"Germany and the Germans" Topic

138SquadronRAF

That was a great link. I just listened to Episode 2 of the series on what made Germany – it is really good and it even managed to make German History interesting. I will certainly listen to the other programmes that cover the pre-Revoloutionary and Napoleonic period and the later programmes covering the unification and creation of Germany.

But it was very interesting how the programme stated 'the area that is now Germany', stressed the independent states and talks about 'not a united German response' and how Prussia's fate was nearly destroyed by Russia etc. A really good programme.

I would certainly recommend anyone interested in this debate to listen to the series, especially VW and McLaddie. I almost feel like painting my Westphalians now.

Brechtel198

I think McLaddie might have some of the members stifled, otherwise he would have seen the evidence. I think someone should also suggest to him to listen to the BBC Radio series linked by 138SquadronRAF. It really is good.

I won't repeat all the material I've already posted. But the bits – 'It was also evident to Schwarzenberg that if Frederick William became Emperor of a new German state…'
and
'Apparently he was encouraged by the realisation that the most infuential elements in the Prussian Army would help him in this effort to prevent creation of a united Germany.'
(pages 58-59.A Genius For War by Colonel T.N. Dupuy)

But you just can't open a book without finding something that supports the view that a state called Germany did not yet exist during our period, and neither Austria or Prussia wanted it, for fear of the other becoming the dominant power.

'The Austrian emperor was even more consious than Frederick William III of the dangerous implications of a popular movement sweeping Germany, while the king of Wurttemberg, who had basked so long in Napoleon's favour, did not hestiate to express his indignation at the 'ridiculous notion' of trying to make a 'so-called national unit' out of the multifarious German peoples.'
(page 107-Factors in German History by G.Barraclough)

But I think you can throw evidence at some people but they just won't accept it. Wilson's book only supports the views of the apparatus of state, a paper state, not a real state. And as already shown, his book mentions the various states making their own individual agreements with France and before 1804. And if the various states forming the Holy Roman Empire could do what they wanted and even fight each other, then it wasn't a state.

The same goes with the German Confederation formed in 1815. It's constitution, which I linked in another post, records that the various states making up the Confederation were not allowed to go to war with each other – but they did. Prussia went to war with Denmark and then later with Austria. It proves that, just like the Holy Roman Empire, it does not matter how much apparatus of state exists, it was not a state in reality, only a paper creation. A Germany came later in 1871.

Anyway, I am no longer bothered if people like McLaddie and VW disagree – that is their choice. But I would recommend someone inform them about the BBC Radio series. I'm sure they would enjoy it, as I did.

I almost feel like painting my Westphalians now.

Lol. Go on. Undercoat them. Thats half the battle to getting started.

Gazzola:

Try quoting something about the Reich before it was dissolved in 1806, not later attempts to fill the void and create a 'new Empire'.

Wilson's book only supports the views of the apparatus of state, a paper state, not a real state. And as already shown, his book mentions the various states making their own individual agreements with France and before 1804. And if the various states forming the Holy Roman Empire could do what they wanted and even fight each other, then it wasn't a state.

Read more than the first eight pages of Wilson's book before making up some conclusions about what he meant, it will help immensely with your understanding of what he is writing about… an entire book about the Reich and why it remained intact until 1806…and what those client states couldn't and could do as members of the Empire.

'How about some cited sources?'

Citations have already been posted. Have you read the sources that I've stated and posted citations from? Do you have Brendan Simms, Gordon Craig, or Holborn?

B

'and what those client states couldn't and could do as members of the Empire.'

Do you actually think that the member states of the Reich/empire were actually 'clients?'

They were sovereign states and the larger ones, such as Saxony, Bavaria, and Wurttemberg, actually acted as such. Do you actually believe that Austria was a 'client state?'

B

This is indeed an interesting topic. I don't mind admitting that I'm not at all sure what 'side' I agree most with.

Seems like the premature claims of victory a few pages back were exactly that. Premature. And the groans and sighs way back on page 1 suggesting that the topic already had an answer and wasn't worth debating were also unfounded. It probably doesn't help that the likes of Von W have key members from the opposite side on stifle all this time. Rather typical of him though, doing his best to prop up his one-sided beliefs. How can we ever hope to actually learn anything with all this stifling going on?

One thing is sure, it's hard to get any painting done with all these debates unfolding.

McLaddie

I think you should apologise for your silly and very childish insult. If you look carefully at my posts you will see that I have mentioned material found throughout Wilson's book.

My conclusion of the book is based on the whole book. My conclusion obviously disagrees with your conclusion – it is called having your own mind and thinking for yourself and not, perhaps like you, accepting everything you read at face value or be persuaded by fancy terms.

I have mentioned pre-1806 and even from Wilson's book. Once more, I suggest you read my posts again. And people mention 1815 and after because it proves that Germany was not a single state or nation, other than in dreams and wishful thinking, no matter how much paper apparatus was in place during the Holy Roman Empire and after.

I suggest you should look at other titles, other than Wilsons book and definitely listen to the BBC Radio series on German History, which has been linked. And if you want to go on believing there was a single state called Germany, okay, that's your choice. But you should learn to accept that not everyone agrees with your view.

TelesticWarrior

Yes, it is funny how some people have some members on stifle. It just shows how closed minded some people are.

But I think it all depends on how you look at the topic. If you look at it like McLaddie and probably others, you will see all the apparatus of an empire in place-The Holy Roman Empire, which is what Wilson's book tries to convince the reader of. But when you step back and look at what happened, it is clear that the empire and any apparatus was a sham, it was a paper empire.

The various states could do and did do what they wanted, for themselves, not for the empire, including fighting each other. As I pointed out, Bavaria, as mentioned in Wilson's book, sided with France long before the Revolutionary and Napoleonic period. and many German states sided with Napoleon before 1805. And after 1815, when the Confederation was formed, its constitution forbade the various states from making war against each other, but as and during the Holy Roman Empire period, they did wage war against each other. That is not an empire or single state. I still think Wilson's gives a hint of what it really is on the first page of his book, when he mentions it being seen as a Germanic UN or NATO. That I find very acceptable.

And the BBC series on German history is well worth listening to. It covers quite a bit of history, including pre and post thee Napoleonic period, but is still very interesting and informative. And some very knowledgable people are involved from all nations.

And yes, too much debating leaves less time to paint. And since it looks like neither side can be convinced to alter their views, it is perhaps time to move on. I think I've had my fill of German history and I'm now going into 1813 mode, although I know it will involve more Germans! Yer just can't get away from them can yer!?

'But you should learn to accept that not everyone agrees with your view.'

You're right on the money, Gazzola.

And those that don't agree with McLaddie are noted historians and authorities on German history (Gordon Craig, Hajo Holborn, and Brendan Simms).

B

I will definitely listen to that link Gazzola, it sounds interesting. I have to admit I was a bit ambivalent to this thread at first but I've got more interested as its gone on. It only me took 6 pages!

My next comment will probably expose my rather superficial understanding of this subject but here goes;
All I know is Napoleonic and Revolutionary France never fought any wars against 'Germany' during this period. It fought against Britain, Prussia, Russia & others but never against a State called Germany. This suggests to me that there wasn't a State called Germany. There was a State called Bavaria, and Saxony, and Wurttemburg etc, and sometimes these fought against France and sometimes they fought alongside it. Sometimes they fought against each other!!! They were real States and real players in the European military conflicts of the period. I have read many books on the period and I have not yet read one that relates a campaign fought by Napoleon against 'Germany'.

Is this blindingly obvious or have I got it all wrong? I'm sure Von W will now attack me for "commenting on Germany without being able to read German" or some such remark. Or at least he would if he didn't have me on stifle.

TelesticWarrior

No, you have it about right, simplistic as it might sound. And yes, people will disagree with you and they might even accuse you of being a Francophile or of not reading certain books etc. You just have to ignore their biased comments.

But, to make matters somewhat more confusing, the individual states of Austria, Prussia, Bavaria etc, were also members of the Holy Roman Empire. And books like Wilson's text will inform the reader of all the apparatus relating to the Holy Roman Empire, which is expected to make the reader believe there really was a state called Germany. But it does the exact opposite.

Yes, there was a region which everyone referred to as Germany. That's a given as already mentioned more than once. But the Holy Roman Empire, which had even been described as a monstrosity, was a medieval leftover, a paper empire with no real power or control over the various states. It was formed by the individual German speaking states, who before and during our period, did what was best for them, not for a non-existent German state. They were often on opposing sides.

When I researched the topic, including reading Wilson's book, the more I read, the more I became convinced of what Wilson mentions on the first page of his book, that the Holy Roman Empire could be considered as a sort of Germanic UN. The UN has all its apparatus, rules etc, but member states can and often did, do what is best for them. That, to me, is what it really was.

That, of course, is just my opinion and I am sure McLaddie and others will disagree. That's their choice and, to be honest, I no longer care what they think. But yes, the BBC programme is well worth listening to. But like I mentioned before, my Westphalians are crying out to be painted and this debate has gone far, far too far. Let me know what you think about the Radio programme?

Considering the existance of a 'state' called the German Reich, It might help to look at the last years of the Reich, 1790-1806 and how it functioned up to its demise. Peter Wilson asks why the Reich ended in the last Chapter of his German Armies. In doing so, he highlights the very issues we have been ‘discussing'. I italicize some of the important comments.

Wilson says on pp. 320-330

During the last war fought in its existence, the Reich was entirely marginalized as Napoleon and his new German allies destroyed the Austro-Russian armies at Austerlitz in 1805. The subsequent Peace of Pressburg referred only to the Confédération Germanique and raised Bavaria and
Württemberg to fully sovereign kingdoms. On 12 June 1806, 16 of the largest states formally left the Reich and established the Confederation of the Rhine
( Rheinbund ) with Napoleon, making Francis's formal abdication a largely irrelevant gesture.

How can that be? They were supposedly ‘fully sovereign', formally or otherwise before 1806… Right Kevin? And the last chapter of the book:

Conclusion: why the Reich collapsed
The Final Question:

page 331

Francis II's abdication marked the formal extinction of a state that had spanned much of central and western Europe for more than a millennium. The Peace of Westphalia had represented a milestone in its long history but
did not mark the start of its final decline. The imperial constitution had continued to display flexibility, absorbing both internal tensions and external pressures to enable the Reich to preserve its essential characteristics
throughout the prolonged warfare of the later seventeenth century.

However, even though the traditional political fabric was partly torn, new threads were still being woven in as the renaissance of institutions like the Reichstag after 1789 indicates. Such a revision of the traditional historical picture as presented in this work raises one final question: if the Reich was not a bankrupt and decrepit structure after 1648, why did it collapse when it did? [1806--BH]

As the preceding chapter has indicated, it is impossible to consider this issue without taking account of explanations of the victories of revolutionary France, since the two are so often interrelated, as the inevitable triumph of the new over the old order. For convenience's sake, the main arguments can be grouped under social, economic,
military and political factors, all of which feature with varying degrees of emphasis in the standard interpretations.

Books that detail the political, governmental and economic end of the Reich are:

Aretin, K.O.Frhr.v. Das altes Reich, 1648–1806 ( Stuttgart, 1993 ) .
Härter, K. Reichstag und Revolution, 1789–1806 ( Göttingen, 1992 ) .

They are both respected German historians, and not Nazis.

So lets look at those factors, those unifying Reich factors that supposedly don't exist:

Social: page 335

Soldiers remained a distinct group, but simply one of many in what was a highly stratified society held together by a complex network of ties that reinforced common as well as corporate identity. Like the political structure
of the Reich, this preserved diversity alongside considerable inequality and immobility. Such a structure had shown powers to absorb change through modest adaptation, but there were limits, as the impact of the Revolution clearly showed.

What? What is Wilson thinking? There were no ‘common' or ‘corporate' identity… Right Kevin?

A book that addresses the ‘corporate' social and economic aspects of the Reich:

Vann, J.A. & S.W.Rowan ( eds ) . The old Reich: essays on German political institutions, 1495–1806 ( Brussels, 1974 ) .

The Economy: page 335

The imperial constitution only indirectly slowed economic growth and then only certain aspects of it. By preserving territorial fragmentation, the Reich hindered standardization of weights, measures and currencies, as well as encouraging a proliferation of tariff barriers and toll points. However, it also provided frameworks to counteract this, particularly the Kreis structure, which, where it worked well as in Swabia, helped promote regional and interregional economic co-operation.

The ‘imperial constitution' actually influenced the economies of the supposedly completely ‘sovereign' German states? Not possible, right Kevin?

Military: pages 337-338

The belief that the mini-states could not be stirred "from their lethargy" has persisted to this day—and is incorrect. As discussion of resource mobilization
and provision of Kreis contingents has shown, the smaller territories provided a disproportionate share of the common effort. The biggest defaulter on financial contributions to the Imperial Operations Fund was Prussia, whereas
many others made additional voluntary payments. Moreover, Prussia never deployed more than 76,000 of its 235,000 men against France and always less than its Imperial and treaty requirements, pulling out altogether in 1795.
Austria exceeded its obligations, although arguably this was more to do with its wider objectives than a sense of duty toward the Reich. The lesser territories
provided only three-quarters of their official contingents, but most of the shortfall is accounted for by the loss of their lands west of the Rhine, which occurred prior to formal mobilization in 1793.

Well, Prussia in a treaty with the Reich to provide troops? Austria with ‘obligations' to the Reich? And the ‘lesser' territories all providing troops this ‘state' that had no power and didn't exist? and this is in 1793. How about that, Kevin?

Here is an example of Reich operations: The Léige Affair, and the revolt of the German principalities near France:

Apart from official Kreis intervention in Aachen, under way since 1786 to resolve a typical internal dispute, most counterrevolutionary repression took
place at territorial level, especially in Baden, but also Mainz and to a limited extent elsewhere. Most rulers [within the Reich--BH] avoided violence and instead followed the growing national consensus in favour of compromise and pacification to defuse protest along traditional lines.

The first armed Reich intervention, November 1789–April 1790, comprised 4,000 Prussians, 1,100 Palatine-Bavarians and 994 Münster troops. The second, April– November 1790, involved 2,900 Palatine-Bavarian, 1,214 Münster, 445 Cologne, 826 Trier and 1,450 Mainz soldiers.

For the events also see:
M.Braubach, Max Franz von Österreich, Letzer Kurfürst von Köln und Fürstbischof von Münster ( Münster, 1925 ) , pp. 222–33;

W.Lüdtke, "Kurtrier und die revolutionären Unruhen in den Jahren, 1789–1790", Trierer Zeitschrift 5, 1930, pp. 21–8

E.Schulte, "Der Krieg Münsters gegen Lüttich, 1789–92", Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte der Stadt Münster , 1927, pp. 57–9;

R.Breitling, "Die Revolution in Lüttich und der Schwäbische Kreis ( 1789/90 ) ", Besondere Beilage zum Staatsanziege für Württemberg, 1929, pp. 257–64

O.Bezzel, Geschichte des kurpfalzbayerischen Heeres, 1778–1803 ( Munich, 1930 ) , pp. 249–55

Bönninghausen, Münsterschen Truppen, pp. 176–81.

Footnote #5 for Chapter Nine.

"Typical internal intervention?" By the Reich with Reich troops all provided by those totally sovereign states? Isn't it amazing?

And here Wilson deals with the Reich as a "political entity"

Politics: pages 339-340

Consequently, few of the numerous reform proposals floated at this time went beyond modifications to the existing constitution. Utopian suggestions included a parliament of enlightened princes, philosophers and literary luminaries like Goethe and Wieland to replace the Reichstag, but still envisaged a collective political framework. More concrete proposals also wished to retain key traditional features, such an elected emperor, the Reichstag, Kreise and territorial sovereignty.

For example, despite its emphasis on the necessity of creating a national spirit, Bock's military reform ideas of 1794 essentially recommended implementing in full what had been decided in 1681–2 to bind the bigger territories to collective defence by creating fully integrated Kreis armies. Bock still endorsed the retention of separate Haustruppen by major princes, and even as late as 1803 most writers interpreted the political reorganization that was now taking place as evolutionary and urged retention of the essentials of the Reich's multilayered structure.

Such hopes were partially justified by signs that, far from collapsing, elements of the Reich were reviving, despite the crisis. No Reichstag decision was blocked by religious controversy during 1792–1801; on the contrary, the
institution acted promptly and effectively on many issues. The Kreis structure also displayed resilience, with Swabia preventing Württemberg from either subordinating the organization to its own objectives or leaving it altogether.

Most fundamental, however, was the clash of incompatible political cultures. The pacific, introspective neutral Reich was pulled apart, first by the two expansive, centralizing, absolutist German great powers and then by aggressive, dynamic revolutionary France. The final straw came when the medium principalities abandoned ship and swam to the life raft of a French alliance. As the troubled waters of nineteenth-century politics were to prove, the
reconstructed German Confederation was a far less watertight vessel for princely and territorial particularism than the old Reich.

My goodness. The Reich a ‘political culture?' Neutral? How can any entity avoid being ‘political' and choose neutrality? Sturdier than the 'reconstructed' German Confederation. Madness, right Kevin?

Some books dealing directly wiht the political affairs of the Riech are:

Brabant, A. Das Heilige Römische Reich teutscher Nation im Kampf mit Friedrich dem Großen [3 vols] ( Berlin, 1904–31 ) .

Buddruss, E. Die Französische Deutschlandpolitik, 1756–1789 ( Mainz, 1995 ) .

Duchhardt, H. ( ed. ) . Friedrich der Große, Franken und das Reich ( Cologne, 1986 ) .

Luard, E. The balance of power: the system of international relations, 1648–1815 ( London, 1992 ) .

Simms, B. The impact of Napoleon. Prussian high politics, foreign policy and the crisis of the executive 1797–1806 ( Cambridge, 1997 ) .

Aretin & Härter ( eds ) , Revolution und konservatives Beharren,

T.C.W.Blanning, The French Revolution in Germany: occupation and resistance in the Rhineland, 1792–1802 ( Oxford, 1983 )

Of course, Wilson's book is entitled German Armies: War and German Politics 1648-1806

And I would be remiss if I didn't provide the Kevin pedigree stamp for Peter Wilson as a scholar.

PETER H WILSON joined the Department as GF Grant Professor of History in January 2007, having worked previously at the universities of Sunderland and Newcastle-upon-Tyne. In addition, he taught at High Point University, North Carolina, in 2011, and has been a visiting fellow at the University of Münster, Germany. He did his BA at Liverpool and PhD at Jesus College Cambridge. He is a specialist in early modern German history, particularly the political, military, social and cultural history of the Holy Roman Empire between 1495 and 1806. He is also interested in the impact of war in wider European and world development from the seventeenth century to around 1900.

Between 2002 and 2009 he coordinated the German History Society's series of annual workshops on early modern German history with Dr Michael Schaich at the German Historical Institute, London. He is one of the curators of the international exhibition to mark the tricentenary of the birth of Frederick ‘the Great', held in Potsdam in 2012 ( spsg.de/index_10135_de.html ) . A Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, he has served on the committee of the German History Society and is on the editorial advisory boards of The International History Review ( 2006-10 ) , H-HRE , War and Society, and the Studies in European History series ( Palgrave ) . He is currently an external assessor for the German Federal Government Excellence Initiative.

His Books
• The Holy Roman Empire, 1495-1806 ( fully revised and expanded edition, Palgrave, 2011 )

• Europe's Tragedy: A History of the Thirty Years War, Penguin Press, June 2009; published in the USA as 'The Thirty Years War: Europe's Tragedy', by Harvard University Press, October 2009. Society for Military History Distinguished Book Award 2011

• From Reich to Revolution: German History 1558-1806 ( Palgrave, 2004 ) Available from Palgrave

•Absolutism in Central Europe ( Routledge, 2000 )

•The Holy Roman Empire 1495-1806 ( Macmillan, 1999 )

•German Armies: War and German Politics 1648-1806 ( UCL Press, 1998 )

•War, State and Society in Württemberg, 1677-1798 ( Cambridge University Press, 1995 )

Forthcoming Books

• edited with Robert Evans, The Holy Roman Empire 1495-1806: A European Perspective ( Brill, 2012 )

And if it's any consolation, he often quotes Holborn, Craig and Simms where applicable.

McLaddie

I did not want to really post any further on the topic but it is clear by your latest post to Kevin, if not your previous posts, that you have allowed yourself to be conned by the author.

By this, I mean that you seem to be accepting that, just because Wilson has decided to replace the words 'Holy Roman Empire' with 'state' or 'Reich', that a state must have existed!

But a state just did not exist, only the apparatus of the naff and doomed Holy Roman Empire, which, along with the treaties and agreements made within it, as you know full well, the various German speaking states employed or ignored whenever it was best for them.

It is just like the German Confederation after 1815, of which, as I've already mentioned, the constitution stated that the various individual states forming it, should not go to war with each other – but they did. They did what was best for them at the time, and if it meant ignoring or going against agreements etc, then so be it, they did it.

The Holy Roman Empire (or state as you now seem to want to call it) was nothing but a paper empire, or, in your terms, a paper state.

And I am sure you are aware that on the same page Wilson writes-
'The Reich was clearly moving inexorably towards a federation of sovereign princes before Francis II abdicated on 6th August 1806.'

But I was really interested in what Wilson states at the end when he talks about elements of the Holy Roman Empire apparatus that remained, although, of course he uses the terms 'state' and 'Reich' -
'What stifled these positive signs was the coincidence of the revolutionary threat with Austro-Prussian rivalry. By 1794 at the latest the war was really a three-cornered struggle for German domination between France, Austria and Prussia, and the Reich could have obtained peace with the French Republic if Vienna and Berlin had desired it.' (p340)

German history pre, during and post our period, seems to be more about the struggle for state domination, in terms of, rather than for the good of the region referred to as Germany and the German speaking people within it, but more for the desired creation of an Austrian or Prussian Germany.

That's just my point of view based on Wilson's book and other material. You are, of course, free to disagree, as I disagree with your viewpoint.

I recommend anyone interested in this debate to listen to the BBC series on Germany, which I have linked below.

I have listened to Episodes 1 and 2 and really can't wait to listen to the third and final episode.

There are some very interesting statements made, which, in Episode 1, covers the area we now know as Germany and the Holy Roman Empire before the Revolutionary and Napoleonic period – such as the people having 'No sense of a national identity' and 'no clear borders' etc.

There are various historians from various nations involved, including McLaddie's favourite, PETER WILSON, who talks about German disunity!

However, I'm a bit worried for two reasons. One, because it might depress Mcladdie and two, I think it has made me interested in German history. But it is a very enjoyable series and each episode is only 28 minutes long, so it won't take up too much wargaming and painting time. Highly recommended.

link

Gazzola, if you are sincerely interested in German history you could do worse than reading a modern study on the subject. One of the best works on early modern German history is Joachim Whaley's two volume study Germany and the Holy Roman Empire. It is the first such study since Holborn's in the 1950´s. The second volume, The Peace of Westphalia to the Dissolution of the Reich, 1648-1806 offers a new interpretation of the development of German-speaking central Europe and the Holy Roman Empire or the German Reich, from the late 16th century reforms to its dissolution in 1806.

Whaley conclusion goes against the ideas of the leading German historians of the late 19th and early 20th century that the Reich had by 1806 become a meaningless paper state and an obstacle to German unification. On the contrary he claims that the Reich formed a coherent and functional system with its own of traditions and culture of early modern German patriotism.

And one of the books main themes is how the Reich developed the functions of a state during this period.

These are the books:

Joachim Whaley, Germany and the Holy Roman Empire: Volume I: Maximilian I to the Peace of Westphalia, 1493-1648, Oxford History of Early Modern Europe, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012.

Joachim Whaley, Germany and the Holy Roman Empire: Volume II: The Peace of Westphalia to the Dissolution of the Reich, 1648-1806: 2, Oxford History of Early Modern Europe, 2012.

Also, a collection of papers on the subject that offer a revised view of the Reich:

Jason Philip Coy, Benjamin Marschke, and David Warren Sabean, editors, The Holy Roman Empire, Reconsidered, Berhahn Books, Oxford, 2010.

And also of interest is Professor Wilsons latest book:

Professor Peter H. Wilson, The Holy Roman Empire 1495-1806, Second Edition, Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.

Whatever we make of it, I belive it is hard for us to deny there was a political entity of Germany before 1871 or that there was a Germany as well that there was a German nation.

Wulfila

Thank you for the list but I'm afraid it was more of a joke when I said I was becoming interested in German History. Some of it was indeed very interesting, to a certain point, but I have no desire or real interest in doing any further research into German History, as interesting as it might be to you and possibly others.

However, saying that, the book Germania by Simon Winder (not to be confused with Tacitus' Germania which I own) looks very interesting, although I believe it might not be popular with Germanophiles. But it does look a very amusing book. A refreshing change from all those who take themselves and everything said, ever so seriously!

But no, I compleley disagree with you. There was no German nation or state during our period. But I am not going to repeat my posts where research supported that view. You'll just have to read all the posts.

I also suggest you listen to the BBC series looking at The Making of Germany, first posted by 138SquadronRAF, which looks at Germany from its past to its unification in 1871. I found it very interesting and very informative.

Some interesting things were said during the series, which supported my view and which I have included in previous posts. Again, I am not going to repeat them. But in the latter part of the series it mentions the 'ghostly medieval institution of the Holy Roman Empire', and 'many Germans did not want unification in 1871', and states that some Germans even felt unification of Germany only really came about in 1989! Interesting stuff!

Another interesting part was when the programme was talking about Germany becoming united in 1871 – 'last time Germany was united was under the Holy Roman Emperor Barbarossa in the 12th Century'.

Peter Wilson was one of the many historians and academics employed in the series, including German ones.

My view, which I've stated before, based on what I've researched, including McLaddie's bible (Wilson's book) etc, is that there was a region to which everyone referred to as Germany. There was a cultural and linguitsic connection to the various peoples living in that region. And, of course, there was a leftover apparatus from the Holy Roman Empire, which the various individual German speaking states employed or ignored in whatever way was best for them, not for any sense of a fatherland or single state or nation, which just did not exist. Prussia and Austria used the apparatus in their attempts to dominate the other individual states, trying to make a Prussian Germany or an Austrian one.

I do however, accept there had been and was, during our period, a sort of Germanic UN, of which, as already mentioned, both Prussia and Austria wanted to dominate and due to which they eventually went to war with each other, Prussia winning and becoming the overall dominate state in 1871 after defeating Austria previously and then France.

But my interest in anything German from now on, will only be related to any German (Confederation of the Rhine, Prussia etc) involvement during the 1813 campaign, since I am just clicking into 1813 mode. I'm sure there will be many debates on the 1813 campaign, but as far German History goes – nicht mehr!

I accept you have your point of view and I think you should accept I have mine. And I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on the topic.

Sorry, but I'm saying Auf Wiedersehen to all German history lovers. As far as I'm concerned, enough is enough! And as I've said before my Westphalians really do need painting.

I've just had a great morning sat painting Austrians and listening to the BBC link posted by 138SquadronRAF & Gazzola. I listened to all 3 episodes in one sitting and I must say it was very interesting. At least 2 of the authors quoted in this thread appear in it. I think it pretty much supported the kind of 'mind-model' I already had of Germany during the period we are discussing, but it fleshed out some important details. I thoroughly recommended it to everyone who has posted to the thread.
Overall I would say that a few people may have been exaggerating the State & unification of Germany during this period. I think Gazzola & B might be more on the money than the McLaddie/VonW/Captain Butt Axis.
But of course I don't claim to be an expert by any means. Just my opinion.

The great thing about radio shows is that you can carry on painting at the same time. You guys got any more?

I listened to the first episode yesterday and agree with your assessment.

I also received German Armies in the mail yesterday and it seems to me, though I haven't gotten too far into the book yet, that the author is trying just a little too hard to prove his point and support his argument.

I'm waiting for his short book on the Holy Roman Empire.

B

Brechtel198

I agree with you on Wilson. I think he has very cleverly replaced the term Holy Roman Empire with Reich and state, as if that will convince the reader, which it obviously has concerning some of members on this site.

And I believe Wilson's book on the Holy Roman Empire is a reprint of the 1999 edition, with an extra chapter thrown in asking if the HRE should be considered as a state. However, judging by the reviews it is considered as far too short, even with the extra chapter, to cover such an institution and is basically an overview.

The Radio Series was very interesting and even made German History enjoyable. And I was interested to hear that Russia at one time could have deleted Prussia completely from Europe, but the German state was saved because the Russian ruler died and the new one favoured the Prussians. But a great series and well worth a listen.

Even so, people will make up their own minds and interpret things in their own way, and I doubt those who desperately want a state called Germany to exist during our period, will change their minds.

TelesticWarrior

Yes, a great series and very interesting to hear people like Peter Wilson talking on it. I think it should be compulsory listening for those interested in the 'Germany' question.

As for other series to listen to –

link

Let's hope there is more to come and yes, listening to the radio is ideal when painting up your miniatures. Talking of which, I noticed I have to reprime my Westphalians. I was rushing too much and trying to catch up because all the German stuff kept getting in the way.

Overall I would say that a few people may have been exaggerating the State & unification of Germany during this period.

I would dare to suggest you to re-read the thread, then.

McLaddie, Sam et alii, have been making a pretty solid case about the existence of Germany as nation (as the concept of "nation" was understood in XVI-early XIX Centuries, in Europe), not as an unified state. That idea has been used in the thread by Kevin and Gazzola as strawman to "prove" their points.

Germany existed in the Napoleonic times as both a geographic and cultural concept; it also was understood as a political community, with shared institutions . But it wasn't an unified state; nor anybody has been claiming such a thing.

In a debate, it's difficult to have a meaningful discussion when your opponents make strawman to refute your points.

Look, the problem with this thread is that while some posters are trying to explain the past in its own terms (i.e. using the words as they were used and understood by the people in the period under discussion), other posters are trying to impose over the past the political narrative of their present; in other words, they are imposing present day meanings to words from the past.

'But it wasn't an unified state; nor anybody has been claiming such a thing.'

The first part of your sentence is what I've been saying from the first posting. That is my argument.

The second part is incorrect. McLaddie has been doing exactly that.

I've not used any strawman argument at all. I do believe you're just a little out in left field, so to speak, with that accusation. in short, you're incorrect.

And any points I've refuted I've based them on solid works by noted authorities on German history. Even Sam Mustafa's recommended work was helpful to support my argument.

B

Bretchtel198

I think we should just add basileus66's comical accusation to the Francophile and Napoleon hero-worships jokes!

However, I liked the bit where he stated – 'But it wasn't a unified state' – That'll do for me.

Gazzola-agree. That comment was the point of the exercise.

B

'But it wasn't an unified state; nor anybody has been claiming such a thing.'

The first part of your sentence is what I've been saying from the first posting. That is my argument.

I thought, and re-reading your OP seems to confirm this, that actually your claims went rather further than this?

Regards

Basileus, I respectfully suggest YOU re-read the last couple of pages of this thread.

I'll try to be more clear than the comment I made in my last post;
The BBC series, in which a number of historians directly address the issues people have been debating here, supports Gazzola/Brechtel's overall assessment of 'Germany' in Napoleonic times more than it does McLaddies/Captain Butt's.
That's my assessment. Take it or leave it but at least listen to it before commenting.
I'm not saying the BBC series is definitely correct, like I said I'm hardly an expert on Germany, I'm just saying IT's assessment tallies very well with most of what Gazzola/Brechtel have been saying all along. It doesnt tally too well with some of what the opposition side have been saying. Hence my comment that they might be over-exaggerating the coherent structure of this thing called Germany.

TelesticWarrior

Sadly, I think people who desperately want there to have been a state called Germany to exist will come up with all sorts of excuses and ideas to try and confirm it.

Such as: The apparatus of the defunct Holy Roman Empire was still there, so it must have been a state. People called the region Germany so there must have been a state. They virtually all speak German so there must have been a state. People dreamed of a single state so there must have been a state. And the silliest claim-what we consider as a state today was not what was considered a state then, so there must have been a state.

But those debating against the existence of a state called Germany during our period, are not employing or basing their viewpoint from a modern prespective. They are viewing it as they view Napoleonic France, Russia, Spain, Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony etc, etc – in line with the period.

I really can't understand why they just can't accept that a state called Germany just did not exist, but that a collection of individual and independent German speaking states, such as Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony etc, did exist. These states were connected by what can only be considered as a Germanic version of the UN, whihc they ignored or employed for their own benefit. And the facts these states fought against each other at times and for and against France and Napoleon, makes them all the more interesting, in my opinion.

But I don't think some of those who want a Germany to exist during our period, will want to listen to the Radio series, especially as it involves authors and historians they threw up as supposedly supporting their viewpoint. Shooting oneself in the foot seems to come to mind!

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

Well, WW, there's what I said as my position in the discussion.

What are you reading into it?

B

There DID exist a political entity in Germany and laying claim to represent the German nation right up until 1804.

The discussion is surely more about the state of this state rather whether it did exist. Was it a paper tiger by 1800, about to dissolve into its constituent parts, whether revolutionary France invaded or not – or a sleeping giant about to overcome the debilitating effects of its feudal structure?

Whether the HRoGN was a relatively powerful, reasonably integrated entity or more akin to a united nations type structure is a matter of judgement. Likewise whether or not it was devolving faster and more decisively as quite a few of us think versus the idea that there were also important factors in play towards tighter integration.

The conflict between the centrifugal forces of feudal/dynastic ambitions and the centripetal forces of (modern) state building led by a single, dominant (typically) dynastic interests played out across Europe.

For example, whereas the Bourbons managed to overcome the ambitions of other powerful families who ruled various parts of old feudal france, the Emperors of Germany did not. Yet the empire continued to exist whereas for example Poland was erased, in part also due to similar debilitating centrifugal dynastic forces.

The idea about a German stat existing must surely be informed in part that that essentially all the 300 odd territories in 1800 existed only as part of a greater whole, whether Imperial City or Imperial Knight. These statelets only existed as a part of the empire, and because they were of the empire. The Empire created these territories, not the other way around. The elector of saxony was elector of the empire, in saxony. A fiefdom given by the emperor. Whether the various families encharged with these various fiefdoms paid due fealty at all times is surely another thing.

The titles of the various major players, such as the Wittelsbachs, Habsburgs, Hohenzollerns, Wettins and Guelphs were electoral prince. It was the status that came with being Elector in/of the Empire that gave status. Which was used for dynastic advantage but how they executed their role does not diminish the fact that their power was established intrinsically and fundamentally through their association to the Empire. But – yes, the Emperor did not manage to rein them in as the Bourbons did the power of the leading nobles in France, but still their de jure position was the same, and one which was bestowed by and subservient to, a higher entity, i.e. state. Again – the manner in which this role was discharged is another matter.

The nature of the Empire was fundamentally altered when the various key players obtained status beside their position as Imperial functionary, and more seriously still, outside the Empire. Being King in Prussia, King of Hungary, King of England, King of Poland changed the game entirely and – to my mind – caused the forces of devolution to get a decisive advantage. It made these princes independent economically, politically and in terms of status where previously their stats was fundamentally linked to their role as Imperial prince.

The Habsburgs did not turn their back on the their Imperial role until forced to by Napoleon, as being Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation was a pretty fab title which they defended tooth and nail. Quite odd if it was only a bit of paper, surely?

Wilson's book essentially puts the case that even so, the centrifugal forces of dynastic ambitions were indeed balanced to some extent by rather strong centripetal forces, for example the smaller territories seeking protection from their neighbors in the empire by strengthening the overarching imperial structure. I am not done with the book yet, and I have my doubts but it is an interesting point of view.

An interesting thought is to consider the role that the Wittelsbachs of Bavaria could have played if they had managed to take over the role of Emperor. Surely, lacking the territories outside of the Empire like the Habsburgs had, this would have spurred them on to attempt closer integration vs the Habsburgs who had begun to look south and east after they beat back the turks?

But – of course – they did not secure the Imperial title which was retained by the Habsburgs and instead the feudal structure remained. As the various families jockeying for power obtained strongholds outside the Empire they became more and more focused on building out their power base per sé rather than use it as a springboard to improved position within the Empire.

Far from perfect and riven by dynastic ambitions that took maximum advantage of feudal structures to the advantage of each family rather than the greater good (as we'd perceive it perhaps), the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation did however exist. With its institutions, treaties, armies, constitution, Emperor, electoral princes and all the bits and bobs that made a (feudal) state. A pretty weird and devolved state perhaps, but still its state of being does not diminish its being a state.

But, by 1800 the Empire was probably done for and ready for the old scrapheap of history. The state was now in a a terminal state. Not a sleeping giant but a paper tiger. It did manage to fight somehow but its archaic feudal nature was fatal to its continued existence. A new reality was recognized. Franz 2 of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation becomes Franz 1 of Austria and the state that was the Reich was no more.

Hello Kevin,

In your OP, you wrote:

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

In my understanding of the word 'entity', then McLaddie's objections that there was an over-arching political organisation of varying degrees of power would be valid? however, if by 'entity' you mean 'modern state' then that is fair enough – although less interesting.

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.

Well, this could mean a few different things, depending on what you consider the 'state' is that is doing the considering. And is your thrust here that a Saxon – or a German who happened to live in Saxony – considered him/herself exclusively or primarily a 'Saxon' as opposed to a 'German'? If you don't mean exclusively/primary, then clearly there is no argument with anyone; if you do, then some of CCB's posts would clearly seem to refute this? Similarly, it isn't clear if you equate 'the state' with 'the ruler of the state' or with 'the people of the state'.

The idea of a pan-German state was only in embryonic form, the ideas and writings of those such as Fichte notwithstanding.

Well this has been hotly disputed hasn't it? Claiming that an idea is only in embryonic form is naturally quite a big one, pre-supposing a lot about what had gone before.

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.

If one accepts this, then an interesting question is raised: did other German states object to Prussian rule because it was Prussian rather than German – i.e. was it Prussiam particularism that stopped the minor nations being enthusiast, or a sincere demand that (say) Oldenburg becom a totally sovereign, independent state?

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.

Well only historical witness can attest to the truth or otherwise of this – did these soldiers in fact not think of themselves as German? Again, the posts by CCB and McL seem instructive. But perhaps there is a large body of statements from the time which show Nassauer and Hanoverian particularism?

Regards

And despite the collapse, not only intellectuals speak about a German fatherland, or the French do speak about les Allemands, so there is more than just an idea about a German nation, and after the Napoleonic Wars, an institution as a German Bundesheer was established, and before the official Imperial Reich – there was the Paulskirche and much more.

Summary
A German nation did exist – this is proven here by competent authors.

And even after the collapse of it, the idea of a common Germany is evident, why to speak about a German fatherland, when it would not exist or be an abstract theory??

Basileus post: "Look, the problem with this thread is that while some posters are trying to explain the past in its own terms (i.e. using the words as they were used and understood by the people in the period under discussion), other posters are trying to impose over the past the political narrative of their present; in other words, they are imposing present day meanings to words from the past".

I agree with you, and that is the definitive argument. There was political entity of Germany (Reich or Holy Empire) but not an unified state in modern sense. There are two different approaches. If we want to understand the past we must brush aside our prejudgements and present conventions.
From our present point of view, early 19th century Germany was not a state like today Germany or Spain. Nobody can claim such a thing. But nobody can deny the existence of Germany with cultural and political entity (Reich or Holy Empire).
This is a meaningless discussion because there is no academical debate about these evidences.

This is a meaningless discussion because there is no academical debate about these evidences.

Ruchel this is not a meaningless debate. If you listen to the BBC series you would no longer think so. There are academics on the series who seem to be at odds with the view presented by Von W, Captain Cornelius etc.
Both sides are in agreement about certain things, for sure, but as Stenetoppen writes in his interesting post above "The discussion is surely more about the state of this state rather (than) whether it did exist."
It's also about whether the majority of the people that lived in the area we now call Germany even wanted a powerful unified State at all. Or even if they were as culturally unified as as been suggested on this thread.
The BBC series promotes the idea that the rise of germany as we think of it today was far from an inevitable thing.

It's also about whether the majority of the people that lived in the area we now call Germany even wanted a powerful unified State at all.

That's like to ask if the people of any present day nation-state did or did not wanted a powerful unified State at all.

The construction of centralized states has been, historically, a choice of the elites, not the people. In the best of cases, the people was 'consulted'; most of the time, they found the new reality after it was implemented.

In the case of Germany, Whirlwind has asked a good question: was the resistance to the unification a manifestation of anti-Germanism? Or was it a matter of anti-Prussianism? Evidence points that it was the fear of being de-Germanized and Prussianized what drove some southern German states to suspect the drive toward unification from Prussia (or Austria).

Or even if they were as culturally unified as as been suggested on this thread.

Depends on what you understand by being "culturally unified".

They weren't more culturally unified than, for example, a Yorkshireman could be when compared to a Londoner. There existed differences in uses, mores and even language; but as both Yorkshiremen and Londoners felt English, so Oldenburgers and Bavarians felt German. Or at least, as much as anyone else could felt, given that most people didn't actually cared too much about what happened outside their parishes.

Back in the early 1800s there existed several layers of feelings of belonging. First and foremost was the extended family; then it came your village, which was your "country" in the strictest sense of the word. Next came your 'nation', i.e. you were German, English, Welsh, Castilian, ecc. The last layer was the Crown, understood as the 'father/mother' of an extended family that comprised the whole State where you lived.

Nation and State were different things, though. For a Breton, France was the State where he lived, in whose armies he fought, whose taxes he paid, and whose laws he obeyed (or defied!). But his nation was Breton, not French.

As an aside, when French armies fought in foreign countries those differences weren't noticed by their opponents: a Breton was a French for a Spaniard, as a Catalonian was a Spaniard for a French. It could be interesting to investigate if the increased mobility of the European population had any influence in the identification of Nation equal State. Mind that before XIXth Century most people never saw anyone from outside their own cultural enviroment, except those on border lands. Therefore they needed not a particular identification for themselves and for others. However, once people started to move around they needed some form of identity to differentiate from others. Defining yourself as an Englishman would have been easier to explain to a foreigner than explaining that you were a Lincolnshireman (that only would have made sense for other Englishmen).

"The discussion is surely more about the state of this state rather (than) whether it did exist."

TelesticWarrior:

Well, it is, but as the original statement was that no political entity or unified German state existed before 1871. And obviously, one did. Now the debate is whether that state or its 'state' counts. So far, the counter argument is that it wasn't 'good enough' to be a state, even though the contemporaries certainly thought so. Some liked it, some wanted to be free of it and rebeled, others wanted to control it, it was seen as both needed and unnecessary, too weak, yet too independent, but there was no question that it existed.

Austria and Prussia never destroyed it, though they cetainly could have, during well over a 100 year period. It was Napoleon that not only recognized it as a state, negoiated with it as a state, but dismantled it by treaty with its Emperor. But then he destroyed and created a number of states during his reign.

You can see the problem with those who ever so desperately want a state called Germany to exist during our period -

Basileus66 said- 'But it wasn't an unified state, not anybody has been claiming such a thing'

MacLaddie said – 'and obvious, one did'

Tut tut! not very united – a bit like the German region during our period.

Lol.

And can someone please advise VW to listen to the BBC series which has even more competent historians and authors than those attending this site, and even includes some of those mentioned by those who think there was a state called Germany. But make sure to suggest he has some paracetamol handy, as I'm sure the very informative programme will give him a bit of a headache.

Brechtel198 & TelesticWarrior

The debate is now attracting people like flies around a you know what, and someone (stenetoppen) has just joined and come straight to this debate.

I think it is now time to put the poor dears out of their misery and leave the thread. If they want to believe there was a state called Germany, although they seem somewhat divided on that themselves, and we know there wasn't, just the sham left over of the Holy Roman Empire – let them – it'll keep them happy.

I'm sure they'll carry on debating with each other, in a sense of desperate mutual support. But I think we should say auf wiedersehen to the German history lovers, especially since there is far more interesting Napoleonic topics to discuss, especially with the anniversary year of 1813 coming up.

Now I'm off to get some serious painting of my Westphalians done, plus I might consider doing some more Saxons and Bavarians.

Hey Gazza, haven't you yourself have acknowledged the existence of the Empire (how could one not)? The statement by OP that " There was no political entity of Germany until 1871 when the German empire was proclaimed at Versailles" was found to be incorrect by most, including your good self. Having recognized the existence of the political entity (i.e. the Reich) we moved on to chatter about the nature of that state: paper tiger or something more?

Certainly we struggle to comprehend it, perhaps especially so as its nature (HRE) seems somewhat out of place in the age we speak of.

Where in many other political structures fealty to a families of notables as a fundamental basis for territorial/political organization was replaced by loyalty to a higher structure we eventually ended up recognizing as the modern "state" the HRE did not manage to leave behind its feudal past. Many other states at the time retained much of the feudal film flam but the HRE especially so perhaps. It was a state with all the trappings and trimmings, recognized by all and sundry, including (critically) by its own Princes, whose status as political forces was based precisely on the fact that their title of Prince, etc meant something ONLY within the context of the Empire. Their jockeying for position more often than not focused on defending /improving their posit within the Empire, rather than attempting to forge separate states outside the Empire.

It was never a random collection of independent states akin to a UN of germanic states. The various territories and states that came into existence in Germany during the lifetime of the Empire did so as a product of the Empire, being fiefs given by the Emperor to various notables. A given territory could not choose become a member, only existing territories recognized as being part of the overall territory of the Empire could be divided, joined, handed over to another family. One could not leave the Empire voluntarily either. Doing so required successful rebellion (e.g. the Dutch Republic) or conquest (the Reunion campaigns of Louis XIV).

And please avoid disparaging those you disagree with:

tut tut
poor dears
keep(ing) them happy
desperate mutual support

Just not necessary.

Cheers, and good luck with the painting. All that white and blue. I assume you are working on the formations deployed in Russia?

Stenetoppen

Stenetoppen

Firstly, you only joined a few days ago and yet you are telling me what I should or should not put un my posts.
'A lot to learn you have'

But if I want to use certain terms I will use them. If it upsets you then don't read my posts! Perhaps you are not aware of it, although I'm sure you do, anyone going over the line is thrown into the dawghouse, so there is no need to waste time and space with your comments.

Secondly, you have joined recently and yet come straight to this debate? But it really is a shame you did not join the 'party' earlier, because you might not be wasting my time repeating the same old nonsense about the HRE and feeble excuses about security etc, etc. You might feel you impress others with that rubbish but it just does not wash here and more importantly, it is old news that has been blown away more than once.

It has already been said that people referred to region as Germany and many felt they had a cultural and linguistic connection. That is a given. But the HRE was a medieval leftover and the various German speaking states used or ignored the apparatus whenever it was best for them. That is so clear when you look into the history of the region and states. The individual states sided with the 'fatherland's' so called enemies and fought against each other and even against their supposed emperor Francis! That is not doing something for the region, for a German state, for the fatherland and all that garbage. They did it for themselves. Austria and Prussia then used the apparatus to try and push themselves into the dominant state, which Prussia won eventually and we all know what that led to.

You seem to have a problem accepting that. So I suggest you listen to the BBC series on the Making of Germany. It is linked in previous posts. It won't take up too much of your time but I'm sure you will learn a lot from it, as others you listened to it did. It involves German history academics and historians, so they know their stuff! And you will certainly learn a lot more, and about the reality, than the fantasy you and others are trying so desperately to push forward here.

So please, stop wasting my time. At the very least I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree. Perhaps you can't do that-well, if not, that's your problem. Other than that, I suggest you hang around for a couple of months and the topic will reappear again (hey, you can even post it yourself if you are still here!) and you can then join in and make out you are really interested. But my interest on this fantasy topic has well gone. I would not have replied to your post but you could be a new member.

Anyway, I look forward to seeing you in other threads, especially with the anniversary year of 1813 coming up. I'm sure you will have plenty to say. But I recommend you don't go around telling people what they can or can't say in their posts. Tut tut! Very naughty! But you'll learn.

So sorry Gazz, didn't mean for undies to be twisted. Having just emerged from my erstwhile murky lurking I (as a newbie) am all apologetic for suggesting you to not patronise.

I obviously have no desire to tell you to do one thing or another. But all this tut tutting seems a tad superfluous to what on the whole is a pleasant exchange? I guess I must simply learn to read past all that.

And please forgive my barging in to this discussion straight in from the land of lurk.

Anyroad. I accept your insightful and erudite charchterisation of my previous post being mere garbage, rubbish and a waste of my time and yours. No doubt all quite apt.

But forgive a newbie claiming more of your time whilst making a feeble attempt at retort. Well, agreement really.

The HRE was indeed a left over from medieval times. Well, yes quite. But almost every European state struggled through a similar period of intense dynastic and religious competition including enormous internecine conflicts in what is today France, England, Spain, Poland, etc etc including of course our favorite, the HRE.

Whereas some states made it through to become a centralized polity, tightly controlled by a single dominant factor such as in Bourbon France, others did not. Sticking to France, states such as Burgundy and Lorraine were subsumed into a greater whole and the nobility firmly reined in. With violence and often despite quite some intervention from external actors.

But certainly France pre-existed this process that was completed largely during the reign of Louis 13? Even though in many respects that state was in a similar state to the later HRE?

The HRE did not manage to centralize though not for want of trying, Yes, the Emperors did not manage to significantly reduce the power of the princes and other Imperial notables. Each of these princes, indeed, were looking out for their own dynastic interests, going as far as to allying with external enemies who wished to see a disunited Empire. But the aim of their scheming was to increase their influence within the Empire not to break away from it. Whereas the Bourbons quashed similar centrifugal forces in France, the Emperors of HRE did not. No argument there. But all these conflicts merely illustrate the quite likely poor state of the state.

But a state it was.

Right until 1804.

Best regards and looking forward to seeing pix of your Westphalians. I am a dreadful and lazy painter and can use some inspiration. Thinking about 1809 Kingdom of Holland or 1807 Norwegians and Swedes. Somwehat unlikely what with a small horde of teens in the house.

Stenetoppen

Stenetoppen

You might be a newbie or you might be an oldie with a member name! You just can't tell.

But if you really want to see it as a state, then go for it! I don't see it as a state and only pathetic excuses from those trying to convince themselves that it was a state.

I have an old telly upstairs. It looks like a telly. It has all the apparatus that makes up a telly. People who have seen it say, hey, that's an old telly. It's been around for a long time. But it does not work, it is junk, old junk, just like the HRE. That's why the individual German speaking states allowed it to be binned in 1806 and why the indvidual states failed to aid Austria, the HRE's so called leader state, and failed to rally to Prussia.

Anyway, you obviously believe there was a state called Germany. That's your choice. I certainly don't. That's my choice.

And, as the old song goes and which I've used before -
'You say Germany, I say Bavaria
Germany, Bavaria
Germany, Bavaria
let's call the whole thing off!

In terms of wargming miniatures, I'd go for the Swedes. They've been fairly neglected, compared to other states. Go on, give them a go. I'll look forward to seeing the pictures. But you might have a long wait for pics of my Westphalians, considering how long it has taken me to just prime them.

Howdy Gazza

long time lurker, newby poster.

I am afraid have to object and write that I don't quite understand why it's pathetic to conclude that HRE is a state but there we are. In the grand scheme of things…meh…I have other thins to get unnecessarily huffy about.

tomato tomato

I do think your old telly example is rather spot on. Old, crappy and ready for the dump. But still a television. haha could not resist.

Hmm, i have an old plan to build opposing forces to game the clashes in Norway in 1807/1808. I should first get some rules and then build something suitable but whenever I start I stop and fret about rulesets and time and what about something else! I think you will have built out the entire Grande Armee long before I have my first company of Ski troops. Ah well…

The problem with the Broken TV in the attic analogy is that the Reich wasn't in the attic forgotten or inoperable. If it had been, Austria, Prussia and most importantly Napoleon wouldn't have negotiated with it, let alone agreed to treaties with it.

It was:
1. Functioning as it was designed to function since 1648 right up till 1806-- how well is evidenced by
2. Napoleon. If it had been broken and forgotten, Napoleon wouldn't have had bother with the Treaty of Lunesville to 'turn it off.'

Stenetoppen

LoL. Yes, I guessed you would say that. And I suppose some people will still see it as a television, as it once was. Me, despite its usefulness in the past, it is now a bit of junk waiting to be thrown away and taking up unnecessary space.

Talking of miniatures – I'm about to get stuck into some painting once I've finished here. I always try to paint up one unit from both sides at the same time, so I will also be working on some Cossacks.

But time is unimportant, although sometimes it does not feel that way. Just stick at it and you will get there in the end and will be rewarded by those ranks of miniatures waiting for the next game.

Mcladdie

You are most welcome to try and get the television working again!

And I guess you did not listen to the BBC series?

You mean the BBC series on Napoleon? That is your source for broken TVs and Reich history?

Indeed McLaddie…metaphors always fail closer scrutiny.

Yet I liked the TV metaphor as at least we were in agreement that the thing was a thing, though we quibble about the state of it.

Recognising I am in danger of stretching the consumer electronics metaphor well beyond that wich can be considered gentlemanly: was the HRE on the blink, did it need sprucing up or was it indeed ready for the scrapheap – these qualifications do not deny its essential quality, ie. its existence as a (mal) functioning state until it was indeed no more upon its dissolution in 1804.