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, 03:14 PM   #21

mark87's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2014
From: Santiago de Chile
Posts: 1,926
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodhi View Post
Well, the first wasn't really German though.



An independent Austrian identity only emerged post-45. Before that they were Germans.



Even then it's kinda a historical rebranding. The whole "of the German nation" came only about very late in the HRE's existence and I think officially there is only one document calling it like that (? might be right, that's what I remember). The idea of the HRE being German is a weird one given that it was inhabited by Danes, Dutch, Flames, Belgian Germans and French, Swiss Germans, French and Italians, Italians, Czechs, Slavonians, Poles, Slovacs, Lithuanians, Latvians and so on aside Germans. The German national (not cultural and linguistic) identity is a 19th century construct and should not be applied to the HRE - also done by the "new" Germans post 1871 to legitimize themselves and create a national heritage.
Sorry to nitpick but the Danes were not part of the HRE, the danish element to the German Empire was only acquired when the German coalition of Prussia and Austria beat the Kingdom of Denmark in the second Schleswig-Holstein war in 1864. It was only from then on that there have been ethnic Danes under German rule.
mark87 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 11th, 2018, 03:33 AM   #22
Citizen
 
Joined: Jan 2018
From: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
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
Yes the Kingdom of Prussia in the Confederation was 348.607 km² large and the modern day Germany is 357.111 km² large, just adding the Kingdom of Saxony's 14.993 km² makes it larger.
ShortHistory is offline  
Old January 11th, 2018, 03:39 AM   #23
Citizen
 
Joined: Jan 2018
From: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by authun View Post
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
Yes, what I was explaining was that it is far more proper to start calling it just Germany or a German state after the southern lands were added.
ShortHistory is offline  
Old January 11th, 2018, 12:23 PM   #24
Scholar
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Posts: 797

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark87 View Post
Sorry to nitpick but the Danes were not part of the HRE, the danish element to the German Empire was only acquired when the German coalition of Prussia and Austria beat the Kingdom of Denmark in the second Schleswig-Holstein war in 1864. It was only from then on that there have been ethnic Danes under German rule.
If we're nitpicking, then there were certainly Danes before this. Schleswig was not part of the HRE, but Holstein was, and there must have been some people living in Holstein who considered themselves Danish in the early 19th century.

And there were Danes in the empire before that - a fair few adventrous Danes got themselves appointed petty nobles around the Baltic and Frisian coasts in medieval times I guess the question is how many do you need to be counted as a constituent element.

------

In separate thoughts, there seem to be a few too many declarative statements in this thread about things they don't suit. It doesn't make sense to me to say that xyz territory was or was not a part of Germany at a specific time. Germany is not a real thing - it's a concept; and it's a concept interpreted differently at different times and by different people.

Discussing what different people thought 'Germany' meant at specific times, and how those views changed, is history. Discussing what Germany really was is meaningless.
Kaficek is offline  
Old January 12th, 2018, 03:40 AM   #25

mark87's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2014
From: Santiago de Chile
Posts: 1,926
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaficek View Post
If we're nitpicking, then there were certainly Danes before this. Schleswig was not part of the HRE, but Holstein was, and there must have been some people living in Holstein who considered themselves Danish in the early 19th century.

And there were Danes in the empire before that - a fair few adventrous Danes got themselves appointed petty nobles around the Baltic and Frisian coasts in medieval times I guess the question is how many do you need to be counted as a constituent element.

------

In separate thoughts, there seem to be a few too many declarative statements in this thread about things they don't suit. It doesn't make sense to me to say that xyz territory was or was not a part of Germany at a specific time. Germany is not a real thing - it's a concept; and it's a concept interpreted differently at different times and by different people.

Discussing what different people thought 'Germany' meant at specific times, and how those views changed, is history. Discussing what Germany really was is meaningless.
Holstein to my knowledge was majority German ethnically speaking, I'll look it up. I should not have been so categorical, but the 'bulk' of Danish people living under German (German empire) rule was post 1864.
mark87 is offline  
Old January 12th, 2018, 04:36 AM   #26
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 4,246

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaficek View Post
If we're nitpicking, then there were certainly Danes before this. Schleswig was not part of the HRE, but Holstein was, and there must have been some people living in Holstein who considered themselves Danish in the early 19th century.

I've never heard the claim that Holstein contained danish speaking minorities. South Schleswig still has them and the problem with the whole of the Duchy of Schleswig was that the german speaking population was increasing thoughout the Duchy. The situation was that South Schleswig, now in Germany had more german speakers than danish speakers and that North Schleswig, now in Denmark had more danish speakers than german speakers. I know of no claim that danish speaking populations lived south of the river Eider which which is where the County of Holstein starts.

The reason why german speakers populations started to expand in southern Schleswig is because King Christian I of Denmark was named Lord of The Duchy of Schleswig and of the County of Holstein. Rather than it being a case of Danes in Holstein, it was a case of Germans in Denmark, those being the Holsteiners and having incorporated german speakers into 'Schleswig Holstein', they spread north into the Duchy.
authun is offline  
Old Yesterday, 10:47 AM   #27

larkin's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,594
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucius View Post
The First Reich was Charlemagne's creation.
The Second was Bismarck's
The Third was Hitler's.
The English cognate for "Reich" is "Commonwealth".
Lucius, could the 1990 German re-unification and the rise of the EU guided by German banks, constitute a 4th Reich?
larkin is offline  
Old Yesterday, 12:37 PM   #28

Superslowmojoe's Avatar
Citizen
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Northern California, USA
Posts: 11

Could you please give me a link?
Superslowmojoe is offline  
Old Yesterday, 01:28 PM   #29

Lucius's Avatar
the governed self
 
Joined: Jan 2007
From: Nebraska
Posts: 15,965

See also - https://www.etymonline.com/search?page=1&q=REICH
Lucius is offline  
Old Yesterday, 01:38 PM   #30
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Belgium
Posts: 1,206

Quote:
Originally Posted by authun View Post
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.
Authun,

"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."

you are right, but nevertheless Das Deutsches Kaiserreich saw itself via Bismarck and Wilhelm I as the successor state of the HRE. I read in a Dutch language historybook about the speech of Wilhelm I in the hall of mirrors in Versailles 1871.
I used it on the ex-BBC history messageboard to prove that Wilhelm I wanted to rule by the grace of God. In the same speech stays also: that after more than 60 years of interval (the abolition by Napoleon of the HRE in 1806) the Kaiserreich reemerged...

After a painstaken research I found at the end the speech on the LEMO site (I think it is an official site and was recommended as very accurate by a German on the ex-BBC site)
Click the image to open in full size.

I tried to enlarge the picture overhere and lost so my entire message, but you can do it yourself by enlarging it 300% to read it easier...

An dass Deutschen Volk

Wir Wilhelm

Vom Gottes Gnaden König von Preussen...

...mit herstellung des Deutschen Reiches, die seit mehr denn 60 Jahren ruhende Deutsche Kaiserwurde zu erneuern...

To the German people
We, Wilhelm, king of Prussia by the grace of God...
...with the restoration of the German Reich, the since more than 60 years resting German Kaiser's honour to restore...
It is perhaps not exactly historic but that was the way Wilhelm and Bismarck saw it in that time...
The same can be said about the Nazi reich, which would stay a Thousand years as analogy to the 1000 years old HRE...

Kind regards, Paul.
PaulRyckier 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 02:53 PM
Unification of Germany: Was it really German unification or Prussian expansion? SSDD European History 19 September 21st, 2015 11:06 AM
Crimean War and German unification Rodrigo Aragao European History 27 June 27th, 2015 07:56 PM
German Unification moneyheather History Help 8 March 18th, 2010 04:03 PM
German Wars of Unification DIVUS IVLIVS War and Military History 8 May 20th, 2009 11:51 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.