Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Helios 65 - Back in the Saddle

  1. #1
    Lord Rahl's Avatar Behold the Beard
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The stars at night are big and bright!
    Posts
    13,779

    Icon14 Helios 65 - Back in the Saddle


    Contents
    By Lance & Sword - The Norman Conquests - Beginnings by grouchy13
    Second Indochina War, an Unpreventable War by ☩Lord Inquisitor Derpy Hooves☩
    From Culottes to Cocardes: The French Army 1789-1794 by Inkie Pie
    Rahl's Rants: On Politics by Lord Rahl


    From the Editor:

    So, what's happened since the last Helios was released? The Dark Knight Rises came out (I still need to write my review on it), the NFL season finally began (with the Cowboys having two very different games), the NHL has gone into its third lockout under Garry Bettman's "leadership", the season is changing (at least here in Texas where it's not 105 every day), some of you are loathing... I mean, enjoying your schooling, the new Star Trek sequel got a really weird title, a new way of riding a horse has become a huge craze, and another trailer for The Hobbit came out. Anything else? With the amount of work that goes into each article from our group of talented writers here at The Helios, you'd think a whole generation had past between the publication of each issue. But that should not bother you or I. We are committed to providing exceptional articles for our readers. This 65th edition is no different. The number of articles may be lesser than the previous issue, however, you'll find the quality is not lacking and the knowledge presented to be on par with university papers. In fact, even with only four articles, there is still so much content that this issue needs a second page. Talk about putting work in! If you find yourself smoking a pipe while reading through The Helios, fear not. It is a good effect this publication has on you. You are being enlightened!


    Yes, very enlightening...

    Enjoy your reading!

    _________________________________________________


    grouchy13

    In this edition of The Helios, grouchy13 is going to explain to us what his favorite cheeses are. Actually, that's not at all what he wrote about. He wrote yet even more history, but for this offering he has changed time and place considerably. Instead of ancient times on the (today) Balkan Peninsula and Syracuse, grouchy13 is taking us to the 9th and 10th centuries AD in Normandy. Once again grouchy13 has provided us with another thoroughly-researched and well-written historical article, one that we should all be so lucky to get a chance to read.


    By Lance & Sword - The Norman Conquests - Beginnings

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    By Lance & Sword - The Norman Conquests

    Beginnings

    Out of the chaos of the Dark ages strove a race who over the course of 200 years had a profound effect on the peoples of not only North Western Europe but also Southern Italy and Sicily to the Levant and the Holy land.The Normans have always had a special place in my heart, my own family name is traced to the Norman conquest of England and Norman involvement in Scotland, the name being derived from the town of Lyons la Floret in Eastern Normandy. The Normans led an era of conquest, consolidation and integration across Christendom and beyond, but who were these men what was their background and what were the social and political methods they employed that bought significant if not always long lasting success in such diverse area’s.Through this series we will look at the Normans campaigns and conquests throughout England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. We will also cover the Normans in Italy and Sicily and the short history of the Normans in the Holy Land. First though we need to look at the environment that conditioned such men, namely the Duchy of Normandy and the factors that led to it’s creation.

    The First Northmen

    At the Height of the Dark ages Europe was under the scourge of Viking raids, large swathes of Anglo Saxon England and the Western Frankish Kingdom coastline suffered under near constant harassment from the Viking raiders of Denmark and Norway. The Frankish peoples were particular at danger to the Vikings, political division and bloody succession disputes between the Frankish nobility meant they were unable to present a united defence against the Viking incursions while the Seine and Loire Rivers gave the Vikings easily navigable access to penetrate to the very heart of the Frankish Kingdom.

    The first difficulties for the Franks began during a period of internal unrest during the 840‘s following the death of the Frankish Ruler Louis the Pious, once the Vikings realised the Frankish Kingdom had turned upon itself their raids increased. In 841AD the town of Rouen was razed, in the following years Brittany, the Island of Noirmoutier, Nantes were also all attacked. The Franks also had to deal with a prolonged Norwegian incursion down the Loire while in the year 845AD a large Danish host operated in and around the Seine valley culminating in an attack on Paris. Out of the Chaos of the succession crisis stepped Charles the Bald as ruler of the Western Franks, realising that the Kingdom was greatly weakened following the succession crisis he entered into peaceful negotiations with the Viking chief Ragnar, the resultant talks ended with his payment of Danegeld to see the Vikings leave his lands unmolested.

    This was not the end of hostilities however, the Vikings sensing the weakness of the Frankish Kingdom returned either to carry out raids with impunity such as the War-bands of Asgeirr, Sidroc and Godfred or like the Viking leader Veland take advantage of periods of upheaval between the competing Frankish aristocracy in the 860‘s and demand and successfully receive Danegeld. Following the death of Charles the Bald in 877AD another succession crisis gripped the Frankish world out of which would step Charles the Simple as leader of the Western Franks. It would be during his reign that the Norman state would emerge under the leadership of the enigmatic Viking Chieftain Rollo.


    The Vikings spread fear and terror in their wake, but they were not simple marauders, after the raids came periods and settlement and integration across North Western Europe.

    Rollo the first Duke

    The background of Rollo is highly contested in part to his early history being obscured by myth and legend, what can be said for certain is a Viking Chieftain of either Danish of Norwegian descent who stepped out of obscurity and founded the longest lasting Viking state in France. Legend has it that Rollo was of such great physical size that no horse could hold him this led to him being known as Rollo the Ganger or “the walker" whatever his size Rollo was skilled not only in the usual Viking prerequisite of violence and Chaos Rollo was also an adept politician who through what was to become the hallmark of Norman expansion, conquer, integrate and then consolidate his position in Northern France.

    Rollo's first recorded military campaigns were from 885-886AD where he acted as a minor chieftain of a Viking War-band during the unsuccessful siege of Paris, from there he led a successful raid on the town of Bayeaux resulting in it’s capture and destruction. Taking many prisoners with him from the local ruling aristocracy, Rollo sensed a unique opportunity to embed himself within the series of complex alliances that characterised the ruling elite. To enter the world of the Frankish aristocracy Rollo took a woman to be his wife and the mother to his heir a woman whose background is nearly as contested as his own, namely the Frankish noblewoman Poppa. Whatever Poppa’s background it is apparent she was part of the local establishment and her marriage to Rollo meant he was no longer isolated within the Frankish world facilitating his entry into the world of Frankish politics.



    Rollo the Ganger enigmatic warrior and statesman who steeped out of obscurity to construct the Norman State.

    In the years following the siege the succession crises that had followed the death of Charles the Balds was resolved with Charles the Simple taking control of the throne in 898AD. One notable incident took place during the crisis, one which would be a prefigure of the negotiations that led to the foundation of Normandy. Charles before his ascension to the throne was forced to deal with a Viking incursion along the Seine led by a certain Hundeus. Hundeus sought not booty but territory and expressed a desire to settle with his people on ceded land in return to converting to Christianity, Charles still contesting his position was unable to make such arrangements but expressed an interest in the deal, something Rollo may have been aware of and sought to emulate in his own future negotiations with Charles.

    Charles coronation coincided with Rollo’s return to the Seine valley, now a Chieftan of some stature following a period of unrecorded activity Rollo moved down the Seine towards Rouen. Here though Rollo changed tack seeking to negotiate with the local ecclesiastical powers of Rouen substituting diplomacy for violence to achieve his aims. He offered to spare the city of Rouen in return for allowing Scandinavian settlement in the region, his offer was accepted by the emissaries of the local Archbishop and became known as the “pact of Jumieges”, no doubt the local nobles and clerics realised that it would be better to come to terms with Rollo than suffer the same fate that had befallen the citizens of Bayeaux nearly a decade before. Many of the ecclesiastical establishment however chose to leave the area with many Monasteries being abandoned and their holy relics being moved to what the local clergy would be outside Rollo’s reach.

    The Siege of Chartes and the foundation of Normandy

    Rollo’s successful establishment of a Scandinavian enclave along the lower Seine area saw an influx of new Viking colonists who further strengthened his position. To safeguard their positions Viking Chieftains cannot remain inactive for long and the same can be said for Rollo, taking advantage of the new manpower at his disposal Rollo launched an assault on Paris during the summer of 911AD. This assault however proved unsuccessful, undeterred however Rollo led his forces south towards Chartes. His forces soon invested the town, digging trenches around it’s walls and therefore beginning a siege action. Unfortunately for Rollo and his War-band this latest Viking incursion saw a sharp response from the leading nobility of the Kingdom, a coalition of nobleman answered the call of the bishop of Chartes to rescue the town and his flock from the Pagan Vikings. Included in this Coalition were the Marquis of Neustria, the Duke of Burgundy and the Counts of Dijon and Poitiers to name a few, these powerful and influential noblemen led the attack on Rollo’s position inflicting a severe defeat on his forces beneath the city walls.

    The Franks however far from capitalising on their defeat of the Northmen allowed Rollo and his troops to return to their base on the lower Seine, amazingly at this juncture the Frankish nobility held a Royal council where despite their recent victory over Rollo they concluded that they needed to open Negotiations to reach a permanent accord with the Northmen probably in realising the perilous state of affairs the Kingdom now found itself in. Ambassadors were despatched and a lengthy negotiation process began, the fundamentals of the proposed agreement were that Rollo and his men would swear fealty to King Charles whilst abandoning their old Gods and convert to Christianity in return they would receive land from the Andelle river to the sea while Rollo would receive Royal authority to govern these lands.

    Rollo and the leaders of his War band were keen to accept the offer and immediately agreed to an extended truce with a view to arrange a summit between Rollo and Charles where in turn Rollo would swear fealty to the Frankish King. The Meeting of the two rulers finally took place in a place from where the agreement takes it’s name, Saint-Clair-Sur-Epte. As the summit took place Rollo was able to press for further concessions namely an extension to the lands the Normans were to receive, the Franks duly extended the remit of their original offer offering instead the lands from the Epte as opposed from the Andelle as a counter offer. Rollo at the last also sought Royal permission to carry out a series of raids against the mainly Celtic Breton's to the East of his new holdings, probably seeing the opportunity that arose from having two of what they considered potentially hostile outlying regions fighting each other instead of making war against the Frankish Kingdom presented the Franks accepted whilst the Normans could also provide a buffer against future Viking incursions down the Seine.

    In the following solemn ceremony Rollo placed his hands within those of Charles and subordinated himself to his service, Charles granted Rollo control of the lands from the Epte to sea as a hereditary estate. At this point unexpectedly and without prior warning the bishops present demanded that Rollo should kiss the Kings foot as an act of submission, this previously undisclosed protocol had the potential to throw the whole agreement into turmoil, however Rollo merely gestured for one of his men to carry out the act. However the man instead of merely kissing the Kings foot gestured the Kings foot towards his mouth then proceeded to tip the King from his seat. What could have been a potentially deadly diplomatic impasse ended when Frank and Norman alike braking out in collective laughter.

    A Functioning Duchy and it’s fight for survival

    Following the Ceremony Rollo and his army converted to Christianity, how many of them took these as oaths to heart is open to debate, Rollo probably as a sign of good faith ceded some lands around former ecclesiastical area’s back to the Church. This was the beginning of what would become a corner stone the Norman state, the symbiotic relationship of Church and state. In the future the Normans would be known for their piety but this was a process that would take time.

    In the coming years Rollo oversaw the expansion of the Duchy seizing Bessin in 924AD whilst at the same time preventing further Viking incursion to the Frankish Kingdom. Now a nobleman of considerable standing Rollo also became involved in the cut throat politics of the Frankish aristocracy especially those located near the borders of the fledgeling Duchy, like any self respecting man of power Rollo took any opportunity to profit from his enemies misfortune. After 10 years in power Rollo finally began to prepare his succession, most likely to prevent the chaos that had so undermined the Frankish Kingdom.

    His successor William Longsword ruled for 5 years under his fathers stewardship but Rollo passed over in 932AD, leaving the young William in aperilous situation. William Longsword was considered more Frankish than Viking by his peers, being raised a Christian by his Frankish Mother Poppa he can be considered the first truly Norman leader as opposed to the Christian convert Viking Chieftain Rollo, It was William who oversaw the merge of Scandinavian and Frankish Culture. This was however not without incedent, for William had to overcome a rebellion of not only Breton's who lived in lands seized by his father Rollo but also Scandinavian elements who lived on the fringes of Ducal Authority. These Scandinavians had managed to retain their independence and distinct Scandinavian culture including observance of the Old Gods, William saw Normandy as the sole Scandinavian state within France while the rebellious Normans saw him as too Gallicised and soft.



    William Longsword had to fight to ensure the survival of the fledgeling Duchy upon his ascension, without his Fathers fearsome reputation he had to forge his own to save Normandy from external and internal enemies.

    Overcoming the odds he soon crushed the rebellion of the wayward Scandanavian's led by the Viking Riouf. The Breton rebels within Normandy despite being backed by the Duke of Brittany Alan Wrybeard and the Count of Rennes Berenger were also bought to heel by the Longsword, following these military successes he further integrated his family line into high Frankish aristocracy by marrying Luitgarde the daughter of a local nobleman, the lands in her dower further added to his own dominions and from this base he sought to continue his fathers expansionist policies by seizing the important fortress of Montreuil. This was a fateful move for it bought him into direct confrontation with Arnulf the Count of Flanders, three years after the successful capture of Montreuil Arnulf despatched a party of assassins who lay in wait for William at Picquigny on the Somme River. Here they were able to successfully launch a successful ambush killing William and ushering in a period of serious instability.

    Richard the Fearless and the troubled succession

    Williams successor the young Richard the Fearless faced insurmountable challenges on his ascension to the Ducal title, Firstly his mother was a women named Sporta, Williams Breton concubine not Williams aristocratic Frankish wife Luitgarde. This meant he only became recognized as the official heir by William taking his concubine as a form of wife under Danish Law. Secondly being a minor of only 10 years old at the time of his fathers death meant the Duchies many enemies were free to take advantage of his lack of authority, like sharks in a feeding frenzy his enemies pounced. The Carolingian King of France Louis IV leading the Frankish efforts against the young Duke. The French King marched into Normandy taking Rouen as his base of operation while exiling the young Richard to Laon, Louis IV then split the Duchy keeping upper Normandy for himself whilst giving lower Normandy to his ally the powerful nobleman Hugh the Great known as the “Duke of the Franks”.

    To the Norman aristocracy the situation was unbearable, rumours abounded that Louis was planning to kill the young Richard and therefore break the Ducal line and seize the lands for himself,f a collection of leading Normans unwilling to be governed by the Carolingian Louis hatched a plan to rescue Richard from captivity and soon the young Duke was free once more. Soon enough Richard was able with the support of the Norman Aristocracy to force Louis from Upper Normandy in 945AD, Richard was able to resume control of lower Normandy by a political marriage to Emma, Hugh the Great’s daughter. This marriage unfortunately was foreshadowed by the untimely death of Emma, however Richard recognised that Hugh’s star was firmly on the rise and now placed Normandy firmly on the Robertian side of the dispute for the French throne against Louis and the Carolingian line.

    Richards reign passed with relative tranquillity, once the Duchy was secure the only external came from Theobald the Trickster Count of Blois who in 961AD launched an assault on Evreux, the Normans were able to repulse his attack and in the following year launched a counter attack on Dunois. In the campaigning season of 962AD Theobald again invaded Norman territory this time he choose to attack Rouen, again though Richard was able to rally the Norman defences. With Theobalds forces in retreat the Normans burned Chartes in response to Theobalds repeated incursions only the intervention of Lothair, Louis IV son and successor put an end to the hostilities. Richards machinations with Hugh and his descendants paid off with the inability of Louis and Lothair to stabilise the Carolingian cause Hugh the Great’s son Hugh Capet was able to realise his fathers ambition and become King of the Franks following a council at Noyen in 987AD and the relationship between Normandy and the Franks returned to it’s normal status-quo.

    Richard governed Normandy successfully for over 50 years, despite the untimely death of Emma Richard was able to produce an heir Richard II known as Richard the Good with Gunnar, a women of Danish lineage who went on to become the recognised Duchess. The years following Richard I death ushered in a period of civil unrest within the duchy, peasant and lord alike rose in insurrection with Richard I heir the young Richard II being but a mere boy the job of restoring Ducal authority fell to Richards uncle and regent Rodulf of Ivry. The peasant revolt focused not on the Duke but on the Norman nobility who had sought to take control of the water ways and woodlands of the Duchy thus depriving the peasants of the ability to fish or hunt. Desperate and half starved the peasants rose in revolt, Rodulf managed to restore order through the province, the chief instigators of the peasant revolt were rounded up and as punishment had their hands and feet hacked off, a potent warning to those who would raise arms against the establishment in the future.

    With the peasantry sufficiently cowed Rodulf focused on bringing the various wayward Norman lords to heel, the aristocratic revolt centred around a certain Guillaume Count of Exmes. Rodulf was able to capture and imprison the rebellious Guillaume, deprived of their leader many of the lords recognised that under Rodulf the Duchy was in strong hands. Many bent the knee and the aristocratic rebellion was bought to a close, with peace restored Richard II was able to on his coming of age take control of the Duchy and bring about a period of relative peace and prosperity. Richard II was a wise and pious ruler and during his reign he was able to attract many intellectuals and clerics to his court, he strengthened the ties between the Church and the state giving the ecclesiastical authorities land and sponsoring the foundation and restoration of many abbeys and churches throughout the Duchy.

    Normandy and England initial encounters

    Richard II reign saw a rare period of tranqulity between his local Frankish neighbours however the situation across the channel was far from stable and Richard now saw a potential threat on his Northern frontier. From the 980's onwards England had suffered a sustained series of large scale raids led by the Danish King Sven Forkbeard, many Anglo-Saxons believed that the Normans were facilitating their Scandanavian brethren giving them shelter along their coastline from where they could launch their attacks with impunity this led the Anglo-Saxon King Ethelred to authorise a reprisal attack on Contentin in 1001AD.


    Ethelred the Unready King of Anglo-Saxon England took the first step in binding England and Normandy fates together by marrying Emma, Sister of Duke Richard II.

    The attack was a bloody and costly catastrophe for the Saxons with many Saxon warriors being cut down where they landed but the intent was enough for Richard to enter into negotiations with Ethelred. An agreement was reached where Richard’s sister Emma would be wed to Ethelred, it would be this union that would later form the basis of William the Conqueror’s claim to the English throne. Ethelred and Emma’s son’s Alfred and Edward would both in time sit on the English throne and their formative years would be spent in Normandy after Ethelred’s disastrous domestic policies forced his family to seek the sanctuary and protection of Emma’s brother Richard II.

    In 1003AD Ethelred began to grow tired of the increasing influence the large number of Danes were wielding within his Kingdom, this coupled with the increase in Danish raids led him to order the massacre of all the Danes in England these fateful orders were carried out on Saint Brice’s day November 13th 1003AD,unfortunately for Ethelred the Danish King Sven Forkbeard’s own sister and her husband were caught in carnage thus handing him the pretext to invade England with a view to install himself as King in. Sven’s invasions of 1004AD and 1013AD eventually forced Ethelred into exile, it would be during this exile that both Alfred and Edward would see Normandy as more of home than England however both would as the opportunity presented itself seek to reclaim their birthright and take possession of the English throne. Whatever the situation was at this time what had became certain for all parties the fates of both Normandy and induced were now fatefully intertwined.

    Richard III and Robert the Magnificent

    Back in Normandy Richard II prepared his son and heir also named Richard for his role as a future Duke of Normandy, this no doubt included schooling in the art of the delicate politics required to maintain the status-quo of northern France. Richard III also displayed considerable talents in the art of war, so much so his father entrusted him to lead a military expedition to release his brother-in-law and Duke Richards son-in-law Renuad the Count of Burgundy who had got into a spot of bother with regional rival the Count of Chalon-Sur-Saone. During this expedition Richard III distinguished himself by capturing the fortress at Mimande and was pressing on towards Chalon when Hugh surrendered and released Renuad.

    Following this successful campaign Richard III was able to secure the hand of King Robert of France’s infant daughter, the marriage was to take place when she came of age. At the age of 20 with his father’s backing, proven military experience and the possibility of marriage into the Capetan Royal line the young Richard had no difficulty in asserting his authority as Duke of Normandy following his fathers death on 1026AD. The only black cloud on his horizon was manifested in the form of his brother remembered by history as Robert the Magnificent.

    Robert received from his brother the lands around Falaise to govern, he soon became disgruntled and raised the standard of rebellion against his older brother, an act eased by the fact that the lands around Falaise had never fully submitted to Ducal Authority. The rebellion was however short lived, Richard III immediately laid siege to Robert within the fortress of Falaise. Robert duly surrendered and bent the knee to his brothers overlordship, Richard for his part showed his brother clemency even allowing him to keep control of his lands. This may have been a fatal error on Richard’s part for in a few months and being only a year into his reign he was struck down by chronic stomach pains that led to his untimely death, the possibility of him being poisoned on his younger brothers orders cannot be ruled out.

    Following Richards death the teenage Robert received his brothers title, his own transition to Duke though would be the opposite to his brothers fully supported ascension due in part to his previous treachery and unruly behaviour. He first had to deal with the rebellion of two leading nobleman, Robert Count of Evreux and Hugh of Ivry. Robert proceeded to besiege the rebellious lords in their castles. Hugh appealed to King Robert to support him however the reinforcements despatched did not arrive in time the prevent the castle falling to the Ducal forces. Hugh was forced into exile allowing Duke Robert to focus his attention on the rebellious Count of Evreux, as Ivry had before it Evreux soon fell. The Count of Evreux had one last card to play, whilst in exile he was able to mobilise his powerful friends within ecclesiastical circles to excommunicate Duke Robert.

    Robert doing himself no favours took the excommunication as a personal attack from the clergy, he responded by authorising the seizure of Church property within the Duchy. Robert further alienated himself by refusing to marry, the wayward young Duke instead went on to take a women of common birth as his concubine. The women in question was a certain Herleva a simple tanners daughter, who could have guessed that the illegitimate bastard Herleva soon carried in her womb would become Roberts sole heir and destined to become Duke William the Conqueror.

    Reconciliation and Pilgrimage

    Robert soon realised that to restore the status-quo he would need to reconcile with the clergy and the powerful noblemen operating against him outside the Duchy. He entered into negotiation with Robert Count of Evreux reinstating his lands and position within Normandy, he also returned many of the Church lands he had seized forcing many of the nobles who had joined in these action to act the same. The excommunication was lifted and life returned to normality within Normandy, it appeared however that a change had overcome the young Duke who genuinely seemed to have embraced a change in his life acting more reasonably and conducting himself in a more measured, balanced manner.


    The various stages of Norman expansion as the various Dukes pressed Westward prior to Williams ascension can be clearly seen in this map.

    Robert now began to take a more active part in the external struggles so prevalent amongst his neighbours, firstly he intervened in a succession crisis for the French throne receiving territory in return for harbouring and supplying forces to the rightful heir and future King Henry I during his exile. With Henry indebted to him Robert felt confident in his position to act in similar disputes within both Flanders and Brittany further strengthening his own position greatly. Robert also had to keep in consideration the political situation within England, his cousins Alfred and Edward the exiled English Princes sought Norman assistance to regain their throne. Being close in age to both Alfred and Edward Robert sympathised with their plight he was however slow to give any meaningful practical assistance.

    Through a cautious yet ambitious foreign policy after nearly a decade of rule Robert had become one of the most powerful lords in France, it is difficult then to understand then why he would jeopardize his own and that of his peoples future by attempting to carry out a dangerous Pilgrimage to Jerusalem. One reason maybe he sought penance for the murder of his brother or perhaps for his seizure of Church lands and subsequent excommunication it may possibly just have been the great Norman sense of adventure whatever the reason Robert pressed on with his preparations primarily those concerning his son and heir William. Robert began to integrate the young William more and more in Ducal affairs, his main concern was on securing Williams succession.

    To that end he gathered a great council at Fecamp in 1035 naming William as his heir, the many great Norman lords present swore an oath of loyalty to William satisfying Roberts desire to see his son recognised despite his illegitimacy. The Pilgrimage unfortunately ended in tragedy, Robert reached the Holy land but died on the return journey.

    His death coupled with minority of William would lead to an unprecedented period of instability for Normandy, but out of this chaos would step possibly the greatest Norman of all, King William the Conqueror. Join us next time for this amazing story in Part 2 of By Lance & Sword The Norman Conquests.


    ☩Lord Inquisitor Derpy Hooves☩

    I think it's quite obvious to anyone who is at least minimally curious about history that the Vietnam War changed the way the world works, let alone the United States, as far as foreign interventionism is concerned. With the Vietnam generation being those in control of our government(s) and getting to the age where they will soon be gone, it is very important to research the subject to better understand it, (Vietnam War) its effects on the world we live in over the years, and help keep the memory of it alive. I'm actually thinking of trying to interview veterans and get some of their stories. I meet a lot of veterans where I work and the more I meet and the more I talk with them the more I want to know more. More people should do that. In any case, our very own Lord Inquisitor Derpy Hooves - How does one be granted such a title? - has given us an article that looks into the Vietnam War and how such a war, at the time, was inevitable. As with many things, once you get the least involved, you cannot help but become more so. A toe in the pool becomes a dive in. In the case of the United States, it jumped into the deep end. Please welcome LIDH to The Helios team.


    Second Indochina War, an Unpreventable War

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    The Vietnam War, also known as the American War or the Second Indochina War, is considered to be one of the most infamous wars in American history. It is seen by many Americans as a war that should not have happened, a war that we should have not joined. The Americans were not fighting for freedom or democracy, no matter how much some might have deluded themselves. South Vietnam was neither free nor a full democracy, there was never a South Vietnamese President that had the support of at least half of the population. So if the United States was not fighting for the ideals of freedom and democracy, then what was it fighting for? Resources? No. To sum it up in one sentence, it was another war against the spread of communism. The question then becomes, could the US instead of sending in ground forces, just keep sending supplies and advisors? It could, but that would not have solved the problems that President Lyndon B. Johnson, the US President who began direct (direct meaning clear signs of US support i.e. the US sending ground troops, air support etc.; indirect would be just sending supplies and advisors) American involvement, saw in the Vietnam conflict. Given the potential repercussions, such as loss of credibility and communist expansion, Johnson could see no reason not to send US ground forces and air support.

    In 1949, China fell to the communists; in response, Senator McCarthy attacked democrats for losing to the communists. During the Cold War, no sane US politician wanted to be associated with aiding the communists in any way shape or form, doing so could cost them their chances at reelection as well as being painted as a traitor. To try and prevent Vietnam from falling to communism, the US funded the French in the First Indochina War. In the end, France lost the war; however, Vietnam was “saved” from complete dominance of communism. This was done by splitting Vietnam into North Vietnam and South Vietnam, in accordance with the Geneva Accords. During the war, China supported the Ho Chi Minh’s insurgents. Their support and Ho’s acceptance of Chinese support convinced many that North Vietnam was a sign of Chinese expansion. However, anyone with a basic knowledge of Vietnamese history could tell them that is bullocks. Vietnamese hate the Chinese more than the French; this is because China occupied Vietnam for over a thousand years, whereas France controlled Vietnam for less than a century. Indeed, in the initial aftermath of WWII it had been decided that 150,000 Chinese soldiers would occupy northern Vietnam while the rest would be occupied by the French. The Ho-Sainteny agreement and a Franco-Chinese agreement forced the Chinese occupation forces to leave and it created an independent Vietnamese state within the French Union. Despite being allowed to create their own army, the French military still had access to this independent Vietnam. When Ho was criticized by his comrades for agreeing to allow French forces to remain in the new Vietnam, Ho’s response was “You fools! Don't you realize what it means if the Chinese remain? Don't you remember your history? The last time the Chinese came, they stayed a thousand years. The French are foreigners. They are weak. Colonialism is dying. The white man is finished in Asia. But if the Chinese stay now, they will never go. As for me, I prefer to sniff French dung for five years than to eat Chinese dung for the rest of my life.” Yes, Ho accepted Chinese support, but it was only a matter of convenience.


    Following the Geneva Accords, the Southeast Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO) was created; basically, it was supposed to be the Southeast Asian version of NATO. However, unlike NATO, SEATO was not a binding security pact, but it did provide vague commitments to the security of Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. Regardless, SEATO was in essence supposed to be the Asian version of NATO, and since the US was a member of SEATO it felt the need that it had to defend SEATO members as well as states that SEATO has security commitments for. If the US declined to directly support South Vietnam against the Viet Cong and the NVA, this could have drastic effects on its reputation in NATO. Doubts as to whether or not the US could fulfill its commitments to NATO could rise, and these doubts might not be restricted to just the NATO member states, but might arise in the Soviet Union as well. If the Soviet Union doubts the US NATO commitments, the propensity for another war in Europe increases. US Secretary of State Dean Rusk echoed these fears saying “If the Communist world finds out we will not pursue our commitments, I don’t know where they will stay their hand.”

    That fear coincided with the domino theory, where theoretically in a region if one state falls to communism, other states in the same region become more likely to fall to communism. Yes, the communist takeover of China did not result in more communist takeovers throughout the region. It could be said that the falling of dominoes that started when China fell to communism was stopped with the Korean War and the Geneva Accords. However, what if South Vietnam does fall to the communists, and it is united with North Vietnam? Will Cambodia or Laos be next, or even Japan?

    Okay, the French failed in the Second Indochina War, but that’s because they are foreigners fighting against Vietnamese nationalists (both communists and non-communists), surely, South Vietnam’s ARVN (Army of the Republic of Viet-Nam) can take care of itself? They are not foreigners, they are Vietnamese, and they have US equipment, supplies and advisors; so surly they can handle themselves. Not exactly, despite receiving equipment, supplies and advisors from a superpower, the ARVN was horribly incompetent. The incompetency of the ARVN was especially highlighted at the Battle of Ap Bac, where the ARVN outnumbered a Viet Cong force; despite outnumbering the insurgents as well as having superior equipment, the ARVN could not hope to beat the Viet Cong force. The battle not only showed ARVN incompetency but a greater determination among the communists to prevail against the tyrannical South Vietnamese government and the unification of Vietnam. The Battle of Ap Bac occurred two years before direct US involvement; however this is because the conflict at first was minor. Casualties in South Vietnam from political violence had not exceeded a threshold of a thousand deaths per year until the late 50’s. With this information in mind, it was very clear to any interested parties that nothing less than direct US involvement would save the South Vietnamese government.

    Since the end of WWII, US administrations had been stepping up US involvement in Southeast Asia, more importantly Vietnam. US troop levels in Vietnam (military advisors), before the Kennedy administration, stayed low at an average of 468 (with the exception of an extreme outlier in 1954 of over 4,000). During the Kennedy administration, troop levels in Vietnam increased almost 2000%; as such, Kennedy took US involvement in Vietnam to new levels. At that point, it would be way too risky for a president to reduce the level of involvement without suffering harsh criticism. Johnson was already suffering from criticism as it was, mostly from hawks. Many of his advisors favored aggressive actions against the communists in Vietnam, such actions that were also supported by about three quarters of the population.

    Did Johnson want to increase US involvement in Vietnam? It can be argued that he did not. Johnson spoke to many of his colleagues on the issue; according to him, most advocated “…you got to go in…”. Of course there were some dissenters such as Secretary of State George Ball and Senator Richard Russell. Despite advocating for less involvement in Vietnam, Russell told Johnson that “It’s one of these things where ‘heads I win, tails you lose.’”. Heads, war with Vietnam, and thus “young American boys” will die in the jungles of Vietnam. Tails, Johnson does not go to war, and may likely lose his chance of reelection; losing the election would likely hurt Johnson’s Great Society project.


    “It’s a tragic situation…just one of those places where you can’t win, anything you do is wrong.” said Richard Russell to Johnson. Nothing could have been truer than that. In late 1964, following an incident (and fantastical second attack) in the Gulf of Tonkin, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution passed with only two dissenting votes. The Resolution allowed the President to take “…all necessary measures…”. In March, 1965, Operation Rolling Thunder began and US Marines landed at Da Nang beginning the direct US involvement in the Second Indochina War.

    Bibliography
    Dallek, Robert. "Fear, Ambition, and Politics." McMahon, Robert J. Major Problems in the History of the Vietnam War. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2008. 171-183.

    Indochina War Timeline: 1946. n.d. 22 August 2012.

    Lawrence, Mark Atwood. The Vietnam War. New York City: Oxford University Press, 2008.

    Logevall, Fredrik. "Choosing War." McMahon, Robert J. Major Problems in the History of the Vietnam War. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2008. 183-196.

    "Recording of Telephone Conversation between Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Russell." 27 May 1964.

    The Heritage Foundation. Data 360 U.S. Troop Deployment. 6 October 2006. 5 September 2012.

    U.S. Department of State. "The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution." McMahon, Robert J. Major Problems in the History of the Vietnam War. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2008. 161-162.

    United States Department of Defense. "Origins of the Insurgency in South Vietnam, 1954-1960." Pentagon Papers 1971: 242-269


    Inkie Pie

    So, did you enjoy Inkie Pie's article in the last Helios about the great class struggle here on TWC? Did you find it to be funny? Well, guess what! Inkie Pie's second article for this illustrious publication is neither about TWC or funny. This time Inkie Pie has written for us a very well-researched and comprehensive study on the French Revolutionary Army. I must say that I do not know enough about it and since I'm a big military history buff, I'm all over this. So, join me in soaking up all of the information Inkie Pie has graciously provided us through much time and effort.


    From Culottes to Cocardes: The French Army 1789-1794

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    From Culottes to Cocardes: The French Army 1789-1794



    Introduction


    The impact of the French Revolutionary army upon Europe is irrefutable, from its military victories and conquests to its permanent transformation of warfare, and yet there are a wide variety of images presented of the soldiers that comprised it, from an almost mythical status as models of virtue and civic duty, to the diabolical one of ignominious perpetrators of the worst excesses of revolution and war. Here I wish to introduce the army and its changes between the absolute monarchy, the constitutional phase, and the national convention, between finely outfitted royal troops and the heterogeneous mass of national volunteers. In particular I'll be looking at the methods of recruitment and the changes brought with each new wave of soldiers upon the army, changes in conceptualisation and doctrine, efficiency and character.

    In the eyes of some, the Revolutionary Wars only set the stage for the Napoleonics, which purportedly did much more to alter the landscape of Europe and introduce unto it the modern age and total war. In the case of this forum, despite the admirable work of a few modding teams, the 1790's have made only fleeting appearances in the TW series, and I mean to use the French Army as a platform to illuminate some of the period's unique sentiments, events, characteristics, ideas and values, all of which were embroiled in constant, frenzied transformation – more so by far than during either
    Ancien Régime or Empire.



    The Royal Army

    In the earliest days of the Revolutionary period, the army became an easy target for the derision of those who were seen as the vanguard of change. A climate of idealism reigned, and prominent politicians such as Camille Desmoulins decried the very existence of the old army, composed as he put it of "mercenaries" and a militia component drafted randomly from the population – or at least randomly among those who lacked the coin sufficient to make themselves exceptions to the rule. Indeed, there was a contemporary view that the army was essentially a tool of the king to repress the people, consisting of foreign troops and men from the lowest echelons of society who could not find themselves work anywhere else. Although this was fairly true of many armies throughout the 18th century, as a result of the French reforms initiated after the disastrous Seven Years War (during which there were an estimated 50,000 desertions) the number of non-French soldiers was greatly reduced. Also, efforts had been made to improve the moral standard of those recruited, and a gradual trend of being drawn closer to society occurred – these were traits that ineluctably made it a force more susceptible to revolutionary sentiment.


    Recruitment into the Royal Army was a highly formalized process, seen to by regimental proprietors (all noblemen, a vestige of the feudal system) and their selected recruiting sergeants. Tall soldiers were most coveted, not only for obvious reasons but also because the particularly long French rifle in service since '77 (and well into the Empire) needed larger men to be wielded effectively. Their physique was noted in detail in order to render desertion more difficult, their teeth were checked (men without teeth couldn't rip cartridges open in order to reload) and known troublemakers or ex-soldiers from other regiments were rejected: It was seen as essential that discipline was kept in the ranks of recruits, and due to this reason fresher, more malleable ones were preferable to ex-soldiers who may spread a bad influence. Soldiers were given nicknames according to their position in line, such as Fanfan, Fleur d'Epine or Vive l'Amour. As for the militia, drafting was used more out of perceived necessity rather than as a constant standard, but it was still widespread and intensely unpopular, particularly among poorer, more rural populations, who often suffered most from it. Reformers like Carnot felt that this was the cause of such widespread desertion, especially seeing as such “conscripts” were often attached to the regular army during campaigns when manpower was found lacking...

    The officer class was almost exclusively aristocratic at this time, and advancement by merit alone – which had been seen to small degrees in preceding times – had been severely curtailed: The establishment had reacted against the failures of the Seven Years War by blaming them upon perceived weaknesses in the officer corps, due to (mostly imagined) ranks being sold to dubious nobility and commoners “like meat at a butchers”, according to the Count of Torcy. The higher officer ranks were therefore subjected to a feud among nobles: The “senior nobility” against the “younger” or freshly ennobled. The former accused the latter of owing their rank purely to the nefarious influence of money and self-advancing intrigue, as well as not caring about codes of honour and the treatment of their men. The latter felt that the “senior” nobles owed their titles to lineage rather than true merit and talent – a feeling echoed by commoners in the army who found themselves prohibited of access beyond sub-officer ranks, except they felt this way about the nobility as a whole rather than a single portion of it.

    Preceding the revolution, some regiments – in particular those stationed in Paris – had become more familiar with the population: In the capital, most of the royal soldiery was issued from the city's people, worked with them occasionally in civilian occupations (a practice more common in earlier times but still frequent in 1789) or even married Parisian women. Patriotism had spread throughout the ranks preceding the fall of the Bastille, thanks to pamphlets and huge numbers of other writings issued widely. For this reason, the Gardes Françaises, the most prestigious combat unit in the army and the backbone of the Maison du Roi went from obediently repressing a hunger strike in April '89 to openly and wholeheartedly joining the attack upon the Bastille three months later – such was the pace of the patriotic outburst, from which much of the Royal Army was not spared. Louis XVI responded to events by ordering 17,000 provincial troops to converge on the capital and restore order. This backfired: There were not enough barracks in the capital to harbour such an influx of troops, and the new arrivals were inevitably brought to mingle with the tumultuous Parisians. Once again, patriotic sentiment spread like wildfire among the ranks, and in many cases soldiers refused to fire upon civilians. Almost 10% of these troops deserted, some joining the newly formed National Guard, while mutinies erupted among remaining regiments.

    However, in no way does this mean that the Army simply went rogue as a whole. Whereas some companies would refuse to fire on mobs, others obeyed unquestioningly, particularly the foreign units and those who spoke different French dialects (such as Alsatians) thus isolating them. In the first days of the revolution, it was a regular occurrence for troops to simply follow their officers. Here, after revolutionary pressures led to worrisome escalation, the feud between “young” and “old” nobility became one of nobility against commoners – yet by no means were factions clear-cut along class lines: When the Royal Army split into royalist and revolutionary groups between 1790 and 92, there were large amounts of members from both classes on each side. Indiscipline became rife, and between revolutionaries some soldiers preferred to compromise with the aristocracy while others refused. After the Fuite de Varennes distrust for the whitecoats and fears of a royalist conspiracy grew, yet even at this time men were joining its ranks – a large amount of patriots preferred the prospect of service in this army to joining the (nominally) blue-coated volunteer battalions.

    The Royal Army essentially became a battle-ground between Sans Culottes, Jacobins and Royalists, as early as 1790. Individuals atomized into camps, and there was mistrust between various battalions, regiments, and even branches of the army: Members of the Royal-Vaisseaux and Couronne-Infanterie regiments provoked others from the “pro-aristocrat” Normandie-Chasseurs into a duel, which quickly turned into a ranged firefight lasting several days. Despite the emigration of many nobles, aristocratic ties were still strong within the Royal Army, with the cavalry branch in particular being often composed of members with “proto-feudal” bonds to their lords: This, as well as their traditional elite status, made cavalry regiments more prone to conservatism. The artillery and engineer corps' were seen as “bourgeois” by the radical sans-culottes, and often there was intense rivalry between the Royal Army and the National Volunteers – despite both being mostly composed of patriots. During the terror, the army as a whole was firmly brought into the hands of the Montagnard Jacobins, the difference between it and the older volunteer battalions diminishing. After the events of the Thermidorian Reaction, the army became the political pillar of the generals, eventually permitting Napoleon's coup.

    Reforms and a spirit of change within the army


    Lazare Carnot, the most prominent military organizer of the republic.

    When the revolution started, conflict amongst different segments of the nobility over control of the army came to a halt: Many quickly hopped onto the revolutionary bandwagon in an attempt to manipulate commoner passions and coerce much-needed reforms out of the king. Before 1789 there was an active debate among military circles as to which military doctrine should be adopted by the French army. Lazare Carnot – who later organized the levée en masse and shaped the army which would transform warfare forever – published in 1784 L'Eloge de Vauban, a conservative work which placed him in some ways behind modernist trends in military Europe: Along with many members of the engineer corps (la génie) he favoured the development of defensive warfare over mobility, and the idea of rendering France an impregnable bastion by continuing to develop defence-networks and Vauban's famous star-forts on its borders. He also put forward ideas of reducing the term of soldiers from the 8 years they had to serve at the time, albeit with greater intensity of training - two thirds of the 300,000 regulars France could field would be demobilized yet trained reservists prepared to defend the nation at a moment's notice. These proposals were never adopted, but compared to 18th century standards of men enlisting for life, to be used most often to serve dynastic interests, if implemented they would have formed an interesting middle-ground between old regime armies and those of the early revolutionary phase. Carnot was basing himself here on the militia armies of antiquity, in republican Rome and ancient Greece, analogies which would be repeated many times throughout the revolutionary period by theorists and reformers.

    Most officers attempted to instill draconian “Prussian-style” among the rank-and-file in order to render it a more efficient fighting machine on par with that of its neighbours, although this was met with widespread complaints from the soldiery wherever it was attempted. The main purpose of this reformist tendency was because the nation as a whole felt a strong desire to restore its honour after the humiliating defeat at Rossbach, and there was a will among all classes to avenge the defeat to Frederick's army. Many high-ranking officers saw the adoption of “modern” Prussian method as the best way to achieve this, the famous reformist Guibert foremost among them, speaking of a new style of warfare based on manoeuvre and increased aggression, making his writings something of a stepping-stone towards modern or total war. Both Guibert and Carnot were eager to increase militarism and patriotic fervour, seeing in it an inestimable and untapped source of strength for a state. While Guibert's methods would be via propaganda and other top-down strategies, Carnot was more inspired: parishes would each send one man per year (theoretically their most able man) three times, and family fathers would no longer be granted exemptions, in order to increase patriotic sentiment within the army and attachment to the nation – Carnot was once again basing his plans on notions of civic virtue perceived in the militias of ancient civilisations.

    Idealism and Crisis – One world collapses, another is born.

    The National Guard

    As immediately as July 1789, at the onset of revolution, a corps formed composed of men as worried by the excesses of the poor as by aristocratic and royalist agendas. Conservatively inclined from its outset, it was placed under the command of La Fayette. At first, entry was only allowed to “active” citizens, ie. those who had enough money to be able to make donations to the state. However, in order to bolster manpower recruitment became more permissive, allowing “passive” citizens who were known for their respect of property to become guardsmen.

    The National Volunteers of 1791

    However, the National Guard was from its inception a militia intended for internal use. As a need of more men to man the frontiers was felt and mistrust for the regular army grew, a call for volunteers both from within and without the Guard of each département was made by the National Assembly, who did their utmost to instill the population with patriotic ardour. In the church squares of each municipality, mayors asked for volunteers to step forward from the people. Responsiveness varied according to the choices of those who were looked up to or who held charismatic dominance in each community: A certain Pouget, who would later become a baron in Napoleon's empire, recalled the youth of his hometown refusing until he did, despite their impetuousness. Unlike in the Royal Army, physical constitution mattered little for the volunteers, who were also generally younger.

    The call to arms of 1791 meant that by Autumn France had 100 000 volunteers standing parallel to the king's army, 170 000 strong. An attempt was made to complement the severe paucity of available skilled officers by drawing them from the National Guard or old ones from the Royal Army, in the hopes of increasing battlefield reliability. The volunteers of 1791 were – as their name suggests – highly enthusiastic, with some soldiers renaming themselves “Freedom”, “Equality”, “Brutus” (again drawing inspiration from antiquity) and “La Fayette”, although the latter was quickly abandoned after the general's betrayal. This phenomenon is an interesting facet of both the continuity and change within the revolutionary army, considering – as discussed above – that nicknaming was practiced in the army of the Ancien Régime, but the fact that these soldiers were giving themselves their own titles rather than being arbitrarily assigned them by another form of authority, is telling of the nature of the times.

    The National Volunteers of 1792


    The Volunteers of '91 were, however, insufficient in number to prepare France for coming war. Fears of counter-revolutionary forces, namely the paper tiger of émigré armies abroad and the increasing – but much exaggerated in France – concern of the rulers of Prussia and Austria, led to increased sentiments of threat, paranoia and necessity. Enthusiasm among recruits varied – generally higher in cities – but the declaration of war and eventually the abolition of the monarchy led to an increase of “patriotic intoxication” and a spirit of “vaincre ou mourir” (vanquish or die) among soldiers. Still, there was an undeniable difficulty of finding men: Many had civilian duties that precluded their enlistment as volunteers, such as farmers keeping their crops from dying, and needing to provide for or protect their family.

    The wider reach of the 1792 recruitment drives meant that these volunteers were often poorer, and often not inclined to see their service as permanent: Indiscipline was high among a force that saw itself as a Greek-style citizen militia, formed up to defend the polis and disband immediately afterwards. After Valmy and Jemappes, many soldiers deserted, feeling that they had done what was required of them. Even upon enlisting, many assumed false-identities in order to facilitate planned desertion (as they were volunteers and “free men”, they believed this was well within their rights) or refused to accept items of clothing from the army in order to not feel indebted to it. The volunteers of 1792 were looked down upon by the “better patriots” of 1791, and would in turn look down upon the proto-conscripts of 1793, but it is a feature of the French Army throughout the republic that it contained as many fanatics as it did recalcitrants, and the number of the former group was not always synonymous with – or even productive to – military performance.

    The National Volunteers of 1793 and the Levée en Masse

    As the list of France's enemies grew at the formation of the First Coalition, the size of the French army was shrinking: As mentioned above, many volunteers were deserting wherever they could. The Convention called for 300 000 additional soldiers. At the behest of Carnot, this would be distributed among the départements according to population, and in function of the amount of recruits already furnished. In some municipalities, the people actually ended up arguing about whom among them was most eligible for service, all stating reasons why they were needed at home.

    Rather depressingly, many cases similar to those of the Ancien Régime were witnessed in France during these times: Often recruitment ended up as names being drawn from a hat, in a fashion no different from recruitment into the old Milice Royale, and more gruesome yet was the proliferation of evasion among wealthier circles through purchasing others to serve for them: Gruesome, because it enabled an entire market of human trafficking to thrive throughout the country. Married men who volunteered in '91and '92 asked permission to return to their homes, while in some regions, such as the Vendée, requisitions of soldiers created tumult or catastrophically exacerbated already existing tensions. In many municipalities people voted to determine which people would serve. Ironically, in the less republican areas this practice was also used: The often counter-revolutionary majority would elect all of the most fervently republican and send them off to the army, thus consolidating their control of the land.

    Worst of all, by the end of spring, only 150,000 men had been recruited. This first levy 'failed' because of the lack of fuel in the form of imminent threat. Recruits sold the clothes and weapons they were issued with, and the practice of buying replacements expanded, thus diminishing the quality and spirits of recruits. Enter the crisis of summer 1793, to all seeming like the death knell of the republic: Defeats in the north and the betrayal of Dumouriez, invasion by the Piedmontese and Spaniards, along with royalist and counter-revolutionary uprisings throughout the country, from Normandy to Corsica, passing Toulon which was now filled with British and Spanish troops. Much more stringent measures needed to be implemented if the republic was to be saved, and with the granting of supreme power to the Montagnard Convention in Paris by the revolutionary masses of sans culottes, such measures were within the grasp of the government.



    With this form of nation-encompassing requisition of manpower, there could be no more exemptions or careful selection of candidates: The entire population would be geared towards victory, as Carnot's famous speech made undeniably clear. Manpower wasn't the only issue here: The more successful recruitment was, the more problematic equipment and supplies became. Additionally, loyalty under the form of a totalitarian, ideological monolith had to be imposed upon the army. The power of the generals was curtailed and they were brought under the close supervision of the Committee of Public Safety, which left no space for tolerance of hesitation or, god forbid, defeatism. This was less of a problem among the “lower”echelon s of society, where the threat to the people's new way of life manifested itself even more pressingly than during the autumn of 1792.

    Although the methods sometimes varied depending on choices of local authorities, the process was usually simple: Requisitioned men were brought forth and registered, before assembling in the town square where they would sometimes elect their leaders. Recruitment was even more rapid in the threatened areas close to frontiers or plagued by insurgency and counter-revolutionary insurrection. There was often a long period following this during which it was decided by the organs of government where the troop would be sent – this could take several months. The problems encountered during the levée were not new: First, considering that the target of requisition was males aged 18-25, individuals from this group – often fervent republicans – demanded “Tout ou rien” ie. “all or nothing”, in that they wanted recruitment to be for all, and egalitarian in enforcement.

    The second issue was the same one that made volunteer levies unpopular in the countryside: While townsmen had little to worry about when they left their work, farms and livestock would fall to ruin if left untended to. There were myriad other cases in which local government was forced to turn a blind eye to the implications of the levée en masse and permit exceptions, particularly where the citizen's line of work was essential to supporting the Revolutionary war-machine and stability at home. As such, one would see bakers, blacksmiths and even comedians remaining in their towns – the latter because for the revolutionary government at this stage, which did not yet possess a truly reformed educational system, comedians were seen as the closest thing to civilian morale-boosters capable of keeping spirits animated and patriotic. In areas with low levels of literacy, those who knew how to write were often kept for administrative purposes. As ever, the wealthy often found ways to safeguard their sons from requisitioning, many would-be recruits feigned permanent illness, and seeing as married men were exempt, in some towns youths practically raced to marry free women, often having to become husbands to women much older than them in the process...

    The response of the Convention to these swine was to form colonnes mobiles of soldiers from a variety of armed branches who patrolled the countryside, ensuring that supplies of men, food and other materials were sent in a continuous flow to wherever they were needed. The re-organization of society along lines defined by the Jacobins ensured that almost all aspects of it praised unyielding duty to the nation, encouraged men to do their utmost to make sacrifices for the patrie, and condemned those who hesitated or refused. The personal embodiment of this new order were the agents representing the government, dispatched not only to the army but also across the country to persuade and invigorate, acting as a carrot to the stick of the colonnes mobiles. Overall, despite all of its setbacks and not quite meeting the expectations of those who ordained it, the levée en masse was successful, mobilizing a total of one million men to defend, and when “necessary” expand the Revolution and bring it to the doorstep of kings.

    The Naked Army: Character and Traits.

    Uniform



    The Revolutionary Army was, for much of its existence, a mess. Appearance was the most obvious testament to this: A single uniform was never brought to the ranks of sans culottes, indeed the image of serried ranks of patriots all clad in blue, white and red colours and bicorns is an unrealistic one. Wealthier recruits dressed in the bourgeois fashion of the National Guard (including wigs), others in simple civilian clothes as if they had just left the workplace, and many remained in the white uniforms of the king's army throughout the period. In terms of headwear, some wore tarleton helmets, others bicorns, tricorns, or peasant bonnets. In some of the rougher theatres, such as the Alps, soldiers were reduced to wearing animal coats and other primitive, improvised garments. Wherever they could, soldiers purchased more suitable clothing of any and all colours in towns they passed through or garrisoned, or clad themselves in whatever was immediately available to hand – these trends only furthered heterogeneity in the appearance of soldiers of the revolution. Considering that often they used weapons salvaged from defeated enemies, went without shoes, and had to scavenge whatever they could for winter clothing, the sole unifying factor among them was the revolutionary tricolour cocarde worn by all.

    Every single aspect of the new army, however, was debated at length within the assembly. For headwear, tricorns were unpopular because they protected poorly against rain, could get in the way during battle due to lack of formal drill among soldiers wearing them, and were paltry protection against sword blows. Helmets were deemed too expensive, and soldiers found them far too heavy, often discarding them when they found something else. Bicorns, although not without their flaws and often unpopular also, were accepted as standard by the Convention; and yet as was shown many times throughout the period, what was decided in a top-down manner was frequently either ignored by the “beneficiaries” and recipients, or too difficult to achieve. As discussed above, uniformity in terms of headgear was never attained by the Revolutionary government.

    Leadership


    Equipment, clothing and other logistical concerns were far from the only issue facing the early Revolutionary army. One of the most disastrous was the emigration of two thirds of the almost exclusively aristocratic officer corps between '89 and '91, which therefore shrank from 9,000 to 3,000. The flaws of the short-lived constitutional monarchy were apparent in military matters, particularly regarding the highest ranks: The king was uncooperative and abused his right to appoint generals, by creating as many as possible and ensuring that none had any strong desire to further the revolution or even defend the country from invaders. Carnot brought this to evidence in early 1792, by exposing the rather dismal result of the three newest generals appointed by the king: One had immediately gone on leave, another had employed himself in a region without any soldiers (by happenstance also his home) and the third departed to join the émigrés in Coblentz! The three "top" generals, La Fayette, Rochambeau and Lückner, were unable to organize the army into an efficient fighting force, and after La Fayette's defection, mistrust of these noblemen started to increase: Rochambeau only narrowly escaped the guillotine during The Terror, while Lückner did not. The problem of obtaining both experienced and trustworthy officers in large numbers lasted well into the republic: The radical Enragés faction wished to remove all noblemen and their supporters from the army, and many – especially after the ominous cases of La Fayette and Dumouriez – mistrusted all generals, particularly the more skilled and charismatic ones. The Jacobin response to the issue was more pragmatic than could be expected from the orchestrators of The Terror. A substantial number of skilled nobles were kept in the army, yet talented commoners were coveted to fill as many remaining positions as possible, and a careful watch was kept upon upper officers: Sometimes their families were practically held hostage in case of problems.

    Doctrine

    With a mass of fresh, wholly inexperienced soldiers created from nothing and formed into their volunteer battalions, the Convention had to decide how to use them. These units were want of training, discipline and skilled leadership, yet harnessing their potential “moral force” was a task reformers like Carnot set themselves, as war loomed on the horizon. One of the doctrinal dimensions of debate was the dichotomy between animated patriotism and passive obedience conceived of by strategists. Some idealists believed that the former was only natural to a revolutionary force composed of citizens, while the latter was suited to the mercenary armies of kings, turned into automatons and lacking all forms of vigour. More conservative theorists envisaged implementation of the “passive obedience” style upon the army. 'Why not?' so they claimed: After all, the force of the citizen armies of Rome lay not only in their political freedom, but in their rigorous discipline, the true source of their successes. While Feulint Carnot was one of those who went so far as to support the idea of elected officers, his more clairvoyant brother disagreed with both methods: Relying on zeal and fervour alone at the expense of discipline ruined armies, while turning to passive obedience gave too much power to the dubious officer corps.

    As in many cases, disaster was the catalyst for change. The first offensives launched against the Austrian Low-Countries were failures beyond ignominy. Units of the allegedly fervent National Volunteers dispersed at the first sight of Austrian professionals, and officers failed to lead their men or maintain order. This was not only true of the infantry – at Mons companies of dragoons disobeyed their orders and fled the field. General Dillon attempted to lead a counter-attack, but his men were easily routed at Baisieux, and in Lille they slaughtered him. This happened to several other higher officers. Desertions were rife. Austrian officers mockingly replaced the revolutionary slogan “vaincre ou mourir” with “ne pas vaincre mais courir”. As a consequence of such events, the supporters of “passive obedience” took the lead.

    And yet, while it was realized that respect for authority is fundamental to the functioning of an army, discipline once again surfaced as a problem: Stopping men from deserting and getting them to follow orders was one thing, but enhancing the efficiency of their fighting style was another. National Volunteers were often unable to maintain line formation during marches and manoeuvres under fire, reloaded and shot poorly, and were notorious for their treatment of civilian populations. Neerwinden and even Jemappes showed that volunteer forces were inferior to coalition regulars in firefights, with the latter relying heavily on numerical superiority in order to overcome their opponents. Considering these weaknesses and the lack of muskets, many of the most prominent reformers – with Lazare Carnot at the forefront – decided that muskets were the tool of kings: It would suit the revolutionary, untrained and aggressive nature of the French army to adopt pikes, symbol of the sans culottes! He proposed that “France must fill itself with pikes”, and two million of them at that. Although this motion made him a venerated figure among the Parisian mob, it was poorly received elsewhere. Actual soldiers refused to accept the pikes they were offered, or discarded them. Coast guards receiving a batch of them sent a letter to Paris, asking if they were being made fun of. The pike never reached the battlefield.

    Despite this, there were serious studies of the inherent character of the French army, its traits which were allegedly not new and, in lieu of originating from the revolution, were actually a constant throughout French history. Recalling elements of the debate during the late Ancien Régime, this topic was not new either. It was the years of reform after the Seven Years War which brought it into the spotlight – was it really advantageous to slavishly adopt Prussian methods seen by some as universal and modern? Or was it better to believe in military styles fitting each state according to their own “national character”? Many French military theorists and officers believed that the French soldier was naturally ill-suited to British or Dutch fire-fighting and the strict precision drill of the manoeuvrable Germans, yet that his élan and penchant for assault compensated for these inferiorities. Proponents of this argument, opponents of Guibert's reforms, were often found in the engineering corps, which felt its existence threatened by the recent emphasis on manoeuvre and decisive battles rather than sieges, and during the 1780's, when he belonged to the corps and published L'Eloge de Vauban, Carnot was among these. And yet, he was one of those who contributed most to the adoption of “modern” warfare during the 90's, based on mass, aggression and annihilation of the foe which would characterize both republican and Napoleonic-imperial French troops. For Carnot, this theory was made evident by his own experience at Wattignies - where a huge assault from the French side crushed the Austrian defence - and further vindicated by decisive superior concentration of troops effectuated at Tourcoing and Fleurus.


    It is rather telling of the nature of the early Revolutionary army that one of its most prized victories was won over an enemy outnumbered three to one and fielding half as many guns as they did...


    The army at work: Status, practice and evolution

    Carnot soon instituted the long-awaited amalgamation of line soldiery and national volunteers – rivalries between the two had been erased by the trials of combat and doctrinal uniformity. For every one battalion of regulars, there would be two of national “volunteers”. Also, efforts were made to compensate for the paucity of recruits into the cavalry and artillery branches: Although the former would remain a weakness in the French Army throughout the republic, the formation of the Ecole de Mars gunnery academy and the addition of two companies of gunners to each infantry battalion improved the latter, while the Gribeauval-system guns in service remained sufficient throughout the period. Still, leadership and discipline remained the inevitable, awkward obstruction to progress. For the former, I have already stressed the perceived fear of charismatic and talented generals deciding to play Caesar – La Fayette tried this and failed, but it was one of the great concerns of the civilian leadership in Paris, in addition obviously to lack of skill amongst the haphazard officer corps. For the latter, the capacity of Revolutionary armies to pillage a countryside brought to Europe scenes not witnessed since the Thirty Years War. Often in Germany, the Low Countries and Italy, troops would ransack towns that did not cooperate or resisted, and in cases did so without provocation at all. The sack of Veurne in May 1793 is an example both of ill-fated resistance and lack of discipline: Troops had their way with the population, stripping the city of every object of value and intoxicating themselves, before celebrating their victory raucously in the streets. When the army set out towards Nieuport, at the first encounter with Dutch outposts it was revealed that the men had no ammunition: They had fired all of it into the air during the victorious celebrating at Veurne! The “attacking” force was thrown into disarray and the entire 1st division of the Army of the North was obliged to return humiliatingly to Veurne.



    Another facet of change was in terms of the way the army conceived of itself. During the summer and Autumn of 1793 the power of the sans-culottes was at its height – political clubs (usually radical and proto-socialist) formed within the army and the enrag és,rejecting all aristocratic influence, had widespread support. The army became political, became déliberante and emerged as a political force seen as legitimate by many. Unlike with the aristocrats it thus emerged as even more serious a potential threat to the Montagnard Convention. Patriot-soldiers covered for one another and units often used mutinies and other forms of muscle in order to gain amnesty for comrades deemed to have been unfairly punished, in many cases with close support from civilians. One of the earliest, more clear-cut cases of elements within the army acting independently and democratically was the imprisonment and extortion in 1790 of aristocratic officers by soldiers from three regiments, of which two were cavalry and one both Swiss and cavalry – an episode dubbed the Nancy Affair, after the location of its occurrence. "Order" was restored by the monarchist Marquis de Bouillé, who had the ringleaders hanged (with one broken on the wheel) and forty others thrown into jail. Despite the crushing of the mutineers, it was also a victory for the sans-culottes: Those in prison were soon released at the strong pressure of patriot-soldiers and revolutionary mobs. It was but one of many cases where soldiers were beginning to reject all forms of authority, including rank, and the right of civilian administration to wield the army as a tool. They mimicked democratic processes adopted across the country by forming internal assemblies in which all were ostensibly equal, and nominated a committee which could be shaped and opposed at will by the voters.

    Marxist analysts are not incorrect in assuming there was more at play here than the efficiency and loyalty of the army – Robespierre and the Montagnard Convention were bourgeois, and would not accommodate the pursuit of revolution all the way to anarchy and seizure of non-aristocratic and non-clerical property. In contrast to the suicidal policy that would eventually lead to the downfall of the Montagnard Convention, the Jacobins orchestrated the reduction of sans-culotte influence in the army skilfully, by manipulating popular energies to suit their requirements and dilute the potential threat, rather than attempting to oppose it directly and forcefully. The most radical pamphlets circulating were replaced with Jacobin ones. Everywhere missionary agents of the convention worked with soldiers on a day to day basis, not only raising their spirits (often on the battlefield itself) but making sure to instill flawless loyalty among the soldiers to the state, and instructing them that virtue must be made with reason and respect for just laws. Many of the more charismatic figures like Saint-Just became heroes within the army, and endlessly defended it, attempting to present it as a supremely moral institution when composed of citizen-soldiers and serving a free nation. Discipline was rigorously enforced by these representatives, and if he wished to debate politics the soldier now had to conduct himself to civilian clubs in towns, all Jacobin. Some freedoms were judiciously preserved, such as the rights of soldiers against abuses of authority, and the ability to elect internal administrative councils - these dealt with a mixture of financial, logistical and juridical responsibilities. However, the shift of power was evident in that these rights, as well as duties, were defined and imposed from above by government, rather than by the soldiers themselves.

    The generals themselves were subjected to the closest surveillance and harshest punishments for failure, failure not defined in strictly military terms, but more according to the arbitrary deductions and sentiment of political men in Paris and their commissars in the army. General Houchard launched an incompetent assault on the allied positions around Dunkirk, nonetheless obtaining a victory, but instead of following up his success remained in position enjoying his success until reality struck when the Duke of York regrouped and returned in force. The public and Convention alike were incensed and Houchard was guillotined. Failure to achieve a decisive result and take advantage of victory were reasons for this, but most fatal was their link with the worst crimes in the eyes of the Montagnard Convention: Languidness, indolence, cowardice, defeatism, betrayal. Hoche escaped Houchard's fate after his unlikely defeat at Kaiserslautern by keeping high spirits and defending himself based on the level of his efforts and his unyielding devotion rather than actual events, thus placating the hawkish Committee of Public Safety. The Jacobin reorganization made it clear that the republican general had to attack constantly, never back down, and remain – along with his men – totally subjected to the state and the nation, both represented as it were by a totalitarian government. In some ways the republican army was pushed head first into new warfare, rather than adopting it by choice.

    Conclusion

    The Revolutionary period appears in 18th century history as an exciting whirlpool of escalating radicalism, royalist conspiracies, Jacobin Terror, military coups and total war. Its heyday was the hot summer of 1793, which saw a height of imminent threat as the enemies of the revolution closed in around it, as patriotic fervour and the power of the people were at their highest. The energy and intensity of the people, the state, and the military were all one during this phase, and the army in particular was unique in many of its forms and colours, from professional white-coats rubbing shoulders with a rabble of volunteers during the constitutional monarchy, to soldiers electing their leaders and participating in civilian politics, to the dogmatism of the Jacobin leadership and its ideological impetus finalizing the process of turning sans-culottes into the “armed missionaries” Robespierre cast a doubtful eye upon. But none of it was to last – the revolution consumed itself in an effusion of blood and finally suffocated in the lukewarm authoritarian rule of the Directory. The animated Convention was allowed to be removed by a population tired of its excesses, and thus the chain broke, with the soldiers themselves taking a secondary role to the one man who brought them victories, in lieu of the plurality of emergent characters who had led them on what many of them believed to be a mission to liberate Europe, and destroy all “tyrants” in their thrones.

    Sources:

    • Lazare Carnot, Jean + Nicolas Dhombres.
    • Des Soldats de la Révolution 1789-1799 Jean-Paul Bertaud.
    • The French Revolutionary Wars, 1787-1802, T.C.W Blanning.

    Credit to grouchy13 for providing me with the glorious Chant de l'Oignon.


    Read more in the next post!
    Last edited by Lord Rahl; September 21, 2012 at 11:47 PM.

    Patron of: Ó Cathasaigh, Major. Stupidity, Kscott, Major König, Nationalist_Cause, Kleos, Rush Limbaugh, General_Curtis_LeMay, and NIKO_TWOW.RU | Patronized by: MadBurgerMaker
    Opifex, Civitate, ex-CdeC, Ex-Urbanis Legio, Ex-Quaestor, Ex-Helios Editor, Sig God, Skin Creator & Badge Forger
    I may be back... | @BeardedRiker

  2. #2
    Lord Rahl's Avatar Behold the Beard
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The stars at night are big and bright!
    Posts
    13,779

    Default Re: Helios 65 - Back in the Saddle

    Lord Rahl

    For this edition of The Helios, I'm getting a little more serious. To put it simply, I've heard enough about the (US) election and I just couldn't take it anymore, so I had to write about how I feel about it all. You'll read a little mini-political biography at the beginning and then I dive right into the political mudpit (see what I did there?). I'll not write a mini-rant here. If you want to know how I feel about it all then just move your cursor over to the spoiler button and click. There ya go...


    Rahl's Rants: On Politics

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Rahl’s Rants: On Politics


    The American election season is getting more and more heated – I guess that would make it the summer? – with the actual election being in the near future. Political ads are all over the TV, people are talking about and “liking” things political on Facebook, and now the big party conventions are making their pitches of why they are the answer for America. This occurs in the United States, if you did not know, every four years at the end of every presidential term. So, about every four years the American nation, and to some degree the world audience, gets into a politically-charged frenzy, eagerly awaiting the next political scandal, controversial statement, stirring speech, or power play. No doubt many of us have involved ourselves in this election cycle’s hysteria on TWC and elsewhere, fueling the beast that is politics, and its oft forgotten motivator: power.

    In some ways, I could say that my feelings about politics in the real world are much like my feelings about the politics that were played early on in TWC’s history - which you can research on your own time through our handy Wiki and by perusing through the CVRIA – in that I first was very interested in it but after awhile became indifferent, looking at it from the outside and trying not to be involved. From disinterest and distanced observation came frustrated but minimal involvement and a wish for something new, both from the politicians and the people. If you wish to know about any involvement I had in TWC politics then don’t bother. I don’t remember most of it and tried to stay out of it. In real life, I grew up in what most would say is a stereotypical Texan family. Both of my parents are Methodist (I’m named after the founder of Methodism), my father is in the petroleum business, and we, as in my siblings and I, were raised on conservative (and Christian) beliefs, as were my parents before me. I never even cared about politics at all when I was a kid. Sure, you could say I was conservative or Christian but I honestly didn’t really care about either attribute. I was too busy playing with action figures and doing whatever weird and deviant things kids do. However, once I moved to Canada, my non-political life changed.

    If you’re an American and you move to Canada, you soon notice that Canadians have a lot of interest in the United States and will let you know about it. Me being a young kid from Texas, I hadn’t given a second’s thought to Canada at all, except for maybe I knew that the movie Cool Runnings is based in Calgary – and that’s where we moved to, so I was very surprised at the attention I got for being an American once we moved to Calgary in 1999. I was also a bit taken back as well since most of the attention I received was negative. I kept being insulted and I had no idea why. It’s like young Canadians have some unfounded hatred for the United States. The only time I remember getting respect for being an American was when 9/11 happened, but that changed two years later with the invasion of Iraq. It was then when I was bombarded with political questions and more insults. So, where I was once a young kid who didn’t care about politics at all, I quickly became deeply involved in political debates as a high schooler. Looking back on that, I can only imagine how ill-informed, horribly-argued, and useless those debates/arguments were. But I had to stand up for my country and my beliefs, or at least what I thought were my beliefs. I had to react somehow and I chose to fight. This will sound contrary to what most people would think would happen, but living in Canada and having to constantly stand up for myself, at least politically (even though I didn’t know what I was talking about), actually made me more conservative.

    Then I went to college back in Texas in 2004 – and I apologize for this sort of mini-biography of myself. There I met even more people with different beliefs and that made for even more arguments. Some of my friends made me watch Bowling For Columbine (even though I had seen it before and actually think it’s a good documentary until the last third of it or so) and Fahrenheit 9/11. During my first semester of college I joined TWC and that expanded my political debate potential even more. If I look at some of the stuff I said in my first couple or few years here in the Mudpit, I roll my eyes. I look like the typical gung-ho, pro-Bush conservative (and Christian)! But my college and TWC experience was good for me as far as exposing me to other people, their beliefs, and helping me be critical of what I believed and why. It wasn’t until 2007 or 2008 before I started to truly be critical of myself. I’d say that I am still conservative, but I actually think for myself rather than spouting things that I’ve heard people say. Where before I was “conservative” for the hell of it and being ignorant of why I believed in it, now I can explain my beliefs and why I believe them. That is something I want more people to do. Far too many people stick to one political party or the other in the United States because that’s simply how they grew up, and that goes for most beliefs.

    In a recent discussion of politics with my parents, we were talking about Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan as his running mate. Basically any Republican will tell you that picking Ryan was an excellent choice, so I asked my parents why they thought he was a good choice. They both responded with, to paraphrase, “He is for limited government, balancing the budget, freedom of religion,” etc. That was the answer I was expecting and that is the answer that I guarantee you 99.99% of Republicans would give. The same would go for any other politician they like. But this widespread and never-failing phenomenon goes for Democrats (and most others) too. Why do Democrats like Obama? Because he’s for helping the common person, personal freedoms (like right to an abortion and same-sex marriage), and… I don’t know. The point is that most people have very simple, and I mean “simple” in a negative way, reasons why they like or do not like a politician, politicians, and/or a party. These reasons barely go beyond what has been said for as long as I’ve been paying at least minimal attention to politics.

    The Republican National Convention recently had its big show. Please allow me to go on a little tangent here…
    Clint Eastwood made a surprise and unusual unscripted appearance that had the internets all abuzz. One familiar theme was the disappointment with Eastwood for what he did and/or rebuking. I guarantee you if some other Hollywood icon appears at the Democratic National Convention, and no doubt that will happen, then it will be widely praised and “cool” among many circles, and those circles obviously being those that praised Eastwood’s RNC appearance. Let me get this straight, I by no means like the Republican party, but IT’S ****ING CLINT EASTWOOD. In my book he can do whatever the hell he wants.

    Did I watch the RNC? No way. Why? Because I know exactly what Romney and Ryan would say. I couldn’t watch a Republican debate past the second one beyond watching clips because I couldn’t stand them anymore. They, Republicans, say the same things that have been said for over a decade about the role of the government (i.e. spend less and tax less, religious freedom (i.e. Christian morals should exclusively be upheld in the United States), oil (i.e. drill more), terrorism (i.e. stop them, more homeland security, Iran has a nuke), etc. Why would I want to watch something when I already know what will be said? All it is is political rhetoric and it’s awful. It’s rehearsed, pandering, and worst of all… it works. Why do Republicans like Romney? Because he’s screwed up the least in his campaign and he says what the people want to hear. That’s all. There’s no indication that he’s smarter than any of the others. There’s no proof that what he says he’s going to do is going to work. His platform is barely different from any of the other candidates that he beat out for the Republican nomination for President. Ask anyone who likes Romney how he’s going to help the United States if he’s elected. They’ll most likely state the talking points that you know already and that I’ve already stated in this rant. But then ask why again and I highly doubt you’ll get any sort of well-informed or well thought out answer.

    This is because people go with what makes them feel good, and as long as Romney and Co. keep saying the right things then they could have a shot at beating Obama in the upcoming election. The same goes for Obama and Co. What frustrates me so damn much is that people accept such obvious pandering political rhetoric as genuine statements of caring and intellect. It’s not. The rhetoric that is spat out by our modern day politicians, and no doubt politicians since the beginning of time, is meant to be a temporary pleasing of the masses so the politician, politicians, and/or political party can be satisfied. That is, to gain or remain in power. I would consider myself a Libertarian if I had to choose a political party. Basically, stay out of my money and stay out of my life. Keep me safe and let me try to decide my own fate. Ron Paul is the de facto leader of libertarians. I find I either really like his ideas or think they’re borderline crazy, but at least he explains them. I can tell because of his ideas and the way he explains things that he is a very smart man, unlike most of the other candidates (including the winner, Mitt Romney) that have no new or innovative ideas and provide rhetorical explanations. I may disagree with some things that Paul says but at least he explains them to me. He’s a strict Constitutionalist and that leaves little room for changing policies, however, I find that even when I don’t like some things that he says, I cannot help but say that the points he makes are right.

    But I do not mean to prop up Ron Paul. As I said, there are some things I really like about him and some things I do not. The reason why I use him as an example is because he’s the only politician that was running for President that represented a different kind of politician and a potential difference in what the government of the United States could be. In my opinion, the two party system we have, and I do not mean to say that simply having two major parties is necessarily bad, discourages political honesty. Instead of genuinely wanting to help America, the parties are more concerned with gaining/staying in power. That is not to say that there are not people in either party that do not genuinely care want to help America, especially in this time of economic recession, but it is my belief that the parties are too used to being in power and as giant, dominant political entities they are more concerned with keeping the status quo rather than working for the better.

    Well, the status quo is not good for the United States. It seems that neither political party can’t help but be “big government”, despite their supposedly ideological differences. Republicans, it seems, need big government in order to stay in control of things even though they are supposed to represent limited government. And all the while, under the Obama administration big government is at its height. When Obama made his election success speech at night, and I guess I’m sounding like Clint Eastwood here, before thousands of smiling and crying supporters and he talked of fundamentally changing America, I wanted to believe him. I wasn’t sure exactly what he wanted to do but I agreed that America needed something to change with its government, a government that seemed more interested in getting more control and keeping it rather than helping the American people have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, once Obama’s administration came into power and began to implement its policies, I knew I did not want the fundamental change he was talking about. And now with the Republicans backing Romney and Ryan, I do not see things changing, at least significantly, for the better. They still represent the big government that I dislike but under a different name and look.

    I honestly hope that they can change America for the better if they are elected into office, but I severely doubt that will happen. I see in the near future of American politics the same back and forth power plays by the Democrat and Republican parties with the American people, those who the parties are supposed to represent, left to wait till the next election cycle to hope for someone better. But the American people can only blame themselves. They are the ones who have elected those who have steered us down the wrong path. Too many of us are swayed by the sexier candidate, the candidate that says what we want them to say instead of what we need to hear. Great leaders do not lead by rhetoric or flash. Great leaders inspire and educate.

    Robert Frost said in his oft-referenced poem “The Road Less Traveled”,

    Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—

    I took the one less traveled by,

    And that has made all the difference.

    I feel that is what the American people need to do. We’ve been going down the same path of government for so long and things have gotten worse. We’ve been down the same road over and over. It’s bumpy, there are pot holes, but we accept it because that’s what we know. It’s time that we look toward a new direction to build a different road that will get us where we want to go. After all, the United States was created to avoid the status quo. It was a new world with new opportunities with great possibilities. The nation’s growth, both in size and in culture, had its difficulties. New immigrants were always oppressed and discriminated, but they eventually became one in the same: E pluribus unum. We even had a war that tore the nation apart that ended slavery and even then the race war was not over. However, there is a reason why over a million people immigrate to the United States every year. That is because, despite our faults, the United States is still a land of hope for most people. I can only hope that that hope results in a fundamental change in how Americans view their government and its lust for self-empowerment. But I believe there is some hope. More and more Americans are not satisfied with the government and do not want to accept “voting for the lesser evil.” Perhaps in time those dissatisfied with the status quo will have a large enough voice to enact real change where the government is “of the people, by the people, for the people,” as our President Abraham Lincoln stated in his Gettysburg Address, instead of for itself.


    Once again, I thank my excellent team of writers for their continued hard work in making The Helios what it is, and your support as a receptive and interested readership.

    After reading this edition, now would be an excellent time to pay a visit to one of the other TWC publications, which can be done by clicking on either of the images below.



    Patron of: Ó Cathasaigh, Major. Stupidity, Kscott, Major König, Nationalist_Cause, Kleos, Rush Limbaugh, General_Curtis_LeMay, and NIKO_TWOW.RU | Patronized by: MadBurgerMaker
    Opifex, Civitate, ex-CdeC, Ex-Urbanis Legio, Ex-Quaestor, Ex-Helios Editor, Sig God, Skin Creator & Badge Forger
    I may be back... | @BeardedRiker

  3. #3
    grouchy13's Avatar TW Mercenary Veteranii
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    East Midlands, UK
    Posts
    2,280

    Default Re: Helios 65 - Back in the Saddle

    Loving it fella's especially the political articles and who can forget the Le chant de l'oignon! Who ever would have imagined that would ever grace a TWC publication + rep amazing article!

    Gonna have to up the ante for my next articles!
    Under the Patronage of the Venerable Jom Patron of the one true Shogun wealthmonger, Antipodean son IZob, Terrifying Sultan of the Blitz totalwar_legend & Warden of the Iron Throne Dux








  4. #4
    Legio's Avatar EMPRESS OF ALL THINGS
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Chlοëtopia
    Posts
    43,774

    Default Re: Helios 65 - Back in the Saddle

    Brilliant articles!

  5. #5
    Kjertesvein's Avatar Remember to smile
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Miðaldir
    Posts
    6,679
    Tournaments Joined
    1
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Helios 65 - Back in the Saddle

    It's the escape from reality. thanks.

    ~Wille
    Thorolf was thus armed. Then Thorolf became so furious that he cast his shield on his back, and, grasping his halberd with both hands, bounded forward dealing cut and thrust on either side. Men sprang away from him both ways, but he slew many. Thus he cleared the way forward to earl Hring's standard, and then nothing could stop him. He slew the man who bore the earl's standard, and cut down the standard-pole. After that he lunged with his halberd at the earl's breast, driving it right through mail and body, so that it came out at the shoulders; and he lifted him up on the halberd over his head, and planted the butt-end in the ground. There on the weapon the earl breathed out his life in sight of all, both friends and foes. [...] 53, Egil's Saga
    I must tell you here of some amusing tricks the Comte d'Eu played on us. I had made a sort of house for myself in which my knights and I used to eat, sitting so as to get the light from the door, which, as it happened, faced the Comte d'Eu's quarters. The count, who was a very ingenious fellow, had rigged up a miniature ballistic machine with which he could throw stones into my tent. He would watch us as we were having our meal, adjust his machine to suit the length of our table, and then let fly at us, breaking our pots and glasses.
    - The pranks played on the knight Jean de Joinville, 1249, 7th crusade.













    http://imgur.com/a/DMm19
    Quote Originally Posted by Finn View Post
    This is the only forum I visit with any sort of frequency and I'm glad it has provided a home for RTR since its own forum went down in 2007. Hopefully my donation along with others from TWC users will help get the site back to its speedy heyday, which will certainly aid us in our endeavor to produce a full conversion mod Rome2.

  6. #6
    Lord Rahl's Avatar Behold the Beard
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The stars at night are big and bright!
    Posts
    13,779

    Default Re: Helios 65 - Back in the Saddle

    Thanks for reading and commenting.

    Patron of: Ó Cathasaigh, Major. Stupidity, Kscott, Major König, Nationalist_Cause, Kleos, Rush Limbaugh, General_Curtis_LeMay, and NIKO_TWOW.RU | Patronized by: MadBurgerMaker
    Opifex, Civitate, ex-CdeC, Ex-Urbanis Legio, Ex-Quaestor, Ex-Helios Editor, Sig God, Skin Creator & Badge Forger
    I may be back... | @BeardedRiker

  7. #7
    Finlander's Avatar ★Absolutely Fin-bulous★
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    In the North
    Posts
    4,920

    Default Re: Helios 65 - Back in the Saddle

    Too seldom I have read the Helios full but this time I did and liked very much.

    Thanks for the very pleasant reading moment!


    • Son of MasterBigAb; • Father of St. PolycarpeKahvipannuRadboudMhaedrosGeMiNi][SaNDy
    FlinnUndyingNephalimKAM 2150
    Charerg








  8. #8

    Default Re: Helios 65 - Back in the Saddle

    Appreciating the comments, everyone

    Quote Originally Posted by grouchy13 View Post
    Loving it fella's especially the political articles and who can forget the Le chant de l'oignon! Who ever would have imagined that would ever grace a TWC publication + rep amazing article!

    Gonna have to up the ante for my next articles!
    Haha, thanks but don't fret - who would ever hope to dethrone the great grouchy as our resident history master?


    Under the patronage of the formidable and lovely Narf.

    Proud patron of Derpy Hooves, Audacia, Lordsith, Frodo45127 and Sir Adrian.

  9. #9
    iWarsaw's Avatar Semisalis
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Canada!
    Posts
    477
    Tournaments Joined
    1
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Helios 65 - Back in the Saddle

    Great reading. Lord Rahl, I live in Vancouver (born in Britsh Columbia) and it frustrates me to hear that people would give you a hard time for being American! I love Americans, and I loved your story. I laugh at Ron Paul. Good guy, but he is crazy! He'd make alright president. I also loved the Normal article. Makes me think of that old quote, "I AM A GOD WARRIOR!!!" Haha. Anywho those were really well done Articles. I never read these articles, maybe once or twice. I really should start reading them regularly. Keep them coming guys, and girls!

  10. #10
    Lord Rahl's Avatar Behold the Beard
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The stars at night are big and bright!
    Posts
    13,779

    Default Re: Helios 65 - Back in the Saddle

    Quote Originally Posted by iWarsaw View Post
    Great reading. Lord Rahl, I live in Vancouver (born in Britsh Columbia) and it frustrates me to hear that people would give you a hard time for being American! I love Americans, and I loved your story. I laugh at Ron Paul. Good guy, but he is crazy! He'd make alright president. I also loved the Normal article. Makes me think of that old quote, "I AM A GOD WARRIOR!!!" Haha. Anywho those were really well done Articles. I never read these articles, maybe once or twice. I really should start reading them regularly. Keep them coming guys, and girls!

    Well, pretty much all of the rebuking I received was from junior high and high school kids, so it's not like I got any from smart, objective people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Inkie Pie View Post
    Haha, thanks but don't fret - who would ever hope to dethrone the great grouchy as our resident history master?

    How dare you challenge him! You shall be tarred and feathered!

    Quote Originally Posted by Finlander View Post
    Too seldom I have read the Helios full but this time I did and liked very much.

    Thanks for the very pleasant reading moment!

    Thanks for the comment and we're glad you enjoyed it.

    Patron of: Ó Cathasaigh, Major. Stupidity, Kscott, Major König, Nationalist_Cause, Kleos, Rush Limbaugh, General_Curtis_LeMay, and NIKO_TWOW.RU | Patronized by: MadBurgerMaker
    Opifex, Civitate, ex-CdeC, Ex-Urbanis Legio, Ex-Quaestor, Ex-Helios Editor, Sig God, Skin Creator & Badge Forger
    I may be back... | @BeardedRiker

  11. #11

    Default Re: Helios 65 - Back in the Saddle

    Ralph, really good article on the politics. Good read and good arguments. Its quite long tough you could meaby make it compacter next time But good overall!


  12. #12
    Derpy Hooves's Avatar Bombs for Muffins
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    My flagship, the Litany of Truth, spreading DESPAIR across the galaxy
    Posts
    13,399

    Default Re: Helios 65 - Back in the Saddle

    Great job everyone. So glad to finally have something in the Helios.



  13. #13
    Shankbot de Bodemloze's Avatar From the Writers Study!
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Midlands, UK
    Posts
    14,834
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Helios 65 - Back in the Saddle

    Amazing work everyone. I thoroughly enjoyed grouchy13's article.

    +rep
    THE WRITERS' STUDY | THE TRIBUNAL | THE CURIA | GUIDE FOR NEW MEMBERS



    PROUD PATRON OF JUNAIDI83, VETERAAN & CAILLAGH
    UNDER THE PATRONAGE OF MEGA TORTAS DE BODEMLOZE

  14. #14

    Default Re: Helios 65 - Back in the Saddle

    Quality reading as usual . I do miss the sports reporter though.

    Good work all , rep to all.
    Under the protection of jimkatalanos
    with further protection from
    Calvin R.I.P mate, Cúchulainn , Erebus26 , Paggers Jean-Jacques Rousseau
    and Future Filmmaker

  15. #15
    Lord Rahl's Avatar Behold the Beard
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The stars at night are big and bright!
    Posts
    13,779

    Default Re: Helios 65 - Back in the Saddle

    Quote Originally Posted by Diglytron View Post
    Ralph, really good article on the politics. Good read and good arguments. Its quite long tough you could meaby make it compacter next time But good overall!

    I don't believe I've been called "Ralph" before. Yes, it was quite long. It was... quite a rant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noble Savage View Post
    Quality reading as usual . I do miss the sports reporter though.

    Good work all , rep to all.

    We need one written about hockey.

    Patron of: Ó Cathasaigh, Major. Stupidity, Kscott, Major König, Nationalist_Cause, Kleos, Rush Limbaugh, General_Curtis_LeMay, and NIKO_TWOW.RU | Patronized by: MadBurgerMaker
    Opifex, Civitate, ex-CdeC, Ex-Urbanis Legio, Ex-Quaestor, Ex-Helios Editor, Sig God, Skin Creator & Badge Forger
    I may be back... | @BeardedRiker

  16. #16

    Default Re: Helios 65 - Back in the Saddle

    These are beautiful.

    That is all.

  17. #17

    Default Re: Helios 65 - Back in the Saddle

    I think this is the first time I've ventured into this part of the forum and it's safe to say that I'm very pleased that I did! Some great articles by everyone involved, especially Grouchy's Norman history and Rahl's Rant. Well done

  18. #18
    Lord Rahl's Avatar Behold the Beard
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The stars at night are big and bright!
    Posts
    13,779

    Default Re: Helios 65 - Back in the Saddle

    Thanks for reading and we hope you'll come back to read our future issues.

    Patron of: Ó Cathasaigh, Major. Stupidity, Kscott, Major König, Nationalist_Cause, Kleos, Rush Limbaugh, General_Curtis_LeMay, and NIKO_TWOW.RU | Patronized by: MadBurgerMaker
    Opifex, Civitate, ex-CdeC, Ex-Urbanis Legio, Ex-Quaestor, Ex-Helios Editor, Sig God, Skin Creator & Badge Forger
    I may be back... | @BeardedRiker

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •