"Surprise Christmas Present......." Topic

@ von W

The Quarrie extract is from his potted bio of Welly. The British refers, I think, to the nationality of the commander. Elsewhere he gives a fuller account of Waterloo which, sure enough, mentions the multinational army Welly commanded, and the 50,000 Prussians.

I think the point 10th Marines is making is that what one means by "Germany" depends on who's speaking and when. The "German nation" of the Holy Roman Empire wasn't the same as the German nation of 1871-1918, which wasn't the same as the Germany of 1933-45, which wasn't the same as the Germany Ay-dolf had in mind, which wasn't the same as what we have now. So I guess the question is, what did "German" mean in 1815, and which later version of Germany is PH talking about?

Which brings me back to my previous point. The Germany of 1871-1945 is now a region of the EU. Does this make Kursk 1943 an EU defeat? Was Wellington Irish because where he was born is now part of Ireland? Was Masada a Syrian victory because the Roman legion involved was recruited from there?

It just seems an eccentric way of looking at things. Fun, but eccentric.

The point 10th Marine tries to make is point less.
In case I remember correctly the subtitle is the German victory and not the victory of Germany.

It is also the Franco-Prussian War 1870 / 71 in English, but in German Der Französisch – Deutsche Krieg von 1870 / 71.

All PH is talking about is the distortion of the whole battle into a British victory ignoring the contribution of the Germans to both his own army and in the shape of the Prussians, whose arrival is often claimed to have been around 4pm. The Germanic record has largely been ignored since 1870 generally, which has only added to the myth of Wellington. It was a pithy subtitle, which was obviously designed to get attention and flag up the fact that the works would include looking at the Germanic source material, somthing not done by previous 20th century authors.

Whether Germany was a state, nation, national feeling or myth born in the Teutobergerwald is irrelevant.

"Which brings me back to my previous point. The Germany of 1871-1945 is now a region of the EU. Does this make Kursk 1943 an EU defeat?"

Did anybody on that side of the battle of Kursk refer to themselves as "European Union citizens?" (or whatever the demonym for an EU denizen could be, if it were a nationality?) Obviously, no.

"Was Wellington Irish because where he was born is now part of Ireland?"

Did he call himself Irish, or consider himself Irish? Not to my knowledge, although I have seen plenty of authors give him the hyphenated "Anglo-Irish." But I'm assuming he considered himself, and called himself, an Englishman.

"Was Masada a Syrian victory because the Roman legion involved was recruited from there?"

Did they call themselves "Syrians"? Did they use that word? (I don't know, but I presume not.)

- -

On the other hand, did anybody in Wellington's or Blücher's armies in 1815 refer to themselves as "Germans" ?

Obviously, yes. A great many of them. It was indeed their own sense of ethnicity and nationality.

Blücher used the word to describe himself constantly. It's all over his writings. (For those who can endure reading his, er… "writing".) It's all over Gneisenau's writing. It's found throughout Napoleon's correspondence, for that matter. If it's incorrect to refer to "Germans" or "Germany" in this era, then why did Napoleon do so, so often? (He sometimes called it "l'allemagne," and at other times, "La Germanie.") Just as he referred to "Italie" and "italiens" long before such a nation-state existed.

I've read hundreds of memoirs and correspondence from the period, in which German soldiers call themselves "Germans", whether they're from Lippe or Bohemia or Mecklenburg, or Hessen-Darmstadt, or wherever. Just last week I was reading an extract from a Silesian who had ended up in Westphalian service and got sent to Spain, and as he was marching back the next year and they were ferried over the Rhine into Baden, he commented on how happy he and his comrades were (none of them Badeners) to be "back on German soil."

Whether they were loyal to specific German states first and foremost is a totally separate question. And incidentally, the "Germany" of 1871 wasn't officially called "Germany" either. It was officially the "deutsches Reich." But in popular usage, everybody called it "Germany," because they'd already been calling those lands, collectively, "Germany," for centuries.

- -

As for the subtitle of PH's books? Had I been the publisher, I might have suggested something different. But as Dave Hollins says: Book titles generally try to be catchy. If somebody is going to go out of his way to criticize the book by alleging such a pedantic point as whether or not the word "German" should appear in the subtitle… then that person probably has other (and many) axes grinding away busily.

All PH is talking about is the distortion of the whole battle into a British victory ignoring the contribution of the Germans to both his own army

The nationality of the soldiers in Wellington's army are irrelevant to Wellington's personal claim to any part of the victory surely?! As far as his personal claim is concerned it is still my understanding that it was Wellington's plan in that he chose the battlefield and that the allied army would fight the French there until the Prussians arrived to turn the tables on the French.

and in the shape of the Prussians, whose arrival is often claimed to have been around 4pm.

Again if anyone can site C20 sources which ignore the Prussian contribution to the victory let's hear them. As has been said before it is news to only those who have read nothing printed on Waterloo in the last 100 years.

@ Schnurfel

The point surely is that Europe today increasingly perceives itself as a country, and "European" to denote a nationality rather than a geography.

If you asked a 1943 German whether he was European, African, American, or Asian, he'd have said European. He'd be speaking in the geographical sense. Wind the clock forward 70 years and voilá! The army defeated at Kursk would have described itself as European! – because the geographical term is being taken, anachronistically, to mean the same as the modern political one.

I just have trouble accepting the idea that everyone who referred to Germany or German soil in 1815, or who spoke German, considered this equivalent to being "German", except in the Kursk sense above. I'd be interested in some proper historical reading in this if there is any (and as long as it's not too excruciatingly boring).

None of which takes away from the terrific work PH did bringing all this Prussian reference material to our attention and use. When I got into this malarkey in the 1970s there was literally no good book on the Prussian army and no 1806 figures in 25mm! How times change!

"the Chinese sock puppet account complete with fake accent.."

I would like to know more…

"I just have trouble accepting the idea that everyone who referred to Germany or German soil in 1815, or who spoke German, considered this equivalent to being "German", except in the Kursk sense above. I'd be interested in some proper historical reading in this if there is any (and as long as it's not too excruciatingly boring)."

Boring is in the eye of the beholder, of course, so caveat emptor… but I'd think one obvious place to start would be J.G. Fichte's "Addresses to the German Nation," most of which are available online. It's 1808, and he's a Saxon, formerly a professor at Jena, now working in Berlin, lecturing about the meaning of being German.

You can get excerpts from the database at Fordham U, if you want a quick scan:

link

link

(That's just a bit; there were thirteen essays in all.)

Then perhaps you can look at E.M. Arndt's "What is the German Fatherland?" (One of many examples of his nationalist work – arguably nutty and xenophobic, but never boring.)

Anything by Theodor Körner, but especially the "Free German Poems" collection, or "What Remains to Us."

There is of course Johannes Palm's "Germany in her Deepest Humiliation," the essay that got him executed by Napoleon. I've only read it in German, but I know it's available in English. Google Books, perhaps?

F.L. Jahn's "The German People" (Four hundred pages of minute descriptions of what makes "Germans" unique and different from other nationalities, and how the Germans have gotten themselves into their present mess.)

Any of the Freiherr Stein's essays and correspondence about German nationalism and his desire for unification.

I'm limiting myself here just to contemporary Napoleonic-era figures, whose work is available in English, otherwise this list would go on forever.

The aforementioned are by no means all Prussians. Jahn was originally from Anhalt. Körner and Fichte were Saxons. Arndt was a Pomeranian, born a subject of Sweden. Palm was a Württemberger living in Bavaria. Stein was a Nassauer.

"The point surely is that Europe today increasingly perceives itself as a country, and "European" to denote a nationality rather than a geography."

Mmmmm… I think that's a very long way off. Some Europeans – perhaps more than half – are ready to think of the EU as a new form of "state", but I'd say very few think of it as representing a "nation" or nationality.

I just don't see that example as apples-to-apples. Germans had at least two centuries of thinking of themselves as Germans, before Napoleon came along. The old Reich was, after all, the "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation." That name is not mere coincidence.

Present-day Europeans, by contrast, are in the process of experimenting with brand-new forms of supra-nationalism that may or may not at some future time create a new sense of identity that supplants the older identities. It's not the same thing.

Thanks for the links. Presumably though Prussia, being a Protestant country, wasn't part of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation and therefore wouldn't count as German under that definition?

Well, the East Prussian part of Prussia wasn't part of the Reich. But Brandenburg (the four Marks) was. (It's a weird situation; blame the Great Elector, but that's a long story.)

And there were a few non-German regions of the Reich, too, like the Netherlands.

So anyway, yes, "Prussia" (more accurately, Brandenburg-Prussia) was part of the Reich, as were other Protestant states like Württemberg, Bohemia, and most of the Hessian duchies. Saxony was mostly Protestant, although the dukes were usually Catholic.

Indeed, the Prussians had an electoral vote for the Emperor.

Looks like PH actually achieved his objective…stirring the pot yet again. LOL

Not really, we kept it civil and informative!

They are valuable books, but a different view is possible and respectable.

There was a TMP thread last year on which nation contributed the most to the defeat of Napoleon,

the British seemed to get a large and vociferous support – frequently citing Wellington as the best general of the wars as well.

I believe that was the attitude which PH was seeking to counter when he titled his second volume book on Waterloo as the German victory.

Having failed to read Hamilton Williams past the first self referential (my forthcoming book) footnote, I can't say for certain whether he claims it as a British win, but I would certainly expect him to be one C20 author who did emphasises the Anglo contrribution over all others.

but broadly, the two PH books under debate now are written as a counter to an attitude, rather than to a specific author, I think.

Sadly, as we see all too often on this forum, folk find it easier to argue about the title as though it were an accurate synopsis of the contents of the book itself.

In some ways, its a shame we can't test whether a poster has actually read the book under discussion before they post – but I expect someone will have an objection to that.

the British seemed to get a large and vociferous support – frequently citing Wellington as the best general of the wars as well.

IIRC it was British gold and naval prowess that were the most cited reasons for the claims so nothing really to do with Waterloo.

but broadly, the two PH books under debate now are written as a counter to an attitude, rather than to a specific author, I think.

So apart from, possibly, one book that emphasises the British contribution there seems to be a lack of it in the books written over the last 100 years. Where then does this attitude come from? And more to the point who has such an attitude?

Actually, no…the Hamilton-Williams Book was not supportive of Wellington at all – highly critical of him in fact. However, P H was able to demonstrate some very questionable use of Sources in the work which led to further questions to be raised about Hamilton-Williams, until eventually the author had little credibility left. I think Hamilton Williams had been uncomplimentary in his books about William Siborne, and that was what Peter Hofschroer had originally objected to.

Back then, PH was a regular writer and Reviewer in First Empire Magazine, and that was where Hamilton-William's reputation as a Napoleonic Historian was pretty much destroyed – I remember reading the installments each month back in the 1990s.

Dave Hollins

Sorry about the 'Tom H.' request. I have a friend named Tom Hollins and I am easily confused.

I am interested in your comment about David Chandler:

Chandler told me himself that he wrote Campaigns of N largely from secondary material as a basis for others to take the work on and he was always delighted to read the new work as it came up, even if it showed it was 100% wrong.

I would like to use the story in a book I am writing, if I may, in a positive fashion. I certainly would vett it with you before publishing. I am curious if there is more to the story, or if Dr. Chandler said more on the subject elsewhere.

Again, my email address is insights@oro.net. The one I have for you must be old as it doesn't work.

Bill H.

Yes, Fred, that would be the attitude.

Fred is completely correct.
The Prussians, Hessians, Hanoverians, and all those other so called Germans have been overpraised as they were not even at the Battle of Waterloo, any English author giving even the faintest nod towards their assistance in the English victory at Waterloo is doing them a favour.

Der Feldzug von 1815, Clausewitz
39 Die Schlacht von Belle-Alliance.

Though apparently both battles took place on the same day.

Bill – There aren't many of us (about 1400 households worldwide including descendants of slaves) despite our control of the winter supply of holly in the Penines! I will write off-forum.

Yes, Fred, that would be the attitude.

So no real evidence at all then! :-)

Fred is completely correct.

At last someone talking sense! :-)

The Prussians, Hessians, Hanoverians, and all those other so called Germans have been overpraised as they were not even at the Battle of Waterloo, any English author giving even the faintest nod towards their assistance in the English victory at Waterloo is doing them a favour.

Interesting how those same Germans when fighting for Napoleon don't get the credit despite making up over half the army that went into Russia. "Borodino the German Victory!" anyone? :-)

I've had a couple of run ins with him. Always liked the Teutonic way did Peter. He was in 10th Silesians, I was a tambour in the 21eme at the time.

silesian teutonics ?

I'd challenge you to go to Silesia today and tell them they were pro Teutonic. see how far back out of Poland they throw you.

"Interesting how those same Germans when fighting for Napoleon don't get the credit despite making up over half the army "

An interesting thought. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any battles that are considered "French victories" in which Germans made up half or more of the troops.

Surely there were some little scrums here and there in Spain, perhaps, in which that was the case.

Gorodetchnya, perhaps? (Does it count as a "French" victory if there were no French troops, and an Austrian was in charge?)

…Although admittedly, by 1811 or so, it's getting pretty tough to say who's "French", since the borders of France had expanded to take in so many Dutch, Flemish, Italians, Germans, Croats, etc. So who knows. Perhaps a good many "Jean-Pierres" were in fact "Johann-Peters."

'IIRC it was British gold and naval prowess that were the most cited reasons for the claims so nothing really to do with Waterloo…So apart from, possibly, one book that emphasises the British contribution there seems to be a lack of it in the books written over the last 100 years. Where then does this attitude come from? And more to the point who has such an attitude?'

Perhaps it's a strawman argument?

Regarding 'Prussian' and 'German' along with the other assorted Germans, I would suggest that to the Prussians, 'German' meant Prussian or under Prussian domination. The Prussian General Staff became the German General Staff, and the amount of territory 'liberated' by Prussia in 1814 became part of Prussia, not 'Germany.'

Prussia was the leading German state and in direct competition with Austria for domination in Germany. The annoying habit that the smaller German states were constantly threatened with domination from either Prussia or Austria and worked hard to maintain their independence.

K

Peter H used to reenact 10th Prussians back in the early 80s when he lived in the UK-he also took part in an event at Dieppe in 83 or 84-one of the wettest events I took part in. Peter certainly demonstrated his German POV there.

Just a thought but we British consist of English, Welsh , Scottish and Irish nationalities, and nearly all speak English. Even so, most people probably feel English first and British second, the same with the Welsh, Irish and Scots, in that they see themselves as Welsh, Irish or Scottish first. During the Napoleonic Wars, I would suggest that the Prussians, Bavarians etc, thought themselves Bavarian or Prussian first and German second, mainly perhaps through their language connection. As for German units helping or winning battles, those who fought on both sides, from what I have read, generally fought equally as the French or British. What we need is more books like Gill's 'With eagles to Glory', to help show the contribution they made to the period we all love.

What a complete misunderstanding, the Bavarians might think they are Bavarians first, so do the Saxons, so do the Badener – but after all – they are German, the Scottish, Irish – Welsh are no Egnlish at all, but do speak or spoke their own language, I mean language and not dialect.

You're missing the point of the exercise. Yes, they are Germans, but it is what they consider themselves to be that is the issue at hand. That is because Bavaria, Saxony, Wurttemberg, et al, is their country-not the geographical area of Germany as a whole.

They don't wish to be Prussians or Austrians, as the history of the region definitely points out. And both Prussia and Austria wanted to dominate Germany and make it part of the greater Prussia or Austria. Prussia won out and dominated the development of the German Empire and later Germany.

The Welsh, Northern Irish, English, and Scottish are all British, and the region is Britain which is similar to the German issue that is under discussion. Not the same, mind, but similar. The British seem to have handled the issue much better that the Germans did, and quite a bit sooner.

That is the issue which you have unfortunately missed.

K

Hi Kevin

A really good posting and I guess you have explained it better than I did, although I thought what I suggested was quite clear. But perhaps there are those who might not want to believe or hear it. But, from what I can see, the Germanic (if I can use the term) nations did themselves proud, whichever side they were fighting on. And, in my opinion, they all helped make our period so exciting and interesting.

"You're missing the point of the exercise. Yes, they are Germans, but it is what they consider themselves to be that is the issue at hand."

I thought that the issue was your critique of P.H.'s book with the words:

"The only problem with that is there was no political state of Germany under one government and there wouldn't be until 1871."

i.e., you object to his book ("the only problem") solely because he used the word "German", when there was no such nation-state at the time.

That was the issue, as you raised it. You didn't raise any other critique of his book; just his use of the word "German."

I'm still waiting to hear, then, why your books make reference to "Italians" and "Poles," as there were no such nation states at the time. And I recall that you've made several references to "Irish" people of this era, which is curious, given that there was no Irish nation state at the time. And I'd love to know what term you use to describe the Italian Renaissance. I'd also like to know whether or not you believe that the Mamelukes were "Arabs", since there was not any nation-state with that name.

Otherwise, it strikes us that you go out of your way to apply this sort of reasoning only to the Germans. Over and over and over again. Utterly immune to correction, when presented with dozens of opportunities to read Germans of that period, using the word "German" to describe themselves.

I'm not critiqueing anyone's books. I'm merely commenting on the use of the term 'German' as in a German state, which there was not one but many during the period.

There was a Kingdom of Italy during the period established by Napoleon.

There was also a Kingdom of Naples and citizens of that kingdom were routinely referred to as 'Neapolitans.'

There was also a Duchy of Warsaw which was made up of Poles. There had also been a nation of Poland until the Austrians, Russians, and Prussians had carved it up among themselves.

The Mamelukes originally, if I'm not mistaken, came from Europe originally.

I don't accept a 'correction' if I believe that correction to be in error.

K

There was a Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.

What nationality, then, is it referring to?

"I'm merely commenting on the use of the term 'German' as in a German state, which there was not one"

P.H. didn't use the term in reference to a German state. You're the one who insisted on that interpretation, so that you could criticize it. I've seen you do this dozens of times. You know full well that P.H. was not referring to any German state, but rather to "Germans" of several states. i.e., the German nationality.

I'll ask again: Do you ever refer to "Irish" people, prior to the creation of the Irish nation state? Do you ever refer to the Italian Renaissance, prior to the creation of the Italian nation-state?

To what nationality was Napoleon referring, when he told Constant de Wairy to "Marry a German, my friend; they are the best of all women." ?

"The Mamelukes originally, if I'm not mistaken, came from Europe originally."

No, they didn't. In any event, they had been living in Egypt for nearly eight centuries by the time Napoleon arrived. Do you seriously expect anybody to believe that you refer to the Mamelukes during the Napoleonic Wars as "Europeans?"

Just tell us: what nationality were they? Were they "Arabs" ?

PS- I know I've seen you refer to "Turks" in reference to "the subjects of the multi-ethnic Ottoman Empire." Isn't it incorrect for you to call them "Turks" when there wasn't a Turkish nation-state until the 1920s?

OR… does this rule apply only to Germans?

You are making the quite natural mistake of equating ethnicity with nationality.

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this point once again.

K

John,

Some folks just don't get it, unfortunately, and thanks for the compliment.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Italy, Germany, Poland, and Britain were geographical entities before they were political ones. The Romans had words for Italy and Italians. The comparison with today's Europeans is exact.

Hi Kevin

I think Schnurfel seems a mite bit touchy, doesn't he? And a bit of a petty argument he's throwing at you, in my opinion. I think you explained yourself quite clearly. Perhaps my mentioning the English, Welsh, Irish and Scottish forming the British nation, confused some people? But I'm sure we can all agree that the German speaking nations, Prussia, Bavarian, Baden, etc, etc, all performed well for whoever they fought for, and, as I said before, they helped make our period all that more interesting. Perhaps we should leave it at that. If some people disagree, so be it. That's their choice. Me. I'm off to paint some Confederation of Rhine units.

"I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this point once again."

Well, we agree on the point, apparently, that ethnicity/nationality does not require a nation-state. We agree that there were "Irish" people before the nation-state of Ireland, and "Turks" before the nation-state of Turkey, and "Italians" before the nation-state of Italy, and "Arabs" without a nation-state of "Arabia," and so on.

You just make an exception for Germans, for some reason.

Obviously 10 th Marine is – all arguments are wasted, you are wrong off target, Schnurfel explained it well, he cited a lot of quotes as well.

Agreeing to disagree – certainly, this is almost to 100 percent of all your postings 10th Marines.

well said Schnurfel

Then perhaps you can explain why the smaller German states, such as Bavaria, Wurttemberg, Saxony, Baden, Hesse-Darmstadt, etc., fought so hard to be independent for so long?

Further, could you explain why the Prussian idea for a 'German nation' was under Prussia and to the Prussians, 'Germany' meant Prussia?

Lastly, since Frederick the Great as King of Prussia was still the Elector of Brandenburg, why did he go to war against the German states of the Holy Roman Empire, especially Austria? Would that not be construed as treason to the empire if it really was a state?

K

VW,

I have a request. Why don't you stop making personal remarks, especially when you have no idea what you're talking about, and at least attempt to contribute to the conversation taking place. You've done this for years and all it does is cause rancor on the forum. If that is your point, then you're doing a great job with it. All you are doing in reality, though, is judging others by your own low standards.

K

only s – t – i – f – f – l – e is the solution on that

Then perhaps you can explain why the smaller German states, such as Bavaria, Wurttemberg, Saxony, Baden, Hesse-Darmstadt, etc., fought so hard to be independent for so long?

You might try reading some European history covering the early modern period (that refers to the era 1500-1800). This should be covered in any introductory text. The struggle between local princes/rulers and imperial authority was not unique to the Germans, only the result was different. The fact that you seem to consider desire for autonomy by the various princelets and electors as being evidence of non-existence of a "German" identity because of the absence of a nation state seems to stem from an illogical insistence that a German nation state should exist prior to the emergence of nation states in Europe (i.e. applying mid-nineteenth century concepts to the an earlier period). Or is it the German imperial state that you are denying the existence of? It is admittedly complicated, so you will need to read closely to understand it.

And for the record, exactly when did these minor states fight hard to be independent? Considering the history of the empire, desire to be independent of the empire was comparatively short-lived. Most of the internal division through the history of the empire stemmed from religious conflict, not political/national aspirations which only came into play in the last 70 years or so. That general overview history will help you understand this as well.

Further, could you explain why the Prussian idea for a 'German nation' was under Prussia and to the Prussians, 'Germany' meant Prussia?

Because the Prussians wanted to be the top dog in a united Germany. Is this difficult to understand? The Habsburgs had been the dominant party in ruling the Empire, the Hohenzollerns wanted to replace them. Others in Germany saw the Prussian king as the natural candidate to rule a united Germany – the Frankfurt parliament, which I'm sure you are familiar with, was not a Prussian institution nor did it have a Prussian majority yet offered the crown of united Germany to the king of Prussia. Again, reading a general survey of the period should clarify all of this and answer your questions. Remember, the empire is not a nation state, so it will have different dynamics from modern states. It's a common error that people make in reading history, applying modern concepts to earlier eras where they simply do not apply.

Lastly, since Frederick the Great as King of Prussia was still the Elector of Brandenburg, why did he go to war against the German states of the Holy Roman Empire, especially Austria? Would that not be construed as treason to the empire if it really was a state?

The empire was an empire, not a nation state. Your questions demonstrate quite a bit of confusion over the concept of nation state and the dynamics that resulted in their emergence. As far as I have read in this thread there is not a single person who has stated or implied that Germany was a nation state in the 18th century, so you can drop the strawman, it is counterproductive. You also seem to be operating under a mistaken assumption that the only form of state is a nation state, so it might be good to go back and review the characteristics of kingdoms and empires in the pre-national era. Start reading that general survey, pay attention to the divisions emerging within the empire in the first half of the 17th century. I'm sure that if you make an effort you can grasp the concepts behind German identity and pan-Germanism that persisted despite the internal divisions that prevented the development of a strong central authority of the "German empire" prior to its final dissolution at the hands of Napoleon.

Can someone show me where historically, there was a state called Germany during the Napoleonic Wars?

There were Germanic nations, yes, but there wasn't a Germany. That is a fact. Look it up! However, as Kevin rightly pointed out, there was a Kingdom of Italy during the Napoleonic period, but certainly NO kingdom or state of Germany, so calling Italian Italians is correct and calling Polish troops Poles, is correct. But Prussians are Prussians and Bavarians are Bavarians. That's not hard to understand, surely? I really can't see a problem with accepting this, apart from some people who are using silly arguments and statements to have a pop at Kevin. Accept it and move on. Please, Vendome and VW, you are in danger of becoming another Hollins, and surely, one is enough already?

Gazzola, I have no idea what you are arguing about. Please point to a single posting where ANYONE has argued that there was a nation called Germany during the Napoleonic wars. This does not exist. So you too can set aside the strawman Kevin put up.

My post addressed Mr. Kiley's questions/observations prior to the 1806 dissolution of the empire. There was a "German empire", called such in shorthand, until 1806. There was a German people, a German ethnicity, a sense of Germanness that gave the people inhabiting the various German states a sense of kinship that did not extend to neighboring states or peoples. It is entirely appropriate to refer to people who self-identified themselves as German as Germans, it is entirely appropriate to refer to an empire that self-identified itself as German as German, and it is entirely appropriate to refer collectively to the people who referred to themselves as German in culture and language as Germans. It is also entirely appropriate to refer to a geographical region that was understood by everyone at the time to be "Germany" as Germany.

So plainly it is not automatically "inaccurate" to refer to Germany during the Napoleonic period nor is it "incorrect" to refer to Germans during the Napoleonic period – correctness and accuracy hinge on specific context. To claim otherwise is beyond pedantry, it's just silly. Presence or absence of a nation bearing the name is not relevant to what I was discussing, nor to what Schnurfel was discussing, yet it keeps resurfacing (nonsensically) as the centerpiece of counterargument.

And again, I will remind you and anyone else who views TMP participation as a team sport requiring everyone to don the colors and congratulate teammates on their posts, that I am not a part of a fixed "team" on TMP, that I am not somehow linked to Dave Hollins because I find Kevin Kiley's goal-post shifting and strawman arguments to be annoying and his assertions on this topic to entirely (perhaps deliberately) miss the points that have been made.

And I'll add that I consider your assertion that any criticism of Kevin Kiley's statements must be motivated by a desire to "have a pop at him" to be unnecessarily insulting. Is it insufficient that I find Mr. Kiley's statements to demonstrate a weak grasp of the history of the early modern era? Am I to assume that your posting to me is motivated by your desire to have a pop at me?

Dear Vendome

Calm down, calm down! But seriously, my apologies if you felt I considered you just having a pop at Kevin. And I don't support the views of anyone on this site, just because I might not like those making negative postings against certain people. But there seemed to be some heavy arguments directed at Kevin, that were not needed. I thought what he was saying was quite clear. Obviously not. Yes, people always seem to refer to certain areas as Germany, right from the Roman period. But there was not a German state during the Napoleonic Wars, that was my opinion and I believe it was also Kevin's point. And I think the term Germany was only really used to prevent having to write or type down all the areas that existed, which might now form the modern day Germany. After all, as far as I'm aware, there wasn't a king or Emperor of Germany during the Napoleonic wars, was there?
As for the Holy Roman Empire being mentioned to prove a German state existed – how absurd! I think it has been rightly described as neither Holy, Roman or an empire. It was a collection of states (note the word states) not one state called Germany. And if I remember rightly, Austria and Northern Italy were part of the Holy Roman Empire. Should we now consider them German? I think not. And I'd like to see someone tell Mr. Hollins that Austria is really Germany?
I think you can only refer to a Germany during the Napoleonic Wars, in order to save mentioning all the states that could be considered Germanic. Napoleon had German allies in the form of the Confederation of the Rhine. He did not have Germany as an ally. And I don't believe a Bavarian or those from other Germanic states, would say he came from Germany, rather than Bavaria or whatever first. And yes, it is easier to refer them all as Germans, in exactly the same way as the term Germany was used, even though it did not exist. That's just my opinion. Again, apologies if you felt I was having a pop at you, or if anyone else feels I'm having a pop at them.

Gazzola, to clear things, I at no time thought you were having pop at me, the question was intended to be rhetorical.

As for your question – "After all, as far as I'm aware, there wasn't a king or Emperor of Germany during the Napoleonic wars, was there?" What remained of the state that I am referring to was dismantled in 1806 after having endured death throes of a half-century or so (and more than a century of ill health prior to that). Prior to 1806, there was nothing called the German empire, but there was a Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation), so styled beginning in 1512. This was pointed out on page 1 of the thread. While it's commonly referred to as the Holy Roman Empire, the shorthand name that omits the German part isn't really evidence that this was not a German empire.

By the time of the French revolution the concept of a unified German reich still existed, but the reality was one of increasing decentralization. The trend throughout the rest of Europe the various European kingdoms was towards greater centralization during the same period, so they were on opposite trajectories. A German state DID exist prior to 1806, people recognized its existence during the period, and there were conflicting views over whether it would be better to have a united Germany or to let the institution die. Opinion over what Germany was/should be varied, and support for the dissolution of the empire was not universal.

I think you are viewing a German state as having to have the boundaries of post-1870 Germany. In the context of pre-1806, Austria is a part of the German empire which was dominated by the Habsburgs. Not all Habsburg holdings were within the empire. Beyond that not all German peoples were within the empire, and not all people within the empire were German, but the rulers of the empire were German, the majority of peoples within the empire were German and the majority of Germans in the world were within the empire so you would really have to strain to argue that the empire was not German as stated in its full name.

For the statement "Austria and Northern Italy were part of the Holy Roman Empire. Should we now consider them German? " this is patently absurd, why should we? These regions were a part of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. Does the inclusion of the netherlands, large tracts of Italy and Germany, Dalmatia and Croatia in the French Empire mean that we have to refer to these peoples as French? Or that the French empire didn't exist? Or that it was not a French empire at all? Of course not, empires can include all sorts of ethno-linguistic groups, the term French or German refers to the dominant (ruling majority) population.

The HRE was what it was, a decentralized feudal-federal entity that was (as far as I know) entirely unique in history. It's unique liabilities made it different, but they do not mean that it didn't exist. And like Poland (another example of a decentralized and disintegrating state done in by external powers), the fact of its prior existence had meaning beyond its dissolution and gave traction to those arguing for (re-?)unification.

So the denial of the existence of a German state through 1806 avoids the more interesting topic examining the nature of the German state that existed prior to 1806. For the political science wonks out there, it would probably also be of interest to analyze the various definitions of the term "state" and address the degree of autonomy that can be allowed to component parts within a broader state structure and still be considered a "state" in the pre-national era. But even if you quibble over the label "state", "it didn't exist" doesn't wash.

For the rest, as noted previously no one is stating that a state called simply "Germany" existed during this era. That's not something you need to keep bringing up. It's like continually saying "but there is no Emperor of France in the Napoleonic era" after everyone has already said "yes, yes, we know, he was Emperor of the French".

'The Germans make everything difficult, both for themselves and for everybody else.'
-Goethe

'While England and France were powerful national entities before the end of the fifteenth century, it was not until the seventh decade of the nineteenth that Bismark's diplomacy and the efficiency of the Prussian army brought the fragmented German lands together and established a centralized realm with a single government.'

-Gordon Craig, The Germans.

K