"Germany and the Germans" Topic

"What next?"

Gazzola posts another 15 times, to announce that he will not be posting any more, and that everyone should "move on."

Brechtel198

Great post! I wondered when someone would throw up that old chestnut. I guess some people, because it had the word German in it, it must be German, but as you rightly point out, there were quite a few non-Germans in the Holy Roman Empire. But it is a bit like if people dreamed and desired an empire and spoke the same language, then it must have existed!

Perhaps they should try doing some serious research on it or read the previous debate on the matter, save all this wasted time.

The all the US folks on this thread, Happy Thanksgiving for all our blessings. To everyone else, the same wishes and all the best from the U.S.of A.

Mcladdie

Evidence! Go on then – show it? Put your money were your mouth is, as they say! Show me the country/state called Germany. Show me the king of this Germany. Show me its borders and its army and its generals. Careful now, because I don't want to see what I already know about – Individual states who speak the same language. The dreams and desires of Poets and the elite. I want to know where this state of Germany is, not the region that contains people who speak the same language and might have similar tradditions and culture. If you are not sure what I am asking for, ask Brechel198. He knows what I mean.

Ottoathome

I suggest you really do some serious study on the so called Holy Roman Empire. I would start with reading the posts in the previous debate on this topic.

Captain Cornelius Butt

I sugegst you stop wasting our time and do some serious research. As with Ottoathome, you could start with reading the previous thread on this topic.

Show me the country/state called Germany.

That has been explained to you roughly two dozen times, in this thread alone, and an equivalent number of times in the last monster thread on this topic. There was no state called "Germany" until 1949. There was a nation called Germany, dating from the 1200s.

Just as there is no state called "America." There is, however, an American nationality.

Quibbling over the German verbiage, in English translation, does not change any of the basic facts.

Show me the king of this Germany.

You have already been told several times, but here it is again, in English, if that would be helpful:

link

Show me its borders and its army and its generals.

You were already shown the borders, in the map I provided with the link on page 1. The army is here:

link

The Parliament is here:

link

The two High Courts are here:

link

and

link

I sugegst you stop wasting our time and do some serious research.

Serious research usually has to wait for Summer, given my schedule. But I promise I'll get right to it in late June, as is my custom.

Evidence suggests that you do not click on the links that people provide for you, nor even acknowledge any sources that are contrary to your views, but in case you do, in the meantime, may I humbly suggest a modest primer on this subject:

rowman.com/ISBN/9780742568037

An interesting thread. I don't consider the Captain's posts to be a waste of anyone's time by any means. And while I always admire a spirited defence in the face of overwhelming odds, i think it's pretty clear which side of the debate has been making the better case.

From what I've read so far, I find the arguments- and contemporary evidence- put forward by Capt. Butt, McLaddie and others to be far more convincing compared to those put forward by Gazzola and Brechtel.

I agree, Stavka.

I've got no dog in this race, and have followed both sides' arguments with interest. In my opinion, Butt, McLaddie et al's arguments are certainly much more reasoned, more evidenced and more culturally and period aware.

However, overall it is a bit like theologians arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. There are so many variables that either side can be right, depending on what they consider the success criteria of the question are (or, indeed, what the question actually is).

Evidence! Go on then – show it? Put your money were your mouth is, as they say! Show me the country/state called Germany. Show me the king of this Germany. Show me its borders and its army and its generals. Careful now, because I don't want to see what I already know about – Individual states who speak the same language. The dreams and desires of Poets and the elite. I want to know where this state of Germany is, not the region that contains people who speak the same language and might have similar tradditions and culture. If you are not sure what I am asking for, ask Brechel198. He knows what I mean.

Gazzola:
You realize that the only definition of Germany and Nation you will accept must have a single king and single government--your definition. Any other definition doesn't count. Brechelt198 quoted Hajo Holborn where he is talking about the Confederation of the Rhine and it's failure, not anything about the Germans' view of themselves at that time. Not the poets or the elite, but every class. It is obvious there was no single German government, king or otherwise over the areas inhabited by Germans. The issue is that the Germans themselves didn't see this as negating the very real existance of Germany, the German Nation and their loyalty to it.

The evidence that doesn't seem to carry any weight with you are the words of the Germans themselves at the time, from all walks of life.

Arteis says this discussion is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It could be if we were both trying to insist on two abstract and arbitrary notions of what constitutes Germany and Nations.

However, in this case, we have the angels' [contemporary Germans] opinion on that. One thing I hate is when folks from this era lay their ideas of 'how things were' on the people of the past without regard for their views on the matter. We really don't understand a historical period unless we see it through the eyes of those who lived through it.

And there have been enough quotes and evidence on this thread to demonstrate that Germans of the time knew there was a German Nation, a Germany, and lived life accordingly without having to have a single king over them all.

You don't have to agree with them, but in most cases like this, you don't ignore the angels when how many angels can dance on the head of a pin is the issue.

As I said above, the issue can be seen as correct from both perspectives, as the success criteria differ in the first place.

Success criteria 1 – show that there was a German Nation, a Germany, and Germans lived life accordingly without having to have a single king over them all. There was.

Success criteria 2 – show there wasn't a Germany as a single nation with a king and borders and army etc. There wasn't.

So both sides' success criteria have been achieved.

Therefore both sides win (or both lose, take your pick!) …

The angels themselves don't matter here. It is like one side arguing that the angels DANCED on the head of a pin, and the other that they danced on the HEAD OF A PIN.

criteria 2 – of course there was a border, the Reich – and an Army, anybody heared ever of the Reichsarmee??
The Army of Tennessee was also made from different states but still an army of the CSA, compare that to the Reichsarmee.

I have no dog in this race either, but am running a book on how many times Gazzola will claim he is going move on / not to post anymore.

I have no dog either, but I liked Arteis last post. Both sides win with a score draw. Doesn't help that each side has been arguing about different things (i.e. Arteis two criteria).

then there were several very important cities in the Reich, for those who are interested in that

Regensburg
Nürnberg
Frankfurt am Main
Achen

Like in Regensburg the deputies of each state of the Reich would meat.

Also people should ask themselve, in case this is possible for certain contributors, why H termed his empire third empire and why it would last 1000 years (which the first Reich did last)

Dear Captain Butt

Your question as to why this keeps cycling around can be answered simply. You have in war games a bunch of "Poor Johnny one-notes" who can't sing any other song, and who are tar-babies. They love to sucker you into a discussion and just keep acting stupid. At the same time they just advance the argument to more and more arcane levels, and demand greater degrees of proof. It's the old trick, when proven wrong, admit nothing, deny everything, and go on the attack and simply reiterate your original argument louder and more forcefully. Give it up Captain, I understand you're doing the good fight thing but it's pearls before swine. You're much better than that.

As for you Gazzola, you have no idea how much of an idiot you have made of yourself when you dismissively tell Cornelius to go do some serious research. He IS an expert in Germany, He IS an academically trained Historian, He WORKS in history now and he IS a noted historian, and his work is impeccable, and each year he goes over to do more excellent research in the archives, museums, and institutions there. And you???

Captain Burt and I argue only over wargames, where our approaches are clean different.

In this case the Captain is entirely right and you-- you're just a nuisance.

I have looked at maps showing Europe in 1792, 1800, 1805, 1806, 109, 1815, 1816 and guess what, no Germany. Bavaria, Saxony, Prussia, etc yes – but no Germany.

And without even trying I found this-

'The emergence of revolutionary France as an aggressive and capable military power at the end of the eighteenth century, caused the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire (a loose coalition of German states, usually under Austria's leadership. Austria's defeat at the battle of Hohenlinden, on 3 December 1800, created a power vacuum in the area we now know as Germany.'

This is from the first page Otto Von Pikva's (Digby Smith) Napoleon's German Allies 1 Westfalia and Kleve-Berg. But the important words are ' a loose coalition of German states' and 'the area we know know as Germany'

Referring to 1805-
'Bavaria, Baden and Wurttemberg had allied th4emselves with France in this campaign, and they were now richy rewarded for their services'
Page 5-Napoleon's German Allies 4 Bavaria-Digby Smith

These individual German states allied themselves to France before the COR was created – so, if there was an actual Germany, it must have been an act of treason. But there was no Germany, expect in the mind and in terms of a cultural connection and people considering themselves connected through those two factors.

In terms of German historical and cultural connection-
'On 11 december 1806 the Elector of Saxony became king and promised to support France with a military contingent of 20,000 men. For the immediate campaign against Prussia and Russia however, only 6,000 were required. This apparently heartless betrayal of his ally Prussia must be explained: between Prussia and Saxony there had existed a mutual suspicion and hostiklity since before the Seven Years war, and in 1756 this culminated ina Prussian invasion of Saxony and an attempt to make the Saxon army serve as part of the Prussian military machine. The hatred between the two states was so great that almost all Saxon soldiers (and officers) deserted from their regiments and made their way to Austria or France, where they re-enlisted in Saxon emigre regiments and fought against Prussia for the duration of the war. The Prussian-Saxon allianace of 1806 must thus be seen as a brittle expedient rather than a genuine act of friendship.' (page 5 Napoleon's German Allies 3 Saxony 1806-15 by Digby Smith.

Saxony, of course, was forced to give up part of it's 'German' territory and troops to Prussia, which did not go down too well and some troops were shot for demonstrating against it.

I know people will mock the fact I have cited from some Osprey titles but the fact remains, the histroical connection was not as strong as people want to believe and noether was the cultural connection. They still saw themselves as individual states first, be that various German states. Of course the area these states covered was known as Germany, but a Germany as such, did not exist during our period.

So time wasters, no more false info such as pre or post Napoleonic info. If you can show me a country or state called Germany, and evidence that an army of Germany existed during our period, then fine I'll accept that. What I don't want to see is our modern day interpretation of what a Germany is or claims that they were connected through culture or history so therefore a Germany must have existed. Sorry, that won't wash.

Anyway, my 'Germans' are still waiting to be painted, si must go.

Happy wargaming to you all.

Ottoathome

I am well aware of Sam pedigree and books published et. So what? Perhaps you stand in awe of him because he has published some books. Sorry, I don't.

And he has yet to prove to me that a state/country called Germany existed during our period. Why, because it didn't.

People called the region, Germany, people called themselves Germans, not because they lived in a state called Germany but because they felt culturally connected. So no Germany as such, as can be seen by th4e absence of a Germany in the maps of Europe covering our period. But bavaraia, ASaxony etc are shown on the maps – why, because they existed. A German state did not, so there could be no Army of Germany.

Get it, got it, good – now stop being a nuisance and wasting my time and play a wargame or something!

Captain Cornleius Butt

Thank you so much for the information provided. I liked the bits that said

'List of monarchs who ruled over the German speaking territories' (not ruled over a Germany)

'The relationship between the title 'king' and 'emperor' in the area that is today called Germany….' (area that is today called Germany, not called Germany then)

Thank you so much and do keep them coming. Saves me a lot of time.

"The Army of Tennessee was also made from different states but still an army of the CSA, compare that to the Reichsarmee."

The 19th century US army, for that matter, was also dependent upon the contributions of the states, which raised their own militia units. Luckily for Abe Lincoln, it worked better than the Reichsarmee!

LOL
Peter I now use 'Happy Wargaming To You All' and 'I SAID Good Day, Sir!' interchangeably.
Thanks for my morning chuckle :)
Peace,
Rob

le Grande Quartier General

I'm flattered that you now use the term. But I do hope you use it only with wargamers, otherwise, what will they think of you?

I'm also pleased it made you laugh. Too many serious people with issues attending this site. You disagree with someone and they act as if you have just declared war! Unbelievable!

You keep on laughing sir, and who knows, the world might just laugh with you, eventually.

This is an absurd dicussion about concepts: state, nation, country, nationalism, national sovereignty, people sovereignty… Today there is an agreement among historians about those concepts.
Your discussion is a 19th Century one, not about 19th century.

Arteis:

Well, certainly there are two different definitions being discussed here, and within each, each is 'correct'. However, one is the opinion of 'the angels', the participants.

It is like insisting that a game played among friends in the park wasn't a football game because there was no referee. IF that definition is accepted, then , ipso facto, it wasn't a football game. However, all the players themselves say they were playing football.

You can define the criteria for a 'football game' or 'Germany' or 'nation' any old way you like, but I would think that the participants have a greater say in the issue, simply because they were there, playing the game, living their definition. Really, which 'opinion' carries more weight when discussing 'what was really going on?'

In many ways, it is a matter of respecting those folks of the past, giving at least equal weight to their views about the history they lived.

Apart from the geography and language, was anything else described as "German" prior to unification?

Among the better arguments for Waterloo not being a "German" victory is the fact that nobody thought to call it that at the time. This would be an odd omission if the Germans of 1815 had a common idea of a shared mission of a meta-Germany, to which they all belonged and that bound German speakers together.

If they thought of Germany as nothing more than a place and language, with the shared Germanness a trigger for strife rather than unity, it would make perfect sense.

IIRC, at the time of Waterloo, the Thirty Years' War was still being called the German Civil War.

Peter Hofschroer is 94.

Apart from the geography and language, was anything else described as "German" prior to unification?

Read any of the links that Sam provided or quotes provided, or any of the German writers in the fifty years before or after, like Herder, and that should answer your question.

If it was only geography, split up into dozens of 'states', and a common language [which the Swabians even today would question, I'm sure], what exactly were all the calls for German patriotism and loyalty for? Certainly not a unified goverment. Who would respond and why? What was the unifying idea that motivated such words, and such responses from Germans?

Culture, and a thousand years of history, played a powerful role in a person's identity at the time, far more than any particular duke or king who happened to have governmental sway over their part of Europe at the moment. To be 'German' and a part of the 'German Nation' had very concrete meaning and a role in a German's life, from Austria to the Baltic. We may not see the value in the much more homogenized culture of the 21st Century, where travel anywhere is so easy, but that isn't the way it was in 1800.

National armies were even a 'new idea', if not a reality. Forty Percent of the Prussian army in 1806 were recruited outside of Prussia, Many of the Generals such as Scharnhorst, Blucher and York all had fought in other nation's armies, if not born in other 'countries' like Hanover. That percentage was down from 60% ten years earlier. Troops in the Austrian Army were identified by 'Nation'[Their word] such as Grenz, Hungarians etc. The laws in Scotland, Wales and Ireland were different from marriage to titles, than those found in England. English generals fought for the French, French generals for the English. The Russian nobles all spoke French and any number of kingdoms like Russia, England, and Spain had German princes and princesses ruling them at one time or another in the 100 years up to the Napoleonic wars.

Their experience of a "Nation" was far removed from our notions today. Can you imagine the US government recruiting a German Chancellor to rule the USA, or recruiting 40% of their army from Central Europe? There is a reason the Military Mentor, written in 1811 for British officers, when advising on "The Love of Country" never mentions Britain. The author never mentions the government other than loyalty to the King, and never mentions any unifying, positive traits of Britain to 'love' or admire. Rather the love is compared directly to the love of family, 'because the country raised you up like a family', and that love of family is the same loyalty and love you owe to the country.

The book was very popular, going through several editions up until 1846.

Europe of 1780-1815 was a far, far stranger place than most folks realize… to us today anyway. ;-7

'The 19th century US army, for that matter, was also dependent upon the contributions of the states, which raised their own militia units. Luckily for Abe Lincoln, it worked better than the Reichsarmee!'

The last war in which militia was used by the US government was the War of 1812. Because of the general unreliability of the militia in both the War of the Revolution and the War of 1812, the Mexican War was fought with regulars and volunteer units.

The Civil War was also fought by Lincoln with volunteers and regulars. They were taken into federal service for usually a three-year enlistment. Militia was used by certain states from time to time, but the war was fought without the dubious contributions of the militia.

Bruce Catton brings this out quite pointedly in his trilogy on the Army of the Potomac (Mr. Lincoln's Army, Glroy Road, and A Stillness at Appomattox). For the composition of the US (or Union Army if you prefer) see also American Army Life by John Elting, Long Endure: The Civil War Period 1852-1867 by The Company of Military Historians, edited by John Elting, and the History of the US Army by Russell Weigley.

B

Drat these user nicknames – I only realised after Ottoathome's posting who Capt Cornelius Butt really is. Although being an experienced professional historian doesn't necessarily mean I have to agree with Sam's (the Captain's) postings, it at least tells me his postings are likely to be based on robust research and solid historical method.

I do have a vague idea who Gazzola and vW are from opposite sides on many previous discussions – and they do keep the same nicknames, which is handy.

I have no idea who Brechtel, McLaddie and many others are – some are completely new arrivals to me, though maybe I just haven't seen them much on the particular discussions I frequent.

The sad thing is that many of you seem to recognise each other, no matter what the nickname happens to be today. I'm obviously on the outer circle here!

"I have no idea who Brechtel, McLaddie and many others are"

Kevin Kiley and Bill Haggart, respectively.

Oh, I should've guessed Kevin. I supposed the 'K' on his first post was a clue, had I picked up on it!

Arteis:

Yeah, ain't it annoying? Some folks change their moniker all the time and have no name listed with TMP. I try to keep the same moniker and just change the pic every once in awhile for variety sake. ;-7 Generally, you can click on the moniker and it will take you to the poster's profile.

McLaddie,

I believe that you misquoted both Holborn and myself. You stated, based on one of my postings that:

‘Brechelt198 quoted Hajo Holborn where he is talking about the Confederation of the Rhine and it's failure, not anything about the Germans' view of themselves at that time. Not the poets or the elite, but every class. It is obvious there was no single German government, king or otherwise over the areas inhabited by Germans. The issue is that the Germans themselves didn't see this as negating the very real existance of Germany, the German Nation and their loyalty to it.'

Here's what I posted:

‘When we look at the Germanic Confederation as a whole, it is obvious that it contributed greatly to the growth of a national cohesion the patriots quite wrongly asserted already existed. It did not exist even in the cultural field, much less in the relations of the social classes, and least of all in political affairs. The Confederation was not at all an ideal structure, but it ought not to be judged with the eyes of the liberals of 1848 or the generation of Bismark. The nature of the Confederation, its predominantly diplomatic character and its aloofness from the broad stream of popular concerns, again made the individual states the chief scene of German political life, as they had been in the past. Yet the world of German states was better protected against foreign invasion or pressures and more pacified within itself than had been the case for many centuries. If Germans were far from reaching political unification under the Confederation, they could at least feel a sense of unity.'-Hajo Holborn, A History of Modern Germany 1648-1840, 447. This passage reflects the situation of the German Confederation formed after Napoleon's defeat in 1815 and the dissolution of the Confederation of the Rhine.

Not only is Holbron not talking about the Confederation of the Rhine, but I noted at the bottom of the quotation of Holborn that he was talking of the German Confederation. And Holborn negates the idea of a German nation in the minds of 'most Germans' and that that idea was among a small group of so-called intellectuals, some of those being quoted early in the thread.

The German Confederation speaks specifically to the 'independence and invioability' of the separate German states in Germany:

‘The Germanic Confederation was a loose federation of thrity-five monarchial states and four city republics. The Federal Act adopted by the German governments at the last moment (June 8, 1815) declared as its objective ‘the preservation of the external and internal security of Germany and of the independence and inviolability of the individual German states.' Holborn, 445.

When Holborn speaks of the older Confederation of the Rhine:

‘Southern Germany proved receptive to both French ideas and insitutions. The new ‘middle' states-Bavaria, Wurttemberg, Baden, and also Hesse-Darmstadt and Nassau-which had come into existence between 1803 and 1806 were actually new states, but each was built around the kernel of an old territorial state under a legitimate dynasty. The scope of the changes and the speed with which they were introduced were still greater than those attempted in Westphalia, but they were executed by native governments. German national sentiment was weak in southern Germany except among small intellectual circles, who complained about Prussia's betrayal of Germany through the Treaty of Basel and the discord caused by Austria's scheming against Bavaria.'-Holborn 388.

All of these lead one to believe that the average German, and their respective governments, were loyal to those governments and were against encroachment of both Prussia and Austria.

Further, the idea of German nationalism for Germany as a whole is largely a product of post1815, not before it, though there were proponents of it, albeit a very small minority in various places, cities, and states.

It should also be noted that the subject of the thread was about two things:

First, that there was no political entity as Germany, or a united German state, during the period, and

Second, that Waterloo being known as a 'German' victory is incorrect-it was an allied one.

I didn't bring up the topic of the 'German nation', which as has been shown by the Holborn excerpts, existed as a minority opinion idea, and not a reality.

B

B or K or whatever.

The quote ends with this:

"This passage reflects the situation of the German Confederation formed after Napoleon's defeat in 1815 and the dissolution of the Confederation of the Rhine."

It is a statement about the GOVERNMENTAL conditions after the dissolution of the Confederation of the Rhine. Right?

As you say, "The German Confederation speaks specifically to the 'independence and invioability' of the separate German states in Germany."

Holborn's excerpts claim the idea of a unified German Government was a miniority idea. Never had a problem with that, K. The issue is that Germans themselves didn't use Holborn's notion [and yours] of "political entity as Germany, or a united German state".

As long as you insist that the ONLY 'German Nation' possible must be a single political entity, a United German State, not only will you be accurate… as there was no unified German state during the period, but you will continue to miss [or ignore] the German view at the time, and a decidedly majority view, that a "German Nation" did exist. They simply weren't using your definition.

Of course, Holborne was, like many historians, focused on the political and govermental issues in his three volume work.

However, let me riddle you this:

If Germany didn't exist between 1650 and 1848, how is it that Holborne can write an entire book on that period entitled the "History of Germany" volume II?

If Germany didn't exist, what is he writing about?

You're missing the point of the initial and subsequent postings that I have made (as well as Holborn's).

And the fact is, you misquoted both Holborn and myself.

I haven't said that Germany didn't exist, but it didn't exist as a single political unit. Germany as a geographical location certainly existed at least from the time of the Western Romans.

To keep bringing up the 'point' that Germany 'didn't exist' is merely a strawman argument.

However, the idea of a 'German nation' before 1815 existed with only a few, which has been shown and demonstrated by Holborn.

And nothing has been shown that demonstrates that the peoples of the minor German states considered themselves Germans first-some did, but a distincy minority, not a majority.

If you want to talk about Germans from 1815-1866, then that is a different subject (or can of worms, depending on your point of view).

And if you'd like to get into a specific case, we can take a look at Prussia in 1806-1813. Prussia fell apart in three weeks in the fall of 1806. The army was crushed in a single day and both cities and fortresses fell, with a notable exception of Colberg, to handfuls of French troops and the citizenry didn't give too much of a flip who was in charge-with the notable exception of a few reformers.

Even in 1813 there was resistance to conscription (as noted by the poet Korner who was killed with Lutzow's Free Corps) even if they wanted to be rid of the French.

And the vaunted 'War of Liberation' was not for freedom in Germany, but was for the acquisition of as much of Germany by Prussia in order for that state to expand. And there was resistance to that in Saxony, half of whose territory (and along with it half of the army) went to Prussia while its king was imprisoned.

That isn't for the 'German nation' that was for Prussia.

B

Brechtel198

Great posts and very clear. But I fear they will probably fall on deaf ears and blinkered minds, as they did in the previous debate on this topic.

No one has been arguing against a cultural or historical idea or sense of a Germany or the dreams of poets and intellectuals. But that does not mean that the ordinary people and majority felt the same.

As for feeling more German than the individual state. As you say, some obviously did, more than likely the elite and intellectuals who dreamed of one country, one state. But I feel many, if not more, leaned far more to their state, than for their connected culturalness during our period. An example being when some Saxon troops rebelled against the idea of being forced to come under Prussian rule and were said to have broken Blucher's windows. The ring-leaders were shot. So much for a united Germaness.

And I was also interested in the 1815 speech by King Federick August of Saxony to his troops: 'Unavoidable pressures have forced me to part from you a great number of your comrades and give them into foreign sovereignty – to me a painful process.' So he considers Prussians as foreign!

'Let it be your target that in all Germany – nay in all Europe – the name Saxon will still only be spoken with honor.' So here he refers to the idea of a Germany but specficially highlights and separates the individualness of who they were-Saxons, first and foremost. (pages 26-27, Napoleon's German Allies 3 Saxony 1806-15 by Otto von Pivka.

A good debate anyway, but well past its bedtime now I think.

A great modern parallel would be Arabs and Arabia.

Arabia is currently divided into several nation states.
Quatar, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, UAE, Dubai.

They are all quite clearly patriotic and independent states. They can all embrace the fact they are Arabs and their is a sense of a wider Arab nation. This doesn't mean a united Arab state. Just that they all are members of the same ethnic group and that they belong to the region of Arabia.

I would argue then that the Germans were similar. They were all German. And members of the German Nation. But we're politically independent and capable of being quite determined rivals.

I would also say "German Victory" is an acceptable way to describe Waterloo. Though allied is fairer. And British, English, Scottish, Irish, Dutch, Belgian would also be acceptable terms.

From your original post:

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

B:
The above is what I have responded to the entire time. Germans saw themselves as Germans and as a German Nation, whether they also saw themselves as Bravarians, Saxons etc. regardless of Prussian progaganda and the admitted lack of a 'Political Entity'--and had for some time.

And geography was hardly the basis for that belief. You don't need to prove that Germany wasn't a united political entity. That's obvious. What you need to show is that Germans didn't consider themselves a part of a German Nation.

What I and others have been providing evidence that Germans themselves considered themselves Germans and believed there was a German Nation at the time. Hardly a 'straw man.'

But the point is you haven't shown is 'Germans themselves considered themselves Germans' especially if you mean a majority.

And Holborn states conclusively that it wasn't so-‘When we look at the Germanic Confederation as a whole, it is obvious that it contributed greatly to the growth of a national cohesion the patriots quite wrongly asserted already existed. It did not exist even in the cultural field, much less in the relations of the social classes, and least of all in political affairs.'

So, a 'national cohesion' of Germany did not exist, before 1815, either culturally, socially, or politically. Those that claimed it to be so, such as those who were quoted early in the thread, claimed so incorrectly.

And I haven't 'insisted' on anything about the 'German nation.' That is what you and others are discussing and claiming, not I (one way or the other)-and that on your part certainly is a strawman argument and off point, if you will.

B

"A great modern parallel would be Arabs and Arabia."

A number of Arab scholars have made that parallel. Dawisha went so far as to do a lengthy book extending the parallel all the way back to the medieval Arab Caliphate and the medieval German Reich, to explain how both nations fragmented over the strains between clerical and secular rulers.

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

B

the patriots quite wrongly asserted already existed. It did not exist even in the cultural field, much less in the relations of the social classes, and least of all in political affairs.

Hmmm. That is where we disagree, though not in 'political affairs.' I know you favor particular historians, so I picked one I know you have often quoted: Paret, though there are any number I can quote. In his book on The Cognitive Challenge of War: Prussia 1806 he writes: {page 34 one of many pages I could quote in his study of the cultural impact of the Prussian defeat of 1806]

An investigation of the challenges of innovation[read 'change' in his context] in 1806 will find it useful to turn to the products of literary and visual culture of those years as indicators of German [not simply Prussian] reactions to the war--one of the many such gauges, among them the universities, individuals, and institutions engaged in manufacturing and finacne, and local and regional representative assemblies….

Historians of war, intent on the hard specifics of combat, often push aside such indeterminacies as the culture of those whos wars they study. They concertrate on violence in its overt forms and may ignore evidence that is relevant even if it does not fit expected categories.

That 'concentration' can also be the hard specifics of the 'political' as well as combat, as with Holborn. If he meant what you think he meant, he can state whatever he wants 'conclusively', it still means there has to be evidence. And Paret 'conclusively' states otherwise, and bases an entire book on that conclusion, concerning the cultural influences on the German/Prussian responses to 1806.

Paret notes any number of interesting things about "German Culture" and Germany's [not just Prussia] response to the French domination of Germany,such as Kant being known by Scharnhorst's time throughout Europe, particularly the German states, as the father of "German Idealism", though Kant was Prussian.

Scharnhorst was Hanoverian, but made Kant's philosophy a required course in the Prussian Military Schools. Clauswitz barrowed heavily from Goethe and Schiller's ideas in his writing, particularly "On War", though neither were Prussian or military men. At the time Both were known through-out the German 'states' as German writers, not Saxe-Weimar and Wurttemburg writers.

There was a sense of being German and part of a German entity referred to as a "Nation" that had little to do with political asperations for a unified Germany. Paret points out that Schiller was used in the 1860s and later to support German political unification, but Schiller himself never suggested anything such thing in his writings about 'Germany.'

It isn't surprising that Scharnhorst and others, in determining what needed to change for the Prussians to defeat France, the foundational target wasn't the army or the government. It was a cultural change…German society itself had to change. Scharnhorst speaks of Prussian and German society interchangably, probably because of his military experience in both Hanover and Prussian. Being members of different states' military was a very common experience among 'German Officers' at the time…

It is quite true that Germans of the Napoleonic era had little idea of a Unified Germany, or some vision of a single German state. At the time, their understanding of the existing German Nation was pre-1871 and German unity was seen and experienced as something else entirely.

Placing 21st Century definitions of Nationalism more than a century after 1871 and Bismarck doesn't help you understand what 1800 Germans believed and lived concerning their references to Germany and the German Nation.

….I fear they will probably fall on deaf ears and blinkered minds, as they did in the previous debate on this topic…

A good debate anyway, but well past its bedtime now I think.

When you are trying to leave a debate, it isn't particularly stylish to insult people on the way out.

'I know you favor particular historians…'

That's because they're good historians and not merely authors-there is a difference…

B

Whirlwind

Brechtel has made some very good points, but they seem to be ignored by the same old tired arguments and diversions, as they were in the previous debate on the topic. That suggests that some people (not all) are either not listening to what he is saying, ignoring it, can't understand or just don't want to believe what he says. Hence-the deaf ears and blinkered minds terms.

Okay, I accept those terms were a bit too strong and no real insults were intended. And if you felt insulted personally, I do hope you get over it quickly.

As for leaving the debate, I think you'll find no one has to 'try' and leave a debate – they can leave, stay, return, ignore, whatever – it is up to the individual poster-not you!

People leave a debate and then spot something interesting being said further on and find they might have something that supports or argues against something. Are you saying they should be silent because they left the debate and must never return? That would be silly!

Anyway, I'm not sure how long this one will last for, but just for you, I'll leave the debate – for now!

Happy wargaming to you.

And if you felt insulted personally, I do hope you get over it quickly.

As for leaving the debate, I think you'll find no one has to 'try' and leave a debate – they can leave, stay, return, ignore, whatever – it is up to the individual poster-not you!

People leave a debate and then spot something interesting being said further on and find they might have something that supports or argues against something. Are you saying they should be silent because they left the debate and must never return? That would be silly!

Why are you always so rude? I've never suggested you leave any debate or not return – you did. It might be nice if, when you posted your "I'm leaving for now" messages, you didn't feel the need for one more dig on the way out.

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

Exactly. Schiller and Goethe were speaking to those "Germans" who agitated for political unity. They didn't see it as possible with the dozens of German states--or particularly necessary.

Now you just have to figure out what Germans and German Nation they WERE describing [and speaking to] in the rest of The Muses Almanach and their other joint writings about 'Germany.'

About ten years ago at an antiquariat in Bonn, I bought a wonderfully well-preserved collection of Schiller essays published a few years his death – right as the Napoleonic conquest of Germany was reaching its apex. As with many German publications of that era, the publishers were anonymous because they were worried about Napoleonic censorship; the Emperor had shown his willingness to shut down, arrest, and even kill patriotic German writers.*

So, as with many such books published in Germany at that time, there is no name or place of publication listed on the frontispiece. It reads only:

Deutschland, 1809

- – –

* After all, what was the title of the pamphlet that cost Johannes Palm's life? It wasn't called "A bunch of vaguely-similar independent states who have gladly volunteered to be ruled by France…" was it?

The work that Palm published, and for which Napoleon killed him, was titled: Germany in Her Deep Humiliation.

You have an unpleasant choice to make here: Was Napoleon really so paranoid that he would waste bullets on people who were making reference to something that didn't exist? Or was he trying to stamp out a national feeling that very obviously did exist, and he was smart enough to recognize it as a threat to his new order?

Be careful how you evade that one! Either your hero is murderous and delusional… or you have to admit that he recognized the existence of something that you say didn't exist, and that he considered it dangerous enough to kill for.

(Not to mention that Palm and others considered it real enough to die for.)

By the way, in 2009 I read all the files on the Tugendbund in the Prussian State Archive in Dahlem. It wasn't much; about half a dozen folders, containing perhaps 300 pages of documents. One suspects that – as with so many German archival collections – much was lost or destroyed, or gone missing into unrelated files in other archives. But what remains, is fascinating.

One of the files contained the rolls of people outside Prussia, who volunteered to join this anti-Bonapartist organization, pledging their allegiance to the German Fatherland, pledging to work to end the foreign domination, etc, etc, blah blah.

I was struck by two things. First, that these men signed their names, occupations, and places of residence on documents that were so incriminating that, if caught, would surely cost their lives.

And second, that the professions listed were so ordinary and bourgeois. A postman from Pomerania, a clerk in a store in Mecklenburg, a cobbler from Westphalia, a wheelwright in Salzwedel, and on and on. Thousands of ordinary middle-class men, some of them from tiny north-German towns I'd never heard of.

Nobody forced them to sign up for that organization. Nobody forced them to put their lives on the line, for very little gain, just to declare their German patriotism. Something either moved them to do it, or touched them in some way, or something was already there, and triggered by the sight of foreign troops in their land.

For those who can read the old German script, and get to Berlin to see for themselves, the three main GS-PK Signatur numbers are:

I. HA Rep. 111 Tugendbund, B, Nr. 1
I. HA Rep. 89 Geheimes Zivilkabinett, Nr. 14982 & 14983
I. HA Rep. 77 Ministerium des Innern, Tit. XVII, Nrs. 1-2

Anybody can play pedant with 21st century English words, and cherry-pick all the English-translated secondary sources that they like, but I've seen the originals. These guys wrote "Deutschland", in their own handwriting. And after what had happened to Palm, I'm sure there was no doubt in any of their minds that doing so required them to be willing to die for it.

Interesting.

There is no doubt that some people probably wanted to get all German speaking people and the various German speaking states to unite against Napoleon and the French. Can't see a problem with that. But it does not mean that the majority thought that way, although, of course, it does not prove they didn't. But I think the fear of the possible dominance of one German speaking state over another, especially Prussia, may have been a stronger fear, which was why many German speaking states did not aid Austria in 1805 and Prussia in 1806.

And we must ask why was the Unification of Germany 1871 called the Unification – could it be, other than the cultural and linguistic connection, the region was not yet united. In other words there was no state called Germany, otherwise it wouldn't need unifying. The language and cultural connection was not enough to make a country or state – it needed unification. And that came after our period.

But I have no problem with calling the region Germany. But I will not call it a country or a state during our period. I will not call the German speaking troops, the Army of Germany during our period. They were German speaking troops belonging to various individual states such as Bavaria, Saxony and Prussia etc.

If others want to consider the region a country or a state and their troops belonging to an Army of Germany, no problem, that is their choice.

And no one is playing around with 21st Century words or meanings! By state, I meant states like the Napoleonic states of Prussia, Saxony etc. That is keeping it in context of the period.