comments, comments, comments
Flavius Claudius Julianus (331/332[1] – 26 June 363), commonly known as Julian, Julian the Apostate or Julian the Philosopher, was Roman Emperor from 355 to 363. He is also a noted philosopher and Greek writer.[2] A member of the Constantinian dynasty, he was made Caesar by Constantius II in 355 and took command of the western provinces. During his reign he campaigned successfully against the Alamanni and Franks. Most notable was his crushing victory over the Alamanni in 357 at the Battle of Argentoratum - despite being outnumbered. In 360 he was acclaimed Augustus by his soldiers, sparking a civil war between Julian and Constantius. However, Constantius died before the two could face each other in battle, naming Julian as his rightful successor. In 363, Julian embarked on an ambitious campaign against the Sassanid Empire. Though initially successful, Julian was mortally wounded in battle and died shortly after.
Julian was a man of unusually complex character: he was "the military commander, the theosophist, the social reformer, and the man of letters".[3] He was the last non-Christian ruler of the Roman Empire and it was his desire to bring the empire back to its ancient Roman values in order to save it from "dissolution".[4] He purged the top-heavy state bureaucracy and attempted to revive traditional Roman religious practices at the cost of Christianity. His rejection of Christianity in favour of Neoplatonic paganism caused him to be called Julian the Apostate by the church.[5] Interestingly, he was also the last emperor of the Constantinian dynasty - the empire's first Christian dynasty.
Flavius Claudius Julianus, born in May or June 332[6] or 331 in Constantinople, was the son of Julius Constantius (consul in 335), half brother of Emperor Constantine I, and his second wife, Basilina, a woman of Greek origin,[7][8] both were Christians. His paternal grandparents were Western Roman Emperor Constantius Chlorus and his second wife, Flavia Maximiana Theodora. His maternal grandfather was Julius Julianus, praetorian prefect of the East under emperor Licinius from 315 to 324 and consul after 325.[9] The name of Julian's maternal grandmother is unknown.
In the turmoil after the death of Constantine in 337, in order to establish himself as sole emperor, Julian's zealous Arian Christian cousin Constantius II led a massacre of Julian's family. Constantius II ordered the murders of many descendants from the second marriage of Constantius Chlorus and Theodora, leaving only Constantius and his brothers Constantine II and Constans I, and their cousins, Julian and Gallus (Julian's half-brother), as the surviving males related to Emperor Constantine. Constantius II, Constans I, and Constantine II were proclaimed joint emperors, each ruling a portion of Roman territory. Julian and Gallus were excluded from public life and given a strictly Arian Christian education.
Initially growing up in Bithynia, raised by his maternal grandmother, at the age of seven he was under the guardianship of Eusebius of Nicomedia, the semi-Arian Christian Bishop of Nicomedia, and taught by Mardonius, a Gothic eunuch, whom Julian wrote warmly of later. After Eusebius died in 342, both Julian and Gallus were exiled to the imperial estate of Macellum in Cappadocia. Here Julian met the Christian bishop George of Cappadocia, who lent him books from the classical tradition. At the age of 18, the exile was lifted and he dwelt briefly in Constantinople and Nicomedia.[10]
He became a lector, a minor office in the Christian church, and his later writings show a detailed knowledge of the Bible, likely acquired in his early life.[11] (Looking back on his life in 362, Julian wrote, in his thirty-first year, that he had spent twenty years in the way of Christianity and twelve in the true way (i.e. the way of Helios).[12])
Julian studied Neoplatonism in Asia Minor in 351, at first under Aedesius, the philosopher, and then Neoplatonic theurgy from Aedesius' student, Maximus of Ephesus. He was summoned to Constantius' court in Milan in 354 and kept there for a year; in the summer and fall of 355, he was permitted to study in Athens. While there, Julian became acquainted with two men who later became both bishops and saints: Gregory of Nazianzus and Basil the Great; in the same period, Julian was also initiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries, which he would later try to restore.
Constantine II died in 340 when he attacked his brother Constans. Constans in turn fell in 350 in the war against the usurper Magnentius. This left Constantius II as the sole remaining emperor. In need of support, in 351 he made Julian's half-brother, Gallus, Caesar of the East, while Constantius II himself turned his attention westward to Magnentius, whom he defeated decisively that year. In 354 Gallus, who had imposed a rule of terror over the territories under his command, was executed. Julian was summoned to court, and held for a year, under suspicion of treasonable intrigue, first with his brother and then with Claudius Silvanus; he was cleared, in part because the Empress Eusebia intervened on his behalf, and he was sent to Athens. (Julian expresses his gratitude to the empress Eusebia in his third oration.[13])
[edit] Caesar in Gaul
After dealing with the rebellions of Magnentius and Sylvanus, Constantius felt he needed a permanent representative in Gaul. Julian was thus summoned to appear before the emperor in Mediolanum (Milan) and, on 6 November, 355, he was made Caesar of the West and married Constantius' sister, Helena. Constantius, after his experience with Gallus, intended his representative to be more a figurehead than an active participant in events, so he packed Julian off to Gaul with a small retinue and Constantius' prefects in Gaul would keep him in check. Julian, however, had other ideas, taking every opportunity to involve himself in the affairs of Gaul.[14] In the following years Julian learned how to lead and then run an army, through a series of campaigns against the Germanic tribes that had settled on both sides of the Rhine.
Campaigns against the Germanic tribes
In 356 during his first campaign he led an army to the Rhine, engaged the barbarians and won back several towns that had fallen into Frankish hands, including Colonia Agrippina (Cologne). With success under his belt he withdrew for the winter to Gaul, distributing his forces to protect various towns, and choosing the small town of Senon near Verdun to await the spring.[15] This turned out to be a tactical error, for he was left with insufficient forces to defend himself when a large contingent of Franks besieged the town and Julian was virtually held captive there for several months, until his general Marcellus deigned to lift the siege. Relations between Julian and Marcellus seem to have been poor. Constantius accepted Julian's report of events and Marcellus was replaced as magister equitum by Severus.[16][17]
The following year saw a combined operation planned by Constantius to regain control of the Rhine from the Germanic tribes that had spilt across the river onto the west bank. From the south his magister peditum Barbatio was to come from Milan and amass forces at Augst (near the Rhine bend), then set off north with 25,000 soldiers; Julian with 13,000 troops would move east from Reims. However, while Julian was in transit, a group of Laeti attacked Lyon ("Lugdunum") and Julian was delayed in order to deal with them. This left Barbatio unsupported and deep in Alamanni territory, so he felt obliged to withdraw, retracing his steps. Thus ended the coordinated operation against the Germanic tribes.[18][19]
With Barbatio safely out of the picture, King Chnodomarius led a confederation of Alamanni forces against Julian and Severus in a battle that took place in the vicinity of Strasbourg. The Romans were heavily outnumbered[20] and during the heat of battle a group of 600 horsemen on the right wing deserted,[21] yet, taking full advantage of the limitations of the terrain, the Romans were overwhelmingly victorious. The enemy was routed and driven into the river. King Chnodomarius was captured and later sent to Constantius in Milan.[22][23] Ammianus, who was a participant in the battle, portrays Julian in charge of events on the battlefield[24] and describes how the soldiers, because of this success, acclaimed Julian attempting to make him Augustus, an acclamation he rejected, rebuking them. He later rewarded them for their valor.[25]
Rather than chase the routed enemy across the Rhine, Julian now proceeded to follow the Rhine north, the route he followed the previous year on his way back to Gaul, but at the Mainz bridge he crossed over and made a sudden foray into Alamanni territory, where Roman forces had not been seen for many years, forcing three kings to submit. This action showed the Alamanni that Rome was once again present and active in the area. On his way back to winter quarters in Paris he dealt with a band of Franks that had taken control of some abandoned forts along the Meuse River.[23][26]
In 358, Julian gained victories over the Salian Franks on the Lower Rhine, settling them in Toxandria in the Roman Empire, north of today's city of Tongeren, and over the Chamavi, who were expelled back to Hamaland.
[edit] Taxation and administration
At the end of 357 Julian, with the prestige of his victory over the Alamanni to give him confidence, prevented a tax increase by the Gallic praetorian prefect Florentius and personally took charge of the province of Belgica Secunda. This was Julian's first experience with civil administration. Properly it was a role that belonged to the praetorian prefect. However, Florentius and Julian often clashed over the administration of Gaul. Julian's first priority, as Caesar and nominal ranking commander in Gaul, was to drive out the barbarians who had breached the Rhine frontier. However, he sought to win over the support of the civil population, which was necessary for his operations in Gaul and also to show his largely Germanic army the benefits of Imperial rule. He therefore felt it was necessary to rebuild stable and peaceful conditions in the devastated cities and countryside. For this reason, Julian clashed with Florentius over the latter's support of tax increases, as mentioned above, and Florentius's own corruption in the bureaucracy.
Constantius attempted to maintain some modicum of control over his Caesar, which explains his removal of Julian's close adviser Saturninius Secundus Salutius from Gaul. His departure stimulated the writing of Julian's oration, "Consolation Upon the Departure of Salutius"
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
14
ONE WORD: COMMENTS
There seems to be an seemingly unending supply of music to keep us going and Numero Uno have certainly sustained us over the last year or so. Here they come again with a remarkable album from Boscoe.
Chicago’s South Side was the absolute epicenter of African-American creativity. In any other city, at any other time, they might’ve been a monstrously important band, but in the early 1970s, Boscoe was lost in the flurry of acts exploding musical genres to form “Great Black Music.” While the Art Ensemble of Chicago, Sun Ra’s Arkestra and Phil Cohran’s Artistic Heritage Ensemble led the charge away from mainstream culture, past the borders and boundaries of commercial music, Boscoe’s lone album was denied inclusion into the canon of Great Black Music only by its obscurity. An outsider even in an outsider subculture.
Their local pedigree was impressive. To the locals. The first incarnation of the band, known as From The Womb To The Tomb, backed a host of Chicago-based acts including Little Johnny Williams, Glenda Dove, the Five Wagers, Little Oscar, the Sequins, Johnny Moore, the Norfleets, and Ruby Andrews. In In addition to a lengthy residency at the Green Bunny Lounge, Boscoe gigged 3 to 4 nights a week at The Mark IV, The Burning Spear, Bill Street, Peyton Place, and Guys and Dolls. And whenever they played the High Chapparal, crowds could well expect cameos from the likes of Garland Green, Tyrone Davis, or Syl Johnson.
Thankfully, the band would finally commit to tapelive in the studio—the original material they had carefully honed in performance. A quick and thrifty approach, the result. Boscoe, is a vibrant document of an explosive live act at their peak. Boscoe’s raw immediacy is undiminished by studio polish or perfectionism, yet every bass run booms, every vocal rumbles in just the proper manner. Before Side A is half over, we’re witness to the invocation of death, a war for peace that black America is destined to fight, Malcolm X's violent passing, brains already in the grave, God's damning of us all, and a glib parody of "The Star Spangled Banner," all served up in a crawling funk fusion as eager to blast us awake with harsh words as it is with insistent horns.
The Art Ensemble Of Chicago and Sun Ra’s Arkestra continued performing and repackaging their music in America even after their members and leaders passed on. Boscoe’s fate, however, lay on the other side of the world. As copies of the LP trickled out to Japan, word of mouth spread, positioning Boscoe as a Holy Grail. But for the members of Boscoe, the renewed interest in their unique art comes as no surprise. They didn’t record an album for just one time or place, or even one skin color. Boscoe was intended as a wake up call, a ticking clock about to ring that can be ignored no longer. The rediscovery of Boscoe’s music was less simple than that of their peers.
Art Ensemble Of Chicago and Sun Ra’s Arkestra saw a major resurgence of interest in the 1990s and have continued performing and repackaging their music even as members and leaders have passed on. Across the Atlantic, the rare groove scene would embrace Phil Cohran’s Artistic Heritage Ensemble and the Pharaohs, sparking several high-profile reissues. Boscoe’s fate, however, lay on the other side of the Pacific. As copies of the LP trickled out to Japan, word of mouth spread, positioning Boscoe as a sort of Holy Grail for the genre. In 2001 Jamie Hodge began the process of researching the album for release on his Aestuarium label. Half a decade later, this reissue is built on the back of his work. For the members of Boscoe, the resurgent interest in their art comes as no surprise. They didn’t record an album for just one time or place, or even one skin color. Boscoe was intended as a wake up call, a ringing phone that can be ignored no longer.
One of the hippest records ever to come out of Chicago -- the sole recording by Boscoe, a group who was even more obscure and experimental than contemporaries like The Pharoahs or Artistic Heritage Ensemble! Like those groups, Boscoe has a very unique, very visionary approach -- one that's not content just to echo the standard post-Coltrane modes that other spiritual jazz groups around the country were hitting -- but which instead moves into territory that touches on the darker sides of funk, soul, and spoken word of the time -- all with a message that's incredibly powerful, and conception that's wonderfully fresh throughout! The group's lineup features tenor, trumpet, trombone, guitar, bass, and drums -- but they way they're put together is often far different than other funky combos -- and it's clear that the group had as much of a sensibility about the overall sound of their record as they did their freer grooves.
At times, there's a righteousness here that recalls the best of the early Westbound Records scene from Detroit -- but there's an even higher agenda too, which is more in keeping with the spiritual aspriations of their Chicago contemporaries, and which really show up in the lyrics. The whole album's a masterpiece from start to finish -- unlike anything that we can think of, still ripe for rediscovery today, and just the kind of set that makes us prouder than ever of our Chicago heritage! Titles include "We Ain't Free", "Money Won't Save You", "Now and Den", "He Keeps You", "I'm What You Need", and "Writin' On The Wall". (Amazing gatefold reissue -- heavy vinyl, heavy cover, and with all the notes of the CD!)
There seems to be an seemingly unending supply of music to keep us going and Numero Uno have certainly sustained us over the last year or so. Here they come again with a remarkable album from Boscoe.
Chicago’s South Side was the absolute epicenter of African-American creativity. In any other city, at any other time, they might’ve been a monstrously important band, but in the early 1970s, Boscoe was lost in the flurry of acts exploding musical genres to form “Great Black Music.” While the Art Ensemble of Chicago, Sun Ra’s Arkestra and Phil Cohran’s Artistic Heritage Ensemble led the charge away from mainstream culture, past the borders and boundaries of commercial music, Boscoe’s lone album was denied inclusion into the canon of Great Black Music only by its obscurity. An outsider even in an outsider subculture.
Their local pedigree was impressive. To the locals. The first incarnation of the band, known as From The Womb To The Tomb, backed a host of Chicago-based acts including Little Johnny Williams, Glenda Dove, the Five Wagers, Little Oscar, the Sequins, Johnny Moore, the Norfleets, and Ruby Andrews. In In addition to a lengthy residency at the Green Bunny Lounge, Boscoe gigged 3 to 4 nights a week at The Mark IV, The Burning Spear, Bill Street, Peyton Place, and Guys and Dolls. And whenever they played the High Chapparal, crowds could well expect cameos from the likes of Garland Green, Tyrone Davis, or Syl Johnson.
Thankfully, the band would finally commit to tapelive in the studio—the original material they had carefully honed in performance. A quick and thrifty approach, the result. Boscoe, is a vibrant document of an explosive live act at their peak. Boscoe’s raw immediacy is undiminished by studio polish or perfectionism, yet every bass run booms, every vocal rumbles in just the proper manner. Before Side A is half over, we’re witness to the invocation of death, a war for peace that black America is destined to fight, Malcolm X's violent passing, brains already in the grave, God's damning of us all, and a glib parody of "The Star Spangled Banner," all served up in a crawling funk fusion as eager to blast us awake with harsh words as it is with insistent horns.
The Art Ensemble Of Chicago and Sun Ra’s Arkestra continued performing and repackaging their music in America even after their members and leaders passed on. Boscoe’s fate, however, lay on the other side of the world. As copies of the LP trickled out to Japan, word of mouth spread, positioning Boscoe as a Holy Grail. But for the members of Boscoe, the renewed interest in their unique art comes as no surprise. They didn’t record an album for just one time or place, or even one skin color. Boscoe was intended as a wake up call, a ticking clock about to ring that can be ignored no longer. The rediscovery of Boscoe’s music was less simple than that of their peers.
Art Ensemble Of Chicago and Sun Ra’s Arkestra saw a major resurgence of interest in the 1990s and have continued performing and repackaging their music even as members and leaders have passed on. Across the Atlantic, the rare groove scene would embrace Phil Cohran’s Artistic Heritage Ensemble and the Pharaohs, sparking several high-profile reissues. Boscoe’s fate, however, lay on the other side of the Pacific. As copies of the LP trickled out to Japan, word of mouth spread, positioning Boscoe as a sort of Holy Grail for the genre. In 2001 Jamie Hodge began the process of researching the album for release on his Aestuarium label. Half a decade later, this reissue is built on the back of his work. For the members of Boscoe, the resurgent interest in their art comes as no surprise. They didn’t record an album for just one time or place, or even one skin color. Boscoe was intended as a wake up call, a ringing phone that can be ignored no longer.
One of the hippest records ever to come out of Chicago -- the sole recording by Boscoe, a group who was even more obscure and experimental than contemporaries like The Pharoahs or Artistic Heritage Ensemble! Like those groups, Boscoe has a very unique, very visionary approach -- one that's not content just to echo the standard post-Coltrane modes that other spiritual jazz groups around the country were hitting -- but which instead moves into territory that touches on the darker sides of funk, soul, and spoken word of the time -- all with a message that's incredibly powerful, and conception that's wonderfully fresh throughout! The group's lineup features tenor, trumpet, trombone, guitar, bass, and drums -- but they way they're put together is often far different than other funky combos -- and it's clear that the group had as much of a sensibility about the overall sound of their record as they did their freer grooves.
At times, there's a righteousness here that recalls the best of the early Westbound Records scene from Detroit -- but there's an even higher agenda too, which is more in keeping with the spiritual aspriations of their Chicago contemporaries, and which really show up in the lyrics. The whole album's a masterpiece from start to finish -- unlike anything that we can think of, still ripe for rediscovery today, and just the kind of set that makes us prouder than ever of our Chicago heritage! Titles include "We Ain't Free", "Money Won't Save You", "Now and Den", "He Keeps You", "I'm What You Need", and "Writin' On The Wall". (Amazing gatefold reissue -- heavy vinyl, heavy cover, and with all the notes of the CD!)
Sunday, November 7, 2010
13
I welcome your attention to the comments...
George Brinton McClellan (December 3, 1826 – October 29, 1885) was a major general during the American Civil War. He organized the famous Army of the Potomac and served briefly (November 1861 to March 1862) as the general-in-chief of the Union Army. Early in the war, McClellan played an important role in raising a well-trained and organized army for the Union. Although McClellan was meticulous in his planning and preparations, these characteristics may have hampered his ability to challenge aggressive opponents in a fast-moving battlefield environment. He chronically overestimated the strength of enemy units and was reluctant to apply principles of mass, frequently leaving large portions of his army unengaged at decisive points.
McClellan's Peninsula Campaign in 1862 ended in failure, with retreats from attacks by General Robert E. Lee's smaller Army of Virginia and an unfulfilled plan to seize the Confederate capital of Richmond. His performance at the bloody Battle of Antietam blunted Lee's invasion of Maryland, but allowed Lee to eke out a precarious tactical draw and avoid destruction, despite being outnumbered. As a result, McClellan's leadership skills during battles were questioned by U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, who eventually removed him from command, first as general-in-chief, then from the Army of the Potomac. Lincoln offered this famous evaluation of McClellan: "If he can't fight himself, he excels in making others ready to fight."[1] Indeed, McClellan was the most popular of that army's commanders with its soldiers, who felt that he had their morale and well-being as paramount concerns.
General McClellan also failed to maintain the trust of Lincoln, and proved to be frustratingly derisive of, and insubordinate to, his commander-in-chief. After he was relieved of command, McClellan became the unsuccessful Democratic nominee opposing Lincoln in the 1864 presidential election. His party had an anti-war platform, promising to end the war and negotiate with the Confederacy, which McClellan was forced to repudiate, damaging the effectiveness of his campaign. He served as the 24th Governor of New Jersey from 1878 to 1881. He eventually became a writer, defending his actions during the Peninsula Campaign and the Civil War.
Although the majority of modern authorities assess McClellan as a poor battlefield general, a small but vocal faction of historians maintain that he was a highly capable commander, but his reputation suffered unfairly at the hands of pro-Lincoln partisans who needed a scapegoat for the Union's setbacks. His legacy therefore defies easy categorization. After the war, Ulysses S. Grant was asked to evaluate McClellan as a general. He replied, "McClellan is to me one of the mysteries of the war."[2]
Early life and career
McClellan was born in Philadelphia, the son of a prominent surgical ophthalmologist, Dr. George McClellan, the founder of Jefferson Medical College. His mother was Elizabeth Steinmetz Brinton McClellan, daughter of a leading Pennsylvania family, a woman noted for her "considerable grace and refinement".[3] The couple produced five children: a daughter, Frederica; then three sons, John, George, and Arthur; and a second daughter, Mary. McClellan was the grandson of Revolutionary War general Samuel McClellan of Woodstock, Connecticut. He first attended the University of Pennsylvania in 1840 at age 13, resigning himself to the study of law. After two years, he changed his goal to military service. With the assistance of his father's letter to President John Tyler, young George was accepted at the United States Military Academy in 1842, the academy having waived its normal minimum age of 16.[4]
At West Point, he was an energetic and ambitious cadet, deeply interested in the teachings of Dennis Hart Mahan and the theoretical strategic principles of Antoine-Henri Jomini. His closest friends were aristocratic Southerners such as James Stuart, Dabney Maury, Cadmus Wilcox, and A.P. Hill. These associations gave McClellan what he considered to be an appreciation of the Southern mind, an understanding of the political and military implications of the sectional differences in the United States that led to the Civil War.[5] He graduated in 1846, second in his class of 59 cadets, losing the top position (to Charles Seaforth Stewart) only because of poor drawing skills.[6] He was commissioned a brevet second lieutenant in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.[7]
Mexican-American War
McClellan's first assignment was with a company of engineers formed at West Point, but he quickly received orders to sail for the Mexican-American War. He arrived near the mouth of the Rio Grande in October 1846, well prepared for action with a double-barreled shotgun, two pistols, a saber, a dress sword, and a Bowie knife. He complained that he had arrived too late to take any part in the American victory at Monterrey in September. During a temporary armistice in which the forces of Gen. Zachary Taylor awaited action, McClellan was stricken with dysentery and malaria, which kept him in the hospital for nearly a month. The malaria would recur in later years—he called it his "Mexican disease."[8] He served bravely as an engineering officer during the war, subjected to frequent enemy fire, and was appointed a brevet first lieutenant for Contreras and Churubusco and to captain for Chapultepec,[7] He performed reconnaissance missions for Lt. Gen. Winfield Scott, a close friend of McClellan's father.[9]
McClellan's experiences during the war developed various attitudes that affected his later military and political life. He learned to appreciate the value of flanking movements over frontal assaults (used by Scott at Cerro Gordo) and the value of siege operations (Vera Cruz). He witnessed Scott's success in balancing political with military affairs, and his good relations with the civil population as he invaded, enforcing strict discipline on his soldiers to minimize damage to their property. And he developed a disdain for volunteer soldiers and officers, particularly politicians who cared nothing for discipline and training.[10]
Peacetime service
McClellan returned to West Point to command his engineering company, which was attached to the academy for the purpose of training cadets in engineering activities. He chafed at the boredom of peacetime garrison service, although he greatly enjoyed the social life. In June 1851 he was ordered to Fort Delaware, a masonry work under construction on an island in the Delaware River, 40 miles (64 km) downriver from Philadelphia. In March 1852 he was ordered to report to Capt. Randolph B. Marcy at Fort Smith, Arkansas, to serve as second-in-command on an expedition to discover the sources of the Red River. By June the expedition reached the source of the north fork of the river and Marcy named a small tributary McClellan's Creek. Upon their return to civilization on July 28, they were astonished to find that they had been given up for dead. A sensational story had reached the press, which McClellan blamed on "a set of scoundrels, who seek to keep up agitation on the frontier in order to get employment from the Govt. in one way or other," that the expedition had been ambushed by 2,000 Comanches and killed to the last man.[11]
In the fall of 1852, McClellan published a manual on bayonet tactics that he had translated from the original French. He also received an assignment to the Department of Texas, with orders to perform a survey of Texas rivers and harbors. In 1853 he participated in the Pacific Railroad surveys, ordered by Secretary of War Jefferson Davis, to select an appropriate route for the upcoming transcontinental railroad. McClellan surveyed the northern corridor along the 47th and 49th parallels from St. Paul to the Puget Sound. During this assignment, he demonstrated a tendency for insubordination toward senior political figures. Isaac Stevens, governor of the Washington Territory, became dissatisfied with McClellan's performance in scouting passes across the Cascade Range. (McClellan selected Yakima Pass without a thorough reconnaissance and refused the governor's order to lead a party through it in winter conditions, relying on faulty intelligence about the depth of snowpack in that area. He also neglected to find three greatly superior passes in the near vicinity, which would be the ones eventually used for railroads and interstate highways.) The governor ordered McClellan to turn over his expedition logbooks, but McClellan steadfastly refused, most likely because of embarrassing personal comments that he had made throughout.[12]
Returning to the East, McClellan began courting Ellen Mary Marcy (1836–1915), the daughter of his former commander. Ellen, or Nelly, refused McClellan's first proposal of marriage, one of nine that she received from a variety of suitors, including his West Point friend, A.P. Hill. Ellen accepted Hill's proposal in 1856, but her family did not approve and he withdrew.[13]
In June 1854, McClellan was sent on a secret reconnaissance mission to Santo Domingo at the behest of Jefferson Davis. McClellan assessed local defensive capabilities for the secretary. (The information was not used until 1870, when President Ulysses S. Grant unsuccessfully attempted to annex the Dominican Republic.) Davis was beginning to treat McClellan almost as a protégé, and his next assignment was to assess the logistical readiness of various railroads in the United States, once again with an eye toward planning for the transcontinental railroad.[14] In March 1855, McClellan was promoted to captain and assigned to the 1st U.S. Cavalry regiment.[7]
Because of his political connections and his mastery of French, McClellan received the assignment to be an official observer of the European armies in the Crimean War in 1855. Traveling widely, and interacting with the highest military commands and royal families, McClellan observed the siege of Sevastopol. Upon his return to the United States in 1856 he requested assignment in Philadelphia to prepare his report, which contained a critical analysis of the siege and a lengthy description of the organization of the European armies. He also wrote a manual on cavalry tactics that was based on Russian cavalry regulations. A notable failure of the observers, including McClellan, was that they neglected to explain the importance of the emergence of rifled muskets in the Crimean War, and how that would require fundamental changes in tactics for the coming Civil War.[15]
The Army adopted McClellan's cavalry manual and also his design for a saddle, the "McClellan Saddle", which he claimed to have seen used by Hussars in Prussia and Hungary. It became standard issue for as long as the U.S. horse cavalry existed and is currently used for ceremonies.[16]
Friday, October 22, 2010
12
i welcome your thoughts in the comments...
The Mountain Meadows massacre was a mass slaughter of the Fancher-Baker emigrant wagon train at Mountain Meadows, Utah Territory, by a local Mormon militia and members of the Paiute Indian tribe on September 11, 1857. The incident began as an attack, quickly turned into a siege, and eventually culminated in the murder of the unarmed emigrants after their surrender. All of the party except for seventeen children under eight years old were killed—about 120 men, women, and children were killed, but precise numbers have been debated.[1] After the massacre, the corpses of the victims were left decomposing for two years on the open plain,[2] the surviving children were distributed to local Mormon families, and many of the victims' possessions were auctioned off at the Latter-day Saint Cedar City tithing office.[3]
The Arkansas emigrants were passing through the Utah Territory at a tense time in the Utah War when 2,500 troops sent by President James Buchanan were approaching with orders to restore US authority in the territory. Mormon leaders had been mustering militia and making defiant speeches stating their determination to mount a defense.[4] The emigrants stopped to rest and regroup their approximately 800 head of cattle at Mountain Meadows, a valley within the Iron County Military District of the Nauvoo Legion (the popular designation for the Mormon militia of the Utah Territory).[5]
Initially intending to encourage an Indian-led massacre,[6] local militia leaders including Isaac C. Haight and John D. Lee conspired to lead militiamen disguised as Native Americans along with a contingent of Paiute tribesmen in an attack. The emigrants fought back and a siege ensued. When the Mormons discovered that they had been identified by the emigrants, Col. William H. Dame, head of the Iron County Brigade of the Utah militia, ordered their annihilation.[7] Intending to leave no witnesses of Mormon complicity in the siege and also intending to prevent reprisals that would complicate the Utah War, militiamen induced the emigrants to surrender and give up their weapons. After escorting the emigrants out of their hasty fortification, the militiamen and their tribesmen auxiliaries executed the emigrants. Investigations, interrupted by the U.S. Civil War, resulted in nine indictments in 1874. Only John D. Lee was tried in a court of law, and after two trials, he was convicted. On March 23, 1877, a firing squad executed Lee at the massacre site.
Historians attribute the massacre to a combination of factors including war hysteria fueled by millennialism and strident Mormon teachings by senior LDS leaders including Brigham Young.[8] These teachings included doctrines about God's vengeance against those who had killed Mormon prophets, some of whom were from Arkansas. Scholars debate whether the massacre was caused by any direct involvement by Brigham Young,[9] who was never officially charged and denied any wrongdoing. However, the predominant position among scholars of the incident is that Young and other church leaders helped create the conditions which made the massacre possible.[10]
Monday, September 27, 2010
11
i welcome your thoughts in the COMMENTS...
Ruthenia is the Latin word used onwards from the 13th century, describing lands of Kiev, Pereyaslavl, Chernihiv and Galych-Volhynia in ancient Rus manuscripts. Its geographic and culturo-ethnic name at that time was applied to the parts of Eastern Europe populated nowadays mostly by Ukrainians. Essentially, the word is a Latin rendering of the ancient place name Rus. Today, the historical territory of Rus, is formed with part(s) of the lands mostly of Ukraine, and small parts of Belarus, northeastern Slovakia and a narrow strips of eastern Poland and western Russia.
The term "Ruthenia" may mean significantly different things, depending on to whom the term applies and the when, why, and to which period. It may refer to any of the following entities, appearing in rough chronological order:
Early Middle Ages
Main article: Kievan Rus'
If the name Ruthenia has any connection to the name Rus, there's a theory, that it is in the west generally held to derive from the Varangians whom the early Slavic and Finnic tribes called Rus' and this name is derived from the Old Norse root roðs- or roths- referring to the domain of rowing and still existing in the Finnish and Estonian names for Sweden, Ruotsi and Rootsi. Later the name came to denote not only the Scandinavian aristocracy in Eastern Europe but also the ethnically mixed population of their domains. But it's only one of many theories.
The term Ruteni first appears in the form rex Rutenorum in the 12th-century Augsburg annals. It was most likely a reflex of the ancient tradition, when the barbaric people were called by the names found in Classical Latin authors, i.e. Danes were called Daci and Germans were called Theutoni. Likewise, the Rus passed by the name of Ruteni, the form being influenced by one of the Gallic tribes mentioned by Julius Caesar.
There is a 12th-century Latin geography[citation needed] from France which says that "Russiam is also called Ruthenia, as you may see from the following phrase of Lucan…" The original Latin text: Polonia in uno sui capite contingit Russiam, quae et Ruthenia, de qua Lucanus: Solvuntur flavi longa statione Rutheni.
By the end of the 12th century, the word Ruthenia was used, among the alternative spelling Ruscia and Russia, in Latin papal documents to denote the lands, formerly dominated by Kiev. By the 13th century, the term became the dominant name for Rus' in Latin documents, particularly those written in Hungary, Bohemia, and Poland.
Danylo of Halych, was crowned by the papal archbishop in Dorohychyn 1253 as the first King of Rus' (Galicia–Volhynia) (1253–1264).
[edit] Late Middle Ages
By the 14th century, many states claimed their Rus ancestry. In 15th century Moscow principality (or Muscovy) took control of parts of Chernyhiv and Pereyaslavl principalities of Rus, and started to use the word "Rus'", to cover its own expanded state. Natives used other forms of the name Rus for their country, and some of these forms also passed into Latin and English.
The territories of ancient Rus Galicia–Volhynia, Kiev and other in the south were occupied by the Mongols and were freed just in the 15th century, and united with Lithuania and Catholic Poland, and therefore were usually denoted by the Latin Ruthenia. However, other spellings were used in Latin, English and other languages during this period as well.
These southern territories have corresponding names in Polish:
* Ruś Halicko-Wołyńska — Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia
* Ruś Halicka — Galicia
* Ruś Biała — White Ruthenia, White Russia or Belarus
* Ruś Czarna — Black Ruthenia, part of modern Belarus
* Ruś Czerwona — Red Ruthenia, Galicia
* Ruś Podkarpacka — Carpathian Ruthenia
[edit] Modern age
[edit] Belarusians
After World War II, in relation to Belarusians from the Eastern Borderlands (Kresy) region of pre-World War II Poland who found themselves in displaced persons camps in the Western occupation zones of the post-war Germany. At that time the notion of a Belarusian nation met with little recognition in the West[citation needed]. Therefore, to avoid confusion with the term "Russian" and hence "repatriation" to the Soviet Union, the terms White Ruthenian, Whiteruthenian, and Krivian were used. The last of these terms derives from the name of an old Eastern Slavic tribe called the Krivichs, who used to inhabit the territory of Belarus.
[edit] Ukrainians
The use of the term "Ruthenia" on the lands of ancient Rus survived longer as a name used by Ukrainians for Ukraine. When the Austrian monarchy made Galicia a province in 1772, Habsburg officials realized that the local East Slavic people were distinct from both Poles and Russians, and still called themselves Ruthenians, until the empire fell apart in 1918.
In the 19th century the ethnonym "Ukrainian" was not in common use. Indeed, even the Ukrainian poet Taras Shevchenko despite using the word Ukraine for the area of ancient Rus, never uses the term Ukrainian as an ethnonym in any of his works, but rather uses the terms Kozak or Rusyn.
In the Russian Empire by 1840 the superior term , Μικρά Ρωσία, Little Rus, Rus Minora for Ruthenians become degradative and they began calling themselves Ukrainians for Ukrayina. In the 1880s and 1900s, the popularity of the ethnonym Ukrainian spread and the term "Ukraine" became a substitute for "Ruthenia" among the Ruthenian/Ukrainian population of the Russian Empire. In time the term "Ruthenian" became restricted to western Ukraine, an area then part of the Austro-Hungarian state.
By the early 20th century, the term "Ukraine" had replaced "Ruthenia" in Galicia/Halychyna and by the mid 1920's also in the Ukrainian diaspora in North America.
Ruthenia is the Latin word used onwards from the 13th century, describing lands of Kiev, Pereyaslavl, Chernihiv and Galych-Volhynia in ancient Rus manuscripts. Its geographic and culturo-ethnic name at that time was applied to the parts of Eastern Europe populated nowadays mostly by Ukrainians. Essentially, the word is a Latin rendering of the ancient place name Rus. Today, the historical territory of Rus, is formed with part(s) of the lands mostly of Ukraine, and small parts of Belarus, northeastern Slovakia and a narrow strips of eastern Poland and western Russia.
The term "Ruthenia" may mean significantly different things, depending on to whom the term applies and the when, why, and to which period. It may refer to any of the following entities, appearing in rough chronological order:
Early Middle Ages
Main article: Kievan Rus'
If the name Ruthenia has any connection to the name Rus, there's a theory, that it is in the west generally held to derive from the Varangians whom the early Slavic and Finnic tribes called Rus' and this name is derived from the Old Norse root roðs- or roths- referring to the domain of rowing and still existing in the Finnish and Estonian names for Sweden, Ruotsi and Rootsi. Later the name came to denote not only the Scandinavian aristocracy in Eastern Europe but also the ethnically mixed population of their domains. But it's only one of many theories.
The term Ruteni first appears in the form rex Rutenorum in the 12th-century Augsburg annals. It was most likely a reflex of the ancient tradition, when the barbaric people were called by the names found in Classical Latin authors, i.e. Danes were called Daci and Germans were called Theutoni. Likewise, the Rus passed by the name of Ruteni, the form being influenced by one of the Gallic tribes mentioned by Julius Caesar.
There is a 12th-century Latin geography[citation needed] from France which says that "Russiam is also called Ruthenia, as you may see from the following phrase of Lucan…" The original Latin text: Polonia in uno sui capite contingit Russiam, quae et Ruthenia, de qua Lucanus: Solvuntur flavi longa statione Rutheni.
By the end of the 12th century, the word Ruthenia was used, among the alternative spelling Ruscia and Russia, in Latin papal documents to denote the lands, formerly dominated by Kiev. By the 13th century, the term became the dominant name for Rus' in Latin documents, particularly those written in Hungary, Bohemia, and Poland.
Danylo of Halych, was crowned by the papal archbishop in Dorohychyn 1253 as the first King of Rus' (Galicia–Volhynia) (1253–1264).
[edit] Late Middle Ages
By the 14th century, many states claimed their Rus ancestry. In 15th century Moscow principality (or Muscovy) took control of parts of Chernyhiv and Pereyaslavl principalities of Rus, and started to use the word "Rus'", to cover its own expanded state. Natives used other forms of the name Rus for their country, and some of these forms also passed into Latin and English.
The territories of ancient Rus Galicia–Volhynia, Kiev and other in the south were occupied by the Mongols and were freed just in the 15th century, and united with Lithuania and Catholic Poland, and therefore were usually denoted by the Latin Ruthenia. However, other spellings were used in Latin, English and other languages during this period as well.
These southern territories have corresponding names in Polish:
* Ruś Halicko-Wołyńska — Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia
* Ruś Halicka — Galicia
* Ruś Biała — White Ruthenia, White Russia or Belarus
* Ruś Czarna — Black Ruthenia, part of modern Belarus
* Ruś Czerwona — Red Ruthenia, Galicia
* Ruś Podkarpacka — Carpathian Ruthenia
[edit] Modern age
[edit] Belarusians
After World War II, in relation to Belarusians from the Eastern Borderlands (Kresy) region of pre-World War II Poland who found themselves in displaced persons camps in the Western occupation zones of the post-war Germany. At that time the notion of a Belarusian nation met with little recognition in the West[citation needed]. Therefore, to avoid confusion with the term "Russian" and hence "repatriation" to the Soviet Union, the terms White Ruthenian, Whiteruthenian, and Krivian were used. The last of these terms derives from the name of an old Eastern Slavic tribe called the Krivichs, who used to inhabit the territory of Belarus.
[edit] Ukrainians
The use of the term "Ruthenia" on the lands of ancient Rus survived longer as a name used by Ukrainians for Ukraine. When the Austrian monarchy made Galicia a province in 1772, Habsburg officials realized that the local East Slavic people were distinct from both Poles and Russians, and still called themselves Ruthenians, until the empire fell apart in 1918.
In the 19th century the ethnonym "Ukrainian" was not in common use. Indeed, even the Ukrainian poet Taras Shevchenko despite using the word Ukraine for the area of ancient Rus, never uses the term Ukrainian as an ethnonym in any of his works, but rather uses the terms Kozak or Rusyn.
In the Russian Empire by 1840 the superior term , Μικρά Ρωσία, Little Rus, Rus Minora for Ruthenians become degradative and they began calling themselves Ukrainians for Ukrayina. In the 1880s and 1900s, the popularity of the ethnonym Ukrainian spread and the term "Ukraine" became a substitute for "Ruthenia" among the Ruthenian/Ukrainian population of the Russian Empire. In time the term "Ruthenian" became restricted to western Ukraine, an area then part of the Austro-Hungarian state.
By the early 20th century, the term "Ukraine" had replaced "Ruthenia" in Galicia/Halychyna and by the mid 1920's also in the Ukrainian diaspora in North America.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
10
look in the comments...
The Double: A Petersburg Poem is a novella written by Fyodor Dostoevsky. The novella was first published in 1846. The Double deals with the internal psychological struggle of its main character, Yakov Petrovich Golyadkin. The motif of the novella is a doppelgänger, known throughout the world in various guises such as the fetch.
The Double is the most Gogolesque of Dostoevsky's works; its subtitle "A Petersburg Poem" echoes that of Gogol's Dead Souls. Vladimir Nabokov called it a parody of "The Overcoat". The story is told in great detail with a style intensely saturated by phonetic and rhythmical expressiveness. The novella centers on a government clerk who goes mad, obsessed by the idea that a fellow clerk has usurped his identity. D.S. Mirsky characterized the story as a "painful, almost intolerable reading".[1]
The cruelty of the story is marked by Nikolay Mikhaylovsky and his madness. With convincing literary power, Dostoevsky depicts the sufferings of Mr. Golyadkin's humiliated human dignity. Closely related to The Double is "the still stranger and madder" (as D.S. Mirsky termed it) Mr. Prokharchin (1846). Also by Dostoevsky, the story, in places deliberately obscure and unintelligible, is about the death of a miser who accumulated a fortune while living in the abject filth of a wretched slum.
In The Double, the narrative tone depicts a man whose life is on the verge of destruction due to the sudden appearance of a literal facsimile of his self. This double attempts to destroy the protagonist's good name and claim the position of both his public life in the Russian bureaucracy and within the social circle inhabited by "Golyadkin" Senior (the author's "original Golyadkin, our hero").
The novella may, however, be viewed simply as the documentation of a schizophrenic break from reality with the realistic description of symptomatic mental degenerations, including broken speech patterns and free association. The most obvious example is the hallucination where the hero of the story sees himself everywhere he goes, especially in socially awkward situations. The man's quick downfall is characteristic of the disease
The Double: A Petersburg Poem is a novella written by Fyodor Dostoevsky. The novella was first published in 1846. The Double deals with the internal psychological struggle of its main character, Yakov Petrovich Golyadkin. The motif of the novella is a doppelgänger, known throughout the world in various guises such as the fetch.
The Double is the most Gogolesque of Dostoevsky's works; its subtitle "A Petersburg Poem" echoes that of Gogol's Dead Souls. Vladimir Nabokov called it a parody of "The Overcoat". The story is told in great detail with a style intensely saturated by phonetic and rhythmical expressiveness. The novella centers on a government clerk who goes mad, obsessed by the idea that a fellow clerk has usurped his identity. D.S. Mirsky characterized the story as a "painful, almost intolerable reading".[1]
The cruelty of the story is marked by Nikolay Mikhaylovsky and his madness. With convincing literary power, Dostoevsky depicts the sufferings of Mr. Golyadkin's humiliated human dignity. Closely related to The Double is "the still stranger and madder" (as D.S. Mirsky termed it) Mr. Prokharchin (1846). Also by Dostoevsky, the story, in places deliberately obscure and unintelligible, is about the death of a miser who accumulated a fortune while living in the abject filth of a wretched slum.
In The Double, the narrative tone depicts a man whose life is on the verge of destruction due to the sudden appearance of a literal facsimile of his self. This double attempts to destroy the protagonist's good name and claim the position of both his public life in the Russian bureaucracy and within the social circle inhabited by "Golyadkin" Senior (the author's "original Golyadkin, our hero").
The novella may, however, be viewed simply as the documentation of a schizophrenic break from reality with the realistic description of symptomatic mental degenerations, including broken speech patterns and free association. The most obvious example is the hallucination where the hero of the story sees himself everywhere he goes, especially in socially awkward situations. The man's quick downfall is characteristic of the disease
Friday, September 3, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)