Lord Hauksberg, sprawling in an antique chair in the Terran Embassy in Ardaig, to Brechdan Ironrede, from Brechdan's pov:
"'To build confidence on both sides, until a true general agreement can be reached -' mercifully, he did not say 'between our great races' - 'the inter-imperial buffer space must remain inviolate.'" (p. 95)
That cliche avoided by Hauksberg, "our great races," reminded me of two British uses of the word, "great," but I see that I have already posted about them. See Commonwealths. (We also speak of "Great Britain," of course.)
Brechdan assesses the Terrans:
Lord Oliveira of Ganymede, Imperial Ambassador to his Supremacy the Roidhun, is thin and fussy but with surprising abilities;
Lord Hauksberg, languid but in good physical condition, observant, speaking good Eriau;
Commander Abrams, fluent, accented Eriau, both words and gestures correct for "...greeting of one near in rank to his master who is your equal..." (p. 94), stout, gray-haired, big-nosed, military carriage;
Ensign Flandry, alert but junior.
Hauksberg and Abrams are the ones requiring Brechdan's attention. Abrams even knows to say:
"'The Hand of the Vach Ynvory is my shield.'" (ibid.)
- which is the precise opposite of what he thinks. Brechdan needs Aycharaych.
22 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
FORTUNATELY for the Empire Aycharaych was not on Merseia at that time. And he probably was seldom there--because as a field agent, he was far too busy making trouble for Terra elsewhere!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Good point.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Even as late as THE GAME OF EMPIRE, we see Aycharaych busy with his plots against the Empire. GAME mentions him as having a role in the remoter, beginning stages pf the Magnusson affair.
Ad astra! Sean
“Great” usually simply means “big” or “big and powerful”. Hence “Great Russian”, as opposed to “Belorussian”, for example. Great Britain refers to the large union that encompasses the whole island.
During the unification of Germany, the opposing solutions were “Grossdeutsche” and “Kleindeutsche” — including or not including the German-speaking parts of Austria. Bismarck’s German Empire was “Kleindeutsch” — “Little German” because it made no attempt to include Austria, though it would have been perfectly possible to detach, say, the Sudetenland from Austria after the victory in the Austro-Prussian War. Prussia had taken Silesia from Austria in precisely that manner in the 1750’s.
This was quite deliberate on Bismarck’s part, for a whole complex of reasons — because he didn’t want to make Austria irreconcilably hostile, but also because he didn’t want to include too many Catholic South Germans in the new Empire, lest it dilute the Prussian-Protestant hegemony within it.
Even with the growing strength of nationalist sentiments, religion was still a serious political factor at the time — Catholic/Protestant splits were the main line of party division in the Kaiserreich, closely tied to regional loyalties (Bavaria vs. Prussia) and only partly eclipsed later by the division between the Social Democrats and others.
Now that the SDP in Germany has effectively collapsed into irrelevance, religion or its legacy is still a significant element in German politics — the “Conservative” party in Germany is essentially split between a northern/Protestant and a southern/Bavarian/Catholic branch, for example.
Note that it was the vagaries of international politics which preserved a separate Austria: the Versailles treaty forbade unification with Germany, which was overwhelmingly popular at the time. Hitler’s unification was genuinely popular in Austria, though after 1945 there was a general agreement to pretend otherwise..
Even today, “Piffke” is not a complement — it’s the name of a composer of military marches in 19th century Berlin, but also a term used in southern German and Austrian circles as an insulting term for Prussian, with overtones of “pompous, bossy blowhard with a stick up his arse”.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Again, your comments made me wonder what might have happened if Austria, not Prussia, had won the hard fought and narrowly decided batter of Koniggratz in 1866? We would then have seen Austria uniting the German states under a Greater Reich. An Austrian victory at Konggratz would have been another interesting "what if" of history.
Yes, religion still mattered in German politics in Bismarck's time. One of his worse mistakes was letting anti Catholic prejudices overriding his better judgment during the Kulturkampf, his persecution of the Catholic Church. After about eight years of furor, anger, and controversy, Bismarck had had enough and gave up trying to make the Church in Germany a state puppet.
Ad astra! Sean
To be fair, State coordination of religion was an old Prussian (and Central European) tradition. The Catholic Church had no objection to using the government for religious ends, and in the 19th and for much of the 20th centuries it flatly rejected classical-liberal attempts to separate Church and State: it just objected to government control of religious affairs when done from from a non-Catholic perspective. Protestants generally fared very badly in Catholic countries, which accounts for a great deal of the general Protestant animus against Catholics.
This is also why liberals in Catholic countries (like France and Mexico) tended to be overwhelmingly anticlerical, often to the point of fanaticism.
France’s extremely determined tradition of “laiicism” — secularism — is the product of 19th century struggles between “political” Catholics and anti-clerical liberals and radicals, for instance.
Mr Stirling,
I was educated as a Catholic in NW England, then at a boarding school in Scotland,in the 1950s, then at another boarding in the Republic of Ireland in the 1960s. As far as I can remember, the teaching was:
in a country where Catholics are a minority, we insist on having our own churches and schools and that any child of a mixed marriage (like me) is baptized and educated as a Catholic;
in a country where Catholics are a majority, we get a majority in Parliament, then pass laws banning contraception and divorce.
Paul.
French laicism explains why they ban full Muslim dress on women.
Paul: yup, French anticlerical were determined to drive religious symbolism out of public life, and to exclude the Church from things like education and social services as far as they could. Applying it to Muslims seems only fair.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: I agree that in the later Middle Ages down to the 1700's, the Catholic Church accepted the bad idea of allying with the state. The earlier tradition of keeping herself at arms length from the state, any state, was far better.
I do not agree Catholics were uniquely prone to be persecutors. I only need to point out how, when Protestants came to power in many German states and Scandinavia, they had no hesitation outlawing the Church and persecuting those who remained Catholics. And the British Anglicans seem to have been uniquely vicious in how British and Irish Catholics were persecuted.
Both sides, alas, behaved badly. And anti Catholic so called liberals in countries like France and Mexico could be WORSE than fanatical. In Mexico the anti Catholics BLOODILY persecuted the Catholics, and provoked the Cristoros civil war.
Paul: If a country is mostly Catholic, why shouldn't the laws not be shaped by Catholic principles? I see nothing RIGHT, per se, in contraceptives or divorce. And I am ABSOLUTELY opposed to all direct abortions. No weaselly worded exceptions or excuses!
I recall reading, many years ago, of a canon law lawyer doubting that the "marriages" of many people these days, Catholic or not, were even valid, if closely examined. He thought many marriages were invalid due to defects of form and intention.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
But all this has wandered from the topic I started with: what might have happened to the world if the Austrians, not Prussia, had won the Seven Weeks War of 1866? Considering the many dismal consequences flowing from the Prussian victory, an alternative conclusion to the war might have been better for us.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: as to 1866, Austria wanted at most a loose federal union, and of course Prussia was never going to put up with an Austrian-led union for long.
Besides, as the old saying goes, “In Berlin the situation is serious but not desperate. In Vienna, it’s desperate, but nobody is taking it seriously.”
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree, Prussia would never long tolerate playing second fiddle to Austria. Sooner or later these two powers were going to fight--to determine who would be top dog in the Germanies.
And I still wonder what might have happened if Austria had won at Koniggratz? I've speculated Vienna would certainly take back the long lost Silesia, and perhaps the mostly Catholic Rhineland Prussian provinces. And then unify Germany in the kind of federal union you suggested.
Ad astra! Sean
All this detailed historical knowledge is way over my head. But Poul Anderson knew enough of it to inform his historical fiction and future histories.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I merely took an interest in various phases and types of history in different countries! And I agree with what you said about PA.
I think you would agree that the issue of exactly how Germany would be unified and by whom would have enormous consequences for the future.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Indeed.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Perhaps, in an alternate universe, the Austrians did win at Koniggratz!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: then there's another Prussian joke -- that the Austrians were enthusiastic about the Prussian invention of war-gaming, until they discovered you couldn't bet on it, whereupon they lost interest.
Generally speaking Austria just had a low level of competence -- it was the archetypical land of "Schlamperei" -- in everything practical, whereas "working for the King of Prussia" was an expression which meant "grinding conscientious effort".
The "Prussian Brute" vs. "Graf Bobby".
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
But how true, accurate, or just was that reputation Austria had for "Schlamperei"? I recall how, in your own story "A Slip In Time," you showed the Austrians as far more competent than people generally gave them credit for being. Which makes me think that reputation for being an ineffectual "Graf Bobby" was at least partly put on, to make their enemies underestimate them.
Sort of like Commander Abrams realizing that Lord Hauksberg truly was not the fop he PRETENDED to be.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment