"Germany and the Germans" Topic

One for McLaddie. I'm sure someone will pass it on to him.

'Not all those who anticipated unification wanted it'

(page6-Germany's Two Unifications. Ronald Spiers and John Breuilly)

The first unification was in 1871, not during our period, so no state or nation called Germany – just a region.

'In the case of the first unification there had never before been a German nation-state. Few took the Holy Roman Empire seriously as a model for a future state.' (page 8)

The words 'never before' sounds definite to me.

BullDog69

'master' 'great Gazzola' 'good work' Oh heck, whatever next?

Now be careful Bulldog, your obssession with my posts might get you labeled as a Francophile, or maybe even a Gazophile!

'Not all those who anticipated unification wanted it'

(page6-Germany's Two Unifications. Ronald Spiers and John Breuilly)

Uh-huh, so? What does that prove? Not everyone wanted the French Empire, British Empire, Russian Empire etc. etc.

The first unification was in 1871, not during our period, so no state or nation called Germany – just a region.

'In the case of the first unification there had never before been a German nation-state. Few took the Holy Roman Empire seriously as a model for a future state.' (page 8)

As usual, you cherry-pick and take things out of context. If you actually had read the first chapter with an effort to follow their arguments, you would have noticed that their idea of 'unification' included a second unification after World War I under Hitler and a notion of Nation-State admittedly focused on one kind of construction, very Twentieth Century in form.

However, the statement that "Few took the Holy Roman Empire seriously as a model for a future state" is laughable.

The German Empire of 1871 had an Emperor, Representative government, a Reichstag, and a Constitution clearly built on the Holy Roman Empire governmental components, with many similar rights to the member states like Bravaria, Saxony, Holstein etc. And while there were certainly differences too, the German Empire in 1871 was seen as "the second Reich" by the Germans of the time and after for a reason. Those Germans just don't happen to agree with Ronald Spiers and John Breuilly, writing 140 years later.

Or you, for that matter.

Mcladdie

I think you should stop assuming that people don't read the books they mention. It might be your habit but that does not mean everyone does.

And I am well aware of what they were talking about and that is the whole point- which you did not seem to get! The first unification eg-making of a state-was in 1871 – not before! Er, that's what we've been saying.

As for your Holy Roman Empire joke-
'Ever since the Peace of Westphalia (1648), when Europe was increasingly dominated by absoloute monarchies, the Holy Roman Empire (Reich) had seemed an aberration. In theory, the Emperor continued to command allegiance of the German rulers. Yet in reality, the Emperor's ability to enforce his will was nonexistent. The Empire possessed no central administration or tax structure, no effective army, no unified legal system, and conducted no foreign policy. The power of the emperors derived from their own Habsburg lands and not the Empire itself. An Imperial Diet (Reichstag) continued to meet but it decisions had little authority in the various states. In sum, as the eighteenth century drew to a close, it became increasingly obvious that the Reich's days were numbered.' (pages 85-86-Napoleon and the Transformation of Europe. Alexander Grab)

So that's your 'wunderba' HRE before our period – dying and virtually useless!

'In march 1793, the Reichstag joined the First Coalition but it was able to offer only limited help for the war effort' (page 87)

That's not very impressive is, from a supposed state, which you see the RHE as?

'In other words, Prussia was willing to sacrifice imperial interests and smaller German states for its own territorial expansion. Bavaria, Wurttemberg, and Baden soon followed suit, signing similar treaties with France.' (page 87)

'In other words, the Austrian Emperor, just like the Prussian monarch, sacrificed the Empire's territorial integrity to advance its own interests.' (page 87)

Here we go again and just what we've been saying all along-individual states doing what was best for them, not for a ghost empire or state.

'Campo Formio thus prepared the ground for the subsequent territorial reorganization of Germany and the end of the Holy Roman Empire itself nine years later.' (page 87)

The rot of the HRE is well and truly happening. And certainly more so after the Treaty of Luneville in 1801.

'The Empire now became an entirely anachronistic organization whose formal dissolution seemed inevitable. Most princes no longer supported common imperial goals, preferring to profit from the growing weakness of the Empire itself.' (Pages 88-89)

'During the last three years of its existence (1803-6), the Empire was in disarray, unable to deal with the changes imposed by Napoleon. The Reichstag was now an essentially moribund institution, engaging in endless and futile debates over how to restore parity between Catholic and Protestant states.' (page 89)

I reckon that proves that the HRE was and always has been a car without an engine.

'

But it existed?

The Empire possessed no central administration or tax structure, no effective army, no unified legal system, and conducted no foreign policy. The power of the emperors derived from their own Habsburg lands and not the Empire itself. An Imperial Diet (Reichstag) continued to meet but it decisions had little authority in the various states. In sum, as the eighteenth century drew to a close, it became increasingly obvious that the Reich's days were numbered.' (pages 85-86-Napoleon and the Transformation of Europe. Alexander Grab)

It is a very strange statement when I gave several specific examples of:
1. The Imperial Diet Keeping the various states, specifically Wurttemburg from 'doing what it wanted' in 1791
2. Where the Reich taxed and collected money from it's member states
3. Where the member states 'met their obligations' as part of the Reich in providing funds to the Riech, troops and
4. Various laws and policies, including commercial, regligious and political that members followed, rebelled against, voted for and against, like most states of the period. Peter Wilson and Holborn gave a wide variety of examples in their books.

'In march 1793, the Reichstag joined the First Coalition but it was able to offer only limited help for the war effort' (page 87)

That's not very impressive is, from a supposed state, which you see the RHE as?

I never said the RHE was 'impressive', I said it functioned as a state, regardless of whether it's war help was limited or not. Prussia's was 'limited' too. It only provided about 25% of it's total army to the effort. If you look, you will see that the same is true of the HRE. A "useless state" wouldn't be able to provide ANY help…

'In other words, Prussia was willing to sacrifice imperial interests and smaller German states for its own territorial expansion. Bavaria, Wurttemberg, and Baden soon followed suit, signing similar treaties with France.' (page 87)

'In other words, the Austrian Emperor, just like the Prussian monarch, sacrificed the Empire's territorial integrity to advance its own interests.' (page 87)

In other words, they treated the RHE like they did most other states, being more than happy to sacrifice other state's territories to advance their own interests. The question is why the didn't take ALL of the Reich's territories if it was so weak and useless? It required Napoleon to 'turn it off', and he did that with any number of states.

Here we go again and just what we've been saying all along-individual states doing what was best for them, not for a ghost empire or state.

Well, that assumes that the HRE didn't represent advantages for the 'individual states' or it was not seen as 'what was best for them.' It fails to explain why those individual states continued to follow the laws of and their agreements with the Reich. Why didn't they just ignore them and the Empire? The fact is that they didn't. They supported the Empire with their blood and treasure, right up until its dissolution, inflicted upon the HRE by an outside, and non-German force, France.

The reason that the majority of the 100 or more 'states' of the Reich felt that its existance was 'best for them' was because they were helpless individually. The Thirty Years Wars had proven that. The Reich represented a way for them to deal as a group with the major nations surrounding them, with far more power, than they could individually--in their own best interests…

'Campo Formio thus prepared the ground for the subsequent territorial reorganization of Germany and the end of the Holy Roman Empire itself nine years later.' (page 87)

Perhaps it did, or maybe not. That is a lot of hindsight. It wasn't the view of the participants, and if the RHE was such a non-entity, wwhy did ANY ground have to be prepared?

The rot of the HRE is well and truly happening. And certainly more so after the Treaty of Luneville in 1801.

LOL The Treaty of Luneville ended the RHE. That wasn't rot, Big G, it was a sledge hammer.

'The Empire now became an entirely anachronistic organization whose formal dissolution seemed inevitable. Most princes no longer supported common imperial goals, preferring to profit from the growing weakness of the Empire itself.' (Pages 88-89)

If they didn't support the common imperial goals, why did they continue to send representatives to the Reichstag? And as the German Reich, constitutionally, was a representative goverment, It is hard to see how they didn't support the Empire, when it was designed to represent them. It's interesting that Many of those states sent troops into other Rhine states in 1791-2 specifically to keep them IN the Reich. If you count the states within the Reich and their actions, even as late as 1793, you don't see anywhere near 'most' of them not supporting the Reich… however you want to define support.

If the Empire was such an "anachronistic organization", why did France immediately form the Confederation of the Rhine over what you see as its 'rotting corpse' with the very same organization in the very same territory? Or why form the German Confederation when the Confederation of the Rhine was dissolved in 1814, again using the same governmental structures? And why, sixty years later would the German States first form the Northern German Confederation, and then the German Empire in 1871 with the same governmental structure: Constitution, Emperor, Reichstag made up of representatives from all the dozens of lesser principalities and states? The Germans sure had a thing for 'rot.'

And if you see the dissolution of the RHE as inevitable, the Germans at the time did not. Many were trying to institute reforms through the Diet. Many of the smaller states realized that if they were going to avoid being continual victims and have any say in European politics, they would have to stay united. That they failed doesn't mean it was either universally desired or seen as inevitable.

'During the last three years of its existence (1803-6), the Empire was in disarray, unable to deal with the changes imposed by Napoleon. The Reichstag was now an essentially moribund institution, engaging in endless and futile debates over how to restore parity between Catholic and Protestant states.' (page 89)

Duh. Of course it was in disarray. The 1801 Treaty of Luneville gutted it. When the Treaty was signed, Hegel,echoing many other Germans, observed: "The German State has ceased to exist."

The conclusion that the debates were futile, ignores the fact that the smaller states, even at this late stage, were trying to keep the institution alive after Napoleon had evicerated it and Francis II had all but abandon his throne before his abdication in 1806.

I reckon that proves that the HRE was and always has been a car without an engine.

All it proves is that you are very good at ignoring any facts that don't fit your conclusions. You need to have some sense of what kind of car it was and how it was meant to run, how it did run, before you can conclude that it 'always has been a car without an engine.' You don't seem to have a clue.

You keep making and quoting conclusion statements, but I don't see any evidence to back them up. How about some examples of 'most' of the Reich members not supporting the 'common goals' of the Reich… particularly after 1780.

Of course, to do that, you have to identify some 'common goals' of the Reich.

Mcladdie

'Big G' Should I now call you Little M?

What I have posted is the arguments and statements put forward by academics and historians, based on their research, which you have fobbed of because you obvioulsy disagree with them or feel you know better. That's your choice, My choice is I agree with them.

You just can't seem to accept that a state called Germany just did not exist until 1871? And the various German speaking states were more interested in themselves than any ghost empire or Reich dream.

'The failure of the 1794 campaign, undermined in part by the half-hearted participation of the Prussian military, generated a widespread desire for peace. Even that was, however, frustrated by by renewed antagonism between Austria and Prussia, by Austria's determination not to give in to the French, and by a deepening mistrust on the part of many German princes of the motives of the imperial court.' (page 24. Joachim Whaley in 19th Century Germany)

In 1795 Prussia, a so called member of the RHE, signed a peace treaty with France.

'The treaty effectively divdied the Reich by removing most of Germany north of the Main from the war for the next 10 years. Prussia's 'treachery' rapidly emulated by her neighbours, forced the territories south of the Main to turn to Vienna.' (page 24)

Prussia doing what it wanted, not what the Reich/HRE wanted!
And the various states were equally scared of Austrian dominance as they were Prussian.

'Attempts by Baden, Wurttemberg and Bavaria to hedge their bets only made matters worse. In 1796, fearing the renewed failure of the Austrian Army, each concluded a secret agreement with France recognizing the loss of the left bank of the Rhine to France in return for compensation with secularized ecclesiastical property. When Archduke Charles then defeated the French at Amberg and Wurzburgm the south Germans were treated like a defeated enemy.' (page 24)

'Austria's behaviour towards those she was supposedly protecting ensured that the Emperor gained no moral advantage from shouldering the full burden of the war against France. Futhermore ger own position was soon undermined by defeat at the hands of Napoleon in Italy. Forced to comclude peace at Campo Formio in 1797, Austria followed Prussia and the three larger souht German territoires by agreeing (in secret clauses) to French annexation of the left bank of the Rhine in return for compensation on the right bank.' (page 25)

'If the willingness of Baden, Wurttemberg and Bavaria to abandon the Reich had been exposed by Austriam the intention of Prussia and Austria to do likewise was only revealed at the Rastatt conference convened in December 1797 to draw up terms for a general peace with France, though negotiations broke down in April 1799 once the secret clauses of Basel and Campo Formio became knonw.' (page 25)

'Austria's attempts to resume the war merely resulted in less favourable terms being dictated to her by Napoleon at Luneville in 1801: she was obliged to accept all the concessions of the Campo Formio settlement without any of the rewards. Now, however, the majority of the princes, who had latterly scarceley been able to conceal their lack of enthusiasm for the Austrian cause, agreed with alacrity to conclude peace. Indeed several went further and concluded individual peace treaties with France which guaranteed them territorial enlargement. Acutely aware of Austria's isloation in Germany, the Emperor refused to preside over a conference to reorganize the Reich: indeed by now he and his advisers were simply concerned to secure sufficient compensation from France in return for relinquishing the imperial crown. ' (page 25)

Well, they say everyone has their price and Francis, the so called heda of the RHE, certainly had his.

'Though it ceased to exist in 1813, the Rheinbund was of exceptional importance. Its federal constitution looked both forward and backward. The central institutions envisaged in uts conception (though never in fact implemented) translated many of the representative mechanisms of the Reich into a modorn idiom. At the same time the sovereign status of its members marked a clear break with the past. In was, in fact, neighter a reformed Reich nor a nation-sate. On the contrary it provided the framework for the creation of a new type of reformed sovereign territorial state in germany. (page 28)

Seems like Napoleon had more to do with the eventual creation of a German state than some people would like to accept.

'Futhermore, when Prussia joined forces with Russia in December 1812, it was the result of the deeply conservative Yorck von Wartenburg's rebellious defiance of the king's orders; not a national patriotic uprising but an insurrection of the reactionary East Prussian nobility.' (page 37)

'Heinrich Heine later wrote that the Germans had become patriots and defied Napoleon because their princes ordered them to. That fails to do justice to the strength of anti-Napoleonic sentiment in many parts of Germany by 1813-14. But there was no 'national uprising' or 'national crusade'. There reamined a world of difference between the nationalism of some intellectuals and the 'nation' they aspired to lead.' (page 37)

'In the excitemnet of victory the issues became confused, and later the veterans of 1813 constructed a myth of the Wars of Liberation that bore little relation to reality.' (page 38)

The above and previous posts indicates the rotting state of the HRE, the power struggle between Austria and Prussia under the pretence of association with the HRE, and the fact that a state or nation called Germany did not exist until 1871.

I repeat, the Holy Roman Empire was a car without an engine. I think your Germanic blinkers are preventing you from accepting it.

Edwulf

There are lots of rusty car hulks without engines. They exist. But they're only usefull for tramps or drunks to sleep in or for obtaining spare parts. And I've yet to see anyone drive a car without an engine – have you?

it is evident that a German empire did exist till 1806. Moreover a German – despite being a Prussian or Austrian or Bavarian still did feel as a German (not suprising as well).
The big German states, like Prussia or Austria were of course against a movement of a pan German empire like the first Reich because they might loose their thrones and their sovereignity.
Despite this – Metternich – responded to Napoleon, when he boasted that the French cannot complain about the losses in Russia 1812, there he sacrificed foremost Poles and Germans (he did not say Württemberger, Badener, Preußen etc) – that he (Metternich) was a German too.
And even before 1871 – there existed
Der Deutsche Bund – made up of 39 states which fielded an army as well as a Bundesversammlung held in Frankfurt am Main.
So Germany was never an abstract idea of an intelectual minority but a common feeling for German identity.

In Spain, the Patriot government made an effort to promote desertion between allied contingents of the French. Every single document you can find was directed to "Germans", "Italians", and "Polish", not to "Badeners" or "Hessians" or "Neapolitans". Longa, one of the guerrilla leaders, explained in 1811 that he had recruited "500 Germans" and organized them in a battalion of light infantry. Even the French didn't make distinctions: in the minutes of a military trial against two captured guerrillas, one of them was described as an "Spaniard" and the other as a "German deserter" (both were hanged).

Wow, there is even another thread on the 'Germany' question. But the new one is really just another feeble 'Germanic' attempt to swamp the board. But is it funny how so many people here get all hot and bothered when Germany is mentioned! It makes you wonder why, considering this is a Napoleonic board?

But it seems that certain people are in denial and so desperate for a Fatherland to have existed during our period that they think that if they throw up different threads on the topic everyone will believe there really was a state called Germany in our period, be it classed as Reich or Holy Roman Empire or whatever other pathetic term they want to employ to cover up the truth!

And despite what is posted showing otherwise, it is all shot down by the 'experts' attending this site.

And who does VW think he is fooling – Austria and Prussia did not want a single state because they did not want each other to be the top dog. And because of their constant power struggle which went on even after our period, the various German speaking states feared Austria and Prussia more than they feared the French, which is why so many sided with Napoleon well before Austria's doomed 1805 campaign. There was little support for Austria in that war and many German states, or as VW prefers to see it, various members of the HRE, sided with Napoleon against their so called leader-state Austria! Prussia did nowt! How's that for love of the Fatherland! And the HRE states did not rush to aid Prussia when it got its backside kicked in 1806. France 2-Fatherland O

The RHE was a ghost empire, a paper instutition or apparatus which had been dying for some time and was not really wanted and was deleted from history without much effort. It wasn't wanted because the more powerful states, even non-German ones like France, could use the apparatus for their own ends. Napoleon's Confederation of the Rhine did more for German unity and helped lay the foundation of the idea for a single and united state called Germany, far more than the failed HRE.

But Germany did not exist as a state until 1871. Perhaps people like VW do not understand what unification means, you know, like something wasn't unified beforehand. I think all the German lovers should just accept it, get over it and have a Happy Christmas. Hey, they could all go over to the region we now call Germany, meet up and have a wunderbar time! Bavaria looks nice. I wouldn't mind going there myself – not at the same time, of course.

If anyone has wondered where all the Germany lovers have gone to, they've started up another thread – er, basically on the same thing. I think that's three that relate to the Germany, was-wasn't a state topic now?

I think it gives them a jolly good chance to pat them themselves on the back and agree with each other. Mind you, only Brechtel198 is saying anything worth taking notice of, and they won't agree with him, of course.

It is rather sad really but in a way….cute.

Mcladdie

'Big G' Should I now call you Little M?

Gazzola:

I wouldn't be surprised. You keep referring to anyone that disagrees with you as "cute."

What I have posted is the arguments and statements put forward by academics and historians, based on their research, which you have fobbed of because you obvioulsy disagree with them or feel you know better. That's your choice, My choice is I agree with them.

Uh-huh. First of all, you are assuming that you understand what they are talking about and second, that if a historian says it, it must be right regardless of any evidence involved… or completely absent? Your quotes as support makes it obvious that you don't know the history of the Reich and its relation to the the period 1790 to 1806, and are misconstruing a number of things written by the historians and academics.

You just can't seem to accept that a state called Germany just did not exist until 1871? And the various German speaking states were more interested in themselves than any ghost empire or Reich dream.

Yep, you got that right. I don't accept it. Some basics need to be reviewed here, things that you seem to either conveniently forget in your arguments, or simply don't know.

1. The Reich was a representative government. Like the US government, the individual states and even the political parties can ‘be more interested in themselves' than the Federal Government in specific areas, or even generally. The representatives often don't agree or are ‘unified in purpose.' Yet, no one suggests that because of those ‘disagreements', that the US Federal Government doesn't exist or is a ghost state. Your approach is to conclude that any conflicts over the states' ‘best interests' within the Reich proves it was helpless or didn't exist.

2. The Austrian and Prussian states were, unlike every other Reich member only partially ‘in' the Reich. Just some of their provinces were constitutionally obligated to the Reich. That is why the Prussian monarch could change his title from Elector of the Empire to "King" in the early 1700s and the Austrian monarch could be both a King and an Emperor--when elected Emperor of the Reich by the Electors. For instance, Emperor Charles VII (Carl Albrecht of Bavaria) wasn't the Austrian Archduke. Because of that ‘partial' membership, Austria and Prussia not only acted for their own interests without reference to the Reich, but worked to influence the Reich through political pressure AND their participation as representatives in the Diet. This had been true for more than nearly 100 years.

Your assumption is that because Austria and Prussia didn't act like all the other Reich members, they somehow represented all Reich members. They didn't, and hadn't for a long time.

3. Because other states, including Prussia and Austria conspired to take territories from another states, or work for their own interests doesn't negate the statehood of the victim state. For instance, the Polish diet in the spring of 1791 adopted a monarchical constitution and was recognized by both Prussia and Austria. It was a state. And because Prussia, Russia and Austria carved Poland up in the very same state two years later without compunction, even when the Poles fought back, for the third Polish Partition, in no way negates the existence of a Polish state 1791-1794.

Obviously, the Poles were ‘weaker' than the Prussians, Russia and the Austrians. That fact doesn't draw into the question of its existence as a state. Because the Polish state was weaker, it did make it fair game for its stronger neighbors. [Holborn, History of Modern Germany, Vol II p.356] Your view is that because the Reich couldn't equal the political and military power of Austria and Prussia, it somehow didn't exist.

So, simply because Reich representative didn't always demonstrate unified agreement, or Austria and Prussia didn't always act in the best interests of the Reich, or that other states were stronger than the ‘weak' Reich in no way negates its existence and operation as a state.

The larger problem with all your quotes is that you don't seem to have any real picture of what was happening in Germany 1790-1806, So let's start this history lesson with 1790:

After Joseph II died in February 1790, Leopold was elected emperor (and also became king of Hungary and archduke of Austria). [Again, he wasn't an Emperor unless voted the title. ] Leopold's official titles were, given in established order of the time:

Leopold II, By the Grace of God, Holy Roman Emperor; King of Germany, Hungary, Bohemia, Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Galicia and Lodomeria, Rama, Serbia, Cumania and Bulgaria; Archduke of Austria; Duke of Burgundy, Lorraine, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola, Grand Duke of Etruria; Grand Prince of Transylvania; Margrave of Moravia, Prince of Brabant, Limburg, Luxembourg, Geldern, Württemberg, Upper and Lower Silesia, Milan, Mantua, Parma, Piacenza, Guastalla, Auschwitz and Zatoria, Calabria, Bar, Ferrete and Teschen; Lord of Svevia and Charleville; Count of Habsburg, Flanders, Hannonia, Kyburg, Gorizia, Gradisca; Margrave of Burgau, Upper and Lower Lusatia, Pont-a-Mousson and Nomenum, Count of Provinces of Namur, Valdemons, Albimons, Count of Zütphen, Sarverda, Salma and Falkenstein, Lord of the Wend Margravate and Mechelen, etc.

Leopold proved to be a much stronger monarch than his predecessor and was almost immediately challenged by a NEW power in the German equation, France. As Holborn states in volume 2 : page 356:

The First friction between France and Germany developed over the abolition of the feudal burdens. A number of German princes and counts owned estates in Alsace. After the French occupation of Alsace, they had managed to draw income from these estates under special arrangements with the French government [through the Reich, BH] Legislation passed in the summer of 1790 nationalized the property of the French Church, dissolved the monasteries, and prohibited the jurisdiction of bishops residing outside of France. The archbishops of Trier, Mainz, and Colongen and the upper Rhenish bishops officially complained to the Emperor and demanded action by the Empire. The misfortunes of some of the imperial noblemen and ecclesiastical princes along the Rhine contributed to the warm reception German nobility gave the high-born emigrants from France, who soon crowded many places in the Rhineland, partically Coblienz and Mainz.

There were threats of French Revolutionaries inciting disturbances all over the Reich, such as the Saxony rebellions. What Holborn fails to mention is the Empire's response.

They sent troops in from twelve different states including the Palantine, Prussia, Munster, Mainz, Trier, and Cologne.

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.

page 302, Peter Wilson's German Armies He lists the troops, when and where they were employed in the footnotes.

Like many states of the time, the effectiveness of the state depended on the resolve and ability of the monarch. Leopold was decisive and the Reich certainly didn't act ‘weak' in this instance, even in the face of French aggression.

In August 1791, Leopold joined with the Prussians in issuing the Declaration of Pillnitz, appealing to the European sovereigns to use force to assure the maintenance of monarchical government in France. Austria and Prussia concluded a defensive alliance in February 1792, but Leopold died before the declaration was ratified by the Reich Diet, so it was not a Reich declaration.

France declared war on the Archduke of Austria, not the Emperor or the Reich, now a much weaker Frances II, the last Emperor of the Reich… but not at the time. Leopold died in March, 1792.

The order of events are interesting as noted by Hoborn pp. 357-358. On April 20, 1792, the French legislature almost unanimously voted a declaration of war against Frances II who had succeeded his father the month before, but before he had been voted in as Emperor of the Reich. The French purposely declared war on the Archduke of Austria to avoid involving the Reich.

On July 14, 1792, the third anniversary of Bastille Day, the last coronation of a German Emperor took place in Frankfurt. But the subsequent meeting of German Princes in Mainz, the last celebration held by the Holy Roman Empire's high nobility, showed little unity, and even less willingness to participate actively in the war against France.

p. 358

Again, Holborn, moving his narrative along, failed to state what the Princes showed ‘little unity' ABOUT. It was the question over voting to declare war against France or to treat with France. In other words, conflicted over what was the best for the Reich, regardless of the declared war with Austria. The question was one of which action would best meet the needs of the Reich members.

It was only when the French military proved decisive in the campaign of 1792 in the Netherlands and parts of the Reich fell to the French that the Reich voted to declare war. The Reich proved to be as unsuccessful in defending themselves as Prussia and Austria. As Holborn notes on p. 359 "The old Europe had proved its helplessness in the fact of the novel forces of French Revolution engendered. " Gosh, all of Europe was deemed ‘helpless', not just the Reich. Were they all just paper states then?

However, all your quotes are from the period 1793 to 1806, the last 13 years of the a 160 year German Reich. However the background needed to be established before looking at how badly you have misunderstood the various quotes in your effort to prove the Reich didn't exist.

I'll do that next in the next post.

So it was broken, flagging and on its last legs.

But it still existed.

Like a rusty wreck is still a car, and your tv is still a tv. Not very good ones perhaps but still….

Mcladdie

No, I referred to the idea of people starting up a second or is it third thread now, virtually on the same topic, as sad and cute. Do try to get it right. You haven't got anything right yet!

And your accusation that I do not understand what the academics and historians are saying is just you thinking far too much of yourself and trying to put people down. That sort of action reminds me of something very Germanic.

But you should not take it so hard when people disagree with your views. You will find that will happen a lot in life, especially with the pathetic 'superior' air you place on yourself. Others cuties in history tried to make out they were superior and look what happened to them!

But it is clear that it is pointless debating with you because, as you have just admitted, you don't accept there wasn't a state called Germany until 1871. For your evidence you keep throwing up the Holy Roman Empire, rather then accept what it was, a paper empire. You have conned yourself into believing there was a state called Germany, because you desperately want one and want the Holy Roman Empire to be one. I find that rather sad.

Anyway, you can post away to your Germanic hearts content, but I won't be debating further with you because you won't accept anything I say and you believe I don't understand what the historians and academics are saying – that just says a lot about you really – You don't like the TRUTH – you prefer a lie-you can't accept that a state called Germany did not exist until 1871.

I find your attitude sad and that of an amateuer. You comments towards those who disagree with you suggest you are conning yourself by your own self-importance.

I can accept you disgaree with me. You should be able to accept I disagree with you. If you can't then you need to see someone about your 'Holy Roman Empire' attitude – false and useless.

Edwulf

I can imagine the scene – you and McLaddie sitting in the car with a shiny registration plate HRE 1648.

Some girls come over and ask is this your car?

You both say yes

The girls ask is it old?

You both say yes

The girls ask if they can sit in it?

You both say yes

The girls ask if you can drive the car somewhere, see how fast it goes, what it sounds like?

You both blush and say – er, no, it doesn't have an engine

The girls leave laughing their heads off and pointing their fingers at you and saying what a pair of losers!

crap analogy in the first place. still a crap analogy now. but hey let's continue to carry on and use it to insult people.

because rationalising complex human socio-political / cultural institutions as mechanical inanimate objects makes so much sense.

<sigh>
so if the HRE was such a rusty old crap car why did Napoleon bother to
a) engage in a treaty with it ?
b) dissolve it ?

because he also had such good taste in picking old bangers?

Well if the girls were that dumb to ask for a ride in the clapped out burnt out wreck I would have probably been to busy laughing at them in the first place. Really, you should credit girls with more intelligence than that, you should try talking to some. They are fun and can tell a working car from a clapped out one whilst still understanding they are both cars.

Imagine this scene instead. Which more like what has been happening.
Gazzola walks into a mechanics garage and sees a man working on the chassis of a reliant robin.
"What's that? " he asks.
"It's a car"
"No it's not. Fool. Your an idiot. It doesnt have an engine. A car must have an engine. And this has three wheels. You lack wit. Cars have to have four wheels. And it's old!! Your a loser if you think that's a car.. "
"It's a car mate. I'm a quali.." Says the man who has studied cars his whole life.
"No. I read a book on cars. You pratt. It was quite clear they have to have an engine. You don't know what your talking about. This conversation is over. I'm banging my head against a brick wall. Your not even listening to me. Any way I don't even like cars. Cars don't even interest me. I like unicycles"
And with that he strides manfully out of the garage..

Oh, I've just GOT to break my self-imposed removal from this discussion thread to say that that, Edwulf, is one of the funniest, yet most apt, analogies I've ever read.

Damm! Edwulf! I choked on my coffee!

lol!

Edwulf

I can imagine the scene.

The salesman-I've got this old rusty car without an engine. It's just junk taking up space. What fool will buy it?

Edwulf-It looks like a car and it has seats and a steering wheel. I'll buy it.

The salesman-But you do know you can't drive it anywhere because it hasn't got an engine?

Edwulf-Yeah, but it looks like a car, that all you need. How much?

So the happy salesman sold the heap to Edwulf who got some friends to drag it away and they all sit in the car, taking turns at turning the steering wheel and making engine noises.

And when Edwulf goes out he tells everyone, with a big smile on his face, he has a car. And everyone just smiles back. It is no good arguing with him or his friends. As far as they're concerned a car is a piece of junk with no engine.

Gustav

Napoleon was able to delete the HRE because it was useless and easy to do. It was a paper institution. Get it now?

And guess what, it was that 'good' it was never brought back, even after 1815. Why, because the Germans of that period knew it was a rusty old wreck and were glad to see the back of it.

"And with that he strides manfully out of the garage.."

…and returns five minutes later to resume!

Just when you think things have settled down and you turn your back and spend time focusing on other – much more important – things like beer, everything escalates and a thread that was supposed to lapse explodes once more.

Even worse – when I thought that some type of consensus had been, namely that we could/should indeed deliberate the nature of the beast, the state of the state if you will, we are seemingly back where we started.

Surely – leaving aside the dubious metaphors of TVs on the blink or car wrecks and handbags – we can at least agree that the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation undoubtedly did exist, was fought against, negotiated with, had armed forces, etc and so on and so forth? Yes – the nature of that state is bizarre to our modern sensibilities. But ALL states at the time were very different to ours. If we hold the HRE against the light of modern day then yes – it is so much less integrated than for example the Federal Republic of Germany.

It was certainly more integrated then the Confederation of the Rhine, which – despite sharing many of the features of the HRE – was not allowed by events nor due to French machinations and interests – to develop into more than a shell. Of course there are still regional contradictions within the modern German Federation, in particular south vs north and west vs east.

Quite a few of the current states inside the Federation are direct descendants of the fiefs of old. Only under the disastrous Nazi regime did Germany briefly lose the traditional federal nature that has characterized its internal structure. Hence the current BRD is less unified than the unitary state Germany only briefly was – but does that make this fact the BRD a lesser version of Germany?

But what if we compare the state of HRE to the other states at the time? Were they more "statey" than the HRE? Well – I think in many ways not. Before I begin I am sorry of I offend any sensibilities of those who know a tonne more (that would be most of you); I invite those with more detailed expertise to weigh in. Pse note I completely recognize that I am brutally simplifying but bear with me.

My example is that of the United Provinces

The Dutch Republic between 1648 and "our" era was a warren of many more territories than the 7 recognized and autonomous provinces, and which included enclaves of the Empire within it.

The United Province in many ways had a similar system for organizing defense as the Empire, with the difference being that the preponderance of Holland had a significant impact, exaggerating the "unitedness" of what was in all senses a confederal union of independent states. This structure certainly changed over time as did its territorial extent. In the era of our focus there were several states claiming all or parts of what is now the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The United Provinces until 1794 followed by the Batavian Republic, the Kingdom of Holland followed by the KIngdom of the United Netherland.

Despite the various regimes and states the did the Netherlands always exist or not (leaving aside its obvious lack of existence bw 1811 and 1813)? I trust none of us will deny its existence?

Despite it having many similar feudal features that are utterly weird to us it was certainly and always a state – no?

Case in point: much of dutch politics turned on how many provinces the Prince of Orange could be stadholder of at the same time. Indeed, many of the same conflicts that plague the HRE at the time get played out in the Republic: the smaller provinces wishing to retain more of their autonomy vs an all powerful Holland would vie for leverage by allying themselves with the Orange Nassau dynasty which had clear monarchical aspirations towards a more centralised autocratic state. A dynasty that allied itself at times with clear rivals of Holland such as England. A family that also sought leverage through attaining in and external bases of sovereign power with which to overawe its opponents inside the republic; several times these tensions flared into armed conflict.

moreover:
1 – the republic was officially recognized independent of the Empire in 1648
2 – its national anthem, written in 1574, refers to the leader of the revolt vs the Spanish Habsburgs, William the Silent of Orange-Nassau as being "of German blood", clearly recognizing german-ness vs for what otherwise would have been "Nassauness"

Thoughts, criticism are very much welcome as long as they are made in the spirit of being a good chap shooting the breeze about some esoteric interest with another chap.

Stenetoppen

Stenetoppen

It is not a case of looking at a state in modern day terms. It is looking at it as it was then – not a state.

The French went to war with Austria and the odd ally and then went to war with Prussia. Both were members of your joke state but the French did not fight a united state, a united Holy Roman Empire – they fought individual states and some of the so called Holy Roman Empire, nation, reich or whatever other silly terms some of you like to give it, fought with the French. Weird sort of state that allows its own subjects to fight each other and against a supposed threat to the Fatherland. And the er, Holy Roman Empire armed forces you alluded to, where were they? On holiday?

It is a simple argument, no matter how you and others try to dress it up. There was no state called Germany, only a region which people referred to as Germany.

Anyway, I think it is a matter of choice. There are those who want to believe there was state called Germany during our period, so they are clinging to the existence of a ghost state, the HRE as evidence. I don't care if a state existed or not, but the apparatus of the HRE does not convince me that one did exist. There was no state called Germany until 1871. That's my choice and nothing that has been said or anything I have researched has convinced me otherwise.

You can make a post if you want to, but I've had my fill of reich, nation, fatherland and all that. I prefer to read and possibly debate about the individual German states involvement in 1813. But that will be in the New year.

So this will be my last post on the topic. (Bulldog don';t bother with the betting book, I won't be returning to this debate) So I'll wish everyone a Happy Christmas and a Happy New Year, even the German loving loonies! I do hope you all get spiked helmets for Christmas!

Happy New Year to you too Gazz. I admit I am a tad taken back at the vehemence of your post where before we had established a civil tone. Well well. Never mind.

I wonder though – and perhaps you have something in response, or failing your/ Gazzola's presence someone else could jump in – why is a feudal state like Bavaria or Prussia or Hannover more a state than HRE.

They were – at their core – mere collections of titles which connected fedual loyalties of various areas, towns and populations to a family. Quite a few of these states did not have much of a state apparatus other than that formed for the direct benefit of said family, quite often disconnected to the various territories they may be holding at a time.

Their various lands usually had their own law making bodies, weights, etc. The big difference between these "states" and HRE that these family firms did not in essence represent anything other than loyalties to that family, who held a series of Fiefdoms at the behest of the Empire, not by natural right. The various fiefdoms mutated and morphed continually, with their appointed leaders sometimes even selling their right to an area to the highest bidder. This is a crucial difference between the Emperor and Empire which and the princes and counts who did not hold these roles by divine right but as fiefdoms of the Emperor who DID hold that title by divine right – hence the incessant zeal by these family "firms" to establish power bases that did establish sovereignty: Guelphs as kings of England, Wents as kings of Poland and Habsburg as king of Hungary, etc

To my mind (and at the danger of upsetting all my wonderful friends and not yet friends from that wonderful part of the world but it is an example that applies to fundamentally all the various territories in the Germany of the time) it may a bit of a misnomer to call Bavaria "Bavaria" during the era, where really it was the Wittelsbach apparatus tying together different disparate areas over time, but always and only at the de jure behest of the Empire.

Crucially (in my opinion) the Wittelsbachs never attained external sovereignty during the existence of HRE, unlike the much disliked Hohenzollerns. Yet this did not do anything to diminish their desire to best their even more archery (great?)arch rivals the Habsburgs – hence the Wittelsbach desire to ally themselves to France, not to establish a separate Bavarian nation but if possible to take over the Imperial dignity.

All this in contrast to the Emperor and Empire. The Empire was indivisible except by conquest or rebellion. That various lords and princes warred against themselves and agains Imperial authority did damage the Empire and was no doubly quite a nuisance for the german people populating the Empire and its fiefdoms is true. But such actions were rebellion. Usually conflict arose directly over the acquisition of greater status WITHIN the Empire, for example the elevation of the Duke of Hannover to the Electorate.

The office of Emperor was considered to be established by the will of God. It pre-existed and survived all the morphing configurations and machinations caused by internal feudal feuding by the various enfeofed families right up until it was dissolved due to external force.

In any case – the HREotGN DID exist. Correct?

Get it now?

no no I got it a long time ago. but do you? .

Can not "German" be just a general descriptive term? Considering that *most* of it's population were "German".

So regardless of the HRE's effectiveness, in the end, can it not just be, dare I say it, a "German" state but not necessarily the state of "Germany".

While I don't have any reason to believe this will change your mind, Gazzola, I really do hate bad history and the misleading interpretations that flow from it.

For instance, from your quotes and interpretations of them, France hardly appears in the politics of the period you focus on. The politics of the Reich and it's members is treated in this intellectual vaccuum, as not only indicative of a non-state , but unique among all the surrounding states. The Reich is presented as falling apart from its own weight and rottenness. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In reality, the new power on the block, Revolutionary France moved through Europe destroying any number of states from 1792 to 1809, playing havoc militarily and politically with every single state in its path. To equate the Empire's destruction to ‘rot' or some supposed weakness because of it really ignores history all together.

To say that the Reich was destroyed because it was a rotting non-state, you would have to argue that all the states snuffed out 1792-1806, such as the Netherlands, Savoy/Piedmont, Poland, Switzerland, Hanover, the Italian Duchies and independent cities all over Europe were ALL rotting non-states.

Actually, during the 1792 through 1805 period, EVERY state, from Russia, Austria, Prussia, Spain and Britain to the many minor principalities in Germany and Italy, responded in very much the same ways to France as did the Reich--when not actually at war with it--by:
1. Attempting to placate the French juggernaut with concessions, and/or
2. With ‘exchanges' of territory to compensate for those lost to the French.

None of these states were ‘allied' with the French during this period. Several were with the Reich.

And the French government did everything in its power to split up the alliances, whether between Austria, Prussia and Britain, or the various European minor states, let alone the Reich. Why Savoy, Tuscany, the Netherlands, Austria, Prussia and the rest of the various minor states could negotiate independently of their sworn allies--many simply disappearing under the French onslaughts--and not be seen as rotting or weak—is not clear at all. Yet if the very same actions are contemplated by the Reich and its member states, it is proof that the Reich was weak and rotting.

So to your first quote:

The failure of the 1794 campaign, undermined in part by the half-hearted participation of the Prussian military, generated a widespread desire for peace. Even that was, however, frustrated by by renewed antagonism between Austria and Prussia, by Austria's determination not to give in to the French, and by a deepening mistrust on the part of many German princes of the motives of the imperial court.'
(page 24. Joachim Whaley in 19th Century Germany)

In 1795 Prussia, a so-called member of the RHE, signed a peace treaty with France.

'The treaty effectively divided the Reich by removing most of Germany north of the Main from the war for the next 10 years. Prussia's 'treachery' rapidly emulated by her neighbours, forced the territories south of the Main to turn to Vienna.' (page 24)

Prussia doing what it wanted, not what the Reich/HRE wanted!
And the various states were equally scared of Austrian dominance as they were Prussian.

First, it is difficult to know why Whaley felt the Prussian participation was ‘half-hearted' compared to say, the Austrians. Second, of course losing a major ally would generate some desire to end the war. However, the Reich had always wanted to stay neutral.

However, double-dealing was a European sport. Austrians failed to support the Prussians on several occasions and secretly negotiated with the French in 1794, supposedly to pressure the Prussians into giving up their new Polish territories. It is hard to see the Prussians as reluctant, with they enjoyed as many victories and losses as the Austrians.

Then again, the Prussians were financed by the British, so when the British money ran out in 1795, so did they. "Since Prussian Finances were exhausted, the wish to make peace became irresistible." Holborn p. 363 Besides, the Prussians had a serious Polish insurgency to put down and their own Polish state to destroy.

No doubt, the Prussian treaty with France in 1795 was seen as treachery… because that is what it was. Prussia abandoned its allies, all its allies, including Britain, Austria, not just the Reich. As Holborn points out, the action isolated Prussia politically for the next ten years… Hardly evidence that they could 'do whatever they wanted to.' It is a major reason they fought alone, save for Saxony in 1806--no one trusted them.

IF it was thought that Prussia could do whatever it wanted, the Reich, the Prussians' jilted alles, and the rest of Europe didn't believe it, and Prussia's actions had serious consequences for for the next two decades.

Holborn states: page 363:

The separate treaty between France and Prussia, in which the cession of the German territories west of the Rhine and also the future dissolution of the ecclesiastical principalities was clearly indicated, [That means implied, not agreed on as Prussia had no actual say in such things AND France already occupied that territory--see below.BH] aroused loud criticism in Germany. Resentment against Prussia was felt very deeply, particularly in southern Germany, henceforth fully exposed to French pressure. It was the beginning of an anti-Prussian attitude in many circles, which helped to determine the policies of the South German states during the next decades.

That included The entire Reich after 1801 up to 1806.

Actually, the Prussians' peace treaty with the French didn't divide the Reich, the continuing war did. The fact that France continued to fight Austria and not Prussia across the southern half of the Reich is what divided the Reich. Here is what Holborn writes:

The October retreat [in 1792 when the Reich still remained neutral] of the allied army beyond the Rhine permitted the French armies great successes. Belgium in the north and Savoy and Nice in the south could be conquered. Limited forces opened a northward offensive from Alsace. Speyer was captured on September 30, Worms four days later. On October 21, Mainz fell into French hands, and a French detachment could een occupy Frankfurt [the Reich capital] for five weeks.

The effect on the Germans of the appearance of the French was disastrous. The government of the Palatinate-Bavaria loudly assured the world of its neutrality, and the landgrave of Hesse-Darmstadt sent his soldiers as far away from the Rhine as he could. The elector of Mainz, together with his opulent court, left his capital. Small wonder that the petty princelings of this small corner of the Empire quickly called their contingents home.*

*From doing police work within the Reich.

The Reich declared war on France in March of 1793. [Holborn p. 360-1] What, the Reich not going to war with the Austrians in 1792, only when invaded? That sounds pretty independent and stately to me, even with an Austrian HRE Emperor. Could it be that the Reich members actually exercised independent voting on such things?

The French invasion was disastrous for the Reich, just as it was for all the other states invaded 1792-1801… as well as Prussia in 1806. With very similar consequences. The one thing all the members of the Reich feared was coming to pass. They were becoming the battleground for larger powers just as they had in the Thirty Years' War.

As Holborn points out, historically, the Reich tended to avoid taking sides and remaining neutral in most of the conflicts of the 17th and 18th Centuries. Now that they were invaded, the Reich acted like any other invaded state and declared war on France, along with Prussia. So did Britain, who joined in part to defend its holdings in the Reich, Hanover. However, as Holborn points out, p. 363

On April 15, 1795, Prussia and France signed the Peace of Basel. In this open treaty, the occupation of the Prussian territories on the left bank of the Rhine by the troops of the French Republic was conceded. The ultimate disposal of these lands was left to a final peace treaty between France and the Empire.

italics mine

Isn't that amazing. The Empire had ‘ultimate disposal', something Prussia couldn't do with their own territories within the Reich. Perhaps they couldn't always do what they wanted to, and if they tried, there were severe political repercussions.

Taking things out of context is just bad history. The different states' actions and their significance only make sense when placed in context. To infuse purposes to actions without regards to the historical situation and the contemporaries' explanations does not add a thing to the exploration of history and only confuses things that are complex enough.

Then you jump to 1796. More ‘evidence' taken out of context. Next Post.

The French went to war with Austria and the odd ally

Actually no – thats just a modern shorthand and slightly misleading. The French went to war with the Austro-Hungarian empire, that is to say the family holdings of the Habsburgs.

The reason this matters is that in 1812 the Nation State was an unusual political form. Germay was "not a state", Italy was "Not a state", France was just about a proto-state being formed, the UK was probably kind-of functioning as a state, Russia was an empire of markedly feudal form, the Netherlands were variously a foreign possession of the Habsburgs and a fictional puppet state and personal fiefdom of the Bonaparte family, etc etc.

Second Post:

--Then you jump to 1796. More ‘evidence' is taken out of context. You quote the authors, assume what it means and then make conclusions that have little to do with what was happening. Let's set the scene: Holborn writes on page 368: "From 1795 on, Austria had carried the burden of the war against France all by herself, without any support from the Empire, and the final recess [in 1801] brought the German Empire in close relations with France." He notes that, even though the final Recess [of the Lunesville Treaty] wrecked the Empire, although the document was intended to seem a mere reform of the hallowed institution." A lot more goes on before that time.

You quote the following:

However,
1.'Attempts by Baden, Wurttemberg and Bavaria to hedge their bets only made matters worse. In 1796, fearing the renewed failure of the Austrian Army, each concluded a secret agreement with France recognizing the loss of the left bank of the Rhine to France in return for compensation with secularized ecclesiastical property. When Archduke Charles then defeated the French at Amberg and Wurzburgm the south Germans were treated like a defeated enemy.' (page 24)

2.'Austria's behaviour towards those she was supposedly protecting ensured that the Emperor gained no moral advantage from shouldering the full burden of the war against France. Futhermore her own position was soon undermined by defeat at the hands of Napoleon in Italy. Forced to conclude peace at Campo Formio in 1797, Austria followed Prussia and the three larger sought German territories by agreeing (in secret clauses) to French annexation of the left bank of the Rhine in return for compensation on the right bank.' (page 25)

3.'If the willingness of Baden, Wurttemberg and Bavaria to abandon the Reich had been exposed by Austria, the intention of Prussia and Austria to do likewise was only revealed at the Rastatt conference convened in December 1797 to draw up terms for a general peace with France, though negotiations broke down in April 1799 once the secret clauses of Basel and Campo Formio became know.' (page 25)

I numbered the paragraphs. Each is presented as proof that somehow the Empire was ‘abandoned.' The problem with each is the missing context for any of those actions.

1. Note that they were ‘attempts', not successes. Baden, Wurttemburg and Bavaria were attempting to ‘hedge their bets' because 1. The French were occupying parts of their territories and Austria seemed helpless to do anything about it, much like the Reich. And, 2, those states could promise to recognize the loss of the left bank of the Rhine or anything else, but that was only significant in regards to their Reich votes. Like Prussia, they had no authority or power to cede the left bank or ecclesiastical property. The German Reich, and each state in it, attempted to be compensated for their Rhine losses to the French—there was nothing unique about that during the negotiations. Again, when it came out that the Southern—occupied—states were attempting to negotiate separately with France, Austria in turn saw that as traitorous, which can only mean that their common cause was still seen as meaningful.

The conclusion is that these three German states attempting to bargain with the invader like all other states invaded by the French somehow proves the states "abandoned" the Empire, rather than negotiating BEFORE the Empire, now that they were occupied. In no way did they ‘abandon' their ties with the Empire. France had more to do with their actions than any ‘abandoning the Reich.' The Reich was negotiating with the French too, and in the end those three states were part of that agreement.

2. ALL parties of the Campo Formio negotiations attempted to produce gains at the expense of the other states, all having to face the fact that France held German and Italian territory, and so was the Power that could dictate its division. ‘Might makes Right' and all the states tried to deal with France, and France in turn worked mightily to negotiate separately with ALL parties, not only to sow dissention, but to produce a more favorable treaty when the dust settled. How that makes the Reich weaker than all the other negotiators acting in the same vain makes little sense, particularly considering that no matter what agreements France came to with Prussia, Austria, or the minor states, Campo Formio meant nothing without the Empire's final approval and noted before.

Again,
3. The fact was that NOTHING could be or WAS concluded concerning the German territories until a final peace was concluded between the Empire and France, concluding the Peace of Campo Formio in October of 1797. The Congress at Rastatt was a gathering of all the Reich members in that process… And only Austria was unhappy with the results, not the Empire. [See quote below.]

Page 364 Holborn, vol. 2

…the results of the fighting in 1795 remained inconclusive. This continued to be so that the Rhenish and Southern German front in the following year, but the young General Bonaparte conquered northern and central Italy and broke into Carinthia and Styria. The preliminary peace was signed between Austria and Napoleon at Leoben, which was followed in October, 1797, by the less favorable Peace of Campo Formio. Belgium and Lombardy were formally ceded. In their place, Austria received Venice and Venetia, the independence of which Napoleon had just destroyed.

And every state in German feared would be their fate too, starting with the Rhine territories, so they ‘hedged their bets.' Hedging their bets included NOT abandoning the Reich, for their own good.

In secret articles, France was promised the whole left bank of the Rhine, with the exception of the Prussian possessions. By excluding the latter, Austria wished compensation west of the Rhine withheld from Prussia. In contrast, France undertook to support compensations for Austria, among them the archbishopric of Salzburg and a parcel of Bavarian land. Austria and France agreed to guarantee that the German princes, who lost territories west of the Rhine, would be requited by gains on the right bank of the river. A congress was convened at Rastatt for such purposes for the conclusion of a final peace between France and the Empire….

You see, all the secret articles between Prussia, Austria, and the minor German states meant nothing unless the Reich agreed to them… They all knew that. What the French were doing was what anyone does dealing with a representative government like the Reich. Republic French diplomats knew that far better than the defeated monarchs of Europe. You gather votes by promising things to each voting block—within the Reich.

Representatives of France, Austria, and Prussia met here with those of the various other estates of the Empire. The small German princes realized that they could profit most if they won French favor. This was also true of Prussia. For Austria was not prepared to sacrifice all ecclesiastical dominions, on which the Emperor's influence in the Empire so largely depended. The Austrian government was unpleasantly surprised that France demanded the whole left bank of the Rhine and held out high hopes to Prussia and the German princes.

In other words, France purposely worked against any mutual support between Prussia, Austria and the Reich by making promises to each.

The Reich agreed to the Campo Formio terms, as it provided the German Princes disfranchised by the French occupation of the Rhine. Yet, it laid the groundwork for the Reich's destruction much the same way it worked for the other destroyed independent states. Small, powerless territories are used as ‘compensations' to those who had lost possessions to the French, large states and small. Once that practice was accepted, it would be used again.

Much of the negotiating around Campo Formio between German princes, Austria and Prussia concerning Reich possessions dealt with attempts to maintain voting power within the Reich Diet as much as direct territorial gains or ‘balancing out of losses', the term used at Campo Formio. The Reich acted very much like the other powers as the Reich entire, and individual German states. And like Austria and Prussia, they lost states and looked to gain ‘compensation' for those losses in negotiations. And like Austrian Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Switzerland, the compensations were cannibalistic… While France took states, the Allies traded their own lands back and forth in ‘compensation.' No state succeeded any better in the Campo Formio territorial trades than the Reich as a whole, and several, like Austria fared worse..

To suggest that the Reich or its members somehow behaved differently in the face of French conquests or was not a major player in the Peace of Campo Formio, is simply not supported by the facts. It was the one representative government among the Allies, and did lead to specific diplomatic tactics on the part of the French.

Then you move up to the end of 1800. Unhappy with the Campo Formio agreements, Austria renewed its war with France in 1799. However, the Reich did not, even though the war was fought over Southern German territories--again. And again, not in agreement with the Austrian Emperor when it chose to be.

Next post for the rest.

Third and Last Post:

'Austria's attempts to resume the war merely resulted in less favourable terms being dictated to her by Napoleon at Luneville in 1801: she was obliged to accept all the concessions of the Campo Formio settlement without any of the rewards. Now, however, the majority of the princes, who had latterly scarcely been able to conceal their lack of enthusiasm for the Austrian cause, agreed with alacrity to conclude peace.

Indeed several went further and concluded individual peace treaties with France which guaranteed them territorial enlargement. Acutely aware of Austria's isolation in Germany, the Emperor refused to preside over a conference to reorganize the Reich: indeed by now he and his advisers were simply concerned to secure sufficient compensation from France in return for relinquishing the imperial crown.' (page 25)

Well, they say everyone has their price and Francis, the so-called head of the RHE, certainly had his.

This is, in one sentence, the most judgmental as well as out-of-context conclusion among a nest of skewed conclusions. Austria HAD resumed the war. Francis had just lost that war for a second time, with even more disastrous results. Napoleon dictated the terms. He is the one that set the conditions and he is the one who placed Francis in the situation where he had to relinquish the Imperial crown to save some of Austrian territories.

The Reich had signed the Campo Formio Peace agreement and was not involved in the war. The majority of German princes had voted their lack of enthusiasm for the Austrian war… What concealing was possible? The only ones in the fight were those German states invaded by both the Austrians and French, neither side honoring their neutrality. THOSE were the ‘several' states that concluded individual peace treaties with France… without Austria, not without the Reich. In no way did those separate treaties have anything to do with their value of or association with the Reich. They simply signed peace treaties to return to the peace that the Reich already had with France.

'Though it ceased to exist in 1813, the Rheinbund was of exceptional importance. Its federal constitution looked both forward and backward. The central institutions envisaged in uts conception (though never in fact implemented) translated many of the representative mechanisms of the Reich into a modorn idiom. At the same time the sovereign status of its members marked a clear break with the past. In was, in fact, neighter a reformed Reich nor a nation-sate. On the contrary it provided the framework for the creation of a new type of reformed sovereign territorial state in germany. (page 28)

Seems like Napoleon had more to do with the eventual creation of a German state than some people would like to accept.

And of course, Napoleon had far more to do with the Reich's dismemberment than any supposed ‘rot' or lack of ‘state-hood'—than some people would like to accept.

The French and Napoleon dealt with the Reich the way he dealt every other state, large and small. He seized territories through military successes and then dictated terms while offering ‘compensations' to ease the pain of the losses. It was hardball diplomacy, and along with the Reich, more than twenty states met their end from 1792-1804, and no one has concluded that any of them met their ends as the result of ‘rot' and ‘non-existence', including Holborn.

'Futhermore, when Prussia joined forces with Russia in December 1812, it was the result of the deeply conservative Yorck von Wartenburg's rebellious defiance of the king's orders; not a national patriotic uprising but an insurrection of the reactionary East Prussian nobility.' (page 37)

Furthermore? This doesn't establish anything concerning Germans and Germany but some odd conclusions. Yorck did not defy the King's order because of some common cause with the reactionary East Prussian nobility. Of all the books I have read on this topic, this is the FIRST to suggest such a thing. That certainly wasn't Yorck's justification for his defiance.

'Heinrich Heine later wrote that the Germans had become patriots and defied Napoleon because their princes ordered them to. That fails to do justice to the strength of anti-Napoleonic sentiment in many parts of Germany by 1813-14. But there was no 'national uprising' or 'national crusade'. There remained a world of difference between the nationalism of some intellectuals and the 'nation' they aspired to lead.' (page 37)

'In the excitement of victory the issues became confused, and later the veterans of 1813 constructed a myth of the Wars of Liberation that bore little relation to reality.' (page 38)

The above and previous posts indicates the rotting state of the HRE, the power struggle between Austria and Prussia under the pretence of association with the HRE, and the fact that a state or nation called Germany did not exist until 1871.

Nonsense. There was no ‘pretense'. Prussia couldn't even cede their own Rhine territories over to France. That required the Reich's permission. Holborn is clear about that. And whatever power struggles between Austria and Prussia, part of it was over the voting powers within the Reich… no pretense there. And the HRE, at three different points between 1792-1801 concluded separate treaties with France that isolated both Prussia and Austria politically. No pretense there either. It is difficult to see how you can conclude that a state called Germany didn't exist when the Treaty of Basel, the Peace of Campo Formia and the Treaty of Luneville, specifically state that they are agreements treating with "The German Empire", regarding ‘The German Empire", signing agreements with "The German Empire", reorganizing "The German Empire" and in the end, dissolving "The German Empire". And of course, theses treaties made with Reich representatives, with the HR Emperor AND "The King of Germany", so how can one then conclude it didn't exist? In clearly existed for the contemporaries.

It is interesting to contemplate what would have happened if Leopold had lived. A strong, progressive leader, instead of the weaker Francis, would have changed things considerably after 1792.

Evidence for the existence and importance of an entity can be seen in the changes that take place after its death. First, the Reich's death was choreographed by Napoleon in 1801. Francis knew that, which is why he refused to preside over the Reich congress met to negotiate the Peace of Luneville.

Holborn writes p. 366

This world-wide struggle [France vs Britain after 1801. BH] formed the background of events culminating in the final collapse of the old German Empire. [Had to exist to collapse. BH] In the Empire's reorganization, which took place after the Peace of Luneville , the p preponderance of France over the emperor was overwhelming. Only the czar's influence, for obvious reasons, carried some weight with Napoleon at this time. The German princes' endeavor to curry favor with the French victor new no limits [Not surprising, if they were going to survive, unlike so many other states.] The diet of the Empire turned over the business of compensations for losses of territories west of the Rhine to a ‘deputation' consisting of the electors of Mainz, Bohemia, Saxony, Brandenburg, and Palatinate-Bavaria, the duke of Wurttemburg, the Langrave of Hesse-Kassel, and the Franconian grandmaster of the Teutonic Order. Their recommendations, presented to the diet as a ‘final recess', were adobted as the so-called Reichdeputationsshauptschluss on March 24, 1803.

Many of the boundaries drawn by the final recess have existed well into the twentieth century.

So, the final reorganization made BY the Reich government , even as Napoleon destroyed it, continue today. The Reich may have had more to do with modern Germany than some would like to admit….

By 1804, as all the reorganization was concluded, it was clear that the Reich had been killed. In that year, Twelve major leaders in the now defunct Reich changed their titles, among the Wurttemburg, Saxony, Bavaria, Baden, and Austria. Any number gave themselves the title "King" and Francis named himself Emperor of Austria. In 1804, he had founded the Austrian Empire and became Francis I (Franz I.), the first Emperor of Austria (Kaiser von Österreich), ruling from 1804 to 1835, so later he was named the one and only Doppelkaiser (double emperor) in history. For the two years between 1804 and 1806, Francis used the title and style by the grace of God elected Roman Emperor, always August, hereditary Emperor of Austria and he was called the Emperor of both Germany and Austria. He was also Apostolic King of Hungary, Croatia and Bohemia as Francis I.

Francis II (German: Franz II, Erwählter Römischer Kaiser) (12 February 1768 – 2 March 1835) was the last Holy Roman Emperor, ruling from 1792 until 6 August 1806, when he dissolved the Holy Roman Empire after the disastrous defeat of the Third Coalition by Napoleon at the Battle of Austerlitz. The dissolution was one of the Peace requirements met out by Napoleon.

Oh, and there was one other title change in 1804, in December of that year. Napoleon became an Emperor. No coincidence. The death of the Reich had reverberating consequences and caused any number of significant changes.

And of course, immediately, the Confederation of the Rhine, on the same governmental model as the Reich was erected, one controlled by Napoleon. In 1815, immediately after the dissolution of the Confederation of the Rhine, The German Confederation, again on the same representative government model of the Reich, was formed. And not surprisingly, Austrian Emperor, Francis I, served as the first president of the German Confederation.

I repeat, the Holy Roman Empire was a car without an engine. I think your Germanic blinkers are preventing you from accepting it.

Actually, looking at the actual history, I do not see what is preventing you from accepting the obvious: the HRE existed, functioned in significant ways as independent state among states. It was a representative government that was destroyed by Napoleon, in the same manner he destroyed so many other states during the same period…none of which were rotten, paper states or past their expiration dates. Why you should pick out the HRE among them and claim it was a car without an engine is to ignore history.

I repeat, ignoring history.

Merry Christmas to all and to all a Good Night…

Actually no – thats just a modern shorthand and slightly misleading. The French went to war with the Austro-Hungarian empire, that is to say the family holdings of the Habsburgs.

The reason this matters is that in 1812 the Nation State was an unusual political form. Germay was "not a state", Italy was "Not a state", France was just about a proto-state being formed, the UK was probably kind-of functioning as a state, Russia was an empire of markedly feudal form, the Netherlands were variously a foreign possession of the Habsburgs and a fictional puppet state and personal fiefdom of the Bonaparte family, etc etc.

imrael:
I agree that our modern idea of a "Nation State" wasn't held or practiced in 1812. When the English cried "For King and Country" going into battle, or the Prussians "Mitt Gott und Vaterland", they were speaking of a whole different relationship to their government and country than we think of today. those semantical differences matter in understanding what folks were thinking two hundred years ago.

Just a note. The Austro-Hungarian Empire only existed after 1804.

THE DISSOLUTION OF THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE (1806)

Napoleon had no desire to unify Germany, but wished to have several independent states, or groups of states, which he could conveniently bring under his control. Consequently, when it came to arranging the Treaty of Pressburg after his great victory at Austerlitz, Napoleon forced the defeated emperor to recognize the rulers of Wurtemberg and Bavaria as "kings" and the elector of Baden as enjoying "the plenitude of sovereignty." In short, he proposed that the three most important princes of southern Germany should be as independent as the king of Prussia or the emperor himself, and that, moreover, they should owe their elevation to him. He then formed a union of these new sovereigns and of other Ger­man rulers, which was called the Confederation of the Rhine. In the rather insolent message given below he informs the diet of the empire that the new union, of which he is to be the protector, will be incompatible with the continued existence of the venerable Holy Roman Empire.

In otherwords, Napoleon forced the destruction of the Empire. Note how he justifies it by saying that the Empire doesn't work and thus his demands on the Emperor are reasonable and 'good' for the German people. [This is after he gutted it in 1804]

The Treaty of Pressburg 1806

The undersigned, charge d'affaires of his Majesty the emperor of the French and king of Italy, at the general diet of the German empire, has received orders from his Majesty to make the following declarations to the diet [of the Holy Roman Empire]:

Their Majesties the kings of Bavaria and of Wurtem­berg, the sovereign princes of Ratisbon, Baden, Burg, Hesse-Darmstadt, and Nassau, as well as the other leading princes of the south and west of Germany [many more German states joined later], have resolved to form a confederation between themselves which shall secure them against future contingencies, and have thus ceased to be states of the empire.

The position in which the Treaty of Pressburg has ex­plicitly placed the courts allied to France, and indirectly those princes whose territory they border or surround, being incompatible with the existence of an empire, it becomes a necessity for those rulers to reorganize their relations upon a new system and to remove a contradic­tion which could not fail to be a permanent source of agi­tation, disquiet, and danger.

France, on the other hand, is directly interested in the maintenance of peace in southern Germany and yet must apprehend that the moment she shall cause her troops to recross the Rhine discord, the inevitable consequence of contradictory, uncertain, and ill-defined conditions, will again disturb the peace of the people and reopen, possibly, the war on the continent. Feeling it incumbent upon her to advance the welfare of her allies and to assure them the enjoyment of all the advantages which the Treaty of Pressburg secures to them and to which she is pledged, France cannot but regard the confederation which they have formed as a natural result and a necessary sequel to that treaty.

For a long period successive changes have, from century to century, reduced the German constitution to a shadow of its former self. Time has altered all the relations, in respect to size and importance, which originally existed among the various members of the confederation, both as regards each other and the whole of which they have formed a part.

The diet has no longer a will of its own; the sentences of the superior courts can no longer be executed; every-thing indicates such serious weakness that the federal bond no longer offers any protection whatever and only consti­tutes a source of dissension and discord between the powers. The results of three coalitions have increased this weak­ness to the last degree. . . . The Treaty of Pressburg assures complete sovereignty to their Majesties the kings of Bavaria and of Württemberg and to his Highness the elector of Baden. This is a prerogative which the other electors will doubtless demand, and which they are justi­fied in demanding; but this is in harmony neither with the letter nor the spirit of the constitution of the empire.

His Majesty the emperor and king is, therefore, com­pelled to declare that he can no longer acknowledge the existence of the German constitution, recognizing, how-ever, the entire and absolute sovereignty of each of the princes whose states compose Germany to-day, maintain­ing with them the same relations as with the other inde­pendent powers of Europe.

His Majesty the emperor and king has accepted the title, of Protector of the Confederation of the Rhine. He has done this only with a view to peace and in order that by his constant mediation between the weak and the powerful he may obviate every species of dissension and disorder.

Having thus provided for the dearest interests of his people and of his neighbors, and having assured, so far as in him lay, the future peace of Europe, and that of Germany in particular, heretofore constantly the theater of war, by removing a contradiction which placed people and princes alike under the delusive protection of a system contrary both to their political interests and to their treaties, his Majesty the emperor and king trusts that the nations of Europe will at last close their ears to the insinuations of those who would maintain an eternal war upon the conti­nent. He trusts that the French armies which have crossed the Rhine have done so for the last time, and that the peo­ple of Germany will no longer witness, except in the annals of the past, the horrible pictures of disorder, devastation, and slaughter which war invariably brings with it.

His Majesty declared that he would never extend the limits of France beyond the Rhine and he has been faith­ful to his promise. At present his sole desire is so to employ the means which Providence has confided to him as to free the seas, restore the liberty of commerce, and thus assure the peace and happiness of the world.

RATISBON, August 1, 1806

I love the statement that the Diet "has no will of its own."
Napoleon is dissolving the Empire because the Diet HAS shown to have a will of its own… which is incompatable with Napoleon's plans. And of course, presents the treaty resolutions to the Diet as an accomplished fact. Those who feel that the Empire was a worthless piece of paper are simply echoing Napoleon's self-serving rationalizations for destroying it.

"Heinrich Heine later wrote that the Germans had become patriots and defied Napoleon because their princes ordered them to. That fails to do justice to the strength of anti-Napoleonic sentiment in many parts of Germany by 1813-14."

The author shows by that statement his ignorance of Germam memoires, he would be surprised, how especially the military did not like Napoleon and the French at all, a Würrtember soldier regards the Imperial Guard at Borodino as Mordbrenner !!!

In my view it was more the other way round that the princes got afraid – that after the end of the 1st empire (where they had struggled for hundreds of years to preserve their existance) a new one would be established where they would be made redundant.

When a Prussian formation had a shako plate displaying just Vaterland – it was forbidden by the king and had to be replaced Mit Gott und König fürs Vaterland.

@ McLaddie
Terrific posts – thanks!

And Merry Christmas everyone!

Stenetoppen:

Thanks! Merry Christmas and a Historic New Year to you too!

Zum Weihnachtsfest besinnliche Stunden!

Roly

Mcladdie

It is not really very taseful to make posts to someone when you know they would be unable to reply – says it all about you really, doesn't it?

Anyway, according the site stats I am second in the stifle table and you are third in the long winded posts table. I thought the placing of your posts in that table very apt although I was surprised to find you were only the third long winded poster.

As for your recent posts, they sound more like historical romances.

It is clear you have your point of view. But the facts you throw out to support your view can be seen differently. perhaps you are not used to people doing that?

You say the Prussians were seen as treacherous by abandoning their fellow members states of the Holy Roman Empire, and this is probably your view. But I see their action as evidence of a state doing what it wanted, for itself not for the paper Holy Roman Empire or Reich or whatever term you want to give it. Other states did what they wanted and what was best for them, not for the Holy Roman Empire. And the HRE did not ALLOW any of its states to do what they wanted, they COULDN'T STOP THEM.

The various HRE states did not unite against the universal threat that France posed to the Holy Roman Empire, if we are supposed to assume that it existed in reality. Some even sided with the French! Some sided against Austria and the so called emperor of the Holy Roman Empire! Prussia did nothing when Austria and the HRE emperor got his backside kicked in 1805, and the Holy Roman Empire did nothing when Prussia got its backside well and truly kicked in 1806. That was because the Holy Roman Empire was not worth fighting for and it had been doomed long before Napoleon came along to sweep it away.

Even the head of the Holy Roman Empire, Francis II, could see the writing on the wall and made himself Emperor Francis I of Austria, before he went to war with France in 1805. He knew and had no confidence in anyone willing to fight for a paper Holy Roman Empire, and he had to make sure he retained some sense if power by making hismelf an emperor.

VW and other said I should read Wilson book and I did, expecting to be converted – but it failed miserably, as did the posts made here. Joachim Whaley was also mentioned -

'The crisis revealed that the Reich lacked the capacity to defend itself against armed force. Neither Austria or Prussia showed any desire to coordinate and lead a sustained defence of the Reich. Indeed both pursued policies which explicity undermined the very principles on which the Reich was founded and both contributed as much as France to its dissolution in 1806. A divergence between interests of the Reich on the one hand and the concerns of Austria and Prussia on the other became apparent as early as 1789-90.'
(page 22-23. Joachim Whaley. 19th Century Germany)

Referring to the creation of Germany in 1871-
'In the case of the first unification there had never before been a German nation-state. Few took the Holy Roman Empire seriously as a model for a future state'
(page 8. Germany's Two Unifications by Professor Ronald Spiers and Professor John Brueilly, 2005)

'1780-1871
First, Germany did not exist as a national state until the very end of the period covered by this section.'
(p13, 19th Century Germany. Professor John Breuilly)

I don't think anyone would take seriously the posts made on this site from amateurs, would-be historians, would-be academics and boney bashers over the work of eminent professors, academics and real historians.

I will accept some people have a different viewpoint-but that's it-there was no state called Germany until 1871. The Holy Roman Empire was a paper empire, nothing more.

Voltaire-
'This agglomeration which called and still called istelf the Holy Roman Empire, was neither Holy, or Roman nor an empire.'

Says it all really.

I like to point out that Germany is not an idea, but a proper country filled with Germans.

But don't get me started on the Bavarians!

;-)

You say the Prussians were seen as treacherous by abandoning their fellow members states of the Holy Roman Empire, and this is probably your view. But I see their action as evidence of a state doing what it wanted, for itself not for the paper Holy Roman Empire or Reich or whatever term you want to give it. Other states did what they wanted and what was best for them, not for the Holy Roman Empire. And the HRE did not ALLOW any of its states to do what they wanted, they COULDN'T STOP THEM.

I gave you at three examples where they did.

The various HRE states did not unite against the universal threat that France posed to the Holy Roman Empire, if we are supposed to assume that it existed in reality. Some even sided with the French! Some sided against Austria and the so called emperor of the Holy Roman Empire! Prussia did nothing when Austria and the HRE emperor got his backside kicked in 1805, and the Holy Roman Empire did nothing when Prussia got its backside well and truly kicked in 1806. That was because the Holy Roman Empire was not worth fighting for and it had been doomed long before Napoleon came along to sweep it away.

Actually, the HRE emperor didn't get anything kicked in 1805 because he declared war as the Austrian Emperor [crowned in 1804] and the HRE voted to stay neutral.

VW and other said I should read Wilson book and I did, expecting to be converted – but it failed miserably, as did the posts made here. Joachim Whaley was also mentioned -

'The crisis revealed that the Reich lacked the capacity to defend itself against armed force. Neither Austria or Prussia showed any desire to coordinate and lead a sustained defence of the Reich. Indeed both pursued policies which explicity undermined the very principles on which the Reich was founded and both contributed as much as France to its dissolution in 1806. A divergence between interests of the Reich on the one hand and the concerns of Austria and Prussia on the other became apparent as early as 1789-90.'
(page 22-23. Joachim Whaley. 19th Century Germany)

This is why your interpretations are so skewed.

1. This all is presented to prove the HRE wasn't a state. I have to laugh when I read this as an argument for 'non-statehood.' "The crisis revealed that the Reich lacked the capacity to defend itself against armed force."

The same 'crisis' proved that the Netherlands, Switzerland, Poland, Savoy-Piedmont and most all the Italian states also "lacked the capacity to defend theirselves against armed force." Oh, and that includes Austria and Prussia. Both proved incapable of stopping France's 'armed force.' In 1806, Prussia came within a hair of Napoleon simply desolving what he called a 'ramshackle state' as he dissolved so many others.

2. Both Prussia and Austria only had some territories in the Empire. A good portion of their countries weren't, so it wouldn't be surprising that they could and would follow policies that didn't support the Empire, for the last 100 years. Yet during that time, the Empire continued. France and Napoleon dissolved it, not the Austrians and Prussia. They were too concerned with their own possible 'dissolution.'

3. "Neither Austria or Prussia showed any desire to coordinate and lead a sustained defence of the Reich because when they did, they got beaten--1792-1797 and 1799-1800. And if you don't think those wars were about the defense of the Empire, the you don't understand the Peace of Basel, The Treaty of Campo Formia, the Treaty of Luneville, or the Peace of Pressburg.

4."Indeed both pursued policies which explicitly undermined the very principles on which the Reich was founded and both contributed as much as France to its dissolution in 1806."

Duh. Of course they did. France forced those 'policies' on them. Both Prussia and Austria were fighting for their survival, so of course they were 'willing' to 'accept' policies forced on them by the above named treaties.

Voltaire-
'This agglomeration which called and still called istelf the Holy Roman Empire, was neither Holy, or Roman nor an empire.'

That is quite true. But just as Napoleon was titled "The King of Italy", he never really was, but he did rule much of Italy. So too the HRE was never really an Empire, though the state did fit the definition of an empire, either way it still was a state.

Voltaire also said, "I don't care what a man believes, I want to know why he believes it."

You have been really weak on the 'why' part, as with historical evidence. What really happened as opposed to conclusion statements based on who knows what.

Anyway, according the site stats I am second in the stifle table and you are third in the long winded posts table. I thought the placing of your posts in that table very apt although I was surprised to find you were only the third long winded poster.

That's because I always quote what I am responding to for clarity, and also often quote evidence. Clarity does take up a lot of words at times. I may make it to first yet. You may too.

I've been on this list since 2007, but you are only my second stifle.

I guess it is a bit pointless making a reply post to McLaddie, since he seems to prefer to post to people when they can't reply or when they place them on stifle.

Says it all about Bill really! But it is sad that some people just can't accept people will disagree with them.

But it is very interesting that he AGREES WITH Voltaire on the Holy Roman Empire. I could have swron he had been arguing the opposite all this time. Never mind, life goes on.

And the only German thing I'm interested in now is Digby Smith's latest book on the Confederation of the Rhine troops in Spain. Has anyone any views on it?

It is sad that some people just can't accept people will disagree with them.

Every time you write this, apparently without irony, I smile.

"Every time you write this, apparently without irony, I smile."

It's been obvious for quite some time now that self awareness isn't one of Gazzola's strong suits, and that's why we love him.

Gazzola… please, whatever you do, don't voluntarily leave the Napoleonics boards before the inevitable takes place and Bill locks your account. You've provided many of us with great entertainment over the last year or so, and you're one of those particular individuals who just happen to make the Napoleonic boards a special place.

Whirlwind

I'm so pleased to see that you are smiling. Much better than you moaning and crying about which rule I've recently broken.

And I gather you do not know anything about Digby's new title?

Have a happy New Year. You deserve it!

Flat Beer and Cold Pizza

Yes, I agree. The Napoleonic boards would be a much sadder and boring place if only the nodding yes men posted there.

I gather you know nothing about Digby's new book?

Have a Nice New year.

Much better than you moaning and crying about which rule I've recently broken.

Funny, I don't remember that at all. I do remember you being really insulting though. I guess it is just another thing which shows how accepting you are of other people's viewpoints.

Why don't you make it one of your New Year's Resolutions not to break TMP's rules by insulting people?

Whirlwind

I do accept people have different veiwpoints to mine. I have no problems with that. And a problem only seems to arise when I dare to disagree or offer another point of view, especially with people who give the impression of having overinflated egos and think they know everything and are always right. But having different viewpoints is what debating is all about-not nodding heads and saying yes all the time!

And it is funny how you never complain when people insult me, says a lot about you that, does't it?

So why don't you make a New Year Resolution to get off my back and try not to take things so seriously. And we can all live happily ever after!

"I gather you know nothing about Digby's new book?"

Sorry, can't help you there.

New Year's greetings to you, too.

a problem only seems to arise when I dare to disagree or offer another point of view, especially with people who give the impression of having over-inflated egos and think they know everything and are always right.

You write the nicest things about your fellows on TMP.

And it is funny how you never complain when people insult me, says a lot about you that, does't it?

Because people don't. Despite your casual use of 'silly','immature', 'absurd', 'over-inflated ego' to refer to other people's posts, most posters try to keep civil and within the rules.

So why don't you make a New Year Resolution to get off my back and try not to take things so seriously. And we can all live happily ever after!

You refrain from the insults and there will be nothing to 'take seriously'.