Yes, Steve, I understand only too well.
"How did you get so snookered? "
Because I thought no British Prime minister, and certainly not the leader of my political party - someone I worked hard for to get elected - would lie to me and the British people about such a serious issue as the necessity for war: I wilfully suppressed my reservations and believed Tony Blair.
Whoops, someone declassified a report that they probably didn't want people to see:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7818807/site/newsweek/
Quote:"The U.S. considers all of Iraq a combat zone," says the report, which was wrapped up at the end of April, three months after the elections that were supposed to have turned the tide in this conflict. "From July 2004 to late March 2005," says the document, "there were 15,527 attacks against Coalition Forces throughout Iraq." Then comes one of several paragraphs marked S//NF (secret, not for distribution to foreign nationals): "From 1 November 2004 to 12 March 2005 there were 3306 attacks in the Baghdad area. Of these, 2400 were directed against Coalition Forces."
That's 65 attacks a day, on average, for 9 months straight. And it's gotten worse lately; how many dead in the last two weeks? 500? 700?
Cycloptichorn
That Cyclo according to the rightwingnuts here cannot be true by definition, and it makes you a propagandist enemy and probably muslim terrorist.
but of course you knew that already
Cycloptichorn wrote:Whoops, someone declassified a report that they probably didn't want people to see:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7818807/site/newsweek/
Quote:"The U.S. considers all of Iraq a combat zone," says the report, which was wrapped up at the end of April, three months after the elections that were supposed to have turned the tide in this conflict. "From July 2004 to late March 2005," says the document, "there were 15,527 attacks against Coalition Forces throughout Iraq." Then comes one of several paragraphs marked S//NF (secret, not for distribution to foreign nationals): "From 1 November 2004 to 12 March 2005 there were 3306 attacks in the Baghdad area. Of these, 2400 were directed against Coalition Forces."
That's 65 attacks a day, on average, for 9 months straight. And it's gotten worse lately; how many dead in the last two weeks? 500? 700?
Cycloptichorn
This is terrible.
I wonder what the answer is? Seriously.
revel wrote: This is terrible.
I wonder what the answer is? Seriously.
Yes this is terrible. It's certainly not correctable by the faint of heart.
We can run run like hell and wait shruddering at home, while each of us desperately hopes that those we love are the last to be murdered. These kinds of people also existed during WWII when for a long time it looked like we would surely lose.
Or we can become more courageous, stronger, more resolute, and help and encourage our government to persevere and do whatever it takes to destroy the BAQM (i.e., Baatist-al-Qaeda-Murderers). These kinds of people also existed during WWII when for a long time it looked like we would lose. At that time these kinds of people far outnumbered the other kinds of people. Fortunately for us all, they understood long before Yogi Berra did that, "It ain't over 'til it's over."
It was Lavrenty Beria who said that
ican711nm wrote:revel wrote: This is terrible.
I wonder what the answer is? Seriously.
Yes this is terrible. It's certainly not correctable by the faint of heart.
We can run run like hell and wait shruddering at home, while each of us desperately hopes that those we love are the last to be murdered. These kinds of people also existed during WWII when for a long time it looked like we would surely lose.
Or we can become more courageous, stronger, more resolute, and help and encourage our government to persevere and do whatever it takes to destroy the BAQM (i.e., Baatist-al-Qaeda-Murderers). These kinds of people also existed during WWII when for a long time it looked like we would lose. At that time these kinds of people far outnumbered the other kinds of people. Fortunately for us all, they understood long before Yogi Berra did that, "It ain't over 'til it's over."
So far military might alone is not working to put a dent into the drive of the insurgency. The military has declared all of Iraq a combat zone. Call me faint of heart if you want but to me this says more bloodshed with more accidental killing of civilians who are caught in the crossfire. In the end we still have just as much insurgents as we did before because more replaces the ones that were lost. I just see it all as terribly sad.
I am not saying we should leave the country, I don't advocate that until the newly elected government says so or at least a majority of the Iraqis say so. But I don't think they are going to say so because now they are targets for being mixed up with Americans. I assume that to have been the goal of Mr. Bush since he invited them to come.
If we leave I don't think the newly elected Iraqi government or the Iraqi police can defend themselves and then the country will fall into chaos and more than likely the extremist will take over the country. That could well be worse than the regime of Saddam Hussein for the United States.
Unlike you I don't believe that the Islamic extremist fighters that come from all over the world will ever just give up and let Iraq be a success. If they were going to do that they would have done so after the elections and after the government was formed. Instead they intensified their attacks.
During WW11 the cause was just and we had allies. The Iraq war was not in any way the same. Despite your stubborn insistence Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 in any way. I am not going argue that with you, but just take it as a given that you disagree.
He said, she said. Who cares who said what? The reality is all that matters.
Setanta wrote:Lash wrote:Funny how we always see only what we want to see.
So it seems, whether it is your obstinate refusal to see that you were wrong about the Wars of the Fronde, or your obstinate refusal to see that you are wrong about the war in Iraq.
But if it is spelled out for you, and you still can't see it, there's nothing Walter, or I, or anyone else can do about it.
...except open your eyes, and finally admit you were wrong.
The Fronde is widely acknowledged to have been a precourser to the Revolution. No one can say for certain, but it is a theory of a contingent of historians.
Napolean fought in the Revolution.
These are true statements.
You can not correctly deny them.
Indeed i can. Your original statement was that Napoleon took part in street fighting. Now you're furiously backpedalling.
Lash wrote:The Fronde is widely acknowledged to have been a precourser to the Revolution. No one can say for certain, but it is a theory of a contingent of historians.
You have in no wise established a contention that the Wars of the Fronde (you keep referring to "the Fronde," as though it were a unitary event) is
widely acknowledged to have been a precursor to the Revolution. Having followed that by stating that no one can know for certain (an absurd statement), you then contend that it is a theory of a contingent of historians. This is not consonant with a contention that the view is widely held. Is it widely held, or simply a view held by a contingent of historians?
History cannot be studied scientifically in the imperical sense--there is no opportunity for replication or falsification. But method can be applied, and is applied by those who seek to learn from history, rather than retroactively imposing views upon it. The opposition within France to Richelieu and then to the Mazarin/Anne of Austria regency was centered around taxation and forced loans. This opposition was voiced by an upper middle class of
la noblesse de la robe, meaning those members of the peerage whose title to nobility derived from ministerial service to the crown. The regional
parlements had an opportunity to refuse to ratify royal enactments, but no enforcement powers, and they were helpless in the face of a man like Richelieu. The brush fire rebellions which grew into full-blown civil war started with the members of the judiciary, the members of the regional
parlements, who had refused to ratify Richelieu's impositions. When Richelieu ignored them, they were powerless to oppose him. But Armand Jean du Plessis de Richelieu died in 1642, and Louis XIII died in 1643. With those two men out of the picture, the
parlements felt emboldened to encourage
la petite bourgeoisie to defy the authority of the regents, and refuse to continue to pay the imposts which had been levied during the war with Spain and the "French phase" of the Thirty Years War. These men in their turn encouraged the
jacquerie to rise up in their support. The members of
la noblesse de l'épée, those whose title to nobility rested upon ancient military service to the crown, saw their main chance to regain their power, which had been steadily eroding since the days of Charles VII, at the end of the Hundred Years War. No one in the 17th century imagined dispensing with the monarchy. No one in the 17th century was willing to make a declaration of the rights of man. No one in the 17th century called for the establishment of a national assembly. At the most, what those opposing Mazarin and Anne of Austria envisioned was the transfer of central authority from the monarchy to a set of ministers, approved by the Estates, and with policy and legislation subject to the review of the
parlements.
But more than a century later, after the failure of the attempt to curb royal authority, the central government enjoyed even more power than it had during the reign of Louis XIII or Anne of Austria's regency. There is good reason to suggest, as so many biographers have, that the tightening of central authority, and the political emasculation of the nobility by Louis XIV was a direct response to the Wars of the Fronde. Although one could get away with suggesting that peasant resentments simmered beneath the surface throughout that one hudred and thirty years, peasants do not make revolutions--they simply rebel, and either are crushed, or are exploited by someone else's leadership. In the 17th century, that leadership came from members of the judiciary who were unwilling to stick their necks out, and used members of the
bourgeoisie as their agents; or, it came from members of the nobility looking out for their main chance.
In 1789, the leadership came from a middle class of merchants, lawyers, bankers and affluent craftsmen who filled the ranks of the Third Estate. When, after the disaster of the failed grain harvest in 1788, the Estates General were summoned, in an unprecedented move, the Third Estate, the "Commons," was given a number of seats equal to the First and Second Estates combined. It only required a few defections from the nobility and the clergy to take over that body, and to set the revolutionary ball rolling.
In 1777, Turgot had warned Louis XVI that supporting the American revolutionaries and entering into a war with the English would bankrupt the government. And so it did. When the crisis came, the government was weak and ineffectual and could not effectively respond--when Nekker was fired as Finance Minister, Louis lost all middle class support. Lawyers like Robespierre were accustomed to dealing with the
bourgeoisie and the jacquerie, and effectively rallied them to the cause of revolution. In the 17th century, the peasants, with their fronde and their pouch of stones were simply cannon fodder in the struggles of the mighty. In 1789, they became a pry bar to prise apart the ancient regime and send it toppling into the dust.
None of the greivances of the 17th century survived until 1789. None of the solutions of the 18th century were proposed in the 17th. Antelopes graze; bison graze--no one would be justified in saying on such a basis that the two are the same animal. Opposition to taxation without ratification was the causus belli of the 17th century, and a desire to simply modify the government to limit monarchical authority was the real, underlying agenda. Once the revolution in 1789 was fairly rolling, events like the mutiny of la Garde Française over charges of peculation against their officers, the storming of the Bastille, the day of the Market Women in October, 1789, set events moving ahead of actions of the members of the Estates, and only that handful of personally forceful individuals, such as Mirabeau, Marat, Robespierre, Danton, and a few others, had the skill and the temerity to attempt to ride that whirlwind.
Apples to oranges--the two events barely have in common some superficial similarities.
Lash wrote:Walter Hinteler wrote:Setanta wrote:Lash wrote:He had France's psychotic Fronde and public executions off by a few years. Why act like you don't know what he's talking about?
<mutters....>
If that is directed at me, you are demonstrating an even greater ignorance than Ican. The word
fronde means sling, and refers to a popular peasant weapon in the civil wars against Mazarin and Anne of Austria in the middle of the
17th century.
Just adding that there was a «Fronde of the Parlement» and a «Fronde of the Princes».
The loose use of Fronde and Revolution together just show my own linkage of the two--and I also linked the Frondes with the incessant street fighting-- you know, the small revolutions by the people on the countryside, and urban, in response to Mazarin's (and Richelieu's before him) preposterous taxes. This all balls up in to a series of wars, which lasted over quite a bit of time, and did eventually star Napoleon Bonaparte.
I don't think it should be dismissed with such snide malice, as you well know Bonaparte did take part in this fighting.
If the preeminent Orest Ranum refers to the Fronde as 'the Fronde', I will do so as well. It has been stated and acknowledged by all in this historical tepest that there were two separately identifiable aspects of the Fronde. Why you return to this is curious.
Now. Show where I said Bonaparte took part in a street fight.
You know I didn't, and when you were faced with the fact that I was correct, your contortions to avoid the revelation have resulted in you trying to say I positioned Napoleon Bonaparte as the leader of some fearless washerwoman's brigade.
Say Uncle, and I shall speak of it not again.
<sniff>
By the way, please desist of schooling me on points I readily know. It doesn't camouflage your flailing wrongability.
Meh.
Having followed that by stating that no one can know for certain (an absurd statement),
Quote:...this coming from Mr. Don't Respect Absolutists? No one CAN know for certain! There are contingents of historians with opposing views
.
you then contend that it is a theory of a contingent of historians. This is not consonant with a contention that the view is widely held. Is it widely held, or simply a view held by a contingent of historians?
Quote:I didn't count the number within the contingent. A contingent is a group. Depending on the size of the contingent, their agreement may establish a view that is widely held.
<Jeopardy waiting music>
(A friendly hint. Length of post, nor mention of extraneous, peripheral history should not be considered currency in this discussion.)
Lash wrote:He had France's psychotic Fronde and public executions off by a few years. Why act like you don't know what he's talking about?
<mutters....>
This is your original statement. The Wars of the Fronde ended in 1653. The first violence of the French Revolution was the mutiny of
la Garde Française over charges of peculation (misappropriation of funds, in this case, their pay) by their officers, and occurred in early 1789. Personally, i feel justified in stating that one hundred thirty six years is more than "off by a few years."
Then, when i had responded, you posted as follows:
Lash wrote:Setanta wrote:I should also add that Bonapart took part in no street fighting, apart from the famous incident in which he fired on the mob in October, 1795--an incident immortalized by Thomas Carlisle as "a whiff of grapeshot." Napoleon commented that the practice of firing blank charges to disperse a crowd was folly, because, discovering themselves unhurt, they would come on the more resolutely and with greater anger. So he poured grapeshot into the crowd, which very effectively dispersed them. In so doing he ended the Revolution, and ratified the right-wing counter revolution which had created the Directory.
You really have a lot of reading to do before you are sufficiently informed to comment on that period.
You just proved my point.
He took part in it.
Now, however, you want to deny that this is what you said. In fact, until he was called upon to command an artillery battery placed in front of the Tuileries Palace, Napoleon had taken no part in the disturbances in Paris, and had done no fighting there. Once again, i will point out that firing grape shot into a crowd which has fought no one cannot reasonably be construed as participation in street fighting.
Lash wrote:If the preeminent Orest Ranum refers to the Fronde as 'the Fronde', I will do so as well. It has been stated and acknowledged by all in this historical tepest that there were two separately identifiable aspects of the Fronde. Why you return to this is curious.
Pre-eminent means eminent beyond others. Mr. Ranum occupies no such position in regard to other historians. While his opinion may be founded upon eminent credentials, your promotion of him to "pre-eminence" is nonsense. There were two aspects, yes, in that jurists forwarded rebellions through the agency of the
bourgeoisie and the aristocracy forwarded rebellion upon their own initiative--but there were far more than two rebellions. After Rocroi in 1643, Condé returned to Paris, and did not receive the sort of attention he felt he deserved. When rebellion came, he took the cause of the
noblesse, and actively lead armies against the authority of the Queen Regent. But that was simply one out many, many campaigns and local rebellions which took place. Turenne returned from the Rhine, and fought Condé on behalf of the Regent. But when that dispute had been settled, Turenne was convinced to join in the cause of the regional
parlements, and he lead an army against the Regent. Condé responded by leading the forces of the Regent, largely to protect what he had gained when he had earlier compounded his differences with Anne and Mazarin. The War
s[/u] of the Fronde are correctly described as such because there were many small rebellions and no fewer than five major campaigns. Although you may find it curious, i find your insistence in viewing this as a single, unitary event more than simply curious, i find it obstinant.
Lash wrote:You know I didn't, and when you were faced with the fact that I was correct, your contortions to avoid the revelation have resulted in you trying to say I positioned Napoleon Bonaparte as the leader of some fearless washerwoman's brigade.
This is pure horsie poop, i've said nothing of the kind. However:
Lash wrote:Once again, you not only prove my point, but how stiff-necked one can become when they think they know it all, and how desperately some will wiggle to avoid admitting they were wrong.
You make several comments that act as though I said something I didn't.
I know very well who the First Estate was, and the character of the Frondes.
The Reign of Terror, ... Little street fighting...? You know better. There were little revolutions and mass civil disobediences for generations before the Revolution was settled.
I can't believe you are trying to deny it.
If you did not mean to imply that Napoleon was involved in these events, then you ought to have been more specific in your statement. I am not responsible for your having continually made vague remarks without sufficient specificity regards to times, places and events.
You may make your nasty little remarks about contortions and wiggling to your heart's content. My statements about the Wars of the Fronde and the Revolution have been consistent throughout.
There was in fact very little street fighting in the course of the Revolution. Deny it if you want, such a claim requires proof, and you have supplied none. The real fighting in the period of the Revolution before the rise of Napoleon was with
la Vendée and against the Austrian invasion. The reign of terror refers to a specific period in the course of the Revolution, beginning with the
septembriseurs in September, 1792, and ending with the establishment of the Directory. Napoleon was not in Paris at this time, and any attempt to connect him to the actions of the Committee for Public Safety are chimerical. Napoleon was not involved in any fighting in the Revolution until he arrived at Toulon, and his targets there were Admiral Hood's fleet and the Spanish troops which the English had brought in in the hope of supporting the Vendean rebels. To that extent, one could stretch a point and say he fought against
la Vendée. It would be quite a stretcher, but not dissimilar to the rest of the hack job you're attempting to do on the Revolution here.
EDIT:
Quote:There were little revolutions and mass civil disobediences for generations before the Revolution was settled.
This is a statement without foundation. When the Le Boeuf was excuted by the Directory, all peasant insurrection (and he was not even an insurrectionary) ended--less than ten years after the Revolution had begun.
Lash wrote:By the way, please desist of schooling me on points I readily know. It doesn't camouflage your flailing wrongability.
I have no reason to believe that you readily know anything regarding the Revolution--you've offered nothing but vague assertions about it, and not a single, specific detail. "Wrongability,"--what's up with that? Do you feel the need to invent words to cover your frustration at not being able to make and support a point? As for the Wars of the Fronde, you've read one book, and you now wish to portray yourself as an expert on that era
and the revolution? When pigs fly . . .
You have tried since the beginning of this exchange to tar Napoleon with the brush of the excesses of the Revolution. Whereas it is true that he profited, ultimately and indirectly, from the Revolution, he was a very, very minor figure in the Revolution, and takes no significant part until Toulon, which can correctly be described as military action against an invader. He was not involved in the mutiny of troops of the royal army. He was not involved in the storming of the Bastille. He was not involved in the Day of the Market women. He did not take part in the attack on the Swiss Guard at the Tuileries. He was not in Paris in September, 1792. He was not a member of nor an agent of the Committee for Public Safety. He took no part in the "trials" or the executions of the reign of terror. He did not even directly fight against the Vendean rebels. He was simply an opportunist looking for his main chance, and it came, through the agency of the Abbé Sieyes, in 1799, at St. Cloud. Even then, he almost lost his nerve, and if his brother Lucien had not been present, he would likely have ended his days in obscurity in prison. Say uncle--that's hilarious, it seems to imply that you have had something specific to offer in rebuttal of my statements, which you have not.
The only one among us hellbent on portraying himself as an expert on anything is you.
While you do have a respectable amount of information, you are not infallible, as proven by this discussion.
Here is one thing you didn't know...
a definition: Fronde--Widespread rebellions that took place during Mazarin's tenure.
...At the same time as the Thirty Years' War ended, a French civil war, known as the Fronde, began. Cardinal Mazarin continued the centralization policies of his predecessor, Armand Cardinal Richelieu...
---
Although there were two aspects of the Fronde, there were many more as well.
From an encyclopedia--
The Fronde (1648-1653) was a civil war in France, followed by the Franco-Spanish War with Spain (1653-1659). The word "Fronde" means "sling" and referred to the pelting of windows (belonging to supporters of Cardinal Mazarin), with stones, by Paris mobs. The original goal of the "revolutionaries" was to limit the king's power and discuss various grievances; however, the movement soon degenerated into factions, some of which were attempting to overthrow Mazarin and reverse the policies of Cardinal Richelieu. At this time, Louis XIV was king; however, he was only a child and it's probable that his later insistence on absolutist rule and depriving the high nobility of actual power was a result of these childhood events. The term frondeur was later used to refer to anyone who suggested that the power of the king should be limited, and has now passed into normal French usage to refer to anyone who will show insubordination or engage in criticism of the powers in place.
Course of events
In May 1648 a tax levied on judicial officers of the Parlement of Paris was met by that body, not merely with a refusal to pay, but with a condemnation of earlier financial edicts, and even with a demand for the acceptance of a scheme of constitutional reforms framed by a committee of the parliament. This charter was somewhat influenced by contemporary events in England. But there is no real likeness between the two revolutions, the French parliament being no more representative of the people than the Inns of Court were in England.
The military record of the first or "parliamentary" Fronde is almost blank. In August 1648, strengthened by the news of Cond鼯a>'s victory at Lens, Mazarin suddenly arrested the leaders of the parliament, whereupon Paris broke into insurrection and barricaded the streets. The court, having no army at its immediate disposal, had to release the prisoners and to promise reforms, and fled from Paris on the night of October 22. But the signing of the peace of Westphalia set free Cond駳 army, and by January 1649 it was besieging Paris. The peace of Rueil was signed in March, after little blood had been shed. The Parisians, though still and always anti-cardinalist, refused to ask for Spanish aid, as proposed by their princely and noble adherents, and having no prospect of military success without such aid, submitted and received concessions. Thenceforward the Fronde becomes a story of sordid intrigues and half-hearted warfare, losing all trace of its first constitutional phase.
The leaders were discontented princes and nobles. Monsieur (Gaston of Orleans, the king's uncle), the great Cond頡nd his brother Conti, the duc de Bouillon, and his brother Turenne. To these must be added Gaston's daughter, Mademoiselle de Montpensier (La grande Mademoiselle), Cond駳 sister, Madame de Longueville, Madame de Chevreuse, and the astute intriguer Paul de Gondi, later Cardinal de Retz. The military operations fell into the hands of war-experienced mercenaries, led by two great, and many second-rate, generals, and of nobles to whom war was a polite pastime. The feelings of the people at large were not enlisted from either side.
This peace of Rueil lasted until the end of 1649. The princes, received at court once more, renewed their intrigues against Mazarin, who, having come to an understanding with Monsieur Gondi and Madame de Chevreuse, suddenly arrested Cond鬠Conti and Longueville (January 14, 1650). The war which followed this coup is called the "Princes' Fronde." This time it was Turenne, before and afterwards the most loyal soldier of his day, who headed the armed rebellion. Listening to the promptings of his Egeria, Madame de Longueville, he resolved to rescue her brother, his old comrade of the Freiburg and the N?ingen. It was with Spanish assistance that he hoped to do so; and a powerful army of that nation assembled in Artois under the archduke Leopold, governor-general of the Spanish Netherlands. But the peasants of the countryside rose against the invaders, the royal army in Champagne was in the capable hands of Caesar de Choiseul, comte du Plessis-Praslin, who counted fifty-two years of age and thirty-six of war experience, and the little fortress of Guise successfully resisted the archduke's attack.
Thereupon however, Mazarin drew upon Plessis-Praslin's army for reinforcements to be sent to subdue the rebellion in the south, and the royal general had to retire. Then, happily for France, the archduke decided that he had spent sufficient of the king of Spain's money and men in the French quarrel. The magnificent regular army withdrew into winter quarters, and left Turenne to deliver the princes with a motley host of Frondeurs and Lorrainers. Plessis-Praslin by force and bribery secured the surrender of Rethel on December 13 1650, and Turenne, who had advanced to relieve the place, fell back hurriedly. But he was a terrible opponent, and Plessis-Praslin and Mazarin himself, who accompanied the army, had many misgivings as to the result of a lost battle. The marshal chose nevertheless to force Turenne to a decision, and the battle of Blanc-Champ (near Somme-Py) or Rethel was the consequence.
Both sides were at a standstill in strong positions, Plessis-Praslin doubtful of the trustworthiness of his cavalry, Turenne too weak to attack, when a dispute for precedence arose between the Gardes fran硩ses and the Picardie regiment. The royal infantry had to be rearranged in order of regimental seniority, and Turenne, seeing and desiring to profit by the attendant disorder, came out of his stronghold and attacked with the greatest vigour. The battle (December 15, 1650) was severe and for a time doubtful, but Turenne's Frondeurs gave way in the end, and his army, as an army, ceased to exist. Turenne himself, undeceived as to the part he was playing in the drama, asked and received the young king's pardon, and meantime the court, with the maison du roi and other loyal troops, had subdued the minor risings without difficulty (March-April 1651).
Cond鬠Conti and Longueville were released, and by April 1651 the rebellion had everywhere collapsed. Then followed a few months of hollow peace and the court returned to Paris. Mazarin, an object of hatred to all the princes, had already retired into exile. "Le temps est un galant homme," he remarked, "laissons le faire!" and so it proved. His absence left the field free for mutual jealousies, and for the remainder of the year anarchy reigned in France. In December 1651 Mazarin returned with a small army. The war began again, and this time Turenne and Cond頷ere pitted against one another.
After the first campaign, as we shall see, the civil war ceased, but for several other campaigns the two great soldiers were opposed to one another, Turenne as the defender of France, Cond頡s a Spanish invader. Their personalities alone give threads of continuity to these seven years of wearisome manoeuvres, sieges and combats, though for a right understanding of the causes which were to produce the standing armies of the age of Louis XIV and Frederick the Great the military student should search deeply into the material and moral factors that here decided the issue.
The d颵t of the new Frondeurs took place in Guyenne (February-March 1652), while their Spanish ally, the archduke Leopold William, captured various northern fortresses. On the Loire, whither the centre of gravity was soon transferred, the Frondeurs were commanded by intriguers and quarrelsome lords, until Cond駳 arrival from Guyenne. His bold trenchant leadership made itself felt in the action of Bl鮥au (April 7, 1652), in which a portion of the royal army was destroyed, but fresh troops came up to oppose him, and from the skilful dispositions made by his opponents Cond頦elt the presence of Turenne and broke off the action. The royal army did likewise. Cond頩nvited the commander of Turenne's rearguard to supper, chaffed him unmercifully for allowing the prince's men to surprise him in the morning, and by way of farewell remarked to his guest, "Quel dommage que des braves gens comme nous se coupent la gorge pour un faquin"--an incident and a remark that thoroughly justified the iron-handed absolutism of Louis XIV.
There was no hope for France while tournaments on a large scale and at the public's expense were fashionable amongst the grands seigneurs. After Bl鮥au both armies marched to Paris to negotiate with the parlement, de Retz and Mlle de Montpensier, while the archduke took more fortresses in Flanders, and Charles, duke of Lorraine, with an army of plundering mercenaries, marched through Champagne to join Cond鮠As to the latter, Turenne manoeuvred past Cond頡nd planted himself in front of the mercenaries, and their leader, not wishing to expend his men against the old French regiments, consented to depart with a money payment and the promise of two tiny Lorraine fortresses.
A few more manoeuvres, and the royal army was able to hem in the Frondeurs in the Faubourg St Antoine (July 2, 1652) with their backs to the closed gates of Paris. The royalists attacked all along the line and won a signal victory in spite of the knightly prowess of the prince and his great lords, but at the critical moment Gaston's daughter persuaded the Parisians to open the gates and to admit Cond駳 army. She herself turned the guns of the Bastille on the pursuers. An insurrectional government was organized in the capital and proclaimed Monsieur lieutenant-general of the realm. Mazarin, feeling that public opinion was solidly against him, left France again, and the bourgeois of Paris, quarrelling with the princes, permitted the king to enter the city on October 21 1652. Mazarin returned unopposed in February 1653.
The Fronde as a civil war was now over. The whole country, wearied of anarchy and disgusted with the princes, came to look to the king's party as the party of order and settled government, and thus the Fronde prepared the way for the absolutism of Louis XIV. The general war continued in Flanders, Catalonia and Italy wherever a Spanish and a French garrison were face to face, and Cond鬠with the wreck of his army, openly and definitely entered the service of the king of Spain. The "Spanish Fronde" was almost purely a military affair and, except for a few outstanding incidents, dull to boot.
-----
This began with you trying to humiliate another member who associated Napoleon with the French Revolution.
Whether or not the other member was correct in his specific assertion, I don't know--or care. I didn't like the way you waved him off dissmissively, especially since you were incorrect. Now, you have outed yourself as the only human who insists on calling the Fronde--the "Wars" of the Fronde. Google Fronde... Pages of references to it as the Fronde. Yet, you insist...
The Fronde was a bid against absolutism, and it's attendant ills. It did not succeed.
The Revolution was a bid against absolutism and it's attendant ills. It succeeded.
You're a smart guy.
You don't know everything.
You shouldn't act as though you do.
Napoleon was involved in the French Revolution.
Sometimes, knowledge can be a bad thing.
