Ask About German History

[Susano]

Since German History came up in the thread of our deaaaar ( ) western neighbours and twins (both France and Germany arose out of the Treaty of Verdun in 843, as the West and East Frankish Kingdom, respectively - longest case of sibling rivalry in the world), and since I didn't want to clutter it up, and since it surely is a helpful topic in general, I decided to make this thread.

Of course, personally I can maybe answer some of the often rather general questions about early modern or even medieval history, but as for the often insanely specific questions about 20th century history, that may be another matter. But maybe other Germans or people knowledgeable about German history can wander into this thread.

Now, as for the issues that arose in the other thread:

I don't know if you understand the process pre-Golden Bull because sincerely I don't.

Click to shrink...

Not really, tbh. But I think it involved all crown vassals, i.e. all nobles who owe fealty directly to the Emperor - a number that continuously increased as the Emperors made more and more until then minor nobles imperial immediate (reichsunmittelbar) in order to weaken the large fiefs. That of course was also something that really did not contribute to German centralization/unity.

Another point of confusion was that Francis the First did indeed present himself as candidate for the HRE' election. So how was he able to do that if France had no Elector? Did everyone could just waltz into Aix-La-Chapelle and say "I'm candidate!"?

Click to shrink...

Frankfurt, actually * Anyway, basically yes. That is, there was no real requirement for being elected Emperor. If somebody thought he could convince enough electors, he could give it a try, and Francis did think so. He certainly had the financial means for it - in that time period, before elections became purely ceremonial because the Habsburg became de facto hereditary Emperors, you "convinced" Electors by bribes. Indeed, that was one reason why the electoral nature of the German/Holy Roman monarchy contributed significantly to German decentralization/disunity: In order to get elected, Emperors to be had to make significant concessions to the nobility, and later to the electors. Of course, Francis' bribes were to be purely financial.

*As per the Golden Bull, the Imperial Insignia were to be stored in Nuremberg, the election was to be held in Frankfurt and the coronation in Aachen, but in reality this ended up as both election (purely ceremonial by that point, as it always ended up being the Habsburg) and coronation being held in Frankfurt, while the Imperial Insignia were stored in Vienna, which is why they are there to this day still.

 

[ganonso]

Which date/period you would put for the birth of the German State? We are told in France that before Bismarck we can't exactly call anything "Germany" proper?

I read a bit of HRE history. Was it really such a giant mess? Seriously it seems the favorite pastime of everyone was to kill each others for an imperial crown that gave no much power.

 

[Susano]

Which date/period you would put for the birth of the German State? We are told in France that before Bismarck we can't exactly call anything "Germany" proper?

Click to shrink...

That is, quite frankly, nonsense, but surprisingly widespread nonsense. Really, the developments of France and Germany are effectively mirrored. Both started as parts of the Frankish Realm, and once the Carolingians were replaced started to call themselves something else. I don't know when France first started to call itself France instead of just the West Frankish Kingdom, but in Germany already Henry the Fowler, the first non-Carolingian king, started to call himself German king. There was such a thing as a German kingdom and German king that prior to, well, let's say the Golden Bull were separate from the HRE. Before the Golden Bull excluded the pope from the whole Emperor business, there were German kings who did not become HR Emperors, and in any case the first German king who did become Roman Emperor (only called "Holy" since Frederick I. Barbarossa) was Otto I., i.e. there was an entire century where the Emperorship did not at all reside with German kings (instead various Italian nobles had been named "Roman Emperor" by the pope).

Inside the HRE, there was at least in the High Middle Ages a separation between three constituent kingdoms: Germany, Italy and Burgundy. That in fact were the Imperial offices which made the Archbishops of Mainz, Cologne and Trier Prince-Electors: They were officially the Imperial Chancellors of Germany, Italy and Burgundy, respectively (even though all three are within Germany, heh). That separation became increasingly meaningless as most of Burgundy was lost to France and control over Italy increasingly slipped. By the 16th century, the HRE was effectively Germany, and there was no real separation between HRE and Kingdom of Germany anymore. In fact, the HR Emperors did not even use their titles as Kings of Germany, Italy and Burgundy anymore (which was why the offer to Charles the Bold could be made to be made King of Burgundy... even though he ruled the Duchy ).

But even then... well, the question of how much national identities existed in Europe before the French Revolution is of course a bit of a contested, and often ideological one. But there surely was such a thing as national, hm, awareness. That is, leaving entirely the question aside how much relevance they attributed to it, people were generally aware of "this is Germany/France/Poland" or "I am German/French/Polish". And even in the Early Modern Period, when there was just the HRE, it was entirely clear to everyone that the HRE was in fact the German realm. Hence also the "Holy Roman Empire of German Nation" (Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation) that was used for a bit in the 16th century. In fact, while the King of Bohemia was eventually included in the Electoral College, the position was at first denied to him because, original quote from a document of the time, "he is no German". Or you could also read Goethe's Faust from the 18th century, the scene in Auerbachs Keller, when there is a note to the political situation in the Empire, in Germany.

And really, no Germany before Bismarck? What the hell did your school teachers think 1848 and the Paulskirche Assembly and all that was about? Or why would the German Confederation have been called, well, German Confederation? (As an aside, I think German League makes for a better translation, but oh well, German Confederation is the established term in English). There was no unified German state from 1806 to 1870 (the HRE at least officially was that German state, though of course not in reality anymore at the end, see the Voltaire quote), okay, but there was a Germany the same way there is, for example, a Kurdistan or a Tibet, or maybe as best comparison, the same way there is an Arabia (not the peninsula, but Arabia in a pan-Arabist sense).

I read a bit of HRE history. Was it really such a giant mess? Seriously it seems the favorite pastime of everyone was to kill each others for an imperial crown that gave no much power.

Click to shrink...

Eh, depends on the timeframe. By the time it did not give much power anymore, there generally were no wars over the crown anymore. By that time, the Emperor was always a Habsburg. I mean, the HR Empire was never much united, but in the middle ages, it really wasn't more disunited than anyone else. In fact, in the Middle Ages, when the French Royal Domain was still minimal, the HR Emperors pretty much had a stronger hold over their realm than the French Kings had over theirs. So the Imperial crown, or rather, the German royal crown (as I've said, elevation to Emperor was not automatic then, but depended on the Pope), still had quite much meaning. And yes, apparently in the middle Ages, especially the early Middle Ages, rebellions were quite common. As much as I could tell it went like that: A German King is crowned, who in time will also be appointed Emperor by the Pope, but that isn't very relevant for the situation in Germany. In Germany, the King will dole out the big duchies to members of his family, to ensure they are under his control. However, invariably, the various dukes, all relatives, will form alliances in order to topple the King (being members of the royal dynasty, they after all have some claim to become monarch themselves). That results in many wars, but somehow never works. Most conspirators are forgiven, and some years later they start another attempt. In the 10th and 11th centuries that seems to have been the norm like a never-ending cycle.

That only seems to have ended when the big duchies were broken up, most famously Saxony (which was in what is now called Lower Saxony and not in what is now called Saxony) after Frederick Barbarossa beat Henry the Lion. Afterwards, you had still of course had anti-Emperors and succession struggles, especially the Interregnum after the death of Frederick II the "heretic Emperor". After the fall of the Stauffen, there was no stable dynasty for over a century. Really, the 14th century was probably the worst century in European history, what with the plague, and the 100 Years War in France and endless succession struggles in Germany... so, yeah, during that timeframe it seems your assessment is correct, heh. The situations only stabilized when the Luxemburg dynasty (who was actually centred in Bohemia) became Emperors in the 15th century, followed by the Habsburgs, and yeah, then the Crown stayed with the Habsburgs (except for one Lorraine and one Wittelsbach when Maria Theresia ruled Austria, because women could not become Emperors).

Of course, in the Early Modern Period the HRE was a mess for a completely different reason:



This is a map of what is nowadays Baden-Würrtemberg. Or here is Hesse:



Those were de facto all independent states. It's a pure madness! Almost a fractal: The more in you go, the more detailed the map is, the more tiny enclaves and exclaves you find. And that's just the map. In reality you also get overlapping jurisdictions, shared territorial rights, partially sovereign sub-states, etc etc. Pure an utter madness.

 

[ganonso]

Look at all the pretty colours! :lol

Seriously the only place where we had an equivalent to this situation was Aquitaine and that was because it was a English possession (but the King of England was vassal to the King of France for their possessions in Aquitaine, it's a rather messy story actually)

It's rather amazing the HRE was not wracked in perpetual total war then.

 

[Susano]

Ehhh... This is France in the 15th century. Or here South France. It was bad enough, just not nearly as bad as that. And eventually, all French fiefs disappeared, absorbed into the Royal Domain. Essentially, as I'm sure you know, the Royal Domain became France - at the French Revolution, only Orleans was still a separate fief as an appanage. Meanwhile in Germany, well... that happened.

Wars happened now and then of course, but not as often as one might think. In the Middle Ages not more so than in the rest of Europe, anyway. At that time all European realms were feudally divided, of course. The 16th and early 17th century saw the religious wars (but those happened in France as well of course) and the 30 Years War, and the late 17th century.... well. The wars of the late 17th century was basically "France takes on the rest of Europe. And wins." I mean seriously, look at the War of the Palatinate Succession/Nine Years War/War of the Great Alliance. France fighting against all of the HRE, England, Netherlands, Spain, Savoy, and still winning. So there was no time for internal wars, the Rhine had to be defended against French aggressions

In fact, this is an important counter-point to the idea that the Westphalian Peace destroyed the HRE. As far as institutions went, that was kinda true, but the Imperial idea was still there. In all the wars of the late 17th century, the HRE did in fact stand united against France, at the behest of the Emperor. And when in the War of the Spanish Succession the Prince-Elector of Bavaria sided with France, the Emperor declared his fief forfeited for betrayal! Of course, he got it back in the peace settlement and that set a bad precedent. In the 18th century of course, the German states routinely fought on opposite sides of European conflicts, most prominently in the Seven Years War (France and Austria vs Britain and Prussia). But in the 17th century it still was considered treason to fight against the Emperor; the Imperial idea was still alive then.

 

[lordhasen]

What was the high point or "golden age" of the HRE.

 

[Susano]

What was the high point or "golden age" of the HRE.

Click to shrink...

The period of the Ottonian, Salian and Stauffen dynasties for sure. So 919-1254 (though things were already waning with Frederick II in the end due to his focus on his Sicilian kingdom). During that time, the HRE was essentially the European superpower. Or well, superpower in the "Latin" Europe together with the papacy. And as any two good superpowers, there of course had to be conflicts between them

Otto III could well have built up a centralized Roman Empire (which indeed would most likely have been centred in Rome rather than Germany) if he had not died so young, and Henry VI of the Stauffens (son of Barbarossa and father of Frederick II) nearly succeeded in turning the HRE into a hereditary monarchy.

 

[ganonso]

Point taken with the exception that even the great feudal lords had limited power and independance from Philip the Fair onwards. I think we can say Charles the Bold was the last Duke to have ruled his domain as a truly independant actor.

Seriously French Feodalism is pretty complicated but our kings were on the whole more successful than German Emperors to rein in the nobility

I think the problem is that the perception of the HRE tend to mingle the wars of the 18th century and the Wars of Religion. Add to that that federalism is a strange concept to us and you have the image of the Not Holy, Not Roman, Not an Empire arising.

But let's talk about the wondrous relationship between the HRE and the Papacy.

 

[Susano]

Seriously French Feodalism is pretty complicated but our kings were on the whole more successful than German Emperors to rein in the nobility

Click to shrink...

In the long run, yes, of course. But it had been my understanding that in medieval France (maybe before Philip the Fair), the Kings were seen as rather weak. As for Charles the Bold, he was essentially given full sovereignty in exchange for Burguny not meddling in overall French affairs anymore, so he's a bit of a special case anyway.

and you have the image of the Not Holy, Not Roman, Not an Empire arising.

Click to shrink...

Well, it was true in Voltaire's time, in the 18th century.

But let's talk about the wondrous relationship between the HRE and the Papacy.

Click to shrink...

Ah, yes. Traditionally, before the Golden Bull, it was the Pope's power to name the "Roman Emperor". After the fall of the Carolingian realm, the popes named various Italian nobles as "Roman Emperor", a title that on the whole was pompous and grandious for their station and power. In effect, the title was doled out to whomever could protect the Pope. That time, the 10th century, was pretty much the nadir of papal power. While ceremoniously the Pope was the head of the church, de facto he was little more than the Bishop of Rome, more concerned with Roman and Italian affairs than running a church that at this time did not have much in the way of a united hierarchy anyway. At that time and until the 13th century, churches, abbeys even entire dioceses were dependant on worldly patrons, who thus those patrons got to appoint the priests, abbots and bishops. So, yeah, not much for the Pope to run. Instead, he simply was the local potentate of Rome, and thus involved in violent Roman mob politics and Italian power plays, and he thus needed protection constantly.

That is how Otto I. became the first German Roman Emperor, protecting the Pope from Berengar, King of Italy. And then the Emperorship kinda stayed with the German kings. That however did not solve the problems in Italy. It was almost customary for German kings to get crowned Emperor after leading some sort of expedition across the Alps, most of the time including for the protection of the Pope (against Italian nobles, anti-Popes, the Roman mob, or whatever). That actually was a major problem for the Empire, that the Emperor had to divide his attention between Germany and Italy, with the Alps separating them. When the Emperor was in Germany, all the Italian city-states would become de facto independent; when the Emperor was in Italy invariably some German nobles would rebel. Really, Germany would probably have been better off if the Imperial dignity and the Italian mess had gone to the West Frankish kingdom instead

Now, as I've said, the church was largely dependant on worldly patrons who got to fill Church positions. That meant the HR Emperor, or as far as I know in France also the French King, appointed the bishops. In Germany that was particularly important due to all the land that had been given to the bishoprics. The Ottonians had essentially made the Church an integral part of Imperial administration. Bishops, after all, could have no natural heirs, so one could give territory to them as feudal fiefs without creating rival dynasties. That territory would then be inherited by the next bishop, yeah, but one could simply appoint family members to that position - family members who could not father legitimate children and hence were less likely to start revolutions. So in essence, being able to appoint those bishops was crucial for the Emperors.

However, beginning in the 11th century and reaching well into the 13th century, there was an Europe wide social movement to strengthen the church and church morals in general and the papacy in particular. Among monastries, the Cluncy reformation was an important part of that movement, but it showed itself also in many other facets: It is my understanding that for example, the degree of freedoms women (or at least highborn women) enjoyed markantly dropped in that time, and only now did homosexuality begin to actively be condemned in Europe. For politics, that meant that the Pope now claimed the right to appoint bishops, and thus we get the Investiture Conflict, which went on from mid-11th to mid-12th century.

I must admit I don't know all details about the Investiture Conflict, but it ended in a "compromise" that was essentially a church victory. The Emperors lost the ability to appoint bishops, but the bishoprics kept their lands. IMO, this also majorly contributed to German disunity. Still, the Emperor was still a power in Europe... but now, so was the Pope. Further conflicts were inevitable. Various theologies (especially in the Cluncy monastries) were developed which propagated Papal supremacy over all worldly monarchs, while Imperial jurists tried to find reasons for Imperial supremacy. Popes supported anti-Emperors, and Emperors supported anti-Popes. Sorry I can't give more details, but the middle ages are often a bit blurry to me The height of the conflict was probably under Frederick II, who remained Emperor for decades despite being excommunicated. Really, Frederick II basically gave a negative amount of fucks about the church.

After that you got the Imperial interregnum, which destroyed the Emperor as an European superpower, and then the Golden Bull, which excluded the Pope from naming Emperors, and thus ended the conflict. But for a while, Emperor and Pope as the two most powerful people in Europe really butted heads...

 

[stratigo]

That is how Otto I. became the first German Roman Emperor, protecting the Pope from Berengar, King of Italy. And then the Emperorship kinda stayed with the German kings. That however did not solve the problems in Italy. It was almost customary for German kings to get crowned Emperor after leading some sort of expedition across the Alps, most of the time including for the protection of the Pope (against Italian nobles, anti-Popes, the Roman mob, or whatever). That actually was a major problem for the Empire, that the Emperor had to divide his attention between Germany and Italy, with the Alps separating them. When the Emperor was in Germany, all the Italian city-states would become de facto independent; when the Emperor was in Italy invariably some German nobles would rebel. Really, Germany would probably have been better off if the Imperial dignity and the Italian mess had gone to the West Frankish kingdom instead


.

Click to shrink...

Pffft, and whose fault is that? Italy got to be its own thing in charley's succession. Otto just had to be greedy and conquer it.

 

[Susano]

Pffft, and whose fault is that? Italy got to be its own thing in charley's succession. Otto just had to be greedy and conquer it.

Click to shrink...

Hah, yeah. Henry the Fowler's approach to things (treating Germany basically as a federation of duchies, seeing himself basically in the tradition of Germanic shield kings, and keeping the church out of administration) is a lot more sympathetic to me than the Ottonian approach (centralization based on the church, Imperial aspirations).

 

[Force Lord]

How is Wilhelm II seen in Germany today? Related to that, how does the average German view World War I?

 

[Susano]

How is Wilhelm II seen in Germany today? Related to that, how does the average German view World War I?

Click to shrink...

As pompous idiot, I'd say. If he is viewed at all; I mean, not everyone cares for history. But I think with regard to him it is more his incompetence, pompousness, imperial ambitions and rigidity which are focused on, not that he headed an authoritarian rule - which seems fair, because that was after all more or less the standard at the time.

As for how WW1 is seen... well, I suppose, something Billy's idiocy got us into I think there is a certain sense Germany was the aggressor, but the fault for that is usually sought in unrealistic imperialist designs of the Emperor and his elite, and their overreaching power plays.

 

[Soverihn]

Why did beet sugar only grow in substantial amounts within the German states until the Napoleonic era? It seems like such a good investment; its a cash crop that gives a luxury good without the insane transportation costs (and need to replace countless slaves) of cane sugar.

 

[Susano]

Why did beet sugar only grow in substantial amounts within the German states until the Napoleonic era? It seems like such a good investment; its a cash crop that gives a luxury good without the insane transportation costs (and need to replace countless slaves) of cane sugar.

Click to shrink...

Personally, I have no idea, but according to good old Prof. Wikipedia , the sugar content of the fodder beet had to be detected first (happened mid-18th century), and then the sugar beet had to bred out of the fodder beet (happened in Napoleonic times). So, that cash crop apparently simply didn't exist before.

 

[greendoor]

Personally, I have no idea, but according to good old Prof. Wikipedia , the sugar content of the fodder beet had to be detected first (happened mid-18th century), and then the sugar beet had to bred out of the fodder beet (happened in Napoleonic times). So, that cash crop apparently simply didn't exist before.

Click to shrink...

Is there any military achievement or war that a reasonable slice (IE, people who read history) of non crazy Modern Germans take pride in? WW2 of course is verboten, and I get the feeling that WW1 is too from your previous comment.

 

[brian boru]

As pompous idiot, I'd say. If he is viewed at all; I mean, not everyone cares for history. But I think with regard to him it is more his incompetence, pompousness, imperial ambitions and rigidity which are focused on, not that he headed an authoritarian rule - which seems fair, because that was after all more or less the standard at the time.

As for how WW1 is seen... well, I suppose, something Billy's idiocy got us into I think there is a certain sense Germany was the aggressor, but the fault for that is usually sought in unrealistic imperialist designs of the Emperor and his elite, and their overreaching power plays.

Click to shrink...

Right how about the Bavarian kings? From what I gather the ones living at the time of Wither-armed Willie WEREN'T goddamn morons, how are they and their living descendants viewed? Or are they 'FOREVER TAINTED' for the fact that Hitler served in one of the Bavarian units during the Great War?

 

[Erandil]

Is there any military achievement or war that a reasonable slice (IE, people who read history) of non crazy Modern Germans take pride in? WW2 of course is verboten, and I get the feeling that WW1 is too from your previous comment.

Click to shrink...

Not in modern times, I think you have to go as far as back as Prussia to find a time where the military actions aren`t tainted by the Nazis though I think that you could make an argument for Rommel and his Afrika-Korps in my experiences the myth of a "pure" non-Nazi Reichswehr is a lot more popular in other countries than its hear. (At least in most parts of society).

Which date/period you would put for the birth of the German State? We are told in France that before Bismarck we can't exactly call anything "Germany" proper?

I read a bit of HRE history. Was it really such a giant mess? Seriously it seems the favorite pastime of everyone was to kill each others for an imperial crown that gave no much power.

Click to shrink...

While what Susano says is not untrue your teachers are probably correct when you use some of the more scientific/modern definitions of states and nations.

 

[xa na xa]

While what Susano says is not untrue your teachers are probably correct when you use some of the more scientific/modern definitions of states and nations.

Click to shrink...

One thing that most people forget when speaking about this subject is that the development of the concept of national sovereignty is intrinsically linked to absolute monarchy.

The Westphalian idea of states being absolutely sovereign externally is a complete logical match to the ruler being autocratic internally.

It is absolutely no coincidence that Louis XIV lived in the same century as the 30 Years War.

Later, because/after the French Revolution, the king is replaced by "The People", most often on an ethnic basis.

Like Ironanvil points out, it should be remembered that state, nation, and nation-state are 3 distinct and separate things; though there is a tendency among many to conflate them (and also "country", which is also a different thing).

 

[Susano]

Right how about the Bavarian kings? From what I gather the ones living at the time of Wither-armed Willie WEREN'T goddamn morons, how are they and their living descendants viewed? Or are they 'FOREVER TAINTED' for the fact that Hitler served in one of the Bavarian units during the Great War?

Click to shrink...

There is just about zero monarchism in Germany. That being said, the Wittelsbachs are in no way somehow viewed as particularly bad. I think no former dynasty really is, we just don't care for them anymore It's just not a topic of great interest for people, outside of nobles news in lady gossip journals.

Not in modern times, I think you have to go as far as back as Prussia

Click to shrink...

Which is modern times The classical trias of eras is Ancient times (until circa 500), Middle Ages (circa 500-1500) and modern times (since circa 500). Even if you split the latter into Early Modern Age and Modernity (with 1789 being the border), you still have Prussia in modernity

in my experiences the myth of a "pure" non-Nazi Reichswehr is a lot more popular in other countries than its hear. (At least in most parts of society).

Click to shrink...

I think that's very much a generational thing. Try to ask anybody older than, say, 45.

While what Susano says is not untrue your teachers are probably correct when you use some of the more scientific/modern definitions of states and nations.

Click to shrink...

state, nation, and nation-state are 3 distinct and separate things;

Click to shrink...

Xa na xa is correct, but even so the HRE was "the German state"... it just happened to be not much of a state anymore in the end
And afterwards, the German Confederation was a sort of German EU in structure, so that has to somewhat count as well.

Is there any military achievement or war that a reasonable slice (IE, people who read history) of non crazy Modern Germans take pride in? WW2 of course is verboten, and I get the feeling that WW1 is too from your previous comment.

Click to shrink...

Well, I like to joke that it's quite an achievement that France fell twice for the whole "Going through Belgium" trick , but overall, I don't think there's much pride in military achievements even among historically read up people. I mean, the last war we won was 1870... Still, personally, I'd say it's kinda cool to read about SMS Emden or Lettow-Vorbeck. And yes, the Prussian military comeback after they had been dismantled by Napoleon also was kinda spectacular...

(also, what has that to do with sugar beets? )

 

[Bki]

Well, I like to joke that it's quite an achievement that France fell twice for the whole "Going through Belgium" trick , but overall, I don't think there's much pride in military achievements even among historically read up people. I mean, the last war we won was 1870... Still, personally, I'd say it's kinda cool to read about SMS Emden or Lettow-Vorbeck. And yes, the Prussian military comeback after they had been dismantled by Napoleon also was kinda spectacular...

(also, what has that to do with sugar beets? )

Click to shrink...

Actually, the problem the second time was that the German main attacks was not through Belgium...

 

[Ironanvil1]

Actually, the problem the second time was that the German main attacks was not through Belgium...

Click to shrink...

The Ardennes is in Belgium...

 

[Bki]

The Ardennes is in Belgium...

Click to shrink...

Details .

More seriously, it's still misleading, as the whole French strategy was to fight the German in Belgium. Had they tried a variant Schlieffen Plan instead, I doubt they would have enjoyed the same kinds of success.

 

[stratigo]

Which is modern times The classical trias of eras is Ancient times (until circa 500), Middle Ages (circa 500-1500) and modern times (since circa 500). Even if you split the latter into Early Modern Age and Modernity (with 1789 being the border), you still have Prussia in modernity


I think that's very much a generational thing. Try to ask anybody older than, say, 45.

Click to shrink...

Don't let Peter brown bear those dates man, you'd break his heart

 

[galahad]

How do the ancient German religion and gods relate to the Nordic gods ?