Odyssey

[ricky]

I still find that as they've severed the head of most of the aristocrats and those they've not, left. I have to wonder what will face this English aristocrat. And who's left to socialize with? And who's got the power to protect him? I can only hope his stay is brief. It's obvious that he will be exposed to the mob. He's there for propaganda. This can't be good. It means humiliation and he doesn't do that well. He's humble but that is different from having humiliation thrust upon you.

As for Calvert and Gatling, they are both part of his crew. If they give Calvert a ship of his own will he be able to hang on to Granger's crew or will they be pressed into other ships? And will there be animosity over it when Granger returns? And where will it place Gatling if Granger returns and wants Calvert back in his arms? (Although I can't imagine why. He's so needy.)

Will Winkler and Jacobs be able to stay together? And will LaFavor be able to help? He is quite French after all. Perhaps he has a hidden secret? Knows someone perhaps?

And when he gets back, what could they possibly do to honor him? And what will happen when when he learns of the fate of his brand new ship? And Humphries will reap the heat. He lost not one but two ships. And he's dead so no one will think twice about blaming him for it all. And yet, he was loyal to the very end. He deserves better than he will receive. Even posthumously.

[centexhairysub]

What are you talking about?

 

He is encouraging everyone to post reviews.  There is a place after reading each chapter at the bottom of the page that you can go in and review.  With out going back and looking, I believe that Mark has three stories in the top ten most reviewed.  Odyssey is or was number 6 and the more reviews it gets the further up the list it gets pushed....  I believe Paternity is number 1 on the list and 9/11 is number 3. 

[ricky]

He is encouraging everyone to post reviews.  There is a place after reading each chapter at the bottom of the page that you can go in and review.  With out going back and looking, I believe that Mark has three stories in the top ten most reviewed.  Odyssey is or was number 6 and the more reviews it gets the further up the list it gets pushed....  I believe Paternity is number 1 on the list and 9/11 is number 3. 

And where can you find this list? And what benefit can be derived from holding the number one spot?

Is there a "most talked about in the forums" list?

[Westie]

I still find that as they've severed the head of most of the aristocrats and those they've not, left. I have to wonder what will face this English aristocrat. And who's left to socialize with? And who's got the power to protect him? I can only hope his stay is brief. It's obvious that he will be exposed to the mob. He's there for propaganda. This can't be good. It means humiliation and he doesn't do that well. He's humble but that is different from having humiliation thrust upon you.

As for Calvert and Gatling, they are both part of his crew. If they give Calvert a ship of his own will he be able to hang on to Granger's crew or will they be pressed into other ships? And will there be animosity over it when Granger returns? And where will it place Gatling if Granger returns and wants Calvert back in his arms? (Although I can't imagine why. He's so needy.)

Will Winkler and Jacobs be able to stay together? And will LaFavor be able to help? He is quite French after all. Perhaps he has a hidden secret? Knows someone perhaps?

And when he gets back, what could they possibly do to honor him? And what will happen when when he learns of the fate of his brand new ship? And Humphries will reap the heat. He lost not one but two ships. And he's dead so no one will think twice about blaming him for it all. And yet, he was loyal to the very end. He deserves better than he will receive. Even posthumously.

 

This is the time of the Directory.... So there are a large number of the emigré who are returning to France under petition.  In a little under 3 years, there would be almost a complete amnesty for the emigré population outside of France, many of whom would not only return, but also reclaim much of their wealth (if they hadn't already; there were huge amounts of aristocratic gold stored in English banks at the time).  Some of these returning aristocrats would hold positions in government.

 

At a time of ever-increasing tolerance towards the aristocrats, the ones who made it back were spectacles in their own right.  All the most fashionable parlours in Paris would have wanted them to dinner. 

 

Granger is not in any danger in Paris.  It was understood that certain boundaries would make later peace so much harder (or, make occupation more resisted).  Killing a hero of the people, an aristocrat, outside of battle and while a prisoner of war would in the context of the time be reprehensible.

 

West

[ricky]

This is the time of the Directory.... So there are a large number of the emigré who are returning to France under petition.  In a little under 3 years, there would be almost a complete amnesty for the emigré population outside of France, many of whom would not only return, but also reclaim much of their wealth (if they hadn't already; there were huge amounts of aristocratic gold stored in English banks at the time).  Some of these returning aristocrats would hold positions in government.

 

At a time of ever-increasing tolerance towards the aristocrats, the ones who made it back were spectacles in their own right.  All the most fashionable parlours in Paris would have wanted them to dinner. 

 

Granger is not in any danger in Paris.  It was understood that certain boundaries would make later peace so much harder (or, make occupation more resisted).  Killing a hero of the people, an aristocrat, outside of battle and while a prisoner of war would in the context of the time be reprehensible.

 

West

Thank you for that. I find it interesting that the peasants who were put in power as "the committee" would be so willing to give up the power once they had it. And the returning aristocrats would probably be resentful once the order had been restored. I find it interesting that the French, much like the colonists who rebelled against the aristocracy then turn around and embraced them. I confess that I know little about the history of France. Or England for that matter. But this fickle behavior intrigues me. Perhaps it is worth a dig or two. It seams that the lesson of wanting being better than having prevails. Chivalry is not dead, just on holiday so to speak.

[Mark Arbour]

Thank you for that. I find it interesting that the peasants who were put in power as "the committee" would be so willing to give up the power once they had it. And the returning aristocrats would probably be resentful once the order had been restored. I find it interesting that the French, much like the colonists who rebelled against the aristocracy then turn around and embraced them. I confess that I know little about the history of France. Or England for that matter. But this fickle behavior intrigues me. Perhaps it is worth a dig or two. It seams that the lesson of wanting being better than having prevails. Chivalry is not dead, just on holiday so to speak.

 

There were close to 17,000 people guillotined during the Reign of Terror in France (1794-7).  There were many more who were executed in other ways (some estimates put it between 10,000 and 25,000 people).    But the large majority of these people were not aristocrats. 

 

From Wiki:  Among people who were condemned by the revolutionary tribunals, about 8 percent were aristocrats, 6 percent clergy, 14 percent middle class, and 72 percent were workers or peasants accused of hoarding, evading the draft, desertion, rebellion.

 

 

That would have taken a much bigger hit on the aristocrats, because at the time they represented approximately 1% of the population. 

 

It is also worth noting that the men who replaced them in power were rarely peasants, but were usually from the French middle classes, or bourgeoisie, which represented roughly 10% of the French population.  And it is also worth noting that the bourgeoisie were the prime administrators of the government under the monarchy.  Evidently those middle class people can be quite troublesome.

[JimCarter]

Well, Hornblower was fiction too.     There are a couple of things to keep in mind: 

 

1.  Hornblower was captured approximately 10 years after Granger.  Things were considerably different for prisoners in the latter part of the Napoleonic Wars.  Parole was not granted as easily, and prisoners were often confined to parole towns.  In France, this usually meant Verdun. 

 

2.  Hornblower was a commoner, whose father was a minister.  There would have been less outrage over his mistreatment than Granger, but I suspect there would still have been considerable outrage. 

 

3.  Hornblower was captured when there was one capricious autocrat in charge of France (Napoleon), while Granger arrives in Paris to face the Directory, a polyglot of bizarre men. 

 

Good points, but I thought Hornblower's father was a doctor.  Still not a noble though.

[centexhairysub]

Well, I don't think Hornblower had George Granger's social skills or charisma either.... 

[centexhairysub]

I really enjoyed chapter 66 of Odyssey that was posted today.  I am glad we are back with Granger, although I did enjoy our time with Winkler and hope we find out how that resolves itself.  I hope that Lt Eastwyck is in Paris or on his way there.  At least if they are together, Granger will get to find out some new information, although Eastwyck will not know about Humphrey's death or the arrival of Santa Clarita. 

 

 

I did find it sort of interesting that the closer they got to France, the more Granger and Beauvillers pulled away from each other.  I know that part of this was the especially after they landed that Beauvillers was able to find a woman to sleep with, but undoubtedly some of this was to mirror the deterioration of the relationship between France and England, itself.  Granger's trick with the copper coins will get some good word of mouth irregardless of the problems with the rotten fruit in Lyon.  In France more so than other places being able to pull the crowd to your side was a major benefit during this time.  Charity and generosity were good ways to do this, plus Granger's inborn sense of fair play will help as well.  I can't wait for Granger to get to a tailor and then into society in Paris.

 

 

I am less than enamoured with the idea of Granger being involved with Talleyrand.  Granger will be able to easily bribe the man, Talleyrand made a large fortune taking bribes during each adminstration that he served in.  I just feel that Talleyrand was truly a miserable human being.  There are those that argue that he served France more than those in power during each of his changes in loyalty but the evil he was responsible for just far outweights any of the good he ever did...  The fact that he entered the church as a means to gather wealth and power, only to betray his vows and promises to the point that one of the Pope Pius's actually defroked him says a great deal about his behaviour.  I know he made a deathbed conversion back to Catholicism but after everything he did, God may forgive but man does not.  His direct responsiblity in the death of the Duke of Enghien as well as his complacency in putting the touches on the powder keg that would eventually lead to WWI just puts him beyond redemption in my eyes... 

 

 

Can't wait to see how Mark arranges Granger's entrance into Parisian society...

[Mark Arbour]

 

I am less than enamoured with the idea of Granger being involved with Talleyrand.  Granger will be able to easily bribe the man, Talleyrand made a large fortune taking bribes during each adminstration that he served in.  I just feel that Talleyrand was truly a miserable human being.  There are those that argue that he served France more than those in power during each of his changes in loyalty but the evil he was responsible for just far outweights any of the good he ever did...  The fact that he entered the church as a means to gather wealth and power, only to betray his vows and promises to the point that one of the Pope Pius's actually defroked him says a great deal about his behaviour.  I know he made a deathbed conversion back to Catholicism but after everything he did, God may forgive but man does not.  His direct responsiblity in the death of the Duke of Enghien as well as his complacency in putting the touches on the powder keg that would eventually lead to WWI just puts him beyond redemption in my eyes... 

 

I think you're being just a bit unfair to Talleyrand.  His Catholicism was casual, at best, when he was young, but then again, so it was for many young noblemen propelled into the church.  It was the path that was chosen for him, not the path that he chose.  The Pope at the time was Pius VI, who was chided for his own immorality and for the sleazy ways he used to raise money.  He is hardly one to judge Talleyrand.  In addition, it is important to remember that Pius VI was adamantly opposed to the French Revolution (which makes sense, since the revolutionary leaders disestablished the Catholic church in France...temporarily).  He would not have had anything kind to say about anyone serving in the French government at that time.  My personal opinion is that the French church was a good place for those who had deeper philosophical leanings, or were more focused on what we would call the field of  sociology.  Talleyrand was a bad bishop, but was not unusual in that regard.

I think it is even more unfair to pin on him the ultimate causes of WWI.  In fact, I think he was positively brilliant at the Congress of Vienna, where he managed to insinuate a defeated and occupied France into a position as a premiere power in the post-war world.  I think that if he would not have achieved that goal, an embittered France may have ended up as a very dangerous world power, similar to a resurgent Germany during the Nazi years. 

 

To American eyes, the bribes he extracted were outrageous, but to the diplomatic community in Europe, they were ordinary, or at least not unexpected.  Our sensibilities were incredibly inflamed by the XYZ affair, but European sensibilities were not.  It was how the game was played, and we were clearly parvenus who did not understand that. 

 

In my mind, the most damning thing about Talleyrand could have been his involvement in the murder (for that is what it was) of the Duc D'Enghien.  The Duc was a handsome and charming member of the French Royal Family, but he was also an idiot, choosing to live so close to the borders of France.  That does not excuse his abduction and murder, but it does make one question his overall intelligence and judgement.  That he was abducted from an adjacent country (Baden) and killed on trumped up charges was certainly true, and that Napoleon ordered those actions is also true.  What is not certain is how involved Talleyrand (and Fouche) were in that act.  The primary accuser of Talleyrand was Bonaparte, but that rings hollow, especially since D'Enghien's murder could never have happened without Napoleon's express approval.  Talleyrand undoubtedly knew about D'Enghien's capture, but I am skeptical as to whether it was his brainchild.  For one thing, it was diplomatic folly, and that is something Talleyrand was rarely guilty of.  For another, it looks much more like one of those extreme, impulsive, and unwise acts that Napoleon so often displayed.  

 

My personal opinion on the matter is that Napoleon was an erratic tyrant, who was adamant about getting his way.  Talleyrand (and Fouche) were good at both manipulating him, and in tempering some of his more erratic ideas.  D'Enghien was killed in 1804, and the plot of which D'Enghien was accused was used by Bonaparte as an excuse to proclaim himself Emperor in December of 1804.  To me, I see the signs of a megalomaniac.  I think that the D'Enghien affair is where Talleyrand began to break from Napoleon, something which was finalized when Napoleon deposed the King of Spain and spirited him back to France, and to Valencay, where he stayed as Talleyrand's "guest." 

 

I would also point to the fact that Talleyrand served all the subsequent French monarchs (Louis XVIII, Charles X, and Louis-Phillippe) after Napoleon.  I think it is unlikely that they would have allowed him to serve if there was conclusive proof he was the instigator of D'Enghien's murder. 

 

I am not trying to make the case that Talleyrand was moral, although one would have fun even defining that term, especially during that era, and especially in France.  I am simply saying that he was a flawed but brilliant man, and that his crimes were not as extensive as Bonapartist historians would have us think.

[Daddydavek]

Trust George to meet one of the most interesting people in Paris and to buy his accommodations with him.   To remain there, he will certainly need some new clothes!

[Westie]

 

... his complacency in putting the touches on the powder keg that would eventually lead to WWI just puts him beyond redemption in my eyes... 

 

 

The argument here is that the lines drawn apparently allowed Prussian supremacy to unite Germany under one Throne....

 

Its a convenient argument that ignores the responsibility of the Prussians, the Serbians, the Hungarians and the Austrians.  I find it disingenuous to blame a man for putting together a formula that allowed something to happen, rather than blame the perpetrators of such crimes.

[Kookie]

Maybe one of you students of history (particularly English) can explain this to me.

 

I would have imagined a Post Captain pay rate to be equivalent to that of a Colonel's in the infantry. Yet according to the 1800 pay scale for British Soldiers it appears, Granger was earning less (16 L/month or 320 s/month (about 11s/day) according to Mark in Chapt.66)as a Navy Captain than even infantry Majors.

 

British Army Pay Rates (taken from http://www.napoleonguide.com/ukwages.htm )

 

Daily Rate in 1800

 

Cavalry Infantry Militia

 

Colonel 32s 10d 22s 6d 22s 6d

Major 23s 14s 1d 14s 1d

Captain 14s 7d 9s 5d 9s 5d

Lieutenant 9s 4s 8d 4s 8d

Edited September 28, 2013 by Kookie

[sandrewn]

Oh, God now you've done it. Here we go again.

[Kookie]

Sandrewn,

 

You may have misunderstood me, Mark's salary for Granger at 16L/month is correct based on what I have seen. What I am trying to figure out is Why the Pay for Naval Officers was not on the same level as the Army? Particularly given the defense of England hedged on the ability of the Navy to prevent incursions on to the British Isles. There has to a political reason somewhere?

[sandrewn]

It likely ( a fore gone conclusion actually ) that in comparison to the meaning of life as we know it or the creation of the universe, this is a non event. However, here and now (on this site), it is commendable achievement. Well done Mark, you have the deserved honour of having the 1st, 3rd and 4th T.R.S. of GA. Thank you also my fellow followers of ' The Odyssey ' for what you have done to make this happen.

[sandrewn]

Kookie

 

I did not misunderstand you. I was mearly pointing out (from past experience) that what you have done, is analogous to having thrown out a bone with plenty of meat still on it to a pack of starving demon dogs (possibly related to a certain author and beta reader). Good luck.

[Westie]

Kookie

 

I did not misunderstand you. I was mearly pointing out (from past experience) that what you have done, is analogous to having thrown out a bone with plenty of meat still on it to a pack of starving demon dogs (possibly related to a certain author and beta reader). Good luck.

 

I have no idea to whom you might be referring....

 

Maybe one of you students of history (particularly English) can explain this to me.

 

I would have imagined a Post Captain pay rate to be equivalent to that of a Colonel's in the infantry. Yet according to the 1800 pay scale for British Soldiers it appears, Granger was earning less (16 L/month or 320 s/month (about 11s/day) according to Mark in Chapt.66)as a Navy Captain than even infantry Majors.

 

British Army Pay Rates (taken from http://www.napoleonguide.com/ukwages.htm )

 

Daily Rate in 1800

 

Cavalry Infantry Militia

 

Colonel 32s 10d 22s 6d 22s 6d

Major 23s 14s 1d 14s 1d

Captain 14s 7d 9s 5d 9s 5d

Lieutenant 9s 4s 8d 4s 8d

 

I think this is more of a misunderstanding of the relative ranks and responsibility.  A colonel in the military was commanding around 900 men, and had a significant budget to manage.  On average it took 22-24 years as an officer to reach this rank.   A more accurate rank/equivalent would probably be an Army Capitan or Major.  It should though be noted that the roles were completely different, and so a direct comparison is not possible.

 

West

 

Edit to add 2 things:

 

(1) Captains in the Navy had the additional possibility of prize money.  The Army did not.  

 

(2) It's really important that everyone should feel comfortable asking questions in this forum.  Sometimes it is difficult to sense tone in written form - we may have some "banter" on here, but its all in good nature and part of a long conversation giving different viewpoints

Edited September 28, 2013 by Westie

[Westie]

PS - I am "belgrade bound" tomorrow, and so I might not be responsive in the forums.  Many hotels in Serbia block gay themed websites so its hit and miss whether I actually get online or not.

 

One thing I wanted to mention was that the last chapter started on 12th September.  7 days before that, a law was enacted that effectively invented the modern concept of conscription.  It can be said that this act, more than any other, had the greatest and farthest reaching consequences of any other aspect of the Napoleonic wars.

[sandrewn]

(2) It's really important that everyone should feel comfortable asking questions in this forum.  Sometimes it is difficult to sense tone in written form - we may have some "banter" on here, but its all in good nature and part of a long conversation giving different viewpoints

 

Kookie, your question was one I was going to ask, but you beat me to it.

 

Westie, your opinions are always welcomed, viewpoints appreciated and answers highly informative. I for one look forward to your posts. Besides I'm thick skinned. Have a safe trip.

[Mark Arbour]

The argument here is that the lines drawn apparently allowed Prussian supremacy to unite Germany under one Throne....

 

Its a convenient argument that ignores the responsibility of the Prussians, the Serbians, the Hungarians and the Austrians.  I find it disingenuous to blame a man for putting together a formula that allowed something to happen, rather than blame the perpetrators of such crimes.

 

I want to thank Centex and you for bringing this up.  I'd never heard that argument about Talleyrand before, but it has fascinated me.  Quite frankly, I think that Metternich may be more to blame for this than Talleyrand, but as Westie noted, that presumes the actions of others in that drama were preordained, and I'm not willing to subscribe to that theory either.

[sandrewn]

I still don't do song and dance. So to raise this curtain of silence (no posts in 3+ days). I have been confused (not that way) from the start about how each class of ship was rated for guns. Were the bow chasers, smashers or carronades included in the count? For example, Belvidera was rated as a 32, but her gun deck only had 15 -18pdrs on each side. So were the bow chasers counted or were the carronades? I finally found something on this (click below) and I am still not sure of the answer. Can any one out there help me on this? Westie/Mark? Thanks in advance.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rating_system_of_the_Royal_Navy

[Kookie]

I can not answer were bow-chasers were counted as guns or not.

 

As far a ship ratings, the following is another reference you might find useful:

http://www.napoleonguide.com/navy_rnratings.htm

[Daddydavek]

Rates meant more than guns.   See the following site and note the links to the right hand side for the time period in question.

 

http://www.britainsnavy.co.uk/Reference/Rates%20-Sailing%20Ship.htm

Edited October 4, 2013 by Daddydavek

[sandrewn]

Thank you both for your efforts. In going back to St. Vincent I found the following in chapter 42, George talking about Bacchante;

 

            “I think she looks rather crazed and horny,” Chartley corrected.  “And she has large breasts.”  They laughed again, and then Granger let his eyes move past her, to the forecastle.  The snub nose of a nine-pounder poked out at them, the perfect gun for a bow-chaser. 

            They dismounted and walked next to her on the dock.  “She seems so much bigger than Belvidera,” Chartley observed. 

            “She is 20 feet longer and five feet wider than Belvidera,” Granger said.  “She is rated for 38 guns, so will carry six more 18-pounders than Belvidera does.”  They walked back to the stern, where the expansive windows spread across the back of the ship.  Her name was emblazoned across her stern.

 

That would seem to indicate that Belvidera did in fact have 32 - 18pdrs., but with only 30 (15 aside) mentioned as being on the gun deck where would those last two have been located. Unless it was  originally a typeo, that was missed. Thanks again, I will keep looking for a definitive answer.

 

Let us hope that today we find a new chapter posted to the site. Ta ta for now.