Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 10th, 2018, 05:05 AM   #11
Scholar
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Posts: 833

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larrey View Post
Of course it didn't really get referred to as the "first Reich" until the second Reich came about in the 19th c. And the second Reich didn't recognize Charlemagne as founder of anything really German (he was simply too French by then), so Otto it was.
The terms 'First Reich' and 'Second Reich' were only used after the fall of the 'second'. The concept comes from a book of right-wing, nationalist political philosophy (named, appropriately, The Third Reich) published in the 1920s. The book reads very much like an early Nazi-blueprint, but the author was apparently not a big fan of Hitler - thinking he lacked intellectual sophistication

Quote:
The conservative thinks of Germany's Third Empire. Just as the mediaeval empire of our great Germanic emperors lived on in Bismarck's Hohenzollern empire, so the Second Empire will live on in Germany's Third Empire.

The conservative is fully conscious that history is an inheritance which the peoples of the past hand on to the peoples of the future. But this inheritance must be striven for and won, and won again, that the unity of the great trinity may be perfected; the great trinity of empires of which we know the past and the present ones, while the future one exists as yet only in our dreams.

Germany's Third Empire will come into existence when we will it. But it will live only if it is a new creation, not a slavish copy of the earlier empires.
Kaficek is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 10th, 2018, 06:37 AM   #12
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 4,387

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaficek View Post
The terms 'First Reich' and 'Second Reich' were only used after the fall of the 'second'.
I can imagine this to be correct. In the same way that the term 'Third Reich' is synonymous with the nazi era, the term I see mostly to describe the so called 2nd Reich is Deutsche Kaiserzeit. If one is counting, yes it is the second, but it's not the name they give to that period. Third Reich was not strictly speaking an empire because it didn't have an emperor, yet it was chosen to give the impression of a continuity of an empire of german speaking people. I always thought it was contradictory to use the term third when claiming the HRE was the first because prominent nazis like Rosenberg who were interested in german paganism spoke out against Catholicism calling it a strange and foreign religion that invaded germany in the "fateful year of 800". But, contradiction is nothing new to politics.

Reich means a lot of things in german, including rich, prolific, copious, realm, empire, kingdom, abundant. They are all derived from *ric, as in Theoderic, Gaiseric, Orderic etc, and is claimed to be a loan from gaulish *rix.

Last edited by authun; January 10th, 2018 at 06:43 AM.
authun is offline  
Old January 10th, 2018, 10:18 AM   #13
Academician
 
Joined: Dec 2017
From: Regnum Teutonicum
Posts: 71

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendennis View Post
Emperor -I am sure that you are wrong re Switzerand, The Swiss fought for their independence from Hapsburg Austira-see William Tell .
And Germany pre -Bismarrk was dominated by the Austro Hungarian Empire. Netherlands was the Spanish Netherlands colony before the Dutch grabbed their independence from Hapsburg Spain in 1580.-no German connection at all.
Bohemia was an independent kingdom for centuries too.
an independentd Kingdom before succumbing to Austrian Hapsburg rule
Belgium was known as the Austrian Netherlands -no German connection here either so your take on Europe's historical Geography and German history is deficient.
The Hapsburgs wee Spanish /Austrian -not German except by marriage..

.
Switzerland: Until the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 Switzerland was a part of Germany (the same with the Netherlands). You are right that the swiss fought a lot of wars against the Habsburgs in Austria. One example includes, when the they fought against it at a time when it was outlawed, and the german king Sigismund gave them in 1415/1423 the imperial banner (the first one, a white cross on red, not the second with the black double headed eagle on gold). The banner then evolved into the current flag of Switzerland.

Austria-Hungary only exists since 1867.

Even if we ignore the fact, that the Netherlands was part of Germany until 1648 and the southern Netherlands until 1806 - there are places that were part of the Spanish Netherlands (and Austrian Netherlands), that are now part of todays Germany - so how should there be no connection at all?

You are 100 % right about Bohemia, it was never part of Germany (with the exception of the "Sudetenland" after the Munich Agreement - but I see this as illegal), together with Germany, Italy and Burgundy, it was one of the kingdoms which formed the Holy Roman Empire.
Otto I is offline  
Old January 10th, 2018, 10:35 AM   #14

Frank81's Avatar
Guanarteme
 
Joined: Feb 2010
From: Canary Islands-Spain
Posts: 4,610

Inside the HRE, since 12th century existed King of the Germans, and then King of Germany to refer one of the three integral kingdoms of the HRE: Germany, Italy and Arles. Thence, Germany made references to the lands north of the Alps and east of France
Frank81 is offline  
Old January 10th, 2018, 10:46 AM   #15
Academician
 
Joined: Dec 2017
From: Regnum Teutonicum
Posts: 71

@ ShortHistory

In my opinion, what you should really change in the video, if possible, are the following to points:

1. At the end in the english text (I don't know if it is also the case in the russian one) you write something like that:
"...the German Empire became one of the most powerful nations in the world.".
I know it is a mistake native english-speakers often do. Nation =/= Country. You should either write "...the German Empire became one of the most powerful countries/states in the world." or "...the germans became one of the most powerful nations in the world.".



2. You say that in 1871 Germany took Alsace and Lorraine. That is not correct. Germany took a part of Lorraine (a medium sized part in the north, most of Lorraine stayed with France) and a part of Alsace (most of it, but a small part stayed with France). The map is also wrong in respect to Lorraine - you highlight the whole region, not the one ceded by France to Germany.


3. You should make it clear that Germany was formed in 1867. After the war of Prussia against Austria, Prussia and the northern german states formed in 1866 a confederation, the North German Federation, but in 1867, this confederation was transformed into a country - Germany (the official name stayed the same - North German Federation). In 1871 Germany simply changed its name from North German Federation to German Reich (like the UK changed its name from United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1927) and Baden, Wuerttemberg as well as Bavaria joined Germany (like Texas joined the USA in 1845).
Otto I is offline  
Old January 10th, 2018, 12:31 PM   #16
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Connecticut
Posts: 1,587

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendennis View Post
Emperor -I am sure that you are wrong re Switzerand, The Swiss fought for their independence from Hapsburg Austira-see William Tell .
And Germany pre -Bismarrk was dominated by the Austro Hungarian Empire. Netherlands was the Spanish Netherlands colony before the Dutch grabbed their independence from Hapsburg Spain in 1580.-no German connection at all.
Bohemia was an independent kingdom for centuries too.
an independentd Kingdom before succumbing to Austrian Hapsburg rule
Belgium was known as the Austrian Netherlands -no German connection here either so your take on Europe's historical Geography and German history is deficient.
The Hapsburgs wee Spanish /Austrian -not German except by marriage..

.
First want to clarify to everyone that all of the Holy Roman Empire was the First German Reich, or Germany and that is what Germany meant and what unifications were attempting to recreate. In the 19th century what is now regarded as German unification was seen as "little Germany" and us seeing it as something different is really us just choosing to acknowledge Prussian/German propaganda(and like I've said the German Empire was almost twice the size of today's Germany).

Then again we can't really retract that mistake since the entity that actually conquered/brought "Germany together(Prussia) no longer is part of "Germany". So it's not like we can undo that name change and just rename it the Prussian Republic or something and there is no other distinctive name that really accurately describes the make shift collection of former German states. Guess we could have called it the Central European Republic or something and been just as accurate.

Here's my responses to your points.

1)Austria and Switzerland were both part of the Holy Roman Empire. The Hapsburg's were one of many feudal houses with various holdings within the Holy Roman Empire nominally ruled by a separate emperor from one of the other houses, even though the Hapsburgs later became the de facto royal house. What makes the situation more complicated is that the Hapsburgs were actually from Switzerland conquered Austria and then had their original territory(Switzerland) rebel.

It was dominated by the Austrian Empire(basically the Hapsburgs holdings) for centuries and any German unification was assumed to be under Austrian rule. However the dynamic changed in the century between Frederick making Prussia a great power.

2)Bohemia was not an independent Kingdom after it's initial centuries in existence. It was part of the HRE, even though it was the ONLY part of the HRE prior to Prussia whose ruler was allowed to be styled a King and not an Elector or Duke. This is why I think you're having this misconception. Bohemia was almost always ruled by a House from some other part of Germany though at one point it became united with the Hungarian royal house(which wasn't part of the HRE). Of course non HRE royals could have holdings in the HRE came way the King of England could be a fief to the King of France.

The Bohemian King was also one of the seven electors(though again the only one to be styled King) who chose a Holy Roman Emperor. So it was not only part of the HRE,it had a distinct status within the HRE. It's funny due to the electoral structure of the HRE, the Hapsburgs hadn't had a vote until they became Kings of Bohemia as Austria was not an electorate.

3)Again you are fundamentally misunderstanding what Germany is. That being said them being an Austrian holding was not the first time the Low Countries had been part of the HRE or even the Hapsburgs.

To simplify what is a very complicated timeline
1)Low Countries were part of the HRE
2)Burgundian conquest
3)Became a holding of the German House of Hapsburgs after Mary's death
4)Was LEFT to the Spanish House of Hapsburgs after they split when Charles V split up the Hapsburg House
5)Dutch independence. Modern day Belgium remains in Spanish hands.
6)Was given back to the German House of Hapsburgs after the War of Spanish Succession
7)Conquered by Napoleon who later goes on to end the HRE
8)Regains independence after Napoleons ouster
9)Belgian independence from the rest of the Netherlands

So yes the Low Countries were German and part of the HRE for the lions share of their history, much longer than the Swiss.

3)First off Austrian is German, second off the Hapsburgs actually originated from Switzerland which was also German. Third, almost every royal family has a ton of German blood seeing the nature of how royal marriages worked and how many German nobles there were due to decentralization.

I think you should do more research on the HRE.

Last edited by Emperor of Wurttemburg 43; January 10th, 2018 at 12:47 PM.
Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 is offline  
Old January 10th, 2018, 12:43 PM   #17

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 21,519
Blog Entries: 19

German ... not Germanic ...

ok, Charlemagne unified the Germans [the Germanic with several Celtic populations who, from that moment on, acquired the adjective of "German"].
AlpinLuke is offline  
Old January 10th, 2018, 01:21 PM   #18
Citizen
 
Joined: Jan 2018
From: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 6

Hello, first I wanted to thank you for the feedback.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto I View Post
@ ShortHistory

In my opinion, what you should really change in the video, if possible, are the following to points:

1. At the end in the english text (I don't know if it is also the case in the russian one) you write something like that:
"...the German Empire became one of the most powerful nations in the world.".
I know it is a mistake native english-speakers often do. Nation =/= Country. You should either write "...the German Empire became one of the most powerful countries/states in the world." or "...the germans became one of the most powerful nations in the world.".
It is true that a nation doesn't mean a country, however I think it could be argued that in the case of the German Empire, the unification of which happened with German nationalism as its governing principle and which itself was a nation-state, both terms become somewhat synonymous, as in the power of the German people is heavily linked to the power of the German Empire. Though of course the meanings even in context still differ somewhat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto I View Post
2. You say that in 1871 Germany took Alsace and Lorraine. That is not correct. Germany took a part of Lorraine (a medium sized part in the north, most of Lorraine stayed with France) and a part of Alsace (most of it, but a small part stayed with France). The map is also wrong in respect to Lorraine - you highlight the whole region, not the one ceded by France to Germany.
Yes, this part was definitely wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otto I View Post
3. You should make it clear that Germany was formed in 1867. After the war of Prussia against Austria, Prussia and the northern german states formed in 1866 a confederation, the North German Federation, but in 1867, this confederation was transformed into a country - Germany (the official name stayed the same - North German Federation). In 1871 Germany simply changed its name from North German Federation to German Reich (like the UK changed its name from United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1927) and Baden, Wuerttemberg as well as Bavaria joined Germany (like Texas joined the USA in 1845).
I agree that it would be better to make the distinction between the confederation and country but I would argue about just referring to it as Germany. The whole unification was done on the basis of nationalism and with the idea of creating a German nation-state that would include all of the German lands with some exceptions like Austria, therefore the in between stage of a country attempting such an unification would lack legitimacy in styling itself as the finished version. In the example of the North German Confederation it would be more like North Germany. Just calling it Germany while large parts of what is considered to be Germany are outside of its control is questionable.
ShortHistory is offline  
Old January 10th, 2018, 01:39 PM   #19
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Connecticut
Posts: 1,587

I think the North German Confederation might be larger than today's Germany? Not sure can't find any numbers but looking at the map it looks like it would be. The Kingdom of Prussia alone at it's height is like 3k miles smaller than today's Germany(not counting the states that joined after Franco-Prussia which weren't annexed but joined of their own free will).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Prussia
Emperor of Wurttemburg 43 is offline  
Old January 10th, 2018, 01:48 PM   #20
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 4,387

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShortHistory View Post
In the example of the North German Confederation it would be more like North Germany. Just calling it Germany while large parts of what is considered to be Germany are outside of its control is questionable.
When Baden, Hesse-Darmstadt, Württemberg and Bavaria joined the North German Confederation in 1870/71 a new constitution was written under the title German Confederation, dropping the 'North' element to reflect the enlargement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consti...ederation_1871
authun is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
austria, german, germany, holy roman empire, prussia, unification



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What if German Unification never happend? NerdGuy21 Speculative History 5 December 16th, 2015 01:53 PM
Unification of Germany: Was it really German unification or Prussian expansion? SSDD European History 19 September 21st, 2015 10:06 AM
Crimean War and German unification Rodrigo Aragao European History 27 June 27th, 2015 06:56 PM
German Unification moneyheather History Help 8 March 18th, 2010 03:03 PM
German Wars of Unification DIVUS IVLIVS War and Military History 8 May 20th, 2009 10:51 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.