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

My dear Arteis, that is because I have been otherwise distracted by recent events down here that are still ongoing and am unable to keep up with what is going on here. I do not have the time to go back through the last 9 pages of stuff here to make sure I have not repeated what others may have already said or made points about. For that I apologize but I would hope that I could be cut some slack for this lack of insight?

It seems I have jumped on to a super-train that is running currently at 400km per hour…

All this talk of a non-existent Germany. Unbelievable! And people scouring through books, desperate to find someone mentioning the word Germany, although that could have been included by the translator or editor. Like I said, blinkers and earmuffs. German ones seem to be selling quite well.
But this thread is dead and done now surely. Dead. Done. Kaput! Mind you, I'm looking forward to seeing one about the Confederation of the Rhine 'Germanic' states though, although not straight away. But at least it would be Napoleonic!

"I am sure there was an area of land containing various peoples who speak "German" and considered themselves, "Germanic".

No, there was an area of land containing people who spoke German and considered themselves German.

I have never seen the word "Germanic" used by Germans during the Napoleonic era. If you can show me some examples of it, I would be very glad to be corrected. (It may have been used by a few language scholars like the Grimms, but I haven't come across it, myself.)

In fact, there was no German word for "Germanic." They adopted a Latin-based word and added a German ending to it, to get the word "Germanisch." Although the first recorded uses of it come from scholars in the Renaissance, that word did not begin to appear in widespread use until the mid-19th century, as Germans began to become fascinated with their own literature, language, and mythology.

For example:

link

The German word for German is "Deutsch." That's the word you will see in all of the contemporary writings by Germans.

There are literally thousands of examples of Germans – and others during the time – using the word "Deutsch" to describe the people and place. Copious examples have already been posted on this thread.

Here are a few more:

"I have but one fatherland, and that is Germany." – Karl vom Stein, 1812.

"I do not like Germany, or the Germans. I am all French!" – Jerome Bonaparte to Napoleon, 1810.

"I love Germany with my deepest soul." Wilhelm von Humboldt, 1810.

"Oh Germans, you aren't Germans anymore!" – E.M. von Arndt, 1809.

"The people of Germany need a hero." – Friedrich von Voß, 1809.

"Germany is my fatherland." – Dietrich von Bern, 1811

"I shall not spend my time dreaming away in inactivity while other brave men fight for the liberation of our German fatherland!" – Blücher to Gneisenau, 1808.

"If only the Germans were more vigorous!" – Gneisenau to his wife, 1807.

"I have a German heart of the old-fashioned kind, which is used to generosity and love." – Heinrich von Kleist, 1810.

"…to them [our forefathers] we must look back with gratitude… because of them we are today free and independent Germans." — J.G. Fichte, Addresses to the German Nation (1808)

"Your victories will free them from their chains, and your German brothers still in the ranks of the enemy are waiting for their liberation" – The Archduke Charles, 1809.

"We shall break the heavy yoke and liberate the German Fatherland." – Ferdinand von Schill, 1809.

"Wherever German lips can utter our ancestors' holy language…" – Theodor von Körner, introduction to The Rifleman's Song, 1813.

"Now or never, the time has come for the Germans to fight for our rightful freedom… If Germans lost battles before, that was because we were not acting in unity; some among us persisted in disputes…. Up, then, and to arms! Let us show that we are Germans, and that we will fight for our rights, our laws, and against oppression!" – The Duke of Brunswick, 1809.

"Marry a German, my friend! They are the best women in the world." – Napoleon to Louis Constant de Wairy.

There are (a lot) more. We could do this literally forever. But I suspect that those people who can be influenced by facts, have been. And those people whose beliefs are immune to influence by facts, will not be moved.

Defiant:

Totally calm here. I worded in caps as Arteis noted to "bring you up to date" on previous threads (didn't have a "bold text" marker). Good to hear that recovery is underway. Hopefully you and your mates can get some wargaming in soon.

Gazolla:

Gadzooks, did you just write "All this talk of a non-existent Germany. Unbelievable!" or am I tripping out from sniffing my paints? In fact, I have to touch up a Russian Hussar now because I made the mistake of reading your post before putting my brush down.

And, Elting's work (and others) that used the words German and Germany are in English, eh? I do have to use a translator for UK English to this side of the pond English sometimes. German and Germany translate without error.

(sorry: accidentally added "vons" to Körner and Arndt.)

Well, Schnorf Schnorf Schnorf, if those quotes are correct (and I have no reason to think otherwise), that well and truly settles this part of the argument!

I make that fifteen different people who used the words 'German' or 'Germany' (in German of course) during the period in question. And that is ignoring the many quotes you haven't found or haven't copied here. Or the (probably) thousands that were never recorded in the first place, going by the 'tip of the iceberg' theory.

'I don't understand what your list of books is meant to show.'

The list was provided for LWF as he made the comment that my quotations from secondary sources were 'out of context.' So, I made a list for him to take a look at them and explain how my quotations were out of context. So far, he hasn't explained himself.

K

You really expect someone to go check quotes in a list of about 20 secondary books (without even page references) to support your argument, Kevin?!

I think it behoves on you, as the bringer-up of this list, to provide the exact quotes and their contexts. Otherwise, if LWF (or any other interested TMPer) doesn't have access to those books, and doesn't know where in them the specific quotes are located, it is a pretty useless list to us.

In any case, I think Schnorfx3 has now effectively dashed your case to bits, with fifteen (dare I say it?) primary rather than secondary quotes.

By the way, I hope you don't think I am picking on you (and Defiant) with this. I actually also don't agree with PH's sub-title!

OK Schnorf,

Maybe I used the term, "Germanic" incorrectly as you see it and in the wrong context, dunno? However, my point was to say that they see themselves as "Germans". But during the period saw themselves from the perspective of the "state" or "nation" they belonged to before that of a unified German people. This did not come for another 60 odd years.

Good to hear that recovery is underway. Hopefully you and your mates can get some wargaming in soon.

Thanks for your thoughts, appreciated. Amazingly although there are still signs of the flood all over the recovery effort got underway so quickly that you could hardly know we had such a catastrophic flood. All of the emergency services and government bodies including all of the volunteer organisations have done an amazing job. This city is going to be bigger and better after the recovery is over than it ever was. Only problem is that we have a category 5 cyclone bearing down on the other end of the state now which is massive and destructive.

Back to wargaming, the guys can't wait. We are starting again next Tuesday to continue our battle from where we left off mid December. I am playing the Austrians and am really enjoying them.

I think it's pretty clear by now that describing Waterloo as a "German" victory, in the sense that Germans could view themselves as having experienced victory, is perfectly acceptable, and does not preclude Britons viewing it as a "British" victory and Netherlanders viewing it as a "Netherlands" victory.
All the nonsense about the existence or nonexistence of a unitary state called "Germany" is beside the point.
There's possibly the odd Central-North-American who thinks of the D Day Landings as a Central-North-American victory.

Glad you're safe, Shane.

I wonder if Wellington got short shrift from the Prussians after Waterloo?
Are the earlier British written histories deliberately downplaying the Prussian contribution? Weren't people then more prone to hooray for our side?
In WW2 it took the Allies to win, not just America, Britain and the Commonwealth, the Russians or the French.
So isn't the main thing the defeat of the enemy? There were many Allied contributions. Probably more heroes than we know who were killed during the war, but did their duty with valor while they were alive.

Thanks Schnorf. Its a stinking hot tropical heat wave down here right now. Typical summer weather.

Back to Waterloo, I often wonder how the many German peoples viewed the victory of Waterloo? Did they see it as a British victory as did the British history books tell us or did they see it from their own point of view as a German victory over France with the help of the British?

What do German history books say about this?

Dear 10th,

I see. I think you will need to give him and the rest of us several weeks even months to find the books in your list and read them. You must admit it is not very helpful and if it is still about a German nation state it will be time wasted as that is not an issue, is it.

Bill

Bill,

I agree-that makes the comment from LWF somewhat useless and inaccurate-how would he know if the comments were 'out of context' if he hadn't read the books himself?

K

You are misquoting him again – LWF was talking about your usual modus operandi, not the specific books you list.

However, it is interesting that several of the (English) books listed have cut-offs pre-1871, yet refer to "Germany". How is that?

I think a lot of people are in denial here. No one, myself included, is disputing Germans thinking of themselves as Germans or, more than likely, having some form of Germanic connection. But there wasn't a country called Germany during the Napoleonic Wars. That's a fact. And I believe the Romans or Greeks were the first to use the term relating to a region they named as Germania. Not named as such by the tribes themselves. But I suppose we must not mention that because they were not written in German by a German. And the Germanic tribes did not refer to themselves as Germans either. They had no sense of togetherness or one nation and any of the other rubbish thrown out here. Why, because they were tribes who saw themselves as different tribes. And some tribes couldn't understand what the others were saying. Even the fabled Arminius ended up fighting with other Germanic tribes. And I believe his own people murdered him. So no Germaness there then. Just tribal rivalry. But if we stick to the Napoleonic period, the only real Germaness is one state wanting to conquer the others, in that the Prussians wanted to be the dominant German state. Hence the Confederation of the Rhine. More for protection against their fellow Germans than anything else. We term the area covering the German states, Bavaria etc, as Germany, but there was no Germany as a country during the Napoleonic Wars. That is my point. And you cannot really have a German Fatherland when there is no Fatherland, just a group of Germanic states. They may have wished there was a Fatherland and would have liked to have created one, but just because they want it doesn't mean it existed. It was more their dream, their desire, but it was a dream that didn't happen during the Napoleonic Wars. And why people throw such silly saying out as proof, is just a sad sign of desperation. But if people want to carry on believing that there was a country called Germany, during the Napoleonic wars, best of luck to them.

Dear XV Brigada

I think you need to read your own postings again!

'a place called Germany'
You mean an area or region, NOT a country. Do get it right and stop trying to butter it up with words like place, rather than admitting it was a region, not a country.

'Prussia, Austria, Confederation of the Rhine'
I am sure you are well aware that these are individual states, so why did you mentioned them. They prove MY point,, not yours. Bad error. But thanks for posting it.

It doesn't matter whether or not there was a country, state or territory called Germany, then or at any time.

It's irrelevant.

Dear Defiant,

No don't worry you don't need to read every post in this thread and from what I hear on the news 'up here' you may have more important things to consider. Besides many of the posts are irrelevant to the initial exam question at the top of the thread which was essentially what did Mr Hofschroer write in his books that people got mad about. The answer as I think we all know is that there are several reasons and his irrational behaviour on TMP does him no favours at all. Anyway Kevin posted to the effect that there was a problem calling it a German victory because there was no nation state at the time. Others including me viewed this as an irrelevance because Mr Hofschroer used it as an adjective to describe the contribution made by the German soldiers in Blucher's and Wellington's armies who he claimed made up the larger of the three identified component parts, ie German, British and others and that the absence of a nation state was neither here nor there.

Another argument made to counter Mr Hofschroer's was that there was no such place as Germany and presumably no Germans. This is clearly nonsense. It is not even worth arguing about because it is like trying to persuade Creationists who believe in the Young Earth 'theory' or people who think that the earth is flat that they are actually wrong. There are many period examples of the words German and Germany being used and there is at least one French map of Germany dating from 1808 in an atlas also printed in English. So we can be confident that the French and the British (the educated minority anyway) knew what and where Germany was and it is reasonable I think to assume that Germans did too. No it was not a nation state but nobody has claimed that it was.

What the perception of German soldiers in the ranks was of themselves is unclear to me and I suspect that there is very little evidence to resolve this though I may be wrong. I expect they had other pressing and less complicated things to think about but I really don't know. What we do know is that intellectuals and educated people used the terms Germany and German in their respective languages and had done for decades, centuries even. Examples are here on this thread. So in order to counter Mr Hofschroers argument that it was a 'German Victory' one needs to attack the premises on which it is based and not his conclusion.

In trying to think of an analogy I came up with 21st Century Africa. We all know what and where it is and when we talk about it in a wider or general sense there is no need to name every single state that comprises the whole from Angola to Zimbabwe. If for example there were 75000 Africans in the ranks of Blucher's and Wellington's army one might want to construct an argument that it was an African vistory. Somebody may come up with an objection to that analogy perhaps that North, Sub-Saharan and South Africa are different entities but I think I now give even less than a **** :-)

Bill

If I remember correctly, the Alsatians wanted to remain part of France?

Also, the Saxon army refused to fight and actually stormed Blucher's HQ.

This really tells me that there was no such thing as a unified German people even if they all spoke German. They were all very different and saw Prussia as an aggressor far more than France. I really think Prussia placed a bayonet into the backs of many Germans and forced them into the war pretty much against their will. Under such threats they had to choice. However, I admire the Saxons for standing up to Prussia and taking a stance against their rule.

I also cannot see this campaign as a German victory, there might of been a great deal of German speaking people involved but they were far from unified and thus did not act like a "German" nation rising up against the French. This is far fetched and a wrong way to think of the 1815 campaign. For me, PH has created propaganda as an agenda with the title of his books that has invoked a false way to think of this campaign as some unified German uprising against French aggression. Just because a great majority of the allied combatants were German speaking does not make it a "German" victory. It makes it an allied victory where many of the soldiers just happen to speak German…big deal.

Symbiotic Relationship

It does matter because there are people attending this thread who actually seem to believe it existed. Read the postings again.

Perhaps I am being thick, but I am really, really struggling to understand what people think is the relevance to this discussion of the existence of the words "Germany" and "German".

Nobody has at any point disputed that these words existed and were used. Endless cites of their being used are not necessary. We've all heard of the KGL.

What I have yet to hear is how these show that "German" was more than a language and a geography.

I'm not fond of analogies, because people can pick holes in the aptness of the analogy and kid themselves they're refuted the actual underlying argument. Nevertheless, and analogously, you can find plenty of uses of the term "American" in, oh, 1720 or so, I guess. So let's think. What did "American" mean in 1720?

It was a place, yes. It stretched from Tierra del Fuego to Greenland.

It was also a place you could hail from geographically, making you American. Aztecs, settlers, Eskimos, Apache: all Americans. Except if you were born of settlers in a colony you were also, and legally, British, Spanish or Portuguese, not American, in 1720. You were American geographically but you weren't an American citizen any more than you can be a Welsh sitizen today. Two non-contiguous geographies, one nationality.

Was there any common American purpose by which you might argue that there was truly only one type of American? Well, maybe. The Americans who fought the Indians had a common purpose. Trouble is, the enemy were Americans too. And the Eskimos, also Americans, were neutrals. And a lot of them were Canadian rather than American. Hmm.

Well, what about a wider purpose than just wars? Some national ambition? Sure. Most "Americans" in 1720 probably didn't want to be ruled from London. Trouble is, most of the "most" didn't want to be ruled from Washington either, because they were Indians.

OK, but there was a War of American Independence. That clinches it, right? There can't have been a war over American independence unless there was, first, a rival idea of America to establish, in preference to its previous status as a British colony?

Sure. Absolutely. The winners of 1776-83 had an America in mind: the eastern seaboard. About, what? 5% of the land area? Probably less than 5% of the American population?

You can construct the same analogy around Italy in Roman times, India in the 19th and 20th centuries, and so forth.

The whole idea of assigning a quasi-nationality on the basis of language and geography just doesn't work, for me. Leaving aside the straw men above, can anyone show

1/ That people at the time unanimously understood something quite specific by "Germany"?
2/ That there was a coherent and agreed-on pan-German objective in 1815 or at any other time?

You'd need both, IMHO, to show that there was something "German" about Waterloo.

The answer to 1/ is plainly "no". Germany meant one thing to the French, another to the Austrians, and so on. The Prussian idea of "Germany" sure didn't entail it being part of the Holy Roman Empire and run from Vienna. After 1806, what Prussia wanted mattered not, because half of all Prussians – about 5 million – weren't Prussian any more. Some ended up in the CotR. Others ended up in the Duchy of Warsaw. They became technically Poles, Galicians, and what not.

If you can't show that people of the time agreed on what they meant by "German", except geographically, how is the term useful?

The answer to 2 is also plainly "no". If there were any common German purpose, they'd all have been on the same side. In fact Germans were on both sides and neither at the same time, all the time.

So the only point we're really left with is that a largish number of the troops in 1815 spoke German. So what? We already knew that, and why is it important?

XV Brigada

If there was a country called Germany, duringt he Napoleonic Wars, as you seem to believe, please let me know where the capital was? Who was their leader, emperor, king, etc? What campaigns they took place in etc, etc. In fact, tell me everything you can about this country called Germany. I'm sure it will change history.

Dear Gazzola,

You are describing a nation state. RTFQ.

Bill

@ Defiant

I also cannot see this campaign as a German victory, there might of been a great deal of German speaking people involved but they were far from unified and thus did not act like a "German" nation rising up against the French. This is far fetched and a wrong way to think of the 1815 campaign.

Quite. My disagreement with the alleged "German" victory is essentially that it is better understood in the way you have put it. If there was a homogeneous idea of Germany in the Napoleonic Wars, then what they had, between 1794 and 1815, was a civil war that was still unresolved by the time of Waterloo.

I too suspect an agenda, namely to rehabilitate Germany by associating the country anachronistically with an unalloyed European good: the ending of 21 years of war. You have to go back to 1815 to find the most recent time Germany – or her predecessors – did her neighbours such a favour.

The proof of this, to my mind, is the fact that PH himself never actually defends, discusses or debates this stuff. It's because he really can't, because he is bang to rights. His response is simply to hurl insults at people who have the temerity to raise rational arguments in disagreement. Nobody's entitled to a view except himself and if you disagree you are mad or stupid.

Both this and the contents of his books are exactly what you'd expect if he didn't really buy his own claims, but wanted other people to.

4th Cuirassier et alii

In resume, you are saying that all you can actually criticise of Mr. Hofschröer books is the subtitle, isn't it? And from that subtitle you deduce a hidden agenda from Mr. Hofschröer part to rehabilitate Germany from her past sins!

It's just me, or looks like it much ado about nothing?

If I would be Mr. Hofschröer I would be really glad that the only thing criticable about my book would be the subtitle.

XV Brigada

I take your posting as NO you can't. Thanks again for proving my point. Case closed.

Basil,

PH's books are fine, his historical analysis of the combat and the campaigns is of a very high order. However, it is his idea that the Germans were Germans before they were of separate German states and thus the campaign was a German victory which is false. He has tried to build up a false impression that 1815 was attributable to a somehow unified German attempt to rid the world once and for all of Napoleon and that the British only had a secondary role to play in this great play.

Yes, it might be that we are quibbling about the title of the book but PH was attempting to make a strong and serious point with the words chosen for the title of that book. He knew it would be provocative and insulting and chose it on purpose for that end. He had an agenda that was real and had a goal as 4th Cuirassier has suggested. If not then we would not be discussing it right now.

It is one thing to do very good historical research and analysis but it is another to try to inculcate a false idea into the heads of your readers as to the reality of some ideal you have that is not actually real because there is no grounding for it. I doubt very much in 1815 that Germans, no matter what state they belonged too thought of Waterloo as a, "German Victory". So therefore, why should PH try to put that idea into his readers heads today?

Defiant

I see your points, but still I disagree with your appraisal. I read PH's books and honestly I didn't see what you saw. What I saw was an attempt to balance the dominant British narrative with a German narrative. So far in this thread, nobody has proved that PH was trying to atribute Waterloo victory to an purpotedly unified Germany. The only proof that anyone has provided is the subtitle, and that's a pretty weak evidence to build up the case, isn't it?

I'll gladly change my mind if someone points to me the relevant parts in his books, where PH made that conclussions, i.e. that Waterloo was a victory of Germany- not of the Germans, but of Germany.

By the way, what I do really think -from his texts- is that PH is anti-Wellington, rather than anti-British. He seems to believe that there have been too much hero-worship regarding Wellington performance at Waterloo, and that the Iron Duke standing should be take down a couple (well, more than a couple!) of notchs. I disagree with him, actually. Although I am not expert in Waterloo, PH doesn't proof that the battle plan that defeated Napoleon wasn't Wellington's brainchild. He establish beyond reasonable doubt the crucial part in the victory played by the Prussian Army -and Blucher's commitment to defeat Napoleon-, but what he doesn't demonstrate is that the plan of the battle was designed by other commander than Wellington.

Best regards

Dear Gazolla,

No don't do that. I take your posting to mean that you don't understand the difference between a state and a territory possessing its own language, people, culture etc. Two different things. Case indeed closed you are still wrong.

Bill

@ basileus

The subtitle, as you put it, is in fact the only claim to uniqueness. Are you suggesting that the "Germanness" of Waterloo is an incidental and unimportant aspect of PH's book? If so, then we really are at cross-purposes.

The claim to significance of PH's work rests on a small number of points:

1/ Previous writers in English don't attribute the credit properly as they should, i.e. to Germans. This has been debunked by default, inasmuch as not one title, I repeat not one, has been cited as an example of this. Not quoting enough German sources doesn't work. We need a summing up of the battle that "everyone" has read that says "Wellington would have won anyway, and the Prussian arrival just put the lid on it". It hasn't been cited because it's a straw man.

2/ The Germans won the battle. See above ad nauseam re whether "Germans" means what PH wants it to mean in 1815, or indeed, meant anything generally agreed on at all, apart from a place, a language, and, pace Captain Mercer, a straggly style of moustache. Kevin has demonstrated and cited a well-argued body of opinion that it did not. PH is at liberty to differ, a courtesy I wish he'd extend to others.

3/ The Duke of Wellington betrayed the Prussians. This essentially depends on placing the worst possible interpretation from Wellington's perspective, and the best from Prussia's, on a small number of pieces of correspondence. The fact that this is still being debated today shows that it's debatable, it doesn't prove it's valid. The only undisputed acts of deliberate treachery towards an ally I'm aware of were Gneisenau's counsel on 17 June to abandon Wellington, and the Cumberland Hussars' actual abandonment of Wellington on 18 June. Both, of course, perpetrated by…er…where were they from again?

4/ German-language archives reveal some interesting aspects to the battle that English-speaking readers are unfamiliar with. Generally agreed.

If there's any other claim to note in PH's stuff I've missed it but the above essentially hinges 100% on the German attribution, which is what we've been debating.

I really don't have a dog in the fight, except that to replace one imagined nationalistic claim for victory with another doesn't sound like good history to me. That's unless you can stand it up, which PH IMHO doesn't.

If I have an agenda of my own, it's that I think Russia won it in 1812, but then I've been reading Lieven, so I guess I would think that….

Are we nearly there yet?

Dear Gazolla,

No need to read my own postings and I don't want to appear condescending but you will find that in English the word country can mean either a state or a territory. The evidence that there was a place called Germany during the period is overwhelming. You ask why I mentioned Prussia, Austrian and the Confederation of the Rhine? Well because this 1808 map of Germany identified them in its legend as component parts of Allemagne. The Confederation of the Rhine was not an individual state you are wrong about that. You can deny such a place as Germany existed. That is your prerogative. I disagree with you. Is that OK.

Bill

3/ The Duke of Wellington betrayed the Prussians. This essentially depends on placing the worst possible interpretation from Wellington's perspective, and the best from Prussia's, on a small number of pieces of correspondence. The fact that this is still being debated today shows that it's debatable, it doesn't prove it's valid. The only undisputed acts of deliberate treachery towards an ally I'm aware of were Gneisenau's counsel on 17 June to abandon Wellington, and the Cumberland Hussars' actual abandonment of Wellington on 18 June. Both, of course, perpetrated by…er…where were they from again?

And I don't deny it. As I said in my answer to Defiant, PH's boogey man wasn't the British as such, but Wellington, whom he depicts as the villain of the story. I don't agree with him, because I don't think he proves his case.

1/ Previous writers in English don't attribute the credit properly as they should, i.e. to Germans. This has been debunked by default, inasmuch as not one title, I repeat not one, has been cited as an example of this. Not quoting enough German sources doesn't work. We need a summing up of the battle that "everyone" has read that says "Wellington would have won anyway, and the Prussian arrival just put the lid on it". It hasn't been cited because it's a straw man.

Here is where is my bone of contention with your interpretation of Hofschröer's books.

I don't think that PH is actually accussing all British historiography of saying that Prussia's intervention wasn't decisive. What I think, after reading his books, is that he felt it was needed a balance in the common wisdom about the battle in English-language historiography, which, quite naturally, had centered their narratives in the British experience of the battle.

2/ The Germans won the battle. See above ad nauseam re whether "Germans" means what PH wants it to mean in 1815, or indeed, meant anything generally agreed on at all, apart from a place, a language, and, pace Captain Mercer, a straggly style of moustache. Kevin has demonstrated and cited a well-argued body of opinion that it did not. PH is at liberty to differ, a courtesy I wish he'd extend to others.

Again I need to difer from your interpretation. As far as I can tell the only thing that Kevin has proved is something that nobody denied in the first place, i.e. that Germany, as nation-state, didn't exist in 1815.

What Kevin hasn't demonstrated so far -neither did the body of opinion he has liberally quoted- is that language, culture and geography didn't give a sense of being part of something bigger than their own countries to the Germans of 1815.

I won't dare to advance my opinion on this topic, as I am only familiar with the writings of (some) German intellectuals, who are not a good measure of what actually the common people actually believed or felt. So if Goethe or Fichte did speak of Germany, it doesn't mean that a Thüringian peasant thought like them. I could debate about those same problems in Spanish case, but not Germany's.

However, the existance of Germany as nation-state from 1871 onwards doesn't preclude that the sense of being German existed long before. A feeling of shared identity could exist between the different German contingents in 1815, based on language, culture and history. And Kevin hasn't disproved that it did exist, while other posters have given circumstancial and anecdotal evidence that it actually did.

I really don't have a dog in the fight, except that to replace one imagined nationalistic claim for victory with another doesn't sound like good history to me.

I agree. Defeating Napoleon's France wasn't a single country endeavour. It took the biggest coalition known until WWII to bring him to his knees, and only after he made huge mistakes, starting in 1808, continuing in 1812, and compounding the whole mess in 1813, when he refused to reach a negotiated settlement.

Always a pleasure to debate with you.

Best regards

Quote from 10th "that makes the comment from LWF somewhat useless and inaccurate."

Re-read DH's accurate reply to your unsupported opining. Quote; "You are misquoting him again – LWF was talking about your usual modus operandi, not the specific books you list.
However, it is interesting that several of the (English) books listed have cut-offs pre-1871, yet refer to "Germany". How is that?"

10th: Deal directly with Antonio's, Bill's and, Shnorf's points in this thread instead of deflecting attention from your original assertion, misquoting, fallacy of ascertainment ("finding what you are looking for"), and begging the question.

I repeat the above point about your book list: "However, it is interesting that several of the (English) books listed have cut-offs pre-1871, yet refer to "Germany". How is that?"

How is it that Col. Elting used the word Germany in his Atlas of the Napoleonic Wars?

Schnorf provided examples of multiple original primary sources using the words German and Germany?

Your comment above accurately describes your own post (replace the letters LWF with "10th Marines").

@ basileus:

…What I think, after reading his books, is that he felt it was needed a balance in the common wisdom about the battle in English-language historiography.

The thing is, though, he doesn't stop there. To assert that "English writers don't acknowledge the Prussians enough" is a quite plausible contention, if we are talking about the sources they quote verbatim (as opposed to their overall analysis of whose victory it was). The trouble is that PH goes on to assert that "What's more, Germans won it!"

What Kevin hasn't demonstrated so far -neither did the body of opinion he has liberally quoted- is that language, culture and geography didn't give a sense of being part of something bigger than their own countries to the Germans of 1815.

I agree it's not conclusive either way, but I think the very lack of conclusiveness is enough to ensure that the default view remains intact, i.e. that it was won by an unlikely but effective alliance of British, Netherlands and Prussians, rather than "Germans".

The sort of reasoning Kevin has quoted, and that I think plausibly undermines the idea of "German-ness" is this sort of thing:

This early nationalism had different inflections, from idealistic patriotism…to a more mystical enthusiasm for German virtues that…sometimes extended to belief in a German mission…Against the roster of nationalist intellectuals we have to set…the much greater numbers of those who felt themselves to be Saxons, or Bavarians, not Germans…It is sometimes said that the educated middle class found a new source of identity in the nation at a time of crisis. No doubt: but we should not forget the continuing hold of state, dynastic, local, and religious loyalties.

So there's room for doubt, and if so, no Germans, no German victory.

What I find odd is the intolerance one experiences if one airs this view and PH gets to hear of it. I can see why he can't be bothered to engage with people every time they disagree with him over 15 years. What I can't understand is why he wades in with a fake ID and simply gratuitously insults people in the manner of a 12-year-old.

The one I find particularly obnoxious is the claim that if you disagree with him, you can't have read his book (otherwise, presumbaly, you would). I think if PH really thinks that, then he seriously overestimates his powers of advocacy….!

And nice talking to you too by the way!

Dave Hollins has posted this link in other thread.

link

It's an article of Peter Hofschröer for the BBC-History in Depth, on the battle of Waterloo.

I think this article debunks some of the insights on Mr Hofschröer's biases and purportedly anti-Britishness, that have been posted in this thread. Perhaps, it's the media he is writing for (BBC), but to me it looks like a balanced, if short, narrative of the battle. I would recommend to read it to all of us which have intervened in this thread.

Best regards

XV Brigada

How insulting! You should be ashamed of yourself.
Firstly, Russia is a country, France is a country, modern day Germany is a country. That is clear to anyone and I know what you mean about a territory or region sharing the same language connection or whatever. But Germany as a country did not exist. So again, like it or not, case closed.
And why the silly diversion about the Confederation of the Rhine? I have not called it an individual state? It is a collection of individual states as was the fabled Germany you keep insisting existed. Even when the Napoleonic Wars ended in 1815, it was still a collection of German states, not a country. And since you like to throw out references, here's one for you: Cambridge History of Germany by Martin Kitchen, 1996. In 1815 – 'It was a loose association of the thirty nine remaining German states without a government or a head of state but with a Federal assembly.' (page 11)
Note the terms, loose association and without a government or head of state. If you don't agree with the Cambridge History and others that say the same, okay, that's your choice. You obviously and firmly believe there was a country called Germany during the Napoleonic Wars, based on a map you have. You have even tried to muddle things up by bringing in territory and state, which has nothing to do with what I said and you are just trying to imply that I do not know the difference. Again, shame on you-it as a cheap shot! But that's okay, that's your choice, I suppose. You believe what you want to believe. I disagree with you. So perhaps we can agree to disagree like gentlemen and move on, hopefully to talk about something Napoleonic. That would make a nice change, don't you think?

Gazzola wrote:

"XV Brigada
How insulting! You should be ashamed of yourself. . . . But Germany as a country did not exist. So again, like it or not, case closed.
And why the silly diversion about the Confederation of the Rhine? I have not called it an individual state? It is a collection of individual states as was the fabled Germany you keep insisting existed. Cambridge History of Germany by Martin Kitchen, 1996. In 1815 – 'It was a loose association of the thirty nine remaining German states without a government or a head of state but with a Federal assembly.' (page 11). . . . You obviously and firmly believe there was a country called Germany during the Napoleonic Wars, based on a map you have. You have even tried to muddle things up by bringing in territory and state, which has nothing to do with what I said and you are just trying to imply that I do not know the difference. Again, shame on you-it as a cheap shot! . . . You believe what you want to believe. . . So perhaps we can agree to disagree like gentlemen and move on, hopefully to talk about something Napoleonic."

Gazzola:

Did it ever occur to you that if you reply to someone as "silly" or that they "muddle things," or "shame on" them, or that they replied with a "cheap shot" and then ask them to be a gentleman, that you are asking for something that perhaps only two or three people in all of history could willingly comply?

"Fabled Germany?"

You cite "Cambridge History of Germany by Martin Kitchen, 1996. In 1815 – 'It was a loose association of the thirty nine remaining German states without a government or a head of state but with a Federal assembly.' (page 11)" as evidence for your point?

I am in a time warp? Is this the Benny Hill Show (Napoleonic History skit)?

This "history lesson" is reminding me of the Dead Parrot sketch from Monty Python. What's wrong with the parrot?! It's dead. No he's not, he's pining for the fjords . . .

"This German Hussar walks into a bar . . "

"This German Hussar walks into a bar,
hits his head and yells, 'Who vas it who lowered ze bar?' …"

hehe, the debate is losing its momentum now. Quick, someone say something nasty or stupid so we can keep going…

Ok, Shane, I'll say it: "Something nasty or stupid so we can keep going…"

Hmm, that didn't seem to do anything much.

well, it got you to page 10…

Dear LWF,

The only muddling in my view is Gazolla's because it has been perfectly clear throughout this thread that nobody has claimed that a German state existed. If he thinks that country can only mean a state then he is wrong and when somebody writes as he did:

> 'Prussia, Austria, Confederation of the Rhine' I am sure you are well aware that these are individual states<

I take to mean what it says.

I am not sure who he thinks I have insulted or why I should be ashamed of myself but I can't tell the difference between Gazolla's "passion" and rudeness and so I will give him a wide berth in future.

Bill

Does anyone else think the fourth season of Not Going Out isn't as good as the first three?

Hasn't this Head-Bangers Ball gone on long enough?

Bill:

Quick, let's start a thread about the Treaty of Westphalia and the development of the modern "state" and how the impact of the Thirty Years' War in Germany resulted in . . . Oh, there is that Germany word again.

Or, the Confederation of the Rhine was created from 16 German states by Napoleon . . . oops.

Or, a history of the German princes involved in the Confederation of the Rhine . . . oops again.

Or, let's take an aspirin and go back to wargaming.

P.S. You chose the best tract to take with Gazzy.

Maybe Arteis knows another German Hussar joke! :)