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

Dear Schnurfel

THANK YOU ever so much for pointing out that I had been requesting certain people to move on. Trouble is they didn't or couldn't, for some sad reason, even though the thread has obviously run its course. I've also asked them to post something Napoleonic, which would be nice, for a change. But perhaps, just perhaps, if you ask them to move on they might do. I doubt it but it is worth try. What ya say, eh? And just to please you I will move on so if you want to have the last word, which I think you do, you naught thing you, or continue with a dead thread, it is all yours. Happy posting.

Hey, look!
I got the last word!
It was "word"!

Still don't know who Steve is, as this therad been a complete joke for some people, my knowledge of the Napoleonic period is limited and I visit TMP to try and educate myself regarding this period. Did the first poster know what was going to happen.

Serge

Dear Imperiale

I wasn't going to post again on this thread, which is well dead now. But I liked your posting and agree completely. However, the discussions would only help people learn if some people accepted and respected that others will have different opinions and views. Sadly, some people get offended by that and rather than learn or help others learn, throw out personal insults, usually in an attempt to interrupt a thread they felt they were losing or that dared to disagree with their views. You just have to ignore their rubbish and read the good postings.

Dear Serge,

Yes it is a complete joke and I sympathise with you entirely. TMP is usually good from a wargaming point of view and I have found it very useful for other periods than Napoleonic and it can be an inspiration. It kick started my medieval stuff which was my project for 2010 and a complete change from Naps. There are other sites you could try. Just Google napoleonic forums and you will find more than you can shake a stick at.

This thread follows a pattern which one of the two principal camps here throws in a grenade which is bound to cause controversy. The usual suspects then complain that those who don't agree with them have no respect for people who hold different opinions and feign reasonableness. For them there is only one correct conclusion. I am sure their insincerity is not lost on you. The trouble is that the cronies associated with the two camps which if you haven't identified yet you soon will, quickly escalate to personal insults such as deluded, stupid, psychotic, insane and so on.

A plaque on both their houses!

On the other side you will also see from this thread and the board as a whole that there is a healthy and significant group of posters who don't care for these sort of things.

I don't know who Steve is either but I look forward to the thread on German states :-)

Unbelievable! People who lose the argument and can't take other people's views, now claim it was all a wind up. Talk about sore losers.

'Kevin is still 1st and Ten, with the old sidestep and "Show me where I ever said this [insert some unrelated non-sequitur] !" sanctimony, and vague threats of vengeance in the days to come.'

Schnitzel,

You were the one who brought issues up that had never been said by me along with your latest one about 'vague threats of vengeance' which were never uttered.

Unfortunately, it is you who have either sidestepped issues that you brought up in the first place and/or you are wordsmithing (which is world-class, mind) to such an extent that the original issues are almost completely obfuscated.

Well done.

K

Gazzola

Unbelievable! People who lose the argument and can't take other people's views, now claim it was all a wind up. Talk about sore losers.

I wasn't aware of some final conclusion to this thread, perhaps you can state who won and who lost and what the final answer was.

"A plaque on both their houses!"

All right, if you're going to put a plaque on my house, then I'd like something nice in a dark wood, perhaps stained walnut. I'll have to confirm with my wife, of course, since the vertical surfaces tend to be her domain.

Can we inscribe it? Something like: "Here resides Leopold von und zu Schnorf, chronic waster of time, who should really use the Stifle button more often."

Ah….Nothing like a Napoleonic dust up.

I read one of PH's books several years ago. Ironically just ordered another from Amazon a few days ago. I find him interesting but I doubt I'll get as wound up about it as some my fellow TMPers.

Kind of reminds me of how some some of the Ancients guys get torqued off about Victor Davis Hanson. *ducks*

Dear Schnorf cubed,

LOL. I think your horse is safe from plaques and plagues. Apolgies for digit trouble.

Bill

Dear Graf Bretlach

You said I will learn one day. Hmm, well it seems you have not learned anything. This thread is dead and done, as far as I'm concerned, despite your sad attempt to carry in on.

Dear Milhouse

I don't think it is PH that really upsets people or what he says in his books. It is the clowns who believe everything he says, or pretend to. I have his books and found them interesting and didn't get wound up reading them. It was just disappointing after all the work he puts into them, new sources etc, and the effort of trying to convince the reader to think different or look at the campaign from a different angle, only to end up contradicting himself. But that seems acceptable to some people, so there we go.

@ Imperiale,

Steven H Smith is another Napoleonic historian. He posted lots of stuff, especially lots of useful links to online books and publications. He still posts actively on the Napoleon Series boards here: napoleon-series.org

He argued a lot with Kevin Kiley (and those other TMP members who often agree with Kevin during the various arguments) here on TMP though and he eventually got his account locked for his postings in this thread TMP link

Regards

Whirlwind,

Many thanks to you and all the other people who responded to my enquiries from what I have read and understand the original posting was placed on the forum with the intention of causing an argument between two factions. If this is Napoleonics you can keep it I for one just wanted information and to learn something from people who understood the period in greater detail than myself. Hopefuly the link you provided for the Napoleon Series will provide me with this information. I think I will stay with the 18th Century on TMP.

Serge

Serge,

Hopefuly the link you provided for the Napoleon Series will provide me with this information.

Ah. The slight problem is that this "war" has several fronts: TMP, The Napoleon Series, history and wargames magazines, even the 'Amazon' online bookshop, I'm afraid.

On the upside, if you want to know something like the order of Battle for Walmoden's Corps or the dress regulations for British drummers, the guys who post here are generally really good. On the downside, there are certain areas where there is acrimonious disagreement, in essence about whether one army's soldiers, doctrines or equipment were better than anothers. Stay off that and these boards are usually very friendly and helpful.

And to be fair, the acrimonious threads are normally full of fascinating stuff in between the angry exchanges!

Regards

Gazzola

This thread is dead and done, as far as I'm concerned, despite your sad attempt to carry in on.

But you talked about people losing an argument, I was just curious as to who lost, and what the winning argument was, and who made it.

This thread will continue as long as people keep posting, I have no control over this, sad or not.

What is it I have not learned?

But if you must go without answering the points, so be it, I'm sure we will meet on another thread.

I'm sure you see me as some sort of enemy, but just because I'm named after an Austrian noble, and don't always agree with Kevin's views, does not make me the enemy.
(I did unstifle you, as my contribution to world peace)

On a more general note, why do people get so upset when threads go like this, they are often very entertaining and a light relief from more serious studies, they certainly generate a lot of interest, often pulling members away from other boards, just to see whats going on, it all good for the health of the forum, imagine if someone posts a question, one person answers and the final post is a thank you from the OP, how boring would that be.

Mark,

There is nothing wrong with argument, even heated argument from time to time. Good material can come from those type of 'confrontations.' I know that at times, and depending on the material, I either start looking up material or I buy some new books to help understand either new material or a certain viewpoint.

What is not good, and definitely not productive, are personal remarks that sometimes, too often for me, go along with the argument. All that tells me is that the person making personal comments has given up and resorted to the last arrow in his personal quiver-one that should not be drawn.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Agreed, some comments can be a bit too much, however I can only think of 2 or 3 posts in this whole thread.

Mark,

Take another look-there are over forty posts which are either pejorative, demeaning to other posters, or condescending. This isn't a pleasant thread.

Sincerely,
Kevin

As a general rule I try not to say anything on these forums I wouldn't say to anyone's face. I am sure I don't always succeed because you can misconvey yourself in a typed message box. Overall though it doesn't seem much to ask.

4th C,

That's an excellent guide line for posting on any forum. I won't post anything that I wouldn't say to anyone's face either-just an old habit from my Marine Corps days…

Sincerely,
Kevin

Dear Graf

I couldn't care less what name you decided to use? That is the last thing I look at. I don't think others look at the name either. What a silly if not stupid notion! And, I certainly do not see you or anyone else on this site as an enemy. Again, another silly notion. Perhaps you should stop letting such notions rule your head. Try using your brain instead. If people get upset then maybe it is because people do what we are doing now, talking about something personal instead of something Napoleonic.

Gazzola – Not dead and done yet then, so shall I ask you again, or will that be all a bit too much?

You said

Unbelievable! People who lose the argument and can't take other people's views, now claim it was all a wind up. Talk about sore losers.

Hey Kevin, did they have keyboards & Internet in your Marine Corps days?

No-when I was in we still used semaphore. ;-)

How do you think he knows so much about this stuff, He was there when the USS Hornet took the HMS Penguin on Mar,23…….…1815. Skip

Oh wait, that Marine who was on the USS Hornet crosstree was spelled Kielly, sorry

Dear Graf

Dead as in terms of discussing anything Napoleonic. Again, you have not offered anything Napoleonic. You do realise this isn't Facebook or Twitter or a site for bored or lonely people looking for someone to talk to and tell them what they've had for breakfast. You do know what Napoleonic means, don't you, only I'm beginning to wonder? And you really are getting so boring and predictable. Bye, bye, Graf, bye, bye.

Skip,

My last name has been spelled in a variety of ways since we left The Land of Our Fathers…and it used to have an O' in front of it…

Sincerely,
K

To be honest, my reading of 2 of PH's books went quite well, I didn't feel the need to pull apart his definition of Germany – given a broad regional and primary language, as in of the ruling class. PH rightly points out some missing communiques on the part of the British, the pattern that emerges demonstrated by how the Prussians responded to these missing documents. However I have not found a reasonable descript David Hamilton Williams bash, other than that those two authors dislike each other. In my opinon both have good points to make that did not overlap, DHW had more on Napoleon's motivations, ie, the French stopped paying his pension, and appealing to the Congress of Vienna/or major powers got no response. It wouldn't be the only motivation I'm sure, and I don't think DHW wrote it was so, in a constricting form. Lastly, DHW doesn't pay much attention to the missing documents, but he does point out that Wellington's CoS de Lancey, may not have known exactly where his troops were, simply because they were trying to move so many formations over such an area, that the ADCs were used up – I think it was DHW that mentioned sources saying that at least some Allied units moved, following without orders, troops advancing with orders that passed by the encampments – This is to me "different perspective – lastly it turns out that through out the period, and daresay even longer, it was the case that commanaders did not know the exacting details of their forces simply because the ADCs had to ride out, and ride back again to HQ – try make that work if the ADC has several units to visit along the way. I admit I put in some of my own interpretation there, but sometimes, I do find these forums tedious, which is why I skipped 4 pages, I gathered were about the Prussians in World War II when I gave up. Just one point for example, – why do descriptions of where units were at the beginning of the campaign, involve "along the Aisne"? Presumably the records did not go into exact detail beyond "if an ADC follows the road along the Aisne between A and B, he will find the units. Do the math – how on horseback do you co-ordinate all the details of what units where, orders to, and via that without radio/satellite phone/what ever? In my view, DHW and PH offer different insights into the events, and I've in mind a flaw about Perponcher's Div at Waterloo, that neither noticed, – so I agree the "ultimate Waterloo book is yet to be written – question is, are the sources as reliable as things seem – who burned PH's key letters for example, surely there'd be some in Prussian not British possession. So the mud watered, I'll shut up and leave you in peace.

The thing about Hamilton Williams is that he made things up and if you check his ciotations, they do not say what he says they do. While Waterloo is not of great interest to me, I do remember one exchange in First Empire mag between he two authors, where HW claimed that a citation showed that an Allied line of communications ran through Mons. I was in the British Library a few days later and looked it up. It turned out that the cited page in Wellington's Despatches referred to an 1817 letter to Wellington from the UK Foreign Sec telling him to get out of Paris as the natives were getting very restless.

The rest as they say is history as a few of us soon uncovered his many lies about himself and the historical material. It ended really with my review of his second book, which brought a letter from his lawyer threatening a libel action. being legally qualified myself, I responded that I would see them in court. I never heard another thing. I would not trust any citation in HW unless I had checked it myself.

In contrast, you may disagree with PH's interpretation, but his material comes from where he says it does.

I purchased the HW book new perspectives knowing the problems with the author (it was quite cheap)and thoroughly enjoyed the first 2/3 of the book, it did seem to tail off quite rapidly as if the author had run out of ideas on what to write, I have never followed any of his sources or taken the book very seriously, but it was a good read mostly, and still sits on my shelf. The author obviously had issues and wanted to be someone he wasn't, but thats another story.

The PH 1815 books had the opposite effect, I spent time looking up his German accounts and was encouraged to research further, wading through beautiful but difficult German script, it was his first book and people like Evan Polley on the forums that made me realize there is a lot more to be had finding obscure accounts and reading the texts that most modern authors have based their books on, that most worthwhile sources are in French or German (specific British topics excepted)and that a lot of authors are only telling you their version of events and leaving lots of information out (I used to think the fairly basic OOBs we got in books was all that was known, the order of battle in Almarks "Regiments at Waterloo" was all I had for a long time)I naively used to think if it was printed in a book it must be correct, not anymore.

After having written all that, I still prefer the end of this thread by Deutsch Wagram.

That's it you two. Settle this Napoleonic style: paintball guns at 20 paces!

After the 'wailing and gnashing of teeth' by some of the forum members, I thought the following might be of help when discussing Prussia, Germany, the German officer corps, and the Germans.

It was recommended that I 'study' more on Germany and as I had taken history classes in college on Germany and the Germans and have various references in my personal library, I thought some of this information might be useful in any further discussions.

‘You hope in vain, Germans, to make yourselves a nation. Train yourself rather-you can do it-To be freer human beings.'-Goethe and Schiller, from The Muses Almanach for the Year 1797.

‘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 Bismarck's diplomacy and the efficiency of the Prussian Army brought the fragmented German lands together and established a centralized realm with a single government. In the two centuries that preceded that event, much of what we now call Germany was, for reasons that will become clear, relatively untouched by the great movements of European history. Not unnaturally, its inhabitants acquired the habits of mind and the attitudes toward life and politics that were best suited to their situation, and many of the characteristics that we regard as ‘typically German' originated in this period. These did not disappear when Germany became a united nation in 1871; indeed the nature of German politics in the century that followed continued to be profoundly influenced by them, and some of the failures of understanding between Germany and the West are explicable in their light.'

‘It is paradoxical that the Germans, chronically torn and divided, in Friedrich Holderlin's phrase, throughout most of the modern period, seemed during the middle ages, and particularly between the tenth and twelfth centuries, to be politically more mature, and closer to establishing effective political institutions, than their neighbors…After the coronation of Otto I as Emperor in 962, it was possible to speak of a German hegemony over Europe, and, in the course of the next century, there were indications that the first truly national state in Europe was emerging in the German lands. Records dating from the tenth century speak of a regnum teutonicorum as an accomplished fact, which suggests that a recognizable national identity or self-consciousness also existed…This promising development did not continue.'
The Germans by Gordon Craig, 15-16.

‘By the thirteenth century, the process known as territorialization of Germany was well advanced-the fragmentation of the German lands into a bewildering congeries of independent units, governed under separate rulers and recognizing only the vaguest connection with the Imperial authority; and by the fourteenth, when the Golden Bull gave legal recognition to the rights and sovereignty of the most important princes, the German crown was a nullity and German unity a mere façade.'
Craig, 17.

‘Had there been leaders with any sense of German national interest, this condition of vulnerability might have been exploited to galvanize new forces of cohesion and growth, and the German states might have begun to follow the road that England and France had already taken. This did not happen, largely because the Imperial title now passed to the possession of the Hapsburg dynasty. The new rulers were often able and energetic men, but family interest disinclined them to use their talents for Germany's advantage. By a policy of judicious marriages, they had accumulated far-flung territorial possessions from the lower Rhine to the Scheldt to the eastern Alps and from Spain to the lands along the Danube. To them, Germany was of secondary importance, convenient as a connecting link between their dispersed holdings and as a battlefield, or alternatively a field for annexations and compensations in their growing rivalry with the royal power of France. A Maximilian I or a Charles V might talk about the necessity of a thoroughgoing reform of the old Imperial structure, but nothing was ever accomplished…'
Craig, 18.

‘The peacemakers of 1648 [at the conclusion of the Thirty Years' War] also imposed upon Germany [which had been ravaged during the war and the population greatly reduced because of war and disease] a political settlement that confirmed and legitimized the atomization of Germany by recognizing over 300 German states as sovereign entities. This was the reason that the French successors of Richelieu, determined to humble the Hapsburg power, regarded Westphalia as ‘one of the finest jewels in the French crown' and argued that any attempt to interfere with ‘German liberties' by which they meant the rights of the petty states, would constitute a breach of international law. German disunity and powerlessness thus became part of the natural European order, acquiesced to by all Great Powers, including the larger German states. At the Congress of Vienna in 1815, the Prussian delegate Wilhelm von Humboldt justified this by taking the line that the divisions of Germany were conducive to international peace, adding, ‘Its whole existence, therefore, is based upon a preservation of balance through an inherent force of gravity. This would be entirely counteracted if there were introduced into the ranks of European states, besides the larger German states considered as single units, a new collective state…No one could then prevent Germany, as Germany, from becoming an aggressive state, which no good German can wish.'
Craig, 21.

Johann Gottfried von Herder, a student of both Kant and Hamann, wrote Another Philosophy of Mankind in 1774 and Reflections on the Philosophy of the History of Mankind from 1776-1803. Herder believed the state to be a ‘cold monster' but he believed in the nation, which he ‘defined as the community that was made up of kinship and history and social solidarity and cultural affinity and was shaped over time by climate and geography, by education, by relations with its neighbors and by other factors, which was held together most of all by language, which expressed the collective experience of the group.' So, apparently in Germany there was a difference between the nation and the state.
Craig, 30.

‘At the end of the eighteenth century Germany was an idea in the minds of some intellectuals and statesmen and a phrase in the title of a loose association of states-the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.'
19th Century Germany: Politics, Culture, and Society 1780-1918, edited by John Breuilly, Introduction, 1.
‘At no time did all those who might be defined as ‘Germans' live under common political institutions. There always were some overarching ‘German' institutions-the Holy Roman Empire (to 1806), the Confederation of the Rhine (1806-1813), the German Confederation (1815-1866), the German Customs Union (Zollverein, 1834 onwards), the North German Confederation (1867-1871), and the German Second Empire (1871-1918). However, none of these institution ever extended over all the territory occupied by those people who considered themselves to be German and they always included people who did not consider themselves to be German. Furthermore, these national institutions often meant very little to ‘Germans.' This is obvious for the earlier part of the period when individual state, regional, and even local institutions had a much great impact than national institutuions. However, it is also arguable true for much of the later period as well. For example, most direct taxation and educational provision remained the domain of the individual states within the Second Empire. When one turns from political institutions to cultural, social, and economic history the problems with the national framework become even more obvious. Differences between Catholics and Protestants, men and women, workers and employers, Prussians and Austrians, Rhinelanders and Brandenburgers often appear more important than any common interest or identity these people shared as Germans. Not only is the nation but one possible historical subject, arguably it is a less important historical subject than many others.'
Breuilly, Introduction, 2-3.

‘First, Germany did not exiast as a national state until the very end of the period covered by this section. Even then a major part of pre-1871 Germany, the German part of the Hapsburg Empire, was exclusded from the new state. Not only were there many states in ‘Germany' but these states were themselves subject to territorial alteration through processes of war and diplomacy as well as undergoing considerable institutional and social change. One should also draw attention to the great regional variations within the larger states. Sometimes there were different institutional and legal arrangements in different parts of the same states.'
Introduction to Part I: 1780-1871, in 19th Century Germany, Breuilly, ed., 13.

‘In the decades before 1815 the German lands underwent a process of revolutionary change, but there was no revolution as such, nothing to compare with events in France in 1789. Yet contemporaries experienced this period as one of profound and rapid transformation. Most obviously, the map of Germany in 1815 looked very different from what it had been in, say, 1780. The Holy Roman Empire had ceased to exist after a thousand-year history; a bewildering patchwork of several hundred quasi-independent territories had been replaced by 41 sovereign states in a loose confederation. This ‘territorial revolution' was accompanied by other equally profound changes: the transformation of political and legal institutions; a new relationship between church, state and society in the Catholic regions; new social and economic structures resulting from the massive transfer of Catholic essleciastical property; new cultural attitudes and novel of what ‘Germany' and the very identity of the Germans was or might be; a new political vocabulary and new concepts with which Germans described the world in which they lived.'
-The German Lands before 1815 by Joachim Whaley in 19th Century Germany, 15.

‘In traditional historiography the most important feature of the Napoleonic period was the birth of German nationalism. Napoleon's defeat and humiliation of Prussia, it was argued, generated a sense of German national resentment against French tyranny; ideas developed in Prussia by men such as Fichte, Arndt and Jahn provided the inspiration for a national uprising of the Germans led by Prussia. In this view the Wars of Liberation (1813-1815) were interpreted as the first collective action of the German nation, its first violent rite of passage in an ordeal by fire. In fact, this ‘birth myth' of the German nation was an artificial construct of nationalist ideology. Later Prussian nationalism wrote its own history and then declared it to be the history of Germany as a whole. From as eighteenth century perspective, however, the development of German nationalism appears much more diffuse. It leads neither to a single coherent ideology nor to a firm political or state orientation by 1815.'
Whaley, 34-35.

‘Heinrich Heine later wrote that the German had become patriots and defied Napoleon because their princes ordered them to. That fails to do justice to the strength of anti-Napoleon sentiment in many parts of Germany by 1813-1814. But there was no ‘national uprising' or ‘national crusade.' There remained a world of difference between the nationalism of some intellectuals and the ‘nation' they aspired to lead.'
Whaley, 37.

‘Frederick the Great was truly the father of the [German] officer corps…'
Sword and Swastika, Generals and Nazis in the Third Reich by Telford Taylor, 18.

‘Prussia was the cradle and Berlin-Potsdam the capital of the [officer] corps, but it had long since ceased to be a purely Prussian institution…Since 1871, the army establishments of the lesser kingdoms had been integrated with that of Prussia…these concessions to regional tradition did not interfere with the unified organization and functioning of the Imperial German Army. A majority of the officer corps was Prussian, but many prominent army names…are Bavarian.'
Taylor, 28.

‘But noble names continued to dominate the upper levels of the corps, as well as the socially favored regiments, especially in the cavalry. As late as 1932, the nobles still comprised between a quarter and a third of the entire corps.'
Taylor, 28.

‘Politically as well as socially, the army remained the rocher de bronze of authoritarian royalism…the Weimar Republic never won the allegiance of the officers…Hindenberg, to be sure, retained their loyalty, not because of his election as president by the German people, but because he was a field marshal, the senior officer of the corps, a monarchist, and in these aspects a symbol of the ancien regime for the restoration of which the corps was waiting…Culturally, the outlook of the corps remained appallingly narrow.'
Taylor, 28-29.

‘This authentic professional competence, together with the tremendous momentum gained from over half a century of public adulation and social prestige, was the principal capital with which the officers' corps faced the series of national crises which gripped the German nation after its defeat in the First World War. Richly-indeed, too richly-endowed with traditions and past glories, the corps was woefully deficient in the flexibility and adaptability which the times demanded. Thus Republican Germany was corroded by an anachronistic but most potent militarism, and the corps itself was all too easily corrupted when it ultimately came face to face with the equally ruthless and far more versatile Hitler.'
Taylor, 29.

It appears that the above historians agree that there was no German state prior to 1871 no matter who was in charge of the historical monstrosity known as the Holy Roman Empire whether or not the term 'German' was involved with the title.

The nationalism expressed by German 'intellectuals' during the Napoleonic period was more an intellectual exercise than anything else. Further, the Prussian 'version' of the so-called 'Wars of Liberation' was just that-their version and not necessarily an accurate one.

I would highly recommend the above for anyone interested in the period and the Germans and Germany in particular. I find them fascinating as I do the French and the Russians. If anyone else has a title or titles to add that would be great.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Whatever.

Dear 10th,

Regarding your posting of 22 Jan 20100 3.25 pm PST it does not appear that anybody here has proposed that there was a German nation state prior to 1871 and I have looked in vain for the argument you appear to be refuting. What is your point exactly?

Bill

Bill,

I believe there were points being made about the Holy Roman Empire being a German political state. Obviously by some recent and not so recent scholarship, it wasn't.

Sincerley,
K

Kevin

This is not purely about history, but also political science, namely the definition of what a 'State' actually is.

Certainly no-one would say the HRE was a Nation State as we have all been socialised into believing states should be. But was it a 'State'? After all it had a ruler, courts and parliament. How else do you explain how a group of peasants from one Dukedom could take their Duke to the Imperial court and hanve him fined and his decisions overturned?

It may have been palsied, by our standards inefficient, have overlapping areas of responsibility but it does still look like a State. The HRE is very difficult to understand, as opposed to centralising France, as it is inherently weak when it comes to central authority. Meanwhile elememts within it are centralising their power, while lesser elements (Free Cities, Principalities, Abbeys and so on that are self-ruling) see the Emperor as a guarantor of their liberties and existence against larger states like Bavaria and Wurttemberg.

Meanwhile, the constant splitting and then reforming of these states according to the number of people in the ruling family (look at Hesse) or having territory both inside and outside the Empire (Prussia, Wurttemberg, Austria) just complicate things even further. Then you get political figures moving around from post to post between states within the Empire, along with religious and artistic figures to muddy the waters yet further.

But as your quote from Goether shows, the Germans saw themselves as Germans:

"You hope in vain, Germans, to make yourselves a nation…"

I suspect Goethe is talking about nation as a nation state, centralised and structured, as Prussia had become and he was reacting against. Certainly not a nation in terms of nationality, otherwise who are these Germans he is going on about?

Equally, after 1871, the respective states under the German Emperor (not, you note Emperor of Germany or the more democratic Emperor of the Germans) sent ambassadors to Berlin. The relationship between the Reich and its component states was always a potential source of tension, particularly those south of the Main. Although they were now citizens of the German Reich, and saw themselves as German, they aslo persisted in seeing themselves as Bavarians, Saxons and so on. As the Baden ambassador to Berlin noted: 'The Kaiser is not my monarch, my monarch is in Karlsruhe!'

(As an aside, to pick up from a thread years ago when I was looking for Gribeauval adoptees in Germany and only found Denmark in 1813. I have found another. Wurttemberg briefly adopted Gribeauval pieces immediatley after 1812, presumably because of losses, but replaced them with their Austrian/Prussian inspired designs when they became available yet again. Just FYI)

K

Kevin is confusing the existence of a modern state with a national consciousness and identity. No-one has claimed the HRE was a German state, merely that its title and composition reflected a German identity, which was hundreds of years old in 1815. Consequently, PH is entitled to reflect the overall German contribution in 1815 as making Waterloo a battle won by German rather than British troops.

Much of Kevin's approach involves picking a definition, which proves his argument, in order to prove his argument. It is like saying that the Scotland rugby team should be picked on height so that Doddie Weir aside, I should have had a few games for them back in my 20s. The fact that I am useless at all sports is however rather more important.

OMG we are up and running again, seriously!

Graf Bretlach

Really! I am insulted! I only run when there is an Ice Cream van in the locality, and even then it is more of a wheezy lumber.

:)

K

I would recommend 'German Armies, War and German Politics 1648-1806' By Peter Wilson if anyone wants to follow this up in greater depth.

K

Dear 10th,

Your objection to Mr Hofschroer's use of the adjective German to describe the victory of Waterloo was outlined in your post of 31 December 2010 9.08am PST and was that this presented a problem because Germany was not a political state under one government and such a state did not exist until 1871. The example of the HRE appears to be merely one made several by different people pointing out that the word German was in common usage long before 1815 in many different contexts, a point you seemed to concede in your post of 2 January 2011 10.57 PST. As far as I can see nobody has claimed here that Germany was a nation state in 1815 and that it wasn't does not invalidate Mr Hofschroer's use of the word. If the argument is actually that it wasn't a German victory because the collective contribution of Germans was not as great as Mr Hofschroer claims, that is something else entirely and needs different premises to support it. Perhaps refocusing on the original posting at the top of the thread would help but I think the questions raise there have now been answered.

Kevin

Has Dave Hollins finally lost it? He states that because there was a 'Germaness' during the Napoleonic wars, he says PH is 'entitled' to 'reflect' that the overall German contribution makes Waterloo a German victory? So was PH 'reflecting' then, when he stated it was an Allied victory? Or is Dave really still upset because he was hopeless at sport and knows others are not, so he is trying to pick a fight? Quick, tell him you were rubbish at sport and he might become a friend for life! Then again….
As for the other posters, who obviously don't want this thread to to ever die, poor things, it seems that several of them have hold of an empty box and are convinced there is something inside it, even though many of us have tried to tell them there isn't. I say, let them play with it, it keeps them happy. Just don't don't put your hand too near the box!

Happy posting Kevin

The Holy Roman Empire of German Nations was certainly a state – it doesn't matter if that state was only Germans or other ethnic groups as well.

One can take Austrian as an example as well, a state made up from different "states".

In contrast to the Holy Roman Empire of German Nations – Austria had a much stronger central government.

And in my view the HRE was a German state, the leader coincidently called himself Kaiser.

Dear Khevenhuller

Quite right. I shouldn't mock the afflicted.
But seriously, it is annoying to see people supporting someone who actually contradicts himself in his book, while attacking others for less faults. The whole concept of 'German' or 'British' victory, is an absolute insult to those who fought and died fighting on the same side. Those who support these views should be ashamed of themselves.
And as for those who still believe there was a German state, with a king of the Germans or 'Kaiser', as VW pointed out, are sadly just clutching at straws and just don't want to lose the argument. The title was probably passed down and was a paper title more than anything else. I just can't understand why some people are clinging on so much. Anyway, happy posting. Let's hope we get some factual history for a change instead of wishful thinking.

You think you're getting the last word?
You're not, you know.

O….K

So, does anyone want the book?

Good or not, after reading this much hideous bile I don't think I could enjoy it.

And I asked the question in all innocence. I have never been into Napoleonics. Nothing on this thread has inspired me to do so.

Pat

If you lived 5 miles from me I would walk to your house and take it. Nap's are a good era, some get carried away at times

Dear Rambling Bob

I think Napoleonic enthusiasts and wargamers can be very passionate at times, as this thread shows. However, they sometimes get carried away, myself included I'm sorry to say and must apologise for, and take things too personal or throw abuse at people. It should just be shrugged off and laughed at, although it is a bit annoying when clowns throw abuse about your parents etc, obviously to get a reaction, but that would only matter if the poster was taken seriously. Most Napoleonic enthusiasts are nice and friendly people and there really is a lot of enjoyment and pleasure in playing, reading or studying the Napoleonic period. And there are a lot of people who like sharing their knowledge and having debates etc. Please don't judge a period by these discussions. As for PH's books, I read them and was not upset by their contents. In some ways his books were refreshing, although I'm still not really convinced he believes in what tries to get others to believe.