Ronald L. Hughes

Reading the prior posts concerning the above Empire I was at once struck by these words;

"I don't see your point. Kingdoms, empires, etc in this period were ruled by dynasties. These generally originated from the nobility within the country but would through marriage always have a foreign touch. The abstract concept of a state/nation would only emerge during the late early modern period (17-18th century) and a synthesis of both would be a product of the French Revolution and 19th century.

So the empire of Charles wasn't Spanish nor Austrian. It was the empire of the Habsburg dynasty. Charles V himself was the son of an Austrian (Philips, who himselve was the child of an Austrian and a Bourgondian (who were also linked to France, etc)) and a Castillian-Aragonese princess (or does female lineage not count?). Charles mothertongue was french and dutch, for he grew up in the Netherlands, one of the dominions of his family. He also spoke fluent castillian and german (which he alledgedly spoke to his horse). Charles culturally was very much pretruded by medieval chivalrous ideas, especially the ideas of conquistadores etc. He even wrote chivalrous novels in Castillian.

Note I haven't used "Spanish" yet. For this does not exist other then common tongue. The kingdom of Spain would technically emerge after the Napoleontic era, before that we speak of the union of crows of both Castille and Aragon. For the sake of historical detail: Spain did not discover the new world, Columbus worked in the name of Isabella of Castille and discovered the Americas for Castille, not Aragon, nor for a non-existant "Spain". But this is technical, popular reference even then used the term Spanish. That as a sidenode.

So was the empire Spanish or a tool of Habsburg? Like I said above, the rule was by dynasties. The ideals of rulers were for a long period of time linked primarily to the fortune of their dynasty, not their respective lands, who did serve as a tool of course. If anything, Charles V served himselve, and this in his ideals also meant serving catholicism.

So the idea that countries were ruled by foreigners is quite odd, for in contemporary views this is quite normal. The idea you suggest is a mere exponent of later nationalistic currents, who have odd explanations for things they can't grasp with their own lines of thought."

I cannot help but see that the writer of the above just happens to live in an area previously either held by the Empire or just out-side of its control? I think the above post is remarkable because it shows a real education concerning the exact field we or now I, have chosen to discuss!

Since the above poster is now found on a closed site, I will have to clip my posts at this point so I can go back and give him / her the attribution he/she deserves!

The original site can be found here; http://www.historum.com/showthread.php?t=8749 And the poster(s), I am quoting above, is called, or at least he/she calls their selves or them selfs as; Gaius Valerius!

I do not at all tend to demean the posts by "Pinguin" or others! It just seems Gaius and I seem to see a situation (at lest in this case) in the same periscope! IE, this Empire is more of a "target" than rather another society to merely discuss!

Thus I would like to expand and restory discussion on this part of Eruopean history, that, it seems to me, diserves more consideration! But, at the moment I am restricted by both time and energy! Thus, I with-hold "the rights to revise and/ or extend my remarks at a later time!" Laugh! By the way, if any of you "laughed" then you will know where I got the above quotation!

Regards,

Ron

Nemo Neem

Austria-Hungary was truly an unique empire. It had a strange government structure: half monarchy, half empire. True, like Russia, it had one royal family, but Austria-Hungary was rocked with civil strife, and all of its diverse peoples wanted independence. It was also autocratic.

And, for the record, it's "Habsburgs."

gaius valerius

Me/he - gaius valerius - is me and I still stand by my opinion above. Yes I live in Belgium, once known as the Southern Netherlands and before that just as the Northern Netherlands a dominion that would be passed to the line of House Habsburg (Hapsburg, I consequently use the b-version). The Netherlands formed throughout the Early Modern Period one of the - if not the - hotspot of European and Habsburg politics, because of its wealth (the Netherlands were one of the most wealthiest and most urbanised regions in the Early Modern Period) and strategic position (on the crossroad between the German, French and British space, at the shores of the Northern sea, being itself the very core-land of the Atlantic trade (till London became the hotspot), etc etc). Being that I study history at the University of Ghent, it is only natural that the Habsburg family is a major player in our history just as the Netherlands itself take a central role in the history of house Habsburg. I'd very much like more ongoing discussion on this dynasty and their period as it is my favourite thus I'm looking forward till you'll have enough time and energy

Austria-Hungary is of course only a small fraction of the Habsburg history (1867-1918), interesting is the mix of centralisation which was supported by the local nobility (often "germanised") and the decentralising/separatist tendencies of the 'national' segments. Interesting is that this did only became virulent after the French Rev./Napoleontic era, during the 19th century and her revolutions. That said, nationalism is not alien to the Early Modern Period, just think of the Bohemians and Hungarians who were very set on their own rights.

And Hapsburg is also used, though I prefer Habsburg.

Ronald L. Hughes

I think one can immediately see that even the spelling of this Empire is a subject of some debate! Is it Habs or Haps-burg or berg, etc. I could even be "habas" or "Hapas", or maybe even "Habbas" or "Happas", etc.? And, considering that in many languages the "h" is silent, it seems conceivable that it could have been written as "h'Abas" or h'Apas", etc.?, or thus merely "Apas-burg" or "Abas-burg?" Certainly one who merely heard the word pronounce might easily mistake the sound of the "b" or the "p", for one another?

As a matter of fact, whilst I cannot at this time pull up the sources, I have seen other renderings of a "b" as a "p" or even a "d"? But, I might well be confusing things myself? I even think that is some times there were even combined letters of both the "P" and "d", and / or the "b" and the "d", etc.?

Perhaps there is a linguists amongst us that can either support my statement(s) above or dismiss them?

But, can any one point to an original version that could then be considered as the most correct version of the name?

Regards,
Ron

Ronald L. Hughes

Gaius (Etc.), somewhere, and some time actually posted these words;

"Note I haven't used "Spanish" yet. For this does not exist other then common tongue. The kingdom of Spain would technically emerge after the Napoleontic era, before that we speak of the union of crows of both Castille and Aragon."

Whilst I do believe that Gaius above actualy meant to say the word "crowns" where he actually wrote the word "crows!", makes him the "winner" in the most correct miscorrect answer ever posted at this site! Quodos to all! Laugh!

But, am I correct Gaius? Did you really mean to write the word "crows" when you really meant "crowns?" Or did you have a premenition of things to come?

Regardless, I will undertake to improve matters here! chuckle!

Seriously, for those of you used to seeing "coats of arms", "banners", etc. purporting to to contain a representation of an "Eagle", did any of you ever question this?

Anyone who looks at a lot of these so called "Eagle" representations might well notice that they do not really look like Eagles!

Therefore, I suggest that most of them, or at the least, and some of these symbols have two heads instead of one!, are but representations of Ravens or Corvus, or?, other carrion birds, that first visited the dead upon a battlefield!

An Eagle is not correct in most cases! And neither is the "Bicephalous Eagle!", that is a two headed one!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-headed_eagle
"The double-headed eagle is a common symbol in heraldry and vexillology. It is most commonly associated with the Holy Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire and the Vijayanagara Empire. In Byzantine heraldry, the heads represent the dual sovereignty of the Emperor (secular and religious) and/or dominance of the Byzantine Emperors over both East and West. Several Eastern European nations adopted it from the Byzantines and continue to use it as their national symbol to this day, the most prominent being Russia. However, the design was in use in the East for centuries before it was officially adopted by the Byzantines, and was independently adopted as the symbol of several other historical states, such as early medieval Armenia and the Seljuk Sultanate of Rûm[citation needed]. In Hindu mythology, the two-headed eagle is known as the Gandaberunda."

Note the words "rule over East and West!"

http://www.teremiski.de/

"Ravens are highly specialized on finding carcasses. They are often the first to discover a carcass (Selva 1999). Often already a few hours after a kill of wolves, they arrive at the dead animal."

Upon a battlefield, they could be counted upon the first eat the eyes of the dead!

But, I will leave it to you to make anymore connections!

Regards,
Ron

gaius valerius

I had no intention of writing crows, their should've been an 'n' there my bad. I'm no specialist in heraldry, though I don't think we have to search for crows behind the eagles, on what would we base such an assessment? We clearly have enough sources to know they depict an eagle?

sylla1

Actually, no; the date that you seem to be looking for would be 1707, when the Kingdom of Spain technically emerged after the abolition of the Crown of Aragon by the Nueva Planta decrees from Philip V.

That said, such trivia obviously left unaffected your core argumentation.

gaius valerius

I stand corrected there

Ronald L. Hughes

Dear Gaius! Other than the fact that certain historians and heraldic "experts" have connected the depictions of these fowl upon shields or other devices over the centuries, there really exists no clear evidence that "all of them" were meant to depict "Eagles!"

I would challenge you to take a look at as many depictions of these standards as it is possible, and tell me that all of them seem to resemble any modern image of an Eagle?

Then take a close look at photos, etc., of the Rook, Corvus, Raven,etc., and tell me if our "experts" could well have been wrong?

Regards,
Ron

Lucius

It's spelled with a "b" and pronounced as a "p" on account of it being German.