Waterloo: Predictor of Alliances Future?

All too often in history, enemies end up as allies. It takes more time for some alliances to form.

Such is the case with the nations of Europe, now united as never before in the European Union (well, most of them are in there anyway). These nations share a common currency, their borders are relaxed, the Iron Curtain has fallen and with it the threat of mutual assured destruction (at least from the Soviet Union, which isn't exactly living and breathing any longer). They do squabble amongst themselves, especially over who else to let into the club, but they do swap the EU leadership around and they do present a real economic powerhouse on the global market stage.

Many people in Europe were in mind of alliances recently in Belgium — in Waterloo, to be precise, at a re-enactment of the famous battle fought there in 1815. This, as many good students of history will remember, was the final defeat of Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte of France, he of the mammoth military reputation an intellect whose best-paid plans went for nought when the heavens opened up and muddied the field and Prussian reinforcements arrived just in time to help the Duke of Wellington complete his triumph. Every year, tens of thousands of people arrive at Waterloo, not only to remember the events of the day (June 18 it was) but also to don the uniforms, fire the guns, mount the horses, and otherwise participate in a replay of one of the most famous battles in European military history. (Sadly for fans of the great Napoleon, it ends the same way no matter how many people take part in no matter how many re-enactments.)

Napoleon, a symbol of the French Revolution somehow turned into Empire, was the giant of the age, bending other world leaders (and their armies) to his whim, reinventing the French legal system (and many countries still build their laws on his revisions), and otherwise bringing more glory to France than anyone possibly before him or since. A shrewd tactician and brilliant politician, he willed his men to victory on the battlefield, sometimes against spectacular odds. (Indeed, Wellington is famous for saying of Napoleon: "His presence on the field made the difference of forty thousand men."

One thing Napoleon was good at as well was uniting people against him. The English hated him, not only because of what he represented — at first a representative government and later a more successful monarch than many kings and queens of England — but also a rival to English hegemony over the Continent. All of the Grand Alliances against France in the late 18th and early 19th Centuries were spurred on by England and its hatred of Napoleon.

The Emperor made mistakes, of course, and often did little to endear the leaders and populaces of other countries to his or France's causes. He was successful, however, at uniting most of Europe under his sway at one time or another. The Confederation of the Rhine and the Continental System are examples of that. Neither, however, included England; both, it can be said, eventually angered the people of Central and southern Europe — not to mention England.

And so it came to be that England convinced more and more European leaders and armies to unite with England against Napoleon. The Battle of Waterloo featured a grand coalition, formed in reaction to the Hundred Days, and so it was that nearly equal numbers of French troops fought against British, German, and Dutch troops until tens of thousands of Prussians arrived and turned the tide. In its wake, Waterloo left a powerful mark on the alliance structure of Europe.

A century later, World War I would start and inflame so quickly mainly because of "entanglements," mutual defense treaties signed by various countries to protect against the aggression of other countries. Similar alignments could be found involving the combatants of World War II and the Korean and Vietnam Wars. More recently, European nations worked together to oust Iraq from Kuwait and to stop genocide in Bosnia.

Is this a straight line from Waterloo to today? Probably not. A hundred years on, the hard feelings on both sides of the battlefield have lessened somewhat, as generations pass on to generations the lessons not only of war and statesmanship but also forgiveness and seeing the big picture.

It is that big picture that features in European thinking today, even on the battlefield of an epic struggle that defined an age. And it is that big picture that is embraced by the tens of thousands of people who come to Waterloo to fight and remember. These people who show up year after year (and they may be the same people from year to year or they may not) come from all over Europe and, indeed, all over the world. The re-enactors choose their sides out of interest not so much out bloodlust. The spectators revel in the global nature of it all, as should we all.

No Party on Bastille Day? Storm the Gates in Protest!

Is nothing sacred?

What's wrong with spending a wad of cash on history, anyway? Surely if we don't remember the past, we're doomed to repeat it.

Yet the French will this year not get their traditional garden party to commemorate the storming of the Bastille. Sacre bleu! What will they do with all that cake? Who's going to eat it?

Seriously, this is probably a good thing, since the big party last year cost more than 700,000 euros. A full 300,000 of that was on food alone. Now that's a lot of cake! The party was so big and the people were so revelrous that the cleanup cost 80,000 euros.

(Don't worry, though: the usual military parade will take place, with soldiers marching down the Champs-Elysees and fighter jets flying overhead. The cost of putting on that event is much lower by comparison.)

So 700,000 euros is a lot of cash back in the coffers for the French elite — sorry, government. And that's a good thing, right? Surely the French government can find better ways to spend that money than on food and drink and party favors and cleanup. After all, the government has announced that it would have to cut the deficit by 100 billion euros during the next three years. So the few hundred thousand euros that they're saving are just a drop in a bucket that needs to get a bunch of billion euros taken out of it.

But back to the cake. So the party commemorates Bastille Day, which was the day in 1789 that a mob stormed the notorious prison the Bastille and released some prisoners, grabbing a few weapons at the same time. This event is generally regarded as one of the seminal ones in the French Revolution, which was a reaction to, among other things, the attitude by the French aristocracy and monarchy that supposedly included Marie Antoinette's supposedly saying "Let them eat cake."

That story, although apocryphal, has generally turned out to be believed false — more an error in translation than anything else. But no matter what she said or didn't say, she wasn't at all in touch with the reality of the people on the ground, starving through their lives, while her head was in the clouds.

Which brings us back to the present day. Nicolas Sarkozy, the President of France, took the bold step of canceling this lavish Bastille Day party, and he should be commended for that, not the least because it saves all that money for other things. But a hundred billion euros is a ton of money no matter the currency, and it's going to take more than canceling parties here and there (no matter how lavish) to address those kinds of financial problems. When it comes time to make further cuts, the government might wish it could throw a party &151; a circus to distract the populace from the reality that they lack real money for things like bread (or cake).

Moon Landing Anniversary: Time to Go Back

So, July 20: Another landmark Moon landing anniversary. Trot out the old boys and have them give speeches, right? How much has changed? Well, not a lot, and that's the problem.

Image by The Pug
Father via Flickr

Despite the initial impetus and result (a propaganda victory for capitalism versus communism), the Moon landing was definitely a triumph for science, initiative, and human determination. Astronauts first of all proved that it was possible to break Earth's orbit and travel into space, then made it all the way to the Moon (multiple times) and then brought back rocks for study. Pictures from the Apollo missions are some of the most breathtaking in the history of photography.

And yet since 1972, no man (or woman) has set foot on the Moon. Space shuttles and space stations have orbited the Earth, but we haven't gone back to the Moon. It's high time we returned.

Image via
Wikipedia

There's no denying the brilliance and importance of Voyager, Magellan, Cassini, Mars Rover, and all manner of other space exploration missions that have come about since we last stepped on the Moon. The Hubble Space Telescope has taught us more about the history of the universe than any other instrument ever invented. But human beings actually exploring the Moon is where our future lies – that and the construction of a permanent Moon base, much like ones now operating in that other inhospitable place, Antarctica. Only when we have a Moon base can we launch manned missions to Mars and to other places in the solar system, thereby continuing with greater earnest the path that the Apollo program started us on 40 years ago. Only when we go back to the Moon can we discover more about its surface, its core, its gravitational pull on our own planet, its history, and its potential as a stepping-stone for more exciting adventures to come. If the speeches of the old boys to commemorate their magical footsteps way back in 1969 tell us anything, it's that it's been too long since anyone has followed in those footsteps.

NAACP's Dream Come True: Obama as President

Image via
Wikipedia

The smile on Thurgood Marshall's face would have been one of the widest. Sadly, he didn't live to see the day. Nor did Rosa Parks. Nor did many other heroes of the civil rights movement in America. These people didn't struggle in vain, for their dream has come true in certain respects: African-Americans and other people who don't happen to have white-colored skin have more equal rights in America than they used to, have more opportunities than they used to. This is nowhere more eloquently and fittingly illustrated in the identity of the keynote speaker at the 100th anniversary of the founding of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). He was a Black man, all right, and he was the President of the United States.

Image by jmtimages
via Flickr

Barack Obama was only too happy to address the NAACP conference on July 18, 2009, in Manhattan. He paid homage to the heroes of the civil rights movement, in particular to Marshall, best known in his early career for successfully arguing the case of Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, which resulted in the Supreme Court's 1954 proclamation that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."

Obama was only too happy to sound the education theme: "There's a reason the story of the civil rights movement was written in our schools. There's a reason Thurgood Marshall took up the cause of Linda Brown. There's a reason the Little Rock Nine defied a governor and a mob. It's because there is no stronger weapon against inequality and no better path to opportunity than an education that can unlock a child's God-given potential."

The President has a point: Initiative, nurtured by opportunity and rewarded by further opportunity, can be the root of great achievements. Education is important, one of the most important things a child can be given, yet too many people achieve too little of it. One who achieved a great deal of it is Obama himself, at the urging of his mother and of his wife. He is the living embodiment of the potential of the American dream, augmented by the struggles of people like Parks, Marshall, Martin Luther King, Jr., and many more.

The NAACP's mission is not complete, by any means. But the efforts of people who belong to the organization and the efforts of many more people with similar goals have helped achieve what many people could only dream of just a few short years ago: a Black man in the White House.

With This Pen: John Hancock's Famous Signature

Image via Wikipedia

The story has come down to us that John Hancock signed his name so big on the Declaration of Independence "so that King George can read that." Even though it's letting facts get in the way of a good story, that never happened.

Hancock did sign the Declaration, and he did it sign it that big. After all, we have the documentation to prove it. But he didn't sign it in front of a wh

Image via Wikipedia

ole lot of other revolutionaries, as the famous Trumbull painting would have us believe, and he didn't sign it so big as an incentive for others to follow suit. Rather, his signature was as large as his life – which was large indeed.

Hancock was rich at a relatively young age – 26, to be exact. He inherited the fortune of a rich uncle and continued in his uncle's footsteps, as a merchant. He made lots and lots of money on shipping, both legal and illegal.

He chose to spend a lot of that money on causes dear to the hearts of Sam Adams, John Adams, and other American colonists looking to split from Mother England. Hancock it was who played a behind-the-scenes role in the Boston Tea Party and the Stamp Act Congress, which ultimately got the Stamp Act repealed.

A member of the Boston Assembly, Hancock was a delegate to the Continental Congress, the body that eventually approved of the Declaration. Hancock was so well respected that he was named president of the Continental Congress, which was ultimately how he came to be presented with the Declaration of Independence for signing.

And sign he did, but on a blank piece of parchment and in front of a minimal audience. The other men who signed the famous document did so in later days, over time.

When a 9-run lead just isn't enough.

Image by krakatoa via Flickr

Time to get out the barrel of cliches.

Seems the Boston Red Sox managed to blow a 10–1 lead and lose to their American League East rivals the Baltimore Orioles. The score was 9–1 after 7 innings. The game ended in 9 innings.

Don't count your chickens till they're hatched.

The Red Sox had beaten the Orioles five straight time in 2009 and eight overall, streatching to 2008. In this game, Boston had rapped out 13 hits en route to that staggering 10–1 lead. John Smoltz, usually reliable as a starter (as he had shown in 20 seasons with the Atlanta Braves), was cruising along in search of his 211th win, after enduring a hard-luck 2008 season full of injury and surgery. The Red Sox players were so confident, it appeared, that they even tried to end an inning early: The pitcher and infielders began walking off the field after the 6th inning even though only two outs had been recorded.

But Mother Nature had a thing or two to say about this one, and Red Sox fans can certainly identify with what happened next. A 71-minute rain delay chased Smoltz, leaving the 9-run lead in the hands of the bullpen, which had been capable of defending such advantages all year long. But not this time.

It ain't over till it's over.

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

In the 7th inning, the Orioles' bats came alive. Baltimore struck quickly and consistently, scoring 5 runs and cutting the deficit in half. The following inning, they followed with another 6 runs, recording 13 hits in those two innings and forging ahead for a wildly improbable 11–10 lead. The latest mound victim for the Red Sox was closer Jonathan Papelbon, who had blown just one save in 20 chances so far and had never surrendered a victory to the Orioles. But the runners had crossed plate and the runs were on the board. What had seemed like a laugher a couple hours earlier was turning into a creeping feeling of dread nightmare to Red Sox fans, many of whom were beginning to conjure demons from the past in order to place this impending loss into the pantheon of cases of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

The Red Sox surrendered in the 9th inning, and their fate was sealed. It was the biggest comeback victory ever for the Baltiimore Orioles, eclipsing an eight-run comeback in 1956. Orioles fans (those who stuck around) were ecstatic. As for Boston ...

"It just didn't end the way we wanted to," Red Sox manager Francona said.

That's why they play the games.

Crop circles: the secret's out

Image via Wikipedia

We historians often get so wrapped up in trying to discover the causes of things and the motivations of people that we lose sight of the simple fact that in time, most things come out of the woodwork. Such is the case with crop circles.

Now, I'm not exactly the kind of person who lies awake at night and wonders what causes crop circles. I have been curious from time to time but never seen one and sort of figured that if the explanation was anything consistent at all, it was probably nationally occurring results of freaky weather patterns or one-of-a-kind atmospheric conditions or something scientific like that. I know that many people that alien life forms are making these circles; I am not one of those people.

Now, it turns out, we have proof of what causes crop circles. That proof is wallabies.

Yep, those kangaroo-looking things found in Australia are the cause of the world's crop circle infestation. Turns out the lovable creatures get high on opium and start jumping around in circles, mowing down crops in their wake. It's too early to tell at this point exactly how much opium is needed in order to send these marsupials over the opiate edge and into crop-spinning condition, but scientists Down Under have definitely confirmed this behavior by, of all things, witnessing it.

What does this have to do with crop circles in the United Kingdom and the United States and other countries that just happen to be far away from Australia? Good question. One thing at a

Image via Wikipedia

time. For now, all we know for certain is that Tasmania, which is home to much of the world's natural opium production, has this kind of thing happening more than occasionally. (They've seen it happen with deer and sheep as well.) What we've still to find out is what kind of mathematical degrees those animals have, since some of those crop circles are darn near perfect spheres and other shapes. Still, you have to start somewhere.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Stoned wallabies 'make crop circles' in Tasmania (news.bbc.co.uk)