Oedipus’ Fate

Oedipus and the Sphinx
From a Greek Vase 
One of the great characters in all fiction is King Oedipus, not only is he a central figure in Greek mythology but he is the central figure of one of the greatest plays ever written; Sophocles’ Oedipus the King. It is forgotten that Oedipus is not simply the central character of that play but also the central character of Sophocles’ last play Oedipus at Colonus, which was first performed after Sophocles death, (Which occurred in 406 B.C.E.) c. 401 B.C.E.1

Here I shall deal with a common trope, that of fate and its relationship to the character of Oedipus in Sophocles’ plays.

That trope is the concept of Oedipus as a tragic hero, who through a fatal character flaw is brought down to destruction. I will not go through the acres of ink that have been spent trying to find Oedipus’ tragic flaw. The bottom line is that Oedipus at least in terms of Sophocles own concept of the character has no tragic flaw, no defect that causes his downfall.2 The search for the tragic flaw began with a misreading of Aristotle’s Poetics and requires a deliberately obtuse reading of Sophocles to find any such flaw.3

In chapter 13 of Aristotle’s Poetics, Aristotle says:

…on the other hand, the change to bad fortune which he undergoes is not due to any moral defect or depravity, but to an error of some kind.


…
It follows that a well-formed plot will be simple rather than (as some people say) double, and that it must involve a change not to good fortune from bad fortune, but (on the contrary) from good fortune to bad fortune – and this must be due to not to depravity but to a serious error on the part of someone of the kind specified.4

The Greek word hamartia, which in the translation above was translated as “error” and “serious error” was translated in the past as “flaw”, “character flaw” or / and “tragic flaw”. The term “flaw” assumes that what doomed the character was some personal, inward defect. This is wrong, at least in the case of Oedipus, for what doomed him was his fate sealed before he was born. He certainly makes mistakes, but those mistakes were made because of his ignorance of what was really going on not from some character flaw.5 So Oedipus is in effect from a modern point of view “innocent” of his fate.

Why is this the case? It is simple; Oedipus was doomed by a curse uttered by the Gods before he was born that he would murder his father and marry his mother. It was his fate to do those terrible things. Nothing about his character enters into it at all. It is simply his fate. Of course the very attempts of men to evade their fate simply insures that the divine curse is fulfilled. Thus Oedipus’ father’s (Laius) attempt to avoid this fate by leaving young Oedipus to die on a hill is thwarted. Oedipus is raised by the King and Queen of Corinth as their son. When he finds out from the Oracle of Delphi that he is fated to be a patricide and marry his mother he flees Corinth to avoid this fate because he thinks the King and Queen of Corinth are his parents and being a dutiful, loving child he does not want to do those things to his parents. Oedipus decides to go to Thebes. On the way there he has an altercation with a man who tries to kill him, and who he kills in self defence. Unknowingly Oedipus as killed Laius his father. Just outside Thebes Oedipus solves the riddle of the Sphinx, who has been terrorizing Thebes. The Sphinx kills herself, mortified that any mere human could solve her riddle. Without a King since Laius’ disappearance The Thebans in gratitude make Oedipus King of Thebes and he marries Laius’ widow Jocasta, who Oedipus does not know is his mother. The marriage proves happy and they have four children; Eteocles and Polynices boys and Ismene and Antigone girls. Thus did Oedipus fulfill the second part of the curse. Years go by and finally the Gods send plague and famine to punish Thebes for letting an incestuous parricide get away with it and not be punished. Oedipus being the diligent and devoted King he is spares no effort to find and punish the evil doer in an effort to save Thebes from the wrath of the Gods. Oedipus finds out that he is the incestuous parricide. Jocasta kills herself in horror upon finding out. Oedipus blinds himself in an act of horror stricken self mutilation.6

Oedipus is eventually driven into exile accompanied only by his daughter Antigone, while Oedipus’ other daughter Ismene stays in Thebes to watch how things are going and sends help from time to time. Meanwhile Oedipus’ sons Eteocles and Polynices, who sent their father into exile, are fighting over the throne of Thebes. Eventually Oedipus reaches Colonus near Athens where, after an attempt by the Thebans to abduct him for selfish purposes, he is transfigured and disappears from the earth.7

In none of this is there the working out of a character flaw; there is instead the implacable, irresistible working out of fate. In the ideological world of the Greeks at the time fate was implacable it even controlled the Gods. Human attempts to thwart it were always unavailing and pointless. For note in none of this is Oedipus actually from a modern point of view guilty of anything worthy of being punished. After all he killed his father in self defence and he did not know the man was his father at the time. Further he did not know Jocasta was his mother when he married her and had children with her. In other words Oedipus is innocent. However this means nothing in the eyes of fate because he, Oedipus was destined to do terrible things and he is guilty because he did those terrible things despite his from our point of view, innocent.8 As Oedipus says:

I tell you, then, I have endured Foulest injustice; I have endured Wrong undeserved; God knows Nothing was of my choosing.9

Oedipus later says, without contradiction:

Yes, You shall here. He (Laius) whom I killed Had sought to kill me first. The Law Acquits me, innocent, as ignorant, Of what I did.10

Oedipus is a polluted, damned figure because of what he did. The fact that he is innocent makes no difference to either his guilt for his acts or to in anyway mitigating the horror of what he did. This view is so different from a modern view that views guilt as laying in motivation and intent. Here it is in the act itself. The fact that Oedipus killed his father and married his mother makes him guilty, his actual innocence changes nothing about his terrible fate. As Finley states regarding the Oedipus story:

We are usually taught to see in the story and the play the tragic hero who is brought low. But what was Oedipus’ fault? His guilt was objective. That is to say: it existed, first, because he had been destined to it; second, because, in fulfilling his destiny, he murdered his father and married his mother. It existed in several actions, not in his character or his soul, not in the inner motives behind his actions. When Oedipus discovers the truth, he promptly and fully accepts his guilt despite his subjective innocence; he curses his fate not because it was unjust or because he regretted having done what he might have avoided, but because his fate was to do terrible things; he curses what he as done and therefore what he is.11

Attempts to find a character flaw in Oedipus include such absurd ideas as Oedipus’ single minded drive to find out the truth is a character flaw. Aside from forgetting that Oedipus has already done the terrible things that render him a polluted incestuous parricide, this ignores the fact that Oedipus MUST find out who and where this person is or the Gods will continue to send plague and famine to curse Thebes until either this person is found or Thebes utterly destroyed by the God's curses. Besides it would be a truly horrible character flaw if Oedipus out of concern for himself refused to find out the truth and thus sacrificed Thebes to his selfish personal needs. That would be pride, hubris, which the Gods abominate in ancient Greek myth, on a truly colossal scale.

Another foolish idea is the notion that Oedipus’ character flaw is attempting to escape his fate. Aside from the rather absurd implied notion that if Oedipus had embraced his fate he would have escaped it. This idea ignores that the Gods and fate are implacable they would have found a way for Oedipus regardless of what he did or did not do for him to fulfill his fate. Finally what human being with even the weakest sense of ethics would not fight, much less embrace a fate that consisted of murdering your father and marrying your mother. If fighting that sort of fate is a character flaw then I’m all for having that character flaw.

In the end Oedipus is a much abused, innocent whose terrible fate was to do terrible things. He is the polluted innocent whose very presence dirties and defiles and yet in Oedipus at Colonus this very pollution; the fact that Oedipus is guilty of acts of the most extreme defiling nature in the eyes of the Greeks of Sophocles time, turns him into a man of sanctity of the holy and supernatural. This is because of his innocence. Oedipus is objectively guilty because he did indeed commit the profane, defiling acts he is accused of. Yet he did not do them deliberately, there is no malice, no evil intent in the acts. Oedipus is quite simply a very good man fated to do terrible things. It is his goodness and his endurance of suffering, calumny and hatred and a remorselessly cruel fate that make him holy. He is a good man so polluted with unspeakable crimes that he is holy and divine.

So in the end the Athenian King Theseus saw Oedipus’ passing but no other man did. As the messenger relates:

In what manner Oedipus passed from this earth, no one can tell. Only Theseus knows. We know he was not destroyed by a thunderbolt from heaven nor tide-wave rising from the sea, for no such thing occurred. Maybe a guiding spirit from the gods took him, or the earth’s foundations gently opened and received him with no pain. Certain it is that he was taken without a pang, without grief or agony – a passing more wonderful than that of any other man.12

Meanwhile perhaps we can take the warning of Sophocles to heart at the end of Oedipus the King:

Call no man happy until he is dead.13

1. Watling, E. F., Introduction, in Sophocles, The Theban Plays, Penguin Books, London, 1947, pp. 7-22, at 13.

2. Finley, M.I., Desperately Foreign, in Aspects of Antiquity, Penguin Books, London, 1968, pp. 11-15, Jones, John, Aristotle and Greek Tragedy, Chatto & Windus Ltd., London, 1962, pp. 192-235.

3. IBID, See Aristotle, Poetics, Penguin Books, London, 1996.

4. Aristotle, ch. 13, p. 21.

5. Finley, Jones, pp. 12-20, Heath, Malcolm, Introduction, in Aristotle, pp. vii-lxviii, at xxxi-xxxiii, xlix-liii. Heath’s attempt on pages xxxi-xxxiii to introduce some level, (He grudgingly admits that it would not be a serious moral failing.) of a moral failing as a error and not mere ignorance or some other intellectual error as a possible meaning for hamartia falls because it ignores, in the case of Oedipus at least, the implacable workings of fate. Oedipus is doomed to do terrible things from before he was born, any errors he commits are irrelevant his destiny is fated, no doomed, for him to fulfill.

6. Watling, pp. 23-24, 69-70, 125, See also Sophocles.

7. IBID, Sophocles, Oedipus at Colonus.

8. IBID, Sophocles, see also Footnote 2.

9. Sophocles, Oedipus at Colonus, p. 87.

10. IBID, p. 88.

11. Finley, p. 12.

12. Sophocles, Oedipus at Colonus, p. 121.

13. Finley, p. 13, quoting Oedipus the King.

Pierre Cloutier

The Decisive Battle that Never Happened

One of the traditions of western historiography is the tradition of the decisive battle. Supposedly the decisive battle is what determines that history will take one particular course rather than another. The general tenor of the decisive battle trope is the idea that history is progressive and that the decisive battle establishes that history will go in that progressive positive direction. It is rare that a historian will talk about a decisive battle making things worst or that the whole concept, which frequently reduces war to moving pieces on a chess board, is dubious.1

Allied with this concept is the notion in western historiography of the Asiatic horde. In this concept the "West" as been frequently threatened by "Asiatic hordes" that threaten to overwhelm Europe with hugely superior numbers and subject the west to Asiatic despotism. Thus battles from Marathon, 490 B.C.E., to Vienna, 1683 C.E., are characterized as fights against Europe i.e., the “West”, being overwhelmed by the hordes of Asia.2 “Asia” is the big bogyman other that threatens the innocent progressive “West”. Of course what exactly is “Asia” is poorly defined if at all. It is simply a cliche of little real content but much propagandistic hyperbole. Allied to this the concept of the Asiatic horde necessarily requires that the “Asiatic” armies be huge and the plucky European armies, fighting for truth, virtue and the European way be much smaller, but of course by pluck, luck and skill they defeat the huge Asiatic horde and save Europe from a fate worst than death, i.e., Asiatic sloth, corruption and decadence. Of course it is a collection of cliches that go back to the Greeks and they are of course of little validity.2

European armies are not only characterized as much smaller than the Asiatic horde but they are almost always characterized as more efficient and professional, which is what supposedly enables them to defeat the huge Asiatic hordes. Asia is always that which from outside Europe is threatening to overwhelm poor small Europe.3 Allied to this is the poisonous and utterly false notion that that the “West” is the unique heir of Greco-Roman civilization and that civilizations like the Islamic are “Asiatic” and outside that tradition. This is nonsense. Islam is the heir to Greece and Rome just as much as the “West” is. Further it is curious that although “Western” civilization is frequently described as Judeo-Christian; Middle Eastern civilization is never described as Judeo-Christian-Islamic. The need to cast Islamic civilization as the “Asiatic” other is rather obvious.

Now the above mentioned cliches can be criticized at every level. For example, lumping all the cultures of Asia under the term “Asiatic” is stunningly simpleminded. Further isn’t Europe a part of Asia and so “Asiatic”? As mentioned above the separation of Islam as wholly separated from the “west” and “Asiatic” is also dubious. Such things as the concept of the huge “Asiatic” army, relying solely on numbers against the smaller professional European army are cliches not realities of the past.4

Other conceits like the idea that everything that happens is for the best and history represents an upward process of progress are also in this view of the past. But one thing is omnipresent the small free professional European army that beats the huge unprofessional despotic, decadent army of “Asiatics” through sheer skill and fighting ability and thus preserves “Western” civilization from being destroyed or turned into just another stronghold of “Asiatic” despotism.5

However in this story of the triumph of the “West” towards it “inevitable” rise to global supremacy which by virtue of its considerable merits it undoubtedly deserved that happened an event that must with great effort be excised and made harmless and wholesome. It cannot be ignored but it must be purged as a decisive event because of what it reveals about the real state of the “West” at the time and the actual realities of the world then. Of course I am being facetious about the “West’s” domination being deserved out of the “West’s” intrinsic merits that is just a conceit worthy of ridicule although taken seriously as recently as a century ago.6 The event that should actually be a centrepiece in the history of the world but has been purged out as a central event because it reveals both the military and cultural weakness of the “West” at the time is the Mongol invasion of Europe 1237-1241 C.E.

Mongol Warrior
Here was no decisive battle that saved the “West” no grand demonstration of “Western” military superiority instead what was revealed was the political, military and yes cultural weakness of the “West” when faced with the armies of the Mongols. The patent and pathetic inability of the armies of the “West” to hold off the Mongols is a graphic demonstration of the marginality and weakness of the “West” in comparison to the rest of the world at that time. It has become customary among some to talk about a “Western” way of war and by implication at least, to talk about the superiority of this method of war fighting. The argument being that “Western” ways of war fighting are superior. This is bluntly dubious. The Mongols are a glaring example about how false that is. Of course the usual reaction is talk about the Mongols being “exceptions”. This is poppycock. Instead one should be examining weather or not the very idea of a superior “Western” way of war is in fact true. But then a superior “Western” way of war goes with the concept of small, professional European armies defeating huge “Asiatic” hordes of warriors ruled by decadent, despotic elites. In other words it is flattering to European notions of superiority.7

As I said the Mongol invasions are quite brutal indications of the reality of war making in that period. The simple fact is that the Mongol armies were crushingly and massively superior to the armies of the Europeans and they demonstrated it repeatedly during the campaign. The following is a brief run through of the Mongol campaign in Europe.

In the years 1221-1224 C.E. Genghis Khan sent an army under one of his general’s, Subotai, to check out the lands further west. After going through northern Iran and travelling through the Caucasus, were they crushed the Georgians, they emerged in the plains of southern Russian where they engaged the nomadic Cumans in a war during which the Mongols were victorious. Afterwards they invaded the Crimea where they stormed several Genoese trading settlements. During the winter of 1222-1223 while they wintered besides the Black sea spies were sent to scout out the situation in Europe. In the year 1223 as the Mongols were preparing to return to Mongolia. A combined Russian-Cuman army advanced on them. In a fit of extraordinary stupidity the envoys that Subotai sent to make a deal with the Russian – Cuman army were murdered. By then the Mongols simply wanted to retire from the area with no conflict. The result was disaster.

At the battle of the Kalka river, superior Mongol strategy and tactics resulted in an overwhelming Mongol victory. The murder of the Mongol envoys ensured that the battle was followed by a wholesale massacre. The commanders of the army that the Mongols captured were brutally pressed to death. Most figures for the battle give the Mongols c. 25,000 men and their enemies up to 75,000. This is false. It is unlikely that the Mongols were up to full strength; by then they probably numbered less than 15,000 and it unlikely that the Russian-Cuman army numbered much more than 30,000 men. Afterwards the Mongols after an indecisive battle with the Volga Bulgars withdrew to Mongolia.8

Kalka Aftermath
The knowledge that the Mongols gained in this incursion would help them in their next invasion. But in the meantime the Mongols were engaged in a war with the Chin empire that controlled northern China and so were delayed in returning to the west.

It wasn’t until 1235 C.E. that the new Mongol Khan Ogatai who had succeeded his father Genghis in 1227 decided to follow up the reconnaissance of 1221-1224 C.E.

The army was under the nominal command of Batu a grandson of Genghis Khan, the actual commander was Subotai who had lead the reconnaissance of 1221-1224 C.E.

Mongol Invasion of Europe 1237-1242 C.E.
In December of 1237 C.E. The Mongols invaded across the Volga river. Some accounts give their numbers as 150,000 men. This is false the actual total seems to be c. 50,000. The Volga Bulgars were swiftly obliterated and their chief towns stormed. In the winter of 1237-1238. Previous to this the Mongols had conquered the region between the Kama and the Volga right down to the Caspian and Black sea. In a matter of a few months the Mongols stormed through central Russia wiping out several armies and storming city after city. Only a sudden thaw in February 1238 prevented the Mongols from taking Novgorod. It was a campaign of astounding swiftness during which the Mongols marched well over a thousand miles and stormed dozens of different strongholds and fortresses. Most of Russia not out right conquered submitted to the Mongols.9

For the next 2 years Subotai consolidated his conquests and planned his next move along with sending large numbers of spies to gather intelligence about Europe. During all this intelligence gathering Subotai discovered that the Europeans were fatally, almost suicidally divided and at each other’s throats. After several years of preparation Subotai moved in December 1240 C.E.

Subotai had at most 50,000 men and probably less than 40,000 it seemed an incredibly small number with which to contemplate the conquest of Europe but it was enough as the following events were to show.

Kiev was stormed and destroyed along with other fortresses and cities in southern Russia. Than Subotai advanced to the passes of the Carpathian mountains. There he divided his army into several parts.

One section went north to deal with the Poles, Lithuanians and Germans. The southern section went around the Carpathians to invade Hungary from the south. The main section crossed the passes of the Carpathians and advanced on Budapest.

The northern section, lead by the Mongol general Kaidu, probably numbering no more than 15,000 men at most and likely c. 10,000 divided into several section one swept through Lithuania where it tore apart several Lithuanian armies and stormed fortress after fortress. It then devastated Prussia, then controlled by the Teutonic Knights and smashed yet again several armies it then cut through Pomerania, It then joined the forces invading Poland invaded Poland. The united section smashed the army of Boleslav V of Poland at Krakow and then stormed the city. The section invaded Silesia where Prince Henry of Silesia tried to stop them at Liegnitz with an army composed of Poles, Germans, Teutonic knights and some Czechs, probably numbering c. 15,000-20,000 men. The Mongols at most numbered 10,000 men. The Battle of Liegnitz, (April 9, 1241), was a disaster, Prince Henry was killed and his army annihilated. The Mongols then proceed to methodically devastate Silesia and storm one town after the other. King Wenceslas of Bohemia withdrew his army into Saxony. The Mongols followed up and devastated large sections of Saxony. The Mongol army instead of continuing west suddenly turned south to unite with the central army under Subotai. They past through Moravia, which devastated by fire and sword and many of its towns stormed and ravaged.

Meanwhile Subotai was engaged with the Hungarians led by Bela IV. Probably the ablest of the opponents of the Mongols during the invasion Bela IV was completely out classed the Mongols. While Subotai devastated the area around the Budapest other sections of the Mongol army devastated Transylvania and southern Hungary. Storming town after town.

Reuniting most of his army Subotai withdrew to the Sajo river c. 100 miles from Budapest. Bela IV showing both caution and initiative followed. The army he brought with him probably numbered c. 20,000-30,000. Subotai whose army probably by then numbered 20,000 decided to comprehensively annihilate the Hungarian army. Bela IV, showing a surprising amount of energy, had seized a bridgehead over the river and fortified it. Subotai launched a holding attack on the bridgehead and quickly overwhelmed it. Then as the Hungarians came out of their fortified camp to repel the attack they were attacked in flank by the main Mongol force. By deliberately leaving a hole in their encircling forces the Mongols cause the Hungarian army to disintegrate into a mob of fugitives who were then relentlessly pursued. The Battle ended in a horrible massacre of the fugitives. So ended the Battle of the Sajo River, (April 11, 1241).

In the relentless pursuit that followed, Budapest was stormed and so was any Hungarian fortress that resisted. Bela IV fled to Dalmatia where he was relentlessly purued. Bela IV eventually was able find safety in Germany. The Austrian Duke instead of helping Bela IV imprisoned him to get some cash out of him before letting him go. An outstanding example of the suicidal divisions among the Europeans.

At the same time in several battles Transylvania was subdued and most of its town’s conquered.10 The astounding speed of this invasion and the fact that in a matter of months all eastern Europe was ravaged and conquered is one of the most stunning military campaigns in history.

Subotai spent most of the late spring, summer and fall consolidating his conquests and preparing for the next stage in the conquest of Europe. The Europeans during this brief interval were utterly unable to coordinate any of their defensive efforts as Subotai worked out his plans for invading Austria, Germany and Italy in the coming winter.

In late 1241, shortly after Christmas Mongol armies crossed the alps into northern Italy, while other forces devastated the area around Vienna. It is hard to believe that the campaign of 1241-1242 would not see the conquest of Germany and Italy at least. To be followed by France, Spain and England and then some moping up. All probably to take less than 5 more years. Possibly considerably less if the Europeans sensibly stopped fighting and submitted.

It was not to be. Instead of Europe saved by some last minute military feat, Europe was saved by the fact that the Mongol Khan Ogatai drank too much. In a night of drunken excess in the fall of 1241 Ogatai drank too much and died. THe news took a couple of months to reach the armies in Europe. But when it did the law of Genghis Khan stated.11

..after the death of the ruler all offspring of the House of Genghis Khan, wherever they might be, must return to Mongolia to take part in the election of the new Khakhan.12

Khan Ogatai
There was considerable arguing among the commanders of the Mongol army. The details are fascinating in that the three Mongol Princes wanted to stay and continue the war or at least leave their armies there under subordinates to continue the war. Subotai, the military genius responsible for this spectacularly successful campaign argued for a withdrawal from central and eastern Europe, leaving some forces in southern Russia and too renew the campaign at a later date. The rest would return to Mongolia for the selection of a new Khan.

As the Mongols withdrew they went through Serbia and Bulgaria in 1242 C.E., where they, once again, cut up various armies, devastated large areas and stormed many towns and fortresses leaving behind a wasteland.13

The Europeans promptly started their suicidal infighting again, basically unmindful that the Mongols might come back. Fortunately the Mongols never did come back.

Basically the Mongols were preoccupied by internal disputes and they decided to concentrate on the conquest of all of China, a vastly more profitable and difficult challenge than Europe. This took many decades. (Until 1279 C.E.). By then the Mongol realm was divided and the Khanate of the Golden Horde that controlled the Steppes of Russia was not strong enough on its own to conquer Europe and also frankly not interested.14

The true state of actual power relations at the time is revealed by the fact that not only did it take the Mongols decades to conquer all of China, (almost 70 years), but the armies they used were vastly larger in the order of 150,000 – 200,000 men by 1270 C.E. Further there was no equivalent in the conquest of China of a spectacular conquest like that of Eastern Europe in 1240-1241 C.E. There a Mongol army of c. 50,000 sufficed to crush eastern Europe in a few months whereas Mongol armies of a similar size had trouble conquering a single Chinese province. Compared to China Europe at the time was weak and no match for the Mongols. It is fortunate for Europe that the Mongols after this invasion were so fixated on China that it consumed their main efforts for decades. By the time China was conquered the Mongols were both unable and unwilling to renew the conquest of Europe. So in a way China saved Europe from the Mongols.

Traditionally the nomadic armies of the steppes could be quite formidable their chief weakness was lack of logistic support and the inability to storm cites and strongholds.

Genghis Khan solved those problems in combination of ways. The Mongol armies were highly mobile; each fighting man had at least 4-5 and usually more spare mounts. Discipline was ferocious and training comprehensive. The Mongol armies were able to move at truly spectacular speeds due to their vast array of horses and other support animals to cart supplies etc. The logistic problems of gathering supplies were solved by an efficient commissariat that used the bureaucratic techniques of the Chinese with Chinese technical experts to organize such things. Giving the Mongols an effective logistical setup. Further Chinese bureaucratic expertise enabled the Mongols to organize an efficient intelligence gathering i.e., spy system and to collate and analyse the information effectively. Also Chinese technicians provided the support and expertise in siege craft, machines etc., for how to effectively and quickly storm cities and fortresses. In Europe this was especially useful in that compared to Chinese cities and fortresses European cities and fortresses were not very challenging to take. In effect Mongol war making was a combination of steppe nomad traditional war making and Chinese technical / bureaucratic expertise. The combination proved to be brutally formidable and something the Europeans of the day had no answer too.15

The usual figures given even now, in my opinion, greatly exaggerate the size of the Mongol armies. Confusing paper strength with actual strength for one thing. Given that the Mongol armies were heavily horsed and mobile it is very unlikely that they would number over 100,000 for the invasion of Europe, even 50,000 is likely too large. Interestingly the Mongol armies invading China had large infantry units. Given that each fighting man would have at least 4 horses, (some accounts say 16) and that support forces would have at least 50% of the number of horses of the fighting men. That would mean an army of 50,000 men would have a minimum of 300,000 horses, to say nothing of mules donkeys etc. Given also that all cavalry armies are almost always much smaller than largely infantry armies, (because of the extra logistic support all those horses require), it is hard to believe that the Mongol armies invading Europe were very large.16

One of the half truths that is popular today is the idea of a “Western Way of Warfare”.17 The idea is that there is an especially different “Western" way of warfare that is more deadly and formidable than other ways. In other words another way of flattering “Westerners” i.e., Europeans on their supposed superiority. I rather think that an unbiased look the history of warfare would call into question any notion that the “Western Way of Warfare” is in fact necessarily superior, assuming such a concept is in fact for real. It also feeds into the European notion of the “Oriental Horde” defeated by the small European army in a decisive battle that saves the “West” from the horrors of a decadent Asia.

It did not happen in this case then backwater Europe was saved by a mere fluke, a stroke of luck that the Europeans did nothing to take advantage of. Only later developments in central Asia and China prevented the renewal of the conquest of Europe. There is no decisive battle to write up in collections of decisive battles. The battles of Liegnitz and Sajo would likely have marked the decisive battles in the conquest of Europe except for a fluke event. Even so it is passing ironic that Subotai who organized one of the great campaigns of military history was the one responsible for calling it off. It appears that he expected to come back to it in a couple of years. Fortunately for Europe he never came back and Liegnitz and Sajo are simply decisive battles that might have been.

Sometimes small things have huge effects and in this case Ogatai’s decision to drink a few extra cups of wine may be one of the most important decisions in the last thousand years.

1. See Keegan, John, The Face of Battle, Penguin Books, London, 1976, pp. 13-77, for a critique of the concept of the decisive battle.

2. See Creasy, Sir Edward S., The Fifteen Decisive Battles, London, 1908, and Fuller, J. F. C., A Military History of the Western World, v. 1-3, Da Capo Press, New York, 1954, 1955, 1956, Dupuy, R. Ernest, & Dupuy, Trevor N., The Encyclopedia of Military History, Revised Edition, Harper & Row Pub., New York, 1977, for many examples of this sort of thinking.

3. IBID, Fuller.

4. Fuller does this a lot and so do Dupuy & Dupuy.

5. Footnote 1.

6. See Creasy for example.

7. The idea of a “Western Way of War”, is from Hanson, V., The Western Way of War, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1989. Although the book is excellent he does not in any sense prove his idea that the “Western Way of War” is superior or that it is unique to the “West”. John Keegan in his A History of Warfare, Vintage, New York, 1993, uses the idea with great care and sense.

8. Dupuy, pp. 338-339, Prawdin, Michael, The Mongol Empire, 2nd Edition, The Free Press, New York, 1961, pp. 210-220, Mote, F. W., Imperial China 900-1800, Harvard University Press, Harvard CONN, 1999, pp. 432-433, Turnbull, Steven, Genghis Khan and the Mongol Conquests, Osprey Pub., 2003, pp. 74-75, Buell, Paul E., Historical Dictionary of the Mongol World Empire, The Scarecrow Press Inc., Oxford, 2003, pp. 35-36, 255-258, Shpakovsky, V., & Nicolle, D., Kalka River 1223, Osprey Pub., 2001, pp. 50-82.

9. Prawdin, pp. 250-252, Dupuy, 347, Mote, 435-436, Buell, pp. 45-46, 233-234, Turnbull, pp. 44-48.

10. Prawdin, 252-269, Dupuy, 347-350, Mote, 435-436, Buell, pp. 46-47, 186-187, 235, 257-258, Turnbull, pp. 48-54, 75.

11. Ögedei Khan, from Wikipedia, Here, Dupuy, p. 350, Prawdin, p. 269, Mote, p. 436, Turnbull, p. 55, Dawson, Raymond, Imperial China, Penguin Books, London, 1972, p. 215. There were rumours that Ogatai was poisoned. These rumours are almost certainly not true.

12. Dupuy, quoting the law p. 350.

13. Dupuy, p. 350.

14. Mote, 444-460, Turnbull, pp. 55-56, 60-61, Dawson, pp. 212-221.

15. Dupuy, 340-345, Keegan 1993, 200-207, Dawson, 204-212, Shpakovsky, pp. 23-35, Turnbull, pp. 17-18, Buell, pp. 112-113.

16. Mote, pp. 427-428, Turnbull, p. 18, Buell, pp. 109-110. Dupuy and Dupuy are especially guilty in this respect giving very exaggerated figures for both the Mongol armies and the European armies opposing them, see pp. 347-350.

17. See Hanson Footnote 7.

Pierre Cloutier

Slant Sayings

Moose greets Cat? Or is it Cat greets Moose?
Here are just a few of my favorite twisted sayings.

Whats mine is mine and whats everyone else's is mine also.

Do unto others before they do unto you.1

Never put off until tomorrow what you can put off until next week.2

May the Lord have mercy on you because I will not!.3

The greatest thing since sliced bread.4

A rolling stone goes nowhere fast.

Sex without love is an empty experience but as empty experiences go it is one of the best!5

Murphy said “Anything that can go wrong will go wrong”. Murphy was an optimist!6

Canada could have had American technology, British government and French culture, instead Canada got British technology, French government and American Culture.7

Always tell the truth unless a lie is more convenient.

The only Christian died on the Cross.8

Putting others ahead of yourself is a sure way to get ahead.

Other people’s deaths are always worth while if you personally benefit.

With royalty lay on flattery with a trowel.9

To everything there is a season and that includes getting herpes.

Always remember that a man will sooner forgive the murder of his father and / or mother than the theft of his property.10

Government – Hands off my Medicare!!11

God save the Queen she ain’t no human being.12

There is no there there!13

Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice macrame.

I used to miss him but my aim is improving.14

Before you blow kneel first.

I saw, I conquered, I came!

Blessed are the cheese makers.15

I may not be Mr. Right but I am Mr. Right now!

You can’t escape death, taxes and running out of toilet paper.

Never let your moral sense prevent you from doing what is right.16

Those are just some of my favourite slant sayings. Some are my own, or at least I think they are others are from things I’ve read and heard.

1. No idea where I got that one from although it definitely is not something I thought up.

2. IBID.

3. IBID.

4. My own perverse variation of “The greatest invention since white bread”.

5. Woody Allen of course.

6. A known variation of Murphy’s Law.

7. A common Canadian joke.

8. From the German philosopher Nietzsche.

9. From the British politician Disraeli.

10. From the Philosopher Machiavelli.

11. From a Teabaggers rally.

12. From the Sex Pistols song.

13. Attributed to the American Writer Gertrude Stein.

14. Title of a self-help book.

15. From the Film The Life of Brian.

16. From Isaac Asimov's Foundation Trilogy.

Pierre Cloutier

Napoleonic Fiasco
Why Egypt?

Battle of the Pyramids 1798

Napoleon was, undoubtedly, one of the greatest military geniuses of all time yet he was involved in number of truly disastrous military fiascos.1 The purpose of the following essay is brief look at the preliminaries of the first and probably least costly of these fiascos the Egyptian Expedition.

Although Napoleon only commanded the expedition for the first part of the expedition, (1798-1799), it is obvious that by the time he left the whole thing was headed for disaster and failure unless the French simply cut their losses.

The expedition had in many respects aspects that gave it the appearance of a hair-brained scheme. For example it involved transporting a large French army across the Mediterranean to Egypt in order to conquer and occupy it. That in the face of English naval superiority was more than a bit reckless. Further it involved attacking a possession of a power that was if not an ally of France a power favourably inclined to France; the Ottoman Empire. How annoying the Ottoman Turks made any sense is questionable. In other words the expedition stood a very good chance of being isolated in Egypt under attack by an infuriated formerly friendly power and the British.2

So just why was this hair-brained scheme approved and carried out? Well first of all the scheme although still quite a risk was not quite as hair-brained as appears in retrospect.

It all started in the mid 18th century after the French had established various commercial and governmental agents in Egypt. In the year 1777 the French government sent a diplomat named de Tott to check out the French position in Egypt. After completing his mission de Tott produced a memorandum for the French Minister of the Marine in which he claimed the defences were meagre and the country could be occupied with ease. De Tott mentioned that occupation of Egypt would lead to control of land routes to India, Persia and Arabia to say nothing of the advantages of digging a canal from the Red sea to the Mediterranean. Further the wealth of Egypt itself was quite considerable. Further to this the governing class in Egypt was the Mameluke's, who were both stunningly corrupt and very unpopular.3

The Mameluke's had more or less governed Egypt for more than 5 centuries. They had originally started out as slave soldiers for the Sultans of Egypt in the mid 13th century. They were generally from the peoples who lived in the Caucasus region at the eastern end of the Black sea. By c. 1260 they had achieved control over Egypt. In 1517 C.E., the Ottoman’s conquered Egypt and overthrew the last of the Mameluke Sultans however despite this Egypt remained largely under their control.4

Under their rule, government, administration, taxes etc., became increasingly capricious and arbitrary. So that by 1798 it appeared that Egypt was ripe for the taking. Especially since the Ottoman Turks had little control over Egypt.

Also as a matter of course the Mameluke's although personally capable of great bravery were to put it bluntly quite inept at the art of war. In all it seemed like a good idea.

It did however have some rather severe drawbacks which should have caused the idea to be permanently shelved as a pipe dream.

First was the simple fact that the invaders would be at least nominally Christians would set off a great deal of animosity in an Egypt that was largely Muslim. So however much the average Egyptian may dislike the Mameluke's and their corrupt brutal rule they were not likely to have positive feelings regarding being ruled by Christians.

French Supressing an Uprising in Cairo
Secondly the climate of Egypt was one not very comfortable for European troops and very unhealthy for the inhabitants much less un-acclimatised Europeans. That Europeans would do badly health wise in this climate with its myriad diseases was a given.

Thirdly in the face of English Naval supremacy such an expedition would be likely to be cut off from reinforcements and basically trapped in Egypt.

Fourth despite Ottoman Turk dislike of their nominal vassals the Mameluke's any invasion of Egypt by the French would be regarded as and a declaration of war and would certainly cause a war between the Turks and the French.

Fifth the Turks, English and Russians regarded each other with great suspicion. The Turks for example, with cause, thought the Russians were aiming at the partition of the Ottoman Empire. The Russian’s thought the English were out to deny them commercial advantages in the Middle East and the English regarded both the Turks and Russians as out to screw them over. An Invasion of Egypt was all too likely to bring all these enemies together, at least temporarily, to drive the French out.

Sixth finally the simple fact is the current Ottoman Sultan and his government were very favourably inclined towards the French government and was basically an ally of the French. Under those circumstances it seemed pointless to annoy the Ottoman’s by invading one of their provinces.5

But the course human stupidity cannot be stayed. It appears that aside from the rather overdeveloped tales of the riches to be obtained by occupying Egypt that the real reason was quite simple. The government in France was frustrated at being unable to get a grip at its main enemy England. English Naval supremacy made an invasion of Egypt seemed a cheap and cost effective way at, somehow, striking at England. The fact that the blow struck someone else seemed beside the point.

Further despite English Naval superiority since 1796 the English had evacuated the Mediterranean because of Spain’s alliance with France. So it seemed that perhaps an invasion of Egypt did not have to worry about English Naval superiority.

Napoleon had his own reasons. He apparently underplayed the difficulty of the task and looked at it as a way of adding to his fame and fortune for home political advantage. In 1797 Napoleon had already explored the possibility of overthrowing the government and making himself ruler of France. At the time the idea sunk like a rock and he got virtually no positive feedback for that idea. Meanwhile the Directory that ruled France regarded Napoleon as a danger to it and thought the idea of Napoleon 1000+ miles away a really great idea. In Egypt Napoleon could not intrigue against the government. Napoleon saw it as another way to build up his fame and fortune.6

Well the results were predictable and virtually inevitable. The invasion was the catalyst that led to the formation of the Second coalition against France. The Ottoman Turks declared war on France. Egypt was conquered but proved difficult to hold, even with the manifest military incompetence of the Mameluke's. Nelson destroyed the French fleet in the battle of the Nile and trapped the French in Egypt. In late 1799 Napoleon abandoned his troops in Egypt in order to reap advantage from a political crisis in France. Perhaps at another time I will write about that shameful episode. In late 1799 Napoleon engaged in a coup that brought him to power.

In Egypt disease and attrition steadily reduced the size of the French forces. Finally in 1801 after years of steady attrition and a decaying situation the French left after negotiating a face saving capitulation that allowed them to return to France. Of the c. 50,000 French soldiers and sailors that went to Egypt 23,000 came back the rest were dead. This does not include the large number of Egyptian, dead from massacre, starvation, war, and one must add the English and Turkish dead.7

Aside from the fact that this Expedition marked the beginnings of modern Egyptology from the work of the scientists and specialists Napoleon brought with him the Expedition did little good. Perhaps at another time I will discuss other aspects of the Expedition.

French measuring the Sphinx
1. In Chronological order these fiasco's are The Egyptian Expedition, 1798-1801, The St. Dominique Expedition, 1801-1803, The Peninsular War, 1808-1814, The Russian Campaign 1812.

2. Herold, J. Christopher, Bonaparte in Egypt, Harper and Row Pub., New York, 1962, pp. 4-21, Fregosi, Paul, Dreams of Empire, Cardinal, London, 1989, pp. 146-154, Esdaile, Charles, Napoleon’s Wars, Penguin Books, London, 2007, pp. 61-70, Blanning, T.C.W., The French Revolutionary Wars 1787-1802, Arnold, New York, 1996, pp. 228-230.

3. Herold. p. 8-10, Fregosi, pp. 156-158.

4. IBID.

5. Kinross, Lord, The Ottoman Centuries, Morrow Quill Paperbacks, New York, 1977, pp. 417-418.

6. See Footnote 1 and Blanning, T.C.W., The Origins of the French Revolutionary Wars, Longman, New York, 1986, pp. 173-199.

7. Herold, pp. 1, 388-389.

Pierre Cloutier

Whistling Dixie

Cover of Gone With the Wind

The novel Gone With the Wind, is one of the biggest selling books of all time and to this day it continues to sell. Why it continues to sell is in many ways a mystery. Although the most obvious reason is the stunning success both commercially and artistically of the movie version. The book itself is in many ways an artistic failure and in many ways stunningly racist. The line of poetry from which Margaret Mitchell got the title of her novel goes:

“I have forgot much, Cynara! Gone with the wind,”1

In one sense the title is indeed appropriate in that Margaret Mitchell had indeed forgotten much. In many ways her novel is a monument to the power of myth making lies that people tell themselves. In this case Margaret Mitchell’s book is a distillation of the lies that Southern White people told themselves about the Civil War and the period afterwards. It is in other words myth as history.

Margaret Mitchell was, to put it politely a racist, who grew up in a privileged household. It is amazing that to this day people ignore this easy to verify truth. Like so many White people of the day she was no doubt utterly convinced of her rectitude and her “love” of Black people. Of course her “love” was based on Black people knowing their “place” and deep belief that Black people were utterly inferior.

It is of interest that Margaret Mitchell was sent to the north for a few years to further her education. During this period she got utterly hysterical at having to share a history class with a Black person. Margaret Mitchell demanded a transfer which the teacher refused to grant. Margaret Mitchell remembering the incident years later said:

She wanted to know if Miss Ware had ever undressed and nursed a Negro woman or sat on a drunk Negro man’s head to keep him from being shot by the police.2

What that had to do with anything is a puzzle. I do hope Miss Ware told Margaret Mitchell, racist bitch, to kindly fuck off.

Like so many white Southerners and yes Northerners of the time Margaret Mitchell believed her cultures vulgar, pastiche of myths and racist folktales about Blacks meant that they “knew” Blacks. Of course it was all self serving nonsense. It was always a surprise for such people to find out just how much Black people despised them. Of course Blacks usually kept their real feelings to themselves.

Let us just look at a few passages in Margaret Mitchell’s “masterpiece” to see for ourselves the world view of our author. I will quote a few passages with my comments afterwards.

“Miss Scarlett, you don’t never go to Jonesboro often and I’m glad you don’t. It ain’t no place for a lady these days. But if you’d been there much, you’d know there’s a mighty rough bunch of Scallawags and Republicans and Carpetbaggers been runnin’ things recently. They’d make you mad enough to pop. And then, too, niggers pushin’ white folks off the sidewalks and—”3

Margaret Mitchell swallowed whole the myth of wicked Reconstruction including the myth of Blacks pushing White people off the sidewalks which is nothing more than a hoary myth. But wait there is more.

This Bureau, organized by the Federal government to take care of the idle and excited ex-slaves, was drawing them from the plantations into the villages and cities by the thousands. The Bureau fed them while they loafed and poisoned their minds against their former owners. Gerald’s old overseer, Jonas Wilkerson, was in charge of the local Bureau, and his assistant was Hilton, Cathleen Calvert’s husband. These two industriously spread the rumor that the Southerners and Democrats were just waiting for a good chance to put the negroes back into slavery and that the negroes’ only hope of escaping this fate was the protection given them by the Bureau and the Republican party. Wilkerson and Hilton furthermore told the negroes they were as good as the whites in every way and soon white and negro marriages would be permitted, soon the estates of their former owners would be divided and every negro would be given forty acres and a mule for his own. They kept the negroes stirred up with tales of cruelty perpetrated by the whites and, in a section long famed for the affectionate relations between slaves and slave owners, hate and suspicion began to grow.4

Yep we have here the myth of the loafing ex-slave a particularly popular myth in White Southern Politically Correct history. Further is the myth that the Freeman’s bureau “poisoned the minds” of the freemen against their owners; actually slavery had done a good job of doing that already. The Freeman’s bureau was concerned with keeping the peace and encouraged Blacks to take up wage labour.

I note that Margaret Mitchell goes on the canard about miscegenation and Black / White marriage. This of course reflects an obsession of many White Southerners with Black / White sex and the destruction of White “purity”. This was of course not shared by Blacks at all. The fact is during Reconstruction none of the Reconstruction governments made much or any effort to repeal anti-miscegenation laws. Thus reflecting that they thought the issue of little importance. But then Margaret Mitchell like so many was obsessed by the “threat” Black men were to Southern White womanhood. The threat of Southern White manhood to Southern Black womanhood, which was and remained far more real, is of course not noticed by Margaret Mitchell.

I note Margaret Mitchell also thinks it is terrible that anyone would tell Blacks that they are as good as any White person. Well guess what that is simply true. Of course the long standing “affectionate relations” between slave and master are delusions in Margaret Mitchell’s mind. I could mention here the various hysterical reactions to slave insurrection rumours before the Civil War.

About the comments regarding Blacks being “stirred up” by false tales of a return to slavery. Margaret Mitchell elides from history the infamous Black Codes passed by new State governments after the Civil War that did indeed seek to control Freemen with restrictions over labour and mobility that amounted to an effort to create quasi slavery. It was crap like that that brought on Northern imposed Reconstruction.

Miss Scarlett, the country’s gone plumb to hell, if you’ll pardon me. Those Carpetbaggers and Scallawags can vote and most of us Democrats can’t. Can’t no Democrat in this state vote if he was on the tax books for more than two thousand dollars in ’sixty-five. That lets out folks like your pa and Mr. Tarleton and the McRaes and the Fontaine boys. Can’t nobody vote who was a colonel and over in the war and, Miss Scarlett, I bet this state’s got more colonels than any state in the Confederacy. And can’t nobody vote who held office under the Confederate government and that lets out everybody from the notaries to the judges, and the woods are full of folks like that. Fact is, the way the Yankees have framed up that amnesty oath, can’t nobody who was somebody before the war vote at all. Not the smart folks nor the quality folks nor the rich folks. “Huh! I could vote if I took their damned oath. I didn’t have any money in ’sixty-five and I certainly warn’t a colonel or nothin’ remarkable. But I ain’t goin’ to take their oath. Not by a dinged sight! If the Yankees had acted right, I’d have taken their oath of allegiance but I ain’t now. I can be restored to the Union but I can’t be reconstructed into it. I ain’t goin’ to take their oath even if I don’t never vote again-But scum like that Hilton feller, he can vote, and scoundrels like Jonas Wilkerson and pore whites like the Slatterys and no-counts like the MacIntoshes, they can vote. And they’re runnin’ things now. And if they want to come down on you for extra taxes a dozen times, they can do it. Just like a nigger can kill a white man and not get hung or—” He paused, embarrassed, and the memory of what had happened to a lone white woman on an isolated farm near Lovejoy was in both their minds… “Those niggers can do anything against us and the Freedmen’s Bureau and the soldiers will back them up with guns and we can’t vote or do nothin’ about it.”5

Margaret Mitchell’s delusions continue. The number of Confederates who were in any sense permanently disbarred from voting was minimal even in 1866. After a grueling civil war is it really surprising that the winner would require loyalty oaths? There was further no effort to disqualify Democrats what they wanted was people who would swear allegiance to the USA.

As for the nonsense about Blacks being able to kill white people and getting away with it. This is an effort to cover up the very widespread violence against the newly free freemen in 1866 and during Reconstruction that amounted to a terrorist campaign.

The streets were black with loafing negroes who leaned against walls or sat on the curbing watching vehicles go past with the naive curiosity of children at a circus parade. “Free issue country niggers,” snorted Mammy. “Ain’ never seed a proper cah’ige in dere lives. An’ impident lookin’, too.” They were impudent looking, Scarlett agreed, for they stared at her in an insolent manner, but she forgot them in the renewed shock of seeing blue uniforms. The town was full of Yankee soldiers, on horses, afoot, in army wagons, loafing on the street, reeling out of barrooms. I’ll never get used to them, she thought, clenching her fists. Never! and over her shoulder: “Hurry, Mammy, let’s get out of this crowd.” “Soon’s Ah kick dis black trash outer mah way,” answered Mammy loudly, swinging the carpetbag at a black buck who loitered tantalizingly in front of her and making him leap aside. “Ah doan lak disyere town, Miss Scarlett. It’s too full of Yankees an’ cheap free issue.”6

Margaret Mitchell of course wants her one dimensional Black characters, who seem to only care about their White owners, to agree that Blacks are generally loafing trash and how dare they be impudent. Rather strange coming from Scarlett who is as impudent and brazen as they come. But then the natural place of Blacks is subordination and deference to Whites in Margaret Mitchel’s fantasy. No doubt this gave Ms. Mitchell many, many wet dreams.

“Riding, hell!” he said in the same level voice. “You’ve been working with those hands, working like a nigger. What’s the answer? Why did you lie to me about everything being nice at Tara?”7

Rhett like Ms. Mitchell knows that Blacks are only fit to work hard, for White people of course. Whereas dainty bitches like Scarlett have a God given right to live off their labour.

I did kill the nigger. He was uppity to a lady, and what else could a Southern gentleman do?8

Once again the White southern obsession with Black men bedding White women. Of course White men bedding Black women was not worth thinking about. As for “uppity” what the hell does that mean? It could mean that the guy simply spoke to a White women and was killed for it. Of course in the sick minds of some Southern Whites was the notion that all Black men lusted after White women and only violence kept them from engaging in mass rape. Keep those S and M fantasies going Ms. Mitchell we know what you really want.

“Free darkies are certainly worthless,” Scarlett agreed, completely ignoring his hint that she should sell. “Mr. Johnson says he never knows when he comes to work in the morning whether he’ll have a full crew or not. You just can’t depend on the darkies any more. They work a day or two and then lay off till they’ve spent their wages, and the whole crew is like as not to quit overnight. The more I see of emancipation the more criminal I think it is. It’s just ruined the darkies. Thousands of them aren’t working at all and the ones we can get to work at the mill are so lazy and shiftless they aren’t worth having. And if you so much as swear at them, much less hit them a few licks for the good of their souls, the Freedmen’s Bureau is down on you like a duck on a June bug.”9

...

That damned—Wilkerson has caused enough trouble already. I know how he did you about your taxes. That’s just one of his meannesses. But the worst thing was the way he kept the darkies stirred up. If anybody had told me I’d ever live to see the day when I’d hate darkies! Damn their black souls, they believe anything those scoundrels tell them and forget every living thing we’ve done for them. Now the Yankees are talking about letting the darkies vote. And they won’t let us vote. Why, there’s hardly a handful of Democrats in the whole County who aren’t barred from voting, now that they’ve ruled out every man who fought in the Confederate Army. And if they give the negroes the vote, it’s the end of us. Damn it, it’s our state! It doesn’t belong to the Yankees! By God, Scarlett, it isn’t to be borne! And it won’t be borne! We’ll do something about it if it means another war. Soon we’ll be having nigger judges, nigger legislators—black apes out of the jungle—” “Please—hurry, tell me! What did you do?” “Give me another mite of that pone before you wrap it up. Well, the word got around that Wilkerson had gone a bit too far with his nigger-equality business. Oh, yes, he talks it to those black fools by the hour. He had the gall—the—” Tony spluttered helplessly, “to say niggers had a right to—to—white women.”10

Margaret Mitchell lets the cat out of the bag freedom is bad for Blacks. With freedom they are “shiftless” “lazy”. Correctly translated “we don’t have a wholly owned workforce we can ruthlessly exploit anymore…. WAAAAHHH!!!”. I really love the comment about hitting them. Isn’t it terrible that you can’t beat a Black person anymore? I wonder if Margaret Mitchell would think it was a good idea to beat White workers for their own good? I do not think so!

Scarlett is here Ms. Mitchell’s mouthpiece whining that Blacks are not grateful for all their exploitative owners have done for them. Just why should slaves be “grateful” to people who exploited them for their selfish advantage. After all slave owners viewed their human chattels as property and capital assets as part of their wealth. But then the implication is that slaves owe to their masters the duty of obedience and to continue to serve as slave labour to their masters helping their maters get richer. It is the moral slavery of obligation, servitude and gratitude along with telling the master how wonderful and benevolent he/she is. Any deviation from this is of course wicked and deserves to be punished severely.

There is more nonsense about Democrats being barred from voting and of course Negro Judges, and Legislators is just unpardonable wickedness! Why? Well we soon learn the answer because they are “black apes out of jungle”. Is it not interesting that supposedly you once had all these benevolent feelings about Blacks before they were freed yet all along you though them as essentially sub-human. Beneath the benevolent veneer is seething contempt and hatred. Thank you Ms. Mitchell for the revelation.

Finally we get another taste of the fantasy about Black men lusting after White women. I wonder how often Margaret Mitchell fantasized such scenes?

Now she knew what Reconstruction meant, knew as well as if the house were ringed about by naked savages, squatting in breech clouts. Now there came rushing to her mind many things to which she had given little thought recently, conversations she had heard but to which she had not listened, masculine talk which had been checked half finished when she came into rooms, small incidents in which she had seen no significance at the time, Frank’s futile warnings to her against driving out to the mill with only the feeble Uncle Peter to protect her. Now they fitted themselves together into one horrifying picture. The negroes were on top and behind them were the Yankee bayonets. She could be killed, she could be raped and, very probably, nothing would ever be done about it. And anyone who avenged her would be hanged by the Yankees, hanged without benefit of trial by judge and jury. Yankee officers who knew nothing of law and cared less for the circumstances of the crime could go through the motions of holding a trial and put a rope around a Southerner’s neck. “What can we do?” she thought, wringing her hands in an agony of helpless fear. “What can we do with devils who’d hang a nice boy like Tony just for killing a drunken buck and a scoundrelly Scallawag to protect his women folks?” “It isn’t to be borne!” Tony had cried and he was right. It couldn’t be borne. But what could they do except bear it, helpless as they were? She fell to trembling and, for the first time in her life, she saw people and events as something apart from herself, saw clearly that Scarlett O’Hara, frightened and helpless, was not all that mattered. There were thousands of women like her, all over the South, who were frightened and helpless. And thousands of men, who had laid down their arms at Appomattox, had taken them up again and stood ready to risk their necks on a minute’s notice to protect those women.11

...

Only the negroes had rights or redress these days. The Yankees had the South prostrate and they intended to keep it so. The South had been tilted as by a giant malicious hand, and those who had once ruled were now more helpless than their former slaves had ever been.12

Margaret Mitchell’s fantasy about Reconstruction and the sexual threat of Black men to White women is here full blown. It is a lie. It was used to stir up anti-Black hysteria and justify lynching and mob violence. Once again we have Black men who can’t control their lust for White women and how correct it was to kill the Black men threatening Southern White womanhood. Of course Black women are forgotten in this. We see here also the myth that the KKK emerged to defend White women hood from raping Black men. It is a lie. The KKK emerged to terrorize Blacks back into subordination and fear. The idea that at the time White women were in mortal fear of being raped by hordes of Black men is a simple lie.

The lie about only Blacks having redress and Blacks ruling the south can be dismissed out of hand as two more White Southern myths.

The very suspicion of seditious utterances against the government, suspected complicity in the Ku Klux Klan, or complaint by a negro that a white man had been uppity to him were enough to land a citizen in jail. Proof and evidence were not needed. The accusation was sufficient. And thanks to the incitement of the Freedmen’s Bureau, negroes could always be found who were willing to bring accusations. The negroes had not yet been given the right to vote but the North was determined that they should vote and equally determined that their vote should be friendly to the North. With this in mind, nothing was too good for the negroes. The Yankee soldiers backed them up in anything they chose to do, and the surest way for a white person to get himself into trouble was to bring a complaint of any kind against a negro. The former slaves were now the lords of creation and, with the aid of the Yankees, the lowest and most ignorant ones were on top. The better class of them, scorning freedom, were suffering as severely as their white masters. Thousands of house servants, the highest caste in the slave population, remained with their white folks, doing manual labor which had been beneath them in the old days. Many loyal field hands also refused to avail themselves of the new freedom, but the hordes of “trashy free issue niggers,” who were causing most of the trouble, were drawn largely from the field-hand class. In slave days, these lowly blacks had been despised by the house negroes and yard negroes as creatures of small worth. Just as Ellen had done, other plantation mistresses throughout the South had put the pickaninnies through courses of training and elimination to select the best of them for the positions of greater responsibility. Those consigned to the fields were the ones least willing or able to learn, the least energetic, the least honest and trustworthy, the most vicious and brutish. And now this class, the lowest in the black social order, was making life a misery for the South. Aided by the unscrupulous adventurers who operated the Freedmen’s Bureau and urged on by a fervor of Northern hatred almost religious in its fanaticism, the former field hands found themselves suddenly elevated to the seats of the mighty. There they conducted themselves as creatures of small intelligence might naturally be expected to do. Like monkeys or small children turned loose among treasured objects whose value is beyond their comprehension, they ran wild—either from perverse pleasure in destruction or simply because of their ignorance. To the credit of the negroes, including the least intelligent of them, few were actuated by malice and those few had usually been “mean niggers” even in slave days. But they were, as a class, childlike in mentality, easily led and from long habit accustomed to taking orders. Formerly their white masters had given the orders. Now they had a new set of masters, the Bureau and the Carpetbaggers, and their orders were: “You’re just as good as any white man, so act that way. Just as soon as you can vote the Republican ticket, you are going to have the white man’s property. It’s as good as yours now. Take it, if you can get it!” Dazzled by these tales, freedom became a never-ending picnic, a barbecue every day of the week, a carnival of idleness and theft and insolence. Country negroes flocked into the cities, leaving the rural districts without labor to make the crops. Atlanta was crowded with them and still they came by the hundreds, lazy and dangerous as a result of the new doctrines being taught them. Packed into squalid cabins, smallpox, typhoid and tuberculosis broke out among them. Accustomed to the care of their mistresses when they were ill in slave days, they did not know how to nurse themselves or their sick. Relying upon their masters in the old days to care for their aged and their babies, they now had no sense of responsibility for their helpless. And the Bureau was far too interested in political matters to provide the care the plantation owners had once given. Abandoned negro children ran like frightened animals about the town until kind-hearted white people took them into their kitchens to raise. Aged country darkies, deserted by their children, bewildered and panic stricken in the bustling town, sat on the curbs and cried to the ladies who passed: “Mistis, please Ma’m, write mah old Marster down in Fayette County dat Ah’s up hyah. He’ll come tek dis ole nigger home agin. ‘Fo’ Gawd, Ah done got nuff of dis freedom!”13

Ms. Mitchell continues her fantasizing and lies some more. Of course the good Blacks don’t like freedom and refuse to take advantage of it. No doubt because slavery was best for them. Those that enjoy their freedom or use it are “lazy” “brutish” “vicious”; they are “creatures of small intelligence” “monkeys” “children”. In other words any Black who wants to be free or embraced freedom is less than fully human. And of course the newly freed slaves don‘t want to work are lazy and freedom a “carnival of idleness and theft and insolence”. Only Blacks who reject freedom and who embrace being someone’s property are acceptable in Ms. Mitchell’s eyes.

Slaves were incapable of taking care of children and aged when they were slaves. This is of course another Mitchell lie. The simple fact is most of the care for the aged and children was done by the slaves themselves during the days of slavery. But Ms. Mitchell must fantasize, about Black children being adopted by White households and aged Black men and women complaining that freedom is bad. Of course once the Black child was adopted he /she no doubt were usually used as unpaid labour.

But these ignominies and dangers were as nothing compared with the peril of white women, many bereft by the war of male protection, who lived alone in the outlying districts and on lonely roads. It was the large number of outrages on women and the ever-present fear for the safety of their wives and daughters that drove Southern men to cold and trembling fury and caused the Ku Klux Klan to spring up overnight. And it was against this nocturnal organization that the newspapers of the North cried out most loudly, never realizing the tragic necessity that brought it into being. The North wanted every member of the Ku Klux hunted down and hanged, because they had dared take the punishment of crime into their own hands at a time when the ordinary processes of law and order had been overthrown by the invaders. Here was the astonishing spectacle of half a nation attempting, at the point of bayonet, to force upon the other half the rule of negroes, many of them scarcely one generation out of the African jungles. The vote must be given to them but it must be denied to most of their former owners. The South must be kept down and disfranchisement of the whites was one way to keep the South down. Most of those who had fought for the Confederacy, held office under it or given aid and comfort to it were not allowed to vote, had no choice in the selection of their public officials and were wholly under the power of an alien rule. Many men, thinking soberly of General Lee’s words and example, wished to take the oath, become citizens again and forget the past. But they were not permitted to take it. Others who were permitted to take the oath, hotly refused to do so, scorning to swear allegiance to a government which was deliberately subjecting them to cruelty and humiliation.14

The idea that the KKK was created to oppose the alleged mass violations of White women by Black men is of course a bold face lie. It was and remained a terrorist organization responsible for mass murder and yes rape. The story of its atrocities and brutality is a long and gruesome story. Once again Ms. Mitchell’s sexual fantasies come to the fore and reflect the sick mentality of her society.

Ms. Mitchell repeats the nonsense about “Negro rule” that never existed. Ignores that very few Whites were disenfranchised

Sam galloped over to the buggy, his eyes rolling with joy and his white teeth flashing, and clutched her outstretched hand with two black hands as big as hams. His watermelon-pink tongue lapped out, his whole body wiggled and his joyful contortions were as ludicrous as the gambolings of a mastiff.15

Even those Blacks that Ms. Mitchell is positive about are described in terms that reveal that Ms. Mitchell cannot see that fictional person as a fully human. Sam is compared to a dog, probably because on some level Ms. Mitchell conceived of Blacks, even “good” ones as particially sub-human and animal. The “watermelon-pink tongue” is a rather unfortunate evocation of the stereotype of the Black person and watermelons.

“W’en Ah tell dem dat an’ tell dem how good Miss Ellen ter de niggers, an’ how she set up a whole week wid me w’en Ah had de pneumony, dey doan b’lieve me. An’, Miss Scarlett, Ah got ter honin’ fer Miss Ellen an’ Tara, tell it look lak Ah kain stan’ it no longer, an’ one night Ah lit out fer home, an’ Ah rid de freight cabs all de way down ter ‘Lanta. Ef you buy me a ticket ter Tara, Ah sho be glad ter git home. Ah sho be glad ter see Miss Ellen and Mist’ Gerald agin. An done had nuff freedom. Ah wants somebody ter feed me good vittles reg’lar, and tell me whut ter do an’ whut not ter do, an’ look affer me w’en Ah gits sick. S’pose Ah gits de pneumony agin? Is dat Yankee lady gwine tek keer of me? No, Ma’m! She gwine call me ‘Mist’ O’Hara’ but she ain’ gwine nuss me. But Miss Ellen, she gwine nuss me, do Ah git sick an’—whut’s de mattuh, Miss Scarlett?”16

Once again another Black character in Ms. Mitchell’s fantasy complains that freedom is bad and that he wants to be told what to do. Yup like all good Blacks in Ms. Mitchell’s novel he doesn’t want to be free he wants to be owned, controlled and told what to do by White people. Of course he is properly and vocally, because Mitchell most definitely wants to hear it over and over again, grateful to White people. After all ingratitude is just horrible and deserves severe punishment. All Blacks must continually speak and display their gratitude to White people for the privilege of being owned and being told what to do.

The above examples also of course indicate what a turgid mess Gone With the Wind is as a novel. The novel is usually called a love story yet it is not usually remembered that Rhett apparently rapes Scarlett. That is love?17

Perhaps one of the most damning indications of Ms. Mitchell’s mindset is her admiration for Thomas Dixon a though going racist who wrote a series of novels around the turn of the century which were amazingly racist. Mr. Dixon wrote the novel The Clansman that was the basis for the movie Birth of a Nation, he even suggested the title of the movie. In the novel White womanhood is saved from a fate worst than death by the KKK. Interestingly the young Margaret Mitchell wrote and staged a play based on The Clansman. Dixon raved about Gone With the Wind and thought it excellent in a letter to Margaret Mitchell.18 Margaret Mitchell wrote back:

I was practically raised on your books, and love them very much.19

That Gone with the Wind is an artistic failure because of its turgid writing style is obvious but it is also a failure because of Margaret Mitchell’s inability to see Blacks as fully human. Ms. Mitchell was in that respect indeed whistling Dixie and yes she had forgotten much.

Caricature of Margaret Mitchell with Clarke Gable as Rhett Butler

1. Dowson, Ernest, Cynara, Here.

2. Margaret Mitchell quoted in Storace, Patricia, Look Away, Dixie Land, New York Review of Books, v. 38, No. 21, December 19, 1991, New York, City, pp. 24-37, at 28.

3. Mitchell, Margaret, Gone With the Wind, 1936, from downloaded pdf version, pp. 282-283.

4. IBID, pp. 283-284.

5. IBID, 284-285.

6. IBID, p. 302.

7. IBID. p. 315.

8. IBID, p. 340.

9. IBID, p. 349.

10. IBID, p. 353.

11. IBID, p. 354-355.

12. IBID, p. 357.

13. IBID, pp. 357-358.

14. IBID, p. 359.

15. IBID, p. 428.

16. IBID, p. 429.

17. IBID. 516-517. I’ve read the section several times I can’t be absolutely sure it is a “real” rape but it is damn close to one if it is not.

18. Storace, p. 26.

19. Margaret Mitchell quoted, in Storace, p. 26.

Other Sources.

Chadwick, Bruce, The Reel Civil War, Vintage, New York, 2001, pp. 204-211.

Kolchin, Peter, American Slavery: 1619-1877, Hill and Wang, New York, 2003. pp. 133-168.

Stampp, Kenneth M., The Peculiar Institution, Vintage, New York, 1956.

Blassingame, John W., The Slave Community, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1979.

Brownmiller, Susan, Against Our Will, Bantam Books, New York, 1975, pp. 133-139.

Foner, Eric, Reconstruction, America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877, HarperCollins, New York, 1988.

Du Bois, W.E.B., Black Reconstruction in America, Atheneum, New York, 1994 (reprint).

Pierre Cloutier