How the Great Northern War facilitated the rise of Russia

The Renaissance and the Enlightenment both saw some major wars in Northern Europe

The Renaissance and the Enlightenment both saw some major wars in Northern Europe. They have gone down in history simply as the “Northern Wars.” I should acknowledge here that this is an international topic. Perhaps partially because of this, there is actually some controversy about what to include here in the simple term “Northern Wars.” There is even a significant controversy about the very names of these conflicts. Because of this, I will try to avoid controversial terminology like the “First” Northern War, or the “Second” Northern War. These are not internationally accepted, since there is no international standard for the nomenclature here. Thus, I will try to use neutral terms which are clearer, in an effort to avoid names that will be interpreted differently by different groups. Regardless, they would ultimately culminate in the “Great Northern War.” This was one of the greatest conflicts of the eighteenth century. In this case, the name is accepted much more widely. And it is also acknowledged that this was the largest (and last) in this great series of wars.

Peter the Great assaults Nöteborg, part of the Great Northern War (circa 1702)

A review of PBS’s “The White House: Inside Story”

“Decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man [such as a president] in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number; and in proportion as the number is increased, these qualities will be diminished.”

– Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers (Federalist No. 70)

We hear a lot about the “big historical events” of the American presidency. And, to some extent, this is as it should be – some events may just be more worthy of frequent mention than others. But what about day-to-day life at the White House, in either the past or the present? And what about the architectural history of the White House building itself? These are some of the questions that this program attempts to answer, in its brief two-hour runtime. This program was made in 2016, when Barack Obama was still president. (He left office on January 20th, 2017.) And, fortunately for the filmmakers, President Obama was very cooperative with them in allowing them to film various parts of the White House. As the filmmakers note in this film, thousands of people still tour the White House on a typical day, seeing rooms that are actually used for official state functions. That is, they don’t just see “show rooms,” but actual buildings that are regularly used for Washington business. They may see a dining room where a state dinner was recently held, or the Oval Office where the president does much of his business. In some ways, the White House is similar to a palace, which is on loan to whoever currently holds the office. But, if so, it’s a very democratic palace, full of American history stretching back to the country’s founding.

The White House after the fire of 1814

A review of Thomas Paine’s “Rights of Man” (audiobook)

In the United States, Thomas Paine is primarily remembered for his work “Common Sense,” and for some other stirring words written in his other work “The American Crisis.” (Words like “These are the times that try men’s souls.”) But relatively few have even heard of his 1791 work “Rights of Man.” The work was written in response to Edmund Burke’s 1790 work “Reflections on the Revolution in France.” To describe that work in detail would be tangential here, and I plan to do so later in another blog post. Thus, suffice it to say here that Edmund Burke was a major critic of the French Revolution, which was still going on when both men were writing these works. In this, Edmund Burke was closer to other American Founding Fathers besides Paine, such as John Adams and George Washington. Both of these men eventually shared Burke’s negative view of the French Revolution.

Thomas Paine

An overview of the New Zealand Wars

“The chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the seperate and independent chiefs who have not become members of the Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen [Victoria] of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of sovereignty which the said Confederation or individual chiefs respectively exercise or possess, or may be supposed to exercise or to possess over their respective territories as the sole sovereigns thereof.”

– Article 1 of the “Treaty of Waitangi” (1840), today considered the basis of the unwritten constitution of New Zealand

Early contact with Europeans, the Musket Wars, and the Treaty of Waitangi (1840)

European ships reached New Zealand as early as 1642. But the two main islands of what is now New Zealand were already inhabited by the Māori, as you may know. The British explorer James Cook arrived in 1769 – and, over the course of three voyages, Captain Cook eventually mapped and circumnavigated New Zealand. Of course, Māori wars predate European contact – but they took on a somewhat different character when European weapons like the musket arrived. This led to the native “Musket Wars,” which went from 1818 to sometime in the 1830s. (It’s hard to know exactly when these wars ended.) On 6 February 1840, William Hobson and his British associates signed the “Treaty of Waitangi” with some of the natives. Its anniversary is today celebrated as the national holiday of New Zealand. It is simply called “Waitangi Day” there. The local Māori tribes were convinced to sign. They had to cede many of their rights to the government of Queen Victoria, much to their chagrin. In return, Queen Victoria recognized their rights as “British subjects” (see the further quotes from the treaty below). Thus, one might say that the “Treaty of Waitangi” forms the basis of the unwritten New Zealand constitution – just as the Magna Carta forms the basis of the unwritten British constitution. But there were soon early engagements between the Māori and the British, such as the Wairau Affray in 1843.

The earlier Musket Wars, a Māori conflict influenced by the European musket

Hōne Heke cuts down the flagstaff on Flagstaff Hill at Kororāreka

The Great Turkish War: How Europe fought back against the Ottomans

In the seventeenth century, the Ottoman Empire was making many enemies in Europe

The seventeenth century was rocked by several wars in Europe. But this century also saw a few major wars in the Middle East as well. For example, there were the forgotten Mughal-Safavid Wars. These wars were fought intermittently for many decades – before, during, and after the seventeenth century. There was also another major power in the Middle East, which was the Ottoman Empire. Unlike these other powers, it had ambitions in Continental Europe itself. The Ottoman Empire had been expanding further and further into the Balkans, and even into Central and Eastern Europe. But the Ottoman Turks were then making many enemies in Europe. Thus, the Ottomans were getting a little over-extended there. The Turks would soon be facing coalitions of several European powers – including the Russians, whom they had faced in two prior wars. The Ottoman Turks had also fought a few wars against Poland in the past, and would soon be facing the Poles again in this struggle. And some prior conflicts with the Habsburg monarchy would also be re-ignited in the coming struggle. Sadly for the Turks, there would be other enemies for them, as the Europeans decided to fight back against the Ottoman incursions. United by a common interest, their alliance would soon prove formidable to the Turks, in a conflict sometimes called the “Last Crusade.” Small wonder, then, that the Ottoman Turks would remember it simply as the “Disaster Years.” But the rest of the world would usually remember it … as the “Great Turkish War.” Like the prior Mughal-Safavid Wars, the “Great Turkish War” would prove one of the greatest conflicts of the seventeenth century. In this conflict, much of Christian Europe would band together, in a “holy resistance” to the Muslim invaders.

Battle of Vienna, 1683 – the opening battle of the Great Turkish War

Battle of Párkány, 1683 – part of the Polish-Ottoman War

Plato’s Allegory of the Cave: A metaphor for the ages

Plato wrote many great works, such as his records of the trial of Socrates. Specifically, his work “Apology” alone alone could earn him a place in the pantheon of Western philosophers. But his work entitled “Republic” is different. It seems to be best known today for its near-totalitarian political philosophy. Specifically, in that work, Plato advocated a philosopher-king with absolute power. I’ve never been a big fan of this particular part of the work. In fairness, Plato was writing more than 2,000 years ago, and did not have the kind of hindsight that we have today. I have more mixed feelings about Plato’s theory of forms, another doctrine detailed in the pages of “The Republic.” It’s not a very practical theory, but it may be among the first attempts in history to grapple with the problems presented by abstract concepts, and the concrete physical examples of them. Since I admittedly lack any true expertise in metaphysics, I will refrain from commenting further on Plato’s theory of forms in this particular post. And I will instead leave the discussion of Plato’s political theory to two other posts (here and here, respectively). Here, I will instead undertake to comment on a different part of “The Republic” – one of the few parts that actually meets with my approval. Specifically, I will be commenting here on Plato’s famous “Allegory of the Cave,” one of the classic allegories of Western literature and philosophy. It can be taken broadly as a metaphor for the discovery (or re-discovery) of some kind of world, which was previously unknown or forgotten. It could also be a metaphor for political or religious conversion, or the discovery of some subculture in which one finally feels at home.

Plato

What the War of 1812 did for the United States

“His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.”

– Article 1 of the Treaty of Paris (1783), which ended the American Revolution

Anecdote about the diplomacy of John Adams, during and after the American Revolution

In 1785, John Adams became the first American ambassador to meet with a British king. That monarch was King George the Third, who then remained somewhat unpopular in the American colonies. As was customary for ambassadors in this time, Adams approached the king and bowed three times. As Wikipedia puts it, Adams then “promised to do all that he could to restore friendship and cordiality between people separated by an ocean and [who] ‘have the same language, a similar religion and kindred blood.’ The king agreed and added that ‘while he had been the last to consent’ to American independence, he wished Adams to know that he had always done what he thought right and proper. He inquired, ‘There is an opinion, among some people, that you are not the most attached of all your countrymen, to the manners of France.’ Adams replied, ‘That opinion sir, is not mistaken, I must avow to your Majesty, I have no attachments but to my own country.’ George responded, ‘An honest man will never have any other.’” (Source: Their page on the “Diplomacy of John Adams”) John Adams had signed the peace treaty with Britain that ended the Revolutionary War. Later on, his son John Quincy Adams would sign the peace treaty with Britain that ended the War of 1812. Both tried to sort out some of the issues left over from the American Revolution – whether before, during, or after the War of 1812.

Naval engagement in our Quasi-War with France, 1799