New Shun 1730

Young people, especially young kings, are always ambitious and always feel that they can do something and make some trouble.

He understands many truths and has read The Prince.

Any Machiavellian will generally refuse to admit that he is a Machiavellian and will even publish a book such as Anti-Machiavellianism.

Although George III was not so proficient, he also knew several basic principles of Machiavelli.

First: The army and law are the basis of power. Without military power, even farts are silent.

Second: The monarch should have absolute power, focus on strength, and be proficient in military affairs.

Third: The monarch should pull the people against the aristocracy to gain power (consider the times, take the bones, and consider what kind of ecological niche the aristocracy mentioned by Machiavelli is in politics).

Fourth: The monarch should not be bound by any moral code. He only needs to consider whether the effect is beneficial, not whether the means are harmful. He can be kind on the outside and treacherous on the inside, or he can imitate the fox and the lion, and be both cunning and cruel.

Because he understood these principles, George III thought that the chaos in Liverpool was his opportunity. If he handled it well, he could solve many problems.

His ancestors and the history of Britain did have history to follow.

However, he could not learn many historical experiences.

For example, his grandfather George II was able to get military power and support from military nobles, so that his son, the Duke of Cumberland, could start to promote military reform. What did he rely on?

He relied on riding a war horse, going to Europe, fighting a battle with France in Göttingen, and gaining prestige in the army. This led to the subsequent military reform of the Duke of Cumberland.

The king wanted to take power.

Either he led the army to win.

Or, at least he had to provide strategic guidance.

Otherwise, if he had no prestige in the army, many things would be difficult to handle.

Before the Dutch coup, William of Orange also tried to gain prestige in the army. It was a pity that he had chicken breasts and asthma, so he couldn't go to the battlefield at all. In the end, Dashun fiddled with it a little and was directly overthrown by the coup.

But obviously, George III couldn't learn this.

Because it's obvious that he couldn't lead his troops to Europe to fight now.

Besides, people still have to have some qualifications. At this time, Frederick II, the most capable king in the circle of European kings, was now being hammered to death. He didn't think he could win prestige on the European continent.

However, the rebellion and chaos in Liverpool, Lancashire, Manchester and other places gave him an opportunity.

It's not that he led troops to suppress it. His uncle, the Duke of Cumberland, went to suppress the Jacobite uprising and got a bad reputation and the name of "butcher".

Rather, George III thought that he could take advantage of this chaos to seize military power first.

The British knew very well that because of the barrier of the Channel, the army was the basis for determining the political direction.

The purpose of the Duke of Cumberland's military reform was to take the power of "promotion and appointment" from the hands of local powerful people to the government. Increase the number of standing troops and reduce the scale of the purchase of officials and the ownership of the head of the regiment.

Don't worry about the navy. As long as the navy operates normally, it will not determine the political situation in London.

The army is the key. As long as we can take advantage of this chaos to seize the military power and tear open a hole in Parliament to allow the increase of the number of standing troops.

Then, it will be a big win.

With the military power in hand, there will be plenty of time to slowly toss and play with the people in Parliament.

As for how to take advantage of the chaos in Liverpool, the suppression of Britain by Dashun, and the reality of the impending failure of the war to seize the military power and increase the number of standing troops, George III has his own ideas.

The key to this problem lies in three supporting points.

Hanover.

North America.

British mainland.

In fact, after Dashun joined the war, especially after the fall of Gibraltar, Lord Bute talked to George III about an important issue.

"My Majesty."

"Do you want to be the king of Britain and North America?"

"Or do you want to be the king of Britain and Hanover?"

This question is still ringing in my ears.

Now, George III knows very well what he should choose.

Because Hanover will definitely not be able to be defended.

France is not Dashun. France has great pressure from the European land war. France will not toss around on the sea like Dashun did.

Therefore, as long as France wins the Hanover issue, it will definitely not give in.

Britain will definitely be driven out, and "the people of the Holy Roman Empire decide the affairs of the Holy Roman Empire". The people of the Holy Roman Empire decide the affairs of the Holy Roman Empire, which means that France can be the "referee", fighting Prussia today and Austria tomorrow. France will be happy if the Holy Roman Empire beats its brains out.

Hanover, at the moment when Dashun joined the war and conquered Gibraltar, the smart ones should have understood that Hanover could not be kept and should be thrown away quickly.

George III also thought so.

Therefore, by using the Hanover issue as a fulcrum and the Liverpool rebellion as an opportunity, the nobles’ panic and the previous opposition, the Patriot Party, could be used to legitimately expand the standing army, complete the military reform that the Duke of Cumberland had originally envisioned, and return the power of officer promotion to the government.

There are three issues in total.

Each issue can be used to make a point.

The first problem is that when Britain was fighting at that time, a considerable part of the army was Hessian mercenaries. The Hessian mercenaries were nominally loyal to the Elector of Hanover and the Imperial Treasurer, although in fact they were loyal to money.

The problem of the standing army in Britain is a problem that cannot be said to be unique to Britain, but a problem that any administrative feudal country will encounter.

The abolition of the standing army, the insistence on the purchase of officials and the ownership of the head of the regiment are the reliance of Britain's "freedom".

Similarly, the abolition of the standing army and the insistence that each feudal domain has its own armed forces are the reliance of Japan's "freedom".

The abolition of the standing army, the release of the feudal domains, and the recruitment of local governments were also the reliance of "freedom" after the An-Shi Rebellion in the Tang Dynasty.

Nothing magical.

But the problem of Britain lies in the "Hessian mercenaries".

Why use Hessian mercenaries?

First of all, because Britain does not have a large number of standing troops.

The standing army was strongly opposed by Parliament because the nobles believed in the militia they recruited and did not believe in the government's standing army.

The government has a standing army, how can this be tolerated?

What is the purchase of official system and ownership of regiment commanders, which is the basis of British "freedom"?

This is called.

There is no large standing army.

And they want to be the Atlantic hegemon.

What to do?

Let's go with mercenaries.

Moreover.

Because it is cheap.

The German nobles recruited soldiers themselves and rented them to Britain.

Of the 30% of soldiers, the nobles who recruited soldiers at home took 70%. This is cheaper than Britain forming its own standing army.

And this does not need to violate the parliamentary law that the militia cannot go abroad to fight as required by the "Militia Act".

At the same time, Britain needs to expand overseas and contain France. What is a global empire without troops?

And this is the problem.

If there is a rebellion in Britain, or North America chooses to secede.

The king uses British soldiers to suppress it, and uses Hessian mercenaries to suppress it. These are two completely different concepts.

"Borrowing troops to help suppress" is quite annoying and detrimental to legitimacy no matter where it is placed.

It's easy to say that the British fight the British.

At most, he can be labeled a tyrant.

The King of England brought 20,000 German Hessian soldiers to fight the British...

It's hard to say.

What has happened?

Although, this is actually normal.

But it was normal a hundred years ago, two hundred years ago, a thousand years ago...

It's not normal now.

This is one of the effects of the Enlightenment.

A hundred years ago, it was normal for a king or emperor to borrow troops to suppress or use mercenaries to massacre his own people.

Now, it's not normal.

The times are progressing and the people are awakening. What was normal and taken for granted in the past has gradually become less taken for granted.

But before the French Revolution, the feudal stench was too strong in Europe. Including later generations, except for France and Russia, other countries basically retained a considerable amount of feudal remnants, especially in culture.

So, for now, George III's use of Hessian mercenaries is legally justified.

He is the King of Britain and the Elector of Hanover.

German nobles helped the Holy Roman Empire's treasurer to fight and suppress. This is reasonable, isn't it?

However, as Lord Bute told him.

Either he was the king of the Anglo-Saxons.

Or he was the king of Britain and Hanover.

These two are no longer compatible.

Since defeat is inevitable, it is hard to say whether he will hire Hessian mercenaries in the future.

This brings up the second question.

Theoretically, even if he is no longer the Elector of Hanover and is completely disconnected from Germany, he is just a pure British king.

Then, in foreign wars, it is not impossible to hire some German soldiers in theory. In foreign wars, hiring mercenaries to help fight saves money and will not cause domestic unrest, and the country will not support it.

But is it only foreign wars?

The previous war was so big, and Pitt died without a care, leaving a lot of messes.

For example, the large number of British troops in North America, and the temporary standing army size that was expanded due to the war.

Normally, they must be disbanded after the war.

Then the question is, it is not impossible to just let these tens of thousands of soldiers retire and leave.

But what about the large number of officers in the army?

Let them leave directly? Officers are not ordinary people. Being an officer in the UK is very tough.

This is a problem.

Another thing is that the group of people in North America actually gathered in Philadelphia with the people of Dashun for a meeting.

It was easy to talk about it before, and it might not matter.

Many gentlemen in the parliament felt that the broken place in North America was a loss-making commodity, and it also affected their land rent income and reduced food prices. It didn’t matter whether they wanted it or not.

It’s different now.

Defeat is inevitable, and the huge amount of goods from Dashun will soon rush in like a tide.

Large-scale unemployment in handicrafts is imminent, and Manchester and Liverpool have begun to be in chaos.

If the parliament does not give these people a way out, they will go to Winstanley’s pamphlet themselves.

Where is the way out?

Really turn out Winstanley’s pamphlet, equalizing land, dividing land, and resisting enclosure movement?

Or, why don't you all pay some money and ask these people to go to North America?

If they go to North America, should the ownership of the wasteland in North America be handed over to the government?

This is a question that does not need to be considered. Even if the matter being discussed in Philadelphia is unknown to the British side. But it is clear that the fight between North America and France was caused by the western border issue. After a long ceasefire, why would they fight with the French again because of the western border?

But the question is, if the British government wants to take ownership of the wasteland in North America and turn it into state-owned land, will those who are frantically speculating on land in North America agree?

If they do not agree, should they suppress it?

If they suppress it, what should they rely on?

Once they suppress it, they cannot use Hessian mercenaries.

This is a very simple legitimacy issue, especially when the Hanover family's rule in Britain is still unstable and the problem of lack of legitimacy has not been solved.

Using the British standing army can at least be called suppressing the rebellion.

Using foreign mercenaries to massacre domestic rebels is extremely bad... I am afraid that a bunch of pro-British people can be turned into anti-British people.

Of course, for George III, the key to the problem is to retain a sufficient number of standing troops after the war. Standing troops mean the king's military power. The king's military power is the foundation of all his so-called ambitions in his young mind.

And the starting point for this standing army to be approved by Parliament is the many problems caused by the grassroots uprising.

Because the chaos in Liverpool is itself a rehearsal after the defeat - what Dashun wants has been obtained during the war. The change in the Atlantic trade pattern will not wait until Britain is defeated, but has already begun. The chaos in Liverpool and Manchester is the embodiment of this change.

George III and his close ministers are obviously clear about this: the end of the war will not solve these problems. So before the end of the war, we must consider how to solve these problems.

But one thing is certain.

No matter how to solve it, whether to solve the problem or to get rid of people.

A strong standing army is needed. At least, a standing army should be retained on the issue of post-war disarmament.

So, don't think that Britain's defeat will make Britain feel that this is a big bad thing like the sky falling.

On the contrary, some people in Britain want to set off fireworks to celebrate this defeat. Because some things would be difficult to deal with if we hadn't lost the war.

Whether it was George III, the Tories, or the rural factions that split from the Whigs, they were all happy. Of course, as long as the French didn't go to the island.

Now it looks like the French can't go to the island either. Dashun is busy in North America, Jamaica and other places. Without the support of the Dashun Navy, the French can't go to the island.

And for George III, this is even better.

It's not easy to survive my grandfather and become a king.

The opposition in the parliament, especially the alliance of the four major families of Pitt and Temple, has made the entire parliament breathless.

Now it's good.

Either, everyone sit down and talk and compromise. Don't form an opposition all day, at least don't form it now, and take this opportunity to achieve some of the conditions the king wants.

Or, then the matter needs to be discussed. At the beginning of the Jenkins's Ear War, Walpole did not want to fight, thinking that war would cost too much money, and it would be better to solve the domestic land tax problem first, but you insisted on fighting; this time when fighting with the French, you were still the most excited, and now it has become like this, how can you explain it?

Compromise is an art that the ruling class must learn. George III certainly wanted to suppress the radicals of the Whig Party, but at the same time, he could not let the Tories dominate alone, repeating the chaos of the Whigs dominating alone after the Tories were not allowed to join the cabinet.