I’m not sure what you’re telling exactly. The “dark ages” (though calling this era that way is now frowned upon) indeed belong to the middle-age, which extend from the fall of Rome to the discovery of the Americas, hence include a large part of the first millenium.
And the names of the kings (and there rarely was one king in England at this time) from “the dark ages” are rarely known, AFAIK (I could be wrong, since i’m definitely not well-versed in english history). England is very poor in written documents dating back to the early middle-age (actually, even in countries richer in documents, they’re still very scarce, and our knowledge of one century of history could be essentially based on a couple chronicles, reliable or not), and this period was quite “agitated”, with many uninvited people paying a visit.
But perhaps you’re thinking “classical middle-age” (from the XII° century on) when you’re writing “medieval”.
Anyway, there might have been a king in England called Arthur during the early middle-age, actually fighting the saxons, etc… without us knowing anything (besides the legends) about him. Or it could have been a late evolution of celtics tales or even religious myths attributed to a more recent character, like some people believe. Or a mix of various things.
Even worse, when they return home thousands of hippie protestors will be lined up to spit on them, mock the ones in wheelchairs, etc.*
*according to the never-say-die myth about what happened when vets returned from Vietnam in the '60s and '70s.
Precisely, I tend to not have much faith in armchair generals making statements 50 years after the facts. Because the people in charge certainly weren’t on drugs, certainly were competent (more or less, but more competent concerning how to fight a battle with the means/tactics in use at this time than a random person 50 years later) and probably had all the informations which were available at this time.
So, I don’t realy believe that they had AMPLE evidences that the VietMinh were dragging guns. Unfortunately, I’m not really interested in this period, nor realy in military history, so I dont remember why exactly they established their hardpoint precisely at this place. but I believe that precisely the mistake was to assume that the Vietminh couldn’t bring in artillery, nor gather that much troops.
However, I read recently an article (basicaly about tourism in VietNam) which mentionned that a journalist from “Le Monde” visiting the camp which was being set up, wrote in its newspaper that he couldn’t fathom either why they choose this spot, and stated that they were doomed). So it seems that indeed several people thought at this time that the french high command was on drugs, like you.
You’re going to tell me that I’m contradicting myself. But I think there are two missing elements :
First, we’re necessarily are going to hear about people who predicted the actual course of event. But very possibly, for every journalist or military advisor who stated that this position was untenable, there might have been ten others stating the contrary. We won’t hear/read about them.
Second, plainly, I think that though it’s remotely possible that the comanding officer could have been plain idiots, it’s much more likely that there is much more to this. It’s very unlikely that a general wouldn’t notice something that would have been obvious to any uninformed journalist just happening to be there. So, I would never make such statements as yours without a good grasp of the reasons why this fateful decision was taken. It might have been logistics, it might have been political, it might have been underestimating the ennemy, I wouldn’t know.
Someone definitely made a huge mistake, but it’s a rare instance when commanding officers are really complete fools. That’s why I wrote this response, not specifically because it was related to Dien-Bien-Phu, since as I wrote, I’m not very interested in this battle. I apologize, but the “100% hindsight : they should have seen it coming” grattes on my nerves. It equally applies to many other instances (first thing which crosses my mind : the recent controversy in Spain because the intelligence/ counter-terrorism agencies would have had enough informations/ warnings to prevent the recent terrorist attack in Madrid. That’s the same idea).
First off any “conspiracy” involving these three elements alone or in any combination: “rich Jews”, Freemasons, and/or the Trilateral commission in cahoots to take over the world.
Also I keep hearing variants of the myth that Hitler had a Jewish ancestor through his father. There is no proof of this, and the likelihood of Hitler being a quarter Jewish is extremely remote, though the identity of his grandfather will probably never be known. (It is possible Hitler feared that this rumor could be proven).Hitler’s Jewish Grandfather
Another one is the idea that medieval Spain, Portugal, and Italy was overrun and ruled by black African “Moors” or “Saracens”. More fancifully, some of the “blacks” in Europe made their way to Ireland by way of the Armada, or Flanders (where one “Moor” spawned the Van Beethoven family). This, like the Egyptian myth, presumes African=Black. There were probably indivdual black or mixed-race soldiers, slaves, and traders, but the Arab Muslims in Europe were mostly Semitic peoples and Berbers. Many Spaniards and Sicialians look “Middle Eastern”, but I have honestly never met one that looked mixed-black (unless your idea of “black” includes someone who looks like Qaddafi).
Of course, Europe was never all “white” either, there have always been trickles of genes from one region to another.
I had a crackpot history teacher for an intro level course in community college several years ago. He was a WWII veteran, and rather senile at the time. He apparently had some standing as a professor, but in his old age began to regurgitate every half-truth and rumor he had ever heard. I only took it because it was a two week condensed course. Among his favorite topics were…
All white Southerners are full-blooded Scotch-Irish.
Walt Disney was a Spanish foundling adopted by an American couple on holiday.
Woodrow Wilson was an ordained minister.
Warren G. Harding did in bed with a whore.
Hitler was a Bohemian house painter/paper hanger, who dropped to the floor and chewed the carpet in times of personal stress.
Japan and Germany had concrete plans to split the United States in half in WWII.
Harry Truman was a full member of the KKK (he did possibly join).
John F. Kennedy, like FDR, required use of a wheelchair after the PT-109 incident. However, this was hidden from the public.
The most annoying one is the “Lincoln-Kennedy” parallel he repeated.
he also took up a whole class period to discuss Jane Fonda. At least most of his charges there were based on fact.
There is a direct, pure unadulterated line of descent from the music of slaves through to jazz
From what I read, the “hard point” was supposed to be a killing field for the VietMinh…the French thought that Gen. Giap would send his (lightly armed) troops against this French fortress-the French hoped to inflict massive casualties upon the VietMinh. Unfortunately, the place was:
-too far from French lines to be resupplied
-ringed by hills, which once captured, could be used to rain down shells upon the French garrison
General Navarre apparently dismissed these problems…he did not think that it was possible that the Vietminh could surround the garrison. He also ignoredintelligence reports that revealed the VietMinh were dragging 155 mm howitzers through the jungle! Using block and tackle, the vietnamese moved these huge guns through some of the thickest jungles in the world.
When the first shells landed at Dien Ben Phu,it was all over-never having prepared an escape plan, Navarre and his local commander, Gen. DeCastries, sat around and watched hundreds of men die of shrapnel wounds. Dr. Grauwin (the base doctor) operated in a muddy bunker, by candle light- his memoirs are probably the most heartbreaking words you can ever read.
In any event, the garrison fell…and many more French troops died in captivity.
I’d say Gen. Navarre wasn’t too competent a commander!
I’ve also heard earlier periods, just after the retreat of the Romans from England.
I’ve always heard of the Dark Ages as occuring from about the end of the Western ROman Empire to the revival of strong trade about 1000-1100 AD. Certainly not until the Renaissance.
I’d like to agree with you, but frankly [no pun intended], the man was simply incompetant.
There have been many thousands of idiot officers in history. I know its comforting to think otherwise, but a great many leaders, mostly now forgotten, have led their men into death and disaster just like him. Because they are incompetent people out of their expertise.
Living near Salem, Massachusetts, I’ve been fascinated by the witchcraft trials, which:
–didn’t burn anyone
– weren’t presided over by Cotton Mather
– almost certainly wasn’t a “prank” played by teenagers
– wasn’t a “last gasp” of a theocracy that felt it was losing its hold.
Note also that Tituba wasn’t black (she was a Carib, as was her husband, John Indian).
There are a lot of books, with sometimes contradictory hypotheses. I recommend Chadwick Hansen’s Withcraft in Salem (even if you don’t agree with his theories, he does a good job of documenting the flaws of previous writers, and tracing things like the “Cotton Mather was at fault” theory. And, as he shows, witchcraft was practiced at Salem), Boyer and Nissenbaum’s Salem Possessed, and a lot of more recent books whose authors I can’t recall. Some folks have claimed that hallucinatory ergotism is at the root o it, but, even if that contributed, it certainly wasn’t the whole story. Salem was an explosive mixture ready to go off.
As far as King Arthgur goes, there are at least five books out claiming to identify the actual person who was King Arthur. Each successive book takes the previous ones to task for being so stupid as to think their candidate was King Arthur. Me, I’m amazed that we even know the names of that many candidates from that far back. I have these books at home, but the only one I can recall is The Discovery of King Arthur by Geoffrey Ashe. Since it’s the first one, all the others dump on ashe, who thinks the “real” King Arthur was a guyy named Riotamus.
I was only stating that the dark ages were indeed included in the middle-age, and that the middle age (not the dark ages) extended from 476 to 1492.
There’s one that annoys the hell out of me. You hear people spouting off all the time about how Southern culture is derived from Scotch-Irish culture. Well, no. Or at least only partly.
Yes there was a Scotch-Irish (which is to say Ulster protestants) migration into the South. But that was preceded by an English population boom flowing from the Jamestown Colony. (The English population of Virginia mushroomed to over 40,000 within 25 years of the founding of the colony. Most white Southerners can, if they work at it, find at least one ancestor who was there.)
The Scotch-Irish exaggeration (it’s not entirely a myth) also ignores the very large German migration into the South. It ignores the very heavy influence of Africans and Indians on Southern culture (including a genetic influence). It ignores Irish Catholics in Savannah and French Catholics in Mobile and Louisiana.
“Bluegrass is Scotch-Irish music.” You hear that a lot, too. Yet many old bluegrass numbers are derived from English ballads. And the banjo is an African instrument. Of course there is a Scotch-Irish influence in bluegrass, but that is not the only influence.
Then, maybe you’re right in this case.
But I tend to be extremely suspicious of such claims, since they’re extremely widespread and rarely based on firm ground. “anybody with some common sense would have/ not have…they were plain idiots/fools/incompetent” generally stated by people who have no particular expertise in the topic, not necessarily a good grasp of the conditions prevailing at the time when it’s a historical fact, and of course 100% insight.
To use again my spanish example, the spanish services have been slammed because they had been warned about the activity of a suspected culprit by foreign intelligence agencies and because his name appeared twice in other terrorism-related investigations. But I read one of them stating something to the effect that they were receiving dozens such warnings every day, and that it wasn’t materially possible to investigate them all (especially since the wide majority were baseless), which makes a lot of sense, but nevertheless people are going to howl, like they would have done better had they been in charge.
And, from the US side (because spoke- already provided the quotes from Confederate states), in Lincoln’s first inaugural, he says:
If it’s any consolation, it’s not only in the New World that annoying myths about these people are perpetrated. Modern day “Ulster Scots” (and don’t get me started on that self-description) have, in recent years, begun taking credit for the American Revolution. Curiously though they don’t seem in such a great hurry to own up to the Confederacy.
This annoys me too. The fact that the Boston Tea Party was a protest against the LOWERING of taxes seems to escape people who annually trot is out as a symbol of american’s hating taxes. But the actual event is neither particularly heroic nor was it ordinary people fed up with high taxes on tea who were protesting. It was a pretty clear cut case of pure industrial sabotage, with smugglers trying to destroy their competitor, a monopolist who had just been granted tax CUTS, thus making its tea competative with smuggled tea. The result would have been cheaper tea for Americans: the smugglers likely created a shortage that resulted in higher prices.
Not rare at all. May I introduce you to
Is there any link to a historically acurate piece on this?
Foreigner living in the U.S. here, and while I knew about the “representation” question, this is news to me.
Thanks
Dorfl
I think the Tea Party (and other protests) were protests against taxes period. Lowering, raising, just the fact that they were there was enough to piss the colonists off.
Here’s what The Enduring Vision: History of American People (Hawley, Salisbury, Woloch, 4th Ed, 2002) says
So what’s this business with the royal governors’ purses and colonial assemblies?
Well, the colonial assemblies payed the governors out of their treasuries. They weren’t paid directly by Parliament. Therefore, when the assemblies wanted something, they had that leverage. “You give us A or you won’t get paid…” One of the things the various Acts tried to rectify was that situation with the governors…The assemblies didn’t appreciate that…
Its a very complicated question that we still don’t fully understand now, but basically, the colonists were getting really fed up with England monoplization of economic and political power and Mercantilist policy. That, and when it came down to it, they were high-handed and insulting all the time.
For an example of the complication, the English (well, the Brits in England) felt that it was quite fair for those chaps across the pond to pay for their defense in certain wars. But it seems likely that in effect, the proto-Americans didn’t really see why they needed English defense against a war by England against France. They had no reason to fight France. Were the taxes fair? Well, that depends on you definition of “fair”.
The issues involved in the American Revolution are nowhere near as simple as the versions most of us recall from our school days. To have any kind of real understanding, you would have to look at not just the war itself, but the decades leading up to it. For example, many of us may recall discussion of something called “The French and Indian War” that happened some time before the Revolutionary War, and had something to do with the British, the American colonists, the French and various Indians. In fact, this conflict essentially removed French control from most of the settled North American continent, and was part of a much larger conflict including western Europe, the Caribbean, and other parts of what we think of as the British Empire.
The British government spent a huge amount of resources in an effort to protect their own interests and the colonists’ welfare. Afterward, they thought it only fair that the colonists help pay their own share of the ongoing expenses both in America and elsewhere. Many of the colonists believed that they had already sacrificed a great deal themselves in the form not only of taxes, but in blood and resources.
There was also a difference of opinion on whether the colonists could be directly taxed by the British Parliament, or only by their own local government. As many of the colonists saw it, Britain should advise local governments of their needs, and those bodies would ultimately decide how, how much, and from whom the money would be raised. Obviously, Parliament felt differently. There was a certain amount of standing on principle on both sides. There are many, many other contributing factors.
The famed Boston Tea Party was only one of a number of riots in several cities, many involving marauding, lawless mobs of genuine rabble and destroying not just a shipload of tea, but the private property of tax collectors and of unpopular members of the governing class.
If you really want some fascinating detail, Crucible of War by Fred Anderson is a very readable account of the time period.
I’d also like to point out that British internal politics was involved in the revolution as well. The “Tories” (conservatives) were in power. They favored a strong central government that made decrees about taxes and other issues. Most Tory leaders were corrupt. They allied themselves very closely with King George III and wished to have him direct the government, despite the 1688 English revolution which had sought to diminish royal power. The Tories eventually fell from power, partially because the war was going poorly, partially because their corruption became intolerable.
George Otto Trevelyan (an Englishman) wrote a history of the American Revolution from the British perspective called “The American Revolution”, which I recommend to anyone. I think the original was in four volumes, but you can find a one-volume condensation of it. It’s out of print, so you might have to go looking.
Someone responded to my earlier post with some really good documentary evidence that the Southern states themselves referred to slavery as a cause of the war. I had not realized this existed.
I still think that a Southern would have argued that the slavery question led to a break between the North and the South. The South wanted slavery and the North did not. Thus, Southern states decided to leave the Union, feeling that they had a right to do so. The North disagreed. The first war act was a Southern attack, presumably reinforcing the idea that the South was now sovereign territory and the Union must leave.
I don’t defend that viewpoint, I just think that it’s what a Southerner would have argued. At the beginning of the war, Lincoln downplayed slavery as an issue because he worried that there was little support for a war against slavery. Over time that changed.
The Civil War was not the first time that secession was an issue in the Union. I remember reading that Sen. John Calhoun of South Carolina opposed secession at one point, and then adopted it as a principle later on. I don’t remember the details. I would guess that he was anti-secession early in his career, when he was a nationalist and pro-Federalism. The economic realities of an end to slavery probably pushed him into the philosophy of “nullification” (the right of individual states to reject federal law) and “secession” (the right of individual states to leave the Union whenever they so desired).
I’ll finish this rant by observing that, according to my, the plain language of the Constitution does not explicitly allow states to leave, nor does it explicitly prohibit states from leaving. The Constitution implies that since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, Congress is the supreme legislative body and any federal law that is constitutional is binding, without recourse. Nullification is not allowed.
As far as I can tell. Hey, judges, lawyers, scholars, and legislators have been debating this stuff for centuries now. I think that the modern American view is best describes as “secession and nullification are unconstitutional.”