Klow's Kollection

America and France: 1777

By December 1777, an American delegation in Paris received news from across the Atlantic: the British Army had been defeated at Saratoga. The victory took place in October but the news took until December 4 to reach France. The most influential member of the delegation, Benjamin Franklin, was ecstatic. This was what he was waiting to hear. He had been in the country for two years trying to gain France's support for America's revolution against Great Britain. France's King Louis XVI did give limited covert aid to America but was reluctant to give official support. He was not convinced America would be worth risking hostilities with Britain, at least at the moment.

Instead of pressuring the King and his Court, Franklin waited until the right moment to convince them to officially support America. The victory at Saratoga was just the moment Franklin needed. After Louis XVI received the news, Franklin was summoned to Louis XVI's court and was told that France believed America did indeed have a chance against France's mortal enemy. On December 17, 1777, the Kingdom of France formally recognized the new United States of America. Two months later, the formal Treaty of Alliance was signed, fully committing France to the Revolutionary War against Great Britain.

For France, America was but a secondary effort. Their primary goal was to diminish Britain's influence in the world which grew after France lost their holdings in North America after the French-Indian War (which grew into the Seven Years War).

It would take years of fighting until a combined American-French victory at the Battle of Yorktown ended the war. Unfortunately for Louis XVI, aiding America so bled the French treasury that it was a major factor in triggering the French Revolution, resulting in the King losing his crown and his head.

Good job, Ben.

Founding Fathers and after the War of Independence

Now that yet another Independence Day has come to a close, I'd like to take this opportunity to talk about the Founding Fathers. But first about the 4th of July...

Lisa and I were discussing this at some length after seeing a story on the NPR site about a book on the myths of the 4th of July: Founding Myths: Stories That Hide Our Patriotic Past
by Ray Raphael. I'll let you see the link for yourselves. You should also listen to the audio transcript where the author comments on a classic School House Rock tune. Needless to say I should buy this book.

On that note, on to the Founding Fathers. 

Many Americans tend to focus on the fighting War of Independence, or rather the myths spun by popular folklore, rather than look at the drama that occurred in the war's aftermath. Also there is this sense of awe when one mentions the Founding Fathers. In school, they were viewed as almost demigods who could do no wrong.

Hmmm let's see..

• George Washington: military commander and first US President, a man who tolerated no dissent or insubordination among his subordinates and unleashed a fiery temper at the slightest challenge to his authority, perceived or real.
• John Adams: Able politician. Also insecure and took any criticism however constructive as a direct insult to him.
• Ben Franklin: True Renaissance man whose love of knowledge and science was rivaled by his love of women.

OK you get the idea. The Founding Fathers were human. Brilliant and visionary but still human, each with their own views on how the country should be run. Many were pigheaded and stubborn in their core beliefs but were willing to compromise, like any modern politician. I dug up Founding Brothers by Joseph J. Ellis and I highly recommend it. This deals with the Founding Fathers during a critical moment of America's Independence: what to do after the British were defeated. Yes the war was won but meant nothing if a stable government was not in place. 

One example of this was the question of the nation's war debt and how to pay it. Many Southern politicians, led by James Madison blocked (by one vote) a proposal by Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton for the national government to assume all debts from the States during the Revolutionary War, claiming the states should be responsible for their own debts rather than have one large national debt. A far-reaching national government did not sit well with Madison. A compromise came during a dinner with Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. Jefferson knew that an America who did not take care of its own debts would not be looked favorably upon by European nations so he made a proposal: Madison would allow the passage of major points of Hamilton's national debt proposal in exchange for placing the new capital closer to Virginia. This would be known as Washington DC. 

There has been a trend over the past decade or so to present a more realistic view of history rather than maintain the two dimensional heroic myths taught in the past. This gives us a better understanding of today's world events. History is not just about dates, people, and places but human activity and its consequences. To pretend otherwise would lessen the experience of learning from the past.

Peter the Great's Total War (set-up and initial strategy)

I began Russia's campaign for Empire: Total War a couple of days ago. Many things are different than the Rome or Medieval 2 Total War games, including detailed naval combat, a greater emphasis on trade, and appointing your own ministers in order to give bonuses on diplomacy, trade, and military production (or penalties if he is incompetent) just to name a few. And the tactical land combat is obviously different as 18th century warfare was much different than during the 14th century.

Before I go on, a reminder that I can't seem to get in-game screen shots, but I think they won't be so critical.

As this is my first time playing the Empire TW campaign, I opted for the short game. Objective: occupy twenty regions including Sweden and parts of Poland by the end of 1750. As early 18th century Russia was socially and technologically backward compared to the European powers, my first goal is obvious: drag Russia kicking and screaming into the modern world. At this early stage, Russia's military and economy pale in comparison to my immediate Western neighbors: Sweden and Poland. These are the same nations I need to vanquish in order to win. And to make it more interesting, I am on less than friendly relations with the Ottoman Empire. Hell, Russia starts out at war with them! This means I need to maintain decent relations with the Western border powers early in the game while I work to keep the Ottomans at bay, my second goal. I need to strike at a few of the Turks' key towns along Russia's southern border as a show of force and curb any advances. Perhaps the Ottomans would sue for peace after I show them Russia's might.

The trick is to pursue my initial goals while keeping the Russian people loyal and content or at least tame. This new TW game has the revolution aspect: if your people are unhappy, they'll let you know. Just ask Louis XVI. :)

Oh yes. I should look east too, but that frontier is rather limited in game terms.

I am still in the middle of the first turn but a few things have occurred. I fired and replaced my Finance and Naval ministers with men more competent in administration and began positioning a few troops to my western borders in case Poland or Sweden should take advantage of my conflict against the Turks. Also, I began improving my major infrastructure throughout the kingdom.

Still slowly working my way through so not much else to report at this time. Hopefully things will go well.

Until next time...

The Age of Reason: Total War style

Now that I am working more tolerable hours at the Census, I began to think about my blogging, or the lack thereof. I decided to focus more on my history and gaming and less on current events; recent events have made me rather depressed at humanity.

But keeping my focus...

I once again dug up my books on 18th-early century warfare in anticipation of one of my gaming projects. In addition to continuing on my EvE Online adventures and getting back into the Heavy Gear campaign, I decided to make posts about my Empire:Total War gameplay as if it was a history blog. A nice way to combine the two interests. First and foremost, I need to play some skirmishes against the computer so that I'm not simply breezing through on easy mode (I prefer a challenge). I will of course make posts on the actual history of the period, then give the alternate history via Total War.

Now, who to play? Hmmm...why not France under Louis XIV,the Sun King? By 1700, France was the most powerful military force of the period and I have a few books on his military campaigns. Yes, I could play England, but playing France has a certain appeal to me.

This will also get me back into blogging and some strategic gaming. So I must prepare; my quest for gloire (glory) awaits!

The Dutch touch for Gustavus Adolphus

One cannot study 17th century warfare without a tip of a hat to Sweden's Lion. It was Gustavus Adolphus's participation in the Thirty Years War that helped save the Protestant forces from further defeats at the hands of the Catholic armies.

Archer Jones's The Art of War in the Western World gave a good account of King Adolphus.  Yet the father of modern warfare did have some help. His reorganization of the Swedish army was based on Dutch innovations introduced by Maurice of Nassau. These included breaking up the cumbersome pike squares into smaller units and spreading out the width of his pikemen and placing more arquebusiers (called gunners for ease) on their flanks. In addition,the gunners were reorganized into deeper formations that would allow for a more constant rate of fire for gunner formations using rotating volleys. Smaller infantry formations made command and control a bit easier. This also made tactical positioning easier to cover the vulnerable flanks from cavalry strikes.Tactical reorganization was not the only innovation Maurice introduced. These forces was given regular pay and strict drill regiments to increase discipline.

King Adolphus took these innovations a step further by increasing the number of artillery units and deploying lighter, mobile cannons, as well as giving pistol-armed cavalry swords to keep their shock value in charges against opposing cavalry. Though imperfect (though warfare is never perfect), this 'new model' army would be the standard for commanders of the 17th century.

The Art of War in the Western World by Archer Jones, Oxford Press, New York (214-266).

Warfare in the Age of Reason

I recently bought a book on Powell's online; The War of the Austrian Successionby Reed Browning simply because I don't know much on the subject other than its aftermath would eventually lead to the Seven Years War. In fact, I have little knowledge on the Age of Reason in comparison to 20th century warfare. I also was watching a PBS show I recorded about The French and Indian War. Just as I wondered how World War II began, I'm interested in the major events leading to the Seven Years War and its aftermath.

In addition to Browning's book, there are other books from the Osprey Essential History series I have dusted off to read:

The French Religious Wars (1562-1598)by Robert J. Knecht

The Thirty Years' War (1618-1648)by Richard Bonney

The English Civil Wars (1642-1651) by Peter Gaunt

The French Wars (1667-1714): The Sun King at War by John A. Lynn

The Seven Years Warby Daniel Marston

Liberty or Death: Wars That Forged a Nationby Carl Benn & Daniel Marston (This is a compilation book of The French-Indian War, American War of Independence, and The War of 1812)

Yes a hefty number of books but why not? Additional books are also in my to-read list which I will mention in future posts.

For now, I have plenty of time...