Homeschooling vs. Public Schooling in the Kabinettskriege Era

An 18th Century Classroom

Dear Reader,

I recently read a blog post attempting to link compulsory public education laws, with Obama, and Adolf Hitler. Sadly for those wishing to link public schooling with the Nazi party, the idea of compulsory public education has a rich tradition, dating into the early modern period. In fact, the Kabinettskriege era saw the rise of compulsory education for children, especially in Europe. One of the reasons why we know so much about eighteenth century armies, battles and soldiers is the letters which these soldiers left behind. Throughout the Kabinettskriege era, literacy was on the rise, thanks, in part, to compulsory education.

In the American War of Independence, Hessian soldiers, or as we should properly call them, Subsidientruppen, left an incredible amount of information. Even common, private soldiers, such as Johannes Reuber, Johann Conrad Döhla and Johann Andreas Bense, (German mothers likes the name John, apparently) wrote about their experiences. Where did they learn to write? Compulsory public schools, which were slowly being mandated in western Germany throughout the eighteenth century. Now of course, this public education had drawbacks- women were usually excluded, but many eighteenth century noblewomen, such as Baroness von Riedesel, had education at home, which brings me to my next topic: 

Elite homeschoolers with a tutor

Homeschooling in the Kabinettskriege Era

Kabinettskriege era homeschoolers were very different from the modern homeschooling movement. (Though, admittedly, if members of the tea party, they may dress somewhat similarly.) While the modern homeschooling movement was founded on primarily religious grounds, in the Kabinettskriege era, homeschooling was a sign of elite culture. While we generally think of homeschooling in this period as instruction with a tutor- this was not necessarily the case. In some cases, the parents schooled the children, as in the modern homeschooling movement. 

 While many eighteenth century officers were educated publicly, this was the exception rather than the rule. Christopher Duffy comments: 

'Most of the continental aristocrats were educated at home. This sheltered upbringing produced fiery Prussian hussars like Georg Chirstoph von Natzmer and Has Joachim von Zieten, as well as deep-thinking individuals such as Prince Ferdinand of Brunswick:

"Ferdinand's education was entirely confined to his parental house... This is not normally the environment best suited for forming a prince, but such an education can be most successful providing it is supervised by intelligent and vigilant parents who set a good example in all things. So it proved in this case." (The first paragraph is Duffy, the second is a nineteenth century historian.)"'

 I like to think that it proved so in my case as well, for, as many of you know, I was homeschooled. Perhaps the most famous (fictional) case of homeschooling in the eighteenth century was that of Candide and Cunegonde, tutored by Pangloss in Voltaire's satirical novel, Candide. Again, this fictional representation of displays homeschooling as an affectation of elite culture. Sadly for the homeschoolers in this novel, their hired tutor is somewhat wrong about everything. 

Home education was also a feature of life for the very poor in this period, who could not afford let their children go from working or begging. However, as the eighteenth century continued, more and more students attended school, even from poorer families. One of the effects of the Enlightenment was that education began to have more value,  and public schools gained additional students. 

Bernard Bailyn and Gordon S. Wood have suggested that a rise of Enlightenment values brought about the American Revolution, through the use of pamphlets and radical newspapers. Republican ideology spread through the writings of John Locke and the Commonwealth men, in Britain. However, these writings could not have produced such as devastating effect if they had no readers.  The rise of public education throughout the eighteenth century increased the literacy rate of the American colonists, not just in New England, but in all parts of the colonies. Thus, it could be argued, that public schools assisted with the oncoming of the American Revolution, and the spread of Enlightenment ideas.  

Thanks for Reading,

Alex Burns  

  

If you liked this post, let me know in the comments below! Feel free to follow the blog! 

"The Eight Years' War"

The Battle of the Chesapeake

In 1763, the British signed off on the peace treaty which secured the domination of their global empire. The peace of Paris, in 1763, gave French Canada to the British. This ended the Seven Years' War, and to us, today, seems to signify the end of the Imperial Wars period. After all, the next war, the American War of Independence, was not an Imperial War at all- it was a fight between the English speaking people of North America, and the English speaking people of Great Britain, right?

It turns out, this is not really the case. The American War of Independence was just one facet of a much larger war. In this war, the British found themselves pitted against an alliance of the rebellious colonists, the French, Spanish, Dutch, and Native Americans. In this war, the British were joined by the western German states who had supported them for much of the eighteenth century.

The opening stages of this war will be familiar to many of my American readers- after all, in America, we learn about the first shots at Lexington and Concord. However, many of the events of this global war will seem very unfamiliar. I will refer to this as the global, "Eight Years' War," 1775-1783.

The single most important battle of this global conflict was the Battle of Saratoga in 1777, which resulted in the surrender of the Northern British army under General Burgoyne. This directly led to the entry of France into the conflict, on the side of the rebellious American colonists. The war immediately took on a global aspect. On the 27th of July,  1778, the French and British fleets met in the naval battle of Ushant. Also in July, the French captured Grenada from the British. A young Swedish officer, Kurt von Stendingk, who served with the French, recalled his experiences of the attack on the fortress at Grenada:

"We marched without firing a shot, palisades were torn down, the entrenchments carried one after the other, the charge was beaten, and wounded and dying in chorus shouted, "Long live the king!" It is difficult to imagine how the soul is exalted in these times, and how man becomes more than man: each soldier was a hero."

This Swede was not fighting for American Independence-he was fighting as a participant in a traditional eighteenth century Kabinettskriege. While he would later be made a member of the Society of the Cincinnati, his loyalty remained French.

Cowpens by Don Troiani

The French also fought the British fleet off the coast of America, and the most decisive battle of the war was the Battle of the Chesapeake- pictured in the painting at the top of the post. In this battle, the French prevented the British fleet from rescuing Lord Cornwallis' forces. The French also provided the necessary siege guns to bombard the British in Yorktown. For those who believe that divine providence played a role in America's Independence, make sure that God is thanked for French cannon. They played a much larger role than the tactical skills of George Washington.

In addition to fighting in North America, the Caribbean, and the oceans of the world, fighting also took place in India. The French and British fought in India starting in 1778, and the Dutch joined the war in 1780. From 1781-1783, the French and British fought a bitter conflict in India, with neither side gaining much ground. These campaigns were mostly composed of sieges, and naval battles.

I have already discussed the Spanish operations in North America during the Eight Years' War, but let me say a few words the Siege of Gibraltar. This siege lasted from 24th of June, 1779, to the 7th of February, 1783, or over three years and seven months. The mountain fortress of Gibraltar was besieged by a combined arms force of the French army and navy, and managed to hold out.

In 1778, another war broke out, the War of Bavarian Succession. Fought between Austria and Prussia, this war was also an attempt continue the imperial struggle started in the Seven Years' War. Prussia was attempting to play a greater role in the politics of the Holy Roman Empire, by pressuring the Austrians, who were in turn, attempting to create allies within the HRE.

Thus, while the conflict started in North America, in the relatively familiar venue of Lexington and Concord, the Eight Years' War was truly a global conflict. After the opening stages in North America, the conflict spread to the coasts of France and Spain, Gibraltar, the Caribbean islands, Central Germany, and India. Individuals were involved from across the world: from Native Americans, to African slaves, to Sepoys from India, to American Colonists, to Swedes like Kurt von Stedingk. However, for some reason, this conflict is viewed as minor part of the American War of Independence. Is it not more likely that the American War of Independence was simply part of this larger conflict, which happened to start in North America? While certainly vital for the development of America, it is important that we do not view this war as simply an American affair.

Thanks for reading,

Alex Burns

Happy Thanksgiving

Dear Readers,

In America, we are celebrating Thanksgiving. While this holiday is about 20 years too early for the Kabinettskreige era, (1621) I thought that my American readers might be interested in reading the primary sources which this holiday is based on.

The first is from Edward Winslow in Mourt's Relation:

"our harvest being gotten in, our governor sent four men on fowling, that so we might after a

special manner rejoice together, after we had gathered the fruits of our labors; they four in one day

killed as much fowl, as with a little help beside, served the Company almost a week, at which time

amongst other Recreations, we exercised our Arms, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and

amongst the rest their greatest king Massasoit, with some ninety men, whom for three days we

entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed five Deer, which they brought to the

Plantation and bestowed on our Governor, and upon the Captain and others. And although it be

not always so plentiful, as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so far

from want, that we often wish you partakers of our plenty."

The second is from William Bradford in, Of Plymouth Plantation:

"They began now to gather in the small harvest they had, and to fit up their houses and

dwellings against winter, being all well recovered in health and strength and had all things in good

plenty. For as some were thus employed in affairs abroad, others were exercised in fishing, about

cod and bass and other fish, of which they took good store, of which every family had their portion.

All the summer there was no want; and now began to come in store of fowl, as winter approached,

of which this place did abound when they came first (but afterward decreased by degrees). And

besides waterfowl there was great store of wild turkeys, of which they took many, besides venison,

etc. Besides, they had about a peck of meal a week to a person, or now since harvest, Indian corn

to that proportion. Which made many afterwards write so largely of their plenty here to their friends

in England, which were not feigned but true reports."

Both of these, and more info, is available here:
http://www.pilgrimhallmuseum.org/pdf/TG_What_Happened_in_1621.pdf

Enjoy your day, and thanks for reading!

Alex

Historical Events and the Passage of Time

Yep. This is what I want to be.

Dear Readers,


I recently received the question:
"As an historian, do you believe that the passage of time provides greater clarity on historical events? I've always been under the impression that there's a "sweet spot" of clarity that occurs anywhere from immediately after a major historical event, to perhaps a generation or two later, after which it gets over-analyzed, dissected, and distorted. What's your take on that?"

This is a really great question, and I thought that you readers here on Kabinettskriege might be interested. How does the passage of time effect our perception of what really happened in the past? 

For the moment, let us take look at a non-Kabinettskriege era event which occurred within relatively recent historical memory: World War One. How did World War One start? 

If you asked someone in 1915 (a year after the start of the war,) the answer probably would be, "the enemy started it." Thus, a close temporal position to the event does not necessarily give a better look at the event, rather, it makes the people looking at the event more biased. 

If you asked someone in 1943, who started World War One, the answer, in non-German parts of the world, would be, "the Germans." This is because the Germans started the Second World War, and most of the world blamed them for the start of the First World War as well. 

Oddly enough, as the 20th century wore on, American scholars began to blame the Russians for World War One, as, after all, they had undergone a full mobilization before any of the other powers. The reason for this is clear-Russia and America were now enemies. 

Thus, historical interpretations continue to change, even after the people who are involved in the events are long dead. Every generation looks at the past with their own historical lens. Thus, when I look at World War One, what I see is different from someone who will live fifty years in the future. 

 In popular perception, there may be a sweet spot in understanding, and I would argue that it takes about a hundred years to arrive at this point. We are fast approaching the hundredth anniversary of World War One, and I think that we may never understand the First World War better than we do now. The reason is, we no longer have living members who experienced the event around to cloud the picture with their biases, so in this example, we realize that most of the European nations actively contributed to the World War One crisis.  

However, the professionalization of history allows us to understand many parts of the past better than we have in previous generations. While the popular perception of history may become more mythic as time passes, (for example, the almost God-like qualities which most Americans see in the founding fathers) scholarly professional opinion allows for a, "sweet spot," of understanding to continue. In the example of the founding fathers, the current historiography of the American Revolution allows us to better understand groups which have been previously ignored, such as women, slaves, and Native Americans. 

Now, moving on to the claims of over-analysis. This is indeed a problem of American history. That is one of the reasons why many professional American historians are calling for a "synthesis," of history. Books such as Alan Taylor's American Colonies, and Daniel Walker Howe's What Hath God Wrought, are moving us back towards a, "sweet spot," in understanding the past, by incorporating the various arguments into a narrative, and updating previous historical knowledge with new arguments. This allows us to retain past understanding, while bringing to light new documentation, which may slightly alter our way of looking at the past. 

Thus, returning to our World War One example, we have reached a measured consensus where we realize that all parties were at fault, although some might be more at fault than others. However, this consensus can still be updated by professional historians who seek to examine smaller facets of the war, such as the role of women, or the role of the minor Balkan states. Those ideas can then be re-incorporated into the body of knowledge via a large, "synthesis," style history.

In essence, popular understanding of a past event reaches a sweet spot a few generations after the event, while academic historians seek to preserve and improve upon that sweet spot with new research, and then add their new research into the collective understanding. In addition, this research allows us to see how each generation perceives historical events, as a result of their circumstances.

Thanks for Reading,

Alex

Sweden in the Kabinettskriege Era

Bringing home the body of Karl XII-Gustaf Cederström

Dear Reader,

In the modern mind, Sweden is viewed as a sort of Scandinavian socialist paradise. The Swedes have given us great writers, like Henning Mankell (Wallander), and great actors, such as Max von Seydow. However, during the Kabinettskriege era, Sweden was known for something else: its empire. During this start period, the Swedes founded an overseas colony, New Sweden, in modern day Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. While the colony was taken over by the Dutch in 1655, small traces of Swedish culture still remain in the area. In addition, the Swedes possessed overseas colonies in Africa between 1650 and 1663. Interested in a timeline of the Kabinettskriege era? Click here. 

However, the Swedes never really possessed a large overseas empire, most of their imperial holdings were in Europe. At the height of Swedish power, the empire included  much of the North German Baltic sea coast, as well as portions of the current Baltic states, such as Latvia and Estonia, the whole of Finland, and a significant part of Norway.

The Swedish Empire (Sweden is Tan, Swedish conquests are in Orange)

While the Swedes were on the rise in the early Kabinettskriege era, by 1721, they had lost most of their overseas possessions in the Stora Nordiska Kriget: The Great Northern War.  Despite an excellent military, the Swedes had been defeated by an alliance of Russia, Denmark, Poland, and Prussia. What is surprising is not that they were defeated, but that they managed to hold out for twenty one years.

They were able to survive for so long as a result of one of the most controversial figures in Swedish history, Karl XII of Sweden, and his Karoliner. The Karoliner were some of the most effective soldiers of the Kabinettskriege era. The Swedish Karoliner used incredibly effective Gå-På (or "Head-On") tactics. These tactics meant that the soldiers would hold their fire until point-blank range, which caused massive causalities to the enemy. After a devastating point-blank volley, the Karoliner would charge fearlessly into close combat, and their panicked enemies would usually flee.

In modern times, many Swedes are atheists, but in the Kabinettskriege era, the Swedish army was held together by a strong belief in the Christian God. The Swedish in this period were Lutheran, and a mix of faith, and Gå-På tactics kept this small, but highly effective, army fighting against impossible odds.

However, this divine protection did not, contrary to Swedish belief, stop musket balls. At the battle of Poltava in 1709, the Swedes were defeated and Karl XII fled to the Ottoman Empire. Refusing to make peace, Karl XII continued the war beyond any hope of Swedish victory. He was eventually killed in Norway, while attempting to besiege a fortress. His death, and the tremendous losses absorbed by Sweden during this war, crushed the Swedish Empire. In addition, this defeat paved the way for the Russians to move into central Europe, with consequences leading up to the present day.

With that knowledge, let us return to the original painting which began this post.

This painting, by Swedish artist Gustaf Cederström, shows the Karoliner bringing home the body of Karl XII, during the so-called, "Karolinian death-march." A Swedish hunter, his son, and their dog, make way for these soldiers. On the hunters back, an enormous bird of prey hangs dead. This death of this majestic bird is intended to mirror the death of the great Swedish king. This epic painting shows the despair of Swedes at the end of the Great Northern War. 

After the death of Karl XII, Sweden's empire never fully recovered. The Swedish empire passed to his sister, Ulrika Eleonora, and her husband, Friedrich I of Hesse-Kassel. While the Swedes were able to defeat the Russians in the war of 1788, and take Norway in 1814, the Sweden's glory days were over. However, now, the Swedish have created a state which is the envy of other Europeans, and an economy which shows signs of strength. 

If we have any Swedish readers, what do you think of Karl XII? Was he responible for the loss of the Swedish Empire? What do you think about Sweden's history in the Kabinettskriege era?

Thanks for Reading,

Alex Burns 

Heroes, Villains, and History

Don Troiani's Parker's Revenge

Dear Reader,

The above painting shows British soldiers early in the American War for Independence. When you look at the above men, what do you see? Heroes or Villains?

Who were the, "Heroes" of the Kabinettskriege era? And above all, what does reducing things into the terms of, "right and wrong," achieve in our understanding of the past?

William Potter, an American historian who works for Vision Forum, released an audiobook, entitled, Bayonets! Heroes, Villains and Character Lessons from the American War for Independence. You can find this book here. In this book, Potter attempts to draw spiritual lessons from the American War of Independence. In Potter's view,  the British are the evil villains of the American Revolution, while the Christian Americans were on the side of right. Potter gives excellent and insightful details about the American War of Independence, but I continue to wonder whether his conceptual lens offers any positive results.

While the book is obviously targeted for children, there is no reason why we should portray history, particularly such vital history as the founding of the American nation, in simple, moralistic terms. If the American War of Independence is a simple moral tale, why did so many Americans own slaves? American Slavery shocked and appalled both Hessian and French writers during the revolution.

And what about the idea that the Americans were Christians, and the British were godless? After all, weren't the Americans rebelling against a government, which the Bible instructs Christians to respect? The British soldiers were just as devout as the Americans, as is extremely evident in their letters. The Hessian Subsidientruppen who fought for the British were just as pious, and they often felt disgusted by what they saw as an American lack of religion.

What about the European Seven Years' War? Are there heroes in this context? Why is it we are so eager to say that God and right was on the side of the Americans, but do not have a quick answer for who was right in the contest between Austrian and Prussian?

If we simply want to view the Americans as right, is there truly a need to view the war in terms of heroes and villains? Individual humans are not good or evil. Their actions display both good and evil. They are complex, and it is a disservice to history to portray the past in the simple terms of a morality play.

For our international readers, I have a question: Does this effort to portray the past as a simple battle between good and evil occur in your countries? If so, what form does it take?

Thanks for reading,

Alex Burns

France in the Kabinettskriege Period

Map of France 1675-1726

Dear Reader,

Throughout the Kabinettskriege period, France was the largest single state in western Europe. The French had not suffered the same type of economic and demographic drain from the Thirty Years' War as the German states. In addition, by virtue of the unified nature of the French state, it could afford to raise much larger armies than the smaller, dis-unified states of Germany. Also, as a result of the nature of Absolutism in France, afford to maintain a much larger standing army in peacetime than the English, making mobilization for war much quicker. This has led scholars to refer to France, in the early modern period, as, "The eight hundred pound gorilla of Europe." Why then, in the course of the Kabinettskriege period, did the French lose much of their empire overseas, and not win ground in Europe?

The French Victory at Ticonderoga-1758

Explanation One: The French haven't the Nature for War. 

To this day, in English and American circles, the French are accused of cowardice, effeminacy, and laziness. A common joke is that the French "salute" is raising your hands in surrender. In Last of the Mohicans, there is a scene where a British general expresses these exact views. It should not come to as a surprise to anyone that this is completely anachronistic. During the Kabinettskriege era, the French had an excellent military-one that often terrified their opponents.

During the early part of the Kabinettskriege period, the French military under Louis XVI threatened to destroy the balance of power in Europe. Some of the largest battles of the Kabinettskriege period occurred during the War of the League of Augsburg, and the War of Spanish Succession. (See a timeline of the period here.)

While the English choose to focus on this period of history as a time when John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough, was winning his spectacular victories against the French, the truth is that both sides achieved victories, which is one of the reasons why the war dragged on for almost fifteen years.  During this period, the French were repeatedly able to raise large, well trained armies, which required large alliances of minor powers to stop.

In the middle of the Kabinettskriege period, the French were able to defeat the British again and again during the War of Austrian Succession. British histories of this period choose to focus on the successes in North America, the success against the Jacobite rebellion, or indecisive win at the Battle of Dettingen in 1743. The truth is that the French won three out of the four major field battles of this war: Fontenoy, Rocoux, and Lauffeld. In the absence of a large force of Austrians to protect the Austrian Netherlands (modern-day Belgium,) the French turned battlefield success into strategic gains time and time again. At the end of the war, the French were forced to give back these conquests to have their own overseas losses returned to them.

Finally, as we have already seen repeatedly on this blog, the French were able to defeat the British in the global Eight Years' War which surrounded the American War of Independence. Thus, we have clear evidence of French capability in the early, middle and late Kabinettskriege era.

Having thoroughly disproved the notion that the French soldiers or armies were somehow inferior, we must move on to-

English Cannons at the Siege of Louisbourg (1745) 

Explanation Two: The French had different objectives during the Kabinettskriege era

This idea indicates that the French somehow valued their overseas colonies less than the British during the course of the eighteenth century. Sadly, this idea is also not true.

Unlike the British, the French did not benefit from being unconnected to continental Europe. They had no defensive moat to complicate invasions. The only moat they had was the French army. While the French repeatedly tried to invade Britain throughout the course of the Kabinettskriege era, they also had to defend French borders from British amphibious raids, and the armies of continental Europe-something that the British histories of the Kabinettskriege era spend little time discussing. While the French usually had some sort of ally for their European wars, their allies rarely gave them hard physical support, in the way that the British and Western German states supported each-other throughout the Kabinettskriege era. The British population of North America also greatly outweighed the French speaking population, which allowed the British to raise numerous militia type forces to assist in combating the French. While the French also raised militias, they were very small compared to the British militias.

Why didn't the French send more support to America, and carve out an overseas empire during the eighteenth century? I can only answer that they sure didn't do it for lack of trying. They simply had their hands full.  That leads us to:

Victor-Francois, Duc de Broglie

Explanation 3: Poor Higher Command

While the French often had excellent commanders, such as the gentleman above, they also suffered from a number of poor commanders, particularly in the European theater of Seven Years' War. Since these often mediocre generals commanded, as we have seen above, a large portion of the French military, their poor decisions had an out of proportion effect. To a lesser extent, they also suffered from "victors' disease" from the War of Austrian Succession. They had successfully defeated the British on the continent during the last three battles of the War of Austrian Succession, so there was no reason to improve the army in the intervening years before the Seven Years' War. This, combined with continental obligations, caused the French to lose their overseas empire in Canada during the Seven Years' War, which was the only truly decisive conflict of the Kabinettskriege era.

Sorry-this one ran WAYYY long. I'm thinking about doing posts like this (but shorter) for each of the main European nations in the Kabinettskriege era. Do you like this plan? Let me know in the comments below.

Thanks for reading,

Alex Burns



Feel free to follow the blog if you liked this post. It's free, and let's me know that you enjoy what I write-basically the only reason I do this blog!