seehand Nov 15, 2019:

Dein Kommentar Sicher ist das eine mit dem anderen eng verwoben, ohne Zweifel - auch den Zweifel an "subordination" kann ich nachvollziehen - was man in dieser Zeit unter "Aufmüpfigkeiten" tatsächlich verstanden hat, bedarf großen historischen Wissens, über das ich auch nicht verfüge. Mir ging es eigentlich hauptsächlich um den militärischen Zusammenhang - so wollen wir es damit im Guten beenden.

Björn Vrooman Nov 15, 2019:

@seehand Das Kapitel hatte ich mEn überflogen. Wie schon gesagt, ging es mir erstmal nur um den Kommentar in deiner Referenz: "I'd say it's more about military ranks than about society and its classes as a whole..."

Wie unten dargelegt, war der Rang abhängig vom Stand in der Gesellschaft, weshalb ich den obigen Kommentar für falsch halte, was, wie ich auch unten betonte, erstmal wenig Auswirkungen auf deine Antwort hat (wobei "related" für mich nicht passt).

Ich sagte auch, man kann durchaus rank nehmen, wenn man sich bei standesbedingt auf diese militärisch organisierte Gesellschaftsordnung bezieht.

Ich hoffe, das leuchtet ein.

Die Schwierigkeit mit insubordination, die ich ebenfalls versucht hatte zu erläutern, ergab sich daraus, dass Clausewitz kaum ein Befürworter jeglicher Art von Widerstand gewesen sein wird, sondern sich auf minderschwere Fälle bezog (auch wenn Marie von Clausewitz die eigenmächtigen Taten von Ferdinand von Schill begrüßte).

Wenn man nicht von "unruly behavior" (mein Favorit) oder "transgression" sprechen will, dann wäre zumindest "degree of" gut, damit es nicht so aussieht, als ob bei den Preußen jeder machen konnte, was er wollte.

Beste Grüße

seehand Nov 15, 2019:

Genius https://gutenberg.spiegel.de/buch/vom-kriege-4072/6

Hier nur noch zum Abschluss ein Buchauszug von Clausewitz über den kriegerischen Genius - ich bin immer noch der Meinung, dass es sich - wenn es um Clausewitz geht - um das Militär handelt, also nicht nur um den "General", sondern auch um die "niedrigeren Ränge" - aber ich möchte nicht darauf beharren.

Viele Grüße und einen guten Tag

mill2 (asker) Nov 13, 2019:

re [Last] Well I did have to send two e-mails but no matter. Hauptsache es stimmt jetzt. Thanks again!

Björn Vrooman Nov 13, 2019:

[Last] In any case, the purpose of my posts was not to contest the validity of the answer (aside from the choice of "relevant)" but the reference post because the explanation given there is clearly just a guess (and wrong, as Stände never means military rank, IMO).

Like I said, sorry for not posting that earlier, but sometimes I jump between Qs and forget what I wanted to do.

As for your note: I hope I've replied quickly enough now, that is, before you send the email. That's why my first post was so short, so you have it ASAP.

Best wishes and enjoy the rest of the week

mill2 (asker) Nov 13, 2019:

thanks again Björn Estates is obviously wrong in my context. Appreciate your thoroughness. Cheers

Björn Vrooman Nov 13, 2019:

[continued] Similar to what you can find about Scharnhost (Clausewitz was one of his students) on Wiki:
"By slow and labored steps, Scharnhorst converted the professional long-service army of Prussia, wrecked at Jena (1806), into a national army based on universal service. Universal service was not secured until his death, but he laid down the principles and prepared the way for its adoption. Enrollments of foreigners were abolished, corporal punishments were limited to flagrant cases of insubordination, promotion for merit was established, and the military administration organized and simplified."

I hope I made this clear enough; saying they tolerated insubordination is relatively imprecise (call me pedantic, if you wish); if you want to use it, the phrasing you can find in "Daily Life of U.S. Soldiers: From the American Revolution to the Iraq War" [Editor: Christopher R. Mortenson] is what I would have gone along with: "Mutiny was an almost unheard-of event for U.S. Army units on the frontier, although a certain degree of insubordination was common..."

[...]

Björn Vrooman Nov 13, 2019:

Insubordination As for insubordination, I found this document later:
http://www.clausewitz.com/newsletter/newsletter2.htm

There, it says:
"Olaf's text shares some curious observations about Clausewitz's dealings with young officers in transgression of the rules. Unsurprisingly, the military theorist was not a stickler for rules and regulations. When a young lieutenant allowed himself to talk back to a major, Clausewitz insisted on counseling, regarding a possible court martial for insubordination as an excessive measure. The unruly lieutenant was also the younger son of his late mentor Gerhard von Scharnhorst, which put Clausewitz in an awkward and disadvantageous position. He still believed that, as bad as insubordination was, there were much bigger problems in the military."


Emphasis mine. The words in bold, unruly and transgression, would have been a good fit, in my opinion. As you can see from the part in italics, Clausewitz considered some acts not to be insubordination, which does not(!) mean he would tolerate all types of insubordination. The "talk back" bit is exactly(!) what I was describing below.

[...]

Björn Vrooman Nov 13, 2019:

Hello mill2 As for estates, I said that's Middle Ages; don't know how well this would work in your context. There is this Wiki page about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estates_of_the_realm

[...]

mill2 (asker) Nov 13, 2019:

@Björn Hey, thanks very much for your efforts! This is very helpful. I stand by insubordination, particularly because this is an explicitly military context, but I've changed my - already submitted, e-mailing the client right now - translation to insubordination by members of the lower estates.

Björn Vrooman Nov 12, 2019:

Conclusion Couple of points, then I'll leave it be.

a) It seems to me that previously, (gesellschaftlicher) Stand = (militärischer) Rang. At the time, however, Stand seems to have lost in, say, value. From this one sentence, it is hard to gauge whether only lower ranks are meant; you don't want to be accused of overtranslation.

b) Rank may work if military rank = social rank or class, but this would need to be made clear somewhere. Military rank on its own cannot be right.

c) Like Michael, I'm a bit uncomfortable with insubordination. I'd have thought it is less about disobeying orders but about questioning a superior's orders or judgment.

Moreover, according to the third link below, a true genius seems to "violate only the incorrect or oversimplified rules of bad theory..." Could be as weak a display as non-conformity.

d) In any case, "bedingt" is not "related." It means that A hinges on B or B is crucial to A. In other words, the Aufmüpfigkeiten are "caused by" the fact that you are part of a certain group in society.

Best wishes

Björn Vrooman Nov 12, 2019:

I believe here's another important bit of context:
"[Friedrich Wilhelm I.] ist als Soldatenkönig in die Geschichte eingegangen. Er drückte Staat und Gesellschaft einen soldatischen Stempel auf: Er ordnete das Staatswesen neu, indem er alle Institutionen, Stände und Interessen unter die Belange der Armee stellte. Staat und Heer bekamen eine einheitliche Verfassung. Das Militär wurde zum führenden Instrument der sozialen und wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung im Innern des Landes. In der Rangfolge des Hofes standen die höchsten Offiziere an der Spitze...So wie sich Adlige und Bauern als Gutsherren und bäuerliche Untertanen gegenüberstanden, so begegneten sie sich in der Armee nun als Offiziere und Soldaten."

Further:
"...erzwangen ab Oktober 1807 eine Heeresreform in Preußen. Zu den Reformern gehörten...Karl von Clausewitz,...Von den 143 Generälen von 1806 waren 1813 nur noch zwei im Dienst. Das Adelsprivileg zur Besetzung von Offiziersstellen wurde abgeschafft und die Beförderung nach militärischen Leistungsprinzipien eingeführt. Trotzdem blieb die Vorherrschaft des Adels im Offizierskorps bestehen."

[...]

Björn Vrooman Nov 12, 2019:

@mill2 I wanted to post this a bit earlier and I probably should have. I am quite puzzled by this insistence on "lower ranks"; where does it say that?

Standesbedingt probably refers to Ständegesellschaft: https://www.preussenchronik.de/begriff_jsp/key=begriff_st%e4...

That's estates in US English in the Middle Ages and classes later on:
https://www.britannica.com/place/Prussia

However, it's hard to tell from that one sentence what's appropriate. The quotes mean the same as "bla bla, if you will" in English. Did you read:
http://www.clausewitz.com/readings/Sumida/RogersRules.htm

E.g.: "What makes the great commander great, thus, is not an ability to rise above the rules, for genius, dear sirs, never acts contrary to the rules. Geniuses are, rather, distinguished by exceptional ability to grasp and to apply the rules, intuitively, in the trying circumstances of military command, and then, overcoming friction, to execute the course of action that, as the rules of cause and effect take their course, will lead to the outcome desired."

[to be continued]

mill2 (asker) Nov 12, 2019:

beg to differ The Duden defines aufmüpfig aus aufsässig, rebellisch and Pons gives ungehorsam, aufsässig as a definition of insubordinate. Given that the context is a military one, I think this is what is meant.

Michael Martin, MA Nov 11, 2019:

insubordination seems not quite appropriate here as it strikes a much harsher tone than Aufmüpfigkeiten.