History HubÌý permalink
Germany/Austria
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Munchener (U15013087) on Sunday, 23rd October 2011
Ihave just listened to the episode of Misha Glenny's history of Germany. I found it excellent,but why o why is he making a distinction between Austrians and Germans? He is talking about the Thirty Years War and the Holy Roman Empire and makes remarks of the nature:- the Emperor, who was an Austrian. This is so anachronistic!! One cannot make a distinction between Germans and Austrians until after the Austro-Prussian war, when Austria was expelled from the German Confederation. Until that date Austrians were as much Germans as Bavarians or Saxons or Hessians or Hamburgers.
-
Message 2
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Sunday, 23rd October 2011
I'm still wondering if the old schoolboy rhyme about Hitler and his 50% less genitals was true;-
(Translated into adult euphemism but still whistled to the tune of "Colonel Bogey")
"Schickelgruber, has only got one [testicle], the other ...is in the Al-bert Hall. his mother, the silly [person], put it there when he was small...!" -
Message 3
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Sunday, 23rd October 2011
Good point Munchener.
A similar phenomenon exists in the UK. When discussing the history of the British Empire, for example, then if a soldier or governor etc was Scottish or Irish then quite often this is highlighted. If, however, the individual was English then they are simply referred to as 'British'. -
Message 4
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 23rd October 2011
Munchener,
Excellent commentary on the Thirty Years War.
"I found it excellent,but why o why is he making a distinction between Austrians and Germans? He is talking about the Thirty Years War and the Holy Roman Empire and makes remarks of the nature:- the Emperor, who was an Austrian."
It is in my opinion not so simple as that. In my opinion is Germany only "invented" in 1870. Preparing an answer for a French history messageboard to someone, who questions William II's guilt in the events of WWI. We discussed that question here in nearly 8 threads. I contributed nearly to all of them. In one we had it about the staggering weight of Prussia in the new German constellation. I have to seek it back but Prussia, was nearly 70 % of the population of the new formed state and stretching from the Russian border till the Belgian/Dutch border (Poland didn't exist). Only Bavaria had any counterbalance (and perhaps Baden-Wurtemberg?). In fact in a way the new Germany was almost Prussia.
There is a clear distinction between Austria and Germany. Or are you speaking about the German speaking people? Then you had in both substantial minorities speaking another language. In the new German Empire you had Polish. And French in Alsace-Lorraine (especially in Lorraine). In Austria you had Czech-Slovakian, Polish, Serbo-Croatian, Italian (and perhaps Ukrainian? Jack, OUNUPA?). I don't speak of Hungarian while it was a double monarchy.
You speak about the Holy Roman Empire. That is also such a concept that isn't so simple as that. First it was a loose alliance of territories under one Emperor, started from Otto. The Eastern half of the nowadays Benelux was part of it as vasal, the other half was vasal of the King of France. Parts of Burgundy were under imperial vasality as Bohemia and parts of the nowadays Italy. I have to seek it again, but at a certain moment the Emperor was chosen by a college of 7 "Kurfürsten" (prince-electors). Of course with money you could do something. As was the case with Charles V of the Netherlands/Spain against François I of France. It happened that Charles had more money thanks to the Fuggers.
I did some research for these boards and for the Swedish Hasse about the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation. It seems that the term of German nation is only added in the 17th century. Perhaps that then for the first time the mainly German speaking content of the former Roman Holy empire was recognized?
"One cannot make a distinction between Germans and Austrians until after the Austro-Prussian war, when Austria was expelled from the German Confederation."
I don't agree. There were no Germans, only Prussians, Bavarians, Württemberger, Sachser, Böhmer, Austrians and all that....
PS. Welcome to the boards. Did some quick research for your nom de plume: Munchener. Saw the German name "Münchener" in it...
7D
But as I first entered the internet for search it was all about a "music band"...
Kind regards,
Paul. -
Message 5
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 23rd October 2011
Addendum to previous message.
And about Misha Glenny
Cheers, Paul. -
Message 6
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Monday, 24th October 2011
I don't agree. There were no Germans, only Prussians, Bavarians, Württemberger, Sachser, Böhmer, Austrians and all that....
Ìý
Chimes pretty well with my understand of the situation at that date, Paul -
Message 7
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Monday, 24th October 2011
There is a clear distinction between Austria and Germany.Ìý
Not that clear.
Austria (as exists in the 21st Century) does not correspond to the geographical map of earlier times such as the 17th Century or the 10th Century. For example the western parts of today's Austria (such as Salzburg, Linz and the Tyrol etc) were parts of Bavaria for centuries. -
Message 8
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 24th October 2011
Vizzer,
yes you are right.. I meant there is a clear distinction between the history of Austria and Germany.
Kind regards,
Paul. -
Message 9
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Monday, 24th October 2011
Surely this 'clear distinction' only came about later as the opening poster has suggested. The very fact that Ferdinand II was born in Graz and crowned in Frankfurt would be the embodied proof of a decided lack of distinction.
With regard to the suggestion that 'the new Germany was almost Prussia' then (intriguingly) the second program of the Misha Glenny series suggests that at the time of Frederick the Great, Prussia was the least likely candidate to become the main rival to Austria. Instead he suggests that Bavaria and Saxony were much wealthier and better connected than was 'sandy Brandenburg'. -
Message 10
Posted by hotmousemat (U2388917) on Tuesday, 25th October 2011
There were no Germans, only Prussians, Bavarians, Württemberger, Sachser, Böhmer, Austrians and all that....Ìý
Why should you not be a German just because you happened to live in an area governed by one of these princes? It is only a recent way of thinking that says we must take our identity from the state in which we happen to live. Would we say that no Greeks lived under the sultan in Istanbul - that they were all 'Turks'? Or that Jews did not exist before the founding of Israel? -
Message 11
Posted by Thomas (U14985443) on Tuesday, 25th October 2011
In reply to hotmousemat:
The point in the quote you´ve taken into your post is, that most people are referring by the term "Germans" as to what is meant about that during and after the Napoleonic wars. In the then Holy Roman Empire of German Nation, there is already a referrence to the "German Nation" and although the people thought different about that at the time of the 30 years war, it has been already established. But the referrence was more closer to the common "German language" as to what one understands about "Nation" as it emerged from 1848 onwards.
There is, contrary to what Paul said, no difference in the history of Germany and Austria until the Prussian-Austrian War of 1866 when the Habsburgs were expelled from the German Conferation, created in 1815. The Habsburg dynasty has produced the Kings and Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation for centuries and from the early times of that Empire until 1866, Austria was always part of the countries of the German Empire.
We´ve had similar debates on these boards for serveral times through some years. So that´s the only post I like to contribute to this thread. -
Message 12
Posted by hotmousemat (U2388917) on Tuesday, 25th October 2011
Austria was always part of the countries of the German Empire.Ìý
As the name, whether you take the etymology as being the 'eastern realm' or 'eastern march', suggests. -
Message 13
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Tuesday, 25th October 2011
Why should you not be a German just because you happened to live in an area governed by one of these princes? Ìý
No reason - but I take leave to doubt if they would have regarded themselves as Germans first and foremost, and have defined themselves by that taxon, rather than principally by their local state, then as German after that - otherwise would unification not have occurred earlier? -
Message 14
Posted by hotmousemat (U2388917) on Wednesday, 26th October 2011
No reason - but I take leave to doubt if they would have regarded themselves as Germans first and foremost, and have defined themselves by that taxon, rather than principally by their local state, then as German after that - otherwise would unification not have occurred earlier?Ìý
If you were a 'Saxon' what would that mean? Saxony covered a lot of areas, it was not contiguous, bits of land were added and subtracted. At one time it had been the leading Protestant state, but the Elector became Catholic in order to take the Polish crown. 'Saxon' meant you were a subject of the Elector of Saxony, it meant nothing more - how could it?
Similarly, the Elector of Hanover was also King of England. Other German provinces were ultimately subjects of the Kings of Sweden and of Denmark. Again, what connection could these dynastic structures have with an individual's sense of national identity?
In addition, many of the states were tiny and were continually subdivided (no fixed rule of primogeniture), so Cassell in Hesse becomes Hesse-Cassell, not to be confused with Hesse-Darmstadt etc. Thus your 'state' might amount to no more than 'the big house' in an English village.
At the time of unification, the bigger, more absolutist states that were formed during and after the Napoleonic Wars, were comparatively recent constructions and by no means accepted as the natural order, as the revolutions of 1848 show.
My point is that there was not an automatic emotional connection between the state and those people who happened to live there. You might support it against another state if your state's interest co-incided with your personal economic or religious allegences, but otherwise what would be in it for you?
Against all that, there was a memory of a time when the Empire had meant something, plus the obvious potential for unity of a people who all spoke the same language.
But suppose we look at this from another direction. Nobody would dispute that people like the Irish or the Poles or the Serbs maintained a sense of national identity even though for much of their history the states in which they lived did not reflect this. So why should we find it hard to believe about Germans?
As to the question about why unification did not occur earlier, there are two broad reasons. First, because it would not have been in the interests of the local rulers. Second, because the division of Germany into smaller units has long been in the interest of the powers that surround it. -
Message 15
Posted by Nielsen3 (U14417619) on Wednesday, 26th October 2011
In reply to hothousemat,
While I agree with some of what you write, I beg leave to discuss your paragraph,
"... My point is that there was not an automatic emotional connection between the state and those people who happened to live there. You might support it against another state if your state's interest co-incided with your personal economic or religious allegences, but otherwise what would be in it for you? ..."
As I understand it, it was in the pre-Napoleonic times or there abouts, aka the the period of the encyclopoedias, when 'nationalism' appeared that a separation appeared in the otherwise mostly authoritarian western European states, between the concept of the Monarch and of the State, before that the peoples were 'subjects to a sovereign' - and the State was Servants to that soverign, no matter what title he may have held. How else could a man hold ministerial positions in various states - one after another, or for that matter as an example, be an officer in various armies ending as a British duke and general -
In the above I particularly except the Northern parts of the Netherlands and the Swiss Confederation - both of whom had opted out of the previously mentioned Holy Roman Empire of German Nation, and had that accepted in the treaties following the 30 Years War, or 80 Years war to the Dutch speaking peoples. -
Message 16
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Wednesday, 26th October 2011
Similarly, the Elector of Hanover was also King of England.Ìý
Not 'King of England'.
The Kingdom of England ceased to exist in 1707. George of Brunswick didn't succeed Anne Stuart until 7 years later in 1714 and did so as King of Great Britain.
That aside - a very good post hotmousemat. -
Message 17
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 26th October 2011
Vizzer,
did some research about the "Hausmacht" of Habsburg and about the economy and population of Prussia in 1870.
Wanted to answer to several messages in this thread this evening, but see now that it is already past midnight on the European peninsula at Bruges Belgium. Will try to answer you tomorrow.
Kind regards,
Paul. -
Message 18
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 27th October 2011
Vizzer,
I know there is a lot of "spraakverwarring" (they translate it in my Dutch-English dictionary with "confusion of tongues") on terms as "German" and the concept of the word. I still adhere to the thesis that Germans before the start of a German nation, were those in areas where there was German spoken. We had a similar discussion on a French messageboard: Who is, was French? And the moderators had to close at the end the thread for insults (for I don't know what reasons they call in French "terms of abuse": "noms d'oiseaux" (names of birds)).
Thus for me I still call it Germans with the birth of the German Empire of 1871. Before you had German speaking countries and yes there were Austrians in the Archduchy of Austria as there were habitants of Baden in the Archduchy of Baden, or in the Kingdom of Bavaria, or that of Sachsen or that of Württenmberg. I supposed and know it now for sure that the kings and archiducs still existed after 1871 till 1918. The emperor of Germany was on the same time king of Prussia.
As for the Holy Roman Empire for instance a Maximilian of Austria, was "kaiser" of the H.R.E. and only Archiduc of Austria.
And as for Habsburg, they entered the title of emperor of the HRE from 1438 on till 1806 only to leave it once to a Wittelsbacher Karl VII (1742-1745).
I return to the subject of "the feeling of belonging to a certain regio, nation" in another message as to the reaction of Urnungal and Hotmousemat, which I find pertinent to the subject.
"With regard to the suggestion that 'the new Germany was almost Prussia' then (intriguingly) the second program of the Misha Glenny series suggests that at the time of Frederick the Great, Prussia was the least likely candidate to become the main rival to Austria. Instead he suggests that Bavaria and Saxony were much wealthier and better connected than was 'sandy Brandenburg'."
Vizzer, there you have it again, you can't speak about any country, nation if you don't fix it to a certain year or period of history. If you would do that to the present Kingdom of Belgium it is obvious that you have nearly each fifty years another picture for the area of the nowadays kingdom...And as for Belgians...
...we were once "Merovingians" with Clodovech and all that......
To come back to Prussia in 1871 as I mentioned...
I found in Wikipedia: in 1871 the population of Prussia was 24,69 million 60% of the new German empire. In 1910 it was 62%.
And it was nearly following Belgium with the Industrial Revolution on the continent.
Did some research on the internet to prove what I had read before, with the term "economy of Prussia". But what a mess; hundreds of entries about a certain John Ruskin and a lot about Germanisation and Germanization. Stopped it after the 10th window in google. Sometimes it is a lot better for some subjects to seek in a good library to learn from in depth studies...
Found this:
Read: Bismarck and the creation of the Kaiserreich. Look under this rubrique for the economic achievements of Prussia in the middle of the 19th century.
Kind regards,
Paul. -
Message 19
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 28th October 2011
One cannot make a distinction between Germans and Austrians until after the Austro-Prussian war, when Austria was expelled from the German Confederation.Ìý
Presumably there was such a distinction before the Seven Weeks' War too, else war would not have broken out. Also try this:
-
Message 20
Posted by Nielsen3 (U14417619) on Friday, 28th October 2011
Thank you, Paul and Allan,
Further on Allan's this,
To me most useful.
Nielsen -
Message 21
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Friday, 28th October 2011
Allan,
thank you very much for this video, which looks at the first sight correct. Note that Austria was in fact nearly parallel with the "House of Austria/Habsburg" . I did my research mostly in german-language sites. The House of Austria: the Habsburg "Hausmacht": the territories of the Habsburg monarchy especially the "Erblande" (Dutch: "erflanden"), but I don't find a translation: hereditary countries?.
I found something similar in English:
Allan, learning yesterday that the archdukes and kings still reigned in the 1871 German Empire and also that Maria Theresia was only archducess of Austria and not empress of the HRE. I see now that it is confirmed in the wikipedia site about the House of Habsburg mentioned here just above this paragraph in the URL. Technically I understand it as with the Lex Salica there weren't allowed but male heirs. But you had although the Pragmatic Sanction? We learned nevertheless in our national Belgian history (yes we were under Austrian rule as the Austrian Netherlands) about the "good" Empress Maria Theresia and her "bad" son Emperor Joseph II...
Allan, I know it is in this thread an aside and perhaps we can start a new thread about this question...but if you have some time to search for the question?...as I am with a backlog on the French messageboard about William II's guilt in WWI, archaeological dispute in Israel about the David and Solomon palaces, Göbekli Tepe and on the "geopolitical site" about Greece, the Euro and the international monetary events...
Kind regards,
Paul. -
Message 22
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Friday, 28th October 2011
Nielsen,
and this one from Paul Rietvoorn: the same as from Allan's URL:
But in this URL he takes position, in my humble opinion not backed by history, when he says: the Allies blamed Prussia for World War 2...
From a quick research I learned that it seems to be from a Dutch 19 years old one...such a young one we can't blame...and if it is from his own research nevertheless "chapeau" (hood off).
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 23
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Friday, 28th October 2011
Addendum to message 18.
Vizzer,
and I forgot yesterday and perhaps not straightforward history:
My grandma born 1889 and living near Ghent was in the Fifties not speaking about Germans to me but always about Prussians....perhaps in the collective memory of her days the whole of the imperial Germany was still Prussia...? A bit as we continentals say England when we mean Great Britain?
She was also always speaking about Kaiser Napoleon. I thought that it was about "the" Napoleon, but when I got older I realized that it was about Napoleon III and the war of 1870. There was a lot of collective memory about this war although Belgium and Britain stand neutral in the Franco-Prussian War.
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 24
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Friday, 28th October 2011
hotmousemat, Ur-Nungal, Nielsen,
"My point is that there was not an automatic emotional connection between the state and those people who happened to live there. You might support it against another state if your state's interest co-incided with your personal economic or religious allegences, but otherwise what would be in it for you?"
That's the whole problem. How can you state how a particular group was feeling about their "emotional connection" with an area that happened to be "theirs" at "a certain time of history"? And by what parts of that particular group this "emotional connection" was felt? Especially in the 19th century there was tendency to "construct" a "history" for the countries more and more considered as nation-states.
As a kid we learned the "constructed" history of Belgium starting with Clovis. It happened that the history of France started also with the same Clovis as I learned recently...As we had and have some trouble with the Flemings in Belgium starting from about the late 19th century and to demonstrate that they differed from the rest of Belgium they started to "construct" a specific history of Flanders. And from the reaction the French speaking part was also starting some history...But from when, from what period, the Flemings started to feel like Flemish? In my humble opinion from 1880 on? And it was more a feeling from the bottom on, the common people and some elitist. But the broad Flemish elite including the higher clergy was Belgian feeling. It is only in the 20th century that there came some change.
To come back on the problem in my second paragraph. I read recently a book (and I can find it again in the local library) from a historian, who searched in the Belgian archives of the several periods under different monarchs how the clerks and common man was considering the land in which they lived at that particular time. And it happened that some one was feeling to belong to quite another entity as on the first sight expected.
The Spanish Philip II seems to be felt as an occupation, perhaps as the local elite was against him, Charles V was felt as from the country...
Albrecht and Isabella although they were also under Spanish tutelle were felt as good governors. The Maria-Theresia that I mentioned to Allan was seen as a good empress while she did a lot for the economic development of theNetherlands, but her son although he did perhaps the same as his mother wasn't seen that well while he was so "regulating" on all kind of fields? Hence the Belgian revolution and the United States of Belgium (only for one year). As for the Napoleontic period? There were mixed signs as there were a lot of "collaborators"....
And after reading the book I just mentioned I can understand that a Saxon (even a common one not from the elite) could have felt as a Saxon during a certain time of it's history.
"Against all that, there was a memory of a time when the Empire had meant something, plus the obvious potential for unity of a people who all spoke the same language."
There you have a point I think. But it has to be confirmed by data from the archives of those times I suppose.
Kind regards and with esteem to the three of yours,
Paul.
" -
Message 25
Posted by hotmousemat (U2388917) on Saturday, 29th October 2011
Especially in the 19th century there was tendency to "construct" a "history" for the countries more and more considered as nation-states.Ìý
It's that pesky democracy!
If my King wants to recruit a professional army to expand or defend his territories, that is his business. But if he wants me to pay for it - let alone be part of his army - then he has to convince me that I have something in common with those territories, that we have ties of religion or blood.
I think such feelings are quite subtle, fluid and by no means easy to command. Consider the mixed feelings of Irishmen when it came to fighting for Britain in various wars. It is perhaps easier to create ties by creating common enemies, but there is always the fear of peace breaking out - of the British soldiers in the trenches saying 'what quarrel do I have with those chaps?'
I think we tend to ignore this. When discussing the sweep of history it is so easy to say 'Germany did x' when actually we mean a group of people in charge of what for most of history was a tiny administrative machine, which barely touched the lives of ordinary people. The truth about a lot of 'Germany did x' type statements is that 'Germany may have done x but the Germans were not consulted'.
There is some excuse if you are an Englishman in a long established nation state like Britain, but even here a conversation with an Irishman would soon illustrate it was a mistake to assume citizenship implies identification with and consent to the policies of your state . -
Message 26
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 29th October 2011
hotmousemat,
"If my King wants to recruit a professional army to expand or defend his territories, that is his business. But if he wants me to pay for it - let alone be part of his army - then he has to convince me that I have something in common with those territories, that we have ties of religion or blood."
If I understand it well we are leaving here the "national" feeling for a country to the extension of going to war as an individual for a country felt as belonging to. I suppose that before the modern times there were no standing armies (only from the Dutch example one under Nassau?) The armies were all constituted of the following of the local barons (hence loyalty to the local potentate) or armies of mercenaries as under Charles V? Perhaps the Spanish Tercios the first "national" army, but even they fighting for money and when they didn't receive it they plundered for instance Antwerp in the Low Countries? Then came the 19th century with the emergence of the nation-state where the common man and even the country's elite could be lurred into a fight for monarch and fatherland? In my idea were the religious wars in Europe starting from the 16th century more civil wars, which were many times used by local potentates for their own sake? It were only the believers to their respective religion, who fought for a principle? Perhaps it was the same case with monarch and fatherland?
Came then the time after WWI, where I have the impression that people first fought for so-called principles (or you have to admit that the religous wars were the same?) ? Against Fascism and Communism? And as religion that could be a motive to generate the belief to fight for a "right" cause? And thinking about it you could also see the Crusades in that perspective? Independent from national boundaries?
"I think we tend to ignore this. When discussing the sweep of history it is so easy to say 'Germany did x' when actually we mean a group of people in charge of what for most of history was a tiny administrative machine, which barely touched the lives of ordinary people. The truth about a lot of 'Germany did x' type statements is that 'Germany may have done x but the Germans were not consulted'."
Perhaps if you speak about WWI and even that? But if you speak of the Nazi regime? You have to read about the emergence of the Nazi regime in detail to see that the population wasn't totally helpless in the way to their doom. Don't underestimate the feelings of whole classes of the population for some style of government. The hate between parts of the population gendered from religion and yes I agree belonging to a certain "national group". And even to take some examples of WWII not fully related to Germany. The murdering of Serbs, Jews and Gypsies in the puppet state of Croatia by the Ustashi. And all in the name of the Catholic Croatia. Even the Fascist Italian army was so disgussed by the atrocities that they protected the victims. The same in Lithuania by the locals against the Jews. Beating them to dead with wooden clubs. Even the regular German army was disgussed by this atrocities (although they did the same later in the "holocaust with bullets" in Poland and Russia).
Kind regards,
Paul. -
Message 27
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 30th October 2011
Addendum to previous message.
"Came then the time after WWI, where I have the impression that people first fought for so-called principles (or you have to admit that the religous wars were the same?) ? Against Fascism and Communism? And as religion that could be a motive to generate the belief to fight for a "right" cause? And thinking about it you could also see the Crusades in that perspective? Independent from national boundaries?"
Hesitating again about my statements of yesterday. It's therefore among others that I put all my sentences with a question mark, as those from the second paragraph. For instance the Japanese search for "Lebensraum" (espace vital? in French, vital space? in English) was perhaps still the old imperial dream à la "Wilhelminian Germany" and not a fascistoid supported community? For instance Stalin and his close circle searched also for the old adages of the Russian fatherland and the fatherland related Greek-Ortodox religion, when things turned wrong in 1941 and not the party lines of the struggle against Fascism? Perhaps the strong bonds of belonging to a certain group, entity and adhering to a certain "religion" are still primordial as we have it inherited from the dawn of humankind? As for religion I thought of recent events and a question of Nordmann on these messageboards some time ago about the history of laicism and the survival of it and the separation between church and state...or something in that sense....
It's quite a complex material to discuss and perhaps I am as an "apprenti" (apprentice?) in historical philosophy not clever enough to construct a logical model, which fits to reality?
I guess even the erudite Nordmann would get entangled at the end in his own arguments although each argument on its own would be logical?
I stop, before there is too much rambling...
Kind regards,
Paul. -
Message 28
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Sunday, 30th October 2011
Not to do with Germany/Austria, but picking up on hothousemat's point of how people see themselves, I began a novel last night and on the second page it says, "For, despite the claims of the Empress Catherione, the people of Dot [imaginery Baltic town] did not count themselves as Russian. Not at that time. At that time, the men of Dot - if anyone had cared to ask then - might have spoken of themselves as Finns or Swedes. Perhaps, at some other time, they might have nodded to far-off Denmark or even Prussia. Some few might have called themselves Poles or Letts but, for the most part, they would have stood proudly as men of Dot."
I do think people, partly in the past but not exclusively so, do connect themselves far more with their local community than a wider national one. I am aware that the people of the Chatham Islands, definitely part of New Zealand and having NZ nationality, talk of going to "New Zealand" when they leave for school in the North or South Islands. (Can't say "The Mainland", because for historical reasons that actually means the South Island.) They obviously don't think of themselves as quite as New Zealand as the rest of us.
But I suppose the OP was not talking of how people see themselves but as how they are in a political/economic sense.
Caro. -
Message 29
Posted by hotmousemat (U2388917) on Monday, 31st October 2011
As I suggested earlier, I think there was a change with the rise of democracy, or to be more precise 'self determination'. If we have a right of self-determination then we need to know what defines 'us', as opposed to 'them'.
I think that you could say that this problem is being played out today in that modern multi-national institution, the EU. How much are you a European? (How much are you prepared to do for the Greeks?)
I am not sure I can answer that question even for myself! So if I don't know my own mind about a contemporary issue, how much more difficult is it for me to guess from what standpoint a ploughman in Schleswig-Holstein saw a Austro-Prussian War that was notionally being fought over his political future. -
Message 30
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 1st November 2011
Re: Message 28 and 29.
Caro and hotmousemat,
Caro,
" I do think people, partly in the past but not exclusively so, do connect themselves far more with their local community than a wider national one. I am aware that the people of the Chatham Islands, definitely part of New Zealand and having NZ nationality, talk of going to "New Zealand" when they leave for school in the North or South Islands. (Can't say "The Mainland", because for historical reasons that actually means the South Island.) They obviously don't think of themselves as quite as New Zealand as the rest of us. "
hotmousemat,
"I am not sure I can answer that question even for myself! So if I don't know my own mind about a contemporary issue, how much more difficult is it for me to guess from what standpoint a ploughman in Schleswig-Holstein saw a Austro-Prussian War that was notionally being fought over his political future."
That's essentially the problem I am wrestling with.
Perhaps England and France were before the 19th century the only nations where there was some form of feeling of belonging to those respective entities. And even there there was still a strong adhering to the own region as in the South, the East, the West of France even with their own local languages. Some say that it was only in the 20th century with the conscription in the army where the regions were mixed that there was a real common French feeling starting.
And for the borderlands, as the Low Countries, Alsace-Lorraine, Luxemburg, which reguralry changed hands there was a continuous changing of loyalty and hence a loose connection and identifying with one or another entity? Perhaps an exeption for the Dutch Republic, which had already starting from the 17th century a national feeling due to the revolt to Spain? But as it was divided in several regions (states) it could be that it was more a sense of the biggest state of Holland, which set the trend?
And about Belgium I found in the meantime the work that I mentioned in my former message:
"L'invention de la Belgique" (the invention of Belgium) by Sébastien Dubois and he let the start of "some" regional (as roughly confined to the present day Belgian borders) feeling begin with 1648 The Southern-Netherlands, first under Spanish tutelle and then part of the Austrian empire and later the French Republic and Empire.
The same for Italy, which had only for ages only the far away memory of the Roman Empire, but later divided in city states and later in three parts. They said to me that the several Italian dialects still reflect these former regions and that they are nearly unintelligible to each other.
And I suppose that the same circumstances triggered the same situation all over the world? It is just that I know the regional circumstances of Europ the best...
hotmousemat,
"As I suggested earlier, I think there was a change with the rise of democracy, or to be more precise 'self determination'. If we have a right of self-determination then we need to know what defines 'us', as opposed to 'them'."
Excuses, but now I understand what you meant in your former message.
Kind regards and with esteem to both of you,
Paul. -
Message 31
Posted by Priscilla (U14315550) on Tuesday, 1st November 2011
You also understand as well as know the regional circumstances of Europe which many of us in insular Uk find hard to comprehend - even if we have studied history; I had mostly Prussia in my schooling.
My mother was partially raised by a couple whose nationality confused me - and possibly them.
During WWars they were Swiss, before and after it varied - according to the hat they wore that day, my mother said. The wife was definitely German, her husband Swiss yet they both leaned towards a love of Austria . I inherited his stamp collection - only German Swiss and Austrian. stamps....... and they had lived in UK since 1912. In truth we never really knew
Thank you for you posts Paul.
Warm regards, P. -
Message 32
Posted by Meles meles (U14993979) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2011
In the papers here (France) a few years ago they were commemorating the death of one of the last soldiers of WW1. He’d been born in Alsace and had fought for the Kaiser against France. Following border changes his home became French and in 1939 he was recruited into the French army to fight against Germany. Late in life, when asked where his felt his loyalties lay he said with my farm and my cows…. or something like that.
Meles -
Message 33
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 6th November 2011
I am somewhat surprised that no-one seems to have really brought out the fact that Austrian history, and much of its life prior to the post-1918 settlement , was dominated by the fact that finally the position of Holy Roman Emperor- that had moved around various monarchies during the Middle Ages as the result of its "elective" basis- had become fixed upon the Austrian Crown.
Surely part of the anomalous situation created by the emergence of the Austrian "nation State" after 1919 was due to the fact that, much as Rome had out-invested other potential "Papal States" in providing an appropriate Headquarters for the Head of the Universal Church, Vienna had invested in a becoming a city worthy of being the Capital of a Multi-Lingual, Multi-cultural, Multi-faith and Multi-racial Empire inspired by the Empires of ancient time.
German nationalists came to hate this before 1914 and Adolf Hitler refused to fight for Austria-Hungary because it was not "German" enough, crossing the border and enlisting in the German army.
When Austria was created Vienna was like a head with almost no body.
The protesters outside St Paul's at this moment might well argue that London has had a not dissimilar experience. London grew to be the great world 'entrepot' in a situation when Britain was the number one world power. By the Sixties London and its Inner City areas and the docklands was in decay and decline as the Empire dissolved.
The "Big Bang" ushered in a new era in which "The City" was "given its head" and now the challenge of reining in its thrust with all the unstable dynamics of its goalless existence is a daunting one.
Cass -
Message 34
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 6th November 2011
Furher to my last:
Surely from the time of Charlemagne "Austria" had been as "Italian" as "German". Only in the European Year of Revolution 1848 did Italian nationalism really begin to develop a successful anti-Austrian dynamic. So , as is brought out in the play/film "Amadeus", it was only natural that Mozart would bring "Italian opera" to Vienna - the eastern cultural centre of Europe that rivalled Paris- in competition with Salieri.
But even Goethe went to spend some time in Italy in order to "see the light", only to return to Weimar shortly before the invasion by revolutionary France. back home he was shocked by re-acquantance with what in contrast he could see as a dark, sombre and rather Gothic Germanic culture that had become enclosed and darkly introspective. In a way the Dr. Faust story as he told it was a parable for his own journey trying to bring light and love into darkness and suffering.
Cass -
Message 35
Posted by Nielsen3 (U14417619) on Sunday, 6th November 2011
Cass,
Re your message I think a few nits need to be picked.
"I am somewhat surprised that no-one seems to have really brought out the fact that Austrian history, and much of its life prior to the post-1918 settlement , was dominated by the fact that finally the position of Holy Roman Emperor- that had moved around various monarchies during the Middle Ages as the result of its "elective" basis- had become fixed upon the Austrian Crown.
Surely part of the anomalous situation created by the emergence of the Austrian "nation State" after 1919 was due to the fact that, much as Rome had out-invested other potential "Papal States" in providing an appropriate Headquarters for the Head of the Universal Church, Vienna had invested in a becoming a city worthy of being the Capital of a Multi-Lingual, Multi-cultural, Multi-faith and Multi-racial Empire inspired by the Empires of ancient time. ..."
Austria was - pre-1804 - one of the Habsburgian Hereditary Countries (German: Habsburgische Erblände) which were joined by Ferdinand I, HRE 1556-1564.
1521 Ferdinand became Archduke in Niederösterreich and Oberösterreich. At the samt time he became ruler of Steiermark, Kärnten og Krain (Slovenia). Later he became Lord of Tyrol and parts of Schwabia. In 1526 he became King of Böhmen and Hungary.
Following the death of Ferdinands 1564 the 'Erblände' included various bits and pieces in and of Central Europe. Besides, Belgium, Luxembourg, and parts of Italy have at times been belonging to the 'Erbländer'.
1804 they changed name to The Austrian Empire, which again, following the Austro-Prussian War 1866 became Austro-Hungary.
Thus your sentence ' ... When Austria was created Vienna was like a head with almost no body.' This only to some extent became true following WW I.
May I point your attention towards
As to Adolf Hitlers eventual reasoning behind his enlisting in the Bavarian Army, I simply don't know - and care even less about this point to read 'Mein Kampf' in German.
Respectfully
Nielsen -
Message 36
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 6th November 2011
Nielsen3
My initial remarks placed the Holy Roman Empire back at its origins 7 centuries or so before the period to which you have referred. I did specify "the Middle Ages" which most people would accept had ended by c1500.
But you have given chapter and verse on that period when hereditary legitimacy and the marriage-game combined (as you explain) to create the Hapsburg superstate- divided into two halves by the Emperor Charles V who repeated Charlemagne's policy of dividing his Empire between his sons- this time only two rather than three.
But , as you have explained, the throne and therefore the political and historical unity was not limited to people who would have considered themselves "German".
As for your statement:
"Thus your sentence ' ... When Austria was created Vienna was like a head with almost no body.' This only to some extent became true following WW I."
That seems to be exactly what I said in the second paragraph of my message that you chose to quote.
As for Hitler I had in mind the analysis of the Bavarian extremism in the years before 1914 that was described by Eric Heller in "The Disinherited Mind" (1952) that was also my source on Goethe.
Cass
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.