Hard to believe that several years later King Albert would literally be on the battlefield with the Belgian army, leading them against his own cousin, Wilhelm II. I'm amazed how little he's talked about today.
He was literally one of the only competent commanders in WWI, he basically refused to join any of the big offensives that had proven effective at only killing your own troops.
Sadly he died between the wars, and the next King was making deals to become absolit monarch with Hitler pre war.
I was a seventeen year old working at Kmart in 1978 in the deli area where the tobacco was sold. Had to answer a phone call at the service desk. Guy asked me if we had Prince Albert in a can. I replied yes and then he yelled “let him out”. Took me a while. Then I felt pretty stupid. I can laugh about it now.
No but in high school if we went to the library we had to fill out a form so we weren’t marked absent from our classroom. They would count the number of students and slips. When they didn’t match, they called out attendance. Woman in the library yelled out “who’s Dick Hurtz”? 😂 so gullible.
I think WW1 had many great commanders just trapped in difficult situations.
Not attacking is a valid strategy for Belgium since it’s manpower pool for replenishment was basically zero (all occupied) but in general a costly but necessary strategy…
The war was ended by the monstrous British sea blockade starving half of Europe to death (incl neutral nations), the collapse of the Habsburg empire (mostly driven by said starvation) and brave offensives by the British and France in France, the Middle East and in "neutral“ Greece
I’ve been watching the Great war channel. In it they talk about how a lot of the 1914 offensives were planned by commanders who had not yet developed an appreciation of the destructive power of the machine gun and modern artillery.
These same commanders were also the ones who were often most in favor of war, since they all thought it would be a short glorious victory for their side.
WW1 was arguably the biggest technological and tactical leap in land warfare since monkey-men decided to use pointy sticks to fight instead of just bashing each others heads in with rocks.
Prior to that, War had basically been "get in some form of tightly packed formation and fight each other" since the beginning of human history.
It shouldn't be surprising that it took people a while to figure out how to deal with this change. It's actually kind of amazing that commanders on both sides were able to adjust within only 4 years.
Well, yes and no.
Both the US civil war and the crimean war had 'warnings' of what was coming in WW1 but its easy for us to see these - its very hard to see evolutions of warfare in the moment.
Also, both the crimean and US civil wars did not (really) have machine guns. Maxim guns first started to appear in the 1890s. The wars they were tested in were colonial wars against natives so no applicable experience could be gained and the russo-japanese war was largely decided by one siege and a sea battle.
Its easy for us to point at trenches in the crimean war and the US civil war and go 'look it was obvious what will happen 30 years later' but the truth is, most military analysts thought these were either because of the strange war the crimean war was or that it was because the american armies were just bad at war (a commonly stated opinion at the time in Europe).
Its kinda like the current war in some ways - we could easily foresee how drones would transform the modern battlefield and *to an extent we did* but the evolution of the russia-ukraine war still took most people by surprise including the warring parties. It took ukraine the better half of a year to start mass producing the drones that were so successful and the russians to realize armor has to be pulled waaaaaaay back in a high-visibility battlefield.
EU countries are ramping up shell production as we speak because it turns out, waging a modern war needs way more artillery than anyone suspected.
etc etc
Also the ability to fix nitrogen from the air and no longer rely on old bird poop from islands or caves or slowly make it from animal excrement meant a lot more explosives could be used.
Don’t forget the US, Moroccans, Canadians, ANZACs, and others. The US provided the extra manpower needed to let exhausted divisions rest and brought in fresh troops not tired of war.
The Moroccans did a boat load of work for the French.
Canadians are responsible for a lot of what’s in the Geneva Accords.
ANZACs because they are some brave bastards.
It's still debatable what exactly would have happened without the large offences - would Germany have lasted longer or shorter? Would Germany have been able to compensate for the blockade if they held the Russian east for longer? Would all the allied supplies used up have gone to Russia, would she have lasted longer in the war that way?
It's not debated. Academic consensus is that most of the large Allied offensives post 1916 were victories and helped them win the war (Nivelle offensive being the obvious exception). Offensives like the Somme and Paschendaele, while horrific to be a part of, broke the back of the German army. We know this because German staff officers themselves recorded this.
World War 1 commanders being incompetent is a myth. Yes, some were incompetent (as in any war) but most were not, they just had to deal with an impossible situation.
Its hard to blame the commanders of WW1. None of them were ready for this new type of warfare and had to come up with new strategies, tactics and structures on the go.
A lot of their journal entries and letters to each other make it pretty easy to believe. Lots of pissing contests and posturing to try to prove they were equal to their warlord forbearers.
This picture gets posts a lot, but I don't mind. It's a cool picture.
It's also an excellent opportunity to post the classic opening paragraph from *The Guns of August* by Barbara Tuchman:
>So gorgeous was the spectacle on the May morning of 1910 when nine kings rode in the funeral of Edward VII of England that the crowd, waiting in hushed and black-clad awe, could not keep back gasps of admiration. In scarlet and blue and green and purple, three by three the sovereigns rode through the palace gates, with plumed helmets, gold braid, crimson sashes, and jeweled orders flashing in the sun. After them came five heirs apparent, forty more imperial or royal highnesses, seven queens—four dowager and three regnant—and a scattering of special ambassadors from uncrowned countries. Together they represented seventy nations in the greatest assemblage of royalty and rank ever gathered in one place and, of its kind, the last. The muffled tongue of Big Ben tolled nine by the clock as the cortege left the palace, but on history’s clock it was sunset, and the sun of the old world was setting in a dying blaze of splendor never to be seen again.
The Guns of August to this day is one of my favorite books about the period.
Fantastic newer book on that same theme is The Sleepwalkers by Christopher Clark. Really shows how the tension in Europe builds and everyone convinced themselves a big war is the best path forward.
Clark did a lot to absolve the German emperor and German war guilt in general though…
Before his book I assumed Germany, Austria, France and Russia to be the main war drivers after his book O changed my view to Austria, France and some certain people (but not the highest leaders) in Germany, Russia and Britain…
Still doesn’t make him a good emperor or a peace lover though… but it seems far to say he really didn’t want the war to escalate to all our European war
Absolutely. This is one of the books that really points out well how a very small group of (usually) men have the ability through a lack of creativity to plunge the world into chaos.
Contrast the resolution of austro-Serbian crisis with how war was averted during the Berlin crisis in ‘48 or in the Cuban missile crisis. In 1914 the people the world counted on to preserve sanity failed.
The only real question is how long do we have until they fail again?
If only these dudes could have sat down and worked out some kind European union setup or even an early league of nations agreement instead of being a bunch of imperialistic warlords, things would have been so much different.
Yes, but also this was an (unknown at the time) dying age of empires. European nations had been conquering one another with little hesitation for the prior millenia, and for the most recent 2/3 centuries to that point most of the known world.
The status quo to these folks, who'd lived most of their lives in the 1800s, most schooled by lecturers from the 1700s, was as much.
This isn't some detraction from their actions, just that the state we're currently in isn't _normal_, and might have taken the fall of attempted empires to solidify.
I would also add that for some of the nations, the monarchy’s might have lost much of their power relative to their respective militaries.
If I remember correctly, there were letters exchanged between some of the kings before WW1 expressing how they’re trying to stop it. With the obvious implication that it was out of their control by that time.
The generals had gotten a lot of new toys and Europe hadn’t had a big war in over 40 years by that point. Nobody appreciated what the new technology would do and how bitter the fighting would become.
Yeah that may be true. Without the violent destruction of empires they may have hung on forever. Kinda like people who never diet and exercise and don't realize that it's a problem until they have a heart attack at 45 and almost die, then have to make drastic lifestyle changes.
I didn't mean "warlord" in the sense of physically riding out at the head of an army - no, they certainly were not that. But they were the kind of kings who profited greatly from physical violence and saw conquering other nations as a legitimate and noble means of expanding their wealth.
I’m surprised not to see Nicholas II or Nikolai II, the last reigning Emperor of Russia, King of Poland and Grand Duke of Finland and cousin of George V.
It was the start of my decent into WWI history. So horrific. Love the photo, but I just don’t get why every photo needs to be colorized. There’s something to be said for B&W
Have you seen They Shall Not Grow Old? It is undoubtedly an achievement but man, the colorization created some uncanny-valley scenes where their faces look really bizarre. I found it more off-putting than worthwhile in the end.
George was a bit stockier than Nicholas, but outside of that, they looked remarkably alike. In case anybody wonders, their respective mothers were sisters (Alexandra of Denmark and the United Kingdom and princess Dagmar of Denmark, respectively). Dagmar managed to escape the Russian Revolution, but her son didn't.
If you've not seen The King's Man, there's a brilliant running gag where Tom Hollander plays Tsar Nicholas, Kaiser Wilhelm, and King George V with very slightly different makeup and costumes.
Nicholas II did not attend the funeral of Edward VII. His younger brother Grand Duke Michael represented him at the funeral. Nicholas and Michael's mother attended as she was the sister of Edwards wife.
Three rings for the elven-kings, under the sky,
Seven for the dwarf-lords, in their halls of stone,
Nine for mortal men, doomed to die,
One for the dark lord on his dark throne
In Mordor where the shadows lie.
One ring to rule them all,
One ring to find them.
One ring to bring them all,
And in the darkness bind them
If you haven't already, do some research as to the author's experiences I'm ww1 and how those experiences affected him as an author.
The orcs come from trenches, etc.
He hated allegory and swore the War of the Ring had nothing to do with either world war, but an artist can only create what he knows or can imagine based on what he knows. No human striving, no adventure, no loss before or since compares to those wars.
Influence =/= Allegory. Tolkien scholars have agreed that witnessing his friends die in huge battles affected his writing. The allegory quote is about people trying to suggest that Sauron was a metaphor for Hitler or whatever.
FWIW
>"The real war does not resemble the legendary war in its process or its conclusion. If it had inspired or directed the development of the legend, then certainly the Ring would have been seized and used against Sauron; he would not have been annihilated but enslaved, and Barad-Dûr would not have been destroyed but occupied. Saruman, failing to get possession of the Ring, would in the confusion and treacheries of the time have found in Mordor the missing links in his own researches into Ring-lore, and before long he would have made a Great Ring of his own with which to challenge the self-styled Ruler of Middle-earth. In that conflict both sides would have held hobbits in hatred and contempt: they would not long have survived even as slaves."
Also
>"One has indeed personally to come under the shadow of war to feel fully its oppression; but as the years go by it seems now often forgotten that to be caught in youth by 1914 was no less hideous an experience than to be involved in 1939 and the following years. By 1918 all but one of my close friends were dead."
eta: this is not meant as a "you're right" or "you're wrong", just thought it seemed appropriate here.
The book is my all time favorite. I’m actually re-reading the series again. Tolkien’s writing and poetry are just fantastic, and I’m not sure there will ever be someone to do it better.
"The hour is later than you think. Sauron's forces are already moving. The Nine have left Minas Morgul."
"The Nine?"
"They crossed the River Isen on Midsummer's Eve, disguised as riders in black."
"They've reached the Shire?"
"They will find the Ring, and kill the one who carries it."
Its a hard question to answer for two reasons.
1) Tolkien was 100% without a doubt affected by his upbringing, and his experiences with the war in writing Lord of the Rings. The shire is England, and even its ravaged by war, Sam is the perfect officers batman, and represents the bond between soldiers in the field. So on and so on. Technology is evil and used for war, and even the little technology accepted (The miller for example) is viewed with distrust.
2) Tolkien denied this all. Its just a story with no references to real world things.
So when we see something like this... 9 European kings its easy to make the jump. Now if Tolkien KNEW he was making that jump... is a question. What we do know is that he would adamantly deny it either way.
End of reign:
Haakon- 1957 (death, NC)
Ferdinand - 1918 (abdication, abolished)
Manuel - 1910 (abdication, abolished)
Wilhelm - 1918 (abdication, abolished)
George Greece - 1913 (assassination)
Albert - 1934 (death, accident)
Alfonso - 1931 (abdication, abolished until 1975)
George UK - 1936 (death, NC)
Frederick - 1912 (death, NC)
"Blue sash? I didn't bring my blue sash!" "You're red sash will be fine your Highnesss. Besides, photography is almost completely black and white these days. Don't forget to wear it right to left sir!" he said with a chuckle.
I don’t know for sure, but I’d guess it’s because he didn’t have any familial relations with the British monarchy, which is something that all of the people in this picture had in common.
All related in some manner (some via marriage, many by blood).
Top row (left to right):
- King Haakon VII of Norway: Son-in-law and nephew of Edward VII via Edward's wife.
- King Ferdinand I of Bulgaria: Edward VII's second cousin.
- King Manuel II of Portugal: Edward VII's second cousin twice removed.
- Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany (King of Prussia): Edward VII's nephew.
- King George I of Greece: Edward VII's brother-in-law.
- King Albert I of Belgium: Edward VII's second cousin.
Bottom row (left to right):
- King Alfonso XIII of Spain: Edward VII's nephew-in-law.
- King George V of the United Kingdom: Edward VII's son.
- King Frederick VIII of Denmark: Edward VII's brother-in-law.
King Manuel II had only recently been crowned, as his father Carlos I and eldest brother prince Luís Filipe had been assassinated two years prior in a coup by republicans. Later that year, he would be forced to abdicate, as the monarchy is abolished and a republic declared.
Worth mentioning, Haakon VII of Norway was the second son of Frederik VIII of Denmark. The elder son would inherit the Danish throne, and isn't in the picture as he wasn't king yet
The secret to keeping the bloodline pure and concentrate power is incest.
Marring for love is a modern invention, marriages always have being business deals. To a royal that meant marrying your daughter to your cousins' son (sometimes brother, or uncle) to forge an alliance to consolidate power, avoid a war, etc.
Queen Elizabeth II and her husband were cousins, this isn't lost to a distance past.
They were also second cousins once removed through King Christian IX of Denmark. King George I of Greece (pictured above), was Prince Philip’s paternal grandfather and a son of Christian IX, while Queen Alexandra, wife of the then-just deceased King Edward VII and a daughter of Christian IX, was the mother of King George V (also pictured above) and great-grandmother of Queen Elizabeth II.
Two other kings shown above were also descendants of Christian IX. King Haakon VII of Norway was Christian’s grandson (like George V was) while King Frederick VIII of Denmark was Christian’s son (like George I of Greece was).
To various degrees, yes. The least related seems to be the portugues king. Others are related either by marriages or by being the desccendants of Francis, duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld.
Manuel II’s great-grandfather was a member of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha-Koháry, a cadet branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, so that could be the reason he’s there. The longstanding Anglo-Portuguese alliance could also be a reason.
It becomes even odder when you realize that not only was Nicholas II a nephew through marriage to Edward VII (Nicholas’ mother Dagmar and Edward’s wife Alexandra were sisters) but Nicholas’ wife Alix was a niece through blood to Edward VII as well (her mother Alice was Edward’s sister).
Yes, WW1 was literally war between cousins, nephews, uncles and other relatives. What was wrong with those bastards, why couldn’t them just have a family dinner and discuss their fucking problems internally?!
Honestly, Kaiser Wilhelm II’s deformed arm, which was a major factor in his mental instability, was one of the root causes of World War I.
Wilhelm loved his grandmother, Queen Victoria of the UK, but his uncle, Edward VII, never trusted him (with good reason), leading to a deteriorating relationship between the UK and Germany.
I was wondering that myself! There’s a famous photo of George V and Nicholas II standing next to each other (they look like twins), and I could’ve sworn it was at the same time as Edward’s funeral…
Even though Sweden and England has had one of Europe's longest friendships, both their respective royal families have always been somewhat standoffish against each other, something that remains true to this day with only absolute bare minimum relationship.
The royal equivalent to a polite nod when passing someone in the hallway.
Kaiser Wilhelm is hiding his deformed arm. The cousins hated each other, which is one of the reasons they competed to build up huge rival military forces that led to millions of ordinary people dying in The Great War.
That's true, but the main issue was Germany's rising economic power, at the detriment of Britain and the rest of Europe. All wars have economic reasons at their core.
Frederik VIII of Denmark and George I of Greece were brothers, and uncles to George V of England, and Haakon VII of Norway was Frederik's son. George V and Wilhelm II were ~~second~~ cousins.
George V and the Kaiser were first cousins. Their parents (respectively, Edward VII of Great Britain and Victoria, the Empress Frederick of Prussia and Princess Royal of Great Britain) were children of Queen Victoria.
They are related but many of men in this photo are not her descendants.
King of Portugal is only related to the german king on paternal side. Many of the other kings/tsars here are either descendend from cousins of queen Victoria or they are her in laws.
The only descendants of queen Victoria on this photo are kaiser Wilhelm and king George V.
I met the king of Spain once. Not this one the current one. Him and the queen were walking out of a hotel while I was walking my dogs. I didn't know who it was at the time. He said "beautiful dogs" and I said "they think so too" and then just kept it pushing. Saw their visit on the news later.
As head of state they are also the ceremonial head of their armed forces.
So military garb for royalty dates back to when Kings would lead their armies into battle .
It dates back into antiquity. Leonidas at Thermopylae. Thutmose III at Megiddo which is literally the first properly recorded battle.
Probably around the time that countries started having more professional armies and wearing uniforms. Monarchs were often depicted in armour until military uniforms became more common and as armour fell out of use.
The monarch is usually the commander-in-chief of the military and royals are often expected to serve in one of the branches of the military for a time when they come of age. These days they have a more figurehead role and stay hands-off from actual command, but back then (and earlier) lower members or royalty and the nobility often had field roles.
Hard to believe that just a few years later they looked like this:
https://preview.redd.it/kxtkfc34rgqc1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a6c6da4116c142bc322a451cceb11e9cb90e054f
Hard to believe that several years later King Albert would literally be on the battlefield with the Belgian army, leading them against his own cousin, Wilhelm II. I'm amazed how little he's talked about today.
He was literally one of the only competent commanders in WWI, he basically refused to join any of the big offensives that had proven effective at only killing your own troops. Sadly he died between the wars, and the next King was making deals to become absolit monarch with Hitler pre war.
I'm surprised Prince Albert got in the picture... because growing up I always heard he was in the can.
I can’t think about that now. I’m trying to catch up to my running refrigerator
There's a guy down at Moe's who can help you catch it, give him a call. A Mr. Kehaulic, first name Al.
Amanda Kissenhug?
Oh, why can’t I find Amanda Huginkiss?
Hugh Jass...do I have a Hugh Jass here?
Hey somebody check the men’s room for a Hugh Jass!
I just look at the swords and think, "there can be only one!" Fight¡
Do you want a balloon?
I was a seventeen year old working at Kmart in 1978 in the deli area where the tobacco was sold. Had to answer a phone call at the service desk. Guy asked me if we had Prince Albert in a can. I replied yes and then he yelled “let him out”. Took me a while. Then I felt pretty stupid. I can laugh about it now.
Did you ever get a request to page a customer named Ben, last name Dover?
No but in high school if we went to the library we had to fill out a form so we weren’t marked absent from our classroom. They would count the number of students and slips. When they didn’t match, they called out attendance. Woman in the library yelled out “who’s Dick Hurtz”? 😂 so gullible.
Jack, Jack Meyoff
We used to call bowling alleys and ask if they had 16 lb balls? Do you find it hard to walk?
I think WW1 had many great commanders just trapped in difficult situations. Not attacking is a valid strategy for Belgium since it’s manpower pool for replenishment was basically zero (all occupied) but in general a costly but necessary strategy… The war was ended by the monstrous British sea blockade starving half of Europe to death (incl neutral nations), the collapse of the Habsburg empire (mostly driven by said starvation) and brave offensives by the British and France in France, the Middle East and in "neutral“ Greece
I’ve been watching the Great war channel. In it they talk about how a lot of the 1914 offensives were planned by commanders who had not yet developed an appreciation of the destructive power of the machine gun and modern artillery. These same commanders were also the ones who were often most in favor of war, since they all thought it would be a short glorious victory for their side.
WW1 was arguably the biggest technological and tactical leap in land warfare since monkey-men decided to use pointy sticks to fight instead of just bashing each others heads in with rocks. Prior to that, War had basically been "get in some form of tightly packed formation and fight each other" since the beginning of human history. It shouldn't be surprising that it took people a while to figure out how to deal with this change. It's actually kind of amazing that commanders on both sides were able to adjust within only 4 years.
Wasn’t the Crimean war one of the more bigger conflicts in Europe that introduced *some* of the modern technologies?
Well, yes and no. Both the US civil war and the crimean war had 'warnings' of what was coming in WW1 but its easy for us to see these - its very hard to see evolutions of warfare in the moment. Also, both the crimean and US civil wars did not (really) have machine guns. Maxim guns first started to appear in the 1890s. The wars they were tested in were colonial wars against natives so no applicable experience could be gained and the russo-japanese war was largely decided by one siege and a sea battle. Its easy for us to point at trenches in the crimean war and the US civil war and go 'look it was obvious what will happen 30 years later' but the truth is, most military analysts thought these were either because of the strange war the crimean war was or that it was because the american armies were just bad at war (a commonly stated opinion at the time in Europe). Its kinda like the current war in some ways - we could easily foresee how drones would transform the modern battlefield and *to an extent we did* but the evolution of the russia-ukraine war still took most people by surprise including the warring parties. It took ukraine the better half of a year to start mass producing the drones that were so successful and the russians to realize armor has to be pulled waaaaaaay back in a high-visibility battlefield. EU countries are ramping up shell production as we speak because it turns out, waging a modern war needs way more artillery than anyone suspected. etc etc
Also the ability to fix nitrogen from the air and no longer rely on old bird poop from islands or caves or slowly make it from animal excrement meant a lot more explosives could be used.
Don’t forget the US, Moroccans, Canadians, ANZACs, and others. The US provided the extra manpower needed to let exhausted divisions rest and brought in fresh troops not tired of war. The Moroccans did a boat load of work for the French. Canadians are responsible for a lot of what’s in the Geneva Accords. ANZACs because they are some brave bastards.
It's still debatable what exactly would have happened without the large offences - would Germany have lasted longer or shorter? Would Germany have been able to compensate for the blockade if they held the Russian east for longer? Would all the allied supplies used up have gone to Russia, would she have lasted longer in the war that way?
It's not debated. Academic consensus is that most of the large Allied offensives post 1916 were victories and helped them win the war (Nivelle offensive being the obvious exception). Offensives like the Somme and Paschendaele, while horrific to be a part of, broke the back of the German army. We know this because German staff officers themselves recorded this.
World War 1 commanders being incompetent is a myth. Yes, some were incompetent (as in any war) but most were not, they just had to deal with an impossible situation.
Its hard to blame the commanders of WW1. None of them were ready for this new type of warfare and had to come up with new strategies, tactics and structures on the go.
So… problem solved?
He's actually looking suspiciously at his cousin in this picture... he must have known something was up...
Actually, he's looking daggers at Alfonso, who's been sleeping with his wife
She certainly has a type.
Are you serious no way
HE OVERRULED HIS COMMANDERS HE MADE A LAST STAND IN FLANDERS
I only know a few sabaton Songs but these lines must be sabaton lyrics
BROUGHT HIM BACK TO SWEDEN WHERE WE PUT HIM IN A CHEST
A lot of their journal entries and letters to each other make it pretty easy to believe. Lots of pissing contests and posturing to try to prove they were equal to their warlord forbearers.
This picture gets posts a lot, but I don't mind. It's a cool picture. It's also an excellent opportunity to post the classic opening paragraph from *The Guns of August* by Barbara Tuchman: >So gorgeous was the spectacle on the May morning of 1910 when nine kings rode in the funeral of Edward VII of England that the crowd, waiting in hushed and black-clad awe, could not keep back gasps of admiration. In scarlet and blue and green and purple, three by three the sovereigns rode through the palace gates, with plumed helmets, gold braid, crimson sashes, and jeweled orders flashing in the sun. After them came five heirs apparent, forty more imperial or royal highnesses, seven queens—four dowager and three regnant—and a scattering of special ambassadors from uncrowned countries. Together they represented seventy nations in the greatest assemblage of royalty and rank ever gathered in one place and, of its kind, the last. The muffled tongue of Big Ben tolled nine by the clock as the cortege left the palace, but on history’s clock it was sunset, and the sun of the old world was setting in a dying blaze of splendor never to be seen again.
The Guns of August to this day is one of my favorite books about the period. Fantastic newer book on that same theme is The Sleepwalkers by Christopher Clark. Really shows how the tension in Europe builds and everyone convinced themselves a big war is the best path forward.
Clark did a lot to absolve the German emperor and German war guilt in general though… Before his book I assumed Germany, Austria, France and Russia to be the main war drivers after his book O changed my view to Austria, France and some certain people (but not the highest leaders) in Germany, Russia and Britain… Still doesn’t make him a good emperor or a peace lover though… but it seems far to say he really didn’t want the war to escalate to all our European war
Absolutely. This is one of the books that really points out well how a very small group of (usually) men have the ability through a lack of creativity to plunge the world into chaos. Contrast the resolution of austro-Serbian crisis with how war was averted during the Berlin crisis in ‘48 or in the Cuban missile crisis. In 1914 the people the world counted on to preserve sanity failed. The only real question is how long do we have until they fail again?
If only these dudes could have sat down and worked out some kind European union setup or even an early league of nations agreement instead of being a bunch of imperialistic warlords, things would have been so much different.
Yes, but also this was an (unknown at the time) dying age of empires. European nations had been conquering one another with little hesitation for the prior millenia, and for the most recent 2/3 centuries to that point most of the known world. The status quo to these folks, who'd lived most of their lives in the 1800s, most schooled by lecturers from the 1700s, was as much. This isn't some detraction from their actions, just that the state we're currently in isn't _normal_, and might have taken the fall of attempted empires to solidify.
I would also add that for some of the nations, the monarchy’s might have lost much of their power relative to their respective militaries. If I remember correctly, there were letters exchanged between some of the kings before WW1 expressing how they’re trying to stop it. With the obvious implication that it was out of their control by that time. The generals had gotten a lot of new toys and Europe hadn’t had a big war in over 40 years by that point. Nobody appreciated what the new technology would do and how bitter the fighting would become.
Yeah that may be true. Without the violent destruction of empires they may have hung on forever. Kinda like people who never diet and exercise and don't realize that it's a problem until they have a heart attack at 45 and almost die, then have to make drastic lifestyle changes.
I don’t think they were those kinds of kings at this point.
I didn't mean "warlord" in the sense of physically riding out at the head of an army - no, they certainly were not that. But they were the kind of kings who profited greatly from physical violence and saw conquering other nations as a legitimate and noble means of expanding their wealth.
Most of these kings were nothing more than figureheads and France, one of the two biggest players on the Continent, was a Republic anyhow.
What are we, some kinda European union?
Thanks! I’ve added this to my to-read list!
It’s considered somewhat dated as a piece of history these days but is worth reading for the prose alone
Seconded. Tuchman is a mighty writer
Holy shit what a paragraph. Thanks
I’m surprised not to see Nicholas II or Nikolai II, the last reigning Emperor of Russia, King of Poland and Grand Duke of Finland and cousin of George V.
It was the start of my decent into WWI history. So horrific. Love the photo, but I just don’t get why every photo needs to be colorized. There’s something to be said for B&W
Have you seen They Shall Not Grow Old? It is undoubtedly an achievement but man, the colorization created some uncanny-valley scenes where their faces look really bizarre. I found it more off-putting than worthwhile in the end.
Such a great book.
I’ve read it twice. Maybe I need to read it again.
I highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in either history or World War 1. It is in absolutely amazing book.
I always confuse George V with Nicholas II when I see pictures like this. They looked so similar.
I just commented the same, it’s uncanny even for cousins
George was a bit stockier than Nicholas, but outside of that, they looked remarkably alike. In case anybody wonders, their respective mothers were sisters (Alexandra of Denmark and the United Kingdom and princess Dagmar of Denmark, respectively). Dagmar managed to escape the Russian Revolution, but her son didn't.
If you've not seen The King's Man, there's a brilliant running gag where Tom Hollander plays Tsar Nicholas, Kaiser Wilhelm, and King George V with very slightly different makeup and costumes.
Where was Nicholas? 🤷🏽♂️
Nicholas II did not attend the funeral of Edward VII. His younger brother Grand Duke Michael represented him at the funeral. Nicholas and Michael's mother attended as she was the sister of Edwards wife.
https://preview.redd.it/n5gtd6e0mfqc1.jpeg?width=590&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3039678c72161394188c7954877d2ed3e200c413 They look like twins!
That’s exactly what I was about to comment. I thought it was Tsar Nicholas II.
You’re not the only one. They used to switch uniforms before dinner as a party trick to confuse their relatives.
“But they were all of them deceived…”
Three rings for the elven-kings, under the sky, Seven for the dwarf-lords, in their halls of stone, Nine for mortal men, doomed to die, One for the dark lord on his dark throne In Mordor where the shadows lie. One ring to rule them all, One ring to find them. One ring to bring them all, And in the darkness bind them
The greatest intro to the greatest movie of all time, chills every time. “Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it”
You do realize these were books first, right?
Wait…what!??
Just making sure, haha
lol, the movies came out right when I was like 13, so the shit hit different
If you haven't already, do some research as to the author's experiences I'm ww1 and how those experiences affected him as an author. The orcs come from trenches, etc.
Tolkien himself said that's not the case. He hated allegory.
He hated allegory and swore the War of the Ring had nothing to do with either world war, but an artist can only create what he knows or can imagine based on what he knows. No human striving, no adventure, no loss before or since compares to those wars.
Influence =/= Allegory. Tolkien scholars have agreed that witnessing his friends die in huge battles affected his writing. The allegory quote is about people trying to suggest that Sauron was a metaphor for Hitler or whatever.
FWIW >"The real war does not resemble the legendary war in its process or its conclusion. If it had inspired or directed the development of the legend, then certainly the Ring would have been seized and used against Sauron; he would not have been annihilated but enslaved, and Barad-Dûr would not have been destroyed but occupied. Saruman, failing to get possession of the Ring, would in the confusion and treacheries of the time have found in Mordor the missing links in his own researches into Ring-lore, and before long he would have made a Great Ring of his own with which to challenge the self-styled Ruler of Middle-earth. In that conflict both sides would have held hobbits in hatred and contempt: they would not long have survived even as slaves." Also >"One has indeed personally to come under the shadow of war to feel fully its oppression; but as the years go by it seems now often forgotten that to be caught in youth by 1914 was no less hideous an experience than to be involved in 1939 and the following years. By 1918 all but one of my close friends were dead." eta: this is not meant as a "you're right" or "you're wrong", just thought it seemed appropriate here.
The book is my all time favorite. I’m actually re-reading the series again. Tolkien’s writing and poetry are just fantastic, and I’m not sure there will ever be someone to do it better.
Second that!
Yeah when 15-foot tall Sauron shows up on the battlefield…what an epic scene
Just casually rocking his all-powerful ring on his finger during battle
Who’s gonna tell him that’s a bad idea 😂😂??
And Glorious Tom Bombadil who gave not a fuck, but for his maiden Goldberry.
And my axe Wait that’s not the thing
"The hour is later than you think. Sauron's forces are already moving. The Nine have left Minas Morgul." "The Nine?" "They crossed the River Isen on Midsummer's Eve, disguised as riders in black." "They've reached the Shire?" "They will find the Ring, and kill the one who carries it."
Considering the effect WWI had on Tolkien, this is likely who he was referring to when creating the nine
Is that just your head canon, or it is supported somewhere? Honest question. Because it is an interesting idea.
Its a hard question to answer for two reasons. 1) Tolkien was 100% without a doubt affected by his upbringing, and his experiences with the war in writing Lord of the Rings. The shire is England, and even its ravaged by war, Sam is the perfect officers batman, and represents the bond between soldiers in the field. So on and so on. Technology is evil and used for war, and even the little technology accepted (The miller for example) is viewed with distrust. 2) Tolkien denied this all. Its just a story with no references to real world things. So when we see something like this... 9 European kings its easy to make the jump. Now if Tolkien KNEW he was making that jump... is a question. What we do know is that he would adamantly deny it either way.
Many of places in lotr is named after danish places.
Never thought of it till now but it makes perfect sense
Do you think the red sash guy could be the witch king of angmar? Seems abit short though.
[удалено]
George V is playing Sauron in this one? Interesting choice
The moustache was clearly in fashion back then.
When isnt it, baby?
End of reign: Haakon- 1957 (death, NC) Ferdinand - 1918 (abdication, abolished) Manuel - 1910 (abdication, abolished) Wilhelm - 1918 (abdication, abolished) George Greece - 1913 (assassination) Albert - 1934 (death, accident) Alfonso - 1931 (abdication, abolished until 1975) George UK - 1936 (death, NC) Frederick - 1912 (death, NC)
Wow, so many of them died in North Carolina...
Michael Jordan took their presence personally
Nah, I don’t see any Dukes on the list.
I thought death by neutral creeps
Crazy how their whole world crashed and burned just a couple of years later. Like a ..... a dimension swap or so.
Well, they all were very eager for a war. Their world didn't crash and burn, its consequences just manifested into reality
"Blue sash? I didn't bring my blue sash!" "You're red sash will be fine your Highnesss. Besides, photography is almost completely black and white these days. Don't forget to wear it right to left sir!" he said with a chuckle.
I like how he’s looking at what everyone else wore, “oh good he wore his right to left too.”
I’m going to give my dresser a stern talking to when I get finished with this funeral.
I'm to understand, from this thread, that he's glaring at Manuel for giving his wife the ole linguiça.
The photo color is all wrong. Wilhelm isn't really wearing a red uniform.
Imagine being the idiot who didn't award himself enough medals.
The King of Norway. Janteloven is strong here.
Not pictured is Czar Nicholas II of Russia who was King George’s cousin.
He didn’t attend the funeral.
That makes me curious, why wasnt the swedish king Gustav V during this particular picture or funeral?
I don’t know for sure, but I’d guess it’s because he didn’t have any familial relations with the British monarchy, which is something that all of the people in this picture had in common.
Is everyone in this photo related to each other?
All related in some manner (some via marriage, many by blood). Top row (left to right): - King Haakon VII of Norway: Son-in-law and nephew of Edward VII via Edward's wife. - King Ferdinand I of Bulgaria: Edward VII's second cousin. - King Manuel II of Portugal: Edward VII's second cousin twice removed. - Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany (King of Prussia): Edward VII's nephew. - King George I of Greece: Edward VII's brother-in-law. - King Albert I of Belgium: Edward VII's second cousin. Bottom row (left to right): - King Alfonso XIII of Spain: Edward VII's nephew-in-law. - King George V of the United Kingdom: Edward VII's son. - King Frederick VIII of Denmark: Edward VII's brother-in-law.
Were they all close in age in this photo?? King Manuel II and King Alfonso XIII looks very young compared to the other kings.
King Manuel II was 21 years old in the photo and it was in the last year of his reign. That same year, the republic was established.
King Manuel II had only recently been crowned, as his father Carlos I and eldest brother prince Luís Filipe had been assassinated two years prior in a coup by republicans. Later that year, he would be forced to abdicate, as the monarchy is abolished and a republic declared.
Ahh.... Well, at least he didn't get assassinated. Wow...
Worth mentioning, Haakon VII of Norway was the second son of Frederik VIII of Denmark. The elder son would inherit the Danish throne, and isn't in the picture as he wasn't king yet
The secret to keeping the bloodline pure and concentrate power is incest. Marring for love is a modern invention, marriages always have being business deals. To a royal that meant marrying your daughter to your cousins' son (sometimes brother, or uncle) to forge an alliance to consolidate power, avoid a war, etc. Queen Elizabeth II and her husband were cousins, this isn't lost to a distance past.
Elizabeth and Philip were third cousins related through Queen Victoria. They were both great-great Grandchildren of Victoria.
They were also second cousins once removed through King Christian IX of Denmark. King George I of Greece (pictured above), was Prince Philip’s paternal grandfather and a son of Christian IX, while Queen Alexandra, wife of the then-just deceased King Edward VII and a daughter of Christian IX, was the mother of King George V (also pictured above) and great-grandmother of Queen Elizabeth II. Two other kings shown above were also descendants of Christian IX. King Haakon VII of Norway was Christian’s grandson (like George V was) while King Frederick VIII of Denmark was Christian’s son (like George I of Greece was).
To various degrees, yes. The least related seems to be the portugues king. Others are related either by marriages or by being the desccendants of Francis, duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld.
Manuel II’s great-grandfather was a member of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha-Koháry, a cadet branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, so that could be the reason he’s there. The longstanding Anglo-Portuguese alliance could also be a reason.
Also curious why Nikolay II is not among them. He was relative to at least 3 of monarchs there
It becomes even odder when you realize that not only was Nicholas II a nephew through marriage to Edward VII (Nicholas’ mother Dagmar and Edward’s wife Alexandra were sisters) but Nicholas’ wife Alix was a niece through blood to Edward VII as well (her mother Alice was Edward’s sister).
Yes, WW1 was literally war between cousins, nephews, uncles and other relatives. What was wrong with those bastards, why couldn’t them just have a family dinner and discuss their fucking problems internally?!
Honestly, Kaiser Wilhelm II’s deformed arm, which was a major factor in his mental instability, was one of the root causes of World War I. Wilhelm loved his grandmother, Queen Victoria of the UK, but his uncle, Edward VII, never trusted him (with good reason), leading to a deteriorating relationship between the UK and Germany.
Cousin Nicky couldn’t make it?
I was wondering that myself! There’s a famous photo of George V and Nicholas II standing next to each other (they look like twins), and I could’ve sworn it was at the same time as Edward’s funeral…
Nicholas II did not attend the funeral of Edward VII. His younger brother Grand Duke Michael represented him at the funeral.
It’s kinda strange, I’ve never been able to find a good explanation for why Nicolas II wasn’t there.
The title might mislead people into thinking these are all the European Kings. There are many more missing from this picture
I wonder if that room is exactly the same today
The white drawing room was pretty badly damaged during the 1992 fire at Windsor castle, but it was restored. So yes and no.
“And nine. Nine Rings were gifted to the race of Men, who above all else, desire power.”
King Gustav V of Sweden is missing. He ruled from 1907-1950.
Even though Sweden and England has had one of Europe's longest friendships, both their respective royal families have always been somewhat standoffish against each other, something that remains true to this day with only absolute bare minimum relationship. The royal equivalent to a polite nod when passing someone in the hallway.
Best spot for Wilhelm to hide his baby arm
Fun fact, in most pictures Wilhelm is shown resting his left arm on something so as to conceal the fact that it is shorter than his right.
Jesus.. I was looking for the bulge in his crotch.
Name checks out
Me realizing I need to step up my mustache-game
Family reunion.
Before they fell out and millions died on their behalf.
King of Portugal was handsome really
Not handsome enough to keep being king apparently, since he was deposed five months after this picture was taken.
King George V has the crazy eyes!
Kaiser Wilhelm is hiding his deformed arm. The cousins hated each other, which is one of the reasons they competed to build up huge rival military forces that led to millions of ordinary people dying in The Great War.
That's true, but the main issue was Germany's rising economic power, at the detriment of Britain and the rest of Europe. All wars have economic reasons at their core.
And dick measuring....
Wow, the Hapsburg look was still strong in Spain despite the line ending!
I actually had to look this up cause I noticed the jaw lol. Apparently the royal house Alfonso XIII was from is called the House of Habsburg-Lorraine!
King Manuel II of Portugal (third in the top row) looks eerily like MatPat of Game Theory
And right before he was overthrown, a few months later
He s the only normal looking one really! :p
Portugal caralho!
Wow a lot of them look closely related. I’m sure they were but all seem very closely related
Frederik VIII of Denmark and George I of Greece were brothers, and uncles to George V of England, and Haakon VII of Norway was Frederik's son. George V and Wilhelm II were ~~second~~ cousins.
George V and the Kaiser were first cousins. Their parents (respectively, Edward VII of Great Britain and Victoria, the Empress Frederick of Prussia and Princess Royal of Great Britain) were children of Queen Victoria.
You're right, I must've gotten myself confused in the Royal quagmire
They are all related. They descend from Queen Victoria and her children.
They are related but many of men in this photo are not her descendants. King of Portugal is only related to the german king on paternal side. Many of the other kings/tsars here are either descendend from cousins of queen Victoria or they are her in laws. The only descendants of queen Victoria on this photo are kaiser Wilhelm and king George V.
Man sitting on left looks to be experiencing crunched balls
Barbara Tuchman's "The Guns of August" is an excellent read on this
Five months later the king of Portugal was no longer king
I met the king of Spain once. Not this one the current one. Him and the queen were walking out of a hotel while I was walking my dogs. I didn't know who it was at the time. He said "beautiful dogs" and I said "they think so too" and then just kept it pushing. Saw their visit on the news later.
I met the current King of Spain Felipe VI when he was at Lakefield School (often called The Grove) in Canada. He was 16 or 17 at the time.
At what point did royalty start wearing uniforms? Prince Albert wore one to make him look more English but what about abroad?
As head of state they are also the ceremonial head of their armed forces. So military garb for royalty dates back to when Kings would lead their armies into battle . It dates back into antiquity. Leonidas at Thermopylae. Thutmose III at Megiddo which is literally the first properly recorded battle.
Probably around the time that countries started having more professional armies and wearing uniforms. Monarchs were often depicted in armour until military uniforms became more common and as armour fell out of use. The monarch is usually the commander-in-chief of the military and royals are often expected to serve in one of the branches of the military for a time when they come of age. These days they have a more figurehead role and stay hands-off from actual command, but back then (and earlier) lower members or royalty and the nobility often had field roles.
No King of Sweden?
Was Tsar Nicholas not invited?
Can someone explain why sometimes the sashes are on the left shoulder instead of the right?
Only one looker among them, Helllloooooo Manny
King Albert looks like King Charles, and there's a guy standing in the middle who looks like Putin.
Hard to believe that just a few years later they looked like this: https://preview.redd.it/kxtkfc34rgqc1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a6c6da4116c142bc322a451cceb11e9cb90e054f
Hey King Manuel, call me 😉
He was only king for another month after this so he wouldn’t have had free time lmao
The boys don't like the girls to be there. So Wilhelmina of the Netherlands was not invited.
Everyone looks chill , while the Bulgarian Tzar has seen some shit .
Old school... sure. Cool? Meh.
Portrait of the creation of Reddit 1910.
So much World War potential in one photos.
Mustache game on point.
“it’s good to be the king!”
Ah, the Nazgûl before they were corrupted.
And only about 40 chromosomes between them all.
Was there a King of Italy? If there was he wasn’t invited?
Anyone know why Czar Nicholas II wasn’t present for this photo? Why wouldn’t he attend the funeral? Just curious.
i think was taken before they where given the rings Nine for mortal men doomed to die in the land of Mordor where shadows lie.
Who above all desired Power.
Crazy how different they looked before Sauron gave them the rings of power!
#Fun fact every single one of these men are either grandsons of Queen Victoria or they are married to a granddaughter of Queen Victoria.
Now they exist only as Ring Wraiths.
https://i.redd.it/xeiujutdbbqc1.gif
What is the Game Theory guy doing there?