A copyeditor might get this, but, "He was the only person made a duke during the 58-year-old reign of Pedro II." 58-year-old reign reads funny in Australian English, whereas 58 year reign doesn't?
Again, "For decades after his death and the downfall of the Brazilian monarchy" reads funny. This seems like a noun phrase, where "For" acts as a common comparitor and as a verb in the first sub clause. "For decades after his death and for the downfall of the Brazilian monarchy…"? "For decades after his death and during the downfall of the Brazilian monarchy..."? The second verb helps the sentence.
For a 19th century member of the ruling class, I'm wondering how he subsisted. Prior to the elimination of the army under the regency he had obvious access to family support, but during the regency any income earnt by service would have been lost. It might be worth raising his access to private or family incomes during the marriage section, as a great deal of instability in his social and political role occurred here. Later he becomes a wealthy aristocrat, but earlier how he subsisted is interesting
In an era of fraud, corruption and maladministration, was his early military administration exceptionally fraudulent or proper, corrupt or meritocratic, maladministered or well administered? (I'm thinking this is relevant in the section on Quelling Rebellions when he began to experience personal power). He was certainly politically honourable in an era of regular betrayal and intrigue
Double fullstop: " after he quarreled with Pedro II.."
Note E seems an appropriate way to handle a historiography which has been discredited, I especially like that you specifically characterise the historiography, and cite and quote the critics. This is an appropriate way to handle once acceptable, but now rejected, research. In particular it helps that Luís's case was a specific object of interrogation.
Hi, Fifelfoo. I'm very glad to see you here. Below are my answers:
1) Fixed as you you suggested.
2) Fixed.
3) "For a 19th century member of the ruling class, I'm wondering how he subsisted." I'll repeat here what the article says on the "birth and childhood" secton: "Although he would eventually become one of the most important figures in Brazilian history, there is only scant information regarding Luís Alves' life prior to age 36, at which point he was chosen to suppress the Balaiada rebellion." Just so that you can have an idea, there are only two surviving letters by Caxias during the Balaiada, and this was in 1839. Much seems to have been lost. For example, you won't find any picture of him before 1841, and you're talking about the eldest son of the regent! But answering your question: the army was not eliminated, but most battalions were. He was still an army officer and was paid accordingly. This wasn't much, nonetheless. According to biographer Adriana Barreto de Souza, the first known property (a coffee farm) he purchased as in 1838 (See "Platine War" section). Before that he seems to have lived in his wealthy mother-in-law's house. Mind you that being a coffee farmer in 19th century Brazil was quite similiar to U.S. oil magnates in the early 20th century: it meant not just wealth, but power and influence. Caxias was also, durind the regency, Rio de Janeiro's chief of police (as the commander of the Permanent Municipal Guard Corps). This office he probably won due to his father's influence, then one of the regents ruling the country. Caxias later became Pedro II's teacher. As you can see, he had quite a few sources of income available.
4) "...was his early military administration exceptionally fraudulent or proper, corrupt or meritocratic, maladministered or well administered?" He was an honest man as far it's known. This doesn't mean that everyone was honest back then. One of the reasons to why he is so admired was his extraordinary skills to bring order out of chaos. This was well noticed during his command in the Paraguayan War.
5) "Double fullstop:" I changed to "A year later, after a quarrel with Pedro II, Honório and the saquaremas resigned." Is it better?
Lecen, this was my fault and introduced when I consolidated the multiple citations for the sentence. I have fixed it. • Astynaxtalk 19:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6) "Note E seems an appropriate way to handle a historiography which has been discredited..." I'd like to point out that it was not discredited because it was marxist, but for its political tones and lack of reliable research. You see, back in the 1960s and 1970s Brazil was under a military dictatorship that hunted down communists. One of the best ways Marxists scholars found to discredit the army was to criticize Caxias, it's super-hero. It was political struggle, not a truly new historiography. The problem is that Caxias had little, if anything, in common to the military of the 1960s. He was a monarchist, slave owner, farmer, noble, aristocrat, adept of liberalism, faithful to a democratic (to 19th century standards, obvioulsy) government, etc... While the Military dictatorship...
Thank you for your comments. Is there anything else? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 10:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's all. 3) is such a pain, but what we don't know we cannot say. 6) Life under wartime is different to life in peacetime. At the same time, the quality of history is judged by the quality of the research. Even in the Soviet Union people managed to write real history, so facing a dictatorship isn't an adequate excuse. I hope the standards of Brazilian Marxist historiography have improved in peacetime. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't know the answer for that. I'm not strong on history of Brazilian historiograph. The only reason I know about this 1960's-1970's ideological struggle is because many books about the Paraguayan War usually tell a little about the different historical views. Is the article ok, then, in your opinion? --Lecen (talk) 01:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
