Talk:Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Source[edit]

Adapted from 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.

Are you sure? It looks to me like a very large portion of the text came from here. - The Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 16:43, Oct 21

Title[edit]

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.

Article needs Revamping?[edit]

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)[reply]

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!


I would add one more criticism. The article makes note that Steuben served on the Prussian General Staff. Others here have questioned his claim as having the rank of general, but also, the entire concept of the "General Staff", and its influence on organization and command structure, in the Prussian military was unknown at the time. That is, the Prussian General Staff was not established until long after Steuben's time there. It didn't arise at all until after the Napoleonic Wars and didn't reach its perfection until Moltke reorganized it in Bismark's early years. That reference should be changed. I cannot imagine Steuben lied about having a position that did not exist and which no one would have recognized if he had. You can see the Wikipedia page on "General Staff" for corroboration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.1.215 (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steuben's birthday[edit]

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)[reply]

Homosexuality[edit]

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)[reply]

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
Google Books and Google Scholar give several corraborating links to Steuben's homosexuality.[1], [2] Olessi 20:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.69.70 (talk)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Looks like its been mentioned and the phrasing is neutral so I guess this is settled Eno-Etile 06:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually wondering about this myself... I'm doing a report on him right now, you see. I just searched "Von Steuben discharge", or some such thing on google, and came up with this source right here. I have no idea how accurate it is, but it seems to point to some kind of issue with one of the generals in the army. From the source:
Any thoughts? --TheLedBalloon 20:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)- The Led Balloon File:Baloon.PNG(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 21:04, Oct 20[reply]

IIRC Steuben was fleeing from an investigation into buggering young boys, not simply being gay 68.239.25.182 (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually... there is no definite answer as to his sexuality... be it homosexual, heterosexual or asexual. All possible evidence pointing one way or the other is strictly circumstantial and often contradictory.
It's wrong to deny homosexuality in historical figures just because you don't like the idea of gay people (and especially wrong to do it when the historical figure should be worthy of our respect regardless of what he did in the bedroom)... but it's also wrong to just assume homosexuality because someone was not married or not much is recorded about his sexual conquests... or for that matter, to want to assume it out of the desire to "claim" an individual for a group (as if to lend legitimacy or something to a cause/lifestyle).
As for a reference for what I've said -
"The Drillmaster of Valley Forge" By: Paul Lockhart (Smithsonian Books 2008) says on page 203-204 - "There is little to prove one or the other. Steuben enjoyed the company of women, in social settings at least, but like many soldiers of his day he spent nearly all of this time in the exclusively male society of the army. Whether Steuben was homosexual or heterosexual, or asexual, for that matter, may never be known with any certainty. But his inability to let down his guard suggests that he may have been incapable of forming an intimate romantic bond with anyone, male or female."
Furthermore -
"Stueben once dropped a miniature portrait of a beautiful young woman. His personal assistant asked him about her identity, and the Baron choked up. ' She was a matchless woman,' he finally managed to say, but would speak no further about her." One could read this as support of possible heterosexuality... by a man, who like many of his time, found it difficult to talk to or about women.
Also, accusations of pederasty were a common way to discredit a rival... especially when military advancement/rank was in contest... and the target did not have the name, family background/wealth or patrons to shield himself from rumor spread by those of higher social standing. And pederasty was by far not the only accusation thrown at a rival or thrown around simply out of maliciousness or revenge for even trivial offense.
This rumor of pederasty was spread about Von Steuben by "someone at Hechingen", and as we all know, rumors like that take on a life of their own even today, and would especially so in the gossip laden setting of an aristocratic court. It damaged his name badly and hurt him personally, and he had not the resources to fight it (he was broke at the time, unemployed and without position strong enough to effectively counter the accusation... and these things mattered far more than guilt or innocence at that time - socially, this was quite a different era than our current own - evidence and truth often mattered far less than who was making the accusation and who the target of it was in the social heirarchy.) So Von Steuben was left with few choices, even if totally innocent because that didn't necessarily matter then... and the USA is lucky for it.
But it was never more than an accusation... and it exists only as an accusation still. This accusation is the primary evidence people claim in support of saying he was a homosexual... but an accusation is not in itself evidence.
Another commenter named "The Led Balloon" provided a quote that supports what I just said about rivals and rumors - "His career apparently scuttled by the dislike of General Anhalt, Steuben later said that: 'I have nothing to be ashamed of for my part in the war, though it may be that an inconsiderate step and perhaps an unreconcilable enemy destroyed the expectation of a better reward.'"
And also... people were different than they are today. Different in how they spoke to and treated one another... different in how they behaved socially in terms of sexual expression (much more repressed and even timid, obviously). How we are today would be seen as appalingly lewd, while we would see many of them as clumsy and inept when it comes to "talking to girls". Schools were not co-ed, and the sexes were hardly allowed to talk alone together without a chaperone. Consider too, how Wasington behaved towards Lafayette - "with great affection" and they wrote to one another with great affection in their letters, but that was the language and style that was often used at the time between men of generational difference, unlike today. No suggestion of homosexuality is made between them.
The answer to the question of Von Steuben's sexuality is hidden in the complexity of a very guarded man who cloaked himself in fabrications. Personally I don't see how it matters much either way... excepting that historical truth should be respected. In this case, the truth can't be known... the evidence that exists is circumstantial and contradictory. Definitive claims cannot be made or substantiated.
And one more thing... if the accusation of pederasty is false, and with it the rumor of homosexuality... (and again, nothing exists to support or prove either, they are just accusation and rumor)... then we do this man a grave insult to claim he was homosexual, for we would be affirming what stands as only accusation, one that damaged his reputation and hurt him more than anything else in his life... and that's flat out wrong.
Accusations and rumors are not the basis of fact. It is a fact that the accusation was made, but that is all that can be said about this with any certainty.
9Fafner9 (talk) 04:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might this Fasolt toss something at Fafner? Once upon a time, it was believed Beethoven was (consciously or otherwise) sexually attracted to his nephew, and this accounted for their bad relationship. This idiotic idea has been largely discarded. We know Lud was attracted to a number of women, and probably would have married one if they had not been generally turned off by this uncouth slob. We have no direct evidence that LvB ever had sex with a woman (or a man), but the preponderance of evidence points to his being interested solely in women. No one insists that Beethoven's obvious heterosexuality has to be "proved". (Ditto for Brahms.)

Unfortunately, some people want to be "fair" to historical figures, and insist that "accusations" of homosexuality must be proved, according to a standard well beyond what is considered acceptable for "proof" of heterosexuality. This isn't fairness -- it's anti-gay bias.

If something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's usually a duck. Von Steuben's social relationships (which this article does not cover in depth) were limited largely to men, especially young officers. Once he retired, he could have associated with women as much as he cared to (which apparently was very little). His household included young men, and he left his property to them. How much more proof do you want? WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baron von Steuben was gay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.215.132 (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with Wiki user 9Fafner9; the Wikipedia article List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people makes it clear in the lead of the article (in bold face) that people who are rumored to be gay/lesbian/bi-sexual are not to be listed in the article. This was a very lively and very civil discussion; I wish more Wiki Talk Pages could boast that. Take care. ProfessorPaul (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is almost always fire where there is smoke. This article needs to discuss the question of whether von Steuben was homosexual. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in another spot, I agree with it at least being discussed as a reason for him leaving Europe. But historical rumors, especially as done by historians, need to be read with caution. There is great discussion about whether or not John Laurens (an aide to camp of Washington during the revolution) was homosexual because Alexander Hamilton wrote in letters that John needn't be threatened by his engagement to Elizabeth Schyler because he Alexander still loved him deeply. Love between friends was not considered odd at the time, and soldiers today will tell you that some of their closest bonds are with people they served with. John Laurens actually was forced to marry a women with whom he had a child in England before the revolution, and Alexander Hamilton had eight children with Elizabeth. Yet some historians. probably with an homophobic agenda, insist that Laurens, who was killed in the Revolution, must have been gay (it rarely comes up at all in Hamilton's history). It's very tricky, especially in military settings. Jlfeuerbach (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence, "Because homosexuality was criminalized at the time, records of his relationships are limited to references in correspondences. Von Steuben formally adopted Walker and North and made them his heirs," is attributed to "Kapp, Friedrich The Life of Frederick William Von Steuben, Major General in the United States Army, Mason Brothers, New York 1859, p. 707 [3]." That page is an Appendix and only contains a roll call. It says nothing about homosexuality, does not provide information about his correspondences, and says nothing about him appointing heirs. Either the citation is incorrect or that information, should it remain, requires a new citation. Does anyone have more info on this issue? Should an edit be made? Auctoris (talk) 02:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The rumors and accusations should be mentioned, but unless there is a categorization for "being allegedly homosexual" or "accused of being gay", he shouldn't be listed as a "gay man" without solid evidence. This isn't a matter of pro- or anti- LGBT bias, only a matter of fact. Yes, the rumors were something people said and should be included in the article, but nothing more than that. I don't believe that rumors are sufficient to change one's categorization on Wikipedia. If they were, the site would have to categorize all sorts of nonsense as if it were true. It's a matter of evidence, not bias. -- 69.86.190.130 (talk) 03:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore -
"Stueben once dropped a miniature portrait of a beautiful young woman. His personal assistant asked him about her identity, and the Baron choked up. ' She was a matchless woman,' he finally managed to say, but would speak no further about her." One could read this as support of possible heterosexuality... by a man, who like many of his time, found it difficult to talk to or about women.
It´s sounds interessting. Unfortunately I don't know the book.
WHERE was the medallion lost and WHO witnessed it?
Was the fine lady a German or an American lady? He could not have wonthe heart a German lady from high German society.
Temporarily unemployed, without assets, no social network, not from the upper class = no chance in my country. And no chance with the lady, because not befitting her status. ("nicht standesgemäss") 81.20.126.20 (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we not Know that....but We don't know if the author wasn't just trying to whitewash the US icon von Steuben with the moral terms of the 18/19 century? BUT did some of the conservative, puritanical American patriots actually know that von Steuben was acquainted with the Duke of Würthenberg? ..you probably didn't know anything about the charming young lady, who could be described as a (quote) "matchless woman". Check them out!

https://geneee.org/g?lang=en;m=IM;d=1517592683;p=friederike+dorothea+sophia;n=von+brandenburg+schwedt;k=/friederike_dorothea_sophia.0.von_brandenburg_schwedt

Friederike Dorothea Sophia von Brandenburg-Schwedt would have been completely unreachable for von Steuben too (high nobility)....but she was very pretty and super sweet, wasn't she? I found the reference on a page to which the author even warns that there is no proof for this either. True, but it would be possible - also in terms of time - and the description is correct! Or it was another lady from the -unreachable- high nobility. That wouldn't be definitive proof of his heterosexuality either, but it would be an indication! What you can really blame the "conservative US patriots" for is that they always go around with the Stars and Stripes flag but have neglected to check the following in 200 years:

-- Is there a compilation of the list of estates of General Steuben - by the executor/notary. 

Any miniatures/medalions of women and girls that may be present here are of particular interest.

Maybe he later burned the picture...but if the picture (of the distinguished "matchless" lady) ever existed up to the time of his death...

-WHERE did the picture of the lady go?

- And did anyone else see it later and describe whether the lady was dressed in German/European or English/American clothing style of the time?

Many questions, little effort to answer these questions...

I can only speak English very badly, I don't know the USA, what is to do, to check it, can you ask the right places?81.20.127.18 (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Early years[edit]

Why we cannot have current name of Breslau (Wrocław) next to a previous name of this city? Why the change made there would not show up? Zbinienda (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT?[edit]

I've removed the LGBT Military category. The source given (Conduct Unbecoming, by Schilts) doesn't actually say that von Steuben was gay. And reading the above, all we have are rumors. Until and unless there's good sourcing for the statement, it shouldn't be included. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There is nothing that can be said with certainty regarding his sexuality, other than that an accusation of homosexuality was made and he felt gravely insulted by it (see my longer comments above). This does not prove that it wasn't true either, though we just don't know the answer and so that is all we can say on it. It is wrong to categorize this man based only on accusation, especially when that accusation hurt him so deeply, and caused much difficulty in his life. If not true, we would be promoting something false that was said by rivals to damage him. -- 9Fafner9 (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's also possible he was unaware of, or incapable of acknowledging his homosexual feelings. Nevertheless, he is no longer around to be offended. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the accusation of homosexuality isn't enough to be mentioned, at least as a reason that he came to America. Being deeply in debt was a good reason to come, too. Steuben had powerful friends in America after the Revolution that would have kept anything from being "proven", at least to congress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlfeuerbach (talk • contribs) 13:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Training[edit]

The part about training has been corrupted somehow on the 4. January 2010. Could someone please restore that version? it actually looked quite complete and I added some literature yesterday. Later found that the current version makes on sense. Herbertkarl (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Last sentence should read: Later found that the current version makes no sense Herbertkarl (talk) 10:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mother's name[edit]

Back in October a vandal replaced the name of his mother, Elizabeth von Jagvodin (as found in cited source) with the name Sylvia Sue Steuben, and bolded the name. This should be reverted. 50.37.120.141 (talk) 05:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"He went out and talked to the men."[edit]

I wasn't sure this was an appropriate edit, so I'm putting it here. Steuben didn't speak any English, at least when he arrived at Valley Forge. John Laurens, Alexander Hamilton, and probably Lafayette acted as translators for him. This is important for two reasons. One, he apparently made up swear words (and maybe other terms) that were a mash of languages and completely endeared him to the men (Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow). Two, it may have been the link through which Lafayette finally was able to start using his impressive military studies, which were in French, by hearing them translated (complete conjecture on my part). Jlfeuerbach (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlfeuerbach (talk • contribs) 13:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He brought a translator along.[4] 173.228.123.166 (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inspector General ?[edit]

I cannot be sure but I see a potential for error in the use of the title "Inspector General" in this case. Following the link attached to this title I get a description that is not very military but rather bureaucratic. I followed it because here in Germany the "Inspector General" is the highest ranking general of the army and I was astonished that this title also exists in the USA. As General v. Steuben was involved in the initial creation of the modern American army I find it very likely that the title in his case was closer to what it is now in Germany than what it is now in the USA. In that case the link would be misleading and it would be great if someone could improve the "Inspector General" article by adding the historical use there, etc. I have no way to check this but the German Wikipedia implies that in his case "Inspector General" meant that he was the highest ranking person in that particular army (current Germany only has a single army ... so maybe that's the meaning of the title in "our" context and probably in his - the current US use of that title seems to be misleading at least to me). JB. --92.195.5.132 (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pronounciation in German[edit]

In march, the lithuanian user sol505000 changed the german IPA-pronounciation from German: [fɔn ˈʃtɔʏbn̩] to German: [fɔn ˈʃtɔʏbm̩], stating "incorrect IPA - the nasal is alveolar only when the schwa is sounded, syllabic nasals assimilate to the preceding stops". That may be theoreticly correct, but isn't so in reality. As a native speaker of German, who has worked and travelled his life in all parts of german speaking countries, in high german I've seldom heard German: [fɔn ˈʃtɔʏbm̩] (lips closed after the last sound) and most often German: [fɔn ˈʃtɔʏbn̩] (lips slightly open after the last sound). So I disagree with the statement quoted above, and would say that the original german IPA-pronounciation was right - I admit that the difference is small, and that in some cases of mumbling pronunciation also German: [fɔn ˈʃtɔʏbm̩] can heard, but nevertheless there's no need to call a mumbling pronunciation the regular one (or many, many IPA-pronounciations have to be adapted...). ThomasPusch (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Friedrich_Wilhelm_von_Steuben&oldid=1212540155"