"Germany and the Germans" Topic

I have always found both Germans and Germany fascinating, especially in the Napoleonic period.

There was no political entity of Germany until 1871 when the German empire was proclaimed at Versailles.

During the Napoleonic period, despite Prussian propaganda, the different independent states in the territory of Germany considered themselves as whatever their nationality was at the time, be it Bavarian, Saxon, Prussian, etc.

The idea of a pan-German state was only in embryonic form, the ideas and writings of those such as Fichte notwithstanding. And the competition between Austria and Prussia for dominance in Germany was on ongoing process and the smaller German states fought against that for decades if not longer. The formation of the Confederation of the Rhine in 1806 is an indicator of that desire for independence and not to be dominated by either Austria or Prussia.

Prussia's actions in the so-called War of Liberation in 1813 had as the objective of 'liberating' as much of Germany to become part of Prussia. The Saxons and Rhinelanders deeply regretted and resented Prussian rule, which manifested itself in early 1815 with a mutiny of the Saxon troops against the Prussians.

Regarding the Waterloo campaign, I seriously doubt that the various Germans in the allied armies thought of themselves as Germans and not as Nassauers, Prussians, Hanoverians, etc. The KGL, for example, were part of the British army and to my mind be counted in the British totals.

Waterloo was an allied victory, not a British, Prussian, or German one.

K

Brechtel198

Great post. There was no Germany, just various states that later became a Germany.

And your last line was accurate. But it is really is hard to understand why some people will not accept Waterloo was an Allied victory and that it took more than one army to defeat Napoleon and the French. It won't change anything.

But I suppose we have to accept that people have different viewpoints and interpret things and events differently, absurd as they may seem to some of us.

As in every other country the masses were uneducated. They did and were who they were told. if they paid taxes to a particular prince then they were his subjects. They were impressed into service at a whim of the ruler.

nothing mystic or magical just the people doing what they ahd been told for centuries.

The Prussian mystic of a national germany was not that compelling either. It took the leaders to come on board then their citizens did. Look at how long it took to unify the region including the number of wars and it still was not complete by WW1.

Actually, it's a little more complicated than that. The masses may not have been particularly educated, but in the Protestant parts of German-speaking Central Europe, were at least supposed to be able to read their Bible. Nor did they regard themselves as nothing more than the subjects of this or that Duke or Prince. For one thing, all those belonged to the Empire until 1806. For another, the vague notion that all German-speaking people had something in common, which they didn't share with their French or Slavic neighbours, was beginning to take shape just as the French Revolution broke. When French armies exported the conceopt of nationalism, this was the fertile ground it fell upon. The volunteers of 1813 weren't all victims of Prussian propaganda: Notwithstanding later re-writing by post-1870 Prusso-German historians, the Prussian leadership was initially quite reluctant to tolerate, let alone endorse, this popular movement, and in fact lost no time after 1815 to bring its key structures – patriotic associations and the Landwehr – back under the monarchy's control.

My impression from reading (plenty) memoires of Prussians soldiers (privates, volunteers and officers) of the Napoelonic period is that their allegiance and identification was with their king. Then next with their province, maybe for some even with their province first ;-)

Prussian generals thought "Prussian", even Scharnhorst, a born Hanoverian.

For a few educated men, a united Germany perhaps was an abstract idea or a – very – distant dream, but nothing relevant for their real daily life. I never read any remarks that someone regretted the Holy Roman Empire had gone in 1806.

A united Germany was propagated by a few idealists, such as Stein, Arndt and Jahn. The latter had a few followers, young men, in the Lützow free corps. But campaigning doesn't leave much time for politics.

The idea to unite Germany began to spread slowly only after 1815.

Is it time again for this perennial thread from our dear Kevin?

Examples of Germans before Napoleon expressing their identity as Germans, and their use of the word "Germany":

"When will we give up our blind worship of foreigners and learn to judge our own German countrymen fairly?"
- Johann Mattheson, 1740

"To see how bad contemporary taste in Germany is, just visit any theatre!"
- Frederick the Great, "Concerning German Literature", 1780

"I am only a good German, and I do not blush to express myself…"
- A somewhat more modest Frederick the Great, 1753.

"Frederick's aversion to the German language was a good thing for German writers…"
- Goethe, (Briefe XXVII, 106)

"If we ever had reason to be proud of Germany, then today is that time…"
- Christian Daniel Schubart, "German Chronicles," 1774.

"Assume, O men of Germany, that ancient spirit of yours…"
- Konrad Celtis, 1492 (!!)

"What is nobler than German liberty… Germany is a free country, indeed the freest in the world."
- Gottfried W. Leibniz, "Exhortation to the Germans," 1679

(Frederick William I of Prussia then agreed to fund Leibniz's "German Society," "So that it [German culture] can be understood right across Germany."

"What are the Germans? We are what we have been for centuries: that is, a puzzle of a political constitution…."
- Friedrich Carl von Moser, 1766

"…proud Britons believe they are a superior species and will not allow their King to travel among the subhuman Germans."
- Schubart, "German Chronicles," 1775.

"Their [British] ignorance is so great that they view it as a fairy tale whenever someone tells them that the same freedoms exist in the best states of Germany."
- Johann Justus Möser, 1774

"I believe we Germans can go on instructing foreigners in how music can be developed still further…"
- Anonymous German composer writing in Brunswick, 1741.

"[Hermann] was the liberator of Germany."
- Johann Heinrich Zedler, Universal Encyclopedia, 1732.

"It is a truly national book. No one German could have written it."
- Christian Stolberg's review of Goethe's "Young Werther," 1790?

"However much of German valor… and greatness may be lost, the soul is nevertheless disposed by the daring singular demeanour of this Germany to believe that there is a beautiful, rugged German nature."
- Johann Gottfried Herder, 1772

"And you, German, returning from abroad: would you greet your mother in French?"
- Herder, "To the Germans"

"Give us what we thirst for: A single German fatherland, and a single law and a single pure nation…."
- Herder, "Ode to the German Emperor," 1780.

"Everyone knows that in all branches of intellectual activity, our nation has achieved a great deal… Foreigners use with gratitude the inventions and discoveries of the Germans."
- Anonymous author, Hamburgische neue Zeitung, 1800?

"It is on the continuing security and liberty of the Empire that the welfare of the peasantry of Germany depends."
- Rudolf Becker, "Peasant's Handbook," 1788.

"What a delightful thought for everyone capable of feeling that he is a German!"
- Tobias von Gebler, 1776.

* * * *

You will notice that I have restricted myself primarily to German writers before the Napoleonic period, to show that there was plenty of German national feeling and identity, prior to the Napoleonic period.

If you'd like more, from the Napoleonic period itself, there's more than plenty of that, too, including from members of the Bonaparte family:

"Marry a German, my friend! They are the best of all women!"
- Napoleon to Louis Constant de Wairy

"I do not like Germans or Germany. I am all French!"
- Jerome Bonaparte to Napoleon, 1809.

"If only the German were more vigorous. But he is stupid; he believes the French pretenses, he bears like a beast of burden instead of rising up with flails, pitchforks and scythes and exterminating the foreigner from our land."
- Gneisenau to his wife, May 1807.

"I will not sit in inactivity while other brave German men fight for the liberation of our German fatherland!"
- Blücher to Gneisenau, 1809.

"Oh Germans, you aren't Germans anymore!"
- Ernst Moritz Arndt, 1809.

"Let us show that we are Germans, and that we will fight for our rights, our laws, and against oppression!"
- The Duke of Brunswick, June 1809

"My oath of allegiance to the king stood in stark contrast with my feelings of nationality and patriotism as a German."
- Lt. Fritz Wolf, of the Westphalian army, 1809.

"I am coming to avenge you and liberate you… my German brothers."
- Maj. Ferdinand von Schill, 1809, "To The Germans."

"I love Germany with my deepest soul. The misfortune of the age binds me still closer to it."
- Wilhelm von Humboldt, 1807.

"I seriously doubt that the various Germans in the allied armies thought of themselves as Germans and not as Nassauers, Prussians, Hanoverians, etc."

People can't have multiple allegiances?

Then what's up with all the rebel flags on pickup trucks with the bumper stickers that read "Proud to be an American!"

(Southerners would be the first to remind you that the Confederates considered themselves Americans… despite their having felt that their first loyalties were to their separate states.)

National feeling and identity aren't always exclusive, nor logical. Every nationality is subdivided into regional identities and loyalties. We have Welsh friends who are quite proud of their Welshness… unless Britain is doing well in the Olympics, in which case they're enthusiastic Brits.

Pretty much every country and nationality is like that. Not to mention complicated and criss-crossed with religious allegiances and local dialects, etc.

But when he crossed the Rhine in 1809, Wilhelm Ludwig Falkmann, an officer in the Lippe contingent, recalled that he and his soldiers breathed easier, to be "back in good Germany." He might have been a Lippaner, and he might have been nowhere near his home or his state, but he was in his homeland, at any rate.

Cool, this thread only got upto 614 posts last time:

TMP link

Regards

Wasn't the whole region "Germanica" long before the Romans got in there? I think the German roots might have run pretty deep…

"Cool, this thread only got upto 614 posts last time:"

Like I said, it's a re-run of a re-run. Stay tuned for the Top Hits. This program features:

* Nazis, war crimes, and losing world wars.

* Vague name-dropping of allegedly relevant freshmen textbooks that one "should read" to get a better understanding harrumph, harrumph…

* A minimum of 100 new stifles.

All things being equal, the question remains why did the minor western German states fight against Prussia and Austria and form the Confederation of the Rhine for self-defense?

The answer would seem to be to retain their independence from both Austria and Prussia. And it is noteworthy that Austria invaded Bavaria twice without provocation during the period-in 1805 and 1809.

Upon the invasion of Bavaria in 1809 the Archduke Charles' proclamation to his 'German brothers' to rise up against the French fell flat. The Confederation of the Rhine contingents in 1809 served with both skill and devotion to the alliance with the French.

And this thread was begun in order to bring the question out from another thread that was way too long.

K

"the question remains why did the minor western German states fight against Prussia and Austria and form the Confederation of the Rhine for self-defense?"

The Confederation was created by Napoleon. The small German states didn't form it for their own "self-defense."

A number of small German states were removed from the map altogether, as Napoleon created his new constellation of German satellites.

(I'm having trouble imagining Hannoverians, Hessen-Kasselers, Braunschweigers, etc., voluntarily disbanding their states "for their own self-defense.")

In other cases, like the northern coastal states, they were simply annexed by France outright.

Why did they fight for Napoleon against Prussia and Austria? The same reason they fought for him in Spain, or in Russia, or elsewhere: because he ordered them to.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point. The smaller western German states were against being absorbed by either Prussia or Austria. And that was the reason they joined and formed the Confederation of the Rhine.

The larger of these states, such as Bavaria, Wurttemberg, and Baden, and later Saxony, were afraid of being absorbed into either Austria or Prussia, something that would later become a reality regarding Prussia, beginning in 1814-1815. Prussia not only wanted to be dominant in Germany, but wanted to be Germany which the later Wars of Unification would clearly demonstrate.

K

"The smaller western German states were against being absorbed by either Prussia or Austria. And that was the reason they joined and formed the Confederation of the Rhine."

Of course they were against being annexed by anybody. But the fact remains that they "joined" the Confederation because Napoleon commanded it. Sure, he sweetened the deal for several of them, too. But he also made it very plain what he would do with any German state or ruler who wasn't useful to him, as he abolished several states and eventually annexed others.

(If you were the Elector of Saxony, what would you have done? Self-preservation meant saying "Yes" to Napoleon.)

The primary threat of annexation for small German states in the first decade of the 19th century, came from France. Napoleon ruled over 11 million Germans by 1811, within the borders of France. Plus the satellite states like Westphalia.

If you really believe that the smaller states voluntarily joined the Confederation, out of fear of being annexed or eliminated by Berlin or Vienna… then how do you explain the millions of Germans annexed by France, or the German states abolished by France? Napoleon altered the map of Germany much more in a few years, than the Habsburgs and Hohenzollerns had done in the previous century.

Prussia not only wanted to be dominant in Germany, but wanted to be Germany which the later Wars of Unification would clearly demonstrate.

I don't believe there was such a long-term plan in Prussia in 1815, but I am ready to be convinced by contemporary sources ?

I would suggest that Frederick's seizure of Silesia, the cutting up of Poland in the 1790s, and Prussia's grab for as much territory in Germany as they could get in 1814 are certainly indicators of Prussia's long term objectives regarding Germany and Prussian expansion.

K

Smile, it surely is an indication for territorial greed and the capabilty combined with good luck to increase one's own state, but I still don't believe that Friedrich Wilhelm III, let alone Friedrich II, thought so "big" and had a plan to annex or dominate all Germany, or become emperors.

If such a plan existed, there must be some traces of it in contemporary sources.

Mr Butt, Sir, this is using "German" in the same way one might use "Latin" to describe the early peoples or tribes once living in Italy.

It doesnt mean one is Italian (or Roman)just because you talk of "Latin Literature" etc. You can still be patriotically Umbrian or whatever in your main identity.

I would suggest that Frederick's seizure of Silesia, the cutting up of Poland in the 1790s, and Prussia's grab for as much territory in Germany as they could get in 1814 are certainly indicators of Prussia's long term objectives regarding Germany and Prussian expansion.

By the same logic, what do you make of Napoleon's Empire incuding Barcelona, Rome, Hamburg and Croatia as an indicator of French Expansion?

Regards

What I can't understand is how, after Austerlitz and then Jena, lots of German states that had supported Austria and Prussia changed sides and supported the French, but then after the 1812 and 1813 campaigns those states in Germany changed back to supporting Prussia and Austria. How are these subtle geo-political movements to be explained?

Interesting thread, the quotes from pre Napoleonic era "Germans" regarding their identity is particulalry interesting though I would say it is possible to refer to a broader identity other than a national identity and that could be merely geographical, as Metternich in the mid 19th century insisted about the "Italians", "Italy is nothing but a geographical expression".

I wonder if it is possible for some European enthuasiasts to refer to a European identity as citizens within the European Community much as a pre unification Saxon or Rhinelander might have referred to Germany? Germany remains after all a Federal state and conceivably Europe could go the same way. Perhaps the suggested Prussian plan is still work in progress….

Incidentally, I seem to recall at the start of the Revolutionary Wars there were around 360 independent German states, many part of the Holy Roman Empire, but by 1815 consolidation resulted in around 36 states.

link

Hi, please find here my favorite book on this topic….on germanic tribes became germans….

And here the book for answering who has won and fought the war of liberation…

auction

Greetings and have fun

"Mr Butt, Sir, this is using "German" in the same way one might use "Latin" to describe the early peoples or tribes once living in Italy."

I don't know enough about early Italy to comment on that, but what I hoped to demonstrate with all those quotes, was that Germans from the 18th century on, frequently called themselves "Germans" and called their part of the world, "Germany."

That's just a fact. It's there in their writing and speech, in thousands of examples, for at least a century before Napoleon.

Did they also have strong regional loyalties and identities? Of course. All peoples do.

I think we are looking at the issue through two hundred years of a "nationalism" that was just being born at the time of the Napoleonic wars.

'Germany' was a vibrant cultural entity, and Austrian Germans were just as proud of that fact as the ones in Hanover and Bravaria… and within those nations often segragated based on that cultural norm. To say you were a German anywhere in Europe had as much meaning as if I said I am 'an American' in Europe today. Herder [quoted above in CCB's post] wrote of unifying the German 'nation' simply to protect what he saw as the fracturing of the German culture, the German Nation among all the various states and interests. The nation existed, it just had to be 'unified.' We don't have the same powerful connections and beliefs behind the idea of 'Culure' and 'National Character' that the contemporaries of Napoleon did.

Nationalism in the 18th and 19th Century, as a unifying principle for a community, wasn't based on a form of government, or specific political principles or, specific territories, or even religion. It formed around a specific shared culture and history… The only other loyalty was to the Monarch. Only in France and the United States did you see anything different in the way of "Nationalism."

For instance, in Great Britain, the Irish, Scots and Welsh were spoken of as separate 'nations', though part the 'nation.' The Upper Classes in Britain, Germany and Russian spoke French, ate French cuisine and favored French styles and liquor, though they were determinedly fighting the French. You won't find any patriotic feelings among the British Officers and Soldiers concerning a superior set of virtues or government, it was about protecting their 'way of life' and defeating Napoleon.

Read the "Military Mentor", a two volume set of letters written by British General to his son on becoming an officer. It is available on Goggle for free. Written in 1811, there is a chapter on "Love of Country." In it nothing is said about the superiority of the British government or way of life to other countries. Nothing is said about the virtues of being an Englishman. What is stated is that a 'Love of Country' is loyalty to the King and the society that raised its citizens. It was an extenstion of one's family and to be protected as such. That's it. The basics of 'Nationalism' and love of country in Britain in 1811.

The views of men two hundred years ago don't necessarily equate to views today. We can't understand their ideas of 'Nationalism' and more specifically "Germany" by laying a 21st Century template of Nationalism over their beliefs and actions.

It also gives you an idea of how different, radical and world-altering the U.S. Constitution and France's 'New Man' would have appeared, or why many Americans wanted to make George Washington King and Napoleon led a 'Republic' of than a decade back to an Imperial throne.

I don't see the conflict.

Germany was a geographical area. In Which lived people who were ethnically German. This means Saxony, Prussia, Austrian Bohemia, Bavaria, Hanover and all the smaller independent states.
Obviously the idea of a united Germany or a German super state didn't exist amongst the wider people.

In the same way English, Irish, Scots, Welsh, Cornish, white West Indians ect would all state they are British (in the Napoleonic time)

If you walked up to a Bavarian and said "your a German?" He would say yes. If you said "your Saxon or Prussian?" he would say no. If you asked him "whose the king of the Germans then?" He might tell you Germany is a place and a people but not a country.

It is thus acceptable to use terms such as "German victory" as it is accepting that troops from the area of Germany won the day. Like "British victory" is acceptable to say instead of Anglo-Irish-Scottish-Cornish -Welsh victory.

I'm a little unsure what the gist of this is. Did the Germans understand they were all German? Yes.
Did this translate into some feeling if unity? No
Does this stop them being German? No.
Does this make the word German inaccurate? No.

Germany was not only a geographic area, also the foreigners, even French did realize this.
Hence the Kings German Legion
or the French did talk about the bonnes Allemandes, and Napoleon about his German wife.
The rest is hair splitting and ignoring history, I bet B is unable to read German – funnily enough all those drill books in the Napoleonic time were written in German but not in Prussian, Bavarian or Austrian.
A German of today could read the even today.
This topic is a typical crusade of B – which he fuels into different fora from time to time.

Because Austria and Germany are different countries today its easy to forget that the Pan-Germans (to generalise) thought of Austria as part of greater Germany. The liberal revolutionaries of 1848-49 always thought that Austria was part of the "Project".

The Austro-Hungarian empire wasn't a nation in the modern sense at all – it was pan-national and mostly whatever the ruling dynasty could get their hands on. In the late C18 it included chunks of the modern Netherlands, and in the C19 they still had pieces of modern Poland and modern Italy among lots of other areas. Prussia wasn't a nation either, but it was very largely based in the German-speaking area. (Although like most of the local powers they had bits of Poland from time to time)

Prussia and Austria had a pretty uneasy relationship through this period precisely because of their rivalry for dominance of the German-speaking region.

I'd say both were very aware of German nationalism. For Austro-Hungary it was pretty much pure threat, for the Kingdom of Prussia mostly threat (because nationalism doesnt mix with Absolute monarchy) but with some opportunities from time to time.

tochtli

I believe the Greeks and Romans termed the area Germania, not the tribes themselves.

The previous discussion on the Germans and Germany question basically displayed that there was no German nation, no king of Germany, and no unification of Germanic states until 1871, and even then, although various states combined, they still remained as Prussia, Bavaria etc. In that sense, it is incorrect to called the troops from various states Germans or suggest an area as Germany.

However, the debate also suggested that there was a cultural Germany, long before 1871, so people would naturally recognise similarities with each other, such as language, tradditions etc. In that sense, it could be seen as correct as calling the troops from various states Germans and the area Germany.

It is up to each individual to decide on how they interpret the reality of the period. For example, when researching or writing up articles concerning actions and regiments of the Confederation of the Rhine and also the Prussians, I have no problem in terming them as Germans, although I know they were not one army from one country, but several states covering a certain area, which later became Germany. It saves a lot of time and space.

So, in a sense, both sides of the argument could be seen as correct, depending on which way you prefer to look at it. But the reality of the time does lean towards no Germany and no Germans, just a number of German speaking individual states.

Apart from that, just enjoy reading Gill's books, which cover the involvement of various states like Bavaria during the Napoleonic period.

Edwulf

I don't think those from Scotland, Ireland or Wales, during the Napoleonic period, or even now for that matter, would consider them British first. They would, more than likely, during the Napoleonic period anyway, consider themselves as Scottish, Irish or Welsh, being paid by the English to fight their wars for them.

And I can't see a Prussian, Saxon, Wurttemberger, saying, during the Napoleonic period, that they were not Prussian or Saxon etc. They had pride in the various states they belonged to and I am sure they would not deny who they were.

Captain Cornelius Butt

I think the answer to the various German states siding with Napoleon and forming the Confederation of the Rhine, is survival. They were doing what is best for their state at the time and siding with Napoleon seemed to offer that at the time.

At first, to side with Napoleon, may have offered more for the individual states, but later, to fight against him offered more. To say they were forced to side with Napoleon is like saying they were forced to fight against him when they changed sides. But I think, if you find yourself being invaded by other, so called brother Germans like Austria, then that would surely push one more towards siding with Napoleon.

And perhaps, for some reason, people don't want to believe that various states felt they would benefit more from siding with Napoleon at times, rather than opposing him? And all nations were greedy for land – look at what happened to Poland and Saxony etc.

I think that most of the German states who became French allies did so because it suited their rulers to do so, not necessarily because it was good for their people. Some rulers became elevated in rank in this process, eg the Elector of Saxony becoming a King, and this might have been a consideration for some.

Rod

We tend to think of these "elevations" of certain German rulers as some sort of promotion by Napoleon that would have enticed them. But in fact it was just a necessary and obvious designation. Their old rank of "Elector" made no sense anymore, since there was no longer a Reich, and thus no Kaiser to elect.

"most of the German states who became French allies did so because it suited their rulers to do so, not necessarily because it was good for their people."

It was clearly catastrophic for their people. The Continental System shut down most of their commerce, obliterating much of the middle class. Unemployment, crime, and vagrancy increased dramatically. Taxes were more than doubled in many places, plus the mandatory French "contributions" to support Napoleon's armies. Huge areas of formerly-productive aristocratic land were taken and given to French officers or state officials as gifts, who then were absentee landlords and rarely saw the land, much less worked it – causing more unemployment and less economic activity. (Pauline Bonaparte, for example, was one of the largest landowners in Westphalia. Napoleon gave her nearly a quarter-million acres of estates across Germany, all of which became tax-exempt because they were imperial donatives, and none of which were productive anymore.) And then of course there are the tens of thousands of men conscripted and sent abroad to fight in the wars, who never returned.

Why did German rulers ally with Napoleon? Many of them simply had no choice. Those who resisted were wiped off the map. Hessen-Kassel, Brunswick, Hannover, Oldenburg, and lots of small principalities, simply disappeared. Cooperation with Napoleon meant political survival, so of course most of them cooperated.

Some of those states had previous relationships with France, in some cases reaching back more than a century. Bavaria and Saxony are the most obvious examples. So it wasn't a big leap for Bavarian or Saxon rulers to consider a French alliance.

But whether or not they disliked Prussia or Austria, no longer mattered. Whether they feared annexation by Prussia or Austria, was irrelevant now. Napoleon was the new master of Germany. They did as he commanded.

That's not what I said.
I said if you asked them if they are a German they would say yes.
This doesn't mean they were not proud Bavarians or such and such. Like I said the German to them probably had little meaning to them other than describing people from places that spoke German. I'm sure if I told him he was Prussian I'd be corrected instantly.

I don't doubt that there are many Scots, Welsh, English that prefer there national title to the British one. I myself prefer to say English over British. However I've never met a Welshman whose denied being British (several who insist they have more right to it than any tbh) and most of the Scots I've met don't seem to mind being called British. None if them like being called English though. Lol. And they all dislike England being used when GB or UK should be. Or when Brit is used when English should. However they are all modern folk with a modern mindset.

As to the Georgian era… Possibly they all English, Scot or Welsh knew what they were first. But I doubt any would have claimed they are not British… The 2nd Dragoons were the North British Dragoons after all, and Brtish was then an all encompassing word including all four home nations.

It wasn't the English army. It was the British army formed by the merging of the English and the Scottish armies. That said the English were consistently the largest group in there, though the Irish would be over representing themselves of course. So maybe it's a tad unfair to say the English were paying them to do the fighting for them when at the very least the were paying them to fight alongside them.

I've mentioned this before I'm sure, but in Roger Scruton's: England: An Elegy there is a remark in a footnote that:

"Scots and Irish soldiers were still referring to themselves as 'English' (being in service to the English Crown) in the 1800s. See A.D.Harvey Collision of Empires:Britain in the Three World Wars, 1793-1945"

Regards

True you had no choice, either join Napoleon or be wiped out.
Then the other way round, either join the Allies or risk being eliminated from the map.

Wiped out by whom? Before the Confederation was formed in 1806, Bavaria and Wurttemberg were already French allies.

Both had considered and chosen France with whom to be allied, even if they considered it 'the lesser of two evils' because both Prussia and Austria planned to ingest them. And, again, Prussia's actions in Germany with the annexation of half of Saxony and the Rhineland, tended to prove the rulers of the lesser German states correct.

B

Brechtel198

It does look like some people just don't want to believe that some of the 'German' states would have prefered to side with Napoleon at any time. They could not think for themselves and had to have been forced. And, I guess, if that's what they want to believe, I don't suppose anything said will change their views, although VW has basically agreed with what I said about survival. A shame he has me on stifle, since I'm not sure he would be pleased about that.

However, in terms of how the 'Germans' might have viewed Napoleon, people should read A Soldier For Napoleon, the Campaigns of Lieutenant Franz Joseph Hausmann, 7th Bavarian Infantry Regiment.

Page 239-
Franz was not alone in his nostalgia for his years in uniform under Napoleon. Despite the horrors of experiences such as the retreat from Russia, despite the nationalist sentiment that swept much of Germany in the early to mid-nineteenth century, Napoleonic veterans' groups flourished in Germany in the decades following the french Emperor's second abdication. Proudly wearing their crosses of the Legion of Honour, publishing songs and poems to 'the hero Napoleon', they preserved a memory to the Napoleonic period.

But nothing matches the thrill
when our bright eyes
envisage the Emperor
who led us to fame and victory,
who glorified France's throne,
and was a true father to us.

(Words from the song written for the Founding Festival of the Veterans Association of Former Napoleonic Soldiers in Krefeld, August 1848)

Hi,

It seems the conecpt of germany is hard to get …..
Here is geographic definition of germany ..

"From the Meuse to the Memel,
From the Adige to the Belt,"
link
By August Heinrich Hoffmann von Fallersleben 1841 on Helgoland.
link

Have fun

Rudi the German

Not sure your interesting post counts, since the links suggest, as does your post, that the words were not added to the tune until 1841. In other words, well after the Napoleonic period.

Who they wanted to side with is irrelevant. Germans fought on all sides for many reasons. The KGL were called German for a reason. If that word was a problem they would have been the KHL.

The Bavarians were no less German for wanting to remain Bavarian. They still knew they were Germans and in the region of Germany. They didn't want to be Austrian so they sided with France.

But I would submit that they were Bavarians first and Germans second, their allegiance being to Bavaria and their Elector and then king.

And they didn't want to be Austrians or Prussians.

B

Well yes. Of course.
Bavaria was their country.
German was their ethnic and cultural stock.

The two are mutually compatible as Germany the political entity didn't exist.

"Mr Butt, Sir, this is using "German" in the same way one might use "Latin" to describe the early peoples or tribes once living in Italy."

I don't know enough about early Italy to comment on that, but what I hoped to demonstrate with all those quotes, was that Germans from the 18th century on, frequently called themselves "Germans" and called their part of the world, "Germany."

Actually, there may be some parallels:
link
link

To add to the fun of the 'Germany' question.

Vossler, a Wurttemberger, who was captured by Cossacks in 1813 records in his memoirs that he was asked to defect and to join the Russo-German Legion but he refused. He also records being insulted for remaining on Napoleon's side for so long.

And in relation to why Wurttemberg later changed sides, he gives the reason why his Russian captors think Wurttemberg changed sides. 'They were also quick to remind us that we had initially opposed them, joining them only when Fortune smiled upon their arms.'

And perhaps in relation to the 'Germany' question, he writes concerning the view of Silesians-page 163

'Their occasional suggestion that the South Germans would have done better to join Prussia and the rest of Germany earlier than 1813 was one with which we could not but agree.'

On the same page-
'My first action on German soil was to inform my mother, who had not heard a word from me since I was taken prisoner…'

But he begins the next paragraph-'Our first night on Saxon soil was spent at….'

So here we have a Wurttemberger mentioning a Germany, as he does the people of a North and South Germany. But then the German soil becomes distinctly Saxon soil.

"* Vague name-dropping of allegedly relevant freshmen textbooks that one "should read" to get a better understanding harrumph, harrumph…"

Is it too early for me to mention Showalters 'The Wars of German Unification' then?

harrumph.

Also the Austrians – had German and Hungarian regiments, I don't see where the problem is – other that it is a made problem.

A Latin could be a Spaniard, or lets's say an Italian, could a Spaniard read an Italien drill book? Most likley no – but a Bavarian could read easily a Hanoveranian drill book.

I think von Winterfeldt has it.

German is a language. In the early 19th century, a German was a native speaker of the German language. Germany was the region where German was the predominant language spoken.

Captain Cornelius Butt and I are frequently at loggerheads on many things. On this question we are in complete agrement. He has stated the case completely, masterfully with copious citations and evidence such that there can be no serious arguing with him, unless just to argue. He points out that there can always be divided or even more problematic, multiple and at times contraditory loyalties and ways of thinking things. All I wish to add to his thesis is that meny people today consider themselves German-American, Italian American, Polish-American, and do not speak the language, and often have not even baen back to the own country yet they adopt a fierce loyalty to it. Even in America state pride is not dead. Just make the mistake of saying to anyone from New Jersey that they and New Yorkes are the same. Go ahead… try it.

zippyfusenet

America did not become the United States of America until after the Civil War, and guess what, they all spoke the same language!

Britain and Canada fought the War of 1812 against America. But guess what, they all spoke the same language!

VW and others have it wrong. There was no Germany until 1871. There were only various states with a cultural connection. That does not really make them Germans during the Napoleonic period because there was no Germany to belong to. They were connected only by culture and language, not by state.

And of course, some people obviously want to believe the various 'German' states joined the Confederation of the Rhine because they were forced to, but that is just one viewpoint and one intepretation of events. I have no problem with that and accept that is the way some people want to think and the way they want to view things.

But thankfully, we are not all sheep and can make our own minds up, so another view is that they were not forced but made up their own minds to side with Napoleon, because it would benefit them to do so, in the same way that they made up their own minds to side against him later, again, because it would benefit them to do so. Circumstances, extra land, wealth etc, fear of fellow 'Germans' etc, helped them make up their minds on both occassions.