Talk:Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Source
Adapted from 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.
[edit] Title
Isn't this title in variance with our policy of not incudling titles in article names? RickK 05:56, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- If you have policies against having titles in name, why do all of the articles about the Holy Roman Emperors have the title ", Holy Roman Emperor" for each article about an HR Emperor? Alex.
[edit] Article needs Revamping?
I think the facticity of this article needs to be checked-out and brought into line with modern historical scholarship. I'm reading Joseph J. Ellis' recent biography of Washington, "His Excellency, George Washington" which states on page 116 that "Steuben's title was a complete fabrication, as was his claim of intimacy with Frederick the Great and his rank of general in the Prussian army." 69.216.236.40 05:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Some facts are a bit off. Steuben couldn't have sat in on Major John Andre's trial in 1781. Andre was tried and executed October 2, 1780!
[edit] Steuben's birthday
Many sources claim September 17, 1730 to be von Steuben's birthday. Most notably, The Steuben Society of America. The lorax 18 July 2005
- I checked three print references (Dictionary of American Biography, Dictionary of Military Biography, and Encyclopedia Americana), and all give September 17, 1730, so I changed it in the article. The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica does give his birthdate as November 15, 1730, which is why it was that way here. There may be a story behind the discrepancy, or it may just be a simple error. --Kevin Myers 12:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Homosexuality
It should be noted, that the primary reason that Steuben agreed to fight for America (when he was not offered a commission, salary or even travel expenses) was that he was facing charges of homosexual sodomy. [unsigned]
I have read numerous accounts (here is a link with some documentation) that Von Steuben's aides were more than that. Should this, or at least this controversy and the historical discussion of it, not be mentioned? http://www.geocities.com/bobarnebeck/baron.htmlAmherst5282 05:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- This is typical of what happens on Wikipedia. Some people can't accept gay people and therefore try to delete anything about their personal life. The fact that he helped form America's first army is very threatening to them. [unsigned]
- Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben was gay, get over it! (Anonymous User)May 6, 2006
-
-
- Thanks for the links! (Anonymous User)May 7, 2006
-
-
- Well there is just an allegation about this. Some people can't help to attribute homosexuality to any famous figure they can find. [unsigned]
- And some, usually anonymous, people can't handle the truth. --Kstern999 19:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Who cares if he was gay? Why include it? Its not very important and I doubt he would want it included if he were alive today. Besides which you don't go through every article and say this guy is gay this one is straight this one was on the fence, and unless you have an accurate sources that state that he himself admitted to homosexulaity publicly or in a diary then its unsubstantiated.Eno-Etile 01:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- And some, usually anonymous, people can't handle the truth. --Kstern999 19:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well there is just an allegation about this. Some people can't help to attribute homosexuality to any famous figure they can find. [unsigned]
In the History Channel documentary on The Revolutionary War, "Forging an Army" (Original Air Date: July 8, 2006) they mention he was turned down for French, Spanish, and German Armies because of "rumors" of having sex with men. Here's another source that he was gay: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_09/007197.php. There are several other examples on the net. Plus he was repeatedly brought up in the "gays in the military" debate. This is an essential part of his history because it explains his rejection in Europe which led him to come to America and make a dramatic difference in helping the Americans win the Revolution. As the History Channel put it, "In short, Von Steuben has come to the only army in the world that will have him: the Americans" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.140.69.70 (talk • contribs).
- Every source on the net echoes the same rumors. Every source that I looked at that purports to have letters ends in a rumor. I checked a few other books that purport to have this evidence, and they point to secondary sources that point to secondary sources. There is no reason for this, unless it is made up, the letter in question should be extant if they exist.
- History Channel documentaries are notoriously bad about repeating rehashed stories that have to basis in fact. They are more like docudramas rather than real historical accounts. The source you referred to was a removed blog, that didn't have primary information. Here is what I think, after the fact, Tory or British interests came up with this tale to besmirch the Baron's name. Similar to the politically motivated tale of Catherine the Great, stories like this abound.
- Most of the circumstances are easily explained. Baron von Stuben was not a high ranking officer before the Revolution. Why would continental armies thick with nobles and officers take on yet another Prussian Captain? If he was indeed a homosexual that was not tolerated in the United States at that time either. Men were hung for offenses of sodomy in revolutionary times. Unless there is a better source the edits that removed these references are justified. Dominick (TALK) 12:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't matter whether he was actually gay. If anything, the article needs to make mention of the historical speculation of his homosexuality, and its relation to his motivations for leaving Europe. Even if it was simple speculation, there is no doubt that the fact that people thought this about him was cause enough for him to leave- and therein lies the historical importance, and why it needs to be in the article... as a speculation. I'm not talking about a whole section devoted to the discussion, but a mention at the very least. Lastly, as a general practice- I find the History Channel a credible source, and even they acknowledged the speculation... and so should we. --71.194.128.49 10:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like its been mentioned and the phrasing is neutral so I guess this is settled Eno-Etile 06:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Categories: Military work group articles | Start-Class biography (military) articles | High-priority biography (military) articles | Start-Class biography articles | Start-Class United States military history articles | United States military history task force articles | Start-Class military history articles