Humanities desk
< November 7	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 9 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 8

Military commanders

Who was the supreme commander of the imperial guards who shoot againt the manifestants on Bloody Sunday in Winter 1905, or in alternative those in charge for a distaccament?
Who was the former royal commander of the French Guards Regiment in July 1789, before they joined the revolutionaires, and the one during the Réveillon in April 1789?
Who was the commander of all the royal guards at the Versailles Palace until October 6, 1789?
Who was the commander of the imperial guards (or the one of a distaccament) that defeated the Decembrists in 1825?
Who was the royal commander of the regiment where the four sergeants of La Rochelle served, and those of the guards who captured them and guards them during the trial and execution in 1822?
Who was the commander of the royal guards who captured the conspirators of the Affair of the Diamond Necklace in 1785?
Who was the supreme commander of the royal guards at Paris during the July 1830 Revolution?
The Duke of Angouleme was the supreme commander of the French expedition againt Spanish liberals in 1823, but who were the other high commands?
Who were the respective commanders of all the royal regiments that presidied Paris in July 1789?
Who were the commanders of the regiments Litovsky and Preobrajensky in February 1917?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.31.23.141 (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For #1 Russian Imperial Guard states that the Tsar/Emperor himself served as the supreme commander, and on the rank below him, there were several colonels that served as the second tier of command. --Jayron 32 11:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then can you find who were the respective commanders of the guards in charge for that occasion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.53.7.21 (talk)

For #2, French Guards Regiment seems to say it was Louis Marie Florent du Châtelet, duc du Châtelet, who took command in 1788. --Jayron 32 11:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.53.7.21 (talk)

For #3, guarding Versailles would have fallen under the purview of the National Guard after the French Guards Regiment mutinied in July, 1789. They were under the command of Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette. --Jayron 32 11:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking of gardes du corp du roi, who were the royal guards of Versailles until October 6, 1789.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.53.7.21 (talk)

Ah. The English Wikipedia is at Life Guards (France), according to that article guarding Versailles would have fallen under the 2nd Company (1st French Company), who was in 1789 commanded by Philippe Louis de Noailles, prince du Poix. --Jayron 32 12:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much.

Actually, reviewing the article closer, it seems that each of the four companies took one quarter of the year to guard Versailles. Depending on which quarter of the year it was, a different company would have been at Versailles under the command of its own commander. Regardless, the article lists who was in command of each company in 1789. You should be able to figure it out. --Jayron 32 12:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you very much.

For #4, if you mean their final defeat, the Chernigov Regiment revolt seems to say the loyalist forces were commanded by Friedrich Caspar von Geismar. --Jayron 32 12:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Can you search even those of the regiments who fought them from the beginnibng? Moreover, von Geismar was an absolutist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.53.29.74 (talk) 12:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know von Geismar's politics. From his article, he was German by birth, but a career Russian military officer who fought frequently in defense of the Russian state against numerous uprisings. Whether he did so because of his political beliefs or because he received a paycheck, I cannot say. --Jayron 32 12:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much.

For #5, the article Four Sergeants of La Rochelle seems to say it was General Jean Baptiste Berton, of whom there is not a Wikipedia article. --Jayron 32 12:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, can you search for the other commanders I've asked?

If you can read French, you can consider w:fr:Jean_Baptiste_Breton (aka "Berton") and w:fr:Quatre_sergents_de_La_Rochelle. The general was betrayed and arrested by a man known as Wolfel – AldoSyrt (talk) 07:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much.

For #6, assuming it was the same Life Guards as in #3, in 1785 it would have still been the prince du Poix; he had assumed command in 1784. --Jayron 32 12:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was the same Life Guards as in #3, then can you search better?

Why not? The palace guards would have been substantially the same, as there were only 4 years difference. --Jayron 32 13:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was a French policeman called Quidor. Can you search information about his life? Thank you very much.

Yes, someone named Quidor was the Inspector at Quartier Le Louvre. However, who are you assuming he's been arresting precisely? Some where arrested in Holland, others in Switzerland, I think a Mayor of London was also involved, thus who's arrest are you enquiring about ? --Askedonty (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.192.2 (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For #7, not sure. It only lists the commanders of two of the four companies who served during the Bourbon Restoration until 1830. --Jayron 32 12:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then who were those commanders? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.53.29.74 (talk) 12:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please, can you help me with the last four questions? And with those still remained uncompleted? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.192.2 (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should learn how to search in Wikipedia, on Internet, in Libraries. A little help however. For #8 refer to French force Command structure. AldoSyrt (talk) 14:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Can you help me for the remain unsolved questions 1-7-9-10, so it's definitely closed? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.13.70.196 (talk) 14:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For #7 The supreme commander was the king Charles X as colonel général. For the majors généraux see w:fr:Garde_royale_(France) - AldoSyrt (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Then, can you do also the remained 1-9-10, so it's definitely closed? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.177.78 (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Campbell-Bannerman's earldom

I asked this @ his own talk page but it's not attracting any interest.

We don't go into detail in his own page, but at List of people who have declined a British honour we say that Henry Campbell-Bannerman declined the Earldom of Belmont in 1905 when it was offered to him. In Relugas Compact it says: With "repugnance" for the idea of the House of Lords, Campbell-Bannerman flatly refused the title set aside for him of the Earl of Belmont …

This intrigues me. I was under the impression that when a peerage is offered, it is either accepted or refused. If it's accepted, only then does the question of the title arise. Usually the prospective peer indicates what name they would like, and that is either agreed or not, and if not a different one is suggested, and so on until everyone's happy. I've never heard of a specifically named earldom being offered to anyone. What was the background in this case? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JackofOz I am not sure of the specifics here, but in a similar case, the suggested title of the duchy Churchill declined is generally known. Honours of Winston Churchill explicitly refers to the Duke of Dover (1945) and Duke of London (1955). This paper cites the offer of the first to Winchester Their Noble Lordships (p. 48) and the second to Pelling Winston Churchill (p. 643) with "an imprecise account" in Bulmer-Thomas The Growth of the British Party System (II, p. 204). The ODNB also concurs on the latter ("refused the offer of a dukedom, though he was tempted for a while by the prospect of becoming duke of London").

It may be that it was just the most obvious plausible title, and so was suggested to him at the time - "we could make you Earl of X, wouldn't that sound good?". The following year, in December 1906, the Daily Mirror wrote about the possibility of CB stepping down, noting he would likely get an earldom if so and speculating that therefore "Sir Henry will probably take his peerage designation from the place he has owned for so long in Perthshire, and we shall therefore know him as the Earl of Belmont...". Andrew Gray (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is frustrating, Stephen E. Koss does say The 'Relugas Compact', like the title—Earl of Belmont—which had been selected for Campbell-Bannerman, was a dead letter., but unfortunately it looks like his publisher didn't allow citations. Also Oxford Academic is temporarily unavailable through WP:Library, so can't check the most promising from the bibliographic narrative "The Formation of Campbell-Bannerman's Government in December 1905: a Memorandum by J. A. Spender". Most other works include Edmund Gosse's diary entry that Haldane suggested Viscount Belmont. The only other 'Earl' reference i see is Matthew, H. C. G (1973). The Liberal Imperialists. which cites the "secret" letter, Haldane to Asquith, 6 Oct. @DuncanHill:, this all sounds very unconstitutional if Knollys wasn't just humoring them. fiveby(zero) 23:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I've not heard (or at least, do not recall hearing) of a suggested title for CB before - it certainly would seem contrary to his character to accept one ("a place for which I have neither liking, training nor ambition", and I think his wife was even more opposed). T. G. Otte in his Statesman of Europe: A Life of Sir Edward Grey does mention it in relation to the Relugas Plot, but I do not have the work to hand and Google Books is refusing to let me read what it shewed me briefly 5 minutes ago - IIRC it was in reference to a visit by Haldane to the King at Balmoral. DuncanHill (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all three responders. It seems to be as I assumed in my question: he was offered a peerage, but the actual title never came into play because he declined the offer. All talk of Belmont as the title was simply others engaged in speculation. If more info comes to light, I'd be interested in seeing it, but for now I'll mark this resolved. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

US federal interest rate hikes

Those are done by the independent(?) federal reserve bank, right? So it is proper to give the US government credit or blame for results of the rate hikes? Without taking sides, I see some of that showing up as election issues and am wondering if it is legitimate to associate the policies of the government with the actions of the Fed. On the other hand, if it's not legitimate but the Fed policies affect voting choices anyway, does that mean that the Fed has outsized influence over election outcomes? Has it received credible criticism over that? Thanks. 2601:648:8201:5E50:0:0:0:DD22 (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The defeats of Jimmy Carter's re-election campaign in 1980 and George HW Bush's in 1992 have both been at least partly attributed to the Fed pursuing economic policies not favorable to their re-election (though Carter obviously had other major problems). AnonMoos (talk) 08:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Years ago, my OR showed that over 40 years, the Fed did not often change course, or accelerate, within three months of an even-year election.DOR (HK) (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The members of the Fed aren't elected, but like the Supreme Court, are appointed by the President. The Federal Reserve Board of Governors and Chair of the Federal Reserve explains the nomination and confirmation process; it works like any Senate-confirmed nomination. --Jayron 32 12:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Fed controls monetary policy, whilst Congress controls fiscal policy. Doesn't the latter have significant (though by no means exclusive) influence on the former? Just look at what happened in the UK, when the government decided to run a low-tax high-spending fiscal policy in the midst of the current situation: the Bank of England (the UK counterpart to the Fed) responded by raising interest rates. DOR_(HK), you're our resident economist: How much do fiscal policy decisions (over matters like tax and spending) affect monetary policy decisions by Central banks? To the extent that there is such a link, might criticism of the Government of the day over interest rate hikes just be at least somewhat fair? Eliyohub (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind how S.L.O.W. fiscal policy must be. Even if the legislature agrees to act (spend, tax, refund), and no other barriers arise (veto, court challenge, bureaucratic delay), it takes a lot of time to draft legislation, approve it, send instructions to various entities to enact the law, and actually deliver. If the action is to remove money from the economy (e.g., tax), generally speaking that money must first be earned (salary) or received (interest, dividend, etc), then reported and the tax collected. Call it a two-year process. If the action is a refund or direct subsidy payment, maybe three months to a year. If it is spending, . . . now we’re talking three-to-thirty years or more. Compare that to monetary policy: “Good morning. The interest rate is now X.x%. Have a great day!” DOR (HK) (talk) 09:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point on how fiscal policy might influence monetary policy, after years of what the Central Bank (monetary authorities) might think of as fiscal follies, the CBankers might move interest rates to counter what is happening to the economy. Paul Volker and Alan Greenspan famously did this when the good times got out of hand. The Bank of Japan has been doing it for 30 years. But, we’re on a decade-plus time frame here. DOR (HK) (talk) 10:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of George Washington's three star insignia

Hi. This painting of George Washington depicts him with a three star insignia.[1]

Is this insignia historically accurate?
If so, what's the origin of this insignia?

For example, here's a photo of Ulysses S. Grant wearing a similar insignia [2]. Ulysses S. Grant's insignia was authorized by War Department's General Orders No. 6. in 1861 [3]. I'm hoping to find a similar order or legislation authorizing George Washington's three star insignia.

80...For the Major General Commanding the Army - gold, with solid crescent ; device, three silver - embroidered stars, one, one and a half inches in diameter, one, one and one - fourth inches in diameter, and one, one and one - eighth inches in diameter, placed on the strap in a row, longitudinally, and equidistant, the largest star in the centre of the crescent, the smallest at the top ; dead and bright gold bullion, one - half inch in diameter and three and one - half inches long.

Helian James (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found this:

When George Washington was recalled to active duty in 1798 to assume command of the U.S. Army during the period of increasing tensions with France, President John Adams made Washington the first American officer to hold the rank of lieutenat general (three stars). After Washington died in 1799, the rank was abolished until War of 1812 veteran Winfield Scott received a brevet promotion to lieutenant general in 1855. Promoted to lieutenant general in March 1864, Ulysses S. Grant was the first officer to hold that substantive rank since Washington...

The Encyclopedia Of the War Of 1812: A Political, Social, and Military History, p. 970. Alansplodge (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The use of one or two stars by generals dates from the summer of 1780 and was copied from the French. [4] Alansplodge (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The orders for that were issued on June 18, 1780 and can be seen here. Alansplodge (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. 1780 would have been during the reign of Louis XVI. Are there any records on why the French adopted this practice? Helian James (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not without focusing on heraldry. It is pre-existing in usage otherwise so the question would be "how an element of heraldry became an indication of rank" in the specific context of the adoption of the epaulette. In that bulletin (1888) about heraldry focused on Versailles, 1697-1701 there is Guillaume de Lort de Sérignan, "lieutenant et ayde major des gardes du roy", "brigadier des armées de S.M." (the precise one star title in 1780, see: Brigadier#France, Mestre de camp, and Maréchal_de_camp) et "Chevalier de l'ordre militaire de St Louis", armorial: "d'az au lion d'or, tenant de sa patte dextre une étoile de même", so, Lion, gold, holding one Star the same but the same Versaillers also has "549 Pierre Brin, maistre-queux de la bouche du roi" (a chef), two stars: "D'az, au cep de vigne d'or, fruité d'arg, soutenu d'un échalas de méme, accomp en chef de deux étoiles aussi d'arg." and an accounter, Charles Dubois-Guérin, "contrôlleur de de la maison de feue Madame la Dauphine", three stars, "sanglier passant sur une terrasse de sin. au chef d"az. ch de 3 étoiles d'or". --Askedonty (talk) 08:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether it might be relevant, but the Coat of arms of the Washington family has three stars (technically known in heraldry as "mullets", meaning spur-wheels). AnonMoos (talk) 07:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the Maréchal_de_camp article it says "one of his tasks was of disposing his troops on the battlefield", so after I was a bit puzzled by the irregular shape of the star on this portrait, I'm wondering whether it would not have been intended as a symbolic or schematic representation of that specific task (I can see no other perspective aberration in the picture and particularly none regarding the officer's military order medallion). --Askedonty (talk) 10:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brigadier was also the role one could be commissioned for inspection of fortresses, search for "brigadier", higher ranks were certainly bought too expensive for their owner being bothered with such dull obligations --Askedonty (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(That's considering the forum thread I took the portrait from is not recognizing a two stars insignia prior to 1786 [5])--Askedonty (talk) 10:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems an unrelated coincidence. The coat of arms was recorded as early as the 1300s, and was registered with the king of arms in 1592, long before George was born. Most of the sources I am seeing dates the use of stars to signify general ranks to the 18th century, with one star for a Brigadier general and two stars for a Major general, established as such for the US Army in 1780. I can find no records of the British army using such a system, so I'm not sure where Congress came up with it; it was the system they came up with nonetheless. During the war, Washington was a major general, making him at the same pay grade as other major generals, of which there were a few dozen in the Continental Army, but was granted the extra title of "Commander-in-chief" and was granted a third star for his uniform, despite being at the same official rank as other major generals. After the war (and after his presidency), he was promoted to Lieutenant General by John Adams during the Quasi war, he retained his three stars. --Jayron 32 16:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering what makes you think Congress came up with it ? It was the headquarters who had already recommended stripes, or whatever, for distinction of officers, since the first year in existence of the Continental Army, but at the instigation of George Washington. --Askedonty (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery photograph 1887

I've been adding to our article on Golden Jubilee of Queen Victoria which includes this photograph of the procession through London. I am hoping that somebody can pinpoint the location. The angle of the roads suggests the junction of Picadilly and Regent Street but I have been unable to identify the colonnaded building (partly obscured by temporary stands). Victoria's account of the procession mentions Piccadilly, Regent Street and Pall Mall, although I don't think she could have gone into Regent Street as it would take her in the wrong direction - it was a roundabout route from Buckingham Palace to Westminster Abbey, but the exact details have eluded me. Alansplodge (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansplodge From the Graphic, the route was:

Buckingham Palace > Constitution Hill > Piccadilly > Regent Street > Pall Mall East > Cockspur Street > Northumberland Avenue > Embankment > Bridge Road
(returning) Westminster Abbey > Parliament Street > Whitehall > Cockspur Street > Pall Mall > St James's Street > Piccadilly > Constitution Hill

It seems like Regent Street on the outbound stretch was the south section below Piccadilly Circus, running down to Waterloo Place. I am now wondering if that's exactly the bit we're seeing here - where Waterloo Place widens out, and thus explaining why both the near and far lines of people are curving back. commons:File:Waterloo QE3 43.jpg is taken there in the 1890s and the building on the right looks very similar to the one here. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And confirmation - the reporter of the Northern Whig reported that a "magnificent triumphal arch spanned the southern end of Regent Street ... it was surmounted by the Crown and the Royal Standard, underneath being a large medallion portrait of her Majesty, and the words, in large gold letters, 'Victoria our Queen'."

The Globe mentioned "the luxurious stand erected by Messrs Hampton at the corner of Regent-Street", and we can just see the MPTON on the left. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Andrew Gray, I'd forgotten that Regent Street ran south of Piccadilly Circus. You seem to have nailed it. Alansplodge (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All these buildings seem to have been replaced in the early 20th century, but this 1830 view shows the colonnaded building (perhaps by John Nash?) in exactly the position you suggested. Alansplodge (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Gray, please could you post the citation details for the info from The Graphic, so that I can include it in the article; I don't have a britishnewspaperarchive subscription. Alansplodge (talk) 15:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry - forgot the metadata was not in the public view! Graphic, p8, 18 June 1887. I accidentally looked up the 1897 route as well; if you'd like to use that too, it's the Reading Mercury, p6, 26 June 1897. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you most kindly. Alansplodge (talk) 11:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can call this...

Resolved

1990 Conservative Party leadership election -what triggered it

What officially triggered the 1990 Conservative Party leadership election, x number of M.P.s calling for same? Was a confidence vote an option? How many perspective candidates where there, when did nominations close etc.- Bogger (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article you cite explained the situation; "Thatcher brought the annual leadership election forward by a fortnight.[3]" Apparently, the Tories hold their leadership elections annually (or did at the time) and in most cases this is a pro-forma event; I suspect that in most years there is one candidate, the current party leader, and they are likely confirmed by unanimous consent. There had been a challenger the year before, but the election went Thatcher's way easily, however by 1990, Thatcher was in a tighter position, and the Heseltine challenge caused Thatcher to (as party leader) move up the election, hopefully to stem momentum in Heseltine's favor and preserve her job. That's how I read the article, anyways.--Jayron 32 12:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean Heseltine. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So corrected. --Jayron 32 18:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The election results are here, Mrs Thatcher and Mr Heseltine were the only candidates in the first round. How refreshing that winning an election was cause for resignation in those high and far-off days. Alansplodge (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This BBC article references Geoffrey Howe's famous "dead sheep" speech which triggered the whole thing [6], "the greatest parliamentary speech ever" [7]. You can hear this gem here (the main punchline is at 14:48). Alansplodge (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]