What was the “Hundred Years’ War”? (Depends on which one you mean)

There are a few candidates for this name, all of them involving Britain and France

You might already know that the Normans invaded England in 1066 – now the most famous year in English history. The Norman rulers seem to have been genetically Scandinavian, rather than French. That is, they seem to have been of Viking stock. But these Norman rulers had been living in France for a few generations. Thus, they and their followers were all native speakers of French. They soon came to impose the French language and laws on the people of England, as well as a few other parts of Britain. This explains why the English language has so many French loanwords in its vocabulary. Scholars estimate that perhaps 30% of Modern English words are of French origin (usually Norman French origin). Another 30% come directly from the related language of Latin. The first war between England and France seems to have begun in 1109. In that same century, the Norman reign in England gave way to another French-speaking dynasty: the Plantagenet dynasty. The Plantagenet rulers would also remain French-speaking for the next few centuries. (But that’s a story for another post.) England and France would be at each other’s throats, on and off, for many centuries to come. Not all of their wars are today considered a part of some “Hundred Years’ War” or other. But all of the candidates for the name of “Hundred Years’ War” involved France and England – or, in later centuries, France and Great Britain. By examining those three conflicts that are candidates for this name, we may learn something about the centuries-long struggle between the French and the English, and why they still have some amount of rivalry today – although it’s now more good-natured.

Battle of Bouvines, 1214 – part of the “First” Hundred Years’ War

The Thirty Years’ War was intertwined with many other conflicts

The Thirty Years’ War eventually claimed at least four million lives …

It was one of the most destructive wars in European history. The Thirty Years’ War eventually claimed at least four million lives. It was part of the European wars of religion, which arose in the wake of the Protestant Reformation. Several wars which began long before it, and several other wars which ended long after its termination, would eventually become connected with the massive “Thirty Years’ War.” This means that it was part of a series of conflicts that rocked the European world – and some of them spilled over into other parts of the world as well. Thus, this might be a good time to look at a few of these forgotten conflicts, and what they can tell us about early modern Europe. Some of these conflicts began back during the Renaissance and the Reformation, while others continued into the Age of Enlightenment. But all of them would leave casualties behind them, leaving a trail of destruction from one end of the Continent to the other.

Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden at the Battle of Breitenfeld, 1631 – part of the Thirty Years’ War

The Sack of Magdeburg, 1631 – part of the Thirty Years’ War

The wars commemorated on “Cinco de Mayo”

In 1862, the Battle of Puebla was fought in Mexico. Specifically, Mexican forces defeated the invading armies of France on the 5th of May. Thus, on “Cinco de Mayo,” the anniversary of this battle is today celebrated by some Mexican Americans. This is the most famous legacy of the war today. But why did the French want to invade Mexico in the first place? What can we learn from another French intervention in Mexico, which happened in an earlier decade? And how can we understand these two French interventions in Mexico … in their broader historical context? These are the questions that I will be trying to answer today. I will try to mention other nineteenth-century wars fought by either France or Mexico. By so doing, we can achieve a greater understanding of these two interventions, their connection to the American Civil War, and the “Cinco de Mayo” holiday.

Photo of Queretaro taken during the battle there – Mexico, 1867

A few problems with Karl Marx’s “Das Kapital” (Volume One)

“We have further seen that the capitalist buys with the same capital a greater mass of labour power, as he progressively replaces skilled labourers by less skilled, mature labour power by immature, male by female, that of adults by that of young persons or children.”

– Karl Marx, in “Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomie” (“Capital: A Critique of Political Economy”), Volume 1 (published 1867), Part 1, Chapter 25

So I recently finished reading the first volume of Karl Marx’s “Das Kapital.” It seemed to me that many a fallacy could be found therein. A few examples may suffice here to show how the problems with “Das Kapital” seem to begin in the very first volume. Thus, without further ado, let me launch into some of the problems with Volume One. They include faulty definitions, self-contradictions, circular arguments, and many other problems – as I will soon show.

Karl Marx

Why your utopian scheme will never work (and may even make things worse)

How I fell in love with my homeland (the United States), particularly in early childhood

Since the earliest years of my childhood, my family and I would go to visit my grandparents’ home in California. Fireworks are perfectly legal where they lived, so we would always celebrate America’s Independence Day with some fireworks, right there in my grandparents’ back yard. It seems safe to say that I enjoyed the fireworks, long before I learned anything about the holiday that these fireworks were supposed to commemorate. As I’ve mentioned in a few other blog posts, I grew up on the stories of the American Revolution. Specifically, sometime in elementary school, I read an illustrated children’s book about the American Revolutionary War. I remember my childhood admiration for General George Washington, and my feeling betrayed by the treachery of Benedict Arnold. I may have lost some of my admiration for the fireworks (old age does that), but I still have great enthusiasm for America. And I’m still happy to watch the fireworks with family, because I know that it helps them to experience these patriotic feelings that the holiday encourages. I also love the freedom of religion that comes from our Bill of Rights, which made it possible to have a Restorationist church like my own. I also love freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the other rights enshrined in the United States Constitution. I was born in the United States in Sacramento, California – with both sides of my family having been American citizens for generations. I also grew up hearing about how one of my grandfathers had served in World War II. Specifically, my Grandpa Wells served in the Pacific as a Marine. Long before I understood just what a terrible sacrifice that was, I knew that he had put his life on the line for his country – and I knew, in some little-boy way, that this was important. My other grandfather (along with the intervening generation of my own father) got me into World War II movies. When I entered high school, these two generations on my dad’s side got me into the Civil War as well. All of these things remain lifelong interests today, and remain part of my love of the United States.

Alexander Hamilton, whom I shall soon quote herein

George Washington crossing the Delaware, 1776

Why I am fascinated by British history

“That it is the right and privilege of the subjects to protest for remedy of law to the king and parliament against sentences pronounced by the lords of session, providing the same does not stop execution of these sentences.”

– Claim of Right 1689 (or “The Declaration of the Estates of the Kingdom of Scotland containing the Claim of Right and the offer of the Croune to the King and Queen of England”), Paragraph 41 – as passed by the Convention of the Estates, a sister body to the Parliament of Scotland

Exposure to British history (and larger British culture) in my early childhood

To some degree, I actually grew up seeing the British as the “bad guys” of the American Revolution. They were the tyrannical regime against whom we had been fighting during our war of independence. Thus, it actually surprised me to learn that the British have since become our most important allies (as I describe here). I remember being surprised, for example, at seeing British and American soldiers fighting alongside each other in various World War II movies. I grew up on many movies, historical and otherwise, that took place in the British Isles – or had British characters, of one sort or another. To some degree, that’s because Americans routinely watch a fair number of British movies, like the various Harry Potter movies of my youth. And, even in many American movies, British characters and ideas can figure prominently in the story. Playful stereotypes of the British can show them as “stuffy” and “unemotional,” while the British (in their turn) sometimes portray Americans as unsophisticated “cowboys” and “rubes.” Nonetheless, the two sides of this “great Atlantic divide” usually see each other in a more favorable light today. And, in many ways, this is as it should be. The controversies of the American Revolution and the War of 1812 are usually put aside when Britons and Americans interact, and most disputations on these subjects tend to be fairly good-natured today (although they would not have been such at the time). In high school, I was often watching movies and reading books which undertook to depict the British experience of World War II. These movies are a great contribution to the history, and I learned much from watching various British movies about their own (truly vital) role in this conflict. These included “The Dam Busters,” “Battle of Britain,” and “Sink the Bismarck!” (among others).

Why we ignore British history at our peril

“The archbishop or bishop shall say, Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the people of this kingdom of England, and the dominions thereto belonging, according to the statutes in parliament agreed on, and the laws and customs of the same? --- The king or queen shall say, I solemnly promise so to do.

Archbishop or bishop. Will you to your power cause law and justice, in mercy, to be executed in all your judgments? --- King or queen. I will.”

– First part of the coronation oath of British monarchs in Sir William Blackstone’s time, as quoted in his “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1765), Book 1, Chapter 6 (some of the oath’s wording regarding the monarch’s duty to Parliament has since been changed)

I should acknowledge that every known civilization has left its distinctive mark upon the world. But Britain’s influence upon world history, including through its daughter country of the United States, seems particularly great. In the history of the world, I hold Britain’s influence to be pretty much incomparable. In my opinion, even the influence of the Athenian democracy of Ancient Greece, or the Republic and Empire periods of Ancient Rome, may not quite compare to the influence of Britain. Again, the influence of the United States could be seen as being merely an extension of this British influence. It seems to have been the British Isles that gave birth to a government … answering to most of their people. (More about that later on in this post.) I understand that the influence of other civilizations is also great, and I have likewise covered some of their truly-salutary influence elsewhere. For example, I have covered India here, China here, and Japan here. I have covered Mexico here, Brazil here, and the distant African continent here. But nearly every post-Renaissance civilization has been influenced, to some degree or another, by the sons and daughters of the British Isles. Some of that influence has been good, and some of it has obviously been rather bad. But all of it has been important, in one way or another, for the history of the larger world.