Stone Chapel
Active Member
Are EU Students required to pay Tuition Fees in order to attend Universities in Germany?That is quite a general question you are asking here...is there anything specific I can help you with?
Upvote
0
Are EU Students required to pay Tuition Fees in order to attend Universities in Germany?That is quite a general question you are asking here...is there anything specific I can help you with?
They would have to pay Tuition Fees, in the few cases that German students also had to pay fees. There are still some limited cases for such fees.Are EU Students required to pay Tuition Fees in order to attend Universities in Germany?
Then, let me ask you a different kind of question:They would have to pay Tuition Fees, in the few cases that German students also had to pay fees. There are still some limited cases for such fees.
But as far as I could find, there are only tuition fees for non-EU students in Baden-Württemberg right now and potentially in Nordrhein-Westfalen.
I hope that answered your question. You might learn more by doing a quick Google search... that's all I did, and it took my just a few seconds.
My own university days were long before they started to experiment with Tuition Fees, and I have no personal interest to follow this topic. I am always willing to share any informations I have about Germany... but this isn't a question about German history.
I'm not quite certain I understand correctly what you are referring to.Then, let me ask you a different kind of question:
Why did SS Veterans of WWII try to appeal the Government's decision not to pay them Army pensions - Are military pensions paid in addition to State pensions, or is it because military pensions have more monetary value than State pensions?
So, yes, the question of German unification had been an issue for some time in 1870... but much less than you imply, and not in the form that you imply.
What kind of ancient sources? There are no written sources from the germanic tribes to tell us what they think about "german unity". But we do know, from archeological sources, of the "unity" in culture, cult, language, even some societal structure, that happened outside of what you would consider "ethnicity and race". There was no "germanic race", there wasn't even a "germanic ethnicity". The distinction between "germans" and "celts" was an arbitrary roman one, perhaps marginally backed up by linguistics... and even here the differences between different germanic languages are just as large as between "germanic" and "celtic" as a whole.On what grounds do you claim that the Germanic tribes did not have a concept of unity based on ethnicity and race? How could anyone possibly know this? We have crumbs and fragments and of course your statement is a supposition, but what are your sources driving this supposition? I want to consult Tacitus' Germania, but as we know this is enemy literature and limited in scope.
From reading ancient sources, it seems to me that in the old world in general, ethnicity and race were the main factors of unity.
Err... yes? Where did you get that idea from? Karl definitly strove for domincance over the whole Frankish kingdom... but that was, like much of "germanic" politics a family affair, not an ethnic or race issue. He excerted his dominance over the neighboring realms, as far as he could... regardless of ethnicity. And regardless of the legends about his coronation, he definitly wasn't averse to use the position of Roman Emperor to his advantage.Do you deny the often repeated concept that Charlemagne had an eye on uniting all the Germanic people under one Christian Kingdom?
Again, how could you or anyone possibly know how much the question of unification was batted around in Charlemagne's court, or in the talks of the ancient Germanics. We barely know anything about any of them. It is all a supposition how much or how little, in this form or that form. You seem to me to have a slant in one way and me in the other way, but there are very little solid historical writings to back up either.
...and no, I don't imagine the ancient Germanic warriors sitting there discussing it much, but in hindsight, it was a major problem for thousands of years. The Latins were united behind Rome, and a united Teutonic nation could have dealt with them even more sharply. Thankfully, Charlemagne did bring many of them together. Thankfully he put into motion the Holy Roman Empire, as the Germans became the Emperors of Rome.
... beyond the well known and discussed Nazi era?
Ask away, and I will try to provide an answer.
Rather the 900 A.D. germans.The original Germans from Gaul? or the ca. 700 B.C. germans?
Whoops, missed this the first time.Tacitus wasn't describing the Germans, btw, he was talking about the Slavs.
The ca. 700 B.C. Indo-germans?
There was no "germanic race"
We know quite a lot about Charlemagne's kingdom... and "uniting the germanic tribes" did indeed never come up.
The "Latins" hadn't been united for centuries at that point... and "The Latins" (the romanic people) were in themselves at that point a huge conglomerate of many, many ethnicities.
There also was no need for a unified "Teutonic nation" (which is a completely wrong usage of that term "Teutonic" as well as a completely unhistorical usage of "nation".) to "deal with the Latins". The Old Western Roman Empire had fallen three centuries earlier. Germanic kings had ruled Rome since then. There were no "Latins united behind Rome".
Bismarck didn't live in ancient times, so he wouldn't know any more than we do.Where do I begin with this? You are for the most part just posting to contradict what I say with no sources to back up your claims. Your argument structure is often that you take a clearly true statement (as I have made many times here), then you make some assumption of some incorrect underlying details that were not in the original statement, and then you tell why your invented details are not correct to try to look clever. This is becoming somewhat a waste of time, and I'm moving on soon although I may post some legitimate primary sources as I promised to see your reaction. You can argue with Bismarck, Tacitus, and Caesar instead of me, and that will be fun to see.
You already admitted that we don't know what they "thought"... but you think it likely that they considered themselves "a Germanic race". What do you base that on?This is where I began to lose all faith in what you are posting here. You are smart and knowledgable, but you are going against the obvious for the sake of going against it. I mean this is documented 1000 times over that those ancient people are considered a race today, and although we don't know much about their thoughts, it is likely that they considered themselves a Germanic race as well.
Caesar and Tacitus didn't write ethnological studies. Their works are interesting as sources for the mention of certain people, which hints at the existence of certain groups that were identifiable later... but as "descriptions"... especially DNA... they are ludicrous.At least give me some modern books that disagrees, although that doesn't prove anything. Those tribes were clearly similar in their dna/physical appearance, as Caesar and Tacitus documented, besides all others who documented the later ancestors.
Yes, they knew they were different than the Romans. Culturally. Sociologically. There is no mention, not the slightest shred of evidence that ever mentions "race" in any form.They knew they were cousins and racially different than the Romans, no doubt in my mind about that. What my original point was is that if they united as the people in Rome did, they could have exercised their will more and defended themselves better.
Then I am sure you can present such a source. Any of them.As I said before, maybe not clearly enough, I was referring to ancient sources in general. Race and ethnicity were huge in the ancient world per my estimation.
In some cases, we do have sources, from later times mostly. We know what these sources say... and they talk about different germanic tribes, never about any from of germanic identity.Yes, we do not have good sources of the ancient Germans. That was my earlier point. Why then do you pretend that you know what they thought or said? It's all speculation, yours vs. mine.
The concept of ancient Germans as forebears of a modern German state, of German unity in whatever form is an interpretation of ancient writings by authors of the 16th and later centuries, in its most nationalistic form presented in the 19th century, as support for the political ideas of that time.Perhaps you derived it from some modern authors, if so at least source that and I will check it to where they got their ideas.
German? Or germanic? Karl was a Frank. Franks are a germanic tribe. But the Franks as a tribe were quite different from the Alemans or the Bavarians or the Saxons... or the Danes, Jutes, Angles or Langobards... which were also germanic tribes.Where did I get the idea from concerning Charlemagne? Einhard's Life of Charlemagne, mentions him being German in every way as I recall.
If you have sources that talk about any kind of germanic unity... please post them.Maybe I can post this per my promise above. Where do you get your ideas from? That was my question posed to you first and you didn't answer it. In your response, you cited absolutely zero sources except a vague mention of archaeology which often makes wild assumptions anyway.
Indeed... we do not know if Karl considered all those tribes "a Germanic race". In all that we do know about him, there is no hint that he did."Indeed"? Oh wow. Now there is no way that you could possibly know this. We do know a good amount about it relative to say, Indian history, but not to that detail! For example, we know that he had a liking for Augustine's City of God, according to Einhard. However, we do not know any more books that were ever read in his court, to my recollection. We don't have the minutes of his court. We have a subpar biographer who wrote after his death, who wrote a short biography and probably romanticized a lot of it. There is a ton that we do not know about Charlemagne, and anyone from that long ago, and there is no way anyone in the world today knows "indeed", from the ancient sources, and certainly not from archaeological speculation, if Charlemagne considered those tribes to be a Germanic race.
The time of Charlemagne was quite different from the time of Arminius. So please stop jumping from one to the other.I never said that they Latins had been united for centuries before Charlemagne.
Yes, the "Latins" were united behind Rome in the first century. As were the Greeks, the Numidians, the Hispanians and the Gauls (and a number of others). That didn't make them a "race" called the "Latins" or the "Romans".As you can see from my post, I was talking about back when Rome was in control, and trying to take over the Germanic lands no less. The Latins most certainly were united behind Rome at that time, as you concede above ("hadn't been for centuries"...which admits they were before that), and could have been again. That is all I was saying and it is true.
And just as "races" (let's stay with "tribes" in this context) come together... as the Franks, the Bavarians, the Alemans, the Goths are all conglomerates of different groups, often of different ethnicity, so they can divide. It is not "cousins", not "DNA", not "physical appearence" that formed or divided these groups. In many of these later cases, it wasn't even culture or language. It was just common interest.Yes, races are a conglomerate, most such things are, no argument there.
No. All of this because you propagate a rather unhistorical view of a political question of the 19th century.All of this because I was defending Moltke. Hope he is grateful.
Rather the 900 A.D. germans.
I think I have said it before... there is a confusing way the english speaking world uses the term "Germans".
On the one hand that is the "germanic" group. A big, diverse, cultural group with a basic common linguistic unity. It's rather difficult to clearly define them.
In German, these group is called "die Germanen".
On the other hand, there is the political structure, derived from the Frankish empire, limited to the eastern parts that had a predominantly germanic language, but was still seperated into several tribes. This realm, and this population became known, by adapting the latin term, as the "Germans". In German itself, these are called "die Deutschen".
The difference, especially in historical terms, is as large as between "the Anglo-Saxons" and "The English" or "the Franks" and "the French".
But due to the similarities of the "german / germanic" terms in English, many English speakers tend to mix and merge these two.
Yes, there is a relationship. But in a way it would be like talking about the History of the United States and asking about the visigoth conquest of Hispania.
I am always willing to talk about history as good as I can, and answer all kinds of questions.
But "German" history, for me is the history of the Germany... starting somewhere around 850 to 920.
Hope that clarified some things.
Whoops, missed this the first time.
Nope, Tacitus was talking about the germanic tribes living in the region east of the Rhine, north of the Danube. Tacitus might have mentioned one slavic tribe, the Veneti... but it is not clear if these were indeed Slavs. Confirmed mention of Slavic wasn't until the 6th century.
And for your changed question....
"Indo-germans" is not a description for a people, or a culture. It is a linguistic term. The original speakers of this "indo-german" (so called for their most eastern and western examples) are said to have existed somewhere around 4000 to 3000 B.C., perhaps somewhere in the Black SeA / Caspian Sea region.
At 700 B.C. the people living in the later "germanic" area might already have spoken germanic languages. But earliest mention of "germanic" tribes is from around 300 B.C.
It's a little difficult to find a source for something that wasn't done. What do you suggest? A letter from a Bruktrian merchant or a Chaukian smith stating "Germans? What are those? No, we don't call ourselves that."Freodin, again you cite zero sources other than the ones I mentioned, with some vague suggestions of archaeology and "what we know". Why can you not provide one source to backup what you have posted?
Yes, of course ancient people and societies had a distinctions between countries, people, cultures... us and them.To answer your question, there are many sources that suggest the importance of race in the ancient world. A classic one is the Arrian's Anabasis of Alexander where he talks of the racial rivalry between the Greeks and Macedonians. Then, when Alexander integrated the Persians into his army, it created some angst among his Macedonians. I think you would have a hard time finding any such ancient source that does not have some sense of the racial factor, whether explicitly mentioned as above or implicit.
And now it gets weird. I have no idea why you are so invested in this idea of a "national German unity" that you need to completely strawman my positions.Let me recap German and Germanic (have to be that specific) history by Freodin for anyone who is interested:
The ancient Germanic tribes did not consider themselves as "part of a Germanic race".- The ancient Germanic tribes were not part of a Germanic race. Did not consider themselves different than Romans, Gauls, Chinese, etc, in this regard. If you could put an ancient anglo and an ancient saxon in a room with an ancient Chinese man, the anglo and the saxon would only recognize tribal and cultural differences, and not racial differences, no feeling of unity based on that. We somehow know that the tribes that united behind Arminius did not have any racial comradery.
Yes, that would have helped them. It would also have helped them to join together with the Gauls, or with the Skytes.- If the Germanic tribes had joined together, it would not have helped them against Rome. (nevermind that was Gaul's problem in their war)
We do know that for all the informations we have, all the sources that tell us about conflicts or alliances... there is never any shred of hint at a conflict or alliance due to "race". Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence... but it doesn't give us any reason to assume presence either.- We can know for sure "indeed" what the ancient Germanic tribes thought or did not think, even though we do not have written sources. We know they never considered joining forces.
Charlemagne belongs to both French and German history. But he doesn't belong to either nation (in the modern sense).- Charlemagne belongs to neither French nor German history (even though German kings were descended from him?). Why? Well, the nation concept was invented later you know, so that invalidates origins.
Prussian militarism was not exceptional... which should be rather obvious when we are talking about NAPOLEON!- Prussian militarism was not exceptional. Maria Theresa, Napoleon I, and Napoleon III did not feel the wrath of it much. The military achievements of Solder King and Friedrich The Great were not that great.
Bismarck pursued an active policy of a prussian dominated united Germany. He used all available means towards that goal... diplomacy and war, drama and dubious deals. But he did not start the Franco-Prussian war with the goal of using it to unite Germany.- Bismarck...a passive guy. Did not incite a war to unify Germany.
What politics did Moltke institute? What historical goals did he pursue and bring to fruition?- Moltke...a tool.
I already explained that, and so it seems rather... weird... that Lucas repeats this here.- The situation of the southern German States "after the victorious war was exactly the same as before the war". The formation of the German Empire in 1871 was inconsequential to them.
It was "a" cause... a minor one. But it was not "the" cause, or even a dominant one.- The Franco-Prussian War was not a cause of unification.
I have explained myself, my positions and answered your questions. Now perhaps you can explain where I am wrong.I reject all of these propositions.
I have studied German history for over 30 years now, up to university level. What's your qualification?Freodin, my analysis of you is that you are well studied in German history and a smart person. I think however that you are, for the most part, arguing points here that I did not make, but that you extrapolated from what I wrote. You are also denying some basic truths of German history, on the basis of some details that suggest otherwise, but do not overtake the support (logical, historical) to the contrary.
My friend, if you ever meet Thomas Carlyle in the afterlife, please do not try to tell him that Friedrich the Great's military achievements were not exceptional.
Ah, ok.If it's not OK to change my mind, please accept my apologies. I was concerned that I was being hurtful, and hoped not to offend. Imagine my surprise to find that door slammed shut. (blush)
Now, defination of terms. I consider Goths to be Slavic because of the language families in Gen.10. Since they were not related to Gomer who settled in Western Germany, France, Spain and Great Britain, and were in fact the tribe of the Hebrides; from there, they moved on to Scotland, where they were known as the Pictavi, and in France, as the Pictones, the Goths are not Germanic. Jourdanes picks up this tale, and shows them in little Scythia and Scythia major. I confess, I lost the tale at that point because I didn't want to learn about the tribes of which Herodotus was so fond. But the nature of the Goths cannot be disputed, can it? And since we see these same painted people in Tocharians and (memory fails me) some tribes East of the Black Sea, along with their equine worship, may I rest my case? Tacitus was describing the Goths, not Gomerian Germany. Originally Gaul existed on German lands, too.
God says Ashkenaz is from Gomer, the father of the Celts. And Josephus tells us that Gomer is Gaul. Gaul is Gael in Scotland. And in Scotland, the Goths learned Celtic language. They carried that language (at least some portion of them) back to Scythia, where Tocharian was born. And then carried some form of Celtic to Halstatt, along with the metallurgy of the Scythian nations. But their tongue changed the language, of course, so that when they arrived as the Belgians, the spoke a dialect different from the Gaels and the also modified Gaelic Aquitani. Because we see those same beehive huts in Aquitaine that we see in Ireland and Scotland near Scythia, don't we? The Goths confused the culture and languages of the entire Gomerian Western Europe.
Dismissing Caesar as a propagandist won't get you very far, when you look at Gen.10. He sees them as languages, and languages were what divided the lands for inheritance.Caesar didn't write ethnological studies, he wrote political propaganda (which contains a lot of pretty good history, if you acknowledge his bias and motives.)
Tacitus mostly did the same. There is no evidence he had direct knowledge of the described people at all... much of what he wrote cannot be backed by other historical or archeological research. But we do know: he wrote for a Roman audience.
...
Caesar and Tacitus didn't write ethnological studies. Their works are interesting as sources for the mention of certain people, which hints at the existence of certain groups that were identifiable later... but as "descriptions"... especially DNA... they are ludicrous.
The image of German warriors as blonde giants who were always drinking and fighting is stereotyping of the worst kind, and not evident from archeological research.
...
German? Or germanic? Karl was a Frank. Franks are a germanic tribe. But the Franks as a tribe were quite different from the Alemans or the Bavarians or the Saxons... or the Danes, Jutes, Angles or Langobards... which were also germanic tribes.
...
And Karl was the ruler of the Frankish Empire and later the "Roman Empire". He rules over all kind of people, of different cultures and ethnicities. The most developed part of his empire was mostly romanic... that's why "French" (Frankish) today is a romanic language.
...
Most of the culture of Hispania after the Great Migration was dominated by germanic groups... Vandals, Suebes, later the Visigoths. Oh, yes, and the Alans. Not a germanic groups at all. The northern kingdomes preserved this germanic heritage, in a culturally romanized form.
Ah, ok.
Sorry... I don't get my history from tales from the Bible.
What you explained here does not quite go conform with the ... let's call it "accepted"... interpretation of ethymological, archeological and linguistic studies that form a major part of historical sources.
You have every right to believe your version... but as it is completely different from mine, I have to say that I cannot respond to it in any way.