custom, just as the Qing were entitled to rule as evidenced by the fact that they did rule, if the Ming loyalists had prevailed it would have likewise been proof enough that they were entitled to be restored to power. Yesterday's criminal becoming tomorrow's emperor was not entirely unprecedented in Chinese history, nor in the history of the Great Ming itself for that matter. For those unfamiliar, the founding monarch and first Emperor of the Ming Dynasty had been a poor peasant and outlaw, leading rebel forces against the ruling Mongol Yuan Dynasty which he eventually expelled back to Mongolia and established himself as Emperor of China. So, again, it is not an unprecedented concept.

In summary, there were Ming loyalists who resisted in traditional fashion for as long as they could, until all were ultimately defeated and after that a smaller number still held on and continued to resist outside the bounds of the law, either as silent dissidents biding their time or members of organized crime. Unfortunately, the Qing Dynasty fell and the Ming Dynasty remained fallen as well. Are there any lingering Ming loyalists around today? I would hope so and with more than a billion Chinese people around the world the odds would be in favor of there being some, somewhere. I will close by saying, as carefully and prudently as I can, that in my view at least, taking back something that was stolen from you, even if outside the law of the land, is not wrong but right.MadMonarchisthttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-75844094027921708192016-05-07T17:50:00.001-05:002016-05-07T17:50:33.324-05:00Monarch Profile: King David of Israel

In the history of western civilization probably no other monarch looms as large as King David. As a figure, David dominates the political history of the Jews and, with the rise and spread of Christianity, this ancient king from Jewish tradition also came to play a huge part in the political iconography, traditions and culture of the European Gentiles as well. For the Jews, at least since the death of Joshua, King David became the pivotal figure with everything that happened before his reign, after Joshua, leading up to it and everything that happened to the Jews since being a result of the remarkable life and legacy of King David. For the nation of Israel and later for Christians as well it was King David who set the standard by which all subsequent monarchs were judged. He was the ideal king; humble, faithful, brave, pious and wise. King David has his flaws as well but even in his flaws, he was an example. His mistakes made the point that even the greatest of men was flawed and only God is perfect and when King David made mistakes he atoned for them so that these errors themselves, and how he dealt with them, made him even more of an example to emulate. In short, it would be quite impossible to overstate the legacy of King David and how far reaching it has been.

Of course, for someone from ancient times, there are details about David which remain a mystery but, from Biblical accounts, we do know a surprisingly great deal about him and there have been archaeological discoveries which have supported these accounts, showing that such a man did, actually, exist. Estimates vary but it seems he was born around the year 1000 BC, perhaps in Bethlehem, in the land of Judah. There are hints that he may have had some relation to the Ammonite royal family. He is usually described as being a brave boy of humble origins, a shepherd who became adept at the use of a slingshot while guarding over the family livestock. David fought in the wars against the Philistines and first came to prominence when a giant (and there are numerous accounts of giants in the Bible) named Goliath of Gath challenged the Israelis to send out their champion to face him in single combat. While others lacked the courage to face this monster, young David had faith that if God was on your side, no enemy should be feared and, scorning the use of armor, went out alone armed only with his slingshot, killed Goliath with a stone between the eyes and then cut his head off. The Philistines fled in terror and David became an instant celebrity and was taken in by King Saul as part of his inner-circle.

David became best friends with King Saul's son Jonathan and married King Saul's daughter Michal but soon his great deeds and popularity made King Saul jealous of him. Saul arranged to have David killed but the young man thwarted or avoided every attempt on his life and fled from the court to lead his own private army, winning further fame and glory much to Saul's dismay. It was also this period which demonstrates how David is an example in his loyalty to a monarch who not only harsh and unkind to him but actually tried repeatedly to have him killed. David twice had Saul at his mercy and could have easily killed him but refused to do so, despite the urgings of his followers, because to raise his hand against the King, God's anointed one, would be a sacrilege. He did, however, point this out to Saul, that he could have killed him but chose not to, which caused even King Saul to confess that David was a better man than he, treating Saul with kindness where Saul had treated David with cruelty. Though finally forced to flee to enemy country, David nonetheless remains loyal to his people and King Saul and kills the messenger who tells him of Saul's death, saying that "a great man has fallen" in the midst of battle. Of course, part of what had been troubling King Saul was the words of the Prophet Samuel telling him that he had lost favor with God and that his crown would pass to David.

That point is also stressed a great deal that, though David was popular as a handsome, young warrior, it was the will of God rather than man that made him King of Israel. David is given a higher compliment than any mortal man in the Bible in I Samuel 13:14 which says of David, "The Lord has sought out a man after His own heart". Because of that, King David is still remembered to this day as 'a man after God's own heart'. In subsequent battles, David defeats the remaining followers of Saul and becomes the undisputed King of Israel, making the conquered Jebusite city of Jerusalem his capital. With his people united behind him, and being an experienced, talented military leader, King David defeats his enemies and establishes a powerful kingdom, bringing the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem though it is left to his son to build the first magnificent temple in which to house it. At the start of his reign, Israel was a divided nation, probably a vassal of the Philistines, yet King David led them to unity, independence and even domination over a number of neighbors. The Kingdom of Israel did not reach its peak under King David but it was he who certainly laid the foundations.

Of course, for all of the praise King David receives, we are left in no doubt that he was still a mortal man with mortal weaknesses. As is, perhaps, not too surprising, this man who led armies into fierce, hand-to-hand combat, looked death in the face countless times and even triumphed over a giant that had cowed an entire army, was not strong enough to resist the temptations of a beautiful woman. That woman was Bathsheba, the wife of a soldier named Uriah. King David and Bathsheba have an affair and Bathsheba becomes pregnant by him. In an effort to cover up his misdeed, King David has Uriah recalled from the front immediately, thinking that he will sleep with his wife and later everyone will assume the baby is his. However, in keeping with the custom of the time, as a soldier on active duty, Uriah does not sleep with his wife and so, desperate to avoid being found out as an adulterer, David has him sent to the front to be exposed to the greatest danger and killed in battle. However, this does not go unnoticed, the Prophet Nathan admonishes King David and he ultimately confesses and repents of his misdeeds. His apology is sincere but there was still a price to be paid for his wrongdoing. When a number of horrors befell his children, a son rebelled against him and Saul loyalists in the north rebelled, it was all taken as divine retribution on King David for what he had done.

This all served as an important lesson, both to show that God would punish the wicked for their misdeeds, that King David was not a perfect man but also that he would admit to his mistakes and make amends as best he could. It was probably a necessary lesson as otherwise King David would likely seem to good to be true. He represented the epitome of Old Testament kingship. All the troubles of Israel since the death of Joshua kept being traced back to their lack of an orderly succession of recognized leaders. With King David, the monarchy was given lasting divine favor and a legacy that would continue for thousands of years. Not only would special favor be shown to the Davidic dynasty among the Israelis but it would cast a shadow across the world by way of the Christian monarchies that would rise up later. That is because it was in the person of King David that we have the origin of the "Divine Right of Kings".

Because of how beloved King David was, known as the man after God's own heart, God made a covenant with King David that was unprecedented. Numerous times throughout Biblical accounts, God made covenants with mankind, invariably with provisions that included the person or people doing something for God, such as keeping His commandments, in exchange for which God would grant some divine favor. However, the covenant with King David was the only such agreement God ever made that was unconditional. God promised to King David that he and all his descendants would have a "divine right" to rule over God's people and that if any of them did wrong, while God would punish them for that, because of how beloved King David was, their divine right would never be taken away from them. Because of this, no other dynasty held such a sacred significance for the Jews as the House of David did. It is why prophecies of the future Messiah would be bound up with associations with the sacred royal line and why even long after the Kingdom of Israel was a distant memory, Christian monarchs in Europe still found it advantageous to trace their genealogy back to King David.

Although exact dates are not known, King David probably died sometime around the year 961 BC. Under other circumstances he would be too large and lofty a figure to truly grasp, someone more suited to myths and fables than actual history. Yet, while there are aspects of his story that certainly could be read that way, few serious historians doubt that King David was quite real. His impact on Israel and later "Judeo-Christian" culture cannot be exaggerated. It was he who made Israel a united, independent nation state. It was he who established a royal line that would hold power for the next 400 years, it was he who made Jerusalem a capital city and center of the Jewish religion. For Christians, it was his line that would produce the Messiah, born in the city of his birth, crucified in the city that he ruled from and who was put to death on the accusation of claiming to be "King of the Jews". King David also set the standard for what an ideal ruler was supposed to be for many, many generations to come. Everyone is familiar with his story. The story of the young boy who fought off the wolves to protect his sheep, the boy playing his harp to sooth the troubled brow of King Saul, the wiry youth who killed a giant, the faithful friend, the loyal subject, the heroic warrior-king. He is a larger-than-life figure.

And yet, King David also appears all too real and all too human. We see a real person in him rather than some marble image of Olympian perfection. His bravery on the battlefield did not match his character at home, where he surrendered to the temptations of lust and then plotted and schemed to cover up his crime in fear of being discovered. As a warrior-king he was unmatched but as a statesman-king or administrator-king he seemed to have less ability. His reign was often troubled and based on the actions of his children, he was not as good a father as he was a general. He could be indecisive, often refused to see facts that were painful to him and could be self-indulgent at times. All of that makes him human and he was just as aware of that as anyone. He was not perfect but he was 'a man after God's own heart' and someone who many believed to be so pious that his prayers could bring down any favor from Heaven. Christians would later see him as a precursor of Jesus, giving him a feast day in the Eastern and Western Churches and ranking him among the "Nine Worthies" who best embodied the ideals of chivalry. Monarchs from three continents found it helpful to claim descent from him. Today, politics is a world away from where it was when King David was important even as a symbol but there is no denying that for most of the history of western civilization he was a colossal figure, the standard against which all others were judged.MadMonarchisthttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-86536629414362419962016-05-04T11:29:00.001-05:002016-05-04T11:50:54.867-05:00Monarchial Submarine Strength Today

For a considerable period of time, most of the countries in the world (and virtually all the monarchies) directly or indirectly under American military protection have voiced considerable opposition to American policies, the American character and the presence of American military forces around the world. Today, for a change, that skepticism is provoking a response in the United States with anti-war Democrats, Libertarians and Trump supporters finding themselves part of a growing chorus of American people who are either opposed to or dissatisfied with the current network of alliances that sees American military forces pledged to defend countries all around the world, from western Europe to Japan. In considering what would happen if U.S. military protection was withdrawn from these quarters, it is necessary to look at how capable these countries are of defending themselves against the powers that threaten them. For no other reason than that is an area of interest to me, this article will deal specifically with the naval strength of the monarchies of the world in terms of their submarine fleets. If further justification is demanded, all I can say is that this does tend to be illustrative of how committed countries are to national defense in general and, as any naval expert can tell you, a submarine is a singularly significant weapon in that the best way to deal with a submarine is another submarine.

HMAS Waller coming into Pearl Harbor

There are currently nine monarchies in the world that include submarines in their naval arsenals; Australia, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Going in alphabetical order, we will first look at Her Majesty's submarines in the Commonwealth of Australia. The Royal Australian Navy currently operates six diesel-electric submarines of the Collins-class. Based on a Swedish design, these are the first submarines to be built in Australia. However, while nice boats on paper, the Australian submarine force leaves much to be desired. Although six boats are currently in service, so few Australians have volunteered to serve on them that there have often only been one or two that are operational at a time. The Collins-class has suffered a number of problems as they entered service with numerous mechanical breakdowns, being excessively noisy and thus easy to detect as well as glitches in the combat system. There were other problems that could be expected with a new boat and most of these were corrected but certain malfunctions plagued the class as a whole and this, combined with accusations of corruption in the design and construction process, has given the Collins-class boats quite a bad reputation. They have certainly had more than their fair share of problems but, if you look closely, these tend to stem from an overall lack of seriousness on the issue of naval defense more than the boats and the Royal Australian Navy itself.

HMCS Windsor

The Royal Canadian Navy currently operates four diesel-electric submarines, the British Upholder-class purchased from the U.K. and renamed the Victoria-class. These are excellent conventional submarines though four seems an extremely small number for a country with such a vast coast to defend. Purchased in 1998, they are older than some but carry their age quite well. Unfortunately, one suffered a fire that killed a Canadian sailor and set off a series of ugly exchanges between Britain and Canada with the Canadians effectively accusing the British of selling them faulty merchandise and the British blaming the Canadians for not operating the boat properly. It was a sad, messy affair that did no one any good and unfairly gave a bit of a 'black eye' to the Upholder-class boats in Canada. That should not be the case though as the Upholder-class has shown itself to be one of the very best types of conventional submarines in the world with extensive service in the Royal Navy. Today, more recent boats may be outpacing them but they are still good value for money as conventional subs go ("conventional" meaning diesel-electric rather than nuclear powered). The bigger problem is that there are only four of them, divided between the Atlantic and Pacific and having two boats per ocean is not the mark of a country that is serious about having an independent naval defense.

JMSDF Oyashio-class submarine

In the Pacific, the monarchy with the largest submarine force is easily the State of Japan. The Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force currently operates 19 diesel-electric submarines, part of an ongoing expansion of the submarine force from 17 to 22 boats. The subs currently in service are all of the Oyashio-class and the latest Soryu-class. These are both very advanced and highly capable conventional submarines and their expanding numbers show that Japan is taking naval defense more serious than most, which is not surprising given that Japan is so close to the lunatic-regime in North Korea, an unfriendly Russia with a very large and highly advanced submarine fleet and most worryingly Communist China which has the fastest growing submarine fleet in the world. The Japanese have been very good at coming out with new and always improved submarine types and the latest, the Soryu-class, is an extremely technologically advanced and capable conventional submarine indeed. They have the tools, they have the talent and they are increasingly taking national defense more seriously. The only real shortcoming, aside from being limited to defensive weapons only, is that no one in the Japanese Self-Defense Forces has ever heard a shot fired in anger and so while they are well trained and have the latest equipment, none have any actual combat experience. That, however, is something all but one of the countries covered here have in common and Japan does have a strong submarine tradition which is more important than most probably realize.

Malaysian submarine Tunku Abdul Rahman

When one thinks of naval powers, the Kingdom of Malaysia probably does not spring immediately to mind. However, if one considers the geography of the country, it does make sense for Malaysia to put a priority on naval defense. They could probably do with more. The Royal Malaysian Navy currently operates a grand total of two Scorpène-class diesel-electric submarines, a Franco-Spanish design built under license by a number of countries and operated currently by Chile, India and Brazil as well as Malaysia. The Malaysian boats were purchased from France. They include some of the latest advances in underwater endurance and an improved sonar system. Other than that, they are fairly typical of the sort of conventional boats that appear on the world market, solid, reliable and good value for money but not anything exceptional. In dealing with Malaysia's immediate neighbors, they would be up to the challenge though having only two is obviously a weakness and against a major power such as China they would be only a minor bump in the road. Obviously, purchasing foreign boats also means depending on another power for such naval weaponry and this is a serious issue for Malaysia to consider. The old days of being able to depend on the Royal Navy for protection at sea are long gone.

Dutch Walrun-class submarine surfacing

Moving back to European waters, we have the case of the Kingdom of The Netherlands. Currently, King Willem Alexander has four submarines to call his own of the Walrus-class of diesel-electric boats. The lead boat of the class, HNLMS Walrus, was completed in 1989 and commissioned in 1992. A fire onboard caused a delay in getting the boat fully operational and out to sea, however, it is a highly advanced and innovative design that carries its age well. In NATO naval exercises this type of boat did quite well in mock actions against the U.S. Navy, penetrating an escort screen to make a theoretical attack on an American aircraft carrier. They are all around very good boats for their type and it does help that The Netherlands has a fine tradition of submarine service, even if most do not know about it. The first Japanese warship to be sunk in World War II was actually sunk by a Dutch submarine (O-Boat) and they took quite a toll on Japanese shipping in the waters of the (then) Dutch East Indies. They have good technology and talented personnel so that their only drawback is the small size of their fleet. Given that The Netherlands still has island possessions in the Caribbean, naval power is something that the Dutch should still give more attention to.

Norwegian submarines in Bergen

Compared to her neighbors, the Kingdom of Norway could be taken for a powerhouse in submarine warfare but, unfortunately, only if one looks at nothing but the numbers. The King of Norway currently has a force of six diesel-electric submarines of the Ula-class. Built in Germany, they have been in commission since 1989 so are rather old boats and most of their vital equipment comes from foreign countries. They are good boats, very quiet, highly maneuverable and are good value for money. However, they do show their age somewhat, have a fairly limited range and are not as technologically advanced as some others. For a country like Norway, they are an adequate force but realistically would not pose much of a threat to a potential enemy such as Russia. Being foreign built, they also show a lack of commitment to independent naval security. In cooperation with a stronger ally, they could be quite useful but, on their own, would not present much of a challenge.

Spanish sub Tramontana

Far to the south, the naval forces of the Kingdom of Spain have certainly declined a great deal from the days when the Spanish dominated the seven seas. His Catholic Majesty currently has a force of three diesel-electric submarines of the French Agosta-class in the Armada Española. These boats have been around since 1977, older even than Malaysia's Scorpène-class boats and not even the latest of their type (which is used by Pakistan). They were built under license in Spain, which is something, and one was even recently deployed during the Libyan emergency though, of course, it saw no action. They are decent boats and do provide the Spanish navy with options they would not otherwise have but neither are they anything to write home about. Their capabilities are quite limited and other designs have made them rather outdated. All of which is a shame, along with the fact that Spain has no real submarine combat tradition, considering that in the early days of submarine development the Spanish were much more involved than most people today realize. As was sadly common, internal instability in Spain simply prevented anything from coming from this period of early promise with the downfall of the monarchy, the Second Republic, the Spanish Civil War and of course the recent economic collapse allows for little hope that Spanish naval might will be returning in the foreseeable future.

Swedish submarine Gotland

If, however, there is any one country that would probably take the most people by surprise in the field of submarine warfare it would probably be the Kingdom of Sweden. For a country that has been so adamantly neutral for so long, the Swedes have shown an admirable focus on being independent in security matters, even if such independence does not always equal actual military strength. The Swedish Royal Navy currently operates a small force of five diesel-electric submarines, a meager force but all Swedish in their design and construction. Three of these are from the most recent Gotland-class which were commissioned in 1996. They have been around for a while but are very advanced boats, the Swedes being pioneers in the field of Air Independent Propulsion which has revolutionized the endurance of conventional submarines and been widely copied around the world. These boats were impressive enough that one was borrowed by the U.S. Navy to test American anti-submarine forces against a conventionally powered submarine enemy and the Swedish boat performed extremely well in the ensuing exercises. They are very quiet, have good endurance and are able to perform a variety of functions. Again, the only drawbacks are that they are few in number and are getting older. Still, they are quite capable and are domestically produced, which is good. There just are not many of them nor does Sweden have a submarine tradition like some other naval powers.

HMS Victorious, Vanguard-class SSBN

Finally, we come to the last name on our list and perhaps fittingly so for that is, of course, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. When looking at the British, there are positive as well as negative aspects to be considered with the sheer number of positive aspects making the negative ones all the more infuriating. The British have a strong submarine tradition, have survived two devastating submarine campaigns against them and have a level of actual experience that absolutely no one in the world today can match, Russia and America included. The U.K. is currently the only monarchy in the world that operates nuclear submarines as well as being the only monarchy that possesses nuclear weapons. The Royal Navy is the only force to date that has sunk an enemy ship with a nuclear submarine and one of only two countries in the world to have successfully attacked an enemy ship with a submarine since the end of World War II (the other being, believe it or not, Pakistan, which sunk an Indian ship with an old French sub they had purchased). The Royal Navy has tradition few can match, experience that none can match, great tools and great talent. That being said, there are problems.

HMS Ambush, Astute-class SSN

Her Britannic Majesty currently operates a force of eleven submarines so, yes, in terms of the number of boats, Great Britain is lagging some distance behind pacifist Japan. Four of these are nuclear ballistic missile submarines (the Queen's sole independent nuclear deterrent) and seven are nuclear attack submarines (ballistic missile submarines - SSBN, nuclear attack subs - SSN). The SSBN boats are of the Vanguard-class, each armed with 16 Trident nuclear ballistic missiles. In exercises, they have proven themselves capable of doing what they are intended for, however, the class has had a number of mechanical problems and mishaps that have taken some of the luster from their escutcheon (as it were). The seven attack submarines are of the Trafalgar-class and the new and improved Astute-class nuclear boats. Both of these types are extremely good, the Trafalgar-class being one of the best SSN types in the world in its time and the Astute-class being basically bigger and better. They are quiet, highly adaptable and pack a powerful punch, combining torpedoes and cruise missiles in their arsenal of weapons. In every way except for numbers the submarines of the Royal Navy are probably the only ones on the level of the United States and Russia. They have great equipment, unmatched experience and highly competent personnel. The training routine for British submarine commanders, the Perisher Course, is arguably the best in the world and a number of countries have sent naval personnel to be trained by the Royal Navy.

HMS Astute, underway

The biggest drawback, obviously, is that a force of eleven submarines is extremely limited for an island nation that depends on the sea lanes for its very survival and which still has a number of very far flung overseas possessions to defend. The British military has publicly said that they are basically incapable of independent military operations at this point and while the submarines of the Royal Navy are highly effective, they are far too few. Consider the fact that Britain has 11 submarines whereas the one major naval power that has most threatened Great Britain, Russia, has a fleet of 61 submarines, including recent models of extremely high quality. That is more than all the monarchies in Europe combined and by a wide margin. For monarchies on the other side of the world, the biggest concern is China which recently surpassed Russia in having the second-largest submarine fleet in the world with 69 boats and that number is growing faster than anywhere else in the world as well. China has territorial disputes with almost all of their neighbors, including Japan and Malaysia and the Chinese now operate conventional and nuclear attack submarines as well as ballistic missile submarines. Early on the quality of their boats was laughably poor but they have been steadily improving and today, while still lagging behind more well established naval powers, no one is laughing anymore for sure.

Russian Kilo-class sub purchased by Iran

All in all, there is a great deal of high quality naval weapons listed above that the people of the monarchies in the world can be very proud of. The problem is that none of them would be capable of dealing with a major naval power on their own, due to having too few boats and many of those being elderly and all but the British being restricted to conventional power plants. Think about the monarchies not on this list as well. None of the Arab monarchies possess a single submarine whereas the Iranians are currently operating three Kilo-class diesel-electric submarines purchased from Russia which are very capable boats. They also have an extensive fleet of midget-subs but, frankly, they have yet to prove worthy of any consideration at all. China, as mentioned, has more submarines than anyone other than the United States (which currently has 75 on duty) and nearby monarchies such as Thailand, Cambodia and Brunei have none (and certainly in the case of Brunei, lack of sufficient funds cannot be used as an excuse). If it came to blows, without American involvement, Australia would be easily swamped by a Chinese tidal wave of naval forces. Currently, if Australians managed to suppress their mockery and denigration of the English long enough to ask for help, Britain could do little more than lodge a formal protest with the United Nations.

HNLMS Zeeleeuw

The bottom-line then is that all of these countries should be doing much more to make national security a priority than is currently the case, especially if they are unhappy with the current alliance system. I know, many see any major conflict as totally beyond the realm of possibility but history teaches us that such sentiments are hardly new. Many people, many times, have thought the same thing and wars have often broken out when least expected. And, even if you are happy with the current system of alliances, you still should be concerned. It is, I would say, unwise for any country to depend entirely on another power for protection if at all possible, no matter who that power may be. Likewise, just because things have been relatively peaceful for quite some time, does not mean they always will be. There are real threats in the world today and make no mistake about it there are still forces out there that would be all too happy to threaten you, to take what you have, if they thought they could get away with it. If, as is the case today, you live in a country that has reduced your naval inventory to a mere handful of vessels and are having trouble even finding sailors to man them, that is a sign of a serious problem; a problem of a populace that is not taking their national security seriously at all.MadMonarchisthttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-42967168206318251582016-05-03T22:33:00.000-05:002016-05-03T22:33:21.780-05:00Royalist Reflections on "Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion"

Warning: (because I know from past Facebook posts how much some people hate this stuff) This article deals with an *anime* and was written as a way of returning a favor. If you do not like this sort of thing, if you detest anime no matter what it is about or what genre it falls into, turn back now, don't whine about it later.

"Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion" is a tragic-science fantasy-mech anime that debuted in Japan in 2006. As the name makes clear, it follows the story of Lelouch vi Britannia, a discarded prince living under an assumed identity in Japan, later known as "Area 11" after it is conquered by the overwhelming might of the Holy Britannian Empire and his rebellion against said empire and his father the Emperor. As to the show in general, I do not recall what prompted me to watch it originally but I am glad I did. I found it very entertaining, very engaging and just overall very well done. Based on how often it comes up so many years later, it seems to have made quite an impression and I think I am probably among the majority in giving it a 'thumbs up'. The story was very clever and though there are some things I could nitpick, it would be just that; nitpicking.

Probably the one thing that stands out the most for me was how every episode kept you coming back for more, building upon what came before it to make you eager to know what happens next. And, it was not like some shows that have many cliffhangers followed by no satisfying pay-off. No, in "Code Geass" things actually happen. So, overall, I approve. You liked the characters you were supposed to like, hated the characters you were supposed to hate and most major characters were quite complex so that eventually you see that our "hero" Lelouch has his dark side and many of the villains are not without their good points either. Even if you still believe them to be very much the "bad guys", you can at least understand how they see themselves as something totally different. Except for Suzaku. Everybody hates Suzaku. And everybody should. Anyway, down to the business of politics.

In the alternative version of history in which this story is set, the world is dominated by three major powers. One, about which the least is said, is the European Union or at least some sort of alternate version of it which, we are led to believe, operates along democratic republican lines. The second-largest power is the Chinese Federation which is a nominal monarchy though, we are led to believe, is still rather communist or socialist in economic terms. Finally the most powerful of the three is the aforementioned Holy Britannian Empire which is a capitalistic, aristocratic, militaristic absolute monarchy. From a famous speech given by the ruler of this empire fairly early in the series, Emperor Charles zi Britannia, this super-state seems to be based on royal absolutism and social-Darwinian capitalism. I have joked before that Emperor Charles could seem like the bastard child of King Louis XIV and Ayn Rand. At one point in the series we briefly hear a schoolteacher talking about the battle in which the last British monarch was defeated and from maps we see that Great Britain itself is part of the European Union while the Holy Britannian Empire is based on North America and North America is referred to by Britannians in Area 11 (Japan) as "the homeland". So, it seems as though the Holy Britannian Empire, the "bad guys" is probably intended to represent the United States of America.

What I took from the show (and there is not much detail about this sort of background material as it is not really pertinent to the story) was that the American War for Independence either never happened or was won by the British and the British were later driven from the British Isles and so North America became the capital of the British Empire which eventually became the more grandiose 'Holy Britannian Empire'. It seems to combine the false but stereotypical view of Britain and America by combining an entrenched aristocracy with cut-throat capitalism. Neither of these is reality of course, in Britain these days the hereditary peerage has no power and seems to be tolerated only because people cannot be bothered to do away with it. America, likewise, while widely viewed as the epitome of free market capitalism, particularly by those who view it as heartless and exploitative, has of course never been purely capitalist and has become increasingly less so ever since probably the Gilded Age, with big anti-capitalist shoves coming from Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson and lately Barrack Obama (and the Bush bailouts so as not to let the Republicans off without a mention).

The defenders of the Holy Britannian Empire are certainly the "bad guys" in this show but I have something of a history of being sympathetic toward if not outright siding with the "bad guys" in any number of movies and television shows. Of course, as the villains, the Britannians do plenty of horribly cruel things throughout the series, to say nothing of what the ultimate secret plan of the Emperor is, which actually turns out to have nothing to do with politics or global domination really. They treat subject peoples horribly (our story is set in Japan but we are to assume that what we see is standard procedure in other conquered territories), rob them of their rights, stamp out their national identity, segregate them and sometimes massacre them. However, there is also another aspect which many people may find surprising which is that the Britannians are also very meritocratic. Suzaku, "an 11" (as Japanese people are called) is able to rise to the highest rank in the empire simply by his own ability. We see other characters who seem to be of different races (it can sometimes be hard to tell in an anime) who have risen to important positions by their own talents and are treated as is appropriate for whatever rank or station they hold. Likewise, some of the aristocrats we see are corrupt buffoons while all those holding positions of real importance show that they have talent to justify their being there.

Prince Clovis finds peasants such a bother

All of this is in keeping with the values of the empire as presented in the speech given by Emperor Charles at a funeral. He speaks of the basis of the empire in very Darwinian terms, that in Britannia people compete and the cream rises to the top, that on the world stage they conquer, plunder and dominate because they are stronger and they are stronger because they are continuously evolving by this competition which weeds out the weak and dull and advances the strong and clever. "Inequality is not wrong," the Emperor booms out to the audience, "Equality is!" At which point, he goes on to pour scorn on the other major powers, referring to the democratic EU (which of course the actual EU is certainly NOT) as a place that grants power on the basis of a popularity contest and the Chinese Federation which believes in wealth redistribution to promote equality as a system that has created a population of "lazy dullards". All of which stands in stark contrast to the Holy Britannian Empire where the successful rule and the unsuccessful are ruled by them. The members of the Imperial Family are all deferred to and aristocrats treat common people contemptuously but even if you are a commoner you can earn advancement into the ranks of the aristocracy and even a foreigner of a conquered people can, with enough achievement, reach lofty positions. It is survival of the fittest.

As the villains of the series, though Lelouch himself is a Britannian prince, the Holy Britannian Empire does receive the most attention but I was also intrigued by what was told about the next largest rival of the empire on the world stage which was the Chinese Federation. Rather like how Britannia combines high-tech weapons and modern economics with barons, knights and sword play, the Chinese Federation seems to combine aspects of ancient as well as modern China. The nominal ruler is the childlike Empress (Tianzi) Jiang Lihua however, hearkening back to the days of the Han and Tang dynasties, it is the top court eunuchs that actually rule the federation. The empress herself is a mere figurehead who the eunuchs, we ultimately see, have no real reverence or even regard for at all, viewing her as ultimately dispensable. This is in stark contrast to Britannia where the Emperor is very much an absolute monarch and it is he who rules, usually through the persons of his many children.

The Chinese Empress

No back story is given for the Chinese Federation but it seemed to me to be a sort of representation of what could happen if the communist party remained in power for a sufficient period of time that traditional China would start to absorb the current People's Republic of China. Stranger things have happened (see North Korea). After all, we have an imperial monarchy, we have court eunuchs, we have a sort of stylized version of traditional Chinese costumes and yet we also have a socialist economic system. I thought it also telling that the heart and center of power for the Chinese Federation was referred to as the "Vermillion Forbidden City" which is only a few shades different from the actual Purple Forbidden City but with more of a reddish tint to its name. What I imagined was that in this timeline, something like the current People's Republic of China existed but lasted for so long that eventually the leadership came full circle and began to revert back to traditional Chinese ways, the dictator-president becoming the emperor and the party apparatchiks becoming the eunuchs. Red (or vermillion) is the new Imperial Yellow. This was, for me, a fascinating subject to ponder given how the communist revolutions that succeeded in East Asia tended to dance along the border, rather uncomfortably, with their imperial predecessors.

All of this is not far-fetched when one considers that Chairman Mao's fourth wife, Jiang Qing, once had several imperial gowns made for herself in preparation for a visit by Imelda Marcos, First Lady of The Philippines, though she ultimately decided not to wear them as Mao disapproved. In North Korea we have seen the establishment of a Marxist political dynasty, complete with mystical folklore and even in Vietnam there was once talk of the current regime as a sort of new "Ho dynasty" (there was an actual one though it produced only two emperors) and at times have been efforts to portray successive presidents (who are not always the real rulers of the country) as some sort of reincarnation of Ho Chi Minh who has been raised to mythic, near god-like status. In the show, it is also interesting to note that the egalitarian, socialist policies of the Chinese Federation are implied to be praiseworthy but also shown to be quite ineffective with the federation being a generally impoverished country. We also see the monarchy being portrayed in a rather positive way with the little empress being a good, just and kind-hearted girl but who is being held prisoner by her corrupt and traitorous attendants. Similarly, while Emperor Charles of Britannia is certainly the main villain of the piece, we see that not everyone in the Imperial Family is so cruel, though there are those who are, if anything, even more devious.

I shall not spoil the ending for anyone who has not seen the series and may wish to but suffice it to say that, while the show certainly (and not surprisingly given modern sensibilities) promotes egalitarianism, it does not directly attack monarchy itself. We see a malevolent emperor, a benevolent empress, an emperor who pretends to be bad to accomplish a greater good and are left with another, presumably, benevolent empress. We see princes and princesses that are bad and good and some that seem to be the one but turn out to be the other in due time. There are also plenty of contradictions as almost every main character, be it Lelouch, Emperor Charles or Suzaku hold to the belief that the ends justify the means and so each do things which they claim to deplore in order to accomplish their ultimate aim which, each believes, will change things for the better. As for what became of the Japanese monarchy in this alternate timeline, I cannot say as it is never mentioned in the series and that is not uncommon in such Japanese works where, in my experience, the Emperor and Imperial Family tend to be a taboo subject. We do hear of Japan having a prime minister so, we can, perhaps, presume that the Imperial Family remains and somehow survives, hidden away somewhere, all of the earth-shattering events of this series.

In the end, from a monarchist perspective, I found nothing too objectionable about it. The setting and nature of the series tends to make me more tolerant since it is all so 'make believe' and detached from the real world. As stated at the outset, I found it an engrossing and entertaining show, intelligent, with plenty to "chew on" (as I like to describe such things), giving viewers much to ponder, discuss and debate whether one agrees or disagrees with any particular aspect or premise. If you are open to this sort of thing and not put off by all things anime (there is fan service, giant robots and at least one 'magical girl' so this is as 'anime' as it gets) then I would recommend watching it if you can. Whether you come away liking or disliking it, I think it will at least prove stimulating. If you are as twisted as I am you might even find yourself thinking that the Holy Britannian Empire doesn't sound so bad in some ways but then, that should probably be cause for concern. Some characters will impress you, some will frustrate you, some will make you laugh (*cough* Lloyd *cough*), and some will make you sympathetic. And, if in spite of all their horrible deeds, you hear Emperor Charles' speech and jump up shouting with the crowd, "ALL HAIL BRITANNIA!" then you just might be a … Mad Monarchist.

MadMonarchisthttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-30796131556235249122016-04-23T03:05:00.001-05:002016-04-23T03:20:22.603-05:00The Martial Prowess of Imperial Austria

I have touched on this subject before but I think it is an issue which deserves going into further detail. As I have said before, one of my pet peeves is people who denigrate military service and, perhaps worse, those who denigrate the military achievements of entire countries or nations. Quite unjustly, Imperial Austria is one of those which often falls victim to this and, in the case of Austria, as with some others, the Austrians themselves, and their sympathizers, can sometimes be a hindrance rather than a help in refuting such a stereotype. One famous phrase that many pro-Austrian people often repeat is, "Others make war, but thou, O happy Austria, only marry". This is in reference to the fact that the Austrian empire grew and expanded mostly through dynastic alliances and inheritance rather than conquest. This is true to a large extent but only up to a certain point. Some of the territory Austrians and Austrian-sympathizers made a great fuss about holding on to over the years was not gained by marriage but by war or political "horse-trading".

Austrian grenadiers on the attack at the Battle of Essling

The point, which is true, is that Austria was never a thoroughly militaristic sort of country in the way that their fellow Germans in Prussia were. However, the Prussians tend to rank in a class by themselves in that regard and any comparison on that front is rather unfair. Yes, unlike Prussia, life in Imperial Austria did not revolve around the army but that does not mean the Austrians were without military achievement or great military heroes. However, another problem, aside from the stereotype of Austrians being more interested in music than the military, is that Austria does not fit into such a neat, national box as Prussia or France or The Netherlands. Where does the story of the Holy Roman Empire, old Germany, end and the story of Austria begin? Who is Austrian and who is not? This may seem arbitrary to some but it would seem ridiculous to me to restrict the story of Austrian military achievement to the German-Austrians just as it would be ridiculous to say that Napoleon should not rank as a great military figure of France simply because the blood in his veins was not French. So, some great names will be mentioned here who were not German-Austrians but who fought for the House of Hapsburg, who were part of the Imperial Austrian power structure and who won their victories with the troops, Germans, Magyars, Slavs and the like, which were under the Austrian Crown.

Marshal Wallenstein

One could go back quite a way depending on, again, where one chooses to differentiate Austria and what became the Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary from what had been the First German Reich. Emperor Charles V, for example, was quite a successful war leader and he was a Hapsburg but he was born in Belgium, was King of Spain and was overall so cosmopolitan that it would be hard to reduce him simply to the label of "Austrian". He is as much a figure of Spanish history as he is of Austrian or German history and his larger-than-life presence is well represented by his famous quip that he spoke 'Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men and German to my horse'. Later, in the Thirty Years War, Johann Graf von Tilly proved quite a successful military commander, fighting for the House of Hapsburg and he too was born in what is now Belgium and learned his trade from an Italian, Alessandro Farnese, Duke of Parma, who also fought for the Hapsburgs and who was considered the greatest soldier of his time. Alongside Graf von Tilly, it was Albrecht von Wallenstein who gained the greatest fame as commander of Imperial forces in the Thirty Years War and he was a native of Bohemia. One can argue over his merits as a man but as a military commander his record of success speaks for itself.

Montecuccoli

A commander who often seems to be overlooked who fought for the House of Hapsburg and who became something of a legend in his own time (even if often forgotten today) was an Italian from Modena, Raimondo Count of Montecuccoli. Here was a man who fought against the Pope, the Hungarians, the French and the Swedes in his long military career before gaining his greatest fame in battles against the Turks. Today he is not often remembered but he was ranked alongside Turenne and Conde of France as one of the greatest military leaders of his time (the mid 17th Century) and both of whom he faced at the end of his career. His victories, often won against extremely uneven odds were so remarkable that the Emperor made him a Prince of the Holy Roman Empire and awarded him the Order of the Golden Fleece.

Prince Eugene of Savoy

Certainly though, when one looks at the military history of Austria, one name can easily be given as a starting point due to how he was revered by the men who came after him in the ranks of what was ultimately the military forces of the Austrian Empire and later Austria-Hungary. That name was, again, an Italian one rather than a German one but one thoroughly associated with Austrian military glory and that was, of course, Prince Eugene of Savoy. It says something that this man, who first offered his sword to the King of France only to have it refused, would one day have his portraits hanging in Austrian military barracks for generations and as late as World War II both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy had warships named in his honor. Prince Eugene of Savoy was one of the great captains of military history and alongside the Duke of Marlborough from Great Britain won his greatest fame in the War of Spanish Succession (Queen Anne's War to American readers). He was one of the most influential military commanders in world history and certainly can be easily classified as part of Austrian military history because his figure loomed so large throughout the rest of the Hapsburg reign over central Europe. Whether in the period of Empress Maria Theresa, Emperor Francis I or Emperor Francis Joseph, it was Prince Eugene of Savoy who was looked to as the example of great, victorious, military leadership for Austrian army commanders to emulate.

Austrian infantry, 1740

Even with Prince Eugene of Savoy though, it is easy to look simply at his famous victories in the War of Spanish Succession and forget that most of his military career was spent fighting the Turks in the east. For all those who would denigrate the military abilities of the Austrians and other members of what became the Dual-monarchy of Austria-Hungary, one need only look at the very, very long period of bitter warfare that raged throughout the Balkans against the overwhelming might of the Ottoman Turks against which the Hapsburg lands stood as a bulwark in defense of Christendom. If the Austrians are such poor soldiers, one could justly ask how exactly it was that the Turks were ultimately pushed back from the very gates of Vienna to Constantinople? They certainly did not pack up and meekly march home of their own accord. This was only accomplished by a long series of conflicts in which men like Savoy and Montecuccoli and others, leading Austrians, Slavs and Magyars at times, defeated and pushed back what had been the most powerful empire in the world in its time. In centuries past it would have seemed laughable to portray the Austrians as effete music-loving dandies after so many years, even centuries, of being on the front line of the war for the very survival of western civilization. The country was known as "Ostmark" for a reason; it was the eastern barrier against which the invaders never passed.

Baron von Laudon

Moving into the 18th Century, Austria was not without military heroes and military achievements there either, it is only that they often tended to be overshadowed by others. A couple of examples will illustrate this. One was the Austrian Generalissimo Baron Ernst Gideon von Laudon. Never heard of him? Perhaps not, but you probably have heard of the Prussian King Frederick the Great. Well, Baron von Laudon was someone the fearsome Frederick probably wished he had never heard about because he was just about his most troublesome adversary. For military history experts, Baron von Laudon is known as one of the greatest captains of his time but, to the broader public, he was simply outshined by Frederick the Great. The undefeated Russian general, Alexander Suvarov, credited von Laudon with being his teacher in the art of war. Baron von Laudon himself had also learned some of his trade from another highly competent foreigner in Austrian service, Maximilian Graf von Browne, a son of Irish exiles. Although they were not always on good terms, Franz Moritz Graf von Lacy was another Austrian commander of the period worthy of mention. He played no small part in the great victory at Breslau for Empress Maria Theresa and later became a close confidant of Emperor Joseph II. Field Marshal Leopold Joseph von Daun was the third member of this trinity of Austrian military heroes and one who also defeated Frederick the Great at such battles as Kolin and Hochkirch. Empress Maria Theresa referred to him as the "savior of her states" and such sentiment was not unwarranted.

Graf von Daun

It is rather unfair that these men should be so overshadowed by King Frederick the Great of Prussia. "Old Fritz" certainly deserves his exalted place in the pages of military history. He and his Prussians worked military miracles but surely that should also mean that defeating so great a genius as Frederick was no mean feat and he was defeated on several occasions by the Austrian commanders mentioned above. Their victories were hard fought and fairly earned and they should not be shrugged off. However, it was also with the rise of Prussia that Austria becomes more easily set apart and the First German Reich had not long to live even on paper. As the reign of Emperor Joseph II came to a close the French Revolution erupted and it set events into motion which ultimately brought down the First Reich and caused to rise up in the aftermath the Austrian Empire. During those struggles the Austrians fought many battles, knew victory as well as defeat but also added glorious events and figures to the pages of their own military history. During what became known as the Napoleonic Wars, of course, the figure of Napoleon himself looms the largest and deservedly so, he was one of the best that ever was. However, it also took military leaders of the highest quality to eventually defeat him and Austria was not unrepresented in that group.

Archduke Charles of Austria, Duke of Teschen

Most people today may be more familiar with names such as the British Duke of Wellington or the Prussian Marshal Bluecher, perhaps even Russia's old, one-eyed General Kutuzov but another name that should be just as familiar (even if it often is not) is that of Archduke Charles of Austria, Duke of Teschen. He was the brother of Emperor Francis I and the greatest Austrian military commander of his time and a very major thorn in the side to the French Emperor. He was certainly among the most capable of the enemies of Napoleon and gained fame for winning victories at such battles as Rastadt, Amberg and Wurzberg. He was not so successful in Italy but, upon returning to the Rhine, was victorious again at Biberach and Stockach. He was not always victorious but his victories merit him being better known than he is. The Duke of Wellington, after all, only faced Napoleon once, at Waterloo, administering his last defeat. Well, it was the Archduke Charles who gave Napoleon his first major defeat at the Battle of Aspern-Essling. He was also a gifted military administrator and implemented important reforms to the Austrian army that would pay dividends for a long time to come. It is probably no exaggeration to say that Archduke Charles was the most capable and persistent of Napoleon's continental enemies.

Joseph Graf Radeztky

There were other, less lofty, Austrian commanders who earned laurels in the wars with France and it was many of the younger officers who tasted battle then who would command Austrian troops in the next great crisis that the empire faced, which was the Revolutions of 1848. The one figure who stands out the most, in this period of Austrian military history, was probably Field Marshal Joseph Graf Radetzky von Radetz. He was a beloved and highly successful general who was adored by his troops and played a critical part in a time of crisis that could easily have doomed the Austrian Empire. However, this is where unfair and unkind stereotypes can sometimes feed upon themselves. Probably his greatest hour of fame and glory came when his unflappable leadership proved the decisive factor in defeating the Italians in their first war for independence. In the years since, however, as many people have unfairly denigrated the military abilities of the Italians, defeating them has come to be seen as no great achievement and thus Graf Radetzky is all too often overlooked or dismissed as being of relatively little importance. Such thinking is an injustice to two peoples at the same time. As regular readers here will know, the stereotype of the Italians as being 'no good at war' is totally false. The Italians were darn good soldiers and defeating them was no small achievement. If one looks at the battles in which Graf Radetzky and his Austrians faced off against King Carlo Alberto and his coalition of Italians, one can easily see how close the Austrians came to defeat. The situation was, perhaps, not always as bad as it seemed but probably any other commander would have been panicked by the situation as it developed and pulled back, surrendering the victory to the Italians. Not Graf Radetzky. He kept his cool, was never flustered and so managed to pull off a decisive and hard fought victory for the Austrian Empire. It is unfortunate that the Austrians themselves often seemed to take such hard fought victories for granted as the government was almost always quick to give the military a lower priority when it came to spending. Later Austrian defeats, such as at the hands of the French and Italians and later the Prussians were due in large part to the army having been neglected by the civilian government. However, even in those days the Austrians still proved themselves excellent soldiers. The volunteers who went to Mexico, for example, to fight for Emperor Maximilian earned a matchless reputation and could often be found in the vanguard of any attack, acting as a sort of shock troops for the Imperial Mexican forces.

Finally, however, we must come to the First World War and it is perhaps this conflict which is most responsible for the unfair reputation Austria has come to have in military matters. It can sometimes seem that the only thing anyone remembers about Austria-Hungary in World War I was the phrase of one frustrated German that his country was 'shackled to a corpse', referring to Austria-Hungary. Hopefully longtime readers will know and new readers will look back at old posts to familiarize themselves with why this is unfair in greater detail. Suffice it to say that Austria-Hungary generally appears weak only because it was invariably compared to the German Empire which had none of the disadvantages that Austria-Hungary had to deal with. Austria-Hungary had a government that tended to spend less on the military whereas in Germany, with Prussia dominant, the army always came first. Germany was a nation-state whereas Austria-Hungary was a multi-ethnic patchwork with an extremely complicated organizational structure and bureaucratic infrastructure that was difficult to manage in the best of times. Germany had two major fronts to deal with, Austria had at least three and whereas Germans were all pulling in the same direction throughout all but the very end of the war, Austria-Hungary contained many dissident elements that were all too willing to be enticed by the enemy.

Count Conrad von Hoetzendorf

In any event, when evaluating the part of Austria-Hungary in World War I (a conflict which the Hungarian half of the empire was not happy about being a part of in the first place), there are a few things that should be kept in mind. For one, Austria-Hungary was undoubtedly a major military power, in fact one of the most militarily powerful countries in the world in 1914. The army was large, professional and they had superb artillery (which the Germans themselves made use of). The effective commander of the Austro-Hungarian army, Field Marshal Conrad von Hotzendorf, was probably the most respected military leader of his day, referred to as the greatest strategist in central Europe and was held in very high esteem even by the Germans. His plans have since often been criticized as overly ambitious and unrealistic but few care to remember that the ultimate campaigns by which Germany led the way to victory on the eastern front were all in keeping with his original strategies. It should also be kept in mind that Russian intelligence had obtained the Austrian plans before the war began, putting Austria-Hungary at quite a disadvantage. Nonetheless, some early victories were achieved, though at a great cost.

Arz von Straussenburg

One of those who distinguished himself was Colonel General Viktor Graf Dankl who won a hard fought, 3-day battle against the Russians at Krasnik, the first major victory for Austria-Hungary in the war (most of his army, by the way, was made up of Slovakian and Polish troops). The Gorlice-Tarnow offensive was also a major victory for Austria-Hungary though many, unfairly, tend to discount any victory achieved in cooperation with the Germans as being attributable solely to Germany rather than Austria-Hungary. This is quite an injustice considering that, for example, the Gorlice-Tarnow offensive was planned by Conrad von Hotzendorf though it was a German general who commanded the combined forces in the operation. Field Marshal Svetozar Boroevic von Bojna, a Croat - Serbian Orthodox officer from what is now Croatia, was considered one of the best defensive generals of the war and Colonel General Artur Arz von Straussenburg also distinguished himself in a number of victories, earning the respect of his countrymen as well as the Germans for his actions against the Russians and Romanians. His role as chief of staff, against Italy, did not go so well but it was not solely due to him.

Austrian submarine U-5

All too often it is forgotten that while the Germans may have ultimately taken the lead on the Russian front, Austria-Hungary contributed to virtually all of those victories as well as those in the south. The Austro-Hungarian forces also performed well, overall, on the Italian front despite often being heavily outnumbered with only the mountainous terrain as a major advantage. Austria-Hungary produced a number of "ace" fighter pilots during the war and showed considerable talent at sea despite having only limited forces. The Austrian submarine fleet, though few in number, actually had a higher ratio of hits per torpedoes fired than the German submarines did with Captain Georg Ritter von Trapp (later made famous by "The Sound of Music") becoming the most successful Austrian submarine commander of the war. Austria-Hungary, though ultimately defeated, put up a heroic fight against long odds against the Russians, Serbians, Italians, Romanians and others while also sending military forces to assist the Germans on the western front and the Ottoman Turks in the Middle East. All things considered, it is quite amazing that Austria-Hungary was able to do as well as they did for as long as they did against the powerful forces arrayed against them.

Generaloberst Lothar Rendulic

World War I, sadly, brought with its termination the end of Austria-Hungary, the end of the Austrian Empire (the Kingdom of Hungary lingering for a while in name at least) but even with the defeat and collapse of 1918 the military legacy of Imperial Austria was still felt for some time after. Some of the young officers who learned their trade fighting for the Kaiser of Austria would also rise to prominence in World War II. Some, like the aforementioned Ritter von Trapp, refused to serve after the union with Nazi Germany, but others still fought for their country regardless of their opinions about the government. Three Austrians would rise to the rank of Colonel-General in the German armed forces of World War II and one of the most notable was General Lothar Rendulic. Rendulic served in Yugoslavia, Scandinavia and on the Russian front as a divisional, corps, army and army group commander, earning the nickname of "The Austrian Fireman" even though, while born in Austria, he was ethnically Croatian rather than German-Austrian. He earned quite a reputation as a commander who could come into a bad situation and snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Of course, not all of his record is good but on the purely military side of things, he was one of the best and he first learned his trade fighting for the Austrian Emperor rather than the Austrian corporal.

There are, of course, many other names that could be mentioned and other victorious battles that could be talked about, from the Siege of Vienna in 1529 to Caporetto in late 1917 but hopefully the point has been made. Austria may not have the reputation of being a militaristic power (or even desire such) but that does not mean it lacks in ability. Austria has a long and illustrious military history full of many great war leaders and great achievements. It is extremely unfortunate that most of it has been lost thanks to the current Austrian republic which does not even seem to consider defense of the national territory to be a priority, preferring to leave itself at the mercy of others respecting its position of absolute neutrality. True, Austrian leaders gained much by marriage but Austria made war quite often as well and has a record that any Austrian can be justly proud of. I also know from experience that there are those who are going to accuse me of "forgetting" their favorite Austrian military figure. I can hear you now asking, "Why didn't you mention Prince Schwarzenberg or Andreas Hofer or..." whoever your choice may be. I did not, of course, forget them but mentioning every Austrian who achieved military success would make this already lengthy post turn into a rather large book. And that fact should make the point quite well that those who denigrate the martial prowess of Imperial Austria are the ones showing themselves woefully ignorant of the actual facts of the matter.

MadMonarchisthttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-28654027818227432722016-04-21T01:40:00.000-05:002016-04-21T01:40:16.371-05:00Happy 90th Birthday to Her Majesty!

Happy 90th Birthday to Her Majesty!

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!

God Save Our Gracious Queen,

Long live our noble Queen,

God Save the Queen!

Send her victorious,

Happy and glorious,

Long to reign over us,

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!

MadMonarchisthttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-29271259414155769782016-04-17T23:28:00.001-05:002016-04-17T23:28:43.437-05:00Restoring the Army of the Kingdom of Portugal

When one thinks of the glory days of Portugal it is only natural to think of the "Age of Exploration" when the Portuguese were truly leading the world in new discoveries in navigation, cartography and the opening of new trade routes which made Portugal the first "global" power as well as, for a time, probably the wealthiest country in Europe. However, as competition for Portuguese dominance in trade increased, first from the Dutch and later from the Spanish, French and English, the fortunes of Portugal understandably declined. Too many, however, tend to view that decline as permanent. As with many southern European nations, Portugal also tends to be discounted as a military power. However, the soldiers of the Kingdom of Portugal came to enjoy a very high reputation and at a time when, on the surface, it would have seemed the least expected and that was during the period of the French Revolutionary/Napoleonic Wars. The monarch, Queen Maria I, had lost her senses, her uncle and consort King Pedro III predeceased her and her son and heir (later King John VI) was beset by difficulties. The military had fallen into disrepair and the ruling Council of Regency was notoriously corrupt and inefficient. Yet, great changes took place that brought the Portuguese armed forces to a new level of proficiency.

Those changes took place under the leadership of a British officer, William Carr, Viscount Beresford who was appointed Marshal of the Portuguese army. Lest any object to the presence of a British general it should be kept in mind that Portugal had a history of having professional foreign soldiers command the army, usually Germans, of varying degrees of talent. Nor was Portugal alone in this as foreign commanders were quite common in armies from Naples to Russia. In the British army, during the American War for Independence, it was only by means of a hasty promotion that the senior most officer of the forces fighting for the British Crown was a Hessian. Marshal Beresford was, thankfully for Portugal, also an extremely adept administrator. Other generals might have been more capable as battlefield commanders but perhaps none could match Viscount Beresford when it came to organization, logistics and all of the less glamorous work of soldiering. The Duke of Wellington himself stated that if anything should have befallen him during the Peninsular Campaign it was Beresford who he would have wished to succeed him, so confident was he in his abilities.

When Beresford was put in command of the Portuguese forces, he faced a monumental task as the Portuguese civilian government and the previous (also foreign) commanders had left the army in a chaotic state. Troops were poorly trained, officers were poorly educated, discipline was erratic and the regular issuance of pay, food and uniforms was abysmal. Morale was, not surprisingly, terrible as a result and it is only amazing that the Portuguese army had not fared even worse in the French Revolutionary Wars up to that point. However, Beresford and others who arrived to reform this mess found one element that had potential and fortunately it was the one element indispensable for making a good army and that was the quality of the average Portuguese soldier or potential soldier himself. When the Portuguese were conscripted to construct a major fortified line across the country, the British officers of the Royal Engineers were amazed by their fortitude. They worked tirelessly for long hours, with little pay, far from home and yet never complained or made any difficulties. Other British officers described the Portuguese troops as invariably, "patient good-tempered people, therefore very susceptible of discipline under good officers; and when so are very steady under arms…"

The revival of the Portuguese army, although often overlooked, was one of the most magnificent military accomplishments of the period. Beresford brought in capable British officers to replace elderly Portuguese ones and to train the younger Portuguese officers to a higher standard. Every British officer had a Portuguese officer above and below him in rank and every Portuguese officer had a British officer above and below him. Bringing order out of the chaos of the logistical system worked wonders. The soldiers pay was increased and, more importantly, was regularly delivered. The troops received proper food and uniforms on schedule and discipline was evenly enforced. This brought about an immediate improvement and even those British officers, such as William Warre, who had initially looked down on the Portuguese troops, drastically changed their opinions. Warre himself came to state that, of the Portuguese soldiers, "None are certainly more intelligent or willing, or bear hardships and privation more humbly". The Duke of Wellington himself gave the Portuguese more credit than the British in this dramatic transformation, saying that rather than the training the British officers provided, it was simply the matter of seeing that the army was properly cared for which allowed the natural talents and strengths of the Portuguese soldiery to shine through.

The previous, lackluster performance of the Portuguese military was attributed almost entirely to the fact that they were poorly fed, poorly equipped and poorly disciplined and so, not surprisingly, performed poorly as a result. However, once they were kept properly fed, clothed and paid, they performed extremely well and keen observers of military quality were astounded by the sudden change. There were still the occasional problems as with any army but by 1812 the Portuguese military had gained a great reputation as one of the best fighting forces in the field at the time. The Duke of Wellington, in overall command of the forces allied against France on the Iberian peninsula, was quite proud of the Portuguese and their solid reliability on the battlefield, famously referring to them as "the fighting cocks of the army". The infantry was dependable, the light infantry was quite good, the cavalry less so and the field artillery improved considerably. The militia, as was almost universally true, was not considered front-line capable but were well used for defending fortified positions, "being possessed of innate courage" as one British officer noted of them.

The Portuguese army performed well and in vital campaigns for the liberation of their country and the offensive into Spain. After some subsequent defeats for the Spanish it was only the Anglo-Portuguese forces under the overall command of Wellington that kept the war going on the Iberian front. The Portuguese constructed the famous "Lines of Torres Vedras" to protect Lisbon and they played an important part in the sally from this line that saw Marshal Massena defeated at the Battle of Busaco on September 27, 1810. When the allies were able to go back on the attack in a major offensive, ultimately driving the French out of Portugal and Spain entirely, the Portuguese army performed very well and their quality was universally praised. Once the subject of numerous insults, once they were properly cared for, the Portuguese army was recognized as one of the best of the period. The raw material had been there all along and only neglect had caused it to become hidden due to the incompetence of the civilian government. The Portuguese gave good service for the remainder of the Peninsular War and ended the conflict with a high reputation.

MadMonarchisthttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-25330830598594941432016-03-18T10:06:00.001-05:002016-03-18T10:06:41.816-05:00Clash of Monarchies: Queen Anne's War

Many people today have an astounding ignorance of their own history. Glorying in themselves they are nonetheless completely disconnected from what it was that made them who they are and how the world we know today came to be. In the United States this is reflected by how relatively little attention is given to colonial history. Thorough studies of history tend to start with the creation of the United States of America and follows the story from there. However, this was, obviously, the culmination of the earlier colonial history of North America and one cannot understand how modern America came to be what it is now without understanding that colonial period. Had things gone differently in the days of the North American colonies of Britain, France and Spain there might not be a United States or, if there had been, it might be populated by a totally different people with a different legal system, a different language and so on. One of the often overlooked periods which illustrates this point was Queen Anne's War.

Queen Anne, King Louis XIV & King Philip V

What is known in America as Queen Anne's War is known in Europe as the War of Spanish Succession. The last Hapsburg King of Spain had died and King Louis XIV of France put forward a grandson of his to be the first of a new line of Bourbon monarchs for the throne of Spain. This caused a great deal of opposition. The Hapsburg Emperor Leopold I wanted to maintain his own dynasty on the Spanish throne or at least to retain certain Spanish possessions, particularly in northern Italy, for the Austrian Hapsburgs and other powers such as the British under Queen Anne were concerned that this Bourbon proposal would effectively make Spain and the whole Spanish empire a subsidiary of the Kingdom of France. The British, Dutch and a few others feared this would make France far too powerful and thus a threat to their own security and interests. So it was that the powers of Europe formed up into two warring camps, the most prominent players being France and Spain on one side and Austria and Britain on the other.

Of course, war in Europe also meant war in America for the colonial subjects of Britain, France and Spain. Since it occurred during the reign of Queen Anne, the conflict was known among the British colonists as "Queen Anne's War". Even though the colonial footholds of the various European powers were still rather small at the time it all kicked off in 1702 there was, nonetheless, a rivalry over who would ultimately come to dominate the North American continent. The outbreak of Queen Anne's War saw the British colonies having more strength at hand than their enemies, British settlement being more rapid and widespread than the French or even the Spanish, at least in North America but the British colonies also had weaknesses of their own. They were potentially surrounded by enemies and with the French and Spanish working together against them, there was a real fear that the colonies of the British Crown might be thrown off the continent altogether at worst or at least be severely restricted to a small strip of the east coast.

In looking at the opposing forces one thing which must be kept in mind is that the Europeans in general were still a small minority of the American population at the time. Somewhat like the Franco-British rivalry in the subcontinent of India, the bulk of most of the fighting forces who participated in Queen Anne's War would be Native Americans as both the British and the Franco-Spanish factions tried to enlist American Indians to their cause and to encourage them to attack the other side. This also represents a pivotal moment in American history since many of the most advanced Indian tribes did their best to remain neutral in the conflict. Given the circumstances, and the benefit of hindsight, we can see that if some of these powerful native forces had not held themselves aloof but firmly taken a side it might have considerably altered the course of American history and had a significant impact on the eventual fate of the American Indians of the eastern seaboard in particular.

Pierre Le Moyne d'Iberville

The war began in America in the south on battlegrounds that many people have crossed since, totally unaware that the ground they walk so casually on was once the setting of a vicious struggle for the control of a continent. The Spanish had long been established in Florida but in 1702 were increasingly alarmed by the growing presence of the British in what is now South Carolina after the establishment of the port city of Charleston. The British, likewise, were concerned by the possibility of the Spanish in Florida joining forces with the French in Mobile, Alabama to attack them from the south. Such concerns were well justified as the noted French explorer, Pierre Le Moyne d'Iberville, had proposed just such an action which he termed the "Project sur la Caroline" which involved uniting the various Indians tribes of the region into a massive offensive to wipe out the southern British colonists. This was a matter of long-standing regional rivalry and had nothing to do with the argument over the Spanish throne in Europe and a campaign to put this project into effect was launched before the war in Europe actually began.

Iberville, in Mobile, had cultivated good relations with the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Natchez and other nearby Indian nations for this very purpose and when France and Spain, previously rivals, found themselves on the same side Iberville approached the Spanish authorities about arming the Apalachee Indians to attack the British in South Carolina. The plan was approved and a Spanish-led expedition under Francisco Romo de Uriza set out in August of 1702 from Pensacola, Florida to strike at British trade posts in the Carolina backcountry. The British Governor of South Carolina, James Moore, was fairly well informed about these plots and had time to organize an effective defense. In October a force of about 400 mostly Creek Indians with a handful of British under Anthony Dodsworth ambushed the Spanish-led force of about 800 Apalachee Indians at the Battle of Flint River in what is now western Georgia. It was a sweeping victory for the British and Creeks with more than half of the Spanish-Apalachee army being killed or captured.

Spanish artillery in Castillo de San Marcos

Governor Moore decided to take the fight to the enemy and, with the benefit of war having broken out officially, organized a counter-offensive against the Spanish port at St Augustine, Florida. This resulted in the siege of St Augustine, one of the major actions of the war when Governor Moore with (estimates vary) a little over a thousand British and allied Indians (Yamasee, Alabama and Tallapoosa) besieged St Augustine on November 10, 1702. The British were successful in their approach and Spanish resistance was mostly limited to small but hard fought rear guard actions. The Spanish commander, Governor Jose de Zuniga y la Cerda had only a little over 200 professional soldiers plus all able bodied men of 1,500 civilians conscripted into service. However, he learned from two enemy prisoners, captured early on, that Governor Moore had not brought a great deal of supplies with him and was armed only with light artillery. This made the Spanish confident that they could withstand a siege until help arrived from Pensacola, Cuba or from the French at Mobile.

The Spanish Governor was right and the few light field pieces that Governor Moore had brought did very little damage at all to the thick stone walls of Castillo de San Marcos (recently built just for this very possibility of an attack out of Charleston). A Spanish relief force from Cuba arrived first and Governor Moore was forced to abandon the siege on December 30. Casualties were light all around but the immense cost of the failed expedition cost Moore his governorship whereas the Spanish governor received thanks and a promotion from the new Bourbon King of Spain Philip V. However, the Spanish had not seen the last of James Moore but, for the time being, the focus of the war shifted to the north. 1702 saw British naval forces under Commodore John Leake attack French villages on Newfoundland around Plaisance. Not unlike today this was an area that was home to a major fishing industry and it was much more economically important in those days and France and Britain would struggle for control of Newfoundland throughout the war. Closer to the bulk of the English-speaking population was the threat to New England. As with the Georgia-Florida frontier in the south, the boundary between French and British territory in the north was ill-defined. Each side claimed much but seizing it and holding it was what really mattered. In the absence of a large population of settlers, this meant that the key was winning the friendship of the natives.

Jean-Baptiste Hertel de Rouville

The French, being very much lacking in settlers compared to the British, were, by necessity, always a little more aggressive in this regard than their English-speaking counterparts and had worked hard to forge friendly ties with the powerful Wabanaki Confederacy (covering parts of what is now Maine, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec). Throughout 1703 the French governor of Acadia, Michel Leneuf de la Valliere de Beaubassin led about 500 natives from the Confederacy with a handful of French-Canadian militiamen in a series of raids against the British colonies in New England. It would not be possible to relate the details of this entire campaign but it almost wiped out Maine for good and resulted in huge tracts of land being destroyed and hundreds of people being massacred or taken captive (men were generally killed, women and children were often as not taken as captives). The human cost, which measured in the hundreds, may not seem like much today but, given the sparse population of the time, it was immense and had a major impact.

Major Ben Church

This was followed up, in early 1704, by significant raid led by Jean-Baptiste Hertel de Rouville with about 300 men (250 Indians and 50 French, give or take) against Deerfield in the Massachusetts Bay colony. The town was completely destroyed, most of the colonists being killed other than the roughly 100 who were taken captive and brought to a Caughnawaga village near Montreal where most were sold to the Mohawk. Unlike the offensive in Maine (then a detached part of Massachusetts), the Deerfield raid hit closer to home for the British settlers and prompted retaliation. It was simply impossible to defend every frontier cabin and small village with the colonial militia and so, it was reasoned, the only option was to strike at the French in Acadia who were inciting the Indians against them. Major Benjamin Church led a group of roughly 500 militia, including a smattering of Indians allied with the British and raided several French and Indian settlements in what is now Nova Scotia in the summer of 1704. Though perhaps not much remembered today it was Church who established the first foundations of "special forces" later made famous by Robert Rogers from whom the modern U.S. Army Rangers honor as their originator.

It was also in 1704 that the war heated up again in the south as the former Governor of South Carolina, James Moore went on a rampage. His costly invasion of Florida which had failed to take St Augustine from the Spanish was highly unpopular and he found himself out of a job but still determined to take the fight to the enemy. To put a stop to Spanish efforts to unite the southern Indian tribes against the British, Moore set out on a raid aimed at the total devastation of these tribes, particularly the Apalachee who were allied with the French & Spanish. Fighting only one battle, he encountered little resistance and his raid was brutal but effective, breaking the power of the Spanish in the region and bringing British control right up to the Franco-Spanish presence in Florida and the coast of the Gulf of Mexico, making Pensacola and Mobile vulnerable to British or, more likely, British-backed Indian attacks. Moore himself claimed to have killed over a thousand natives of all varieties and taken away as captives many more. The Spanish presence, centered on the numerous missions established in the region, was wiped out and the Indian population that survived was forced to relocate or shift allegiance to Britain.

Col. James Moore on a pillaging expedition

It was an ugly business to be sure but probably not as bad as the official accounts suggest. Moore likely embellished his "body count" to boost his image as a 'slayer of savages' and most of those taken captive probably went willingly as they naturally tended to take the side of whoever was strongest in the region. The Spanish had failed to protect them and so they would go with the English. In any event, as winter came on the focus of the war shifted back to the north where the British colonists were trying to do something in response to the numerous French and Indian raids on their territory. In the winter of 1705 some 275 American/British colonial militia under Colonel Winthrop Hilton raided and sacked the village of Rale where they had hoped to catch a French Catholic priest who had been blamed for instigating the Indians against them. Rale was destroyed but the priest had been alerted and escaped capture. Meanwhile, throughout the year forces of France and the Wabanaki Confederacy continued their attacks on British settlers, particularly in northern Massachusetts. Counter-raids were launched but these usually accomplished nothing as the French forces were based too far away.

Daniel d'Auger de Subercase

Meanwhile, there seemed to be a climax building in the struggle for Newfoundland. In retaliation for the previous English attack, the French and their local Indian allies hit back and in February of 1705 besieged Ft William at the English town of St John's. The French Governor of Plaisance, Daniel d'Auger de Subercase, led about 450 French/Canadians and Indians of the Mikmak and Abenakis tribes while inside Ft William the British Lieutenant John Moody had only about 50 or 60 men under his command. An effort to take the fort by surprise failed and the siege was just as miserable, if not more so, for the French than for the British who held out quite well. Subercase tried various tricks to undermine his enemy but the harsh winter was ultimately the decisive factor. Waiting for naval support that never arrived, the French were forced to abandon the siege in March and fall back with their captured loot. Down but certainly not out, the French and Indians simply returned to raiding English settlements on the island.

The bloodshed in Newfoundland continued into 1706 when the British retaliated by sending a Royal Navy task force to destroy the French fishing industry on the north coast. The most critical action of the year though, would be in the south where the Spanish launched another offensive, more serious this time, aimed at Charleston, South Carolina itself. A Franco-Spanish attack force, primarily organized and funded by King Louis XIV, assembled in Havana, Cuba, departed for St Augustine, Florida where they picked up reinforcements and then proceeded to Charleston, arriving in September. The force consisted of 330 French & Spanish regular troops, 200 Spanish militia and about 50 Indians carried by six privateers. Again, the primary instigator of the operation was d'Iberville who received permission for the offensive from King Louis XIV late the previous year but, while the King dispatched some troops, he required d'Iberville to front most of the money for the expedition. However, most of his forces had been used to attack the British West Indies and he was only able to enlist minor Spanish support for the Carolina offensive.

Colonel William Rhett

Unfortunately for the Franco-Spanish task force, a British privateer had spotted them on their way north and was able to give the British authorities in Charleston advance warning of the attack. Governor Nathaniel Johnson called out all the local militia, assembling about a thousand men under Lt. Colonel William Rhett. They fortified the outer islands and even built a small defensive fleet including one fire ship. All in all, Charleston was about as well defended as possible and would have the advantages of fighting on the defensive as well as having their enemies outnumbered. The first Franco-Spanish invasion force landed on September 9 near the Charleston "neck" and on James Island but were quickly driven off by the American militia, the survivors returning to their ships and retreating. Another ship, which had been delayed, landed her forces on September 12 under General Arbousset but they were quickly beset by the British/American forces and learned too late that they had no support. Their ship was captured and the troops ashore, including the French general, were forced to surrender. Had the attack been successful, and if the element of surprise had not been lost it might well have been, the history of the American south might have unfolded quite differently.

The following year, the British in South Carolina, building on the advances made by former Governor Moore, struck back in retaliation by instigating Indian attacks on the Spanish in Pensacola. However, 1707 was to be a year of frustration for both sides. In May, Governor Joseph Dudley of Massachusetts dispatched 1,600 men under John March to besiege Port Royal, the capitol of French Acadia (modern Nova Scotia) but despite having the French vastly outnumbered, the attempted siege failed. In the aftermath, the French planned to retaliate with a massive raid on New Hampshire, however, such an attack depended on local Indian tribes cooperating and few were willing to support it. Instead, the French resumed the raids on northern Massachusetts, eventually leaving the region totally devastated before the war was finally over. The French also struck back on Newfoundland in 1708 when French and Indian forces captured St John's, however, they lacked the strength to hold such a prize and so simply destroyed everything they could and returned home.

Francis Nicholson

The British and colonial American authorities were bedeviled by the French and Indian raids but at a loss as to a way to stop them. Two notables, Francis Nicholson and Sam Vetch finally enlisted the support of Queen Anne for an offensive into Canada in 1709. One invasion force was to move on Montreal via Lake Champlain while another was to hit Quebec from the sea. However, a lack of naval support (due to the ships being diverted to Portugal) meant that the operation had to be abandoned. Undeterred, Nicholson went to London along with some American officials and Indian chiefs to enlist support for another such attack. The Indians proved a sensation in London society and Nicholson was granted an audience with Queen Anne who was impressed enough by his proposal to agree to support another offensive against the French in Canada. The only other major actions of the year were Indian attacks in the south, instigated by the British, against the French at Mobile, Alabama, though they proved not much more than an irritation.

In 1710 Nicholson was finally able to have his attack, this time a more serious effort to take Port Royal, Acadia which he did in September. With 3,600 British and American colonial troops, a considerable army for the time and place, Nicholson was able to capture Port Royal in one week. French Acadia was thus to become Nova Scotia (New Scotland). Buoyed by this success, Nicholson again went to London where he again urged Queen Anne to authorize an attack on Quebec. One again, the Queen is convinced and approves his plan but, once again, the operation had to be called off after the ships critical to the operation were dashed in the dangerous approaches. Minor raids and attacks would continue as the war in Europe carried on until 1714 but the major actions in America came to an end. The last significant engagement being the Battle of Bloody Creek in 1711 when a small group of New England militia were ambushed and wiped out (killed or captured) by a mixed force of Indians allied with the French in Acadia. It was part of the on-going effort by the French to weaken the British hold on the region but France simply lacked the resources in America to make much of an impact.

Pieter Schuyler

One more area, however, must be looked at as it had the potential to be extremely significant. For those paying close attention, you may be wondering about other areas of the British colonies that have not been mentioned alongside New England, the Maritimes and the southern colonies. Well, the middle colonies were far from the action but New York was not. The French/Canadians didn't want to attack New York for fear that the powerful Iroquois Confederacy, with whom they had recently made peace, would side with the British and oppose them. New York businessmen, likewise, were making a great deal of money on the fur trade with the French and wanted no war with them. Peter Schuyler, the Commissioner of Indians for the British Crown in Albany, New York tried to persuade the Iroquois to join with the British/Americans for an attack on Canada but was rebuffed, the Iroquois deciding to stick to neutrality and sit out the conflict. So, New York was fairly quiet during the course of the war but it was due entirely to the decisions of the Iroquois and it was they who had the potential to change the course of history.

Mohawk chiefs met by Queen Anne

The Iroquois were, if not the biggest, probably the most well-organized and established coalition of Indian tribes in the region, perhaps in the whole of eastern North America at the time. They had been through some hard times recently and feared that if they engaged themselves on one side or the other of the conflict, other competing Indian tribes would take up with their enemies and encroach on Iroquois land. If the Iroquois had decided otherwise, if they had decided to take up arms with the French against the British it would have changed the entire nature of the conflict and it is not beyond the realm of possibility that they could have wiped out the British colonies at least in New York and New England, leaving the remainder in a poor position to withstand attacks by the French and Spanish. Further, if they had done so, the British might ultimately have been evicted from North America entirely, leaving only the Spanish and French to deal with who had a much more tenuous hold on their North American possessions due to the far fewer settlers they attracted to the region.

Many historians therefore agree that if the Indians, particularly those in or around the Iroquois Confederacy, had managed to come together and took decisive action against the British North American colonies, they might have changed the course of history and established themselves as the dominant force on the continent. Queen Anne's War is thus regarded by many as the last chance the Native Americans had to stem the tide of European colonization and the countries we know today as the United States and Canada might not ever have come into existence at all. It is a worthwhile lesson in the basic facts that actions have consequences and that the world we know exists because of the decisions made by people in the past, decisions which determined what they would do and what they would not do. Sometimes taking no action at all can have major repercussions in the unfolding of history.

The Peace of 1714, Treaty of Utrecht

Queen Anne's War thus ended with far more having been decided than most of those who dismiss it as nothing more than a series of ultimately inconsequential Indian raids seem to realize. It secured the southern border with Spain for the British colonies, preserved the British foothold on Newfoundland and British control over Acadia which would prove very important later on. It saw the passing of the last realistic chance the Native Americans had to assert themselves as the dominant force on the continent, severely set back the Spanish presence in Florida, kept South Carolina in British hands and determined the geopolitical battlefield in North America for the next war that was soon to come. During Queen Anne's War the fate of the European presence in North America, to some degree, hung in the balance, depending on what decisions were taken by the local Indians. In the next conflict, the French and Indian War, would be decided whether the future of North America would belong to people who spoke English or who spoke French.MadMonarchisthttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-73158304392692506462016-03-14T10:45:00.002-05:002016-04-17T22:53:11.775-05:00Soldier of Monarchy: Field Marshal Robert, First Baron Napier of Magdala

One of the most accomplished soldiers Britain has ever produced, Robert Napier had a colorful career that spanned the globe in the service of the British Empire. Born in Ceylon on December 6, 1810, the son of a British officer, he was educated at the Addiscombe Military Seminary before being given a commission in the Bengal Engineers in 1826. After further education he was posted to India in 1828 and did a great deal of good with the Royal Engineers there in improving the infrastructure for farming. He earned promotion to captain before being sent to England due to poor health but he was soon back again to participate in the First Anglo-Sikh War. Napier saw action at the Battles of Mudki, Ferozeshah (where he was badly wounded the first of many times) and Sobraon from 1845 to 1846. He received further promotion and was chief engineer at the siege of Kote Kangra in the Punjab. When, not long after, the Second Anglo-Sikh War broke out, he directed the siege of Multan in 1848 and was again wounded but still had enough fight in him to be on hand for the storming of the place and the fall of Chiniot. For his service at the Battle of Gujrat and the final surrender of the Sikh forces he was promoted to lieutenant colonel.

After further service in more battles on the Northwest frontier of India he attained the brevet rank of colonel and was wounded again in the Indian Mutiny during the two efforts to relieve Lucknow, a desperate siege that captivated public attention in Victorian Britain. Once again, his injury was not sufficient to keep him out of action and he was on hand for the final victory at Lucknow in 1858. His star still rising, he was deputy commander of the march on Gwalior and commanded a brigade at the Battle of Morar. After the capture of Gwalior it was Napier and his men who pursued the retreating rebels and, with only 700 men, wiped out a force of 12,000 rebels at the plains of Jaora Alipur. Given the command of a division in the aftermath of this success he aided in the capture of Paori, totally defeated Prince Ferozepore at Ranode and secured the final victory for the Raj by forcing the surrender of Man Singh and Tatya Tope in early 1859. By the time the Indian Mutiny was over, Robert Napier had covered himself in glory and was one of the most respected officers in the British army with a reputation for doing much with little.

Having proven himself on the battlefields of India, his next assignment would see him win further victories in East Asia. After the First Opium War, Chinese attacks on the British and other westerners continued as well as the drive for the further opening of trade. This resulted in the Second Opium War or Arrow War which saw Great Britain and the France of Napoleon III teaming up to take on the Great Qing Empire. In January of 1860 Napier was given a divisional command with the main British expeditionary force in China and that summer fought with distinction at the Battle of the Taku Forts. This opened the way to Peking and the Chinese forts along the Pearl River fell like dominos in the aftermath. The following month Napier and his men fought their way into Peking itself and in response to continued resistance demolished the "Old" Summer Palace in October. Napier was raised to the brevet rank of major-general and shortly thereafter the permanent rank of colonel. (FYI: a "brevet" rank essentially means that one has the authority of a higher rank than you actually hold but not the salary!) Having further distinguished himself in China, Napier was soon back in India where he was given command of the Bombay Army and received further promotion to lieutenant-general. He even served as Viceroy of India for a short time after the death of Lord Elgin until his replacement arrived.

It was, however, his next assignment that would see General Napier rise to his greatest fame and which would usher him into the ranks of the aristocracy. Having won victories in India and China it was time to give Africa a try. A rather ugly scene had developed after a local scoundrel managed to usurp the throne of Abyssinia and declare himself "Emperor Tewodros II" (not an uncommon occurrence). However, rather than restricting himself to terrorizing his own people (though he did plenty of that), Tewodros II tried to gain recognition from the crowned heads of Europe and when Her Majesty Queen Victoria did not immediately reply to his letter, he took captive what Europeans he could get his hands on (an envoy and some missionaries) and held them hostage in barbaric conditions. The British had not the slightest interest in Abyssinia (Ethiopia) but a lesson had to be meted out lest every savage chieftain in all the dark corners of the world should get ideas. A rescue expedition was arranged and Lt. General Robert Napier was given command, setting out for the Ethiopian highlands in January of 1868.

Napier had at his command about 13,000 British and Indian troops, quite an expedition for the time, causing some to refer to the episode as the most expensive 'affair of honor' in British history. With a huge population to draw upon, Tewodros should have been able to swamp the Anglo-Indian force with numbers but this was not to be as, although he has achieved hero status today (God knoweth why), he was disliked if not reviled by a great many of his countrymen (even his wife couldn't stand him). As a result, the Anglo-Indian force probably had more trouble simply with the rugged, wild terrain than they did with the Ethiopian army, many of whom fled from the ranks of the vicious and erratic emperor rather than confront the invaders. Napier also established friendly contact with numerous local chiefs, even enlisting some of them to help supply his army as Tewodros was extremely unpopular amongst most of the local potentates, most of whom viewed him as illegitimate and most of whom also wanted his job. When Napier informed him that the British Empire had no desire to add Abyssinia to their list of colonial holdings but were merely out to rescue the hostages and teach the upstart emperor a lesson, most were only too happy to cooperate with their invaders.

After more of his army had ran away rather than face combat, Tewodros was only able to scrape together 9,000 men to confront Napier at the pivotal Battle of Magdala. The British did not think that Tewodros would be so stupid as to leave his defensive positions to attack their superior force but he was and the disciplined ranks of British and Indian soldiers cut them down in volley after volley of rifle fire. The horrific losses made Tewodros release two of the hostages with an offer of peace but General Napier was having no half-way measures and demanded the release of all the hostages and the unconditional surrender of the emperor. Being unwilling to humble himself, Tewodros refused and after an opening bombardment, Napier ordered his men to storm the enemy fortress. Resistance was crushed, Tewodros shot himself in a last act of cowardice and his remaining troops promptly surrendered. Nearly 2,000 Ethiopians had been killed or wounded while Napier's army suffered only 20 men wounded, two of whom later died. The hostages were rescued, the town was razed to the ground, the locals learned never to cross the British Empire and General Napier was the hero of the hour. For his extremely successful campaign Napier was ennobled by Her Majesty Queen Victoria with the title of First Baron Napier of Magdala in honor of his victory.

Civilian honors came his way as well and in 1870 Lord Napier was appointed Commander-in-Chief, India with the rank of full general. In 1876 he was made Governor of Gibraltar and, when stepping down from that post in 1883, was promoted to the rank of field marshal. Lord Napier had achieved fame in India, China and Africa, becoming one of the greatest military heroes of the Victorian age and a symbol of the military success of the British Empire around the world. In his old age he was made honorary colonel of the Third London Rifle Volunteer Corps, commandant of the Royal Engineers and was made Constable of the Tower of London in 1887. After a colorful life and very successful military career, Lord Napier passed away from influenza in London on January 14, 1890 and was buried, like a military hero, with all due honors in St Paul's Cathedral.MadMonarchisthttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-11517263628594472962016-03-10T16:10:00.001-06:002016-03-10T16:10:22.024-06:00Anti-Papal Profile: Anti-Pope Felix V (Duke Amadeus VIII of Savoy)

Once upon a time in Europe there was a major Catholic embarrassment known as "the Great Schism". It came as a result of what is known as "the Babylonian Captivity" or the "Avignon Papacy" when the papal court moved from Rome to Avignon in France which produced a succession of French pontiffs who were seen as little more than the tools of the French Crown. That ended with Pope Gregory XI and when he died the people of Rome were determined to have a Roman pontiff rather than a French one. They were quite forceful about it and so the cardinals elected a rather unpleasant fellow (not exactly a Roman but a southern Italian deemed 'close enough') who took the name Pope Urban VI. The French, however, did not like that and so declared his election invalid, the cardinals electing another pope, a warrior-cardinal (Robert of Geneva), who took the name Pope Clement VII. He is what is known as an "Anti-Pope" or an invalid pope. This was the beginning of the "Great Schism" which saw Catholic Europe split into feuding factions, at one point with three different men all claiming to be the "true" Pope at the same time. It was a major embarrassment and it is not surprising that anti-Popes tend to be viewed as 'bad guys' in Catholic history.

Popes, popes, everywhere a pope!

However, that is not necessarily true. Pope Urban VI, for example, while undoubtedly the valid, legitimate pontiff, was a rather unsavory character and most who had to deal with him found him a rather vindictive, bullying jerk. Pope Clement VII, on the other hand, though nicknamed "the butcher" in his earlier, military career just because of a trifling incident involving the massacre of a few thousand people, was widely considered the much better man, a very nice fellow who treated people well, was forgiving toward his enemies and genuinely considered himself the valid pontiff. Practically any Catholic history will, in fact, relate that while Urban VI was the correct pope, Clement VII would have made a better one. Not every anti-Pope was an ambitious usurper, thirsty for power but rather were sometimes men of sincere piety who, in a confusing and tumultuous time, were prevailed upon to accept the papal crown as a duty to the Church and Christendom. The "Great Schism" was, thankfully, mostly ended with the election of Pope Martin V in 1417, however one rival remained and there would be a couple more before it was all over. The man regarded by history as the last of the anti-Popes is an illustration of a good, devout man being caught up in a situation not of his making which left him on the wrong side of Church history but still with a good reputation.

That man was Amadeus VIII, Count and later Duke of Savoy. He was born on September 4, 1383 to Count Amadeus VII of Savoy and Bonne of Berry (granddaughter of King Jean II of France). His father died in 1391 leaving him Count of Savoy at an early age but his mother acted as his regent until he was old enough to rule in his own right. As the Count of Savoy he was quite a successful ruler. He enlarged his domains, oversaw economic prosperity, earned a reputation for being mild-mannered and just as well as being quite religious. With the Hundred Years War still raging between England and France, he tried several times to arrange a negotiated end to the conflict though to no avail. When the "Great Schism" broke out, he was very troubled by it, more so than most because of his pious nature. He had been such a success and had such a great reputation that, in 1416, Sigismund of Luxembourg, the Holy Roman (German) Emperor gave him an aristocratic promotion, raising him to the status of Duke of Savoy. Later, he also conferred on him the title of Count of Geneva. Earlier he had married Mary of Burgundy and had a happy home life, fathering nine children. However, his world fell apart when his beloved wife died in 1422 and Duke Amadeus VIII turned his back on the world.

Amadeus VIII retired, though he retained his title, handing power over to his son Louis, to live a contemplative life as a hermit in Ripaille on the shores of Lake Geneva. He took five knights with him to live by a monastic code he devised as the Order of St Maurice, which, combined with another, is still one of the senior chivalric orders of the Italian Royal Family today. He was thus mostly out of touch from that time on though he had kept up with the events of the Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence. It was this council, in opposition to Pope Eugene IV, which elected him (Anti-)Pope on October 30, 1439. It was not a position he had sought for himself and it took a period of negotiations before he could be prevailed upon to accept the papal crown. The primary motivation of the electors seems to have been the wealth and prestige they thought Amadeus would bring with him to their cause. He finally accepted and was duly installed as Pope Felix V on November 5, 1439.

"Pope" Felix V

Anti-Pope Felix V renounced his secular titles and was crowned by Cardinal d'Allamand in 1440. For the first few years of his pontificate his secretary was Aeneas Sylvinus Piccolomini, later Pope Pius II. The actual pope, Eugene IV, excommunicated him of course and he found no widespread popular support for his position beyond his own lands in Savoy and across Switzerland. Those who did acknowledge him as the rightful pope included the Dukes of Austria, Tyrol, Bavaria-Munich, the Count-Palatine of Simmern, the Teutonic Order and a handful of religious orders and universities in Germany. Most of those who appointed cardinals refused to take their places and as Pope Eugene IV gave way to Pope Nicholas V support for Felix V fell away further. He was also frequently at odds with the Council of Basel over financial matters which is the one area that tends to taint his reputation. Still, no one could find that he had acted in bad faith or could show any evidence of serious defects in his character. His position continued to deteriorate though through 1442 and 1443 after which he increasingly became isolated and ignored. Efforts to establish a papal court and control over the Church bureaucracy ended in frustration and finally the pretense came to an end in 1449 when he submitted to the authority of Pope Nicholas V on April 7.

Nonetheless, it was not all that bad an end for anti-Pope Felix V. Because of his good name and recognition that he had been misled rather than acting purposely malicious, Pope Nicholas V was inclined to be forgiving. He appointed Amadeus of Savoy Cardinal of St Sabina and made him his permanent Apostolic vicar-general for the lands of the House of Savoy as well as the dioceses of Basel, Strasbourg, Chur and others. The papal schism had ended and there seemed to be few hard feelings about it, so a happy ending all in all. Amadeus VIII carried on in ecclesiastical office, under the legitimate pontiffs, until his death on January 7, 1451 at the age of 67.MadMonarchisthttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-24430650436449399772016-03-06T14:48:00.002-06:002016-03-06T14:56:54.913-06:00Hollow Words for the King of Romania

As most will have probably heard by now, HM King Michael I of Romania has been diagnosed with cancer and has, at age 94, decided to retire and hand over his duties as head of the former Romanian Royal Family to his daughter Crown Princess Margarita, who he intends to succeed him. This is, of course, sad but the tributes that came pouring in when this news was made public rubbed me the wrong way. Perhaps it shouldn't but it did, particularly that coming from President Klaus Iohannis. He said that he hoped the former monarch would make it through this difficult time, that he hoped the younger members of the family would carry on his tradition of service to Romanian society and added that, "It is important, especially in these difficult times, not to forget the courage and dedication that the king has shown towards his country since 1927". I'm sorry, but that was, for me, too much to take from such a quarter.

Yes, it is true that King Michael I has given a lifetime of dedication to his country and it is also true that the former monarch has contributed a great deal to Romanian society but if the President really meant what he said, if he truly understood and appreciated that lifetime of dedication and those years of contribution to Romania after the fall of communism (such as lobbying western leaders to admit Romania into NATO) he would not be president at all would he? Where was this appreciation for King Michael I when, certainly since the fall of the Soviet Union, the opportunity arose to give the former monarch his legitimate "job" back? King Michael was, lest we forget, forced to abdicate his throne by the communists with threats of his people being massacred if he refused. He was betrayed, robbed and forced into exile. Post-communist governments may be better than the monstrous regime that deposed him but they continued to uphold their crime of usurping the position of their rightful king. The President singing the praises of the former monarch now, at the end of his life, rings very hollow to me and I find it, frankly, disgusting.

The King, as mentioned, worked for Romania even after he was allowed to return to his own homeland, helping the various governments in areas to which he was particularly able. How did they repay him, by returning a tiny fraction of what had been stolen from him in the first place? They were happy to accept his service but refused to restore him to his proper status. I think it's disgusting that they would praise him now after using him for their own purposes while denying him justice. The King, after all, never sought power but simply hoped to be restored as a constitutional monarch presiding over a representative government. Yet, even that was denied him and those who dismiss 'ceremonial monarchs' would do well to ask themselves why this was. I have less of an issue with the praise given by the Romanian Orthodox Patriarch Daniel who said, "the king is a symbol of the history of the Romanian people and of national dignity" except to say that King Michael could have just as easily been a symbol, not only of history, but the living connection of the historic Romania to the present and future Romania.

Finally, I will simply say that one can blame others all they please (it's a popular pastime these days) but the fact is that the Romanian government is responsible for their own actions and for what goes on in Romania today. Since the fall of the "Iron Curtain" they have had plenty of time to have done right by their former king, he certainly gave them no cause to oppose him, he showed himself ready to serve in any capacity, to help rather than to challenge and they simply chose to take advantage of him, availing themselves of his experience, his contacts and his persona while denying him his very birthright. I think it's disgusting. Rather than all of their hollow words of praise, the only thing I am interested in hearing from any Romanian president is his resignation and the restoration of the Crown and Kingdom of Romania. It should have happened already and I fear, as King Michael fades away, the chances of justice being done will become poorer rather than better.MadMonarchisthttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-9235193978951839562016-03-05T09:38:00.001-06:002016-03-05T09:41:42.852-06:00The Weapon That Almost Won the Kaiser the War

When most think of German submarine achievements, they think of World War II with the Battle of the Atlantic, the great "aces" like Kretschmer, Topp, Schepke, Prien and so on and the famous words of Winston Churchill who said that the u-boat menace was the only thing that made him worry Britain might lose the war. However, while the German submarine fleet of World War II was larger and faced a more experienced foe, it was the u-boats of the Imperial German Navy in World War I that set most of the records, that developed the first weapons which the most successful of World War II were built upon, where the tricks of the trade were first developed and the Kaiser's u-boats actually came much closer than most people realize to winning the First World War all on their own. This is all the more remarkable considering that, at the outset of World War I, not many people saw the submarine as possessing much potential. The leadership of the German High Seas Fleet tended to look down on submarines as being of little practical value and at the start of the war Germany actually possessed far fewer submarines than the British did. The Germans had never shown much interest in submarines compared to the Americans, French, British or Italians. However, it was the Kaiser's submarines who would show the world, for the first time, what submarines were capable of.

Otto Hersing

At the start of the war, doubts about the viability of the u-boats seemed to be confirmed. The early models were all small, coastal boats which handled poorly and were driven by kerosene-powered engines that produced a telltale column of smoke that made them easy to spot. The first boats to be equipped with diesel engines were also so innovative that they were initially fairly unreliable as they were still working the bugs out. Their first war patrols were a complete failure, some being forced to return to port with engine trouble, one being sunk and none having any success against the British. The naysayers, which included Grand Admiral Tirpitz, seemed to have been proven right. However, they soon had reason to doubt that assumption when, on September 5, 1914, U-21 under the command of Oberleutnant zur See Otto Hersing became the first submariner to sink an enemy warship with a free-swimming torpedo when he successfully attacked the British cruiser HMS Pathfinder, sending her to the bottom with a single torpedo that hit near the magazine causing a massive explosion that quickly sent the ship plunging beneath the waves. This got some attention but many could still dismiss it as a lucky shot.

However, the next victory for the u-boats would be so spectacular that everyone, in Britain and Germany, had to start taking them more seriously. That same month, on September 22, Oberleutnant zur See Otto Weddigen in the elderly, kerosene-powered U-9, encountered three British cruisers off the Dutch coast. He had spent the night on the bottom, to give his men a break from the heavy seas and his batteries were not fully recharged when he encountered the enemy but he submerged his boat and prepared for an underwater attack. After moving in to a hair-raisingly close range of 500 meters U-9 hit HMS Aboukir with a single torpedo, sending her to the bottom. The British all assumed the ship had hit a mine and stopped to pick up survivors. Weddigen then targeted HMS Hogue and soon hit her with two torpedoes, sending her to the bottom. However, the sub briefly broke the surface and was spotted by the remaining cruiser, HMS Cressy, which opened fire on the u-boat. However, Weddigen turned his boat around and fired the two torpedoes from his stern tubes. These were spotted by the British, but U-9 was so close that there was no time to avoid them and HMS Cressy was mortally wounded. Weddigen then brought his boat around to finish off the enemy cruiser with his remaining torpedo after which he returned to port to reload. He and his crew of the U-9 had sunk three British cruisers in less than an hour!

Captain & crew of the U-9

Upon returning to Germany, the men of the U-9 were bona fide war heroes. The Kaiser was thrilled and every member of the crew was decorated with the Iron Cross, Second Class and Weddigen additionally received the Iron Cross First Class. The U-9 itself was given the honor of displaying the Iron Cross on its conning tower. In the second month of the war the submarine had just proven itself in a major way and no one would be quite so dismissive of them again. In addition, more success was on the way and both Hersing and Weddigen were well on their way to becoming two of the most celebrated submarine commanders of the war. And, although anti-submarine warfare was necessarily in its infancy, they faced a powerful enemy with the largest fleet in the world and in these early days of the war it was the Royal Navy that was the primary target of the German submarines rather than the merchant fleet. In October of 1914 the U-26 under Kapitanleutnant von Berckheim sank a Russian cruiser, the Pallada, followed, a few days later, by Otto Weddigen taking out yet another British cruiser, HMS Hawke.

Johannes Feldkirchener

The British, having denied the problem as long as possible, were suddenly thrown into a panic, sending out new orders, rerouting ships and even moving the home fleet from their anchorage in Scapa Flow until it could be fortified against submarine attack. On October 18, 1914 Kapitanleutnant Wegener in U-27 became the first submariner to sink an enemy submarine when he took out the British boat E-3. Two days later U-17 became the first sub to sink an enemy merchant ship when the freighter Glitra was stopped, inspected, had her crew off-loaded and was then sent to the bottom. November was less successful for the u-boats with more being lost but as the year ended the submarine had more than proven its worth and more Germans began to believe that it could be the key to defeating the Royal Navy. The sinking of the Glitra was also a pivotal event. With the British enforcing an ever tighter blockade of the entire North Sea, the Germans began to think of changing their strategy of submarine warfare to target merchant ships bound for the British Isles rather than Royal Navy warships.

U-24

Still, British overconfidence allowed the Germans to score some stunning victories. At the start of January, 1915 HMS Formidable, sailing with no escort destroyers, was sunk by U-24. The British responded with more patrol ships, wider use of anti-submarine nets and by laying more mines in areas u-boats had to cross through. At the time, there was little more they could do as this was before the use of underwater search gear or weapons such as the depth charge. For a British surface vessel, if you spotted a sub on the surface you shot at it of course and if you spotted a periscope you charged it, ramming the submarine and ripping it in half. Ships were also ordered to sail in a zigzag pattern and to show extra caution when traveling near waters where u-boats were most likely to be on the prowl. These measures were actually fairly effective and of all the German u-boats lost in action in World War I the majority were victims of mines and the Royal Navy did their best to lay belts of mines across the English Channel as well as the northern entrance to the North Sea, from Scotland to Norway, to bottle-up the u-boat menace.

Kaiser Wilhelm II

February of 1915, however, saw the German submarines adopting the new strategy of targeting the British merchant fleet rather than the Royal Navy. Kaiser Wilhelm II declared all the waters around the British Isles to be a war zone, effectively declaring a counter-blockade to match the British blockade of the North Sea. The Germans were also able to make use of ports in Belgium for their submarine fleet. During the war the Imperial German Navy maintained five u-boat and one u-cruiser flotillas in Germany itself, two u-boat flotillas in Flanders operating from Belgian ports, two u-boat flotillas in the Mediterranean operating from Austrian ports and one half-flotilla in Turkish waters operating out of Constantinople. As the German subs embarked on their first campaign against merchant shipping they also had several new, larger and more powerful sub types to work with. In February 1915, eight merchant ships were sunk, five by U-8 alone. In March there were 29 sunk, in April 33 and in May 53 with several warships being sunk as well during that time. The Germans also began their own mine laying operations with the UC-type submarines, particularly in the waters around France.

Walther Schwieger

However, there were also problems. In May of 1915 the U-20 under Kapitanleutnant Walter Schwieger torpedoes the British passenger liner RMS Lusitania off the coast of Ireland. 1,201 passengers were killed, including 128 Americans which caused an uproar in the United States against Germany, something the British took full advantage of in their propaganda even though the ship had been carrying war materials and was thus a legitimate target. The German high command was forced by political pressure to order submarines not to attack neutral ships or passenger ships even if they were under the flag of a country at war with Germany. Nonetheless, the u-boats still proved highly effective and in the next four months 365 merchant ships were lost to submarine attacks. If u-boat successes of that scale continued they would soon be sinking ships faster than the British could replace them and Britain would be forced to sue for peace or face starvation of both her populace and her war industries. However, in due time two more passenger liners were sunk, one of which again had American passengers and another which was sunk by Walter Schwieger, making him quite a hated figure among the Allies and their sympathizers. The outcry from the United States forced the German high command to pull back and order all u-boats to operate strictly in accordance with the rules which stated that a ship had to be stopped, inspected and the crew offloaded before being sunk.

Germans sang the praises of the submarine

This, of course, deprived the submarine of the element of surprise and forced them to surface where they were most vulnerable. Even an unarmed freighter could ram and sink a u-boat and the British also began using "Q-ships" which were disguised as harmless merchant vessels but carried hidden guns. When a u-boat surfaced to stop the ship and inspect the cargo for war materials, the guns would be revealed and open fire on the vulnerable submarine. As a result, when these rules were in place, the German u-boats were forced to, effectively, fight with one hand tied behind their backs. Nonetheless, 1915 also saw the expansion of the submarine campaign into the Mediterranean where French, Austrian, Italian and British submarines also operated. Germany was to obtain some of her greatest submarine successes in this theater of the naval war. Yet, as 1915 came to a close and 1916 opened, the naval situation was becoming increasingly critical for Germany.

Erich von Falkenhayn

The British blockade of the North Sea was stopping at least three times as much shipping to Germany as the German submarine cordon was stopping from reaching Britain. The people were beginning to suffer greatly and more and more important figures in the German military high command were urging the Kaiser to throw off the shackles and resume unrestricted submarine warfare with a 'sink on sight' policy regardless of the objections of neutral powers (especially the United States). The German army Chief of Staff, Colonel General Erich von Falkenhayn, urged for such a campaign to coincide with his massive offensive aimed at Verdun in the hope that, together, they could crush the Allied will to continue the struggle and force them to make peace on German terms. The politicians, however, warned the Kaiser that such a move could bring the United States into the conflict and with such overwhelming might arrayed against them, Germany would surely be doomed. As a result, the Kaiser approved the Verdun offensive but refused to remove all of the restrictions for the submarine campaign. Admiral Tirpitz, the man who had once said Germany had no need of submarines, was so upset by the decision that he resigned in protest.

on the hunt

Still, the German u-boats started their 1916 campaign with some success, both with coastal boats and mine-laying subs. However, after a passenger ship was mistaken for a troop carrier and sunk on March 24, 1916 by the coastal sub UB-29 there was such an outcry, with U.S. President Wilson threatening to break off diplomatic relations with Germany (usually a precursor to war) that the Kaiser was forced to cancel even the limited leeway he had allowed his submarine commanders and order them to strictly follow the traditional prize rules. This was all the more infuriating given that the British were steadily improving their anti-submarine tactics and their "Q-ships" had already sent a number of u-boats to a watery grave. One such vessel, the Barralong, even hunted down and massacred all the surviving sailors of one such hapless u-boat on the grounds that if the Germans were allowed to live they would report the incident to their superiors and the British deception would be revealed. German losses mounted with one boat, UC-5, even being captured intact after running aground. Still, the u-boats managed to sink over 150 ships in 1916 before Admiral Scheer ordered them all to return to base on April 25.

UB-148

The following month a new plan was approved that would see the u-boats return to taking on their original enemy; British warships. The idea was for a portion of the German High Seas Fleet to lure out their British counterparts into a death trap of mines and waiting submarines. It seemed like a good plan but delays and mechanical trouble foiled the first attempt to put the plan into effect and the second attempt, in August, likewise did not go as planned and resulted in the Battle of Jutland, the only major clash of the British and German main fleets during the war. The only contribution by the German submarines was the sinking of two light cruisers. These frustrations, combined with the increasing privation of the German people caused by the British blockade put pressure on the Kaiser to authorize a return to unrestricted submarine warfare for a renewed campaign against British merchant shipping in an effort to starve them into submission.

However, the threat of American intervention proved too great so that, while another submarine campaign against merchant shipping was authorized, it would have to be done under the restrictions of the traditional prize rules. It was a disappointment but still, there were victories to be had as within four months 290 merchant ships were lost to u-boat attacks. The Germans also had an increasingly diverse arsenal of boats at their disposal with small, coastal submarines to hunt in waters closer to home (such as the Channel), medium-sized boats that could prowl all around the British Isles and even larger submarines that could hunt as far away as the U.S. coast. U-41, for example, sent five ships to the bottom off the American coast during this campaign. The type-UBIII proved the most successful and would be the forerunner of the type-VII that would be the backbone of the German u-boat fleet in World War II.

Lothar von Arnauld

Along with the Atlantic and British coastal waters, the Mediterranean also proved to be a fertile hunting ground. It was there that the most successful submarine commander of all time, Kapitanleutnant Lothar von Arnauld de la Periere, achieved his greatest victories. In one cruise, lasting three weeks, he sank more than fifty ships, mostly with his deck gun (he expended only four torpedoes during the voyage) as he very gallantly followed all the prize rules even when he was not obliged to. Before the war ended, Kptlt. Lothar von Arnauld de la Periere would sink almost half a million tons of Allied shipping. They also had an impact on the land war as, in 1915, Kptlt. Otto Hersing in U-21 sank two British battleships, under extremely difficult conditions, which were shelling Turkish positions during the Gallipoli campaign. This stunning loss forced the Royal Navy to withdraw most warships from the area, robbing the Allied troops of valuable fire support in their offensive. Ten German subs were lost during the 1916 campaign but they managed to sink 768 ships with a further 178 being badly damaged. This, along with the worsening situation on the home front and the rejection by the Allies of an offer to talk peace, added urgency to calls for resuming unrestricted submarine warfare. After all, if they could accomplish this with the restrictions on their boats, surely without them they could swiftly force Britain to capitulate.

Max Valentiner

With the war situation becoming more and more critical, Kaiser Wilhelm II finally felt he had no other choice but to re-authorize unrestricted submarine warfare in February of 1917. Everyone knew it would likely provoke the United States to enter the war but with Germany rapidly running out of manpower and the public approaching widespread death by starvation, that was a risk that would simply have to be taken. Once the "grey wolves" were unleashed, the results were dramatic and immediate. Before the month of February 1917 was out German submarines had sunk over 250 ships, in March over 300 were sunk and April saw 413 ships sent to the bottom. British imports had been reduced by 75% of what they had been in 1916, shipyards were swamped and many neutrals refused to risk entering British waters. British ports were likewise clogged with merchant ships that refused to put back out to sea for fear of being sunk by German u-boats. The Kaiser's naval experts had predicted that their campaign would bring Britain to her knees within six months, by the halfway mark, it looked like they were well on their way to doing just that. German u-boat production was also increasing so that they were more than able to make up their own losses. However, as feared, this campaign had consequences and April of 1917 also saw the United States declare war on Germany after an ill-advised German effort was uncovered to induce Mexico to make war on America.

Walther Forstmann

It would be some time, of course, before American strength would be felt on the battlefield but the British were getting better at anti-submarine warfare against the Germans, with ever more effective minefields, increased use of naval aviation and, most importantly, moving merchant ships in convoys protected by destroyers that forced u-boats to attack on the surface at night. Still, the number of Germans subs lost to enemy action remained well within the capacity of Germany to replace them. Nonetheless, British countermeasures were improving. The Germans also had a slight disadvantage just in terms of bad timing. They had developed large, long-range "u-cruisers" that carried heavy deck guns for surface combat and these became available just when unrestricted submarine warfare was revived and thus there was no great need for resorting to surface action or for the extra personnel these boats carried as prize crews for captured ships. The German submariners were also only improving with time, becoming masters of their craft and from May to July of 1917 some 795 merchant ships were lost to them compared to only minor losses of their own. For comparison, the Germans sank about 50 ships for every one of their u-boats lost to enemy action.

Otto Weddigen

The u-boats were tantalizingly close to their goal and yet that goal was slipping away from them, particularly as the industrial output of the United States was thrown into the balance against them with all of the ships of the American merchant marine and their immense capacity for building more. In desperation, the Germans drastically increased the construction of new submarines, funneling as much of their dwindling resources as possible into the project with 95 new boats on order. Hunting also shifted from the Atlantic to coastal waters but this also coincided with increasing losses as the British massively increased their use of naval mines and were making better mines than ever before. These weapons took the heaviest toll of all on the German u-boat fleet. As 1917 gave way to 1918 these trends continued and soon submarine construction was barely able to keep up with the rate of attrition. The Allies had managed to gain the upper hand and were to keep it until the end of the war came in November. From January to November of 1918 shipping losses to German u-boats fell from 123 to 15.

running on top

In spite of this downward trend, German successes had cemented the submarine as the most feared weapon in the minds of the Allies and when the Germans first approached the Americans about ending hostilities (the terms proposed by America being much more lenient compared to those of the British or French) the first condition the Americans imposed was that submarine attacks must cease immediately before any talks could be held. As a result, on October 20, 1918 the German high command ordered all u-boats to return to port. The German navy planned, instead, on a final battle with their surface ships, planning to go down in a blaze of glory rather than surrender their ships to the Allies. However, this never happened as the German sailors, some of them infected by communist propaganda from Russia, mutinied, the first act of what would grow to be the German Revolution that brought down the Second Reich and all its subsidiary monarchies. It is worth noting, however, that the German u-boat crews remained loyal to their Kaiser to the bitter end and were even ordered to fire on any German ship flying the revolutionary flag, such was their reliability.

U-35

When World War I finally came to an end, Germany still possessed quite a large number of submarines. They had, after all, never been defeated outright on their own and over 170 u-boats remained ready for action when hostilities ended. Which is not to say they did not suffer losses of course. Of the 350 submarines Imperial Germany produced during the war, about 180 were lost in action and of the 13,000 sailors who served on the u-boats 5,354 were killed in action. Nonetheless, they had given incredible service and deserve to be recognized for it even as their World War II counterparts tend to receive more attention. In fact, of the top ten German submarine commanders of all time, six were sub captains of the Imperial Navy in World War I including the top three most successful sub commanders in the entire history of naval warfare; Kptlt. Lothar von Arnauld de la Periere, Kptlt. Walther Forstmann and Kptlt. Max Valentiner. Overall, the Kaiser's submarines had destroyed more than 11 million tons of Allied shipping during the war and damaged a further 7.5 million tons, an incredible achievement if ever there was one.

cheering U-Boat crew in 1916

Yet, even given that the Imperial German u-boats had done so much damage, even though the Imperial German submarine commanders outperformed all others (in the world), many still do not know just how close they came to winning the war for Germany. While historians tend to focus on things like the First Battle of the Marne or Operation Michel (and the Second Battle of the Marne) and so on, the German u-boats were the key element that came closer to winning the war than any of them. To understand this, one need only look at the situation in April of 1917, just after America entered the war when the German unrestricted u-boat campaign was at its height. Admiral William S. Sims of the U.S. Navy traveled to London to meet with First Lord of the Admiralty Sir John Jellicoe to begin working out the Anglo-American naval relationship and he was shocked to learn just how bad things were for the British. Sims was informed that, at that point, the British had only enough food stocks on hand to last another six weeks!

UB-4, coastal submarine

When German submarine strategists predicted that they could crush Britain with an unrestricted u-boat campaign within six months, that is how close they came to success with Britain a mere six weeks from ruin. Now, keeping that in mind, also consider that for long periods during the war the German submarines were restricted by the prize rules and at times were not hunting merchant ships at all but were focused on engaging the Royal Navy and one can clearly see how the German submarine clearly held the potential to have won the war for the Central Powers practically single-handed. With a total of more than 11 million tons of Allied ships destroyed, think what they could have accomplished if they had focused entirely on merchant shipping from day one and if they had waged unrestricted submarine warfare from the very beginning. The only conclusion is that they would almost certainly have won a swift and stunning victory. Clearly, of all the innovative weapons that emerged from the First World War, none of them came so close to truly changing the course of world history as did the submarine.MadMonarchisthttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-76654249269949933262016-03-01T06:30:00.002-06:002016-03-01T06:45:31.930-06:00Alessandro de' Medici, Duke of Florence

One of the most unfortunate members of the Medici family to rule over Florence was Duke Alessandro, the recognized only son of Lorenzo II de' Medici. There has been some speculation as to his actual parentage and the identity of his mother is not known for certain at all. In any event, he was the recognized son and heir of Lorenzo II, Duke of Urbino which, as far as the law was concerned, is all that matters. He was born on July 22, 1510 but though he was the first to come to rule Florence based on heredity, as a monarch, that did not happen immediately after the death of his father in 1519. Rather, power effectively passed to the Medici who held the highest office of all Pope Clement VII who appointed Alessandro's cousin, Ippolito de' Medici, to rule Florence on his behalf. It was also Pope Clement who had arranged the marriage of Alessandro's (legitimate) half-sister Catherine to King Henri II of France. Many accounts describe Alessandro as unprepossessing but not in a flattering way and he was the focus of a great deal of criticism both from within his own family as well as the republican and overall anti-Medici forces in Florence.

The papal representatives sent to oversee the boy were extremely unpopular with the anti-Medici faction as well as, again, elements within the family such as Clarice Strozzi, daughter of Piero di Lorenzo ("the Unfortunate"), who railed against Alessandro as being unworthy of the Medici family name and against his papal guardians as well. There would also be tensions between the cousins, Alessandro and Ippolito, when, later in life, Alessandro caught Ippolito in the arms of his half-sister Catherine as the two had a forbidden romance which was ended with her being sent to France and Ippolito into the service of the Church. The status of Alessandro as Gran maestro of Florence was largely nominal but wider events taking place in Italy would soon see him raised to a higher status but not before enduring quite an ordeal. For the time being, the power of Pope Clement VII kept him safe at home but the threat of an alliance between the Pope and the King of France invited the opposition of the formidable German Emperor Charles V, also King of Spain, who dispatched a powerful Spanish-German army to invade the Papal States and attack Rome to 'teach the Pope a lesson he would never forget'.

That campaign culminated in the 1527 "Sack of Rome" which must rank as one of the most horrific acts of rampant savagery and horror in all of human history. The accounts are numerous and often too lurid to repeat such that the imagination itself would be overwhelmed in describing the barbarity that occurred. The Emperor himself, who was not present of course, was shocked but not so shocked as to fail to take advantage of the situation and force the Pope into submission. Likewise, in the city of Florence, the anti-Medici elements saw the sacking of Rome and the violent destruction of the power of the Pope as their great moment of opportunity. They took to the streets shouting slogans and singing songs in thanks to the downfall of the Pope. The papal envoy, Cardinal Silvio Passerini, took the Medici family and children, Alessandro as well as Ippolito, but leaving little Catherine behind for some reason, and quickly fled Florence for safer environs. An effigy of Pope Clement VII was torn to pieces in the street and a republican government was restored under a new anti-Medici leader.

This was not the first time that the effort at a Medici monarchy had been undone by a republican restoration in Florence (Piero di Lorenzo had presided over that dubious honor) and those with cool heads did have reason to hope. They had only been overthrown, after all, because the imperial troops had conquered Rome but the fact was that Pope Clement VII was still alive and, after having been put in his place by the Emperor, would have what amounted to German support rather than opposition so long as he did nothing to displease the Hapsburg monarch. Indeed, Florence was never far from the thoughts of Pope Clement VII and as soon as he and Emperor Charles V concluded the Treaty of Bologna by which the Pope absolved the imperial forces for their actions in Rome, agreed to crown Charles V "Emperor of the Romans" by his own hand and, it went without saying, promising again not to take sides with the French against Charles. In return, the Emperor gave the Pope territory taken from the Republic of Venice and agreed to help restore the Medici family to power in Florence.

That was good news for Alessandro, but he looked likely to have been in for a soft landing in any event as Emperor Charles V had entertained another ducal throne for him. The Sforza Duke Francesco II of Milan had been appointed to that position by the Emperor when the Emperor's Spanish forces had driven out the French in the Italian Wars. However, Francesco II had turned against the Emperor in the latest unpleasantness, allying with Florence, Papal Rome, the French and so on. As a result, once his forces were victorious, the Emperor had considered placing Alessandro de' Medici on the ducal throne of Milan but the Republic of Venice objected to the idea and, after paying the Emperor a considerable bribe, Francesco II was allowed to return. So, it was back to Florence after all for Alessandro but he would have an equal rank anyway. First, of course, was the detail of actually taking the city which was the last of the Italian states still holding out in opposition to the Emperor.

The siege of Florence began on October 24, 1529 when the German, Spanish and assorted Italian forces paid by the Pope all under the command of the Prince of Orange set to work building fortifications, bringing up artillery and shelling the city. The republican forces were considerable but not in the best frame of mind. Many of the well-to-do citizens had fled at the first sign of trouble and a number of the troops employed by the Florentine government deserted rather than face the imperial forces. After a time a relief army tried to come to the aid of Florence but was defeated by the Prince of Orange (though he was killed in the battle) and the fate of the city was sealed. On August 10, 1530 the city surrendered and the restored republic was promptly dismantled. For Alessandro de' Medici it was his moment of glory, returning to power and being given the title "Duke of Florence" by Emperor Charles V. His enemies were executed or exiled, at least the most vocal and prominent ones, and the future looked promising for the frizzy-haired nineteen-year old. In fact, his uncle the Pope had also bought for him the title "Duke of Penne" from Charles V and hoped that he might pull off another advancement for the House of Medici by marrying Alessandro to the Emperor's illegitimate daughter Margaret.

At first, Duke Alessandro acted with the advice of elected councils, trying to calm the nerves of the defeated republicans. However, he soon showed that he was not about to forget all that had transpired. He disarmed the populace, confiscating all weapons even if they were purely ornamental, and built a large new fortress to help ensure that he would not be chased out of town again. The large bell which had symbolized the republic in Florence (Americans might think of it as being in the same vein as the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia) was melted down and, you have to love this, cast into medals showing the figures and symbols of the House of Medici. The republican opposition, needless to say, became increasingly furious and just exactly what sort of man Duke Alessandro was depends almost entirely on whose side of the story you choose to believe.

Some wanted to assassinate him but the fear of another war which might be sparked by such a thing dissuaded the hot-heads and so the enemies of the Duke decided to send a representative to Emperor Charles V to implore him to give Florence justice by removing the man he had just set over them. To carry out this mission they chose Alessandro's own cousin, with whom he was constantly feuding, Ippolito, by then a cardinal. However, he had not gone far when he fell ill and died which, of course, many attributed to poison given to him by Duke Alessandro. In any event, other delegates were dispatched and they made their case to Emperor Charles V. They described Alessandro de' Medici as the most horrible tyrant, trampling their rights, killing their men, raping their women and just about every crime one could imagine. However, that Charles V might hear both sides of the story, one of Alessandro's advisors, Francesco Guicciardini was on hand to paint a very different picture of the Duke. He said that he would not try to make reply to every horrific accusation made by the complainants, "but His Excellency's virtue, his fame, the opinion of him held throughout the city, of his prudence, of his virtuous habits, are a sufficient reply".

Historians have, themselves, debated which image of Alessandro is more correct. Emperor Charles V, if deemed a sufficient judge of character, seems to have found no merit in the accusations made by the critics of Alessandro. Not only were their charges not accepted but the Emperor fulfilled the wish of the late Pope Clement and agreed to have his fourteen-year old daughter Margaret married to Duke Alessandro; an illegitimate Hapsburg for an illegitimate Medici. The two were married in 1536 and, based on her later life, she might have been just the sort of woman Alessandro needed. However, the two would not have a long, married life together. As far as his private life was concerned, Alessandro had one mistress who gave birth to his three children, and was allegedly lured away by the promise of a romantic rendezvous with a famously beautiful widow, Laudomia, by her brother, Lorenzino de' Medici (a distant cousin of Alessandro) who then assassinated Alessandro on January 6, 1537. He was only 26-years old but had lived quite a colorful life. Lorenzino said he had done the deed to restore the republic but, if genuine, it certainly did not work and he was killed in Venice several years later.

The ducal throne passed to Cosimo I de' Medici, son of the famous "Giovanni of the Black Bands" who had died fighting against the imperial invasion on behalf of Pope Clement VII and the Italian states. The recently married and recently widowed Margaret of Austria was promptly married to the Farnese Duke of Parma (grandson of Pope Paul III) the following year. She was later put in nominal control of the Netherlands by her half-brother King Philip II of Spain and had he taken her advice might have averted rebellion there. As for Alessandro de' Medici himself, again, an assessment of him is difficult as the most prominent accounts of him come from his enemies who describe him as harsh, incompetent and licentious yet this is to be expected. Historians, trying to take a more impartial view have argued back and forth as to what sort of man he really was with some concluding that he was a much better ruler than his detractors have claimed. However, he was certainly significant as the first Medici to be Duke of Florence and though his time in power was tumultuous the Medici would go on to solidify themselves and ultimately unite the surrounding region into the Grand Duchy of Tuscany.MadMonarchisthttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-14337715586654522142016-02-26T02:37:00.000-06:002016-02-26T02:37:00.325-06:00The Mexican Problem

Last night's Republican primary debate in Houston contained quite a few questions about the subject of Mexico, illegal immigration and border security, most of them aimed at candidate Donald Trump and his promise to build a wall on America's southern border and have Mexico pay for it. Important people from the Pope to former Mexican President Vicente Fox have denounced such an idea and criticized Trump heavily for suggesting it (though as many have pointed out the Pope has a very high wall surrounding his own country and Mexico has a very heavily defended wall on its southern border to stem the flow of illegal aliens from Central America into their own country). What people need to understand though is that the issues involving the border are a symptom rather than the problem itself. The United States does not have a "border problem" but rather a "Mexican problem". There was a clue to this during the debate when Trump was asked why he wanted to build a wall along the border with Mexico but not along the border with Canada (the longest undefended border in the world by the way). His basic answer was that it would not be practical but long-time readers of this blog will know why such a thing is not simply impractical but unnecessary. America has no problem with the Canadian border because there is no "Canada problem".

The difference is that Canada is a successful, stable and prosperous country that many people from around the world have and do wish to live in. Mexico, on the other hand, is an impoverished, unstable and violent country that even most Mexicans do not wish to live in, hence the many millions of illegal aliens from Mexico living in the United States. Americans can, and should, deal with the border situation but this is a Mexican problem at its root that can only be solved in Mexico by Mexicans. Whereas Canada is a constitutional monarchy with a long-standing respect for the rule of law and principles and a political culture not terribly different from that in the United States, Mexico took a different path and Mexican history has been dominated by dictators, coups, civil wars and more than one revolution. Mexico did not have to take that path nor does it have to continue to adhere to it but so far it is persisting in it while the all-but-open border with the United States enables these problems to persist.

Mexico needs a better plan for prosperity than simply moving everyone to the United States. The Pope, on his recent visit, actually said something similar but, of course, it got very little play in the media. He said, basically, that Mexicans needed to make Mexico a country that the Mexican people wished to live in rather than flee from. I would argue that the short-lived regime of Emperor Maximilian was the last, best hope Mexico had for achieving that goal but his friends were few and his enemies were many. Mexico is a beautiful country with ample natural resources and all the building blocks needed for having a successful, prosperous country. What is lacking is a good government and a political culture that is based on encouraging success rather than the revolutionary culture of exploiting one group for the benefit of another. Unfortunately, there has been a tendency to take anyone who tries to bring good government to Mexico and put them in front of a firing squad. I firmly believe that Mexico can be a prosperous and powerful country when men like Emperor Maximilian are celebrated and bandits like Pancho Villa are the ones who are vilified.

Right now, commitment to making it as easy as possible for Mexicans to enter the United States illegally is about the only thing that every party in Mexico agrees on. It is a precarious sort of unity because, despite what detractors say, the United States could easily stop almost all illegal entries into the country from Mexico if it really wanted to. Simply stopping all wire-transfers from the U.S. to Mexico would very quickly force Mexico City to change their attitude on the subject. However, for the problem to really be solved the Mexican government needs to stop worrying about Donald Trump and start trying to 'make Mexico great again'.MadMonarchisthttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-62641076128007394702016-02-24T04:11:00.001-06:002016-02-24T04:11:15.878-06:00Those Who Speak for Conservatism in the English-Speaking World

There is a handful of figures who I am very fond of, though naturally I do not always agree with them on everything, who represent what I think would be a better direction for the part of the world which I belong to and which most people reading this probably belong to as well which is the English-speaking countries of the world. One such individual is Mark Steyn, a native of Canada now living in the United States who has recently been on a tour of Australia. He can comment intelligently on the politics of the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States or Australia and frequently does. He has, in his own career, implicitly worked for closer cooperation and making common cause among the conservatives of the Anglosphere. This would not be possible were it not for the historical fact that all of these countries have a great deal in common due to their common roots in the British Empire and the unique political history of England. It may be fashionable to emphasize differences but the fact is that Great Britain, Canada, the United States and Australia are more similar than dissimilar because of their origins.

Any English-speaking, ordinary, every-day conservative in any of these countries would likely agree with him most of the time and enjoy reading anything he writes. Another figure who has also spoken up for conservative solidarity across the English-speaking world is Daniel Hannan, MEP and I have a great deal of time for him as well even though, once again, I do not agree with him on everything. I have noticed that I have heard United States resident Mark Steyn defend the monarchy about as much as I have heard the British subject Daniel Hannan praise and defend the American Founding Fathers which many would think the two have the wrong way around. However, it may be that Hannan simply knows how to play to the audience. In any event, I have found myself in disagreement with Hannan more than some others but I am always glad to hear what he has to say, agree with him quite often and find him someone worth listening to and worth taking seriously. He has not hesitated to voice his opinion on American politics and that can be dangerous as many people take a negative view of foreigners doing such a thing. However, though he does not shy away from criticism, he does so in a context which leaves no one in doubt that he does so as a friend.

Another figure, less well known than the two above, who I cannot help but mention as well is the American writer Harry Crocker III, a zealous convert to Catholicism, an overt Anglophile and someone who would take being labeled as an "American imperialist" a definition he would be proud of rather than insulted by. Much of his work is aimed at very specific audiences and his biting humor and opinions would offend many people. Having written books defending everything from Catholic Christendom, the British Empire and Rhodesia to the Confederacy and United States military interventions around the world, he clearly is not writing to be popular or to appeal to everyone. It is, I think, noteworthy, that none of these men were born in Britain and yet all were educated there and while they are all, I think it is safe to say, broadly on the same side they do have many differences between them. Again, I find it interesting that the British subject Daniel Hannan speaks so adoringly of the American Founding Fathers while the born and raised American, Harry Crocker, a former speechwriter for Governor Wilson of California, basically described America's founders as tax-dodging smugglers but sees nothing outrageous about that, being of the view that some of England's greatest heroes have been pirates.

I do appreciate the overall case that all three of these men make. I would prefer that there were more people like that ardent American imperialist Harry Crocker who urged U.S. college students to read Samuel Johnson and Edmund Burke, even pointing out to them that tearing down monarchy and tradition ends in tyranny rather than liberty. Though I think we just might have been on opposite sides were we both in New England in 1776 I also appreciate that Daniel Hannan wrote an article for an American conservative periodical pointing out that the original flag of the United States (the Grand Union flag) featured 'the King's Colours' on prominent display and that there was a reason for this as well as there being a reason why this flag has tended to be hidden away and forgotten in American history. I can well imagine that Crocker and Hannan could have quite an epic debate on the subject of King Charles I and the English Civil War (the American being for the royalists and the card-carrying Tory arguing, as he stated on Twitter, that "The Cromwell of the 1640s was a hero; the Cromwell of the 1650s was a dictator.") but both would agree on such things as Anglosphere solidarity, the need for Britain to leave the EU and as Hannon has said he would support the UK, Canada, US & Australia getting out of the EU, UN and NATO (as they apply) and forming their own political, economic and military alliance I cannot imagine that Steyn and Crocker would not also enthusiastically agree.

 Would it ever be possible? Are these men fighting a losing battle? I like the general idea that they, in their diversity of views, represent. I would like to see greater solidarity for the English-speaking countries and a greater respect for our shared traditions, history and origins. Similarly, I have often said I think the Spanish-speaking countries would benefit from the same sort of movement though, sadly, there seems to be even less enthusiasm in that corner for such a thing. However, I have been struggling lately with the idea that I could actively campaign for such a thing myself. Unlike Kippling, I have a hard time accepting 'the hate of those ye better and the scorn of those ye guard'. Having friends and family in all branches of the U.S. military this is very real for me and I have a hard time seeing their lives being committed to protect peoples who despise them and even in the English-speaking world would rather sympathize with the "other" rather than their own. Where I live there is much goodwill for those most like us around the world but I see precious little such goodwill returned. Our militaries work together more closely than any others but certainly in the UK and Canada (I cannot say the same for Australia but would not be surprised to learn it is so) there seems to be a disconnect between the military and the public about the true state of affairs in the world. A look at the recent popularity of Bernie Sanders shows that the U.S. may be developing a similar mindset as well.

I like hearing from people such as those mentioned above probably just on an emotional level as it brings to mind the idealized, stereotyped vision I had growing up of the countries of the former British Empire. I was told growing up that Great Britain was a land of castles and aristocrats, hard working, witty people who loved and respected their Royal Family. I was told that Canada was a land of friendly, polite people who could be personified by the character of Constable Benton Fraser from the TV series "Due South" and that Australia was full of rugged individualists, tough but fun-loving with a 'frontier spirit'. America was the oddball in having dead presidents on our money rather than a royal profile but we are all part of the same family and all on the same team. It took growing up and becoming more worldly-wise to find out that, for a great many at least, Australians and Canadians hate the British, the British hate themselves and everyone hates the Americans. Good humor has been replaced by political correctness, individualism by the nanny-state and respect for tradition by a socialist devotion to "equality of outcome" rather than equality of opportunity.

Were I to steer my course based solely on my own on-line interactions I would be forced to say to my fellow Americans that the Anglophobe "Third Worlders" among us have it right, that any sense of kinship and history are mere ghosts that no one believes in any more. That our friendship is a fraud that politicians talk about but which no one feels and that no one actually believes our alliance to be to the benefit of anyone. The other English-speaking countries do not like us and so we should not like them, nor do they like each other. And why should we? Are we not all horrible people? Are we not all fruit of the same poisoned tree? After all, Canada actually changed their national flag so as to be 'less British' and Australia, where pouring scorn on the "Poms" is a national hobby, is pushing to do the same. Even in Britain, the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties have called for the removal of their own national flag from schools, calling the display of the Queen's Colours "nasty" and "nationalistic" as if it were the swastika rather than the crosses of three patron saints. I would not be quite so gloomy about it were it only coming from one side but it is not. The self-hating left and the self-hating right are both alive and well in the English-speaking world. The only difference is that one hates us for our (real or perceived) past imperfections while the other hates us for our current imperfections.

All that being so, it is something which, for me at least, must still be pondered and muddled through. However, with or without my active participation, I am glad that there are those who do go on trying to cheer us on rather than tear us down, who are not too proud to take their own side in an argument, who still prefer "us" over "them" and who will make an argument in defense of the English-speaking countries of the world, both for what they are and what they have been. Trying to have one without the other has, perhaps, been the cause of a great deal of the fracturing on the right though, as stated, that is something I am still pondering. For myself, the jury is still out but whether I think they are right or wrong on this or that point, I am glad that we still have some like Mark Steyn, Daniel Hannan and Harry Crocker arguing for the Anglosphere and the place of all our countries within it.

MadMonarchisthttp://firstname.lastname@example.com